Hansard — Thursday, November 3, 2005 p.m.

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		1651

Tributes		1651
	Theresa Kennedy
	Hon. L. Reid

Introductions by Members		1651

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1652
	Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005 (Bill M202)
	C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1653
	North Vancouver Outdoor School
	K. Whittred
	Disaster relief for victims of earthquake in South Asia
	S. Hammell
	Remembrance Day
	J. Nuraney
	Tri-City Women's Centre
	D. Thorne
	Burnaby business awards
	R. Lee
	Veterans of Asian ancestry
	J. Kwan

Oral Questions		1654
	B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and cost of rail crossing upgrades
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	C. James
	C. Wyse
	Federal transportation standards for rail crossing upgrades
	B. Simpson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and cost of rail crossing upgrades
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Derailment investigation and CN Rail safety practices
	S. Simpson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	H. Lali
	R. Fleming
	J. Kwan

Committee of Supply		1660
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)
	J. Brar
	Hon. J. Les
	A. Dix

Point of Privilege		1675
	C. Wyse

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1675
	Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson
	M. Sather

C. James: I have a number of guests to introduce today. The first is a surprise guest to me in the Legislature. I'd like to introduce my support network, my husband Al Gerow.

Both sides of the Legislature have been visited by members from the building trades union, the people who build British Columbia. I have the pleasure to introduce four people who are with that group: Perley Holmes, who is the business manager for Iron Workers Local 97; Rick Dowling, business manager, IBEW Local 213; Rick Seder, business manager, Refrigerator Workers Local 516; and Bill Pearson, business manager, Culinary Workers Local 40. Would the House please make those guests welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to Theresa Kennedy, who is a huge supporter of genetic research. Today, November 3, is Jeans for Genes Day. The Canadian Gene Cure Foundation is a registered Canadian charitable organization which was formed in '99 to raise much-needed funds for medical genetic research in Canada.

The members may not be aware, but three out of five Canadians will develop a genetic disease in their lifetime. This is about giving hope to children who live with genetic disease.

The Jeans for Genes Day pin is in the shape of a double helix, which represents DNA — the basic building block of genes. Hon. Speaker, note especially that Canadian scientists have discovered genes relating to epilepsy, dyslexia, Tay-Sachs disease, juvenile diabetes, Williams syndrome, cystic fibrosis and many more. The members may not be aware that 50 percent of admissions to pediatric hospitals are for genetic disease.

I wish that we would extend our great thanks to Theresa Kennedy for her work and certainly to this organization.

B. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce to the House a constituent and a supporter of mine from Williams Lake, Joan McGee. Joan is a charter member of the Health Sciences Association, which is a union that represents more than 10,000 health science professions, trained in more than 100 different specialized health disciplines to provide diagnostic, clinical and rehabilitation services in British Columbia.

These HSA members work in acute-care hospitals and long-term care facilities as well as in community-based child development, mental health, home support and public health agencies. HSA's 2,000 other members include registered psychiatric nurses, health services and support staff working in community health, and members who deliver community social services.

Joan is a medical laboratory technologist at Cariboo Memorial Hospital, and thanks to her employer, she is here in Victoria today to attend the infectious disease update conference. Would the House please welcome Joan.

Hon. J. Les: As members will be aware, we are doing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General in the House today. As a result, I have a few staff members here who are not normally in the precincts.

With us in the gallery this afternoon are two individuals, Bob Bugslag, who is the executive director of the provincial emergency program, and Terry Smith, who is the chief coroner for the province. I would ask all members to please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: There are two very dear friends in the gallery today, Michelle Boudreau and Shelly Ervin. Both of them are my constituency executive members. Please join me to extend a warm welcome to them.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today my friends and supporters, a couple known to many in this House, Michael and Sonja Sanguinetti. May I ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, would like to introduce members of the building trades. Not only do they build our province, but they also educate our young people that take those jobs after.

In the House we have Chris Feller, business manager to Cement Masons Local 919; Bruce Ferguson, president of the Laborers Union Local 1611; and Bob Hart, representative of the Laborers International. Please make them very welcome.

G. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, you graciously hosted some members of the opposition and members of the government for lunch today. There was one special person at that lunch, and we are honoured to have with us a very personable, outgoing former resident of Woodlands. He is an avid spokesperson for the community living movement. He's a self-advocate. He holds down three jobs — two of them at A&W, I might add — and he is his own boss as CEO of Phil's Flowers and Novelties. Would the House please give a warm welcome to Mr. Phil Traynor.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, visiting members from both sides of the House, are members of the building trades. I would like to take a moment to introduce a few of them. Shawn Boivin, who is with the Sheetmetal workers Local 280; Jeff Higginson with the Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Local 2; Jim Roth of the Sheetmetal and Roofers Workers Local 280; Michael

Jefferson, the Boilermakers Local 359; and Guy Zakini with the Table Masons Local 2. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery are 40 grade five students from Glenlyon Norfolk School here in Victoria. They're accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Tanner and Ms. De Hoog. These students are here as part of their study of government. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

M. Sather: I would also like to introduce two individuals here in the gallery today. Craig McIntosh is a business agent with the International Union of Operating Engineers. Brad Randall is also with the Operating Engineers and operates the fine training centre in Maple Ridge that makes sure that all those folks who are up on those cranes know what they're doing. Would all members please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: I introduced Phil, and I see he's doing some very positive work, because sitting next to him are two former members of the Manitoba mafia.

We have a former MLA and member of the executive council from Manitoba, Mr. George McLeod, as well as the well-known man from these hallowed halls, the very special one, Mr. Ed Masters. Would the House please make both of them welcome.

R. Fleming: Today in the members' gallery, I would like to acknowledge some special visitors we have with us from Russia who are here to learn about aspects of our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Please join me in welcoming, from the Russian Federal Assembly and the Accounting Chamber, Mr. Boris Preobrazhenskiy, Mr. Anatoly Nykolaevich, Mr. Sergey Paraskevich and Ms. Svetlana Lolua. Along with other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I will be meeting with this group later this afternoon. Our guests are travelling across Canada and throughout B.C. to learn aspects of our federal and provincial financial auditing systems. Would the House please make our guests feel welcome.

D. Hayer: Earlier today I had a meeting with the Building and Construction Trade Council — three of them — in my office: Rick Seder, Wayne Laxton and Lawrence Baker. Two of them live in my constituency. Could the House please make them very welcome.

G. Robertson: I would like to welcome to the House a couple more members of the building trades unions: Alex MacDonald, the United Association of Plumbers Local 170, and Frank Carr of the Operating Engineers Local 115. Will the House please make them welcome.

C. James: I'm pleased to introduce the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005, an act that will take big money out of B.C. politics, improve our democracy and contribute to public confidence in British Columbia's democratic institutions.

Individual British Columbians who believe passionately in our democracy expect more accountability from their elected representatives. They expect that decisions made here in the chamber result from no consideration other than the broad public interest. Under the bill that I have introduced today, individual British Columbians will contribute to political parties; institutions will not.

The principle is simple. Every British Columbian should have equal access to legislators and input on the decisions that affect their lives — a principle that is diminished by the perception that political parties are beholden to campaign contributors.

By taking action now, legislators can ensure a level playing field for political parties but, most importantly, a fair and level playing field for individual British Columbians.

In addition to these important and far-reaching reforms, this bill also calls for a comprehensive review of the way that the political process is financed in British Columbia. This bill calls for a public review led by the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a detailed examination of the entire campaign finance system and to make further recommendations on models that have been implemented in other jurisdictions.

If passed by this House, this bill I'm introducing today represents a fundamental shift in B.C. politics — a shift that will put individual citizens at the centre of our democracy. We often talk about how we can increase confidence in our political system, how we can increase voter participation and involvement in our political system. This bill is a way to do this.

I move that the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M202, Campaign Finance Reform 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.

K. Whittred: North Vancouver Outdoor School is an institution to the students in North Vancouver. It is truly learning that lasts a lifetime, because learners experience and participate in the majesty of the outdoor classroom in Paradise Valley near Squamish.

I'd like to recognize a primary source who helped me to prepare this statement. Darren Whittred is a grade five student in French immersion at École Sherwood Park. Darren attended Outdoor School in grade three.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that at Outdoor School, children learn not only with their heads but with their hearts. At Outdoor School they get to learn with all their senses, whether it be at the salmon hatchery or the farm. They look forward to attending again and again. Like Sea, they look forward to developing their leadership skills as counsellors when they're in high school.

When students gather for their 25th grad reunion, long after they've forgotten about quadratic equations and dangling modifiers, they will remember Outdoor School. What a tribute to the dedicated and creative teachers who have planned, developed and implemented this program for more than 35 years.

S. Hammell: As we all know, on October 8 a 7.6-magnitude earthquake struck Pakistan and India. The official death toll in the region has now surpassed 73,000. International rescue officials estimate that another 3.3 million people are homeless, and winter in the mountainous Kashmir region is quickly approaching.

There are widespread fears that a new and even worse humanitarian disaster is looming. There are serious concerns about contaminated water, starvation and frigid temperatures. Officials with the United Nations say that money for the distribution of supplies and relief efforts is dangerously low.

Since the disaster, the United Nations has sought $500 million in aid, but only $131 million has arrived. The UN has issued an urgent plea for more aid from the international community. To date the government of British Columbia has contributed $500,000. Many people in communities across B.C. have worked hard to raise funds, and they have been inspirational in their efforts. The government of B.C. and everyone here in the Legislature needs to show that same dedication. We need to do more, and we can do more.

When the tsunami struck Asia last year, the government of British Columbia gave $8 million of relief. It's time to show that same compassion and conviction now. The situation in India and Pakistan is getting worse. Some 73,000 have already lost their lives, and many more are at risk. The people of Pakistan and India need our help, and we must act now.

J. Nuraney: Next Friday is a very important day. It is the day we honour our veterans who fought for the freedom that we hold so dear. Each year Remembrance Day is marked by the reading of In Flanders Fields, composed by a Canadian lieutenant-colonel, John McCrae. McCrae wrote a poem after his friend, Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, was killed during the Second Battle of Ypres. Helmer is one of the 54,000 soldiers who have no known grave in the battlefields of Ypres-Salient. It is a moving tribute to those who lost their lives fighting for their country. This simple yet poignant poem reads:

I know that all of us will attend Remembrance Day events next week in our ridings. Freedom and democracy should never be taken for granted. Let us all pledge, on behalf of those who have fallen and lie in Flanders field, that we shall hold the torch high.

D. Thorne: Today I want to share with the House the story of a remarkable resource in the tri-cities. The Tri-City Women's Resource Centre is the umbrella group for several programs including the Coquitlam Transition House, Stopping the Violence, specialized victim services, Children Who Witness Abuse, Empowering Mothers, the transition house outreach program and the oldest and best known of its services, the women's centre, which is celebrating its 30th birthday party tomorrow with a big celebration in Coquitlam.

This is an extraordinary accomplishment and means that this centre is one of the oldest in Canada. I am so very proud of its accomplishments. It has not been an easy path for the strong dedicated women who

started this centre and got it through the first three decades. They have managed to survive one funding crisis after another, but all with the help of a caring community which has jumped in when needed on behalf of their valued women's centre when the need for services continues to grow and grow.

Obviously, there is no way to celebrate the fact that after 30 years of aid to vulnerable women, the need is growing more quickly than the services that we can provide. What we are celebrating in the Tri-Cities is the spirit of the community and the strong women who remain invincible and dedicated to providing these services.

R. Lee: It is no secret that private business is the engine that drives British Columbia's economy. B.C.'s businesses are also the source of innovation and pride. Tonight at the Hilton Vancouver Metrotown hotel, innovation and excellence will be honoured at the Burnaby Business Excellence Awards organized by the Burnaby Board of Trade. Since we all know how Burnaby is booming, it is not a surprise that the event is completely sold out.

The awards represent an opportunity for businesses to pay tribute to their peers for positively contributing to the quality of life in Burnaby. There are eight categories: Burnaby spirit, community service, business innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, business person of the year, small business of the year, business of the year and newsmaker of the year.

Also at every business excellence award, one company is inducted into the hall of fame honouring decades of community service and business acumen. This year's recipient is Morrey Auto Group, which has been a part of Burnaby for three generations.

Many businesses and non-profit organizations in Burnaby North are finalists, including Brentwood Town Centre, Burnaby Family Life Institute, Chevron Burnaby refinery, VanCity, TB Vets, Dyrand Systems, Executive Inn Group Corp., Origami by Yu and Mi, Cliff Jones of the Art Institute of Vancouver in Burnaby, Peter Legge of Canada Wide Magazines and Communications, and Bridge Studios.

I would like to congratulate all the nominees for tonight's awards. They all have made a positive contribution in Burnaby, and they are all winners for providing jobs and investment right here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: It is my honour to rise in this House to salute the contribution made to this country by veterans of Asian ancestry. As members of this House are aware, this is the Year of the Veteran. It is also the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

This weekend Canadian veterans of Asian heritage will be honoured with a special concert by the Naden band of Maritime Forces Pacific at the Gateway Theatre in Richmond. Proceeds from the concert will be donated to the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society.

This concert is a special tribute to the role that Chinese Canadians and Japanese Canadians played in the defence of our country, Canada. When they enlisted to serve in World War II, they were fighting a war on two fronts — a war against racism and a war to preserve democracy. In the military, many of these brave men found an esprit de corps and a sense of equality that they may have been denied in their adopted homes. Asians were second-class citizens, denied simple basic rights by racist attitudes institutionalized in legislation.

Through their courage and selfless service, Asian veterans helped to establish fundamental civil and political rights for Chinese and Japanese Canadians, including the right to vote in this country. This is the 58th anniversary of the enfranchisement of Chinese and Japanese Canadians. I would like to honour their devotion to Canada and their struggle to defend and uplift our country.

I also note that they found allies in their struggle for equality among the early champions of human rights in Canada, in particular in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which is today called the NDP. At the time it was not a popular cause, but advocates for social justice know that we must look forward and beyond short-term politics. That was just as true then as it is now today.

Please join me in saluting the tremendous contributions of the veterans of Asian descent to Canada's distinguished military history and to the advancement of civil and democratic rights for all Canadians.

D. Chudnovsky: Does the Minister of Transportation stand by his assertion that nothing has changed since the sale of B.C. Rail to CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite says it refers to an answer I gave earlier on, but maybe the member could actually contextualize the question. I have no idea what he is referring to.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps we can help the Minister of Transportation a little bit. He has said on a number of occasions that nothing has changed. I'd like to ask the minister to tell Loreen Tegart of Clinton that things

haven't changed. CN has told Ms. Tegart, a widow on limited income, that the sale of B.C. Rail to CN will cost her $10,000 to $15,000 to upgrade her level crossing. CN told her the liability insurance will cost in excess of $7,000 per year.

So something has changed dramatically for Loreen Tegart and the hundreds of other people in her situation. What is this minister and what is this government prepared to do to protect Loreen Tegart and hundreds of other B.C. landowners from CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have the information on the individual he is talking about, but what I can tell the member is that the member should know that under section 103 — I believe it is — of the Canada Transportation Act, it's very clear. If there are improvements undertaken to existing rail crossings, those improvements anywhere in Canada — including British Columbia — are the obligation of the landowner, whether it's local government or an individual landowner.

What I can tell the member is that I do know CN has indicated that they listened to the criticisms I made regarding the tone of the letter and the letters they had sent out regarding the rail crossings and that they indicated they were doing a review of that information. I think the individual in question should know that the review is underway by CN, and hopefully some good news will be coming out of that.

D. Chudnovsky: I would remind this House that it is this minister who has repeated on numerous occasions that nothing has changed with respect to these private level crossings. I would ask this minister whether he believes it is reasonable that British Columbians in this situation be expected to pay up to $15,000 for upgrades and up to $7,000 a year on insurance. And what are he and this government prepared to do to speak out on behalf of those British Columbians?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member opposite contextualizing the question a little bit for me. Actually, the one thing that has changed, as I indicated in previous answers to this question, is that there is no longer political interference in the railway system.

In fact, under that government in 1996, when they undertook a complete improvement to the rail crossings under B.C. Rail, they actually sent out invoices to all of the individuals that had railway crossings, including, presumably, the individual this member opposite talks about.

The difference is that what would happen is that some people paid the bills; others would not pay the bills. That government would interfere to make sure B.C. Rail was unable to collect the bills for amounts owing. That's the kind of interference that won't take place under this government when it was B.C. Rail–operated or under private CN operation.

C. James: I don't think we're talking about interference here. We're talking about whether the minister and government are going to stand up for citizens.

We heard the minister say clearly that nothing has changed with the sale of B.C. Rail. I would like the minister to explain to Ms. Tegart how she is now paying $15,000 to upgrade CN rail crossings and paying liability insurance, when she's never paid these bills before.

To the Minister of Transportation: has he even contacted landowners to offer them assistance or to explain why his broken promise around selling B.C. Rail is costing them thousands of dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: As is so often the case when members across the House throw out figures, I question the accuracy of those figures. I have never heard that number. I'm not sure if that individual has been in contact with my office, but I can tell you that anyone who has been in contact with my office…. I personally or we will get back to those individuals.

I get that there's been a change. There's been a change in the fact that government no longer…. This is of great interest to the members opposite, because the change is that government no longer interferes the way this government repeatedly did under B.C. Rail. Of course, they forget the fact that their repeated interference resulted in B.C. Rail running up a debt of over a billion taxpayer dollars that they had to write off because of the kind of political interference that happened on a regular basis when they were in power.

C. James: We heard the Minister of Transportation say that he had concerns over the letter, so he was obviously aware of the information. If he had taken the time to talk to landowners, he would have known about the concern.

This government took extraordinary steps to protect itself from CN. It made sure that government didn't take on maintenance costs. It made sure that government didn't take on liability costs. It made sure that government didn't have insurance costs. The government made sure that they were kept out of harm's way, but not the citizens.

We heard the Premier personally promise that he would campaign on this deal, that it would benefit all British Columbians. My question then goes to the Finance Minister, who controls the purse strings: how is Ms. Tegart benefiting from this deal when it will personally cost her $20,000?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member opposite continues to fearmonger, continues to throw out figures which have no basis in fact, and completely ignores the fact that CN has been very clear that they are actually undertaking a review of all the letters they sent out —

ensuring that they treat all the individuals with fairness, as one would expect.

I was very clear that the tone of the letter they sent out, I thought, was totally unacceptable. I acknowledged that in this House. I've been very clear about that fact. But this member keeps talking about the fact that government has tried to do what's best to ensure that it obviously protects itself against liability. That's something I think government has a responsibility to do.

Nothing has changed with respect to the individual land owners. Section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act is very clear about the responsibility for maintaining rail crossings. It's always been with individuals; it's always been with landowners. This government hasn't interfered the way that government did in the past.

