Hansard — Wednesday, March 7, 2007 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		5895

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5895
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007 (Bill M202)
	S. Fraser

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5896
	North American Indigenous Games
	D. Routley
	Cancer care in northern B.C.
	J. Rustad
	Formosa Nursery
	C. Evans
	Crime prevention in Surrey
	D. Hayer
	B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
	S. Fraser
	Women in business in Whistler area
	J. McIntyre

Oral Questions		5898
	Call for public inquiry into transportation of farmworkers
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. J. Les
	Employment standards for farmworkers
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. J. Les
	A. Dix
	Bioenergy strategy
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Wood bioenergy proposal call
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Horgan
	Vancouver Convention Centre expansion costs
	B. Ralston
	Hon. M. de Jong
	2010 Olympics housing commitments
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	M. Farnworth
	Funding for child care resource and referral centres
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	C. Wyse
	M. Karagianis

Petitions		5903
	S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House		5903
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007 (Bill 5)
	B. Simpson
	Hon. M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5905
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007 (Bill 5)

Committee of Supply		5905
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
	Hon. P. Bell
	C. Evans
	M. Sather
	G. Gentner
	D. Chudnovsky
	J. Horgan
	N. Simons
	D. Routley
	B. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		5932
	Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services (continued)
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich
	A. Dix
	R. Chouhan
	H. Lali

Hon. P. Bell: It's my honour today to introduce a number of dedicated integrated land management bureau employees who are joining us here in the House. These individuals are members of the Employee Advisory Forum who work day in and day out in the integrated land management bureau to make sure that we recruit, retain and develop new people in the ministry. They've done a fantastic job, I must say.

In fact, the integrated land management bureau, I think, has the second-lowest turnover rate in all of the various government departments. So they've just done a fantastic job developing unique and flexible work arrangements, including the ability to work from home, and recruitment and retention strategies.

Joining us today are Valerie MacMillan, Richard Mark, Elisabeth Eldridge, Dan Sirk, Keeva Keller, Jennifer Pollard, Julie Pinette, Roger Vaughan, Fred Oliemans, Julie Chase, Teresa Dhillion, Gayle Pennie and their fearless leader, assistant deputy minister par excellence — although I don't see him right now, so he might be hiding — Dave Byng. Will the House join me in welcoming all of these dedicated employees.

S. Hammell: Joining us in the House today is Ian McDonald, Deputy Principal Clerk with the House of Commons in Ottawa.

Mr. McDonald is in Victoria to meet with the Clerks and staff of the B.C. Legislative Assembly to provide an overview of the House of Commons experience with the Prism program, a digital assessment management initiative. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like the House to join me this afternoon in welcoming Mr. Larry Litke. He's come home to British Columbia from Ontario with his wife Joan and his daughters Kelsey and Shauna. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to make a number of introductions today. Nadine Durante is the Oceanside SPCA animal shelter manager. Irene Towell is with us today also. She's the manager for the Port Alberni SPCA animal shelter. Shawn Eccles is the chief animal protection officer for the province. Craig Naherniak is the general manager, humane education, for the BCSPCA. Lorie Chortyk is the general manager for the communications department of the BCSPCA. Iris Ting is the humane education supervisor for the BCSPCA, and Vicky Renneberg is the regional director for the capital region BCSPCA.

Last but not least, Dolores and Emma Fraser, my wife and daughter. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: Today I rise to ask the House to please welcome an elementary school grade 5 and 6 class, but it's not from the district that I represent. It's actually a school called Quilchena Elementary School. As the members may suspect, they're actually represented by our Minister of Economic Development. The reason I'm making this introduction today, however, is because my cousin's ten-year-old daughter Mikaela Kroeker is amongst the group of students from the grades 5 and 6 classes of Quilchena Elementary School in Vancouver. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

C. Trevena: I'd like to introduce to the House a very special young woman who's in the balcony from my constituency, Justice Janveaux-Hoult. Justice is a grade 6 student at École des Deux Mondes in Campbell River, where she's been collecting signatures on a petition supporting the ban on ethylene glycol in antifreeze. Justice volunteers with the SPCA and raised $2,125 for the annual Paws for a Cause fundraiser — 15 percent of the total raised. Justice is here with her parents Nicole Janveaux and Adam Hoult. The family's dogs are also in the precinct, although 12 assorted cats, guinea pigs and other pets remained at home in Campbell River. I hope the House will make Justice and her parents very welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. This bill amends the following statutes: Architects Act, Architects (Landscape) Act, Child Care Subsidy Act, Coal Act, Employment and Assistance Act, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, Engineers and Geoscientists Act, Mineral Tenure Act, Music Teachers (Registered) Act, New Relationship Trust Act, Parole Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, Police Act.

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

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

S. Fraser: I move that a bill entitled Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

S. Fraser: It tastes like candy, and it is deadly poison. In 1989 a survey done by the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association showed that 1,589 dogs and cats died in British Columbia as a result of ethylene glycol antifreeze poisoning. The actual numbers are much higher. Many companion animals simply disappear to die alone in agony. Others never see a vet for one reason or another and therefore are never counted in this grim statistic. That grim statistic does not include feral cats or wildlife.

The U.S. Humane Society estimates that the actual death of companion animals and wildlife due to ethylene glycol poisoning runs in the tens of thousands every year. The active ingredient in antifreeze is ethylene glycol, a fatal toxin. Animals are attracted to its sweet taste, may drink it directly or become poisoned as they wash their soiled paws and fur. Most will die.

According to poison control centres, accidental poisonings, which include antifreeze poisonings, are the third-largest cause of hospitalization among Canadian children under the age of 15. Our neighbours to the south report that ethylene glycol poisons 1,500 children per year. Leakage, improper storage and incorrect disposal also account for the death of unsuspecting wildlife, fish and livestock.

All of this is preventable, hon. Speaker. Propylene glycol–based antifreeze is a safe alternative. It has a low toxicity, has an acrid, bitter flavour and is biodegradable. This bill is non-partisan, and this bill is apolitical. This bill is the real-life version of this government's stated fourth great goal to lead the world in sustainable environmental management. Let's make that so.

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

Bill M202, Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007, 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.

D. Routley: I rise today to inform the members of this House of and to invite all British Columbians to the North American Indigenous Games of 2008, which take place in Cowichan August 1 to 10, 2008.

It's been noted that a 3-percent increase in physical activity will save the Canadian public health system $41 million annually. It's also been noted in my own riding that there will be a $30 million local economic impact from the North American Indigenous Games. There will be 5,000 junior and 1,000 senior athletes taking part in 16 sports. There will be thousands of volunteers congregating to support this effort. It is a great bridge-building effort between communities.

So many of our modern sports are connected and have a deep historical root in these aboriginal sports. What I have learned is that they also represent the social, spiritual and environmental curriculum of a culture. The principles of honesty, courage and respect are taught, as well as gratitude for one's elders and for nature. Lessons that take children to adulthood are taught in the aboriginal communities through these games.

The provincial government, the federal government and many private enterprises are partnering to support these games. I invite all British Columbians to visit Cowichan on August 1 to 10 and take part as viewers, observers and maybe even participants in the North American Indigenous Games of 2008. Welcome to Cowichan.

J. Rustad: Cancer is a frightening and exhausting process for anyone, but it can be doubly difficult if you live in a northern community and your treatment requires you to travel hundreds of kilometres. To improve this situation, my colleagues and I are advocating on behalf of people from the north for the hope that comes from a full-service cancer program in northern B.C. To date, cooperation between this government, the Northern Health Authority, northern doctors, the University of Northern B.C. and the B.C. Cancer Agency is producing results.

But cancer care is more than a building. It's about professionals such as physicians and medical oncology staff providing the care needed. Fulfilling the need of such professionals in the north is what UNBC is all about. Clearly, this relatively new university is up to the task and has already been able to attract some of the best and brightest in the world.

An example of this is the research undertaken by Dr. Chow Lee and his team of student researchers that discovered a major cancer breakthrough which could eventually change how cancer is treated, improving the lives of millions.

Cancer touches us all, including my family. It can be a terrifying experience. But through modern research, cancer outcomes have improved dramatically, especially in B.C.

Cancer can and will be beaten. I believe that northern B.C. will play a role in that fight not only through research but also through providing enhanced cancer care services in the north. I look forward to celebrating with the people of the north, especially the health care professionals and

the professionals at UNBC who are helping to pave the way for enhanced cancer care in the north.

C. Evans: Thirty years ago the Wu family from Formosa immigrated to Canada and bought a farm in Maple Ridge. They wanted to grow blueberries, but they had no money for seedlings, so Mrs. Wu took thousands of cuttings by hand from other farmers, nurtured them to maturity and planted them out. The Wus' son Ting and Ting's wife Risa Lin have since taken over the operating blueberry farm, converted it to organic and added a retail nursery.

Then a few years ago, governments decided to put a road right through the middle of the Wus' blueberry field rather than use the road location already owned by the Crown on the edge of the farm. A huge network of individuals and organizations grew together in support of the Wu family and farming and the ALR. We lost, and expropriation ensued. The roadbuilding equipment is today, as we speak, on the border of the farm and will cut through the blueberry field as soon as weather permits.

I thought that this story was heading for a tragic ending and that Formosa Nursery would cease to exist. Now, however, the tragedy is turning into a metaphor of hope and renewal. Ting and Risa have decided not to leave the farm and will rebuild their business after the paving is finished.

Today, just as Mrs. Wu did 30 years ago, friends of Formosa Nursery are out taking cuttings from the very plants that the roadbuilders will destroy. On Sunday, May 18, which is Mother's Day, volunteers will join the Wus in selling those Formosa blueberry cuttings and plants to give to our loved ones on Mother's Day.

Mother's Day is the perfect day for this because it was Mrs. Wu, the mom, who raised the plants for her family. All the money we raise will go to Ting and Risa to help rebuild their farm and business on the land that is left to them. We are all being given a gift in this process. We will have an opportunity to take home a little bit of Ting and Risa's farm and their incredible spirit to plant in our gardens and on our balconies.

Join us, everybody, in Maple Ridge on 203rd Street. Just go to the Formosa Nursery thing on line, and it will give you a map. On May 13, from ten to three, bring everybody you know, buy a bit of hope and resist the stupid paving of farmland. Happy Mother's Day.

D. Hayer: There are very few Canadians who have not been victimized by crime, from petty theft to violent assault. In my large and growing city of Surrey, crime and the victims it create are a huge concern, so I want to take this opportunity to support the ambitious plan of Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts.

This is a plan that appears to have a great chance to succeed and is based on four principles: prevent and deter crime, apprehend and prosecute offenders, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders, and recognize the reality and perception crime has on its victims. These four principles will address the root cause of crime and, hopefully, will bring support to victims.

We must not allow our province, which is the best place to live in, to be spoiled by criminals bent on destroying our Canadian way of life. Surrey and our society must take a stand in support of Surrey Mayor Watts's crime initiatives. I know that our government and the federal government support her actions, as do I. We need to get tough on crime, and we also need to ensure that there are appropriate recourses for victims.

As someone who was a victim of the most tragic kind — my father was murdered — I have complete empathy with victims and understand the heartbreak they feel when someone tears apart the fabric of their lives. I want to offer my support to Mayor Watts and to our provincial and federal governments for the tough stance against crime. I offer whatever I can to assist in bringing criminals to justice, in reducing crime and in bringing help to the victims. These are bold words, Mr. Speaker, and everybody needs to get involved and help.

S. Fraser: The BCSPCA is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing the quality of life for domestic, farm and wild animals in British Columbia. Through its 36 branches located around B.C. and its provincial office in Vancouver, the BCSPCA provides a wide range of services for more than 53,000 homeless, abused and abandoned animals across the province.

The BCSPCA was created under the auspices of the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It's the only animal welfare organization in B.C. which has the authority to enforce laws relating to animal cruelty and to prepare cases for Crown counsel for the prosecution of individuals who inflict suffering on animals.

I'm going to read their charter. The BCSPCA charter is the foundation that guides the work they do.

J. McIntyre: International Women's Week is a time to recognize the progress we've made in advancing

women's rights and to assess the challenges that remain. B.C.'s economy is in overdrive, and there are more women in the workforce than ever before. As of January 2007, well over a million women are working in B.C.

As a previous small business owner, I'm proud to say that B.C. ranks among the top three Canadian provinces with 35 percent of all our small businesses owned by women. Last year I had the pleasure of announcing funding for the creation of new child care spaces throughout the Sea to Sky corridor — $500,000 for the Pemberton Child Care Society, $350,000 for the Lil'wat Nation in Mount Currie and $480,000 for the Howe Sound child care centre in Squamish. These spaces will help support families and women in my riding who want to work and raise a family.

The Whistler Chamber of Commerce is also supporting businesswomen through the Women of Whistler, or WOW program, led by community leaders including Sue Adams, who has just actually been nominated for a prominent businesswoman's award. Their mission is to provide an opportunity for Whistler businesswomen to network, gain knowledge and share ideas in a friendly relaxed environment.

I've been to several of these events, where as many as 80 to 100 businesswomen are in attendance. These women are actively engaged in small business in the community, and they exemplify the entrepreneurial spirit. Whistler may be a comparatively small community, but within it exist a vibrant business community and, increasingly, a large network of savvy businesswomen.

On April 10, I'll be attending the Women of Whistler's third annual spring conference. One of the topics this year will be employee retention, something that's become extremely important for businesses in Whistler.

I'd like the House to join me in commending the Whistler chamber for providing a terrific forum for Whistler businesswomen. It could well be a model for other B.C. communities.

C. Puchmayr: This morning there was a tragic accident on the Trans-Canada Highway around Sumas. A van carrying women farmworkers flipped onto a median, killing three and throwing people from the vehicle. This is a tragic accident, and it isn't the first time that this has happened recently in British Columbia.

Will the Minister of Labour commit today to increase inspections and to strengthen protection so that farmworkers can be safe when they are travelling to and from work?

Hon. J. Les: Indeed, this was a very tragic accident that occurred on the freeway this morning near Abbotsford. I know that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I extend to the families of the victims — whether they are fatalities or victims in the hospital — our deepest and sincerest sympathies, thoughts and prayers. One can only imagine the grief that these people are going through with an occasion like this.

What is important is to find out what happened and why. I can advise that all of the authorities are currently investigating this very tragic accident. We will find out what happened and why, and then deal with those findings appropriately.

C. Puchmayr: On July 13, 2003, there was a similar accident. Nineteen farmworkers were injured. One was killed and two seriously injured. This government rejected calls for an inquiry in 2003.

Will the minister today commit to a full public inquiry into the incident that happened today?

Hon. J. Les: I have already indicated that obviously this terrible accident is under investigation not only by the police — the RCMP in this case — but also by the Coroners Service, the Ministry of Transportation's commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch, as well as officials from WorkSafe B.C.

I would suggest that we allow that investigation to proceed and to find out what happened. I would suggest, as well, that speculation as to what happened is not productive at this point in time.

C. Puchmayr: Well, in 2003 the accident was investigated by the WCB. The accident was inspected by the RCMP, and there was a coroner's inquest, not a public inquiry. Clearly, that wasn't enough. Regulations didn't change. Enforcement didn't increase. Contractors are still putting workers' lives at risk.