C. Wyse: CN quoted the cost to Ms. Tegart. Ms. Tegart is a constituent of mine, and she needs help. The government has saddled her with huge expenses she cannot afford. Is the Minister of Transportation saying he does not care?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I say to the member opposite, CN has committed publicly that they're doing a review of all of the information, all of the letters they've sent out. They are going to work with all of those landowners — who have, by the way, appeal provisions and mechanisms available under the federal transportation act.

Any individual that has contacted my office…. And I must confess I'm not sure whether this individual has or not, but if this individual has, we've gotten back to them immediately with information to assist those individuals.

I want to say again, as I've said before, under B.C. Rail, under that government…. While they were in government, they sent out exactly the same invoices. In fact, at the UBCM I spoke to a councillor who was a landowner, who was actually one of those that paid the bills, and the person sitting next to him didn't pay his. That's because the opposition, while in government, made a standard practice of constantly interfering with the railway to a point where it found itself writing off over a billion dollars' worth of expenses.

This provision is the same right across Canada, whether it's in Newfoundland or British Columbia.

C. Wyse: Ms. Tegart did what anybody would do. They come to their MLA when they have constantly heard that there has not been any change. In her case, there definitely is a change — $20,000. More than $7,000 of that is an annual ongoing expense.

The minister simply does not get it. It was his political decision, his broken promise, that changed the relationship between rail lines and landowners. Those landowners now need government's help. Will the minister tell Ms. Tegart and the other British Columbians faced with these staggering bills how he intends to mitigate the financial impact of this government's sale of B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite keep talking about this apparent grave injustice that has taken place. I have a letter from B.C. Rail dated February 28, 2000. My goodness, this is going out to a landowner. It says: "Please forward a cheque in the amount of $25,000 representing your share of the upgrade costs so that we may immediately order required material in time to make installation and changes."

It is exactly the same thing that happened while that opposition was in government. Nothing has changed, except the fact that government doesn't interfere about the payment of those bills, and that's as it should be.

B. Simpson: Let's try and cut through the minister's words that nothing has changed and political interference…. Quick question — simple yes or no answer. Was B.C. Rail subject to federal transportation standards before it was sold to CN? Yes or no.

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the regulations governing B.C. Rail were the same as the regulations that govern the national rail system. They were standardized, in fact, so the same regulations that govern the railway across the rest of Canada govern the railway in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: If that's the case, then I wonder why the Railway Act was changed and why CN is now asking all of these private rail crossing holders to upgrade to federal standards. That's the issue here.

It's not the old obligations under the Railway Act for private crossings. It's the fact that all of the private crossing holders are now being asked to come up to federal standards. That's new. All of the private crossing holders have been asked to pick up liability insurance. That's new. All of the private crossing holders have been asked to pay an annual administration fee. That's new. All of those things are a result of the sale of B.C. Rail to CN and the fact that it now has federal standards. That's new. That's different.

This minister owes an explanation to B.C. Rail private crossing holders. He should write a letter to them, and I ask the minister now if he will commit to do that and tell them of their rights.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm a little surprised to hear the member opposite suggest that, because what actually guides the federal regulations is public safety. The whole issue of rail crossing actually comes down to sightline clearances and issues around public safety. The reason is that as you can imagine, when these railways are moving along that line, they haven't got

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite groan. I find that rather extraordinary.

These are regulations that are in place right across this country to ensure that the public is actually protected. Those agreements are standardized right across the country, whether in Newfoundland or British Columbia, and it's about public safety. There is no difference, whether in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario or Newfoundland. It's about public safety, and this member ought not to be trying to suggest we minimize those standards here in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: If these changes were required, why weren't they mentioned in the deal that was done between this government and CN Rail? Why was the public not told about the increased costs? Could it be because the minister thinks that a $20,000 cost really is no change — or just small change? But to Ms. Tegart $20,000 is a big change. Will the minister commit to phoning Ms. Tegart and telling her why he feels a $20,000 cost is no change or just small change? And if it is a big change, tell her why she should have to pay it.

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite, in fact, appear to have selective memory. This same kind of upgrade was undertaken by their government while in power in 1996 and 2000. The same series of letters were sent out to all the landowners requesting that they pay their portion of the costs of upgrading those railway crossings. The reason why they upgraded those railway crossings under NDP government in 1996 and in the year 2000, and the reason why they do it in 2005, is because of public safety.

They sent out invoices to those individuals. So has CN. The tone of CN's letter was totally unacceptable. I have been very clear about that. They said they're reviewing that letter; they're reviewing the letters that they sent out. They're going to work with the landowners and ensure they move forward in a fair and impartial manner, and that's as they should.

S. Simpson: The minister says that he wants to talk safety, so let's talk safety. Overnight another CN train went off the tracks on that old B.C. Rail corridor. That's the safety we're talking about. The minister says he wants to talk about numbers. That train had over 130 cars, many more than B.C. Rail ever allowed to be carried in that area.

People in the region are worried. They're worried about their communities; they're worried about their environment. We know that the minister met with CN on Tuesday, and while he promised the company would examine its safety procedures, he got no commitments on shortening of trains.

Will this minister stand up for British Columbians today and demand that CN shorten its trains as a precaution, at least until the Transportation Safety Board completes its investigation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad the member opposite referred to the fact that the Canada Transportation Board is responsible for regulating and undertaking the inspection of the derailments that took place. It may be of interest to the member to note that the Canada Transportation Safety Board is reporting now that it is likely that the problem with the nine empty cars that derailed this morning is a result of a mechanical failure with regard to a braking hose. That would not suggest anything to do with length of cars, but actually a mechanical failure.

I think the issue, from my part as Minister of Transportation, is that one of the things we're trying not to do is prejudge what the cause is. Apparently, those members have already determined what the cause is. They're probably wondering why the Transportation Safety Board is even doing a review, when they apparently have all the answers.

We actually want to find out the answers. Public confidence is driven by a thorough and complete safety investigation which is being undertaken. The results of that safety investigation will actually determine whether it was human failure, mechanical failure or indeed even length of cars. We'll wait for the results of that information.

S. Simpson: I'm glad the minister said he thinks it might be true, because if I recollect, on Almanac earlier today the minister did say: "Rail length would seem to me to be a reasonable suggestion that could be part of the problem."

Also, we know that for the whole fishery that was wiped out in the Cheakamus, the reality is that rail length probably was a problem there too. The NDP Transportation critic on August 11 wrote to the minister. He specifically asked the minister to consider the shortening of trains. The minister chose to do nothing for two and a half months — two and a half months of negligence on the question of safety.

For two and a half months he ignored train safety in this province. Even then, after a desperate meeting with CN to try to find some results, we get nothing that's working. Whether it is private crossings or derailments, Mr. Minister, the minister has walked away…

When will the minister put British Columbia interests before CN interests on these matters of private crossings and derailments?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I did receive a letter from the member opposite's Transportation critic. As I responded in his letter, I indicated to him that I forwarded it to the federal Minister of Transport.

You know, for this member opposite to suggest that nothing is being done is nonsense. Monday I met with the senior vice-president and an additional vice-president of CN. We met, and I made it very clear in that meeting that I felt it was very important for public confidence that they take whatever interim steps are necessary to satisfy the public, in terms of public confidence.

They indicated to me at that meeting that they would undertake to have distributed power on every long-rail string of railcars running along that line. In fact, the railway this morning did have the distributed power on the rail line, meaning that they had a locomotive in the midsection of that string of railcars. They indicated that they are undertaking immediate safety upgrades and educational upgrades with all of their employees. They indicated that they would be inspecting the track more frequently. So a number of steps are underway.

H. Lali: In the letter the opposition critic sent to the minister in August, he was asked about the privatization process and what steps the government took to protect the interests of British Columbians. The minister has never answered those questions, so let's try it again.

To the minister: when the government was negotiating this secret deal behind closed doors, did anyone in the Liberal government even discuss train lengths and operational procedures along B.C. Rail's difficult terrain? Did anyone on that side of the House even think of the safety of my constituents in Lillooet and Seton Portage?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member opposite should know that safety and maintenance standards are standardized right across North America, so whether the cars are operating in British Columbia or operating in the Rockies or operating in eastern Canada, they operate under the same regulatory regime. One of the reasons why the Transportation Safety Board investigates each and every derailment is because…. What they're looking for is: is there any new information that can inform them about any changes that need to be made in the regulatory regime to govern the operation of railways?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the federal regulatory process is very thorough. It's very scientific. It's based on facts; it's not based on speculation. They will come out with those facts, and CN will be guided and will have to change any operational decisions, if necessary, to conform to those facts.

H. Lali: I take that as a no. Ever since the B.C. Liberals sold B.C. Rail to CN, they have refused repeatedly to admit that they've actually sold it. They say things like: "Who — us? We didn't sell B.C. Rail. We've only leased it, like, for about a thousand years." They say: "We still own the railbed." Then they'll turn around and say: "We still own the tracks and the right-of-way. We're still the landlord."

To the minister again: if B.C. Rail is still the landlord, for the benefit of the people of this province who live along the right-of-way and the tracks, why is this minister still letting CN, the tenant, run amok on our property? Does this minister even care about the safety of British Columbians?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the member to do some investigation on landlord-tenant relationships. It might actually inform the member. Landlords typically aren't operating the tenants' operations, for good reason. The fact of the matter is, as I've said before many, many times, this is a federally regulated railway. It is regulated by the Transportation Safety Board. The Transportation Safety Board investigates each and every derailment.

Rather than speculating on cause, rather than believing that they know the solution…. I'm not clear what the breadth of their railway experience is, but I candidly say that I don't profess to be a railway expert. I'm fascinated about their apparent interest in this issue, but the fact is that we don't know whether it's human error. We don't know whether it's failure, as it appears to be in the incident this morning.

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't know whether it has to do with the length of the railcars. What we do know is that people that understand these issues a lot better than we do are investigating this and will come forward with recommendations that will inform how CN operates in the future.

R. Fleming: One thing we do know for certain is that it took ten derailments before this minister made a phone call. The minister only met with CN this week on this issue, and once again this government admits, through its actions, that it only moves on issues when they're raised in this House by the opposition.

Whether it's level crossings or train derailments that threaten the safety of British Columbians, why

does this minister only act under political pressure? Why doesn't he act in the best interests of British Columbians as his first course of action?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll remind the member opposite once again in his great enthusiasm for action. It is federally regulated, meaning that the Transportation Safety Board is responsible for investigations and regulatory oversight of our railways. Now this member apparently wants to run around pretending he's got solutions to problems he doesn't even begin to understand.

I can tell you that we're going to make sure the recommendations that come forward from the federal Transportation Safety Board will be implemented and followed by CN. I can tell you that I spoke to the federal Minister of Transport this morning, as I've spoken to him on other occasions, and the federal minister is very much aware of this issue. He has already undertaken, as those members know, an operational and safety audit of CN's practices to ensure that every possible review mechanism is in place. That's exactly as it should be.

R. Fleming: When serious issues are happening on the transportation corridors of this province, you can't hide behind its being a federal issue. Safety is a provincial concern. Why did the minister not act? Why does he hide behind that excuse?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, let's review this for the members opposite. Clearly, there's some confusion in their minds about what's actually happened. On Monday I met with the senior vice-president and another vice-president of CN. I made it abundantly clear to both of them that the public confidence is at stake here and that I expected them to do everything operationally they need to do to ensure that the public can have confidence in their operation of the railway.

This morning I phoned the president of CN, Hunter Harrison, and spoke directly to him to let Mr. Harrison know that this minister and this government view the operational aspects of that railway to be something of very high importance and that we expect them to operate that railway in the safest possible manner. I spoke with the federal Minister of Transport this morning and again echoed to the federal Minister of Transport the same discussions I've been having with the other individuals involved.

I wrote a letter to the Transportation Safety Board. I asked them to accelerate the work in the investigation, without obviously jeopardizing that investigation, to ensure that they come forward with the recommendations as soon as they responsibly can so that we can ensure that the public can have complete confidence in the operation of that railway.

J. Kwan: It just goes to show you that this government will not act except for if the political pressure is on. The government will hide behind anything to shirk responsibility and say it is someone else's responsibility. They have done that on the Children and Family Development file. They're doing that on level crossings. They're doing that on derailment. They're doing that on oil and gas. It is time for this government to stand up for British Columbians, and British Columbians expect this government to represent them. Derailments are a serious safety issue….

J. Kwan: Derailments are a safety issue, a serious safety issue, and British Columbians expect this government to act now.

I will give this minister one more chance — no more rhetoric, no more blaming someone else…

J. Kwan: …and give him the opportunity to get up in this House and say that he will act and make sure that CN is a responsible corporate citizen, and will ensure that safety measures are actually in place to protect British Columbians.

Hon. K. Falcon: As aware as I am that I now have only one more chance, I want to try and ensure that my answer fulfils this last-chance opportunity I now have.

I would remind the member opposite that actually what we are hearing out of this morning is that it's a result of a mechanical failure, in regards to a braking hose — the likely reason for this derailment.

Now, you know, those members opposite will want to run around as Chicken Little and try and pretend they know the answer. Of course they have the answer. We're actually waiting for the facts.

I can tell you this. In speaking to the president of CN, speaking to the federal Minister of Transport, speaking to their senior vice-presidents and speaking to people who understand railways, including our former B.C. Rail executives, we have spoken to people who can actually give us answers, and we are moving on this file.

Hon. B. Penner: In this House I call continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. For the information of members, in the small House we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

J. Brar: Before we left for the lunch break, we were talking about the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force, so I will come back to the same topic. I had asked one question, so I will move on to the next question. My question was that we have lost about 70 people during the last ten years through the gang war in the Indo-Canadian community. My assessment is that we can look at it from three different perspectives. One is that there are people who are into the gang life, and they hopefully…. They're quite deep into it. There are people who somehow got involved in it, but they don't want to be there. Then there are young people we need to educate, who are not a part of gang life.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple. There are a number of people who want to come out of gang life, but at this point in time they don't have any avenue, in my opinion, available to them which could assist them to come back to the mainstream. My question is: can the Solicitor General name any program the ministry will offer to a young man who mistakenly got involved in a youth gang but wishes to get out of it, if the young man calls his office next Monday?

Hon. J. Les: In fact, I think I provided almost all of the answer to that question prior to the break for lunch. I understand, however, how it could be difficult for someone who had been involved in a criminal lifestyle, particularly in a gang setting, to leave that lifestyle behind, and the challenges that poses.

I would suggest, however, that if someone was seriously wanting to leave that life of crime behind and got in touch with the authorities — that is the police in the relevant jurisdiction — care would be taken so that a person could, in fact, make that transition without any compromising of their personal safety, and in particular, of course, if they had information to provide that would lead to the arrest of other individuals involved in that lifestyle. I would assume that somebody who wants to leave that lifestyle behind would, in fact, take the point of view that it is inappropriate for others to carry on with that behaviour at the same time.

J. Brar: Let me, maybe, explain it further. The situation is like this: there are people in gang life who are there somehow by mistake. They mistakenly got in, but they don't want to be there anymore. Now, if they come back, they know that they can be hit very hard by the gang members, so they continue working with them in that situation.

I would like to suggest something here and to ask if the government is willing to think about something like that. Would the government consider a program to protect those young people who willingly come forward and are prepared to give evidence against their fellow criminals — something like the witness protection program?

Hon. J. Les: As I attempted to point out in my previous answer, that program, in fact, already exists. I think it is fairly well known amongst the public that the program is there, and it even goes further. It even allows people to assume different identities, if that is required.

Certainly, I don't want to minimize, either, the question that the member raises. I know that people, for a variety of reasons, make poor choices in their lives and often are at their wits' end at some point as to how to turn the corner. These are not frivolous questions that we have to concern ourselves with. I would certainly be interested in working with the member and his community in developing, perhaps, other solutions that we may well need.

The Attorney General is very much engaged in this, as well, in trying to find different programs and mechanisms, first of all — and I think this is equally important — to prevent people from getting into a criminal lifestyle, and second, to be there to assist people who want to turn the corner, as it were, and leave that criminal lifestyle behind.

J. Brar: So I'll take it that there is a program. Can the minister give us assurance that there is enough funding to actually implement that program if that's the need?

Hon. J. Les: The witness protection program has never had any funding impediments applied to it. It is, in fact, jointly contributed to by both provincial and federal governments.

J. Brar: I will move on to the next aspect of this particular B.C. integrated task force.

One arm of this one is, of course, awareness, and I totally agree that we need to provide effective education and awareness to young people who are going to school, coming out of school and going to college, about the danger and challenge of being in or getting into gang life.

There has been a lot of effort made by the community, and I know the minister is involved in some of those activities, but I want to give a picture of this whole thing. There is a committee of temples that has been working very hard over the last year, probably, to provide the community input on that one. Then there are a couple of young people as well — they're very, very bright young people — who are working inde-

pendently to create something — brochures or posters, probably, to educate young people.

Then there are different organizations like PICS, which is Progressive Intercultural Community Services. We also have VIRSA and a few other organizations, as well, who are working on this same issue, which is educating the young people.

About a month ago the federal government came out and announced that they want ten people on a committee to work on the same thing. They are somewhere in the middle of the process of developing it, and that group is probably there, but the group is working on finding and making some recommendations, so it looks all over the place.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple: is there anyone to provide leadership or to coordinate the commitment, the skills and the knowledge that different people have, so that we can all work together on that one?

Hon. J. Les: The member is quite right. There is quite a variety of programs at both the provincial and federal government levels and, I'm sure, at the municipal government level, as well, which attempt to address this serious question. Although the range of programs and their disparate locations might perhaps lead one to make the assumption that, as the member has indicated, they're all over the place, I do not want to denigrate any of those programs. They all stem from a healthy concern, I think, and wish to contribute to the solution.

I'm not sure I would share the member's outlook that we need to look for that one individual who is going to provide all of the leadership to deal with this particular issue. We will all play our parts. I will play mine, and I'm sure that the member opposite will play his. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the leadership on an issue like this has to come from the relevant community where the concern arises.

I know that there are a great many people in the Indo-Canadian community who are very serious about addressing this issue, and I am grateful that that's the case. I know that going forward, they are going to continue to work hard to try and engage the younger community. Again, leaders in those communities need to be very much involved as we go forward and deal with this very real problem.

J. Brar: I understand that, and I'm not suggesting that there must be a coordinator or somebody who will stand up in the middle of the door and start coordinating these people. That, certainly, is not my suggestion, but there's a lot of talent out there in the community and a lot of people very committed to deal with this issue. My question was simply: is there anything the ministry could provide to assist so that there is better coordination, to have effective efforts by different groups? That was my question, but I'll take the answer the minister has given.

I'm going back to the funds again. We just passed a bill, the Civil Forfeiture Act, a few days ago, and we support that bill. One of the benefits of that bill is that we collect the proceeds of crime and use that money to assist victims of crime. Now, we do have a situation that is a very, very serious situation not only for the Indo-Canadian community but, I think, for the whole province, because 70 people murdered is not a small thing.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple: will the minister consider using the money collected from the proceeds of crime under the Bill 13 system?

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. Since having passed the civil forfeiture legislation, when that legislation is proclaimed, in the not too distant future…. It includes provisions for making the funds that will accrue as a result of the exercise of that legislation. Those funds will accrue into a civil forfeiture account and will be available in part for such things as the victims of crime programs, for example, and other crime prevention activities.

Now, I want to caution the member opposite in two regards. Firstly, we don't have any money in that account yet, and it may well be some time before significant funds do accrue. First of all, we need to set up the procedures under that legislation. We need to appoint the appropriate staff to administer the act. We then need to initiate proceedings, and as the member knows, those proceedings will be initiated through the courts. Customarily, those procedures take a bit of time, and so I would not see any funding accrue to the civil forfeiture account for a considerable number of months.

Secondly, it would be foolhardy of me to make any commitments this afternoon as to precisely the kind of crime prevention programs that would be funded by the proceeds of the civil forfeiture account, but the ideas that the member has raised this afternoon certainly would be interesting to consider in that context.

J. Brar: I understand. You know, part of my background is administration, so I've been a student of administration. I have managed different organizations, so I understand that we need to put in place different systems. We have to hire a person, have a job description and a system to collect the money, and then, of course, prepare some cases for the court. I understand all that.

My only question was: when we have the money…. So my understanding from the statement of the minister is that he will consider, as soon as the money is available, if there's a need to support these young people. So that's my understanding. If I'm not correct, of course, the minister has the right to correct me.

I want to move on. The task force. I know that the task force has been in place for probably a year at this point in time. I know probably all the hiring in the task force has been completed. I met with the chief. He's a

very nice man and a very capable individual to do the work he is responsible for.

My question is about the task force. We do have a task force. The funding is available; all the FTEs are in place. Does the ministry have any performance measures in place to gauge the success of the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I would like to say that the gang task force that we have in operation now…. This is not a short-term commitment. This is a long-term commitment because I think it's pretty clear, and we all understand, that this is not going to be a short-term assignment. We're going to need to keep on this and focus on it for the longer term to provide the kind of results that we need.

The member asked about what kind of goals, what kind of targets. Obviously, it is hard to quantify those in some ways. Clearly, we're already starting to see some charges. We're already starting to see some good results. We have seen, I think, some good intervention by the members of the task force in certain situations. Obviously, the results that we want to see are charges, convictions and an overall reduction in gang-related criminal activity. That is somewhat of a subjective answer — I would grant you that — but as I said, I think it is difficult to be much more objective than that, especially in the short term. In the longer term we want to achieve the things that I've outlined: lots of charges and an overall reduction in criminal activity.

J. Brar: I have lots of other questions on this, but I will move on, keeping in mind the time. I'll move on to crystal meth. I have a number of questions, but I will ask very selected questions on that.

At the UBCM the Premier made the announcement with regard to crystal meth and announced $7 million, and $2 million out of that $7 million is for addiction services. My question is: how many beds could we put in place by using the full $2 million for youth?

Hon. J. Les: This is a very good question and one I want to spend just a minute on. We tend to measure the amount of services available to addicts in terms of the number of beds available. Particularly when it comes to dealing with services to crystal meth addicts, that is perhaps not always the appropriate way to view the solution. It is clear from experts that I've talked to that quite often people who want to detoxify from crystal meth can do so at home, provided there is a supportive environment there.

Detoxification from crystal meth is far different from detoxification from heroin or cocaine. We find in our correctional facilities, for example, where we often take in drug addicts, that we need to be as sure as we can what kind of drug they are detoxifying from, because obviously they are unable to access drugs in the institution. If we have a cocaine or heroin addict, that is a far more dangerous situation than if we have a crystal meth addict in custody. Things like dehydration are far more readily a problem amongst the former.

It is important for us to look for additional models of treatment for crystal meth addicts, both in the public sector and in the private sector, and in the family or home environment, where that is possible. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution here. The other thing that's important to remember, and I'm sure the member opposite knows this, is that the process of leaving the crystal meth addiction behind is a long process. It's six, eight, ten months in many cases, and so that ongoing supportive environment must be maintained for that period of time as well — at least that long.

So the $2 million that the member refers to is an important contribution to that end in looking for different models that can be put in place in addition to the addiction services that are already available in government. It's important to remember that there are over $1 billion worth of resources available within the Ministry of Health for mental health and addiction services, and those two often overlap, quite evidently so. There are, for example, over 1,000 beds available in British Columbia today for addiction services. I think, as I said earlier, when it comes to crystal meth we need to look for additional models that will work, and in part, the $2 million will help us explore some of those avenues.

J. Brar: Well, I didn't get the answer to the numbers; they're still not there. I understand there could be different models. I respect that. I understand that as well. But at the same time, let me say this. I also met with various people. We have, at this point in time, probably 12 or 13 task forces in the province. I got the opportunity to attend the meeting in the constituency of the Solicitor General, which was very well attended by the community. I saw a lot of hope. The community came together; I think they deserve a lot of praise for that.

The Victoria people alone — I'm talking about the Victoria task force on crystal meth — mentioned to me that there are only five beds for youth addiction services, which is nowhere close to the need. I also spoke to some of the experts who, you know, are leading experts on the crystal meth issue. They mentioned to me that there are close to a hundred people in Surrey alone. The Surrey school board did a survey: according to it, one out of ten children — I don't remember the grade — have used crystal meth.

My question is, basically…. When funding is announced for any purpose, there must be some sort of assessment behind it as to what the need is out in the community and what are we offering. So is there any assessment about how many beds are needed or assistance in addictions services is needed, or at this point in time is it just the beginning?

Hon. J. Les: Let me first of all point out to the member that the role of my ministry with respect to this issue of crystal meth addictions is to coordinate

our approach to dealing with these issues across government in a coordinated way. Perhaps if the member opposite has more questions specifically related to mental health and addictions issues and the treatment thereof, he may want to refer to that in the next week of sittings when the Minister of Health will be doing his estimates.

I should say this: as far as the $2 million is concerned, clearly that has not followed from any kind of assessment of the extent of the problem. It is simply money being made available to help develop different methods of treatment that perhaps can be useful around the province.

J. Brar: I have two more questions, and I will throw both the questions at the same time, if the minister will allow me to do that. The Victoria task force people, when I met with them, they had a couple of…. First of all, they're very, very motivated people to deal with and assist the community when it comes to the crystal meth issue. They're working very hard on that issue, but they're struggling with a few things. They mentioned to me that they don't have any space to work from. They don't have any telephone line to work on this issue. So my question on that one is: is there any or will there be any kind of assistance, a little assistance, to those people which could, in fact, make them effective in the community?

The second question on this one is: does the minister think harm reduction is an issue in the treatment of crystal meth users?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, with respect to assistance being provided to the task force in the Victoria area, we are on the verge of signing an agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities for the distribution of the $2 million that the Premier announced at the UBCM convention in Vancouver just a few weeks ago. So the task force in Victoria will certainly and obviously be eligible to apply for an allocation of that fund. I would certainly encourage them to apply as quickly as possible, because I know they have been hard at work, and I know that they are more than eligible.

I have met with the various people from the Victoria task force. As a matter of fact, I spent three or four hours on the street with them one night visiting with crystal meth addicts on the street, which, for me, was a very educational evening. I think it really pays for all of us in this House to familiarize ourselves with some of these problems at a very grass-roots level.

In terms of the question of harm reduction, that is a question that I find very intriguing because we often talk about harm reduction with respect to a range of these drugs, whether it's cocaine or heroin or something else. But when it comes to crystal meth, the question of harm reduction really focuses for me. As we have seen, for example right here in the Victoria area, one dose of crystal meth can be fatal, and it has been. So that has really crystallized the question for me.

I'm not particularly interested, when we're talking about crystal meth, in harm reduction. I'm rather more interested in harm elimination. First of all, as I've already indicated, the first dose can be fatal. But we also know from people that we have seen and interviewed that crystal meth use for any length of time can leave lifelong consequences such as psychosis, teeth being totally rotted away, physical damage to the brain. So it seems to me that the only position we can take has got to be that the only safe dosage of crystal meth and the only safe way to take crystal meth is never to take it at all.

J. Brar: I have one more question, actually, which I think is a very, very important question. At this point in time Manitoba is working on pushing the federal government, both on the youth gangs as well as on the meth users, to have mandatory minimum penalties for gang members or others involved in large-scale meth. What is the position of the Ministry of Solicitor General on that one?

Hon. J. Les: The question of whether or not to support the concept of minimum sentencing is, of course, an interesting one. Instinctively, one is drawn to supporting that position. However, as I've spoken to the federal Minister of Justice about it and talked to a number of people who are engaged in the legal profession as well, it clearly is a position that is not in keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It certainly is not supported by any federal legislation that currently exists, and I am not sure that it would be terribly productive to launch a campaign in favour of mandatory minimum sentences.

However, I certainly have been clear that I think it is unacceptable that people are being released from our jails when they have not yet undergone any appropriate treatment for whatever condition it might have been that gave rise to their criminal conduct in the first place. I think that is a problem. If we are putting people back out on the street, often in a condition that gives the police cause to almost predict instant criminal activity once that person is back out on the street, I think that is extremely frustrating. That is something we need to address much more directly.

I have said in the past that we need to perhaps allow mechanisms to be made available to judges whereby they can order that treatment be mandatory, and if it's not pursued by the convicted individual while they are incarcerated, perhaps that ought to give rise to a further extension of the sentence until that person has taken advantage of the appropriate treatment.

The bottom line for me has always been that we need to protect other members of society from people who wish to perpetrate criminal acts. It simply seems to me that we are failing to do that if we can almost predict further criminal activity when certain people are set free.

J. Brar: Just for the information of staff in the ministry, I want to inform that I will ask one question on

motor vehicles and then move on to the coroner's office — one question on motor vehicles, so you can probably arrange your staff accordingly.

On motor vehicles, we have one office in Surrey-Newton. Surrey is a city which is, I think, the fastest-growing municipality in the country. We receive almost 1,000 people every month and over 12,000 people every year.

The majority of these people are new immigrants. Of course, the first thing they need is their driving licence so that they can settle and be independent and productive and find jobs. A majority of these people during the last four or five years have settled in the area of Newton and Panorama, because that's where the majority of development has been happening.

I recognize that there have been two new offices in Surrey, one in Cloverdale and the other one is in Guildford. The lineup at the Newton office is huge, and I have heard complaint after complaint after complaint that you have to stand in that queue for hours if you have to renew your licence and all that kind of stuff.

My question is pretty simple: would the minister consider the lineups at all the different locations and probably do some analysis on that and at the end of the day, if there are big lineups in one particular location because there's a concentration of population in that area, then subsequently either move one of the locations to where we have fewer people, to a location that could be more accessible for part of the population being served by the Newton office or to a new office — whatever is affordable and workable? I would like to see the response from the minister.

Hon. J. Les: We certainly are well aware that the city of Surrey is growing very quickly. I think I saw recently in the newspaper that it's something like 4,000 people a month that are moving into the city of Surrey. It has been for some time the fastest-growing city in Canada. Of course, with the economic revival that we've seen in British Columbia, things are really booming in Surrey now, as they are in so many other places.

Of course, we're delighted that that is the case, but it does bring with it some of those growing pains the member has referred to. Although I don't have a specific answer for him today related to that specific office in the Newton area, I will certainly take that under advisement. We will be researching that and making sure we have the appropriate facilities and services in place to provide better service to the people in his area.

I would move on to the coroner's office, keeping in mind the time. Can the minister tell or inform why gambling as a motivator was removed from the B.C. coroner's psychosocial summary form? Do you want me to repeat the question? Can the Solicitor General explain why gambling as a motivator was removed from the B.C. coroner's psychosocial summary form which was being used?

Hon. J. Les: A highly technical question, I would suggest, by the member. I'll do my best on it. We are revamping the data gathering and analysis within the coroner's service as we develop a far better system for management of data and eventually producing reports that result from that.

As you do that, of course, you modernize your approaches, you look at the various causative factors for certain behaviours, and you link them as appropriate. In this particular case, that is very much part of what we're trying to do here — linking it to other similar behaviours that I think will give us far better results coming out of the various coroner's processes.

J. Brar: I welcome Mr. Smith as well. He's been very kind to the city of Surrey and the province. Let me just give you some information on that one and leave it there. Later on, probably, because it's technical, you can respond to it.

My understanding is that the ministry has removed the psychosocial summary form totally, indicating that it is no longer a useful research tool. This was in place for almost ten years. We don't know whether there was any research done to remove this particular item from the form, but B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada which does not utilize a psychosocial summary form. That's kind of the background of that information, so I would probably request the minister to look into that.

I want to move on to this one. When this government eliminated the child-death commissioner, it rolled over its responsibilities for investigating to the B.C. coroners. Can the minister inform me as to the funding increase to the B.C. coroner's office as a result of that change?

Hon. J. Les: The budget increase that accompanied that was $200,000 at the time that occurred. As I think I've previously said in this House, in the majority of the past fiscal years what we have found is that not all of the money in the coroner's budget was, in fact, expended. We certainly are aware of the fact that more funding may be required and would be prepared to do so.

A. Dix: Of course, the Solicitor General knows that the children's commissioner had a $4 million budget and that when that office was shut down — contrary to the express promises of the government — and all of those responsibilities were shifted over to the coroner, they shifted only 200,000 of those dollars. I would say, with great respect to the minister, that you'd call a $3.8 million cut on a $4 million budget a pretty big cut. What has happened is that we had 800 case reviews — every case reviewed under the children's commission — and we've had one public report under this process.

I wanted to ask the Solicitor General, first of all…. We had a discussion yesterday in question period about a particular case, Savannah Hall, and the Solicitor General at that time made some comments about Kathleen Stephany, who is a former employee of the

Is the Solicitor General aware that in fact the chief coroner of the province describes her work as excellent, that the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the government are using her work, which they have vigorously defended, in court cases? And does he not think it's inappropriate to take shots at people who care about the public interest and are participating in the public debate?

Hon. J. Les: With respect to Ms. Stephany, I am personally not particularly aware of her work. Nor should I be, I would suggest. But I am aware that she is currently undertaking proceedings for wrongful dismissal, and I draw from that that she is, in fact, disgruntled.

A. Dix: This is a significant case, I think. The minister may not be aware of her work or he might not have been aware of her work two weeks ago, but this case has drawn enormous attention. Surely the minister who claimed yesterday he has the responsibility to order coroner's inquests…. He has that responsibility. There have been broad public calls for coroner's inquests. Has he not yet informed himself as to the details of that case, as to the support the government's given to the views of Ms. Stephany, of the fact that the coroner, as well, who he hasn't yet disparaged, also argued for a coroner's inquest?

Is he not aware of these things? When will he become aware of these things? And does he not think that the child death review, which was used as an excuse not to order an inquest yesterday, which is actually a review of aggregate deaths, not a review of this specific death…?

The process that's been set up…. I'll be happy to read into the record for the hon. minister the process that his own coroner has said…. He says: "Our process is still developing" — which is an interesting fact, "still developing"; after three years that may indicate that the minister's $200,000 or his 90-odd-percent cut in the budget was too much — "but our review process utilizes review bodies convened for specific purposes rather than a standing committee. We have sorted our files into groups of deaths occurring under similar circumstances. This is referred to as evidence-based aggregate review."

In other words, they're not going back over the case. There was a final decision made in 2003, and the minister and the government decided not to go ahead with an inquest at this time. This is not a process that can be used as an excuse not to make a further decision. So I say to the minister that I hope he will learn about the work of Ms. Stephany, which his staff has declared to be excellent, and that he bring himself up to speed on this case.

Hon. J. Les: I lost sight of the member opposite there for a minute, but he's moved to a different place, from which I gather he will be asking no more questions.

Madam Chair, clearly these are serious matters, and I do not take them lightly. These involve the deaths of children, which we always take seriously, and I would underline again that every child death that occurs in British Columbia is reviewed and, in my estimation, reviewed properly.

Now, some of the cases that have come forward recently — and we've had extensive discussion in the House in a variety of forms — obviously concern us all and have consumed considerable resources. Through all of that, however, I am convinced that we are in the end going to end up at a place where we get the answers we need through whatever process is embarked upon.

I would point out that the processes vary in terms of their objective. A criminal process, for example, is a fault-finding process. A coroner's process is more typically a fact-finding process, so that is what we do through the coroner's office. There are, in fact, child-death review processes that look at aggregate factors in a variety of files. I think that is an appropriate process, because it looks for a trend line in causative factors, which I think is important to establish.

For example, within the last year the coroner's office has produced a report on infant deaths around sleeping practices, and it has turned out that that has been a very helpful report in terms of preventing the deaths of other children. We often hear about sudden infant death syndrome, for example, and there are reasons to believe that many of these are because of inappropriate sleeping practices. I think the coroner's report produced here in British Columbia in that regard has proven to be of national assistance in establishing some of the better sleeping practices.

In the case of Savannah Hall, the child-death review process that is still underway is a specific investigation into the circumstances surrounding her unfortunate demise. We will get the facts around that case, and whether or not I eventually request that an inquest be held is going to be determined at a time when all of those processes, such as the child-death review, are complete. It is simply not appropriate for me to call for an inquest at this point in time.

I need to allow those processes to be completed, but I will certainly say again to the member and to all members of this House that that's a question I will determine at some point in the future.

J. Brar: I have one more question on this file, and that is about when the responsibility for the Children's Commission was moved to the coroner's office. At that time the budget for the Children's Commission was almost $4 million, and we have just learned from the minister that the additional budget the coroner's office got was only $200,000. My understanding is that that's

My question to the Solicitor General is: do you believe it's reasonable to give the coroner's office enough resources so that they can do their work as per some established standards?

J. Brar: I want to ask one more question. It's on the fire chief. I don't know whether you have the staff available or…. I'm done with the coroner's office, so thank you very much on that one.

This request has already…. I think the member has spoken to the minister. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke gave the minister a letter from the Golden fire chief, and the name is Muir Furzer. It deals with changes to move the fire commissioner service from Cranbrook. Will the minister please address the concerns raised in that letter?

Hon. J. Les: I am aware of the letter that was provided to me earlier today by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I haven't had a chance to digest all of the letter. I gather it raises some concerns with respect to the location of fire commissioners around the province.

I can indicate, generally speaking, that what we are trying to do is ensure that we have a well-supported and very professional fire commissioner service around the province. That will often mean bringing those resources together in certain regions of the province. That might not mean that they are available exactly in every community, but that does not come at the expense of the professionalism that we need to have available to us through the fire commissioner service.

I'm happy to provide a fuller answer to both the member opposite and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. We'll certainly be getting back to the member who brought the matter forward this morning in writing.

J. Brar: I want to move on to gaming. If we've got time, I'll come back to the liquor branch.

J. Brar: Well, I want to come back to that. I want to deal with the first….

Can the minister explain why the problem gamblers fund annual report shows up in the B.C. Lottery Corporation annual report rather than in his ministry report?