Again, will the minister ensure that there is a full public inquiry into the transportation of farmworkers in B.C.?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite may wish to speculate as to what happened today. Clearly, it is inappropriate to do so. An investigation is underway. We should allow that investigation to proceed and come to the appropriate conclusions.

R. Chouhan: In 1986 when I stepped down as the president of the Canadian Farmworkers Union, I thought I had left behind all these tragedies because we were able to achieve some protection for farmworkers under the Employment Standards Act.

Instead, this government, when it came to power in 2001, gutted employment standards for farmworkers. This government did away with an inspection program

in July 2001. It was this government that reduced field visits and basically disbanded the interagency team also known as the agriculture compliance team. This interagency team would conduct comprehensive field visits. During these inspections the team could determine if the motor vehicle transporting workers was complying with the regulations.

Can the Minister of Labour commit today to reinstate the full agriculture compliance team so farmworkers can get the protection they deserve?

Hon. J. Les: I can only say again that a very tragic accident occurred this morning. Our thoughts today are with the families of the victims. It is inappropriate, in my view, to speculate as to what occurred and why. I think we need to have the decency, frankly, to allow the investigation to occur and come to the correct conclusions.

R. Chouhan: This accident is not the first one that has occurred. We have had these accidents before. We have seen deaths on the roads. So it's important that this government take that action now. Without comprehensive field inspections, this government has no way of knowing if contractors are complying with vehicle regulations. This is a serious issue, and the government must address it now.

Again, to the Minister of Labour: will she commit today to a full field investigation by an interagency team to ensure vehicle regulations are strictly enforced?

Hon. J. Les: All of the questions from the members of the opposition this afternoon so far have been based on speculation. That is inappropriate. What is appropriate at this point is to allow the investigation to proceed and come to the proper conclusions.

A. Dix: Well, let's not speculate. I have a question for the Premier, and it goes to the Premier because it's about the culture of a government that chooses to protect some citizens and not others. The Premier oversaw an open cabinet meeting in 2001 where cabinet ministers ordered, instructed those enforcing farm labour protection regulations to cease and desist.

The Premier in May 2003 eliminated protections for farmworkers that they fought a hundred years to get. He never, and his ministers never, talked to farmworkers. The Premier undermined and cut those who are there to enforce the law.

My question to the Premier is this. The actions of this government — not speculation; their actions — have treated farmworkers like second-class citizens. Will he acknowledge that there's a need to review those actions in light of the history of the last five years and reinstate the protections that farmworkers had before he came to office?

Hon. J. Les: Again, a very tragic accident occurred this morning in the Fraser Valley — three people dead, many injuries. We grieve with the families. The matter is under full investigation by all of the appropriate authorities. That is what is appropriate at this point. What is not appropriate is speculation as to what occurred. We will almost certainly learn that in the days ahead.

A. Dix: Well, it's not speculation when a group of workers who have traditionally been extraordinarily vulnerable to violations of their human rights are systematically targeted by a government and have seen, systematically, their rights reduced. That is a moral question. It's a moral responsibility that the Premier has. It's his direction, and it's his failure.

I ask the Premier very clearly, because those farmworkers don't get to see him. They don't get to hire Patrick Kinsella. It's, I think, the definition of a Premier's job to protect the rights of people that can't get the ear of government.

I ask the Premier…. These are fundamental rights that he has taken away from farmworkers — rights that they fought hard for a hundred years to get. Will he today acknowledge the need to reverse those policies? Will he reinstate the protections for farmworkers in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite speaks of morals. I would suggest, with respect, actually, that it is immoral to use a tragedy like this to try to score some political points.

B. Simpson: Bioenergy is a major component of the recent energy plan that was released by government. The energy plan states that that strategy will soon be released. However, according to a November 8 internal presentation to the Ministry of Forests leadership team, the bioenergy strategy was actually completed in mid-October of last year. The team was told that the strategy would be published in December of last year.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Why has this completed strategy not been released to the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the construction of the energy plan, which is the most dynamic energy plan in the history of any province in Canada, bioenergy was determined to be one of the opportunities that….

Hon. R. Coleman: Bioenergy was, frankly, one of the things that was determined to be an opportunity for government, and as we work through this…. We've worked through it with Hydro and the Ministry of

Energy and Mines — my colleague. We've worked towards the release of the bioenergy call. You always get into some technical issues and work after your staff is done. We've worked very cooperatively through this, and quite frankly, you'll see that proposal call in the next few days.

B. Simpson: I guess the most dynamic energy plan in rhetoric, but not in substance. One of the substantive pieces of the plan was supposed to be the bioenergy strategy, which they again state that they are yet to release. That strategy, according to the minister's own staff, was completed…

B. Simpson: …in mid-October. The minister is talking now about a request for proposals. The same presentation indicates that Minister Coleman "has already given….

B. Simpson: Pardon. I was reading it. Pardon my error there. Let me quote again.

It says: "The minister has already given advance notice of a directed call for wood bioenergy proposals." So my question to the minister is: was an advance proposal given? If so, to whom?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, there was no advance proposal given to anybody. My staff did a lot of work at the request of myself and coordinated with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

What I find incredible is that the Environment critic for that opposition over there was on Global TV on Sunday night speaking out against wood products being used to create electricity in British Columbia.

I don't understand why the member, who is the critic from one of the most critically attacked areas of pine beetle in the province, can't see the opportunity of bioenergy being a very big linchpin. As we went forward, we did the work. We worked out the details and made sure we have a bioenergy plan that works, which we do. We have a proposal call coming out that will attract the investment to this particular critical piece of the energy plan and build a future for forestry and communities just like his in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: What we're concerned about on this side of the House is that this is not another opportunity for friends of the Liberals to get in on the ground floor of an opportunity to expend resources at the public trough, instead of opening it up for all British Columbians.

Our question is quite simple. Will you table the proposals that you completed in October so that all British Columbians can get in on the opportunity, not just your friends?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's amazing. So the member is opposed to doing an open proposal call for bioenergy in British Columbia like we're bringing forward in the next few days? That's what you're opposed to? Nobody has seen the proposal call. It will be issued by Hydro. It will go out for open tender and proposals, and the fact of the matter is that's how we do business.

We actually do the work. We get the plan. We figure out where the bioenergy is. We see if it's a real reality. Then we put together a proposal call, and we put it out for the public to actually tender into the proposal call rather than giving out anything to any insiders.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Premier. In last year's budget the line-item budget for the provincial contribution to the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project was $273 million. In this year's budget it's $281 million, an increase of only $8 million.

The Premier knew, or ought to have known, that Ken Dobell was negotiating in January 2006, some 14 months ago, to try and get relief from the open-ended, cost-plus contracts. Will the Premier level with the House and admit that he has completely failed to manage this project and costs are spiralling out of control?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

J. Kwan: "The story we want to tell the world is how Vancouver dealt with its problems in an open, progressive way. That's the story that's in the bid that we promised to tell." That was a quote from Linda Coady, the Olympic organizing committee's vice-president of sustainability. The Vancouver Olympics housing round table is asking for 3,000 housing units, 80 percent of them to be new construction for low-income residents. They need a billion dollars to meet that commitment.

Hon. R. Coleman: You're referring to a report that was referred to in an article in the Vancouver Sun today. That report is actually in draft. It is actually being circulated to the members of the Olympic table. It is not in final format.

There is a process that is to be received — the input from every member around that table back into the report. It will then come to a final copy, which will go to the Vancouver organizing committee for the Olympics — into that process. It will then be sent to government for review, for government to actually comment on that within 90 days.

That, Madam Chair or Madam Speaker…. Sorry. I'll never live that one down. Oh, and I could go further. No. I'm not going to.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's the process in and around this, hon. Member, and that's the process that will be followed.

J. Kwan: It doesn't erase the fact that homelessness is projected to triple by 2010. The IOC officials are in fact coming to Vancouver. They're coming to British Columbia to determine how we're progressing on Olympic commitments. Communities all across B.C., and particularly in Vancouver, are very concerned around the homelessness crisis.

My question is to the Premier. Does it take an international embarrassment before this government will act to ensure that the bid book commitment, outlined in the inner-city inclusive statement, is actually being honoured?

Hon. R. Coleman: When the International Olympic Committee comes here to look at British Columbia, they will see the most dynamic housing strategy in the history of any jurisdiction in Canada. They will see a government that has put money on the table so that people with under $28,000-a-year income can actually get subsistence and assistance of rent where they live, so they don't have to be moved into some other form of housing.

They will see this. They will see a budget that has been tripled since 2001 for housing in British Columbia. They'll see a government that's building partnerships, where 765 units of supportive housing were just announced two weeks ago.

They will also see an opposition in British Columbia that voted against $27 million to convert 380 shelter beds to year-round beds in the province. They will see an opposition that did not support $38 million for another 600 units of supported housing on top of the units that we've already announced under the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Premier. If the government is so sure that their housing plan will meet the needs of the Olympic requirements, will he submit that plan for the Auditor General to ensure that, in fact, it does what they expect it to do?

Hon. R. Coleman: Housing Matters B.C. was made public in October of last year. It's had money attached to it. It has had additional money going into this budget cycle. It has additional tens of millions of dollars attached to it going into the next three budget cycles. Quite frankly, I'm happy to let anybody look at that strategy for British Columbia, because it actually breaks the mould of people who are stuck in old ways of doing things and changes it so we can do better for the citizens of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: In January the Minister of State for Childcare wrote to child care providers saying that funding to child care resource and referral centres, which she encouraged to expand, would be cut at the end of the financial year and then cut again later in the year. The Minister of State for Childcare said at the time that she would engage in a process of further transition and develop alternative ways of providing services.

Now she has said there is going to be just one round of cuts — $5 million out. But we're three weeks away from the end of the financial year, and despite assertions to this House earlier this week that she is in dialogue with child care resource and referral centres, none of them have heard from her. They say it's a wall of silence. I would like the Minister of State for Childcare to please tell this House how many child care resource and referral centres are going to be closed.

Hon. L. Reid: What's important here — and I'm going to again speak very slowly for the members opposite, because they've canvassed this issue at length — is that the federal government removed, effective March 31, $5 million that was used to enhance child care resource and referral in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: What is important here is that child care resource and referral service in British Columbia will continue.

C. Trevena: It's very good to hear that child care resource and referral centres will continue. But I would like to ask the minister of state, who clearly seems not to know what is actually happening in her ministry…. We are three weeks from the end of financial year. We have 45 organizations around the province who are

dealing with staff layoff notices, with three weeks before the end of the financial year, and leases which she encouraged them to sign, which they have to deal with by the end of the financial year.

So once again I would ask the minister: how many child care resource and referral centres will be closed?

Hon. L. Reid: I can only assume that the opposition must be out of questions, because we've canvassed this many times. The discussion is underway. The work is underway. The child care resource and referral centres in British Columbia are more than aware that the service will be reframed within a $9 million budget. That dollar value is in place until March 31 — $14 million, then $9 million on a go-forward basis. That is not new information today.

C. Wyse: It's important for this House to recognize that we're talking about the effects of these closures that are facing many of the communities and the family members that are within those areas. The child care referral and resource centres have not been provided with enough information on how the restored funding will be rolled out. For example, Williams Lake was promised a phone call yesterday or today. As of 1:30 this afternoon, they have not received that promised phone call.

The centres in Kamloops, 100 Mile and Williams Lake say $9 million is not enough to keep all 45 centres in B.C. open. It is estimated that at least ten centres will be forced to close. Further, centres that remain open will have to cut programs and begin charging for services that were once free.

My question: will the minister restore the funding to last year's sum? If not, when will the minister advise the communities of their funding level so that the affected families know their fee?

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the members' opposite interest in this area. Certainly, I do believe they have been supportive in the past, when we talked about producing results for 25,000 families in British Columbia who receive subsidy under this government. Under their government, the income threshold was $21,000. We lifted that to $38,000.

Special needs youngsters in British Columbia who require specialized resources and supports — a $54 million budget line today. Those children attending child care in British Columbia will be supported by this government.

C. Wyse: The point that's not understood here is that nobody in British Columbia understands what the minister means by reframing. That is what we're trying to find out. Not only has the government undervalued the need for child care by its mismanagement…

C. Wyse: …but it has left families with no idea on how child care needs will be met. Since January 5, 2007, it has left the employees of child care resource and referral centres waiting to hear whether they have employment.

Will the minister advise the communities of their funding level so both the affected families and the employees will know their fate?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, to the members opposite: we have been working with child care resource and referral centres in British Columbia to reframe that service. They have given us their guidance, they have given us their insight, and we certainly will continue to make sure that those services are as responsive to vulnerable British Columbia families as possible. That work is underway.

Hon. L. Reid: The discussion that is underway in the province of British Columbia — complex, no question. These are about individual families in British Columbia as we go forward. The members opposite will know that the work has changed over the last year. We indeed have a child care provincial line now, 1-888-338-6622. That, in fact….

Hon. L. Reid: That service today, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., handles 75 percent of the support for subsidy applications and does so with access in 140 languages. So we indeed are looking at how those services are delivered, and we will ensure that parents in British Columbia have access to the best possible service.

M. Karagianis: We're three weeks out. Staff are being laid off from child care referral services all over the province, and the minister continues to refuse to give us details on how many are closing down or what in fact the restructuring repurposing is.

Once again to the minister. In fact, you are laying people off in the CCRRs. Will you admit that in this House here today?

Hon. L. Reid: Had the opposition been paying attention these past number of weeks, they would have known that we have placed our priority very firmly on vulnerable families in British Columbia. That work is underway in British Columbia. Those dollars are in place in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: Child care resource and referral in British Columbia have indicated that they indeed can do the work for $9 million. They said that a year ago. They said that a week ago. I understand that is still the case.

S. Fraser: I submit petitions urging government to pass legislation to ban ethylene glycol antifreeze in British Columbia — about eight or ten pounds of them.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, committee stage debate. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; S. Hammell in the chair.

B. Simpson: The part we wish to canvass is the part around the Minister of Forests and Range estimates. For the record, what was the estimated amount, and what will the incremental amount be?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. As we get started, I want to introduce, from the Treasury Board, David Stewart, and from the protection program — I saw about ten seconds ago — Peter Fuglem, who I am sure is about to reappear momentarily.

I'm advised that the original estimate, as appeared in the blue book last year, was $55.6 million for direct fire.

B. Simpson: What, then, is the estimated increment? Or is that finalized for this fiscal year?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the estimate at this point is somewhere between $111 million and $114 million and that the reason for the lingering uncertainty relates to some ongoing restoration, reclamation work and the processing of some final invoices related to the fire season.

B. Simpson: The minister actually leads into my next question. In the ministry service plan, fire is rolled into protection against fire and pests, and there are a number of activities that occur under that. This bill refers to direct fire. If I could get an explanation of what is actually covered under direct fire, where the cost overruns were incurred.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is that amount that is covered by the statutory spending authority for what is called direct fire suppression costs. Further, I am advised that would be the expenditures associated with directly attacking and dealing with fires during the fire season.