Hon. J. Les: We are not sure exactly which report, historically, the member is referring to. In fact, there may not have been a report previously. What I can tell the member today is that we are on the verge of releasing the most recent report. It will, in fact, come out through the auspices of my ministry, as opposed to being a report by the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

J. Brar: I'll get back to you with more specific information on that particular question.

In the last year the problem gambling program, in the budget year of 2001-2002…. There was $4 million in funding targeted for that program. The report on the performance indicates that only $2.5 million was actually spent. Can the minister explain why there was a big variation?

Hon. J. Les: Just a little historical perspective here. Several years ago the budget for the problem gaming fund was at $2 million per year. That was increased to $4 million per year. There was perhaps some anticipation, because of the increased gaming activity in British Columbia since the mid-'90s, that there might be more of a draw on that funding, so it was increased to $4 million per year.

It is demand-driven. We certainly encourage people who might have any issues at all with problem gaming to avail themselves of the appropriate services and counselling services, and it is the case that the draw on that fund was $2.5 million. I guess that is, in a way, good news. This isn't something where we want to see a lot of demand.

I think the way that gaming has been managed of late, in British Columbia in particular, has been accompanied with a lot of responsibility. We certainly make it very clear that we want British Columbians to undertake gaming activities in a way that is responsible. For the most part, gratefully, that has happened.

I know in other jurisdictions there are more difficulties: in provinces like Nova Scotia, for example, where video lottery terminals that are made available in a variety of venues have proven to be very addictive to the population. In British Columbia we have explicitly said that slot machines, for example, will be available in casino venues only, and I think that has proven to be a wise strategy.

The bottom line is we have $4 million of resources available for problem gaming. It is demand-driven. To date, we seem to be consuming only about $2.5 million of those funds for problem gaming activities. Should further resources be required, obviously, they are available, and we encourage people to take advantage of them if they need them.

J. Brar: I'm a bit confused with the numbers here. Let me just go with this information first. The revenue from gaming has been going up significantly during the last few years. I think probably — correct me if I am wrong — it has doubled during the last three or four years. But the funding allocation for troubled gamblers, since 2001 to 2005, remains $4 million. My understanding is that if the revenue is going up significantly, there

should be investment made to make sure that people in the community are safe. We should be proactive, to make sure that people take part in those programs and that people benefit from those programs.

It's hard for me to understand why the funding, the actual cost for the troubled gambling program, for the year 2004-2005 is $2.5 million or less. Can you explain as to why it's happening like that?

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to provide a little bit more of an explanation around preventive programs that we have in the ministry so that people don't get involved in problems around gaming.

As I've said, we believe a $4 million budget allocation is ample to deal with those programs, based on our previous experience. I should point out to the member that these counselling services, if required, are made available at no charge to British Columbians who wish to avail themselves of them. We advertise that quite explicitly — that there are no charges associated with participating in any of these programs.

We also have a very preventive aspect to these programs. Not all of that $4 million is going to be used for counselling, not by any means, but we have a variety of programs available — even in schools, for example — to educate British Columbians so that they will know that gaming addiction issues can be a problem — providing them with the information that we think they should have to make intelligent choices in their lives.

I think what we are seeing is a very good result coming out of all of this. The member indicates that there have been significantly increased revenues from gaming, but I'm happy to advise that we think we certainly have any gaming addictions issues under control, and we will be monitoring it very, very carefully to ensure that it remains that way.

J. Brar: I'm pleased to see the response made by the minister, but I'll come back to addiction. I have lots of questions on it.

Before I go to that, I want to ask a very simple question about how much money is going to be spent this year on marketing the gambling program, on gambling, both the radio and TV, and how much money has been allocated for the troubled gamblers this year? How much is expected to be the actual expense? So it's the budget versus the actual expense in both situations — the marketing and the troubled gamblers.

Hon. J. Les: A little bit of context here. The B.C. Lottery Corporation is a $2.2 billion enterprise. It utilizes about $22 million a year for marketing activities — radio, TV, etc. As I have already pointed out, the budget for problem gaming is $4 million. That amount has not been fully utilized in years past. We do make it widely available to anybody who feels that they have gaming addictions issues. Those programs are available to those individuals at no charge.

I have said in the past that if we require more than $4 million worth of resources, we will make more than $4 million worth of resources available. I think it is only responsible to provide the resources that are necessary. Happily, we do not seem to have, to date, a profusion of problems that would give rise to further funds being required out of this fund.

J. Brar: I'm again pleased to see that the minister is basically stating that if needed, more funding can be made available. I'm happy to hear that, but I would like to make a suggestion here that when we have funding…. I think there must be some reasons, when funding went up from $2.5 million to $4 million…. I believe there must be some background work done.

There may be programs which are not working very effectively. It may not be a bad idea to review, to look into those programs and try to make them more effective, rather than that we keep waiting for whether or not the people are going to use those programs.

I will move on to the next one. This is about minors playing lotto or other kinds of gambling. Recently there was a Lotto 6/49 prize of $14 million claimed by 13 persons working at an A&W. I think everybody knows about it. It got a lot of publicity in the newspapers. One of the claimants of that prize is 16 years old. As the minister knows, those persons under the age of 19 are prohibited from playing lottos or from any other gambling.

Can the minister explain whether this individual will be able to receive that money or not? Maybe I'll come back to a second question after you respond to this question.

Hon. J. Les: The law in British Columbia is very straightforward. No one under 19 years of age can legally buy lottery tickets. It would be illegal for a vendor to make those products available to minors. When, however, somebody buys a 6/49 lottery ticket or any other product like that and goes either to their home or to their workplace and decides to split that amongst a number of people, at that point, of course, it is beyond the ability of the Lottery Corporation to dictate exactly how that money is distributed.

However, if it turns out that there is actually a legal interest in those proceeds on behalf of a minor…. In that case, the lottery corporation would be bound to pay that money out to all of the people of majority. The proceeds that would accrue to the minor would have to be paid to the public trustee, and the minor would have to wait until their 19th birthday before they could claim the money.

J. Brar: There are a couple of very interesting questions out of this and the response the minister gave. One of them is that we just passed Bill 13, which is the Civil Forfeiture Act, according to which all proceeds of all illegal activities can be seized under the act. Now, this one is certainly an illegal activity at this point in time. What is the definition of Bill 13, the Civil Forfei-

ture Act, as it relates to this particular situation of a minor buying the 6/49 ticket and then winning?

Hon. J. Les: Our core interest here, of course, is always to ensure that lottery-products retailers are not making those available to minors. If we become aware of any cases where that is occurring, obviously, we are going to take action which could very easily include the cancellation of their licence to retail those products.

The law around whether or not a minor can win and actually have proceeds paid out to them is, I would suggest, somewhat case-specific. If, for example, someone's father went out and bought a lottery ticket and won $10 million and said to the Lottery Corporation, "Would you split that amongst my kids?" that might be a problem. However, there is no problem with the Lottery Corporation paying those proceeds out to the father and he then distributes the money.

I'm not sure that it would be that fruitful this afternoon for us to get into all the various nuances of how that might happen. I'm quite aware of the case in Mission, and I'm sure it's entertained a lot of people around British Columbia over these last number of months, whether nine people have won or whether 13 people have won, but it would seem that if one of them is a 16-year-old, they might have to wait three years anyway before they can collect their prize.

J. Brar: I'm a bit confused about the description given, when it applies to Bill 13. If somebody is doing an illegal activity and if that individual is part of a group and that means that, in working with the group, that person can go and probably survive, you know, through the Bill 13 — is that what my understanding is? Or because this person is 16 and this ticket was bought by 13 people…? What would have been different if this person alone would have bought the ticket and won the ticket? What would have happened with Bill 13 as well as the illegal activity of this individual and the sale of a ticket?

The Chair: Member, you have to be very careful that you don't discuss legislation during estimates. Bill 13 is a piece of legislation that's been in front of the House. The other thing I think we have to be careful of is that we don't ask a minister for a legal opinion because he or she is not entitled to give it. I'm not suggesting you don't ask the questions, but I think you have to be very careful how you enter this.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, I'm not clear what you're suggesting. If you can just clarify it once again.

The Chair: Sure. Member, in estimates, you cannot…. The task is to question the minister on the estimates. Legislation is not the topic of estimates. Bill 13 is actually legislation. That's the rule of the House. The second piece is that we must be careful when we ask ministers for legal opinions because they're not actually supposed to answer, because maybe they don't know or…. Anyway, regardless of the reason, we do not ask a minister for a legal opinion.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll certainly keep that in mind. I'll move away from the bill, but that is very interesting debate.

I'll go back to the same question. So this minor person somehow became part of this particular — what you call — 6/49 ticket which actually won. But my question is simple. In other situations, particularly when we talk about the enforcement of tobacco or liquor, we have some pretty clear policies as to how we deal with it. As a matter of fact, I do have one question in front of me where a person went into the shop to buy liquor which, as per the rules, if the person is between 19 and 25, they have to ask for ID, which this person failed to ask for. Subsequently, they have to…. I think there have been some penalties to that liquor shop. Their licence has probably been suspended.

Now, my question is: when it comes to lottery tickets, what system do we have to make sure the age limit is fully enforced? Do we have any system? If we do, what is that system, and how do we use it?

Hon. J. Les: The restrictions around the sale of lottery products are actually very much the same as they would be for alcohol and tobacco. These are simply not available to those who are under 19 years of age. If a retailer of lottery products is actually making them available to people who are less than 19 years of age, they risk losing their licence to sell these products. I think we have generally been very successful in ensuring that these products do not end up being sold to minors, and, to be fair, to be honest, I'm not particularly aware that we've had a lot of problems in that regard.

J. Brar: Can the minister provide information as to how many penalties were actually given this year to the shops or lottery retail shops for selling tickets to minors?

Hon. J. Les: There are about 3,000 retailers of lottery products in British Columbia. During the past year, two warnings have been issued.

I want to move on to another topic which is related to this, and that is what we call voluntary self-exclusion orders. I hope you understand. The government produced a brochure entitled Time Out to inform the public about the voluntary self-exclusion program. Can the minister inform this House as to the requirement of gaming locations to make these publications available to patrons? What are the requirements to make sure this brochure is being applied or used or

Hon. J. Les: The self-exclusion provisions, I think, are very, very important. They have been taken up by quite a number of people. The brochures and other materials are provided to all of the retailers and all of the casino locations. We make it very clear that these are to be provided to patrons of these establishments in high-profile locations, and we actually monitor that to make sure that that occurs. A failure to provide those materials in the way that we want them provided actually can lead to penalties, including the cancellation of a licence.

J. Brar: I have a couple of questions on the same, and then we'll move on to the next one. First, do we have the translation of those brochures into different languages? We have seen that that is very, very effective. Second, how in fact do you enforce that people use it? What process, what system do you have to make sure that those are being used in an effective way or to make sure that the public is safe?

Hon. J. Les: In response to the member's first question around whether or not translated versions are available, the answer is yes. These products are made available in somewhere between six and eight different languages, appropriate to the communities in which these facilities are located.

In terms of the system that's used to make these products available, as I have already stated, these are to be made available in a high-profile location. We monitor that. In fact, we audit that to make sure anyone who might need to have those services provided to them has the information readily available when they need it.

J. Brar: In many countries, casinos require that staff be on the lookout for gamblers that appear distressed. Signs they look for are crying, statements of distress and those kinds of things. Here in B.C. the casino staff have no authority to pull somebody aside. In fact, if they try to do it, they could be fired.

My question to the minister is: do we have any special training programs whatsoever that are either mandatory, a requirement, or an expected program for staff members and that will assist them to look and identify the troubled gamblers in casinos?

Hon. J. Les: We have a program in place in our casinos in British Columbia. It's a program called appropriate response training — or ART, for short — and it's being implemented by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The program was created to assist all gaming personnel to, first of all, recognize and, secondly, respond appropriately to customers who are exhibiting the signs of problem gaming.

J. Brar: Is that program available at this point in time, or is it in the process of being made? Can you also explain if that program is mandatory or if it's just a choice kind of thing?

J. Brar: Let me go into this one. In November of 2004, Gail White, who was the director of social responsibility for B.C. Lottery Corporation, said to the Vancouver Province that casinos are improving their surveillance for people who have signed voluntary self-exclusionary agreements. Will the minister report what steps casinos have been ordered to take to improve surveillance for those who have signed voluntary self-exclusions?

Hon. J. Les: We employ a number of strategies, of course, as I'm sure the member would expect. We are, in fact, leading in North America in terms of introducing new technology into this area.

We have introduced facial recognition technology that is now available in our casinos. It is, obviously, an additional tool that can help to identify people who have voluntarily entered the self-exclusion program and to bar other prohibited people who would possibly be trying to attempt to enter a casino.

One might wonder whether this raises any privacy issues, but you need to remember that people in the self-exclusion program have already allowed their picture to be taken, and signs are posted throughout casinos indicating that surveillance cameras are being utilized. So I think this is further evidence of the fact that we are serious about having a successful self-exclusion program available in our casinos in British Columbia, and as I indicated, we are the only jurisdiction in North America that is currently using that technology.

J. Brar: Ms. White went on in her interview to say that within the year, all 18 B.C. casinos will use image-recognition technology — which I think the minister is saying — to keep the 2,000 people who have sworn off gambling out of casinos.

My question is: at this point in time, have we implemented what she said so that all the 18 casinos have, in fact, the image-recognition technology?

J. Brar: Let me go into this one. I understand the minister's reference that the casinos in British Columbia, when it comes to using the technology we just mentioned, may be unique in a way in North America, but some other countries are using techniques that may probably be more effective, more useful than what we're using here.

I'll give you one example. Several countries, including Holland, have a system that requires gamblers to show government ID, using a passport, prior to gam-

bling. Such a system would most certainly have identified Ms. Dilling as a person who had signed a voluntary self-exclusion order.

My question to the minister is: do you think this particular system being used in Holland is a good idea to think about or consider, or is it in any way under consideration at this point in time?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the member bringing forward a perhaps interesting idea. We are always on the lookout for better technologies, better ways to control these kinds of issues. If they have something better in Holland, we will certainly take a closer look at that. My wife and I are hoping to travel there next spring, so maybe I can check it out.

J. Brar: Well, I think the critic should go with the minister to find that out as well.

The other thing I wanted to mention about Holland are the staff in casinos. They, of course, have special training, which the minister mentioned is available here as well, but they also have incentives to identify troubled gamblers, and their salary is reflective of how effective they are to pull those people out.

My question is: do we have those incentives for staff members, or if we don't, would the minister like to consider this idea as well? Probably if the minister plans a tour to Holland, he can look into both things at the same time. That could save some money for British Columbia.

Hon. J. Les: To the member's question as to whether there are any incentives for staff to spot problem gamers: no, not specifically. It is simply a condition of their employment that, in addition to being able to carry out their usual activities around gaming, they also keep an eye out for people who might be in a variety of difficulties. It is, in essence, a condition of their employment.

I think we have a well-trained staff running the various establishments in British Columbia. I'm not aware of any issues around that. There was an auditor's report recently that showed that our gaming establishments in British Columbia are exceptionally well run, and to a great degree, I think that is a reflection of the professional staff we have available in those establishments.

J. Brar: My next question is about the ATM machines. Before I do that, I would like to read the vision of the ministry — as the minister also made comments on during the opening remarks — which says the vision of the ministry is that our communities are safe places. Also, the mission of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General is: "to ensure the security and the economic vitality of communities through effective policing, corrections, liquor and gaming control and other protective and regulatory programs."

Until recently, there were no ATM machines in B.C. casinos, but this government dropped that regulation in 2002. In only one month, the River Rock Casino in Richmond made $100,000 in ATM commissions alone. A government gambling survey conducted by the Australian government in 1999 found that problem gamblers were virtually the only gamblers who regularly use ATMs.

The survey found that 78 percent of recreational gamblers had never used an ATM in a casino, with only 5 percent saying they used an ATM often or always. In contrast, 59 percent of severe, problem gamblers said they used the ATMs often or always, with another 16 percent saying they used them sometimes. A similar survey conducted by Garry Smith on VLT players in Alberta came to a similar conclusion, finding that while only 18 percent of recreational gamblers use ATMs on a regular basis, 56 percent of problem gamblers did so.

Some might say that makes perfect sense, because most responsible gamblers make a point of going to the casino with only the amount of money they want to spend. You should go to a gambling place with an idea in your mind of how much you want to lose or win, and when that's up, you have to go. You know, you have to discipline yourself, but it becomes hard if the ATM machine is widely available next to the slot machine.

Given these figures, I would ask the Solicitor General: will he consider taking the ATM machines away from the casinos? In my opinion, that does not fit very well, first of all, with the mission and the vision of the ministry, and that certainly is not a safety feature. It is only an economic feature as per my understanding.

Hon. J. Les: Just in response to the member, I would point out, first of all, that ATM machines are not allowed on casino floors. They must be located physically away from the casino operations so that there is a break in activity and a physical removal from the casino floor site for a person to obtain more funding from an ATM. The ATM machines also carry the same responsible gaming messaging as slot machines and other items in the casino carry.

It's also important to remember that, increasingly, what we are seeing in British Columbia is that these casinos are located in full-service entertainment venues where people, frankly, expect to find ATMs. They can be part of hotel complexes and other entertainment facilities. I think it would be difficult to remove ATMs from a complex like that. It brings into question what kind of radius we are going to start working with.

The ATMs, of course, are very, very pervasive. You find them at gas stations and in a variety of locations. I would suggest that we have little, if any, evidence to support that a removal of ATMs from the general location of casinos would in any significant way reduce the incidence of problem gaming.

J. Brar: Well, I can provide the survey done by the Australian firm or the Alberta firm that indicates all this, and I would suggest that this is a serious safety

issue. If there's a different understanding at this point in time, the ministry should look into doing some of their own so that the public of British Columbia is safe.

Having said that, I will move on to the next question, because time is running out. This is about an individual. We were talking about the staff members just a few minutes ago, about the training program, the efficiency and the effectiveness, and we were also talking about the incentives. Now, this is one serious example as to how the staff…. I'm not blaming all the staff members there, but this is a huge gap. This example tells us how the casinos are run.

On December 5, 2003, Dorothy Dilling was gambling in the local casino. Mrs. Dilling was a problem gambler who had previously signed a voluntary self-exclusion order, yet on the fateful day of her death, she was allowed to gamble in her local casino. After losing $2,000 at a slot machine, she checked herself into the casino hotel and allegedly hanged herself in the hotel-room bathroom. This tragic death case continues. Mrs. Dilling's husband, Stan, has a bumper sticker on his truck that reads: "Casinos destroy lives."

Mr. Dilling certainly knows about lives destroyed by gambling and casinos better than most. In fact, he was so upset that he made a bomb out of a propane canister and considered driving into a Kamloops casino to avenge his wife's needless death — an irrational act by a man distraught over his wife's death due to gambling. Mr. Dilling's daughter turned him over to the RCMP, thank God. Now he is on a one-year restraining order prohibiting him from going close to the casino in Kamloops.

Having said that, my question is, firstly, can the Solicitor General explain how this individual who had herself signed the self-exclusion orders — a process to stay away from it — was allowed in the casino? And secondly, what steps have been taken to ensure it does not happen again?

Hon. J. Les: All I can say to the member is that our exclusion systems continue to evolve. They continue to improve. They continue to get better. As I said earlier, we have the best available technology in North America in our casinos to ensure that people who shouldn't be gambling, in fact don't. I have great confidence that as we carry on, we will continue to improve and help to ensure that tragic events such as the member describes do not happen again.

J. Brar: Public safety here is, of course, extremely important, so my simple question is: is the ministry or the British Columbia Lottery Corp. tracking gambling-related suicides? And if the answer is yes, do we have any numbers on that?

Hon. J. Les: We do not quantify those kinds of events through my ministry or through the Lottery Corp. I believe it's accurate to say that is followed up through the appropriate division of the Ministry of Health.

J. Brar: I want to move on to something different. I probably will come back to the…. There was a cap on how many slot machines one can have in one casino. At one point in time, it was 300, then that was removed and brought up to 500. My understanding is that at this point in time, there's no limit how many slot machines one casino can have. In one casino, we have about a thousand machines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At the same time, the minister has introduced what we call electronic racetracks in pubs and bars. My understanding is that the total number of pubs and bars is about 500. I'm not sure whether all the machines have been installed or not at this point in time.

My question is simple. Since the limit on slot machines has been removed and since the introduction of new electronic horse tracks, how many slot machines do we have today, as compared to when the limit was removed, and how many electronic horse tracks have been installed? Just the simple numbers.

Hon. J. Les: Since the limit on slot machines per location was removed, at that point in time, there were roughly 3,300 slot machines. Today — specifically as of September 2, 2005 — there were 7,147 slot machines in the various casinos. In terms of racetracks, they have been installed in about 500 locations to date. The member should be aware, though, that that is not a casino-type game. It is a lottery product, a lottery game, and I don't have any information particularly as to how popular it is. It was installed for the first time, I believe, only about three months ago.

J. Brar: The racetrack. I just need a clarification on that. Is that a new tool introduced, or is that a replacement of something old? Can you explain that?

Hon. J. Les: Well, it is, and it isn't. It is sold through the same lottery terminal that was already in place in these establishments. What is new is a plasma TV screen that actually shows the race in action, so in that respect, I really think it's not a particularly new product. It's just being presented in a different way.

J. Brar: The slot machines have gone up from 3,300 to 7,141, and then we have introduced new screens. In particular, if you go back to 3,300 slot machines to 7,141, is that an expansion of the slot machines?

Hon. J. Les: It's very clear that there are more slot machines available in these various casino locations today than there were in 2003 — no question of that. It's slightly more than double. This question of, you know, "has there been expanded gaming?" comes up from time to time, so if you wanted to define that in terms of slot machines, certainly it has. If you want to define that in terms of casino locations, you'd have to

argue that there has been a reduction, because there's actually one fewer casino location in British Columbia today than five years ago.

What we have done is sized the availability of casinos to the marketplace in British Columbia, with certain restrictions. Slot machines are only made available in casino locations, not widely available as has been done in places like Alberta, for example, where slot machines are in every motel lobby and bar. We do not do that in British Columbia. So while there are more slot machines available today than there were three, four years ago, I think we have done this very, very responsibly to enable British Columbians to enjoy this form of entertainment without making it too available, so that we won't encounter some of the social problems that other jurisdictions have seen.

J. Brar: This is a different topic. This is a recent report of July 2005. The Office of the Auditor General issued a report into the management of gaming integrity risk in casinos. In this report, the Auditor General recommends that the gaming policy and enforcement branch report annually to the Legislative Assembly on the state of gaming integrity in the province's casinos. So my question to the Solicitor General is very simple: will the minister tell us when we should expect the first report to this House by the gaming policy and enforcement branch?

J. Brar: Just a few minutes ago we were talking about suicides related to gambling. In July 2002 the chief coroner of B.C., Mr. Terry Smith, who was just here today, wrote: "I would agree that it is desirable for the coroner to track suicide deaths related to pathological gambling. Unfortunately, budget and staffing levels demand that we make choices among a variety of available options."

Eight of the ten provinces ask questions about gambling when investigating suicides. Can the minister explain why British Columbia is one of only two provinces which are not using this question in investigations?

Hon. J. Les: As I indicated earlier this afternoon to a similar question, we are modernizing the collection of that kind of data to make it more relevant in terms of the results that we get and that we expect. We are obviously very interested in collecting that data in a way that gives us important information that we require. I look forward to early in the new year when the new system of collecting that information is available because I think we, again, will be leading in Canada in terms of doing that in a very professional way.

J. Brar: According to a recent freedom-of-information request, over 4,000 community groups, including such groups as the Tsawwassen Order of Old Bastards, received funds from gambling revenue.

An audit of 1,600 of these organizations that are receiving gambling money found that 232 were non-compliant. This is about a 30-percent failure rate. So my question to the Solicitor General: will the minister table the full results of these audits which were conducted?

Hon. J. Les: Our aim and objective around those kinds of issues is always to be as transparent as it's possible to be. We are moving to a system where all of these audits will be moved to the website so that they will automatically be available. Subject, however, to privacy regulations, the appropriate information that relates to information that is not deemed releasable by the privacy commissioner will be severed.

J. Brar: I think there are two aspects. I understand the privacy part of it, but the other part is, of course, the management part of it — how we manage the funds and how we also make people and those groups and organizations accountable. This is a huge gap which I see here in the management of those funds — 30 percent of 4,000. If we assume that on the basis of audits done to 232, 30 percent of those were non-compliant organizations…. If we apply that number to 4,000, that becomes almost 1,200 groups, which is a huge number of groups.

So my question is: as the Solicitor General, what steps would you take to get to the bottom of this issue? What steps would you take to ensure that those non-compliant organizations become compliant organizations?

Hon. J. Les: Obviously, we are interested in ensuring that these matters are always conducted beyond reproach. We tend to focus on the higher-risk groups — higher risk simply meaning, perhaps, non-sophisticated groups. Often the lack of compliance is very minor in nature, so we work with them quite extensively to bring them into compliance. If, for whatever reason, we cannot achieve compliance, of course, they then lose their licence to conduct whatever activity it is that they were engaged in.

J. Brar: Will the minister provide a list of organizations that received funding — those 4,000 organizations?

J. Brar: Will the minister provide lists of organizations receiving funding from the ministry at this point in time?

J. Brar: On the website, is there any identification of the organizations that are non-compliant? If not, is it possible to get a list of those organizations?

Hon. J. Les: What the member is requesting is exactly what we are moving towards, as I indicated earlier.

I'll move on — we have very limited time — to another area: the liquor store, if you have staff here. Should I continue?

J. Brar: The first question is a simple one. How many public and private liquor stores do we have at this point in time?

Hon. J. Les: I covered this in my opening remarks this morning, but I'm happy to go through that again. At this point in time we have 208 government liquor stores, 559 licensee retail stores, 230 rural agency stores and somewhat over 150 other private retail establishments.

J. Brar: Is there any data available as to the net increase after we started privatizing liquor stores? Is there any comparative analysis since that date to today? When the liquor stores were privatized…. I don't know how many applications came at that time, but I want to know the numbers before that date and the numbers as of today — after that decision of privatization was made.

Hon. J. Les: I think we have these numbers fairly accurately for the member. In terms of government liquor stores, there were 224 of those; today there are 208. In terms of licensee retail stores, there were 290, and today, as I indicated earlier, there are 559.

J. Brar: I will go back to the mission statement. I just want to understand the direction of the department on this particular file. The mission statement of the ministry says: "To ensure the security and the economic vitality of communities through effective policing, corrections, liquor and gaming control and other protective and regulatory programs." My question is: how does this move — making liquor very easily accessible — make the public safer?

Hon. J. Les: As the member has pointed out from the information that I have provided to him, there's been a substantial increase in the availability of liquor outlets around the province, but we do not believe that that in any way has compromised public safety. In fact, it can be argued that with the wider distribution of liquor outlets, people can obtain their liquor supplies closer to home, and some have argued, in fact, that that increases public safety.

We should remember, as well, that retail liquor outlets are not establishments where liquor is consumed. It is simply a place where liquor is bought and, generally, taken home, so I do not draw any line at all between increased availability of liquor outlets and a reduction in public safety. On the contrary, I don't think there is any correlation there at all.

J. Brar: I think these lines are too hard. You may have to come back sometime and reconsider these lines. My understanding….

I have two questions, but I'll throw those questions out anyway. It's not only that more liquor stores are available in the province; it is also the total number of hours the liquor is available, going up to almost two in the morning. A lot of municipalities even have concern about those things.

My question is: with the number of liquor stores increasing pretty quickly and also opening hours expanding this way, has there been any analysis about police cost going up? I understand the police will be the municipalities' responsibility, but is there any indication?

Hon. J. Les: We are certainly aware of increased pressure on policing in the case where bars and similar establishments have been allowed to open longer hours. In the city of Vancouver, for example — I'm not sure if the member has attended there recently at two or three or four o'clock in the morning — the impact on policing is certainly very, very evident. But we have absolutely no evidence at all to indicate that the increased number of liquor establishments where retail liquor is sold have had any impact on policing whatsoever. I have simply no evidence whatsoever to indicate any relationship at all.

J. Brar: The evidence comes from studies and answers — or doing surveys or collecting data.

My question is pretty simple on two things. I heard the answer as it relates to police, but is there any analysis done whether crime has gone up because the number of liquor stores is going up and because the opening hours are going up? That's one question I want to ask.

The second question is: do we have more people with alcohol problems because of the easy access of liquor, and again, with extended hours of operation?

Hon. J. Les: We're not at all convinced that there has been any increase in crime as a result of additional liquor retail outlets being available. There has simply been more of a distribution of liquor retail sales. While more liquor has been sold through LRSs, there has

been a commensurate decline in some areas of liquor that is sold through the government liquor stores.

Overall, the increases in liquor sales through retail establishments is nothing more than you would expect to see in a growing province with a thriving economy. We are absolutely not aware of any evidence whatsoever that would lead one to the conclusion that there's been any resulting increase in crime.

As I pointed out a few minutes ago, the issue of bars and pubs being opened later at night, I think, does lead to a discussion about the extra policing costs and other anti-social behaviours that result from that. However, I gather the member is not as interested in that discussion.

I think it's fair to say that we have responsible policies, generally, around the province in terms of retailing liquor and that British Columbians are, in fact, very responsible as they access those products.

J. Brar: Certainly, I agree with the minister that British Columbians are responsible.

The second thing I want to say here is that although I hear from the minister that there's no information supporting that we have more crime or we have more people with alcohol problems, let me quote this. This is done by the Calgary Police Service, and let me read that to the hon. minister about what happens when you privatize liquor stores. This is a summary of their report. It says: "Since the privatization in 1993, the number of liquor outlets increased from 29 to 209." We have different numbers here. Many privately owned liquor stores are now open as late as 2 a.m., whereas we have in Vancouver probably going to 4 a.m., seven days a week and whereas the government-run stores only operated until 10 p.m. six days a week, which is, I think, the case throughout British Columbia as well.

This factor may be associated with liquor stores' vulnerability to crime, since we know that most robberies occur between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m.

It further says the number of Criminal Code offences at liquor stores increased significantly since 1993. This is related to the growth in stores, very simply, this report says — and it has been prepared by the police in Calgary. It further says: "The personal crime rate showed a general upward trend at liquor stores over the ten-year period. This is largely driven by a significant increase in robberies at liquor stores during the period examined."

So my question to the Solicitor General is very simple. Since public safety is the key in the ministry, would the Solicitor General consider, keeping in mind this report done by professional police, doing something similar to ensure the people of this province are safe?

Hon. J. Les: What is clear to me is that Calgary is not located in British Columbia. The Calgary experience is really trying to compare apples and oranges. What occurred in the province of Alberta has nothing to do with how the expansion of liquor retail opportunities was handled in British Columbia. While the observation of the chief of police in Calgary is certainly interesting and perhaps instructive, it bears little, if any, relationship to what might be going on here in British Columbia.

J. Brar: It's very interesting that when the government wants to use Alberta as a template, then we have a lot in common. You talk about the corporate tax cut, then we want to be at the same levels. When we talk about the issue of alcohol, then we are different.

Let me give you an example from Vancouver then. I hope that it will be closer to the community. "Vancouver Police Chief Jamie Graham" — I think Vancouver is in British Columbia — "wants the companies that make beer, wine and spirits to pump more of their multi-million-dollar profits back into alcohol treatment programs. 'It appears to be trendy now to link drugs to crime'," — that's the quote — "Graham said in an interview with the Vancouver Sun. 'It is my position,' he further says, 'that there is a stronger link with alcohol. It results in much more crime — I suggest ten times more than illegal drugs. In the most violent crimes, one or more of the participants are under the influence of liquor or intoxicated.'"

Now, this is the chief of police of Vancouver saying that liquor is the biggest cause for crime and, subsequently, is the cause for public safety. Having said this, now, would the minister consider doing something — survey, study — to make sure the people of British Columbia are safe?

Hon. J. Les: If I understand the member's submission correctly, he's obviously talking about the effect of increased bar opening hours in the city of Vancouver. That is something entirely different from what he was talking about a few minutes ago, which had to do with the increased number of retail operations around the province of British Columbia.

I think the comments that have been made by Chief Jamie Graham in Vancouver are quite apropos and certainly are of interest to me. But the bar operating hours in the city of Vancouver, as the member knows, have actually been established and approved by the city council in Vancouver. I know that there are special financing provisions that have been put in place where I think the operators of those establishments actually contribute to the extra policing costs. I leave it up to the city council in the city of Vancouver to determine whether or not there has been a cost benefit established there that's worthwhile.

Hon. J. Les: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask 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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

C. Wyse: I wish to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege relating to statements made during question period today.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP
AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to just start with some opening remarks, if I may. I was appointed Minister of Environment on June 16, 2005. As members will be aware, there was a reorganization governmentwide that took place on that date. The Ministry of Environment retains the responsibilities of the former Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, adding new areas related to water stewardship and ocean management. As well, the ministry is responsible for the environmental assessment office. This ministry has set a mandate to "protect and enhance the quality of British Columbia's water, land and air in a way that contributes to sustainable and healthy communities and a strong and vibrant provincial economy."

The work to achieve this mandate is done by more than 1,000 dedicated Ministry of Environment staff throughout the province in six core business areas. I want to express my sincere gratitude to the Ministry of Environment staff for their commitment and the outstanding work that they do every day. I will introduce the staff seated next to me in a few moments.

As a result of their hard work, this ministry has been able to establish 37 new parks, one new ecological reserve and the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve over the last number of years. We've also been able to expand 34 existing parks and four existing ecological reserves, and we've invested over $24 million in capital improvements to B.C. parks. We've been able to introduce B.C.'s first-ever species-at-risk legislation. These are just a few examples, and I could give more, but it gives you an idea of the kinds of success that comes out of the six core business areas that I just spoke about.

The ministry has been given responsibility for the cross-government sustainable communities initiative, and over the next six months we will be working to establish parameters and structures for this new responsibility. Programs and services for environmental protection focus on protecting human health and the environmental quality of water, land and air by (1) promoting sustainable environmental practices in communities through partnerships and education on best management practices; (2) maintaining a system for air and water quality monitoring and reporting — in fact, we've invested, I think, just over $1 million in 146 air quality monitoring units since 2001; and (3) regulating and monitoring industrial and community activities to ensure compliance.

One of the major focuses of the division of environmental protection has been the development of new legislation. Examples include bringing into force the Environmental Management Act; implementing the waste discharge regulation and other regulatory amendments, codes and protocols; and approving phase one of the groundwater protection regulation under the Water Act. Just this week, November 1, some additional components of that phase one implementation were put in place.

These new regulations will improve the safety and quality of British Columbia's groundwater supplies and are the first of their kind in B.C. These kinds of legislative changes facilitate outcome-based regulations, providing clear roles for governments and stakeholders. They also provide consistent performance standards so that we can place a greater focus on those who do not comply with regulatory requirements.

The Environmental Stewardship division works with other ministries, industries, communities, governments and local groups to establish standards for the management and protection of species and habitats. In fact, in the last four years we've been able to establish 286 wildlife habitat areas, totalling over 2.2 million hectares. We've enhanced B.C.'s ability to protect species at risk by passing legislation to enable government to designate species for additional protection.

We also support the Ministry of Forests and Range in its lead role in B.C.'s Mountain Pine Beetle Action

Plan. Environmental Stewardship leads in the collection of scientific information needed to establish standards and promote the best available science. We work to promote the effective management of fish, wildlife and park resources and to provide recreational opportunities for British Columbians and for visitors to our world-class parks.

In fact, we have committed $9 million over three years to establish the new conservation corps, a long-term student and graduate mentoring program designed to nurture a new generation of conservationists for the 21st century. I've had the great pleasure of meeting a number of these conservation corps members, who are very keen and eager. They're doing a great job. I've encountered them in a number of parts of the province in the last couple of months as I've made my way around to different locales.

Water stewardship. Programs and services here focus on the protection and maintenance of those conditions that are essential to sustain the quantity of both surface and groundwater in the short and long term. Water stewardship focuses on a number of areas, including early detection, warning and response to public health and safety threats. This division promotes water conservation and a fair and equitable allocation of surface and groundwater. This group is also working to implement the ministry's responsibilities for source water protection under the action plan for safe drinking water in B.C.

Oceans. The new oceans division is our lead on providing a coordinated approach to strategies and initiatives related to fisheries and coastal marine issues. That includes all joint provincial and federal ocean strategies that place priority on coastal and oceans planning, as well as ensuring ocean-dependent industries are sustainable, and a marine protected-areas framework. We have also taken the lead role in the development and implementation of a B.C. fisheries strategy framework and the collaboration with federal and provincial agencies, other governments, first nations and a diverse range of stakeholders.

Compliance operations. An important part of any regulatory function is making sure the rules are being followed. That's the role of the compliance division. This area provides education to help citizens be better stewards by understanding their responsibilities. It promotes an understanding of and compliance with regulatory requirements. They conduct investigations and, when needed, work within ministry programs on a range of enforcement options.

The conservation officer service is the enforcement arm of the Ministry of Environment. The CO service supports all divisions within the ministry by delivering compliance and enforcement services under both provincial and federal environmental legislation. Recently we committed $7.5 million over three years to hire additional conservation officers and park rangers to increase the government's presence in the field.

The service is also the lead for managing and responding to wildlife and human conflicts. Bear Aware and the bear smart community program are examples designed to reduce wildlife and human conflicts. In cooperation with the provincial emergency program, the CO service operates a 24-hour call centre in Victoria to handle public reports of environmental violations and calls related to wildlife-human conflicts.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Budget 2005 continues to support our priorities as a ministry and as a government. There are some exciting things ahead for the Ministry of Environment.