B. Simpson: Yet the minister indicated that the delay in rolling up the costs and giving a definitive amount is because of rehabilitation and restoration work and that those charges have to be brought forward. Hence, I'm not clear, if it is only suppression, why those costs are rolled into it.

Hon. M. de Jong: A fair question. The kind of work that it would entail would be restoring some of the guards — fire guards and water guards. There may be fencing costs associated with either the fire or the work that was done to try and suppress the fire. Those are a sample of the kinds of lingering costs that are still being calculated.

B. Simpson: Rehabilitation and restoration would not be ecosystem-based work, silviculture work — things like in the Okanagan Mountain fire where they went in and did bank stabilization and other ecosystem- or land-based rehabilitation and restoration work. Just so that I'm clear what's included in this cost.

B. Simpson: Is part of the delay associated with firefighting crews from outside of our jurisdiction? Is that part of the billing issue with any delays on this?

There are some lingering costs, I'm told, associated with some personnel and materiel that were on loan from other jurisdictions, like Ontario. I don't want to overemphasize that. Most of that has already been processed. Payment would have been rendered and would be part of the figure that I've offered initially,

but there are some lingering accounts that relate to the sharing of personnel and equipment.

B. Simpson: This is my first time dealing with this particular kind of act, so I look to the minister to help me out if I tread into estimates territory.

When it comes to the firefighting costs for direct fire, the calculation of those costs…. I did canvass this in estimates and thought that we were underfunding direct fire costs, given the fact that the ministry uses a rolling five-year average, that there's one year in there that's significantly below what the area is that's been impacted by fire and that over the last four years the area of fire impact has been incrementing.

Given that this is under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I'm unclear how the accountability goes to the minister and minister's staff when they use a measure to determine financing for a certain area — that the measure appears flawed.

Where is the accountability to the minister and the minister's staff when it's pointed out that it might be underfunded and then the minister ends up just coming in and putting this in and still gets his stipend? Is there an accountability mechanism there that we're missing?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is, as the member points out, a somewhat unique circumstance where the obligation exists to address the fire season and to ensure the resources are there and the statutory authority to spend is actually provided for. The responsibility is provided for statutorily, and the authority to expend the dollars.

For budgeting purposes, the member has correctly pointed out…. I think it's a fair question, because we're talking about an act that goes to the issue of expenditure. For the purpose of budgeting and including a figure in the blue books that we get as part of the budgeting process — all members of the House — it is a ten-year rolling average.

That can operate, based on some personal experiences, in an odd way. In 2004, after we had just come through the worst fire season on record where I think we had expenditures of $375 million, applying that same ten-year rolling average would have actually seen the budget for direct fire suppression go down in '04-05 over '03-04. There are undoubtedly limitations associated with a funding mechanism that is built on averages when circumstances conspire, as they did in 2003 and to a lesser extent last year, to present costs that are far and away above what that average would be.

The logic — and I will say this pre-emptively — behind this act is that that obligation, responsibility and authority to provide the resources necessary to address direct fire suppression costs should not visit upon the minister — or the ministry, in this case — personally as it relates to holdbacks on salaries. We expect the ministry and the minister to act in accordance with their statutory responsibility to fund and take the appropriate action to suppress fires.

B. Simpson: The minister's comment makes sense on the surface. However, in this case, if there's a problem with the metric used to drive the budget and you're using an averaging that doesn't necessarily give you an indication of a trend line…. That's where the disconnect is. You have an average that doesn't necessarily allow you to look at the trend line, and year over year we've seen increasing fires.

The reason I'm asking the question under the guise of accountability and transparency is that base funding drives our inherent capacity in British Columbia. We have crews and equipment on the ground based on what we believe is the project-forward fire threat.

Under climate change, under the drought conditions in our forest…. The coast, for example, this year was in fire threat for a big chunk of the season, which is not normal on the coast. It strikes me that if we're going to be true in terms of accountability for ministers and their staff doing that work, that average has to be looked at.

I guess what I'm getting at is that because the metric doesn't jive with the trend line, what is the minister's responsibility to change the basis upon which the budget projection is done? In particular, if in this case we're having to bring in external crews that add additional costs to the system, where's the accountability to the minister to change the metric that's being used?

Hon. B. Penner: Earlier, just before question period, I made an introduction for a school group that had not yet arrived. I see we are now joined by a number of grade 5 and 6 students from the Quilchena Elementary School debating club. They're very interested in what we do here. They're very excited about their trip.

As noted earlier, my cousin's daughter Mikaela Kroeker is among the group. On behalf of myself and the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena and B.C.'s Minister of Economic Development, we'd like to say hello again. Thank you very much for coming.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there is a discussion that can be had about the methodology used for calculating the amounts. In fact, despite the conventional formula and the average, there have been budget increases provided for. I certainly recall that to be the case in the aftermath of '03, and I think that was the case in the last couple of years as well.

I'm going to suggest, though, that as appropriate as that discussion is, it may actually be better suited to the estimates for the year going forward. The member can then canvass with the minister directly responsible for the method by which that direct fire cost is calculated — or the estimates are calculated.

B. Simpson: I will canvass the explicit details. What I'm trying to understand is how the accountability mechanism works. As the minister indicates, there's a statutory obligation here, which means you have to fund it. You have to go and do it.

However, if the projections are not being done well and aren't adjusted, given exigent circumstances — in this case, increasing drought, climate change and the implications of climate change…. If that's not projected forward, in this case in particular, the government could end up bearing additional costs that would be unnecessary if the base funding increased.

We have to bring crews in from other locations. We don't do preparatory work, we don't have resident crews, and we don't do the FireSmart program. So there are lots of things in there.

What I'm asking is: how does the government rationalize the accountability part of this process? By looking at things like this and saying: "Are we doing it right? Are we covering off the bases? Are we budgeting forward and having a vote on an estimate that's real?" It's more to the accountability that I'm trying to understand.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question. I will offer this. There are, obviously, limitations when an accountability framework is built up around the assumption or the primary objective of ensuring that ministries and ministers spend within their budgeted amounts. I won't endeavour to convince the member otherwise.

The ministerial accountability provisions that we are dealing with here are primarily designed to impose sanction for overspending. That has limitations when there is an extraordinary legislative spending authority, or statutory spending authority, that says that confronted by a certain set of circumstances, you are obligated to take action.

We wouldn't want, in these circumstances, to have a minister say: "Look, we're going to hold the line here because I have some personal accountability obligations under an act." If the member's point is that there are limitations around a structure that is designed to prevent overspending and applying it to a model that actually requires overspending, then I would agree with him. There are limitations there.

B. Simpson: That's one of the things that I was trying to understand. However, the other part that I'm trying to understand is what the mechanism is beyond this House where, if somebody has an overage in a given year…. Particularly the way the government is structured, the personal penalty for overage…. Where's the accountability mechanism — outside of just bringing a bill in, getting that overage passed and then giving the minister his paycheque?

There's another side to this, which is: how does the government hold ministers to account when it's not a case like this, where there is an expectation that you might go over and it's forgiven? What about circumstances where that's not the case?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, if I understand the question correctly, that's why we come here. It imposes an obligation on the executive branch to come before this House and say that in any circumstance, including one….

I appreciate that the member is trying to be fair about the unique circumstances around fire suppression. But the bill does impose that obligation that even in a circumstance such as this, let alone a circumstance in which there has been a different kind of overexpenditure, the ministry and the minister must come before this chamber and acknowledge that and, in a sense, seek authority from this chamber to be excused from the sanction that would otherwise be visited upon them.

That is a very purposeful decision, and it is something that I think is on ministers' minds and requires them to conduct themselves in a certain way. This chamber, ultimately, passes judgment on whether or not the expenditure above and beyond what was provided in the budget was warranted.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again with thanks to the members and to the staff assisting, I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to be here for my third budget with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. We have a very diverse ministry, and I will take a few minutes just to talk about some of the areas of responsibility that we have.

On the agriculture side of the ministry there has been much work done over the past year in terms of developing new and innovative extension programs and starting to bring better levels of service out to communities as a result of the implementation of these programs. Currently there is about $2.4 billion in direct farm-gate sales in the province, and interestingly, farmers' markets in British Columbia are generating about $118 million into the economy here.

Some of the products that we produce that are very high-value products and are a significant component of our agriculture industry include finfish aquaculture, blueberries, cranberries, grapes, sweet cherries and raspberries. We rank only second to Ontario in the production of products such as floriculture, nursery products, greenhouse tomatoes, sweet peppers, cucumbers, mushrooms and apples.

We currently have over 2,400 food processing businesses in British Columbia doing a total of $33 billion in consumer sales. With less than three years away from the 2010 Olympics, we think that the food industry in British Columbia has tremendous opportunities and we're looking forward to being able to utilize that venue to really feature B.C. products.

The throne speech, I think, also gave us a unique opportunity in agriculture to start looking at new approaches for income into the industry for non-agricultural goods and services. We're looking forward to developing around the themes of the throne speech, going forward, to ensure that we maximize value to our farming and ranching community.

Also, this year I was very pleased that my budget received a $51-million lift over three years to continue to support the ministry. This will be a significant lift and will help us to meet our objectives and our obligations under the federal agreements that we have.

In June of this year we will be hosting the federal-provincial-territorial agriculture ministers' meeting in British Columbia. Later this year I'm expecting the MLA from Delta North and the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning to present her report and her plan for agriculture into the future.

The Agricultural Land Commission has also received a budgetary uplift this year of $258,000. Its budget is now set at about $2.4 million, for a 10-percent lift.

In addition, last year we received a budget uplift of $14.5 million of capital for the development of a level 3 containment facility for our lab in Abbotsford. That's now under construction, and we're looking forward to having that open later in the year.

One of the successes in '06-07 was the blueberry-cranberry industry. It's been a significant player for us in British Columbia, generating some of the most profitable crops that we have.

In addition, the wine industry has been a tremendous highlight for us in British Columbia, despite a short crop in the '04 crop year. It still is continuing to show significant growth, and we think there is big potential there.

I was also very pleased last year to provide a lift to the B.C. Association of Agricultural Fairs and Exhibitions. We had run a provincial fair contest throughout the province, and there were three provincial fairs that were awarded that status, along with additional funds. All of the fairs, in fact — I think there are 48 fairs and exhibitions around the province — will be able to have bigger and better fairs and feature agricultural products in a more significant way than they have in the past.

Youth in agriculture is also very important from the ministry's perspective. We were able to add a significant amount of money last year for the 4-H council, almost double the budget up to $170,000, and that's starting to demonstrate results in terms of the types of activities that 4-H is able to participate in around the province.

Challenges that we have in the agricultural industry…. There's no question that the tree fruit industry in British Columbia, particularly the apple industry, has been hard hit over the last couple of years. They've produced a strategic plan that we're currently working through and looking for funding opportunities — how we can support that. I'm also working with the federal Agriculture Minister. I think that between the federal Agriculture Ministry and our ministry here in British Columbia and working with the tree fruit industry, we're going to have a solid plan that we can implement. The exciting part for me is that the tree fruit industry has really taken ownership of this plan, and I am confident that we're going see that region move forward.

The Peace River had a severe drought last year, and perhaps this is really an extension of about a four-year drought. We've been able to provide funding up in the Peace River region to the tune of about $5½ million through the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program and our production insurance. We're also working with the cattle industry up in the Peace. There's a strategic plan we help fund that we're expecting to see in about a month. We think that there will be good opportunities for us there to move that industry forward as well.

In addition, we've provided a total of $10 million of funding to the cattle industry in order to develop abattoirs around the province and deal with specified-risk-material disposal. I am reasonably confident that we may discuss that at some length, although I may be incorrect when I say that.

Moving on to the integrated land management bureau, which is another significant part of the ministry, we've had very real success over the past year. The FrontCounter B.C. offices are now up and running in nine different communities. As well, services are available on the Web. We are capable of providing services in 11 different languages in addition to English, so 12

languages altogether. It is already been the recipient of several awards, including the Premier's Innovation and Excellence awards in cross-government integration. It has been a real leader in terms of developing services to small and medium-sized businesses.

I had the opportunity to introduce some individuals earlier on today who work at the integrated land management bureau. As I said in my opening remarks in that introduction, the ILMB as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has, I believe, the second-lowest turnover in government right now and has just done a fabulous job through the deputy and associate deputy in terms of developing retention programs.

The integrated land management bureau also won the Solid Ground Award from the West Coast Soaring Club for helping them to get licences of occupation for four different hang-gliding and paragliding flying sites, which represents about half of all the hang-gliding and paragliding flying sites in B.C.

We also helped coordinate the Surrey–Green Timbers property transfer to the Ministry of Health. We arranged a land exchange in Golden so that the new visitors centre could be built adjacent to the highway. We helped with the city of Vancouver acquire the Murrin Parkade in Chinatown by securing an environmental indemnity and a provincial loan repayment.

In addition, we've done much work in the land use planning area over the past year, including key work on the north and central coast, signing agreements with the KNT First Nations, the Turning Point and the Kitkatla First Nations.

In addition, I believe it was on January 21 this year, we were able to announce the $120 million conservation and incentive investments initiative. This is a significant initiative that brings together $30 million of provincial money with $30 million of federal money and $60 million from different foundations around the world to help support and implement the land use plan on the north and central coast, providing for ecosystem restoration opportunities, planning opportunities and also economic development opportunities, which are very, very real.

We're working through the process, as well, of developing the key objectives for ecosystem-based management. We have those out for consultation right now, and we expect to be legalizing those objectives as we move through the year. We've also done a significant amount of work on Haida Gwaii with the Haida First Nation, and we're very excited about the opportunities in there.

As well, we are in the process of developing a new approach to strategic land and resource planning around the province, to reflect the fact that we're living in a changing environment and understanding that perhaps events like the mountain pine beetle were not taken into account when the original land use plans were developed.

The species-at-risk office has been working hard on a number of species-recovery strategies. We've now activated the five-year, $3.4 million spotted owl recovery plan, and that seems to be showing early results. We've just completed the consultation phase of the mountain caribou recovery plan after a tremendous amount of work. We'll move forward with even more strategies around caribou recovery. Although much has been done already, we know that much more needs to be done, and we'll be implementing that. In addition, we expect to be bringing forward the marbled murrelet recovery plan in 2008.

In addition to that, the Crown contaminated sites branch has done some very, very good work. Members will likely be aware of the Britannia Beach project, which is removing a significant amount of heavy metals from Howe Sound — 450 kilograms per day — and really improving that fishery.

Having grown up in Vancouver, I remember the historic comments about the salmon in Howe Sound and the fishing at the Hole in the Wall and all the other fishing sites. My guess is that we're not far away from seeing that area recovered as well, along with other projects that we're working on: the Malakwa old landfill site, the Pitt River site, Yankee Girl former minesite, Cork-Province mine tailings near Kaslo and Pacific Place. So the Crown contaminated sites branch has been very busy over the past year.

I am joined now by my deputy minister Larry Pedersen, who is the deputy of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands; ADM Daphne Stancil; and ADM Harvey Sasaki. We may be moving back and forth with different members, but certainly these three individuals are key players in the ministry, particularly on the agriculture side, and have done a tremendous job, I think, working on behalf of all members of this chamber over the past year.