On a personal note I can say that I consider it a great honour to have this opportunity to show leadership and demonstrate leadership for the Ministry of the Environment. Members will know that at one time I actually worked for a previous configuration of the ministry — when it was Environment, Lands and Parks — as a park ranger. It's been wonderful, this past number of months, getting reacquainted with some people that I haven't seen for almost 20 years, as I've been in different parts of the province and regional offices encountering staff that I once worked with at Manning Park and Chilliwack Lake and Cultus Lake parks.

I do have a couple of staff I'd specifically like to mention that are with me right at the moment. Seated to my immediate left — your right — is Deputy Minister Chris Trumpy; and to my right — your left — Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for environmental stewardship Nancy Wilkin; and behind me, our manager of budgets — she's the important person I need to pay attention to — Kathy Rareton. I'm just trying to read somebody's handwriting here.

Before I sit down, I do seriously mean it when I say I consider it a great honour and privilege to have this opportunity to be the Minister of Environment. My only regret is that two of my closest friends are not here to share that with me. I think specifically of Dan Jansen, who passed away at the age of 24 when we were at university together due to brain cancer — he took me to my first political convention and started me down this terribly slippery slope called politics; and Clayton Friesen, who worked with me as park ranger at Manning Park all those many years ago. I just regret that they are not here today.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for those opening comments. Just before we get started in this process, I also want to take this opportunity on the record to thank the minister. We've had some discussions around matters related to Grand Forks and Chevron stations. I know that those folks have now received some correspondence from officials in his ministry, and I know they are very pleased about that. I want to thank the minister for his actions around that and the assistance he was able to provide to those folks in Grand Forks.

I'm also very pleased to have the opportunity to be here as the critic for this ministry. It's my first opportu-

nity to be in estimates, as I believe it is the minister's as a minister, so we'll kind of learn through this together.

What I'd like to do to start is to just give the minister a bit of an idea of what my plans are and what our plans are for the next couple of hours as we get through today. We will certainly be getting back to discussing those matters that the minister provided an overview for, but lots of that we'll get to when we come back and when the House sits again. For today I'm hoping that I'll have the opportunity to talk about some structural questions and how the transition from Water, Land and Air Protection to Environment has happened; what that's meant with Water, Land and Air Protection and Sustainable Resource Management; how we've created, reconfigured, the new ministry; and other questions.

I'm also looking to have some discussion with the minister about matters related to relations with other ministries and how those relations work in terms of achieving the great goals of the government. I'll be looking to walk through the minister's accountability statement with him and talk about some of the measures he's put in his accountability statement — and, if we have the opportunity, get to some performance measures.

I will tell the minister and his staff that we'll be at this for a couple of hours or so, and then the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who probably won't be able to be with us the next time we sit, is going to come in. He has some regional questions related to his activity and, I believe, a couple questions related to the mountain caribou — but primarily regional questions. He'll be taking a bit of time later on.

With that, what I'd like to do is just suggest…. As the minister will know, the question of environment, of sustainability, of stewardship…. These words have become buzzwords for a lot of people now as they become incredibly important for everybody in business and in society. Maybe what I'd like to do is start with getting the minister's definition and interpretation of a few of these critical terms so we can move forward from there. Maybe the minister could start by telling me from his view, in terms of the work of his ministry, what he views as sustainability and what he views as sustainable development.

Hon. B. Penner: I guess everybody may have their own particular take on those terms. I know that the member asking the question has been involved with a number of community groups and has worked on issues pertaining to community sustainability over the years. In my own view, it means making sure that the decisions we make today don't unduly limit our options tomorrow and that we continually be apprised of the fact that things that we do make decisions about today do have consequences.

We do live in a province that has a vibrant economy. I don't think any of us want to sacrifice the economy, but we also don't want to sacrifice the environment. My role as the Minister of Environment is to make sure that at the cabinet table, the concerns of the environment are raised and considered and ultimately implemented.

As we work towards developing further definitions and goals that we can work towards or standards that we can work towards, we are consulting with community stakeholders, first nations and industry. In fact, I think the Leader of the Opposition has been asked to provide some comment on what her views would be in terms of accomplishing the five great goals that have been enunciated in the throne speech. I certainly would take the opportunity to consider what the member has to contribute, as well, to the discussion around sustainability.

S. Simpson: Just to build on that question a little bit, could the minister maybe give me a couple of examples in the service plan of measures where he sees the role of the ministry in terms of sustainable development — maybe elaborate a little on a couple of examples, through the service plan, on what that might look like, so I get a better, substantive sense of that?

Hon. B. Penner: Turning to page 27 of the service plan, you can see that there are a number of specific performance targets there in terms of wildlife habitat areas, for example. That's in keeping with the government's goal of sustainability in terms of the wildlife populations in the province. We've met the targets that are listed there on page 27 to date, and we've set additional targets going forward in the out-years, which you can see there.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell me what…. I know this is a term that often comes up in the discussion. I know that there are some different views about this. I'd be interested in the minister's sense, in terms of the work of the government and the business plan, of how he interprets the role of biodiversity and what he sees as biodiversity in the province and how he defines that for the work he has in front of him.

Hon. B. Penner: Of course, the term "biodiversity" is an abbreviation for biological diversity. As the term suggests, it represents all forms of life, including species of flora and fauna and things on the land base.

In terms of making sure that there is adequate and sufficient and sustainable biological diversity in the province, we have, as I've mentioned, worked towards set-asides in terms of wildlife habitat areas. We've established the 37 new parks that I mentioned earlier. I think that today roughly 13 percent of the provincial land base is included in parks and protected areas. We're just trying to work out the math in terms of the number of hectares. Roughly speaking, that would be more than ten million hectares in the province that would be included in parks and protected areas.

S. Simpson: This is a slight diversion, but not too far, on that question of biodiversity. Could the minister tell us how the ministry measures questions of biodi-

versity in order to ensure that the breadth of sustainability, the amount of protected areas, is sufficient and adequate to meet the government's great goals?

Hon. B. Penner: We have a recovery planning process. There are 31 recovery plans in place for specific species. We track the number of species at risk. Across Canada I think there are something like 134 species that are identified as being at risk, and approximately 100 or more of those actually reside in British Columbia. We are quite special and unique in that way in British Columbia, in that we have the vast majority of species at risk in the whole country residing right here in our province. I think that's because it's a wonderful place to live.

S. Simpson: I would concur with the minister that it's a wonderful place to live.

I will get back to those questions, but I'll ask for the last of the definitions. I had three issues I wanted to define a little bit. The third one is stewardship. With that, I know that the ministry has used a results-based process to deal with a lot of questions and issues in front of it, and I've heard the ministry talk about stewardship and the importance of that. It clearly plays a critical role in the service plan. Could the minister tell us what stewardship means for the ministry, how the ministry sees operationalizing that and how it has operationalized that to ensure that it's meeting, again, the objectives of the government?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will know — and, in fact, as I just mentioned in my opening remarks — we have a specific division in the Ministry of Environment called Environmental Stewardship, and we have capable and qualified staff working there. But it's not just the role of government. We do set the standards and requirements, and we have objectives, but ultimately, if we're going to be successful, we need to have cooperation by communities, industry, as well as individuals. All of our actions collectively do have an impact on the environment, and I think we all have a role to play in terms of being good stewards.

S. Simpson: The minister spoke in his answer about the capable staff, and I'm sure that that's absolutely correct. Could the minister maybe tell us a little bit about who those staff are who are responsible for monitoring stewardship and making sure that objectives are set and met — who they are, as in numbers, and what kind of resources are applied there?

Hon. B. Penner: The Environmental Stewardship division has an FTE count of 433. Many of those numbers comprise biologists and technical staff, and include staff working in B.C. Parks, including park rangers and other people out on the land base.

S. Simpson: Just to follow that a little bit further. We know that what underlies all environmental considerations has to be science. There are lots of other things that certainly play a role in environmental considerations, but at the foundation has to be science. Could the minister tell us, in terms of that stewardship model, how many biologists or science and technical officers are sitting in the stewardship division?

Hon. B. Penner: Ministrywide there are 264 science and technical officers. Those are people, typically, with two-year diplomas and the like from post-secondary institutions. Working in the ministry are 238 biologists and 115 licensed science officers, which could include somebody who is a forester or the like, and three research officers.

I'm going to move the discussion a little bit now to some of the structural questions of how the ministry came to be from Water, Land and Air Protection and other things. I know from reading the service plan and from discussions with ministry staff that largely, the ministry came from Water, Land and Air Protection. But could the minister tell us what components, if any, of Water, Land and Air Protection did not come over to the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. B. Penner: I'd just like to seek clarification on the question, because we seem to have heard different things. Was your question: what particular functions of the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection did not migrate to the new Ministry of Environment?

S. Simpson: I'm assuming that the vast majority of it came over, so it's probably easier to ask about what didn't come than what did come. So what didn't come?

Hon. B. Penner: Apparently, all staff and programs came along to the new Ministry of Environment. There was $40,000 that was allocated to SaRCO, the species-at-risk coordination office, doing work in terms of preparing a species-at-risk strategy, which is housed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us of other ministries, whether it be Sustainable Resource Management or…. Which pieces of other ministries came into the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. B. Penner: This is the kind of thing that would be perhaps best addressed in a detailed briefing when we get into the accounting of some of the numbers. I'll try my best, as I'm a lawyer as opposed to an accountant. It's bad enough being a lawyer, I think.

From LWBC we inherited the water functions to the tune of $5 million and 41 FTEs, primarily around the function of water licensing.

From Sustainable Resource Management, the previous ministry, we picked up on paper $10.9 million and change. A lot of that has to do with something

called water use plan remissions to do with B.C. Hydro. A lot of that, I think, is mostly a ledger entry. If you want an explanation of the accounting function there, it's probably best to do it outside of this forum. But six actual FTEs did come with that.

In terms of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, we picked up their responsibility — that's the former ministry — for oceans, primarily dealing with ocean-going fish. That's $1.187 million and an FTE count of ten.

From the Ministry of Energy and Mines, from what was the offshore team that had been put together there, $1 million has come over to the Ministry of Environment. The environmental assessment office, the EAO, about $4.558 million, and an FTE count of 34 was transferred to the Ministry of Environment.

S. Simpson: Following up on that a little bit, can the minister tell us whether there are other ministries, in terms of…? What I'm looking for here is to get a sense of the scope of resources that are available to the ministry, both in terms of its direct resources, or those folks who are directly working for the ministry, and we'll get to discussions about those folks who work in collaboration….

The point I'm getting to here is that just looking at it from the point of view of a critic, this is a ministry that I appreciate crosses over and touches so many other ministries across the government — most of them — in some way, shape or form. What I'm looking for here is to try, over the next little while, to make those connections and understand those connections better.

I guess the next question I have that relates to that is: could the minister tell us what components or other components of other ministries or agencies work in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment on an ongoing basis? I know there will always be one-offs, but on a regular basis, in order to achieve the objectives of the government…. I think about legal out of Attorney General, for example, and possibly some others like that.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is quite right. The ministry does have important relationships with a wide array of ministries, but it also has relationships with other levels of government, especially federal departments. Then there's the whole issue of aboriginal relations within government and outside of government. The EAO office, especially, spends a considerable amount of time facilitating consultation and discussions with first nations groups around the province.

In terms of the strongest relationships, if I had to pick maybe the top three — and maybe that's unfair to some of the other ministries, but just going off the top of my head in terms of the issues I hear about on a regular basis or more often than others — I would say the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and, as I already mentioned, the Species at Risk coordination office, always there. They draw a lot of their information from the biologists and others that work in the Ministry of Environment, as well as the Ministry of Transportation.

I do know also, though, that we have a very important relationship with the Attorney General on the prosecution side, because the CO service does the investigation work in the field preparing evidence and bringing forth the information to recommend charges, but ultimately, it's up to Crown counsel in the province to prosecute those matters. I'm pleased to say that there is a good working relationship at the deputy's level on down between the two ministries to make sure we uphold the law in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up on that a little bit more. Within, for example, the Attorney General or some of those other ministries, and we are going to…. When I talk about relations with other ministries, I have a few ministries that I want to better understand, what this relationship is and how it works around some significant issues and priorities of the government and of the minister.

On this question, does the ministry do any assessment of what the value of that collaboration is? For example, Attorney General, in terms of when you look…. Does the ministry look and say: "Okay, we have X dollars of investment in legal affairs in a year around prosecutions, or whatever, and we value it this way"? Do you do that? Do you measure it into the ministry calculation in any way?

Hon. B. Penner: I think it's difficult to put a specific dollar value on deterrence, which is what a lot of the prosecution work is all about, in addition to accountability. I'm advised that the prosecution service within the Ministry of Attorney General does not charge the Ministry of Environment for those prosecution services.

S. Simpson: Maybe what I'll do at this point is move to the discussion of some of those other ministries and some of the specific functions of those ministries and what the relationship of the Ministry of Environment is to those.

Just as a bit of a precursor to that, I had the opportunity in the Minister of Economic Development's estimates to talk to him a little bit about sustainability and about environmental considerations around investment and the development of the province's economic strategy, which he has responsibility for and is the lead for. I know that it became somewhat clear from the discussions with the minister that it certainly wasn't a priority or a focus, necessarily, of that ministry. Of course, on key questions of investments, I assume that the Ministry of Environment would have its standards or its criteria and that it would, as a consequence, review or look at investment applications with some kind of environmental criteria.

What that does is raise a lot of questions for me, and I can think about ones in Agriculture and Lands and other places. I want to walk through…. The minis-

ter said he had three ministries. I have six ministries that are of interest to me at this point in time, and I'd like to just walk through them. The first one is Agriculture and Lands.

Could the minister tell us: generally, what is the relationship and what are the key collaborative areas between Agriculture and Lands and the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, just to clarify my remarks, I mentioned my top three ministries, but I actually added a fourth when I mentioned the Attorney General. The danger whenever you start any list is that you're bound to leave someone out.

As I've indicated, there are other ministries, as well, that we are involved with. It's a long list, and it's not just on the provincial side. It's dealing with the federal government in a number of departments and, in fact, dealing with the neighbouring jurisdictions, whether it's the Department of Ecology in Washington State or the various ministries in Alberta.

In terms of the Ministry of Agriculture, I can say that there are numerous points of contact, but a relatively short list of those points of contact between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands would include land use planning through the integrated land management branch, environmental farm planning, the Land Act.

It was just a year or two ago that we had the avian flu outbreak in the Fraser Valley, which was of great concern, of course, to my constituents and people across the province. The ministry — what was then the Water, Land and Air Protection but the same staff — played a supporting role with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

There's the water licensing function, of course, and water and irrigation is fundamental to agriculture in British Columbia. In fact, I believe about 70 percent of the water used in British Columbia is for irrigation or agricultural purposes. That's something that we need to become increasingly mindful about. Certainly, something that I and our senior staff are turning our minds to is getting ahead of some issues we may have emerging in the province around adequate supplies of good-quality water.

I know in British Columbia we tend to think we have unlimited abundance. Sometimes we're a little bit cocky about our position vis-à-vis other jurisdictions that encounter droughts and frequent squabbles — and sometimes very vociferous squabbles — about water allocation. We think that here in British Columbia we don't have that problem, but if you come from the Kootenays or the Columbia Valley area, you know that already we are running up against some limitations in terms of water supply in the Okanagan.

Our ministry, going forward, will be working even more so in terms of getting local communities to start a proper planning process, because we can't take water for granted, even though it's raining today. This is a big province, and there are different climatic regimes that we encounter.

Manure management is also a big issue, of course, particularly in my part of the world in the Fraser Valley.

There's the land information B.C. data system that we work with, in terms of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, to put together appropriate information and data systems, and then there's the new resource opportunities front-counter service initiative. I believe the first one of those opened in Kamloops just a few weeks ago.

Those are a couple of areas of contact between the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, but I'm sure there are others.

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us whether his ministry does any work related to the agricultural land reserve? I'm specifically thinking about this in terms of the sustainable communities initiative that the minister has said he's evolving. As he will know, the agricultural land reserve is critical, obviously, for the farming community, but it's also seen as an urban containment strategy by many to reduce sprawl, which is a pretty critical issue in terms of sustainable communities. Maybe I'm asking whether the minister sees a role for the Ministry of Environment through its sustainable communities efforts, in terms of being an advocate for or engaged in the agricultural land reserve question as it relates to urban containment.

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will probably be aware, prior to the reorganization of June 16, the Agricultural Land Commission reported to the previous Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Following the reorganization on June 16, 2005, it's now housed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. When that body is functioning, the land commission, it acts as a quasi-judicial body in terms of making decisions. We don't have any direct input into those decisions or that decision-making process.

I do recall having conversations with a former political science instructor of mine at SFU who was a member of the government of the day when the land commission was first established under the land reserve — Alex Macdonald. My memory is not always infallible, but what I recall in discussions with him is that the intent initially, or at least in his mind or the mind of his colleagues at the time, was to protect farmland. I'm not sure it was consciously designed as an urban containment mechanism, although maybe that was one of the effects.

Primarily, what I think I recall him saying was that there was concern at the rate at which agricultural land was being lost to development. There was a goal of maintaining a fair degree of self-sufficiency in terms of agricultural production. I know that other members of the community, outside the farming community, often look at that land as greenspace or as parkland or as another form of set-aside. When you talk to farmers,

they see it as making sure that they have access to a land base where they can continue to grow crops and to maintain a viable business that, after all, is farming. You can't have a viable business as a farmer unless you have the farmland.

S. Simpson: I would agree with that. I had a similar discussion a couple of years ago with the same professor, with Mr. Macdonald, who used to be the Attorney General in this place at one time.

I know, also, that people who work in the sustainability field would agree with the minister, certainly, that it should be remaining as farmland because we need to worry about food production and we need to have a vibrant farming industry. People who work in the sustainability field — other academics at our universities and others who are thinkers about this — would also say that by accident, probably, the agricultural land reserve turned out to be the best smart growth policy the government ever implemented in terms of restricting residential sprawl and limiting in high-growth areas like the Fraser Valley or the Okanagan the capacity to sprawl housing, which of course is a critical issue if you want to have sustainable communities.

I appreciate the minister's comment that this is around a farming question, but I think the minister would know, from people who I'm sure are advising or speaking to him about sustainability questions, that sprawl management will be an issue and that things like the protection of our farmland will be a fundamental question in order to contain that sprawl. Maybe the question is a bit of a speculative one at this time.

Does the minister see…? In future, as he evolves the sustainable communities plan over — I believe he said — the next few coming months and begins to sort of put some flesh on that as to what it looks like, does the minister see a discussion around those questions of how to manage sprawl and maybe questions around that relationship to the protection of farmland to keep residential and industrial development from spilling over onto farmland and creating other sustainability problems?

Hon. B. Penner: As we move forward in the development of our sustainable communities initiative, I'm sure communities will have their own perspective on what that means to them. I know when you go to communities where the agricultural land reserve is a significant factor, it is always front and centre in those local communities, in those dialogues. I think it's one of the reasons why we moved to six regional panels in terms of the Land Commission.

Again, in terms of the actual operation and day-to-day functioning of the Land Commission, the ministry responsible, as you know, is the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. But I do suspect that local communities will include that in their land use planning. As much as possible, I do think it's important that communities include in their planning the consideration of sustainability and where the appropriate places are in their communities for densification opportunities and renewal.

I'm most familiar with the community I grew up in — Chilliwack. There has been a lot of discussion around that, in terms of what's happening to our aging downtown core and what policies, mostly related to local zoning and things at the municipal level, can be put in place to encourage reinvestment in the aging housing stock or building supply in downtown Chilliwack instead of looking to build new on greenfield sites.

There has been some success to date, some downtown revitalization, which really means taking down existing buildings and starting over, in some cases, or spending substantial sums renovating existing structures. But I think, through what is called the future plan process in Chilliwack, which engaged a lot of people in the community, there were many hours spent. Even high schools got into the act; classrooms and school children got involved submitting their ideas.

I think the overwhelming response from that was to see what we could do to revitalize the downtown by encouraging reinvestment in that footprint of the traditional downtown core of Chilliwack, instead of simply going out and looking for greenfield sites outside that downtown urban core.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, and I appreciate that it's a work in progress around some of that sustainable communities work for the ministry.

Another matter related to Ag and Lands, though, that I'm interested in is what the relationship is and how it works around the question of endangered species. My understanding is that the habitat question around endangered species rests with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. The actual species and some of the enforcement questions rest with the Ministry of Environment.

Maybe he could correct that. I see the minister looking like maybe I've got to get this right. So maybe the minister could get it right for me.

S. Simpson: I said that my understanding is that the questions around the actual habitat rest with the Ministry of Ag and Lands. The issue around the actual species and around some of the enforcement questions to ensure that regulations are followed rests with the Ministry of Environment. Maybe the minister could confirm or elaborate on that for me.

Hon. B. Penner: The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has the lead responsibility over Crown land. The Ministry of Environment, of course, has responsibility

for parks. I suppose the protected areas are amounting to — what did we say earlier? — about 13 percent, or more than 10 million hectares, in rough numbers. Species management: the Ministry of Environment is also lead agency for that.

S. Simpson: This is one area, and I'll tell the minister, and I'll be interested in getting his comment…. This is one of the areas that confused me a little bit — the government's decision when it did the restructuring. I guess it was back post the last provincial election, and it was restructuring the ministries. I found it a little bit odd that the whole issue of endangered species would be divided between two ministries rather than a single ministry having overall responsibility for the question. This is particularly true, since we know the science is increasingly showing that if you want to protect species, the critical question is to protect the habitat for those species. That's the first consideration if you want to have a successful strategy.

It seemed to me that to have the Ministry of Environment have responsibility for the species and Agriculture and Lands have key responsibility for the land — the habitat piece — that it might have created some inefficiencies in terms of accomplishing the government's objectives. I guess I'd like the minister to talk a little bit about how he sees that working and whether there are challenges there that we need to work through.

Hon. B. Penner: I would agree with the member that what happens on the land base is very important to what happens to species, particularly species at risk. So what we've done is…. The land use planning process is coordinated by the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. I think it's something like 90 percent-plus of all British Columbia's Crown land. Of course, 13 percent…. I just got out my calculator. That would amount to about 12 million or 12.23 million hectares that would be parks and protected areas in the province of British Columbia. But the majority of that land is Crown land. The Minister of Agriculture and Lands has the lead role to play in terms of land use planning.

The species-at-risk coordination office is exactly that. It helps coordinate issues to do with three particular species, with a big focus on what's happening on the land base. I'm told by my staff that there have been no difficult issues in terms of coordination or cooperation between the Ministry of Environment and the species-at-risk coordination office.

S. Simpson: I'm assuming that the Ministry of Environment has representation on the management committee or whatever around SaRCO. Maybe the minister could tell us a little bit about how that committee works and what the role of his ministry is in that committee.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is right. There is what amounts to a board of directors for the species-at-risk coordination office. Included on that is the Deputy Minister for Environment, who is seated to my immediate left — your right. Unfortunately, he's missing the meeting that's taking place right now. That board is meeting at this very moment — or at least this afternoon.

There is a role to be played in terms of coordinating, and that happens at the deputy's level on down.

S. Simpson: Hopefully, the board won't do anything untoward to species at risk while the deputy is here — and not on his watch.

A further question related to that. Could the minister tell me, since the Ministry of Environment has responsibility for species, and the SaRCO office has responsibility for three species, I believe, that are under their watch at this moment: how does the decision get made if the Ministry of Environment has species responsibility? Is it the Ministry of Environment that would go to SaRCO and say: "We've identified another one or two species"?

I heard the minister say that there were 100-odd species in British Columbia that were at some degree of risk. I understand that's a broad measurement, and that could be nominal or it could be more serious. If we know we have 100 species that are at some degree of risk in the province, how does the Ministry of Environment, who works with those species, get more species onto the SaRCO list? Or what happens there?

Hon. B. Penner: Apparently, the criteria that was applied for the species-at-risk coordination office…. It, incidentally, was established last fall about this time. The criteria they use apply to what is described as broad-ranging species. The three species that are currently being worked on by the species-at-risk coordination office are the marbled murrelet, the spotted owl and the mountain caribou.

For additional species to be added to, I guess, their to-do list at SaRCO, species-at-risk coordination office, it would require that species to meet this definition in terms of being a broad-ranging species, where land use planning is pivotal.

S. Simpson: I've got one more question on this. We'll be back to endangered species at another time, but one more question. It does relate to the work of the Ministry of Ag and Lands. I had the opportunity, during the Minister of Agriculture and Lands estimates, to have some discussion with him in regard to endangered species matters. The minister did confirm that there's work going on within the government now to develop a new strategy around species at risk. That's being worked on for next spring, or whatever. It's in progress. It's in the Ag and Lands service plan.

My question to the Minister of Environment at this time would be: what role is his ministry playing, if any, in the development of that new policy around species at risk? And how is the minister ensuring that the con-

Hon. B. Penner: It's always nice to have that musical interlude courtesy of someone's cell phone — one of the staff here, I think.

Hon. B. Penner: You're right. I've strictly gone back to using a clay tablet now. So much for progress in the Legislature.

The staff do work with the species-at-risk coordination office, and the two ministries do collaborate. The assistant deputy minister for environmental stewardship, who is seated to my immediate right and your left, is one of those key people. As well, our director of the ecosystem branch is involved on a regular basis in terms of that planning process.

S. Simpson: Contaminated sites. Again, I believe — and I stand to be corrected here — that with contaminated sites the division of responsibility goes something like: if it's on Crown land, it's Agriculture and Lands; if it's private land and it's an issue for government, it's Ministry of Environment. Maybe the minister could either correct or tell me a little bit about that.

Hon. B. Penner: That's essentially correct. That'll probably be my shortest answer today.

S. Simpson: Just around that, could the minister tell us, then: when Ag and Lands is dealing with sites, is it their staff who come in and deal with those sites, or would they call in Ministry of Environment staff — conservation officers and such — to deal with those sites? I know the Ministry of Environment has staff who do that job. That's what they do. They work around coordination of that and make sure those sites can get cleaned up. I don't know whether Ag and Lands has those same kind of staff complements, or would they call on Ministry of Environment to come in and do some of the heavy lifting on that?

Hon. B. Penner: The Ministry of Environment plays a regulatory role in terms of setting the standards that must be followed in terms of the process of cleaning up a contaminated site. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, if it's a Crown land situation, would have the responsibility for actually getting the cleanup accomplished. They may use a variety of means for doing that, but ultimately it would be the role of the Ministry of Environment to play the regulatory role.

I should, before I forget, introduce a new actor to the scene, another Assistant Deputy Minister, Eric Partridge, our ADM for environmental management.

One other question related to contaminated sites. The Crown land is under Ag and Lands. The private land would come under Environment in terms of dealing with regulation and that. I assume that on private land, if there has to be an intervention, as we saw in Abbotsford, then the ministry intervenes, and it may deal with legal action later to try and recoup what's required.

What happens in the case of land that is owned by the Crown but is in long-term lease to private interests? How would that land be defined for these purposes? Crown land that's under private lease — is it considered Crown land, or is it considered private for the intentions of your work around contaminated sites?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to clarify, the Ministry of Environment is responsible for all regulations pertaining to contaminated sites. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands would be working in compliance, hopefully, with the regulations as established by the Ministry of Environment. On Crown lands, if the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands are the owner and occupier — or nobody else is at least leasing that land and they are ultimately responsible — and if it's private land, then you're right. It's the private land owner that's responsible to comply and pay for the compliance pursuant to the regulatory regime that's in place. If it's a lease of Crown land, then the leaseholder is expected to comply with the regulations.

One additional clarification. I misspoke. Eric Partridge is not the ADM of environmental management. Rather, he's the assistant deputy minister for environmental protection.

Thank you to the minister for that. We'll talk a little bit more about contaminated sites later on. A couple more questions in relation to this relationship with Ag and Lands, because it is one of the more important ones, I think. The coastal agreement — one of the best-kept secrets…. The coastal land agreement, the great bear agreement or whatever it's called…. Some people think it is imminent that it will be announced. It will be announced whenever it is announced.

I know there's been a lot of work done around that agreement around different management systems that relate to the environment. There now is an ecosystem-based management that looks at some of these questions. There are whole issues around reserve lands. I know there's a discussion around whether there are parks that aren't really parks, because the first nations don't want to call them parks at this time. They are looking at having them interpreted in a slightly different way.

The question I have for the minister is: is the Ministry of Environment playing a role around that agreement that may end up setting a whole new standard for how we look at land management in the resource sector and forest resources?

Hon. B. Penner: The Ministry of Environment staff have, in fact, played an active role in support of the

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what particular aspects of that work the Ministry of Environment is contributing to the development of those plans?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry staff have been involved in providing input into the ecosystem-based management plan that's being put together. They've provided advice on protected areas — as you know, there's a proposal for a significant addition there — as well as providing input and advice on species protection. A number of biologists from the ministry have played a role there.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us, staffing-wise in terms of resources, how many staff have been working on that or are committed to — I know it wouldn't be their full-time job, or maybe it is a full-time job — working with that process?

Hon. B. Penner: It's tough to quantify and give a specific number, because that number has fluctuated over the years. As the member is probably aware, this process, the latest round, has actually been underway for a long time — almost ten years, I think, going back to the mid-1990s.

What I'm advised is that at times there have been more people; sometimes there have been less. A rough number of the number people involved over the years is probably between ten and 15. The member's quite correct. It probably did not comprise all of their work at any given time. They would also be responsible for other duties or functions, but ten or 15 different people have touched this file within the Ministry of Environment to provide input and advice over the last ten years as this process has been ongoing.

S. Simpson: One last question in regard to that particular issue. Could the minister tell us what those ten or 15 people looked like? Were they biologists, scientists? Were they planners?

Hon. B. Penner: A range of people, as indicated, with a range of skills and expertise. Foremost among them would be biologists; park planners because, again, of the proposal for a significant addition to the parks and protected areas in the province; managers from ecosystem backgrounds; also managers from different regions; as well as mappers.

Just this week we debated some updates to legal descriptions to park boundaries. It's an ongoing effort in government to make sure those legal descriptions are accurate. If you've taken the time to look at the minutiae of the schedules and the legal descriptions of the various park boundaries, it's a huge task to make sure you get it just right because many of those boundaries are drawn in an area where global positioning systems didn't exist, and now it's being fine-tuned and updated. As I mentioned, we're over 12 million hectares currently in terms of parks and protected areas.

It is a major effort, and I just personally want to recognize the work that the mappers do, because when I look at those legal descriptions, it cannot be an easy job. But they are working, providing input into this process as well.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for his question, and I would agree with him. I spoke to some of the conservation organizations that are involved in this process, and I know that they've made and they've acknowledged the investments that government has made in mapping, and I know they've made those investments. In dealing with this kind of complex, very large area and trying to figure out what goes where, mapping is a fundamental and critical issue, and I appreciate what an important job that is.

I want to move to the relationship with Forests and Range. I think it's one of the other ones that the minister acknowledged where there was a significant relationship. Maybe the minister could tell us a little bit about that relationship and what the key areas of relationship are between the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Range?

Hon. B. Penner: On a regular basis that discussion has even reached my desk on this particular interface, in terms of the ministry. Of course, we just came through a fire season, so there's a lot of work and coordination that takes place between the Ministry of Environment — specifically, B.C. Parks — and the Ministry of Forests in terms of managing wildfire risks. That work now is not just taking place in the summer. We are working throughout the year to develop plans to mitigate wildfire risk to parks, property and people, as well as wildlife. We are cognizant of the fact of the mountain pine beetle taking hold and increasing the wildfire risk, not just in terms of the number of fires but, I think, their severity.

As you will know, around the province, B.C. Parks has many structures and facilities. And, of course, there are many people visiting parks, and we want to make sure we're doing our utmost to protect the people, property and wildlife in the parks.

The mountain pine beetle is an issue that involves considerable work between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. On the enforcement side there is an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, between the two ministries in terms of sharing of resources and responsibilities there.

Forest health and range management are other issues that are dealt with on a regular basis between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests.

S. Simpson: Could the minister elaborate a little bit on the role of the Ministry of Environment in the question of the beetle, both in terms of dealing with it at present and in terms of the planning work that needs

to be done after the beetle kill — when the cut comes out and we take the wood out — and what that will mean for habitat? Maybe the minister could elaborate a little bit on what the role of the Ministry of Environment is in the key areas where it plays a role around the beetle strategies.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of the parks and protected areas, the Ministry of Environment and the parks branch have the foremost responsibility for managing the pine beetle epidemic within the park boundaries. In terms of outside of park boundaries, and where the Ministry of Forests has the lead, we do play a coordinating role and an advisory role in terms of planning, inventories and protection with specific attention paid to maintaining water quality. We're hearing increasing evidence of the impact that the mountain pine beetle infestation is having on water levels. It's changing the way the water system is working out across the land base, so we're concerned about that as well.

Of course, we are paying special attention to the impact the pine beetle infestation is having on species. When the Ministry of Forests puts together their plans to deal with the mountain pine beetle in various locations, what we're particularly concerned about is the impact those actions may have on species, water quality and water quantity.

S. Simpson: One more question about that, and then I'm going to move on. We'll be back at that at another time when we get back after the break. I believe we heard the Minister of Forests and Range in the House in question period on a couple of occasions speak about federal funding related to the beetle and the first $100 million and the second $100 million.

Just a question: is the Ministry of Environment getting some allocation of that funding in order to do the work that the minister spoke about?

Hon. B. Penner: The member may have already said this, but the federal contribution is $100 million, as I understand it, over three years. The portion of that coming to the Ministry of Environment is $7 million over a three-year period.

I'd like to ask about the relationship with Energy and Mines, what the relationship is and what the key areas are with Energy and Mines.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of the relationship between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines, I'll just name a few, and again, there would be more. The Oil and Gas Commission is a significant entity that we interact with.

Between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment, we've sponsored what are called joint solutions workshops to assist those industries and individuals involved in exploration to understand what the rules and regulations are and what conduct is expected of them in terms of developing oil and gas in the province.

The Environmental Management Act. There are regulations pursuant to that legislation that pertain to a variety of activities, whether it is the hazardous waste regulation or the contaminated sites regulation, and I'm sure there are others. They impose standards and requirements in terms of operations out on the land base. There are, for example, specific requirements around the closure of mines — what needs to be done, ways to mitigate or control discharges of water from a variety of industrial activities on the land base — whether it's for mines or the establishment of roads to get to mines or to oil and gas sites and then from oil and gas sites themselves.

Of course, we should not forget the environmental assessment office, which is very busy currently. I think there are something like 50 or so active projects under consideration and review by the environmental assessment office, and a substantial number of those 50 or so projects involve mines. In that regard, the environmental assessment office is interacting with staff from the Ministry of Energy and Mines for them to get technical detail to assist in the assessment process.

S. Simpson: I'm sure this question would relate to others, but in the interests of time, I'm just going to ask it in relation to Energy and Mines at this point. I've been looking and have not completed looking through all the service plans of all of the ministries that I have an interest in here, but I've looked through a number of them. In many of these ministries, I find that the mention of climate change is infrequent in those service plans. We know that climate change is an important issue, and I'm sure it's an issue where the Ministry of Environment leads on that issue. It is an issue that I'm sure takes a fair amount of attention of officials within the ministry.

We know that when you look at climate change, at greenhouse gas emissions, that probably the oil and gas industry — and oil and gas exploration and the work of that industry — is as likely to create as much greenhouse gas emission as anything, maybe other than the private automobile. Where in this process does your ministry interact with the Ministry of Energy and Mines over those kinds of questions around climate change assessment to make determinations about the long-term impacts of that and how to begin to deal with it?

Hon. B. Penner: There are a number of committees at the staff level between ministries where issues pertaining to climate change get discussed. As well, issues pertaining to climate change do get discussed at the cabinet table, at that level. The energy plan, as you know, was a document put together and, ultimately, was approved by cabinet a number of years ago. That has set the direction, to a fair degree, of what we are

In addition, the Premier has asked me to attend a conference in a few weeks now. Time is going by quickly; it will be just a few weeks. This is what's known as COP 11. It's a follow-up, I think, to the Kyoto protocol, and it is a major international conference that Canada is hosting in Montreal. I think it is late November, early December; I don't have the specific dates. I will be taking a number of my senior staff with me so that we can learn from other jurisdictions across Canada, the federal level and around the world in terms of the strategies that they're employing, what kinds of results they're encountering as we continue to look for ideas about what we can do within our province to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

S. Simpson: The climate change question will be a more significant one for us to deal with. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to at least get a sense of the relationship, particularly between the ministries.

With this question around climate change, the question I have for the minister is: has the minister's staff done any analysis of the effects of climate change across ministries or in certain aspects of ministries for the minister? Has the staff provided any briefing information to the minister on the climate change question, particularly as it relates to…? From comments, we know that the government, in terms of the energy plan and the economic development strategy for British Columbia, has looked very much at oil and gas as a key driver of the future of our economy and of our economic opportunity.

We've heard the Minister of Energy and Mines speak frequently about that, as we've heard the Premier speak about that. I'm wondering whether, to this point, since the minister was appointed in May or the beginning of June, the staff have provided him with analysis or briefing documents related to climate change and the relationship of government policy around those questions.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of a number of specific areas, yes, I have been briefed on the impact of climate change, particularly to do with pine beetle and the effect of climate change and how that may be playing a role in expediting the epidemic of pine beetle and the effects that's had across the province. We've already canvassed that to some extent, but it's certainly front and centre because of our responsibility for parks and the protected areas. If you've seen the PowerPoint presentation that shows over a period of time — it's a time sequence — how that infestation is spreading, it's pretty alarming. That's got a lot of our attention. There's a lot of work being done there.