C. Evans: I'm honoured to get to stand here and participate in the estimates process for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. For the benefit of people for whom this might be an arcane process and not understandable, I'll explain to people at home in case there are nine of you watching. The estimates process, I think, is a wonderful thing. In some moments I actually think it's the best part of what we do.

The estimates process requires that every dollar that the government spends is brought here for debate. The word "estimate" reflects the fact that the minister is bringing forward a budget for the coming year and it is his estimate. I as the critic — or anyone else in the opposition, or actually anyone in the government side — am allowed to get up and ask questions about where that money will be spent.

From a policy point of view, that allows the opposition, representing citizens, to ask all kinds of questions which in other parts of the year would not fit in here. But the part that I like best about it is that I think the estimates process is what guarantees that people don't steal. I've been here for a long, long time, and I've never seen anybody on either side who stole the money that they were charged with administering, and that includes ministers and MLAs and officials of the public

service. That isn't the norm in lots of countries. People get elected and they assume that stealing from the public purse is part of their purview.

It is the estimates process that allows us to ask every question of the minister, to follow every dollar. This process is supposed to be taken seriously by all the members on both sides. When we're finished it is supposed to assure that the public funds are spent in a way that people want, and in an honest way. So I like this part of the year.

In terms of what will happen here, we are going to try to organize our questions to fit within your ability to bring your staff to the room. For the interest of the people at home, this is the only time of the year when staff sit in the room, because we ask specific, technical questions. Staff are not allowed to speak into the microphones, but help the minister to answer the questions.

Minister, it is our expectation to speak on Agriculture until approximately 5:30 today, asking questions back and forth. We would like to have the Lands staff come from 5:30 to 6:30. I do not know if we will finish Lands questions by the close of business today. If not, then we'll start with Lands again in the morning, and then run with Agriculture until the end of the day. I see the minister nodding, so I think that will work out. Members on our side who wish to ask Lands questions, please try and be here by 5:30 and we'll try to fit it in.

Now, in terms of my own comments about agriculture, just for the benefit of people watching, the way this works is the minister gets to stand up, and he has 30 minutes — actually, maybe forever, but usually 30 minutes — to say what he thinks. Then a critic gets up, and they get 30 minutes to say what they think. Then, after that, it falls into questions.

I want to start by saying that I'm honoured to be the critic for Agriculture. As others have in the past, I asked for this job as opposed to…. There are lots of parts of government that are way more sexy, and the press gallery likes to report on them.

C. Evans: Yeah. But being the Minister of Agriculture or the critic for Agriculture is the best job on either side of the House.

The reason is, if you are the Minister of Health, God help you, your job is with huge institutions. You know, a half-million dollar hospital complex, huge unions, huge associations, doctors and nurses and hospital workers. It tends to be an urban job.

Being the Minister of Agriculture or the critic of Agriculture means that you're past all of those huge institutional negotiations and you actually deal with human beings and dirt and land and water. You get to do it in the Peace. You get to do it in Prince George. You get to do it in Haida Gwaii. You get to do it in the Kootenays. Where else would anybody ever want to be? You get to do it on Vancouver Island. You get to do it in the communities all over the province where people grow food.

I think it's the best job, and it is the best job in the best province. I want to talk about that a little bit.

I have said this before. I will belabour the point. British Columbia has more ecosystems, microclimates, than all of the other provinces in Canada combined. The example of that is that in its natural state, before civilization, there are more plants and animals — different species and varieties — in British Columbia than in all of Canada. What that means for agriculture is, of course, that we can grow more stuff. We naturally have the ability to grow more different products than all the other provinces of Canada combined.

Then we're constrained by mountains and lakes and oceans, and so that wonderful variety of weather and soil and climate is broken up into small, little areas that create commodity groups, like ginseng in Kamloops or grapes in the Okanagan or apples in Kelowna or cherries in Creston or the cattle country of the Cariboo.

We have this wonderful variety, both of farm type and commodity group, and also of investment, so that people can farm here — from tiny little growers with a stand on the side of the road to giant companies employing hundreds of workers. There is no place in Canada where agriculture is so vibrant as here in British Columbia.

The downside, I guess, is that only 3 percent of the province is arable, and it's broken into all these tiny little pieces. In order to celebrate agriculture in all those various places, we have had to lead Canada on farm marketing, agritourism, niche marketing and organics.

I guess I want to put on the record, because I know he's retiring this year, what a wonderful thing it was for us in British Columbia that Brent Warner worked here developing the on-farm marketing initiatives which then grew across Canada and down to the United States. We actually created, because of this wonderful guy, the on-farm marketing association for all of North America. When we get to questions, we'll talk about what we're going to do about it next.

In order to make farming work here, we need land, of course. We need public education to help people learn how to farm. We need the predictability of weather. We need a system of risk management, because of course all farming is hedging against weather. We need a way to hedge capital against disaster.

We need a system of intergenerational transfer. One of the problems we've got right now is that people of my generation who have developed the farms are having to figure out how to pass them on to the next generation.

We need markets, we need research capability, and we need labour. Speaking of land, here in British Columbia, because we only have 3 percent arable land…. Prior to 1972, as Saanich and Delta and the Fraser Valley were filling up with houses, people who farmed became concerned that we were going to wreck the farmland by building subdivisions on it.

Prior to the election of 1972 every single political party that ran in the election — Conservatives, Socreds,

Liberals, New Democrats; those are the ones that I can remember — had some kind of platform in their policy book to protect farmland. It really didn't matter who got elected in that election. Somebody was going to have to do something.

New Democrats won, and in 1973 we had the agricultural land reserve, which was a monumental trauma at the time. I was an owner of farmland. I've got three kids, and when we created the agricultural land reserve, I lost the ability to give a chunk of land to my kids, and all of my neighbours did. We didn't understand it, and it created trauma and debate and all kinds of problems. It also created a system that assured for all time that we could farm here.

In the 1980s I was a regional district director in the Kootenays. I learned at that place to respect the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. I got the job. I was pretty redneck. I kind of thought a bunch of bureaucracies was a pain in the neck and we should be allowed to do anything we wanted. And then all of my neighbours would come to me and say: "Help me get my land out of the agricultural and land reserve."

I realized that if we all give our land — four acres and three kids — to all of our kids, then we're going to have no farmable-sized lots left. But I couldn't say no to my neighbours, because I lived there. They'd see me at the store, and they'd phone me at home, and they'd see me at work, and they'd stop me on the street, and they'd say: "Help me."

We referred those issues to the Agricultural Land Commission in Burnaby. I learned in that job that part of my redneck thinking was actually haywire. Having the Land Commission in Burnaby protected us as local politicians from having to say no. The place where I live 30 years later is still full of agricultural land, and they still like their regional directors, and all the hard questions are still referred to Burnaby.

I learned through that process to respect the Agricultural Land Commission. Then for a little while when I was minister, I came to hugely understand how British Columbia is protected in ways that other countries are not. I just made a short list that I could remember.

We were visited in the '90s by farmers from Texas, New Mexico, two countries in Europe, Tennessee, Alberta and Ontario — that I can remember. They all came here on their own ticket — paid their own way — and brought a little group of people and said: "Could you explain to us how you created this agricultural land reserve? Because where we live we are being swamped by subdivisions and big-box stores."

It was the tobacco growers in Tennessee who couldn't grow tobacco anymore. Because of changing ethics around smoking, it didn't have any value, and as their land was devalued, people would come buy it up and subdivide it. They came to British Columbia to find out how we kept that from happening.

People on the outskirts of Calgary who wanted to protect farming as Calgary grows came to British Columbia to see what we did. Indigenous people from New Mexico who had historically grown peaches, whose farms were now being bought up by rich people from New York and San Francisco for recreation activities, came here to find out how we protect farmland. I learned in that process how unique we are and what a beacon we are for the rest of the world, because of the accident of what happened here in 1972.

Everything isn't wonderful in the farming world. Since the 1970s…. When we created the ALR, we had a social contract. We said to the farm community, who were demonstrating on the lawn outside: "Okay, we're going to freeze your land, and you're not going to be able to sell it to retire and have a good retirement." That was itself the social contract prior to 1970s — wasn't it? That's how your grandparents grew up. Everybody said: "Okay, I'll work real hard in my youth. I'll accumulate this land, and then when I get old, I'll sell it. I'll get enough money to have a good retirement."

The agricultural land reserve said no to that. So a social contract was put in place that said to the farm community: "We're going to make you guys a deal. What you grow will have a value so that you can earn your wealth while you're working, just like all of the rest of us do in any job that we do."

Then, since the 1970s, the social contract tended to erode, the largest step of which was a thing called the GATT. I won't go into that. But the two countries that decided to remove support for farming faster than anybody else in the world were Australia and Canada. If the minister wants, he can turn round and check with his staff to see if there is anything wrong about that, but I think Australia and Canada moved faster than anybody else — and maybe New Zealand.

Then the supports for farming were removed, the social contract began to fall apart, various governments no longer wanted to live up to the terms, and support for farming in British Columbia began to erode. Here in British Columbia, of course, we blamed the GATT. Successive governments — New Democrat, Social Credit, probably Liberal — all said that we can't have those supports because international controls say we can't do it anymore, but other provinces…. Even though Canada cut controls faster than anybody else except Australia, other provinces kept figuring out a way to support farmers in a way that wasn't GATT-able.

The question is: why? Why has that happened here in British Columbia and not in Quebec, say, or Ontario? Why have we reduced support for agriculture, and other provinces, not? I'm not attacking the minister. I think all governments since about, say, 1980 have been engaged in reducing, cutting little bit by little bit, the supports that were put in place to support agriculture.

In terms of why, I'm going to be sort of blunt because it's on television. It's on the record. I've long thought that farmers, politicians and political parties are equally at fault. I have heard New Democrats say: "Why should we support farmers? They all vote Liberal." I have heard Liberals say: "Why do we have to support farmers? They're going to vote for us anyway."

We have this weird situation in British Columbia where I think that in the public's mind, the people watching, the

capital of farming tends to be concentrated in the Fraser Valley, Kelowna and the Peace. Then there are small farms elsewhere: Merritt, Creston, Vancouver Island. But the Fraser Valley, Kelowna and parts of the Okanagan and the Peace tend to be what we think of as the largest investments in agriculture, and they tend to vote in one way.

That removes the dynamic where political parties appeal to a group of people, trying to win their votes. Neither political party puts much trouble into it. So we are at fault for removing politically from the public discourse the debate of how to support farming.

I think farmers are also a bit at fault. Prior to the 1990s we had a thing in B.C. called the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and we had fairly strong institutions called the Women's Institute and the Farmers Institute.

In all three of these organizations, all the farmers from the province would come together and essentially create a negotiating body.

Then through the 1990s and into this century for, I think, business reasons, we smashed those institutions so that they exist today only in remnant form. We began to negotiate with farmers in commodity groups. We call them fruit growers. We call them turkey producers. We call them grape growers. We call them grain growers. The idea of farmers talking to farmers went away, and commodity groups now bargained in a business sort of relationship with the government according to what it is that they grow.

I submit that politically what that did is break the relationship of farmers to one another and to farm communities and, in some way, take the subject of the land ethic off the table of public argument and political discussion, removing the obligation for 70-some-odd people sitting in this room to care at all because it isn't going to get here.

I think we stand at a crossroads. The good news is that the public is really starting to care. I go places now, and people who never would have raised those issues before talk to me about food security and local food. I think everybody just talked about price 15 years ago. They wanted the cheapest possible tomato and the cheapest possible quart of milk. Now they're starting to talk about what's in the tomato and where the quart of milk comes from.

I remember once I was talking to the Minister of Agriculture in Japan, who is quite into business. He said to me: "You know what the biggest enemy of agriculture in Japan is?" I said: "No, what is it?" He said: "It's the housewife." I said: "The housewife?" He said: "Yeah, she's starting to want to know what's in the food."

I think that's growing all over the world. There's a wonderful resurgence of interest in farming, food production and the quality of food, and that works in our favour.

Unfortunately, at the very same time, land prices are going nuts. The value of the land to a farmer is now so different than the value of the land to a developer for almost any purpose — put a railroad there, put a highway there, a highrise, a factory — that it is becoming almost impossible to sustain the relationship of farming in the urban interface.

I think that the political pressure of that huge demand for land is putting pressure on provincial politicians on both sides, on governments of all kinds, on municipalities and on the Land Commission themselves that is too great to withstand in the present system. We need a big rethink if we wish to save agricultural land and production in our communities.

I was told once — I do not know if it's true, and I won't name the community — about a community quite close to where we are right now where the majority of the agricultural land in the community was said to be owned by numbered companies. I asked: why is that true? I was told that the land in that community would become so valuable someday when it got out of the agricultural land reserve that the difference between its value as farmland and released land was the greatest investment in legal activity that you could make in the world, if you were willing to wait decades for return on investment.

I don't know if it's true, but as a story, I think it provides metaphorically a signpost of where we are today. We are in a situation where everybody has an interest in getting land out of the reserve that is now so great that I don't think the traditional systems can withstand it. Part of these estimates and everything that we do in this building ought now to be aimed at creating a new system to preserve farmland in British Columbia.

I want to say what I think, and I do not wish for anyone to misconstrue what I say as meaning the New Democratic Party or somebody's policy. My own opinion is that this House and the political parties that work here ought to enter into some process to invent a new social contract with people who grow food or produce food or live on agricultural land, to make it profitable for them to do the work of food production.

Secondly, I think we should be done now with the 30-some years of fiddling with the borders of the agricultural land reserve. All the land where I live, which ought to be removed because it was inappropriately put in…. It was actually gravel. They took a picture from an airplane and said it was good soil, and it turned out it was gravel. It's all been removed — 30 years of removals. The only way I can see that we're going to make this thing work now that the price difference is so radical is to say: "Okay, there's a hard edge. Nothing comes out in future."

It's happened lots of places in the world. When you do that, you say of course that someday the government has got to build a hospital or something. There are reasons why land has to come out. But you put in place a recapture tax that takes away 100 percent of the profit of getting it out, and then nobody has any interest in removing it unless it's necessary for the greater good of society.

To not have that debate in some form in both political parties in this House and in the province at large at this

time, I submit, will make — if we carry down the road that we're going — the agricultural land reserve redundant in five years' time. So I guess what I'm saying is: I think the time has come for a new kind of politics around farming. The historical one, where the political parties make promises to farmers and they vote one or the other — I don't think it works anymore. I think there now needs to be a new social contract. There needs to be a dialogue that leads to that social contract, and there needs to be an all-party rethink.

I don't know how that will happen. I will get later to questions for the minister about how it comes to pass that instead of an all-party committee investigating agriculture, we have a Liberal Party committee. Now that we do, how do I get past that to get this side of the House involved in the dialogue? And how do we get farm groups and communities into the dialogue? And then, where's the place where we come forward with a big new idea — one that says that farming will be profitable in British Columbia and that we'll protect farmland?

If we just carry on with the usual dialogue — I attack the minister; the minister gives answers back; we try to look good on TV — that won't help farming at all. That will lead to the continued erosion, which is not happening anymore as trickle, trickle, trickle. It's now starting to look like a wave. It's coming down the Fraser River in springtime and washing it away.

I will wrap up this introduction now, and we'll move to questions. I would like to ask the minister, as we continue through questions asked by whomever, to keep these comments in mind. I'm not just trying to hear myself think; I actually think this dialogue has to happen now, or you having that job and me having this job will have been a waste of a crucial moment, and we will leave this work worse than we found it.

So my first question for the minister, having introduced the subject. We have fairly outrageous, some would say — but certainly everyone would agree large — pressures on the agricultural land in lower mainland — say, Tsawwassen back to Chilliwack. I would like to know: has the minister met with the Agricultural Land Commission to develop a strategy of how to manage the pressure for growth, industrial development and transportation activities being experienced from Chilliwack to Tsawwassen?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, the member may know that we've been working on this for some time. Last year there was a report done by the Suzuki Foundation called Forever Farmland: Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve for the 21st Century. We met with the foundation, reviewed the report they had, and worked with the Agricultural Land Commission to work with the foundation as well.

They've been developing some interesting work, particularly around the community need piece, and I'm pleased to tell the member that 2006 was actually the year of lowest activity ever in the agricultural land reserve in terms of exclusions.

There was a total of 505 hectares excluded from the land reserve in 2006. There were actually 977 hectares added to the agricultural land reserve, for a net increase in the agricultural land reserve of 471 hectares. I believe that the number of 505 for the actual removals was the lowest in the history of the Agricultural Land Commission.

But I share with the member his concerns in terms of how 20, 25 years ago the agricultural land reserve was established in very broad brush strokes. I do take very seriously the responsibility that we have to protect farmland.

There were a couple of key decisions made last year by the Agricultural Land Commission that are noteworthy, those being the Barnston Island decision and the Garden City lands decision, in Richmond. Both of those decisions were to not exclude those two particular parcels of land. But in that process, the Agricultural Land Commission established some very firm criteria around community need, which I think will be useful in terms of guiding decisions going forward into the future.

Many of the comments that the member made up to this point I actually concur with. I think we need to be very, very cautious in how we manage the agricultural land in the province. It is valuable. It is a heritage for our children and a responsibility that we take very seriously.

C. Evans: I appreciate the good news that the minister brings in terms of Barnston Island and in terms of fewer withdrawals. I'd like to get at this question of whether or not the minister has a way of having a dialogue with the Land Commission about developing a plan.

I'll ask it a little differently. Does the minister feel that it is inappropriate or appropriate for him or his representative to meet with the Land Commission to develop a plan of how to deal with the pressures that they experience?

Hon. P. Bell: Sorry. I thought I was clear with my explanation of that. I do meet from time to time with, particularly, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission and occasionally with some of the senior staff. I actually have a senior staff member outside. If we get into the topic of the Agricultural Land Commission in any depth, we'll bring that particular individual inside, as well, to review some of the details.

I did meet with the Agricultural Land Commission last year. I expressed my concern about how we were managing the reserve and that we needed to be judicious and careful and cautious about the decisions that were being made and the exclusions. I asked them to review the Suzuki Foundation report in detail, to work with the Suzuki Foundation and to come back to me and establish some criteria around decisions under which community need was utilized for removals of land from the land reserve.

That has traditionally been the contentious issue. How do you define community need? What are the

principles that must be fulfilled in order for community need to be utilized as an exclusionary reason? So that work has been ongoing. I don't think it's completed yet. I think we have more work to do in that area. I continue to meet with them.

But to be clear, my responsibility is in establishing policy in an open and transparent manner around the way decisions are made. It's not to interfere with individual decisions. It's to work generally with the broad brush strokes of how decisions are made. That's where any policy direction or any input that I would have as minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission would be at the very high-level policy decision–making process.

C. Evans: So the minister is saying to us that he is engaged in a dialogue about the definition of community need. Is it the minister's belief that the Land Commission's ability to do its job is enhanced by asking them to consider community need? Might it not be a better solution if we simply remove the words "community need" from the instructions to the Land Commission?

Hon. P. Bell: The member will know that community need was added as a criterion to the decision-making process a few years ago.

I support that, because I think if community need is not included in the decision-making process, then the process reverts simply to: is the farmland suitable for farming, or is it capable of being usable farmland?

Certainly, when you look at a parcel of land, if it is farmable land, then it would not qualify under those criteria. So if there is a very high priority use for that particular piece of land, if there was a reason to have that particular piece of land excluded, then the commission would not be able to make an exclusionary decision and it would revert to either a non-exclusion or government would be required to interfere in that decision-making process.

I don't support that. I know the member is actually on record in the past as saying that he doesn't support…. I believe that's correct, that he doesn't support that process any longer — the notion of government or politicians kind of interfering with those decisions — and I respect that. I think he's on the record as saying that at some point in time.

I think the notion of establishing some criteria around community need is a worthwhile exercise, and this is actually something that was articulated very clearly in the Suzuki Foundation report as well. So it's not just government speaking.

There are some credible organizations that are indicating that community need is a justifiable reason for exclusion, but it's got to be under a very, very specific set of criteria. I'll read into the record the four criteria that we're currently working with. I want to make sure the member understands that I don't think this work is complete. We may need to do more work in terms of establishing the criteria around community need, but certainly I think that the Agricultural Land Commission did a good job with these four criteria as a starting point.

The first one is: identify the need and the expected community benefits or values to be achieved. The second point is: identify and assess the impact or risks to the community if the proposal does not proceed or is delayed. The third criterion is: determine whether there are reasonable alternative means of meeting the community need. That's an important one. The fourth and final one is: identify and assess the impacts of meeting community need on agriculture and non-agriculture uses of the land and the avoidance, mitigation, or management of these impacts.

That was the first approach that the Agricultural Land Commission had at identifying community needs. The Suzuki Foundation has actually been doing some work with the commission on the development of that set of criteria. Certainly that's an area that more work could be done on, but I think it's a good first start.

C. Evans: The other organization besides the Land Commission, I think, that struggles with these issues is the GVRD, and specifically its agriculture committee. Has the minister or minister's representative met with the GVRD agriculture committee or the GVRD itself to talk about how to develop a plan to manage growth and sustain and enhance agriculture at the same time?

Hon. P. Bell: We actually have not met with a GVRD Ag Advisory Committee. We do have staff meet on a regular basis with individual ag advisory committees in communities.

It's interesting the member asked the question, because I haven't been approached in over a year and a half by a GVRD Ag Advisory Committee. It's not a group that has looked to us, but we do meet regularly with different ag advisory committees around the province.

Actually, I just want to jump back to the member's opening comments because I thought there were some useful things and some areas where, again, we have a similar approach or coincide. I think it's very important that we have strong institutes and associations. The member mentioned that there were at one point in time very strong farmers institutes and women's institutes around the province. I actually continue to meet with many of those institutes on an ongoing basis, and one of the objectives or goals that I've asked my ministry to participate in is seeing how we can strengthen those associations and institutes around the province so we can get a better level of dialogue coordinated back within the ministry.

I know when the member was the previous Minister of Agriculture, he had a similar view: it was important that you have a unified voice speaking to the Agriculture

Ministry so that we could execute and deliver on the needs within the ministry. That's something we continue to endeavour to participate in, and certainly the B.C. Ag Council has taken on that role. We are working with the B.C. Ag Council to help them develop the capacity necessary to have that dialogue on an ongoing basis.

In the province are 200 different commodity groups. It's very challenging to meet with all those different associations on an ongoing basis. If you have one final point or one group that you can meet with and receive feedback from, it's very useful. I think the member would probably agree with that, given his previous experience.

C. Evans: I'll ask the question differently. The minister advises that the GVRD has not asked to meet with him. When you're dating, either person in the couple can ask the other guy to dance. So will the minister ask the GVRD if they would please consider entering into a dialogue with him so that they might manage growth, transportation needs and farmland together, instead of in different silos?

Hon. P. Bell: Now I am confused. In the first question, I thought the member was asking me if I had met with the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee. Now I think I hear him asking me if I've met with the GVRD, so I would appreciate just some clarity in the question I'm trying to answer here.

C. Evans: I meant the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee, although far be it from me if you ask them for a meeting to tell them who would meet with you. But the GVRD has an agricultural committee, which supposedly provides advice to them and, also, to TransLink on the development of farmland. I believe that they are the appropriate people to work with the ministry and the various municipalities to come up with a plan to manage growth so that it doesn't eat the farmland from Tsawwassen to Chilliwack.

I did not mean to confuse the minister. I am suggesting that he ask the GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee to enter into a dialogue with the Ministry of Agriculture or the minister to come up with a plan to manage growth. Is that okay?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm joined now by Colin Fry, who's one of the senior executives with the Agricultural Land Commission. I'm advised by Mr. Fry that in fact the Agricultural Land Commission does meet with the group referred to by the member opposite on a regular basis and talks to them about planning initiatives and strategies around the protection of land. Certainly, now that I'm advised of this group, they'll be receiving a letter from me inviting them in so that we can have a chat and I can better understand their objectives.

Now, moving from the general to the specific, I want a dialogue to happen about how we're going to manage farmland, because I see a crisis happening. I'm trying to encourage the minister and the minister's staff to be part of or to lead that dialogue.

Moving to the specifics, I'll ask a couple of questions about Formosa Nursery — which, as the minister knows, is something I talked about earlier today in the two-minute statements. It provides, I think, some illustrative examples of how development can go badly if people don't participate in the dialogue.

For anybody who doesn't know, Formosa Nursery is a piece of land, RP5113, on the border of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows — the formal name is Formosa Nursery Co. Ltd. — presently bisected by a road being built by TransLink. On the federal-provincial environmental assessment that happened in 2002 and 2003 to decide the advisability of putting a road across the Formosa nursery, did the ministry participate?

Hon. P. Bell: This file actually goes back a considerable amount of time, as I think the member probably is aware. He's very knowledgable on the file. It actually goes back to 1987, originally, when the ALC was first made aware of the plans and the proposals that were on the table at the time. In 2002 the ALC was provided with information about the Fraser River crossing and the associated road networks, including Abernethy Way, and then in 2004 TransLink wrote to each of the affected owners. It's been a very long, involved process, and I'm sure we'll have some time to talk about it in more detail.

C. Evans: I take that as a no, I assume, that the minister is saying. I thank him for his information, but he didn't answer the question, so I'll take that as a no. The minister's office did not participate in the federal-provincial environmental assessment considering the advisability of the location of the Abernethy connector.

My next question is: did the minister or the minister's office or minister's representatives participate with TransLink in the discussions about the location of the road?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member said that I answered the question as, "No, we weren't involved," and I think I answered the question: "Yes, we were involved." Maybe a misconnection there.

The member asked to what degree, I believe, that the ministry — and I'm extending that to say the Agricultural Land Commission as well — was involved in the planning process around that. To give the member some more information that I think he has — but I may be incorrect — on January 6, 2005, the ALC conditionally approved the application with respect to Formosa Nursery. The ALC required several mitigating measures to be agreed upon between the proponent, the landowner and the ALC.

The ALC acknowledged that it would be clearly in the best interest of agriculture to take the route that's as close as possible to the south boundary of Formosa Nursery, but Formosa Nursery did not provide input directly to the ALC. The ALC relied on its understanding from the comments made by the owner at the public

meeting that the first choice would be to have the road as close as possible to the south boundary, and the second choice being the opportunity to dispose of any small remnant of land. The ALC asked staff to work closely with the engineers in designing the exact location of the final route.

I think that we have here a basic misunderstanding, and maybe the minister can help me clear it up. I kind of think that the Minister of Agriculture is the one person in the entire province who is the advocate for farmers when they get in a conflict with whomever. The Ministry of Agriculture is the group that works for the minister to help advocate for farmers.

The Agricultural Land Commission is in charge of looking after land. I appreciate what they do, but it's the minister who sits at cabinet, and when a mistake is being made or some activity that impacts on farmers, he raises his hand and says, "Hey, wait a second. I'm speaking up for the farmers," and puts forward the farmers' argument.

So when I'm saying at what point does the ministry get involved — does the ministry help with the federal-provincial environmental assessment, or does the ministry help with the TransLink location of the road? — I mean as advocates. At what point does the Ministry of Agriculture advocate for farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is not entirely correct in that the Agricultural Land Commission actually has as its second goal to encourage and enable farming of land in the ALR. So not only do I have responsibility as the minister to advocate for and promote farming in British Columbia, but the ALC also carries that responsibility. I'd refer the member to page 10 of the 2007-08 to 2009-10 service plan, goal 2, where it says:

So the Agricultural Land Commission also carries that responsibility, as do I, and we work together to ensure we fulfil that mandate.

C. Evans: Yes, I appreciate that the Agricultural Land Commission shares that job, but I do not accept the information of the Land Commission that the farmer did not comment. I think, actually, that information exists, some of which I have supplied to your office — that the farmer did comment. The farmer commented…. There was a breakdown in language skills. The Land Commission didn't understand the comment and later recanted the fact that they didn't understand.

But I don't care about any of that. This is not a court of law. That can be sorted out somewhere else. I want to know how come the ministry and the minister don't stand up for farmers when they get in a jam.

I wrote last October to the minister, came and met the minister, and there was no politics. I sat quietly in an office with nobody around except the MLA. And we promised the minister, or the staff, a tour with no press, no politics, no demonstrations — nobody there. I want to show you what's going on. Did the minister come or send staff?

Hon. P. Bell: I just encourage the member in his enthusiasm to be somewhat cautious of the member for Nanaimo. He was somewhat ducking the various hand gestures. I was fearful for his life for a moment there. Especially if he has a pen in his hand…. That would be very concerning.

To answer the member's question, no, I did not attend that. I didn't think it was appropriate. I have made it very clear to this member in the past that I don't believe that it is appropriate for me to interfere with individual decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission.

I think there is a very dangerous line that could be crossed, and actually the member is on record, I think a year ago, as agreeing with that position, if I'm not mistaken. I'd have to go back in Hansard to review it, but I recall an instance in the past where the member commented specifically that there had been a decision made a number of years ago where a previous minister had interfered, and he didn't think it was appropriate upon review of that.

I think when the Agricultural Land Commission is involved, it's important that we respect the quasi-judicial nature of the commission, that we allow them to do the work that they need to do. If decisions are being made that don't represent the values of British Columbians…. We ensure that the policy structure under which the commission makes decisions — that being the actual legislation and regulatory body that the commission must follow — should therefore be changed if it was inappropriate.

That's the level at which I think the minister should engage. He should not be involved in individual decisions.

C. Evans: To suggest that I am suggesting that the minister interfere is stretching the point beyond credibility. I don't want the minister to interfere.

He's completely right in what I think. I presented the minister a map; I'm going to hold it up. We sat here

for three days in November. The minister said I shouldn't interfere. I showed him a map of what the Land Commission had okayed, which was a corridor. The minister said: "Oh, I see." I said: "They have okayed the corridor. We want you to help TransLink move the road to the southern edge of the corridor, in keeping with what the Land Commission has decided."

Now, my questions all have to do with: is the minister the advocate for farmers? Would he send his deputy or go himself across the water and say to TransLink: "You are paving a farm that the Land Commission has said to you: 'Please use the southern border'"? That's not interference; that's acting as an advocate.