In terms of water quantity and quality, I've talked to you already about that, through you, Madam Chair. That is ongoing, but we're certainly cognizant of the fact that changes in climate can change our water flows. We've become very used to being comfortable in the assurance that we'll always have sufficient water in British Columbia. I'm not sure that's necessarily a wise posture to take going into the future. I don't think we should be complacent there. So yes, I am cognizant of the impact that climate change can have on our water supplies. There's work ongoing in the ministry on that. One of the officials is seated in the gallery, and I'm sure we'll hear more, through me, from him in the next little while.

I spoke last week at a conference in Victoria to about 250 people, many of them academics from across the Pacific Northwest talking and working specifically on climate change and how that's affecting ocean-going fish. There's a lot of research being done now, and we're playing a supporting role in that. I have asked the people at the conference to bring information back to us as government, because we don't have all the answers, but we are certainly looking for information.

To that end, last week I announced about $240,000, give or take, in grants to help assistive research to do with climate change and climate change mitigation strategies. So we are very cognizant of the fact that we need to position British Columbia in a way that we can adapt if that becomes necessary. Certainly, in terms of the mountain pine beetle — and I think we're starting to see examples of it in terms of water supply and quantity — that's something we have to do.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I'm happy that work is going on. I would agree with the minister. I think climate change is an issue. We can look at what happened with the returns on the salmon runs, and there clearly is evidence that the warming of oceans had an impact on that. Climate change is a question there, obviously — the beetle and how much of the beetle could have been managed in a more natural way, should we have received the cold winters that we might have seen in the past.

Of course, I know that in communities like Invermere people are concerned about a reduced snowpack and what that means in terms of their drinking water supply. I'm pleased that those are issues that the ministry and the minister are working on.

Specifically, around this…. The question was a little more specific. Has the minister, other than in terms of verbal briefings, actually received briefing notes and written analysis on questions of climate change related to these issues? Were those written notes? And has he received any of those kinds of written analysis or briefings related to the economic strategy of British Columbia and the implications of the economic strategy in British Columbia around economic development opportunities?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer is yes. The topic of climate change, and that phrase, appears on a fairly

S. Simpson: I'd ask the minister whether he'd be prepared to make that information available.

Hon. B. Penner: To the best of our photocopier's ability, we'll get to work on that. It comes to us in bits and pieces in different forms, but certainly that phrase is a common one.

S. Simpson: I took that as a yes, the minister will. I thank the minister for that and look forward to getting my wagon full of documents, or whatever it will be.

Hon. B. Penner: It occurred to me, as a minister who's also interested in recycling and reducing paper use wherever possible, that another possibility is to arrange a briefing for you and your staff and have my staff walk you through a number of the documents and paperwork. It might save some of the duplication.

S. Simpson: I'd be pleased to do that. I'm sure my staff would be happy to participate in that, if we could have the assurance as we walk through all of these documents that those ones that the staff or I felt we'd like to be able to look at more closely, we could get copies of — if that was agreeable with the minister. We're good? Thank you.

I've got one other ministry at this time that I want to talk about, because I'm cognizant of the time, and that's the Ministry of Transportation and the relationship of the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Transportation. Could the minister tell us what role…? I'm going to pick an issue that comes up in my neighbourhood a little bit once in a while. I'll use the prerogative of doing that. That's the twinning of highways and the Port Mann Bridge. I'm not so concerned about that particular incident, though it is the one that's most topical at the moment.

I want to know: when the Ministry of Transportation is working on those kinds of large transportation issues, what is the role of the ministry in terms of looking at the sustainability of those plans, whether it be climate change questions, congestion questions — those things that might rightly fall within the purview of the ministry?

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of major transportation projects, there's a considerable amount of dialogue and consultation that takes place between Ministry of Transportation planners and staff within the Ministry of Environment, particularly biologists. A good example is the Sea to Sky work that's taking place. Mitigation measures were discussed and acted on along the way to protect species, sensitive habitat and protected areas along the corridor.

There is no project application that I'm aware of — in terms of the Port Mann discussion — that has gone to the EAO office, but I suspect that if a project of that nature were to go forward, it would be subject to an environmental assessment by the environmental assessment office — as, I believe, the Sea to Sky Highway project was.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up on that. I had the opportunity to sit and listen to a little bit of the estimates discussion of the Minister of Transportation when he was in discussion with our critics in relation to the gateway project, some of which is going forward and some of which, like the Port Mann and the twinning of the highway, are still works in progress in terms of proposals.

Now, if I'm correct, though, I do believe that the Minister of Transportation is releasing reports and analysis sometime by the end of the year. The Minister of Transportation said that these would be somewhat comprehensive and would deal with a number of the questions and some of the public debate around whether this is the most sustainable approach to transportation.

I do believe, and I stand to be corrected here, that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment include some aspects of sustainable transportation — i.e., transit and that — under the sustainable communities aspect.

I would wonder, then — in the planning, proposals and analysis that the ministry will release by the end of the year, based on recent reports from the Minister of Transportation — would the Ministry of Environment have had any role in any of that analysis around the sustainability of the plans at this point in time?

S. Simpson: The plans for the gateway project, including the south Fraser perimeter road — there's a whole range, a whole package, within the envelope of the gateway program that the ministry is advancing. What involvement would the ministry have had in putting out or reviewing that package of plans, making comment on it and contributing to it — from an environmental perspective?

Hon. B. Penner: Madam Chair, I think that's a question I'll have to get some more detail on in order to provide it to the member, perhaps when we resume these estimates debates in a week and a half or so.

S. Simpson: I look forward to that, and I appreciate that some of this stuff is coming a little out of there. I'll move on, then.

I have a couple more questions I want to ask the minister, and then I'm going to turn the floor over to the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who has some questions that I referenced earlier in relation to regional matters, the caribou and a few other things.

The one other ministry that I wanted to ask about relationships with the Ministry of Environment is Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. We know that,

obviously, there's a lot of sensitivity there. I'd be interested to know: how does the Ministry of Environment interact with that ministry in terms of the work that it does? What are the key areas?

Hon. B. Penner: We've all heard about the new relationship, and that's something that this government is very committed to in terms of how that's translated on the ground. We've reached a number of collaborative management agreements with B.C. Parks involving first nations bands in different parts of the province. Regional wildlife committees operate, again, in a variety of locations in the province that help to determine allocations of wildlife. Obviously, that's an issue of great interest to first nations.

Then, through treaty negotiations, it's specific tables. I'm not an expert on the treaty negotiation process, but in my limited involvement so far as minister, I know that quite a number of those proposed agreements-in-principle contain wildlife chapters or fisheries allocation chapters. As the treaty negotiators for the province are involved in those detailed discussions with first nations, they often draw upon the expertise and advice of staff within the Ministry of Environment — in terms of setting levels or agreeing to quantities of fish or wildlife or different species that our biologists believe are sustainable.

We also consult through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on the Integrated Pest Management Act guidelines to make sure that we're meeting our consultation obligations where that's appropriate or necessary, as well as on implementation of municipal solid and liquid waste management plans. There are some plans that may or may not be of interest to first nations, depending on the location. From time to time we draw upon the advice and expertise of lawyers within the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to seek guidance to make sure that as a government and as a ministry we're living up to our legal obligations.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up with another question in relation to the relationship to first nations, between the ministry and first nations…. We've seen a lot of discussion around land use issues that I'm sure in some way will involve the ministry. I can think about things like the Ashcroft situation around landfills. There are other sites around contaminated sites and around land that is in question — things like that — that we hear about.

On those kinds of issues, what's the practical way that this consultation or discussion goes on? Does the ministry send senior officials in and sit down with the senior representatives of the bands and talk about how this is done? Who actually makes decisions here around this? Is it joint decision-making? I guess I'm just trying to understand it. I don't know. I'm trying to figure out how that relationship works in terms of actually sitting down, having a negotiation and coming to a decision. Is there a process there that's in place to do that?

Hon. B. Penner: Essentially, it depends on the particular issue. There have been times when I've met with first nations leaders myself on a personal level. One example is this past summer when I was out in the East Kootenays and met with representatives of the Ktunaxa First Nation. I believe I pronounced that almost correctly.

At other times, depending on how technical the issues are, regional managers from the Ministry of Environment in different parts of the province work to establish a working relationship with first nations. It's something that is important, especially when you get out of the lower mainland and there's more land base involved — that there's an ongoing dialogue between regional managers and their staff and various first nations that are out there on the land base.

When we get to issues that are getting more technical or may pertain to possible treaty-related issues or even just to legal issues that come up, certainly it's been my practice to consult with my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Tom Christensen, and make sure that our staff are doing the same, to make sure we're living up to the government's obligations both legally and in terms of our spirit of the new relationship.

S. Simpson: I want to thank the minister and the minister's staff. At this point I think that in order to give my friend the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows some time today, I'm going to step back. I'll look forward to sitting down with the minister when we return after our week of recess. At that time we will get into…. I'll tell you right now that we'll be looking at the accountability statement for the minister, some of the performance measures, and then we'll be talking about the core business areas as laid out in the performance plan. Again, thank you to the minister for being so forthright with his answers and, obviously, to his staff for the assistance. I'll sit down and let the member here take over.

M. Sather: It does indeed give me great pleasure to participate in discussing the estimates for the Ministry of Environment with the minister. It's a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I've been a lifelong conservationist, so I quite look forward to the discussion.

Just as a bit of background, after I received my degree in zoology, I spent ten years in wildlife management. Some of it was with the old fish and wildlife branch, some with B.C. Parks. I know the minister and I have a similarity in history there, both having worked for B.C. Parks.

Quite a bit of the time I spent in areas from Tweedsmuir Park all the way north into the Cassiar. Studying caribou was part of the duties I had. There's

nothing more stirring, I don't think, than being out in the alplands on a September afternoon with the arctic birch beautifully red and a huge bull caribou, with that magnificent white mane they have and the antlers that are the envy of the deer family. It is indeed a magnificent sight to stir the heart, I think, of the most jaded person.

I would have to say that in caribou country…. There is no wilderness without caribou. They are a very, very significant species in our psyche, in our history. We have the caribou on the back of our 25-cent piece. It is a very significant animal, and that's why I wanted to talk about them today.

Specifically with regard to the mountain caribou — which, as we know, ranges from the southeast quadrant of the province, from east of Prince George, on down to the border with the United States…. I realize that the minister has those cross-jurisdictional issues with regard to caribou, including the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Mountain caribou management, I understand, was the responsibility of the old Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Has that responsibility been transferred to the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, it has. The Ministry of Environment is the lead ministry with respect to endangered species, and we're playing the lead role in terms of the mountain caribou, subject to the species-at-risk coordination office working on the land base and putting together plans there.

I had a chance to see mountain caribou for the first time in my life, actually, out in the wild this past summer, in the Rocky Mountains east of Prince George. It was quite a magnificent creature to see up around the 9,000-foot-elevation mark. It first looked like a…. The other people with me thought it was a rock in the middle of a snow patch. I said: "Most rocks don't have antlers." As we got closer, that rock got up and started gradually, slowly walking away. It was quite something to see a creature lying in the snow and being quite comfortable lying and having a nap right in the middle of a snow patch — indeed, a very impressive creature.

As you know, there are a number of things being done in terms of putting together a strategy to help recover the species. There's about a million dollars that's been allocated for the work that's ongoing.

I think a draft report for discussion purposes amongst various stakeholders was released either late last week or early this week. I've lost track of the time. I believe that it's up on a website somewhere for people to look at. That report, as I understand it, is a draft. I don't even think it was intended for consideration of government at this stage but rather for the various stakeholder groups that are being consulted, for them to look at the range of options that have been identified on a preliminary basis for more discussion and input before a final report with recommendations or advice gets submitted to government.

M. Sather: This population of caribou — metapopulation, as they call it — is of some 1,700 animals and 13 local populations or herds, six of which now number less than 50 individuals and one of which has already been extirpated — the phrase for a local extinction. All but one local population, that being in the Hart Range, are in decline.

The goal of the Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee was to restore the mountain caribou population to between 2,500 and 3,000 animals. One of the main goals that government staff have outlined is to halt the decline of mountain caribou within one generation, or about seven years, and such populations should have greater than 100 individuals.

One thing I would like to clarify with the minister is the comments he made last week, wherein he said his government had passed legislation to protect species at risk. Was the minister referring to Bill 51, the Wildlife Amendment Act, last year?

I should just clarify that the species-at-risk coordination office is responsible for developing the recovery plans with input from staff from the Ministry of Environment, as discussed earlier in these estimates. Then the Ministry of Environment would have responsibility for implementing the plan related to that particular species.

M. Sather: Just to clarify with regard to endangered species legislation and Bill 51, I have a list of things that effective endangered species legislation should include and how Bill 51 stacks up to that.

It should be a science-based listing of endangered species, and the bill does not have that. It does not have citizen-initiated species listing. It does not have emergency species listing. It does not require recovery planning or recovery action. It does not set time limits for recovery planning and action. It does define residents and protects residents, but it does not define habitat critical to survival or protect critical habitat.

It does not enable emergency or interim species protection or automatically protect SARA — Species at Risk Act — which we don't have in British Columbia, and I believe that's the point I'm getting at. It does not enable ecosystem or multispecies protection or encompass all Crown land. It does prohibit harming species. It does not have strong fines and penalties or citizen-initiated prosecution or civil action. That legislation hits only about three of 17 targets on that scale, so it points to the need for us to have stronger species-at-risk legislation.

With regard to recreation activities, the Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee staff have cited concerns regarding recreational activity which may affect short-term behaviour of caribou and longer-term habitat use by caribou. The Forest Practices Board report from September of last year — B.C.'s Mountain Caribou: Last Chance for Conservation? — notes: "Backcountry motorized and non-motorized human recrea-

tion, especially in winter, displaces caribou into marginal habitats, threatens their physical condition and reproductive success and increases their risk of death."

One of the recommendations of the Forest Practices Board was to establish operational studies to investigate the potential impact of heli-ski recreation on winter survival of mountain caribou. Has that been done?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that there's work being done. There's a draft plan that's been established with the heli-ski industry and the ministry on a mitigation strategy to make sure that impacts on things like mountain caribou are reduced and minimized wherever possible. I'm not sure where the member got the checklist that he was just reading off. It was a fairly extensive checklist. I'm not sure what the origins were of that. Certainly, that checklist was fairly lengthy.

The member mentioned a few things that our legislation does have that were included in Bill 51, the amendments to the Wildlife Act. It's worth noting, however, that while the member says this legislation we've passed has not gone far enough, it does stand in pretty stark contrast to the view of the previous NDP government and another Environment Minister, Moe Sihota, who said explicitly: "I have indicated on several occasions publicly that this province and this government does not intend to introduce endangered species legislation." We, in fact, have disagreed with that perspective and therefore made those amendments to the Wildlife Act.

M. Sather: Another one of the recommendations of Forest Practices Board was to establish an intensive population inventory and tracking system. Has that been done for the mountain caribou?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll have to get the member the specific answer on that. I do know that the technical committee has been given a million dollars or so over the last period of time to work on a number of strategies. Exactly where all that money has gone, in terms of the product, we'll have to get the details to the member.

M. Sather: Certainly, the situation with the mountain caribou is grave. According to the species-at-risk coordination office report, the probability of extirpation under current management practices is moderately to very high in five of the 12 planning units that they are working with.

Forest harvesting, of course, has been pointed to as an issue of concern with regard to the mountain caribou. The Forest Practices Board report notes that the mountain caribou recovery strategy recognizes forestry as the greatest concern to caribou habitat management over the past two decades. The report outlines the negative effects of logging and roadbuilding in caribou habitat. Young forests increase moose and predators. This increases predator hunting efficiency. Lichen supply is reduced. It improves access for humans, and it fragments large tracts of otherwise suitable caribou habitat.

The impact of forest harvesting and caribou viability is rated as moderately high to very high in seven of the planning units. The report notes that the land use plans indicate that caribou need about 60 percent of their total late winter and summer seasonal habitat to be forested and 35 percent to be old growth but that the mountain caribou habitat requirements may be even greater than that.

Is the government meeting its target for preservation of old-growth forest in mountain caribou habitats?

Hon. B. Penner: The scientific team is evaluating all of the data they've got to assess what criteria are being met or need to be met going into the future. I can't claim to have read their draft report, which they are circulating amongst the various — I think it's 13 or so — different stakeholder groups that I've heard about. But it is available on a website. If the member is interested, I can try to get a copy. I don't know, but I suspect that the draft discussion report may include some discussion around those issues that you just asked about. I don't know that. It's possible that it's in that document.

I don't know how long it is, but I suspect it's got a lot of information. The idea is to kick-start a discussion around science. Their role is to try to gather up whatever data and information was available, put it in one place and then share that around the various stakeholders so that there's a common set of information that people can then use to have a rational dialogue about.

M. Sather: It's my understanding that staff could complete the report in a matter of a couple of months. One of the other questions that comes up is: will there be adequate funding to implement the plan?

Hon. B. Penner: At this stage the government hasn't received a finalized recommendation or a report from the scientific committee, so I don't know yet what the preferred option will be from a scientific committee. Nor do I know what government decision will arise as a result of those recommendations. So it's somewhat premature to try and get a handle on what the estimated costs will be until we get to see what the recommendations are.

M. Sather: The minister has referred to the options report that came out recently, which has five choices to it, two of which allow for five local populations to go extinct or to be extirpated. Now the Forest Practices report had recommended focusing on preserving all mountain caribou herds. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is saying that all options are open. Can the minister commit that the recovery plan-

Hon. B. Penner: The scientific team that's put out the options draft report for input from stakeholders and to engage in more dialogue and conversation will finalize their report at some stage — I don't know the exact time lines — and will forward that on to the species-at-risk coordination office. As that office is housed within the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, I would expect, then, that they would forward the work up to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. That minister would bring the issue forward to a cabinet-level discussion.

M. Sather: Extinction is a very ugly word. Extirpation, or local extinction, is also an ugly word. There's an old saying that's attributed to first nations: "No one knows where the wind and the caribou go." Let us hope that none of our caribou are going to go the way that the bison went on the Plains, that we will always have caribou in all the places we now have them and that they will be fully restored. I understand that it's a great task, but it's one that we must embark upon. It's the right thing to do. It's what our wildlife needs.

Just moving on to a local issue, as my time is very limited. I wanted to ask the minister. In Pitt Meadows we had an issue this summer of…. We have dikes. This is a diked area, and along those dikes are waterways that have been dug out to make the dikes. They're very rich wildlife habitat. Both the municipality and a landowner were filling in these dikes. I had written to the minister about that this summer. Has the ministry had conversations with the municipality about this issue? What has been the result of those conversations?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm getting the signal from the Chair that we're approaching that magical hour in the week.

I don't have the detailed information with me, but perhaps when we…. I'm told you won't be here when we get started again, when we come back from our recess next week, but we'll endeavour to get the answer to you at that time.

S. Simpson: Considering the hour and knowing that we're moving along, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave sit to again.

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