My question is: when the minister understood that the Agricultural Land Commission had given a corridor which included an acceptable road, why did the minister or his staff not intervene to go and advocate for farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: Something that the member said does concern me a little bit. He, I think, suggested that I indicated to him it was inappropriate that he advocate on behalf of Formosa, and I did not do that and would not do that. I think as a duly elected member of this House — a member of the opposition certainly — that is within his scope of responsibility.

The member is assuming that there were not various negotiations going on with Formosa Nursery by other components of government. There was detailed work being done with Formosa Nursery. I was receiving updates through the period of those negotiations.

As I understand it, Formosa has been compensated appropriately. I'm told that Formosa may easily have the same quantum and the same quality of land under production that they had previously.

Again, the ALC was actively engaged in the file, looked at the file after the member brought it up again and had another look at it to see if any errors had been made, felt that the appropriate processes had been followed.

I do understand, Mr. Chair, that the member disagrees with me on this, and I accept that. That's what this House is all about — being able to have constructive discussions. We're not always going to agree at the end of those discussions, but certainly the process was followed.

The Formosa Nursery, I think, has been adequately compensated. The owners are reasonably happy with the package that was offered to them. I think farming has been protected in British Columbia as a result of the decision and the work that's gone on.

C. Evans: I only have one more question. As I tried to explain, my questions about Formosa Nursery are not so much concerned with that particular problem as the example that it sets for how we operate.

My question is fairly general. At what point does the minister feel that it is his job at cabinet to intervene on behalf of farmers when some other ministry of government or some other government like GVRD or TransLink is acting in a way that might impact negatively on farmers?

Hon. P. Bell: The member, being a previous member of cabinet and previous Agriculture Minister, will know that we take that responsibility, and any Agriculture minister would take that responsibility, very seriously in any discussions that go on at any level within government — whether it be at a cabinet level or other level. He would also know that it is impossible to answer the question that he just asked. There is no definitive line at which point any Agriculture minister would automatically engage because of the variety of issues that we deal with on an ongoing basis.

Certainly, it is appropriate — the member is eager to stand back up — for ministers to engage and advocate on behalf of farming, and I do that all the time.

C. Evans: I'll finish this line of questioning by saying that the simplest way to keep the issue out of here is, when an MLA from either side writes to the minister and says, "Help me solve this problem on behalf of this farmer," for the minister or his staff to go — and not have it be a political debate, not have it in the newspapers, not have demonstrations — and solve the problem. That is the kind of advocacy we're looking for. Then we don't wind up six months later asking a bunch of questions after the fact.

I would like to give my assurance to the minister. If I write him a letter and say, "Come help me solve this problem while it's not news…." The assurance of the absence of press and politics…. And support of farming will be intact, and we can avoid this in future. Now I'm going to turn it over to other questions.

M. Sather: My constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is the subject of the discussion that the member for Nelson-Creston has just been having with the minister. As the member made reference to, the issue — and also the issue that I want to talk to the minister about — is not specifically about Formosa Nursery. But Formosa Nursery is kind of a microcosm of what's happening in my constituency, which is on the border of the massive amount of growth that's happening in the lower mainland. We still have agricultural land, such as in Pitt Meadows and in Maple Ridge, and we have this wave of development that's hitting us.

One comment I do need to make, though, to correct the minister with regard to the Formosa Nursery situation. The farm has definitely not been made whole as a result of this transaction. I know the minister didn't go and hasn't seen the farm, but the roadway, the Abernethy connector to the Golden Ears bridge will go dead-centre through the middle of their blueberry operation.

Those plants, which are mature plants…. The farmer, Mr. Wu, was advised by a farm expert who TransLink sent out that it would not be advisable to try to move those plants — that they wouldn't survive. So there is no way that that farm has been made whole. As the member has referred to earlier today in this House, they're trying to pick up the pieces bravely and carry on.

I want to invite the minister to assist me and to assist farmers in my community with another problem

that's very much related to the one at Formosa Nursery. Again, it has to do with this interplay of land use, agriculture and transportation. There is a second road now that's being contemplated through agricultural land, through Formosa Nursery, and it has to do with access to the new Pitt River Bridge.

This is very problematic. That there would be even consideration of another road, another assault on Formosa Nursery, just defies the imagination. But that's true. That's where it would have to go, unless it went through the golf course, which it's not going to.

I'm not asking the minister to interfere in any decision by the Agricultural Land Commission, and there is an application to remove two pieces of agricultural land. Currently it has gone to the municipality. I don't believe it's yet been forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission. This removal is where the road is proposed to go through. The whole purpose of it — it's been stated by staff at the city of Pitt Meadows — is that it's to facilitate commercial development. So this is commercial development on agricultural land and agricultural land reserve.

One of the pieces of this puzzle is that Lougheed Highway…. Anybody that commutes down it from Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows or Mission knows that it's often congested, and one of the congestion points is at the intersection of the Lougheed Highway and Harris Road. Now there will be improvements to the highway in conjunction with the building of the new Pitt River Bridge. But when I talked to the Gateway people a couple of weeks ago about an interchange at Harris and Lougheed — which is very important, and I'll tie it together in a minute as to how it's important to agriculture — they said: "Well, that's on the 2031 horizon." So it may not be built, then, for 24 years. The problem is this: without that interchange, there will continue to be backup on the Lougheed Highway, and there will continue to be pressure for yet another road through the agricultural land in that area to compensate.

So I would ask the minister to please have a conversation with the Minister of Transportation about this and to impress upon him the need…. I mean, it's great that we're getting a new bridge, but it's not going to work for commuters, and it's certainly not going to work for agriculture, unless we have the additional infrastructure that goes along with it, like this interchange.

This is discussion before, as the member for Nelson-Creston said, anything gets in the news. Well, it has been in the local news a bit, but I don't think…. It's certainly not the level that Formosa Nursery was in the news.

Again I'd ask the minister if he would have that conversation with the Minister of Transportation and if the two of them will act together this time to protect agriculture in that area.

Hon. P. Bell: As I think the member pointed out, there have been no applications received by the Agricultural Land Commission. We've not seen any information with regards to the project the member refers to. I'd be happy to speak with the Minister of Transportation about the project.

G. Gentner: It is a pleasure to stand and represent my constituency and, of course, many friends who farm on the Delta floodplain and have some major concerns relative to the amount of development that our community is going to undertake, particularly…. Like many other suburbs, as the member from Maple Ridge pointed out, the farmland there is under siege and so, of course, is the farmland in Delta.

Two days ago there was the Transport Canada Roberts Bank railway corridor study completed, and the minister knows full well what this implies. In particular, the recommendation is that they're going to see closure of the at-grade crossings — major connecting points for farmers. Does the ministry have a plan in place to deal with the proposed closures at 46A Street and 57B Street?

Hon. P. Bell: That question really pertains to the Ministry of Transportation and would be better canvassed under that minister's budget.

G. Gentner: Would the minister like to comment as to the lack of connection for the farming economy on one side of the railbed versus the other side of the railbed? How is farming going to be conducted if this corridor…? Primarily these overpasses were built to support farmers.

Hon. P. Bell: The member in his earlier comments indicated that this was a proposal. I've not heard that it's anything more than a proposal at this point in time. If the member wants to pursue this questioning, I recommend he do it with the Ministry of Transportation estimates.

G. Gentner: If I get it correct from the minister, he's never heard of this proposal to shut down the access of farmers to and from Delta across the railbed?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm sorry. Clearly, the member hasn't heard me. This is a transportation issue, and if the member wants to canvass that issue, he should be canvassing it with the Minister of Transportation.

G. Gentner: Well, obviously the minister's response is that he doesn't care about the farmers in Delta. He doesn't care about their need to use the transportation corridors. If he was caring, he would have a plan in place rather than allow the barricading of roads that are essential for farmers to produce and meet their commitments to production.

Can the minister explain to us the proposal from B.C. Rail relative to how much farmland that corporation plans to take out of production for Delta and elsewhere in the valley?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is presuming that the Agricultural Land Commission would approve a request

by the B.C. Rail Co. to remove land from the agricultural land reserve. To my knowledge, there has not been an application to date for that. I think it's a bit presumptuous, even if that application were to go forward, that it would be approved, given the record of the Agricultural Land Commission over the past number of years since we've been in government.

I might point out to the member opposite that in the entire lower mainland last year, there were a total of nine hectares removed from the agricultural land reserve. There was one hectare added, for a net removal of eight hectares.

G. Gentner: Could the minister explain to the House whether or not there's been some communications between the B.C. Rail corporation and the Agricultural Land Commission relative to removal — any inquiry at all?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm advised that B.C. Rail had not contacted the Agricultural Land Commission. The Agricultural Land Commission became aware as a result of a news media report of this possibility, contacted the B.C. Rail Co. and advised them that they have the same obligation as any individual in the expectation of applying for agricultural land removal from the reserve.

G. Gentner: I gather from the statement there's been no request for removal, but my question was: has there been any type of communication between the rail company and the agricultural land reserve — some discussion of whether or not it shall pursue an application of removal?

Hon. P. Bell: We could wait and get the Hansard Blues from my previous question, but that would be time-consuming, so I will repeat my previous answer. The Agricultural Land Commission had not had any communication with the B.C. Rail Co. prior to being made aware of the possibility of this through a news report.

The Agricultural Land Commission then contacted the B.C. Rail Co. and advised them that if they had any interest in removal of land, they would have to follow the same processes as any individual and be required to come under the same level of scrutiny. The B.C. Rail Co. since that time has not made any application for removal of this land. I hope that's clear for the member.

G. Gentner: I gather from the minister's response that he's talking about a recent newspaper article that came about, I believe, in the early part of this year. Therefore, my question would be: has B.C. Rail — over the last five years, let's say — ever approached the Agricultural Land Commission to remove land?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is asking an intriguing question and I guess expecting us to be able to go back five years in the phone records and e-mail records of the Agricultural Land Commission. We would be happy to do that for the member if that is his question.

To the best recollection of Colin Fry, who is sitting with me here right now, there has been no communication on this specific parcel in the past five years, although the B.C. Rail Co. has other holdings. There may have been communication on other holdings over that past five-year period of time. But if the member wants us to pursue that and check the phone records, certainly we would be able to do that. I'm not sure it would be a productive use of fiscal resources, though.

G. Gentner: I would like to thank the minister for coming forward, willing to share some information. Can I have a time commitment when this archival can be completed and sent to the member for Delta North?

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Chair, I need clarification on the request. Is the member requesting any and all communications between the Agricultural Land Commission and the B.C. Rail Co. for the last five years?

Hon. P. Bell: I think this is a frivolous use of valuable resources. I think taxpayers would be offended by the notion of a request of this nature. If the member wants to make that request, he can certainly make it through the freedom-of-information officer.

G. Gentner: It's obvious that there must be a stack this high of correspondence, because it seems like such an outrageous amount of work that the minister's going to have to do. The minister's going to have to do a simple request just to be open and transparent, to give us all that information relative to any inquiry.

I don't know why the minister is so reluctant to share that information. It is the people's company. The Agricultural Land Commission is accountable to the people of British Columbia. So again, why is the minister so reluctant to give this side all copies of correspondence relative to any inquiry the B.C. Rail Co. had with the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to somewhat revise my suggestion and offer to the member. Again, to reinforce: to the best of Colin Fry's recollection, there have not been any requests for information on this specific parcel over the past five years. We're happy to go back and verify that specific information as well.

We're also happy to go back and look at any specific applications by the B.C. Rail Co. for exclusions. If the member wants further information than that and expects us to search five years' worth of records for any levels of communication with the B.C. Rail Co., then I would suggest that he do that through a freedom-of-information request.

G. Gentner: So I'm deriving from this response from the hon. minister that he's going to provide us information regarding this specific parcel of land. Could he be benevolent in helping us to fully understand what had happened here? Perhaps he'd be willing to share with us just the information BCR has had in the municipality of Delta with the Agricultural Land Commission. Is that possible?

Hon. P. Bell: To be clear here, the member is asking for something that's very challenging to grasp. We can certainly provide the member with any applications from the B.C. Rail Co. or any significant levels of discussion that were at a level of an application request for land of any type going back five years or more if the member wants that information specific to Delta or provincewide.

The original request that I heard from the member, that I think is absolutely frivolous from a taxation perspective, is that he wanted all records of any telephone calls, any e-mails, any mail, anything of any type between B.C. Rail and the Agricultural Land Commission. That is a huge amount of work to go through that process, and quite frankly, I think it's a fishing expedition.

If the member has some specific concerns, he should put them on the table. We're happy to do whatever we can to meet his requests, but if the member wants to utilize a significant amount of Agricultural Land Commission time trying to go through old records, then he can do that through the appropriate processes.

G. Gentner: Well, I hate to be such a burden to the minister to put him in the unnecessary, reluctant position of actually having to share with the people of British Columbia correspondence between the B.C. Rail Co. and the Agricultural Land Commission. I don't think it's such an arduous request to simply ask what the correspondence has been between this Crown corporation within the municipality of Delta.

The minister had earlier suggested, of course, that he would be happy to share the information. So I don't understand the reluctance here. Obviously, the minister is trying to hide something. Maybe we'll have to do an FOI, but we will find that information, Minister.

I'm quite surprised with the reluctance to share the people's business of a Crown corporation and that of a commission that's there to try and protect farmland. I think it's to the detriment of the goodwill of this government to deny that request, and I'm very, very surprised with the comments that have come out of the mouth of the minister.

Now on November 7 the B.C. Rail Co. sent a letter to the Guichon family asking to remove a significant portion of land, to buy land for the purpose of expansion of B.C. Rail. Has the ministry had any correspondence relative to the BCR Properties Ltd. and the removal of this land and/or its impact of agricultural land in Delta?

Hon. P. Bell: I've not seen any correspondence between B.C. Rail and the Guichon family.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Minister, for that. Possibly you haven't seen any correspondence, but I'll redirect my question. Has any member of your ministry had any correspondence with the BCR corporation relative to its request to purchase farmland from the Guichon family?

Hon. P. Bell: I've been advised by the staff that I have here today that we have not seen anything. There are 400 staff in the ministry, so we'll be pleased to do a search to see if there has been any documentation received on that, and we'll report back to the member within two weeks.

G. Gentner: Now, there are other farmers in Delta that have been contacted by the B.C. Rail Properties Ltd. to take their land, to purchase their land. Does the minister know, has there been contact in any way, any conception of how many acres that have been entailed by the request from the B.C. Rail Properties Ltd. within the last two years?

Hon. P. Bell: Given that B.C. Rail Co. falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation, I would recommend that the member canvass that issue with the Minister of Transportation.

G. Gentner: I take it with that answer that yes, the Agricultural Land Commission and/or the ministry has been in contact with the B.C. Rail Properties Ltd. Again, there's reluctance to be transparent and share with all of us what's underneath the floorboards, so to speak, with this deal.

I want to draw attention again to the transportation study relative to what is being proposed at 46A. My count is between 12 and 17 spur lines of rail development along this corridor is to occur. Would the minister like to respond as to how that will impact farming in Delta?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member is being very presumptuous. There is a process that B.C. Rail would have to go through prior to any exclusion decisions being made on that particular piece of property. I would like to highlight for the member again that last year in the entire lower mainland panel, there were a total of nine hectares removed from the agricultural land reserve and one hectare added, for a net difference of eight hectares of removal.

The Agricultural Land Commission is very diligent in their decision-making processes. I expect that of them, and I think they've done an excellent job.

G. Gentner: In a letter from the director of real estate for B.C. Rail Properties Ltd., they are suggesting that up to close to 175 acres are needed for purchase, namely because of such things as noise, railcar storage, shunting, whistling, all that stuff. Does the minister see

any impact at all as to this capacity and its effect on the agricultural lands it surrounds?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll answer this question one more time. If the member insists upon continuing to question, he'll find me remaining in my seat after this answer.

This is a proposal that B.C. Rail, I understand, may be looking at. I've not received any documentation on this. There has not been an application made to the Agricultural Land Commission. I think the Agricultural Land Commission, particularly with their history in the past few years, is clear that they are very frugal in terms of any exclusion applications.

Last year a total of nine hectares were excluded in the lower mainland, one addition for a net of eight. Two key decisions that members on that side of the House were certain would be excluded — Barnston Island and Garden City lands. In fact, there are numerous records of members on the opposite side saying those decisions had been made a long time ago for full exclusions. Both of those were denied.

For the member to stand up over and over again and insist that this decision has already been made and presume that this sort of development is going ahead I think is foolhardy. I've been clear on it. I don't intend to stand up and try and answer a question that the member does not care to listen to the answer to.

G. Gentner: Clearly, there is a letter. The intent from the B.C. Rail Properties Ltd. corporation is to take 175 acres away from farm production. So I won't ask any more questions relative to the nature of discussions between BCR and the Agricultural Land Commission.

I'll ask another question relative to the 175 acres. Has cabinet discussed at any time the need of removal of acres in the ALR to provide services to the B.C. Rail Properties corporation?

The Chair: May I remind the member that we're here to debate the estimates for 2007-2008. The question has been asked numerous times. It's repetitious, and I would suggest that the member move on to a new line of questioning. You may continue, Member.

I want to move towards another aspect of destruction of agriculture in Delta. We are seeing up to 210 acres, 250 acres removed from the agricultural land reserve to accommodate the South Fraser perimeter road. Will the minister tell this House what's seen in the budget — what isn't seen in the budget, actually — if this proposal will accommodate no net loss of agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: The proposal that the member refers to has not been received by the Agricultural Land Commission. It's premature to make any comment on it. It will have to go through the appropriate processes.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the Minister of Transportation is certainly going ahead with this — full steam ahead. It has made its application to the environmental assessment office. Just a moment of reflection here regarding the isolated impacts that this corridor will have on farming. Could the minister please respond?

Hon. P. Bell: This proposal has not gone forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. I won't respond until I've seen the results of that decision.

G. Gentner: I'm not talking here relative to the Agricultural Land Commission; I'm talking about the ministry itself. The direct loss of farmland — a loss that's due to decreased farm viability — will significantly affect Delta's farming community. These losses may also effect loss of habitat that supports, strangely enough, agricultural land.

Gateway is investing compensation options. They have not formally committed to adding land to the agricultural land reserve as compensation. My question, therefore, is: has the ministry inquired with Gateway if they are going to find some compensation for this loss?

Hon. P. Bell: That question relates directly to the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and would be better canvassed under those estimates.

G. Gentner: So if I have it correct, the minister has no policy relative to the land that is going to be removed or be non-productive for farming, no policy in place that will suggest that there will not be any net loss of land?

Relative to the South Fraser perimeter road, which will have direct impacts that will affect the drainage and irrigation of surrounding farms and farmers, does the ministry have a plan in place that will deal with these impacts?

Hon. P. Bell: That issue relates directly to the Ministry of Transportation and would be better canvassed under that minister's estimates.

G. Gentner: If it's all up to the Minister of Transportation, the minister must have some interest in looking after farmers. Therefore, the question is: has the ministry engaged in any conversation or inquiry that Gateway commit to paying the cost of all drainage, irrigation, infrastructure improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of South Fraser perimeter road on farmland — I think that's your ministry, by the way,

hon. Minister — or to enhance agricultural productivity where that is deemed to be acceptable compensation?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, this is an issue for the Minister of Transportation, but I'll tell you what I find a bit galling. It's that this member over here says that he's advocating for agriculture. This member last week voted against a $51 million increase for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. That member right over there continues to bring forward issues that actually decimate agriculture in Delta, not support agriculture in Delta.

I'm a little tired of this member pretending that he cares about agriculture, because he could care less about agriculture. That's the truth of what this member really feels like.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister talks about decimating farmland. We know that South Fraser perimeter road will decimate 225 acres. That's the truth.

Now, just so we have it clear, will the minister guarantee to the municipality of Delta that it be given an opportunity to review and provide comments on a detailed compensation strategy of farmland prior to any final decision being made on the application of Gateway? Will you…?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is talking about an application that's not been received. It's the normal practice of the Agricultural Land Commission to consult with the local community on any proposals that come forward. That's just part of normal process. So presuming that the application does come forward at some point, clearly the Agricultural Land Commission would be talking to Delta in the process.

C. Evans: Just to wrap up some of the dialogue that just took place, my first question is…. I think that the net result of the questions related to the member's desire to be informed of communications from BCR was limited to the municipality of Delta and that ultimately there was agreement from the minister to provide material related to the communications between B.C. Rail land corporation and the Agricultural Land Commission — however, limited to that which takes place within the municipality of Delta. Am I correct in that understanding?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the Hansard record will clearly show that that was not what the member requested. What the critic is requesting is more than a reasonable request, and I would be happy to provide that.

My second question related to this dialogue is essentially this. Is there a moment in a major transportation plan where the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transportation dialogue, have a discussion, about how to make the plan work out best for both transportation and farming?

C. Evans: I was wondering what that moment might be and when it might happen in terms of Gateway and the south perimeter road.

Hon. P. Bell: The member, being the previous Minister of Agriculture, will know that it's hard to put a specific parameter on any given project. But by the nature of this specific project, clearly, as it moves forward, there will be the necessity of bringing the expertise of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands to play in the processes.

D. Chudnovsky: I just wanted to pursue the line of questioning of the critic for a moment. We have a transportation infrastructure plan that has been put forward and publicly advocated for by the Minister of Transportation. It includes a highway called the South Fraser perimeter road. It includes a proposed route. That route will have an impact on agricultural land in the municipality of Delta.

So my question to the minister is: to this point have there been discussions between the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the road that's being advocated for and planned for by the Ministry of Transportation? Have there been discussions between the two ministries with respect to the potential impact on agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: That conversation would normally start with the Agricultural Land Commission and has not been engaged as of yet.

D. Chudnovsky: Do I understand from the answer that, given that it's the Agricultural Land Commission that makes decisions on exclusions from the ALR…? My understanding from the minister's answer…. Is there no place in the process for the ministry — separate and apart from the Agricultural Land Commission — to advocate on behalf of that agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: No. If the member checks the Hansard record, he'll note that I said the initial communication starts with the Agricultural Land Commission. Then, at the appropriate time, we would have agrologists and so on get involved in the process as well.

The member should know, actually, that there is a constant flow of information that goes back and forth between ministry-level staff and ALC staff. They utilize agrology individuals within our ministry on a regular basis to do assessments and make recommendations. If the member would care to look at the Agricultural Land Commission website, you'd also find that ministry staff often are asked to contribute to the decision-making process.

D. Chudnovsky: Can the people of Delta and the lower mainland be assured that when that appropriate time comes, through the process as has been described by the minister, the ministry will be advocating energetically for the survival of agricultural land in the region? Or do I understand that the information the minister spoke about is technical information?

There are two kinds of interventions that the ministry might make. It might provide information with respect to drainage and agronomy and any number of technical issues. That's data and information. But is there a place in the process for the ministry to advocate on behalf of the retention of that agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: The member asks if we would do so energetically. In the spirit of ActNow British Columbia, we will do so energetically.

C. Evans: Great segue. I wanted to talk a little bit about the ActNow initiative too.

I was visiting some folks in Chilliwack the other day, and they took me to visit a site which is called colloquially in the community Candy Land. My question to the minister: is the minister aware of Candy Land in Chilliwack?

C. Evans: That's great. Then we can talk about it a little bit. It was explained to me that Candy Land had historically been, first, a blueberry farm and, more latterly, had grown corn and had corn maze activities going on there in recent years. It now appears to have a building on it which is intended to be called Candy Land.

My first question is: is this land that grew blueberries and corn now outside the agricultural land reserve?

C. Evans: Great. That's good. I'm presuming that the cement building that's built on Candy Land is an acceptable use on agricultural land. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: This decision was made some time ago, so we're just trying to make sure that we have the information correct. As I understand it, it's actually part of a larger piece of property. I think there are perhaps four different parcels of property that are associated with each other in that area. One of them, I think, is a golf course, and one of them is an RV park. Then there's kind of an agricultural display area and then this Candy Land property.

The Candy Land property, I believe, went through the Agricultural Land Commission and was approved for the type of use which was kind of a theme park orientation at the time. This is some time ago that these approvals were made. The owner, I gather, built it to a certain point.

I know I've driven by it on the highway and often looked at it. I don't actually even recall how long the building has been there, but it did go through the approval process and did receive an alternate use permit.

C. Evans: For anybody listening and other members who want to know, if you're driving from here to the Kootenays, which I expect all of you do, and you're coming into the municipality of Chilliwack, this is the farmland right on the side of the road with a large cement building and a parking lot on it. You can't miss it.

As the minister says, you drive right past it. It is part of the land that we always tout as the best farmland in Canada, with some of the most intense agricultural capital investment in the country and, I think, with the highest return per acre of agriculture products in Canada. Is that correct?

C. Evans: I was wondering whether or not the area from Chilliwack down — say, as far as Langley — is in fact the most productive farmland in Canada in dollar returns, GDP per acre, in the country.

Hon. P. Bell: We'd have to do some research on that for the member. He may have done that during his five years or so as Ag Minister. I'm not sure.

I think there are a number of other parcels that are very, very productive. Certainly, Delta and Richmond would be two of them. I suppose it depends on the specific crop that is being grown on the parcel and whether or not it's actually a greenhouse or not, because greenhouses, of course, are very productive on a per-hectare basis.

C. Evans: I wasn't trying to establish a specific dollar value so much as focus us in terms of what this land is worth. I take the minister's answer to mean that if it's not the highest return per acre in the country, it's close and up there with competitive properties such as Delta.

Now I want to understand exactly what happened at Candy Land. It is my understanding that if a piece of property remains in the agricultural land reserve, we — citizens, owners of agricultural property — can apply for an acceptable use within agricultural land. Is that what happened on the property that is called Candy Land?

C. Evans: It's my understanding that what is intended to be built there is a theme park that sells candy to children. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have the details at that level here with us, but I'd be happy to provide those to the member in due course over the next few weeks if he'd like that level of information.

C. Evans: Over the next few weeks. That would be great for my edification, but not so helpful for the public discussion of the issue.

If I'm correct, and if we have decided that it is acceptable use on the most productive agricultural land in Canada to build Candy Land and sell candy to children — probably made out of sugar from Cuba — how do we square that with the whole initiative to eat well, feed children well and grow food on agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I just want to be clear that decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission are done in a quasi-judicial manner. The Land Commission operates at arm's length from the ministry, and I don't interfere with individual decisions.

We don't have the level of information. I appreciate the member's frustration in that he would like to delve into this topic to a greater level of detail than we have available to him at this particular point. Unfortunately, I don't have that level of information.

We've actually sent an e-mail off to try and acquire that. Perhaps we can have it by tomorrow, if the member would like to canvass it at that point in time. Without prior notice of an application of this nature, it would be very difficult for us to get into that level of detail.

C. Evans: That's a wonderful offer. I appreciate the minister's offer. Yes, we'll put this off, and I'll try to bring it up again tomorrow after maybe there's more information.

I'll ask a general question. So that everybody understands, it is legitimate on agricultural land to build a facility that relates to food and farming. In this case, however, Candy Land is a theme park. I just wanted to ask the general question: does the acceptable use clause now apply to the production and sale of food regardless of the origin of the inputs in the food?

In other words, it used to be that if you had apples on your farm, you could put an apple press and a little store there and sell people apple juice. If you have blueberries, you could build a processing facility to process blueberries. But does the permit now allow us to build a theme park creating food from constituent parts that are not grown in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: The member actually is incorrect. Just because a food processing facility is what it is, it would not necessarily be approved as an alternate use on an agricultural land reserve parcel of land.

Each application is managed individually. Someone could apply for, as the member points out, a blueberry processing facility, and that may or may not be approved, depending on the nature of the application and the circumstances under which it's made.

Similarly, an application for something of the nature of Candy Land is viewed independently on an individual basis. There are other examples around the province of lands where there is application for non-farm use and alternate uses as well. Each of those decisions, again, is made in a quasi-judicial nature by a series of panellists who we asked to make those decisions away from government, without political interference.

C. Evans: I'll put off further questions about Candy Land until tomorrow, and we'll have a Candy Land discussion when we have more information.

I want to move now to the subject of meat regulations, which I'm sure the gentleman from the Agricultural Land Commission would appreciate. I thank the gentleman for his attendance.

As I'm sure everybody knows, we are presently, I believe, in a process of changing the regulations on how we kill and process meat in British Columbia. As the minister and I have discussed several times, and other MLAs, communities are right now trying to figure out how to comply with the new rules.

There are people where I live who misunderstand the new rules, and there are people everywhere who are concerned about the new rules. I get letters probably weekly and have a very, very large file. I would like to have a discussion to help citizens and communities understand what the rules are and how they might comply and how the minister feels it's going.

We are moving to a situation where in order to legally process cows and chickens and game, an entrepreneur needs to be certified. My first question is: is the law that we have passed, and are presently engaged in enacting, in effect in every province in Canada?

Hon. P. Bell: I just wanted to highlight one point the member made that isn't entirely accurate. He suggested that game has to be processed through a processing plant — wild game, I'm presuming the member points to — which is not the case, actually. But in terms of commercial sale and production of meat, he is quite correct.

The member asks the question: what other provinces have or don't have regulations that require certified facilities or licensed facilities? I am aware that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec all have the requirement for certified facilities. Saskatchewan has a three-tiered system that allows for a municipal, a provincial and a federal standard. The other provinces I mentioned have just a provincial and a federal standard.

I know that the maritime provinces have some levels and standards, but I can't confirm specifically for the member which of the maritime provinces have exactly what types of certification requirements.

C. Evans: I appreciate the minister's answer. I was one of the people who thought that all provinces in Canada were moving to this regulatory regime. I assumed it had something to do with our trading relationship with the United States.

Now that I know that not all provinces in Canada have moved to this regulatory regime, can I ask the minister what the rationale was for bringing in this regulatory regime at this present time?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear, I can't confirm that the maritime provinces have this in place. We don't have that level of understanding here. I think they do, but I'm not sure. I don't want to mislead the member opposite by confirming that all four Maritime provinces have that standard. However, all other provinces that I'm aware of do have the requirement.

The decision was driven primarily for two purposes. One certainly is food safety. Clearly, when you look at issues like Walkerton, governments have a responsibility to ensure safe food and/or water for all the residents of the communities and the jurisdiction that they're in. There's a responsibility there.

The second key reason was for the management of SRM disposal, which are specified-risk materials or materials that have a high chance of having BSE located in them. You want to keep, as the member will know, those materials away from potential animal feed which could allow other animals to contract BSE.

So the primary reasons: health and safety of individuals, and management and control of specified-risk materials.

C. Evans: Back to my original comments at the beginning of these estimates. One of the phenomena that we deal with here in British Columbia is that unlike Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba our farm communities tend to be small, isolated groups of people, isolated from one another by lakes, mountains and great distance. So the people who have come to me in my own constituency…. As critic, they come from all over the province, but in my own constituency they tend to come from small towns who have a thriving intercommunity business and are quite dismayed by the fact that in order to kill animals, their animals have to leave their community. They have to go to some distant community and be brought back in order for two neighbours to do business together — communities like Slocan City, Nakusp and Creston, all with a thriving little agricultural community that provides both product and market but not a sufficient amount of business to attract capital to build a killing facility.

I'm assuming that Slocan, Nakusp and Creston are mirrored all over the province by municipalities that belong to the UBCM. My question is: did the ministry engage the UBCM in a dialogue, a consultation process, prior to drafting the regulations?

Hon. P. Bell: I will try and get to the member's question, but because he took some time talking about the issue, I think it's appropriate that I touch on a few issues as well.

The member will know that we have created two funds of $5 million each, one for specified-risk material and one to support the development of abattoirs around the province. The second fund, the meat transition assistance program, is being managed by the B.C. Food Processors Association, and to date we've received 58 applications for funding out of that particular pool of money. There are significant applications from all over the province. I don't have the complete list of locations here with me, but I was able to have a look at that list a month or so ago, and there was very good coverage around the province.

I know that the member opposite during the week of UBCM actually went out and had a tour of a plant not far from this House here in Victoria, and I think was rightfully impressed by the possibilities of what that would present for other areas around the province, and particularly for small communities. I think that's one of the specific types of units that the B.C. Food Processors has been promoting and the suggestion that these can be built more frequently around the province in an affordable way.

The other key piece that I think the member is aware of — but if he isn't, I'm happy to update him — is that there has been a mobile abattoir approved now. I believe that abattoir was built for around $150,000 — in that range. That's the type of abattoir that would also qualify for funding under the transition fund in a 50-50 manner, where the province provides 50 percent of the capital dollars. If it's a community solution, they can apply for up to $100,000. If it's an individual unit, privately owned, they can apply for up to $50,000.

We do have 58 applications around the province. We think the coverage is going to be pretty reasonable by the time we get to the end of September. The member will know that we did extend these rules for a year. I must not hesitate to point out that of course this legislation actually is carried by the Ministry of Health. They're the ones that have responsibility for food inspection and specifically this piece of legislation, but we've worked very closely with the Ministry of Health to ensure that we have the coverage that's necessary around the province.

We have some great examples of properties around the province — one of them in the riding of Prince George–Mount Robson called Kawano Farms. That particular operation has invested a significant amount of money and is doing a fabulous business. The Noulletts have really built a significant business around this new model.

I can tell you that I meet with farmers on a regular basis in the Prince George area and the Vanderhoof area, and the Noulletts have provided that service for a period of time. People are transitioning, understanding the importance of providing an inspected product through to their end customer, and they're adapting to that new model.

J. Horgan: I just want to pursue for a moment the line of questioning started by the critic for the official opposition. The minister will know that I represent the southern portion of the Cowichan Valley, where you'll find beef, dairy, llama, water buffalo, wine, spinach, carrots — you name it. The Cowichan Valley is the breadbasket of Vancouver Island. It was in the past and will be in the future. I know the minister is well aware of that. Certainly the slow-food movement is prospering and thriving in the valley. Agritourism is taking off. The opportunities are tremendous for the community.

But with respect to this one issue there seems to be significant discontent with the government's direction. I've discussed this with the minister in the past, so that will come as no surprise to him. When talking about the two funds…. I'm certain that that large binder there will have some community names in it. I'm wondering if he could tell me if any of the 58 applications come from the Cowichan Valley.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have that level of information here with me, but we're going to try and get that before the end of session today and read it into the record for the member opposite. If we don't, I'd be happy to read that information into the record tomorrow and provide it to the member as well.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister, and I don't want him to misinterpret my comments here. We raised the issues when we were elected here in 2005, the first opportunity to have a discussion. We raised the concerns at that time, and the government rightly said, "Well, we're going to take a look at it" — conscious of the need to fulfil Health Canada requirements and the Ministry of Health requirements here.

I commend the ministry for engaging in a consultation process starting in and around 2005. But the downside of that is that some operators in my community saw the writing on the wall and said, "This is where we're going," and they invested significantly to meet the requirements as they understood them to be. Others did not.

Now, as we've evolved and as the ministry has listened to those in abattoirs across the province and those in the sector, the rules as I understand them have been somewhat modified. The costs have come down a little bit. Nonetheless, those that are still resistant to the need, particularly small processors and those in places like Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. My colleague from Powell River…. Of course, they have to take any livestock they want processed by ferry rather than having it done directly in the community.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain to this place what costs have been incurred by the sector to meet these new requirements, and if he could burrow down specifically to the Cowichan Valley I'd appreciate that. But overall, provincewide, what have the costs been to the processors?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is asking me for information that I would be unable to acquire, because those would be individual investments by private entrepreneurs and not publicly available information. So I'm unable to provide that.

The member, I think, points out the conundrum that we were in when we chose to extend for 13 months the requirement to move to licensed, certified abattoirs in the province. That left some abattoirs in a situation where they had invested in their business understanding that the rules were changing.

As a result of that decision, we allowed all existing abattoirs which had made those investments already to retroactively apply into that $5 million pool of funds. If for some reason that communication did not get through to the abattoirs in the member's riding, I would certainly encourage him to ask those folks to come back in and apply — at this point, retroactively — for that funding.

I think what the member points out, and I'm sure that the member will agree, is that ultimately it's not appropriate to jeopardize the health and safety of any British Columbians and that we need to forge ahead with the implementation of these rules. I've been very firm in my position that by the end of September of this year the rules will come into effect and be implemented provincewide.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. September is a new date. I have, from my notes, people in my community concerned that it may be the beginning of June. I have the pamphlets which apparently say the 12th of July. So if it is September, maybe we could clarify that, and I can go from this place confident with the minister's assertion of a particular date. I'd be pleased to do that if, in fact, this is the correct date. I'll let you guys confer on that, and I'll just continue.

One of the issues that troubled people in my community, and I think it's important to get it on the record…. I don't for a minute want — certainly, no one on this side of the House wants — to jeopardize public health. But if you look at the statistics, as I have, you'll find that most health incidents are a result of industrial abattoirs, rather than the small mom-and-pop operations which we have — and the minister knows this, coming from a rural community — spotted all across the province.

The challenge as legislators…. And I, going back to my community and trying to sell the initiatives that the ministry is putting forward, as I think I have a responsibility to do…. Certainly, those on this side of the House take that very seriously. We have, as the minister will acknowledge, dealt with this issue in a very upfront way — trying to get some certainty and clarity in what was required, why it was required, so that we could present that information accurately and not cause more discontent within what is, as he says, an entrepreneurial community.

I guess my question would then be: can I give my community some assurance that this is a final date and that there is a retroactive opportunity to access these funds if they've not yet been advised of them? If in fact the fund is oversubscribed, is the minister contemplating increasing the level of those funds to meet the needs of people in communities across B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: To be clear, the firm date for the implementation of these rules is September 30, 2007. The date the member refers to — June 12 or July 12 or something — may relate to an SRM disposal regulation.

The regulation around abattoirs for implementation, requiring all animals to be slaughtered in a certified facility, does come into effect September 30, 2007.

The $5 million fund is currently undersubscribed, and there is still room in that fund for further applications. So at this point it would be premature for me to think about adding additional funds. That doesn't appear to be necessary at this point. But there is money available in that fund. We'd certainly encourage communities to come forward if they feel they're going to be underserved.

We'd also be happy to send an individual into the member's riding if he is concerned that the information flow is not appropriate. I believe we've done that with the opposition critic already — an individual that the opposition critic probably knows from his time as minister.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. I certainly have a good relationship with agricultural staff in the Cowichan Valley, as do most of the farmers in the area.

You mentioned the SRM. I came over to get a certain definition of the acronym. I know that when the minister stands up, he'll repeat it for me again so it will stick in my head. One of the challenges about the SRM, as I understand it, is a requirement that certain portions of small intestine are dyed as a new colour, or an identifiable colour, and then placed in plastic containers for shipment, treatment, processing, disposal. I'm not certain.

For my second to last question, I'm wondering if the minister could clarify what SRM means, what the process is and what the impact will be on human safety and health as a result.

Hon. P. Bell: That would be specified-risk material — what SRM refers to. I'm not a veterinarian or a meat inspector, so I don't have that level of information available, but it is largely the components of the animal. I understand that it's part of the brain material and part of the spine material that has the potential, if infected with BSE, to transmit to other animals in the event of consumption in the form of a food product, a feed product or something of that nature.

Certainly, we can provide the member with full details around specified-risk materials, management procedures and all of that sort of thing. We'd be happy to do that within a couple of weeks.

I'm hoping that I've been able to stick the words "specified-risk material" in the members' minds, because I know that it has been challenging to get other things to stick there.

J. Horgan: Yeah, I certainly wouldn't, for a minute, go beyond just the odd acronym, but that's because this place is replete in acronyms. I defy anyone…. I could list seven or eight that I am sure all of the ministers over there wouldn't be able to get.

The last issue I wanted to canvass. I mentioned water buffalo. I know that staff, and maybe the minister, are not aware of the thriving water buffalo industry in the Cowichan Valley, particularly in the community of Glenora. Despite the best efforts of Agriculture Canada to thwart this new business through, again, an assertion that there may well be BSE challenges with water buffalo, which have never ever been documented internationally….

Nonetheless, the animals were put down some years ago — nothing to do with the ministry. This was an Agriculture Canada issue. Despite that first setback, these fantastic farmers in Glenora got a new herd of water buffalo. They're now producing water-buffalo feta — which is in enormous demand, I understand — and they're doing fairly well.

But they wanted to bring a visitor from Australia to Canada to assist them in refining their process. It was a visit. It was a farmer helping a farmer; it wasn't a work-related issue. There was no money changing hands, but the farmers did purchase the air ticket for the Australian.

The result was that when he arrived at customs, coming from the United States into Canada, he didn't have a work permit to come to the farm. Therefore, he was denied access. The opportunity was lost. It was that sort of…. It's almost as if these good people and this interesting agricultural initiative were cursed from the get-go.

I just wanted to raise it with the minister and have it on the record. I know it had nothing to do with staff here in British Columbia. But in the future, should another lightning bolt strike down these producers of water-buffalo feta, I'm hopeful that I could contact the minister, and he would expedite any challenges we may have with his federal counterpart in Ottawa, who clearly doesn't want to see this industry thrive on Vancouver Island.

Hon. P. Bell: I actually think that what the member points out is the future of agriculture in B.C. It's unique, high-quality, niche-type products that are valuable and that consumers are prepared to pay a significant premium for. The days of being involved in large commodity-level products are somewhat more limited. I do think there are products, like blueberries, cranberries, greenhouse products, mushrooms, wine….

Although wine is very much a niche product in British Columbia, with our production level, it is something that certainly is the future.

The member's comments, I think, are well taken. I think that water-buffalo feta is perhaps a cheesy issue, but we look forward to working with the member on that.

N. Simons: I just have a couple of questions to the minister, if I may. They concern the meat regulations again. I know that the minister's aware of the unique situation of the Sunshine Coast in this whole issue. I'm wondering: can the minister tell me if Powell River was one of the communities of the 58 that applied for funding?

Hon. P. Bell: There's not been an official application received from Powell River, but we have sent staff to

the area and are working with the local agriculture community to find a community solution. Presuming that the community solution goes forward, it would be eligible to apply for up to $100,000 in funding. We are prepared to accept sweat equity as a partial contribution towards the construction of an abattoir in the region. We are feeling somewhat positive that we'll be able to find a community solution for the Powell River area.

N. Simons: Essentially, the process is ongoing. The discussions are continuing to take place, and the parties are all at the table.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. We'd be pleased to keep the member current on the issue. We'll advise him of any progress that's made on it.

C. Evans: The minister's quite right when he said that staff helped me and representatives from Slocan City to visit an abattoir here on Vancouver Island. I should say thank you to Ken Corraini from the minister's staff for making that happen.

The minister has talked several times about how there are two pots of money. One is for entrepreneurs, and one is for communities. I wonder if the minister could explain to us, and through us to the people that might be interested in applying: what is the definition of a community, and what is their role? If a community applies for funding, what process is it required to go through to find an entrepreneur to operate the facility?

Hon. P. Bell: We've tried to be flexible in the conditions set around what a community need would look like. In Cranbrook, as an example, the Kootenay Livestock Association is considered a community group. We're working with them — farmers institutes, local cattle associations, those sorts of things.

We've tried to be flexible in the approach of who could qualify under community need. Largely, we're looking for a consortium or a group of farmers who would come forward and put in an application on that basis.

C. Evans: I just want to check, though. We — at least the communities that I represent — don't really want everybody running the abattoir, because they might hurt themselves, do a lousy job or fail to clean up. Presumably, a community group would build a facility, and then an entrepreneur would be chosen to run it as a business. Is that, in fact, what the minister has in mind? Is it legal?

Hon. P. Bell: The option that the member describes would be one of the possibilities. Individual members could continue to operate the abattoir by themselves, but they would be subject to the rules, conditions and inspection requirements. Each animal that is slaughtered, I think the member will know, is required to go through a pre- and postmortem inspection as well. So there's a fairly high level of standard in terms of those processes.

We are trying to be flexible in meeting the community needs. We want to be responsive and not be too restrictive in the nature of the applications and how they go forward.

C. Evans: I'll just get this on the record for communities that might be watching us. The regulations come into effect, I think, on September 30 of this year. There is a fund available at present. It is not fully applied.

Is there a deadline for applications for funding or a day on which all the applications will be adjudicated? Or are they being adjudicated as they come in, with the program lasting until the $5 million is complete?

Hon. P. Bell: Originally there was a deadline. The fund was not fully subscribed, and therefore, we have reopened that fund. We adjudicate on an individual application-by-application basis, and we'll continue to do so.

There is no end date to the application time frame under which funds can be applied for. The fund will remain open until the fund runs out or it becomes clear that there are no further applications coming forward.

C. Evans: I want to move to the subject of disposal of waste. As I think everybody involved knows, those people who have historically been in this business — at least in mountain country where it's difficult to bring animals to a central location — have been driving to the farm where the animals exist, killing the animals and taking the carcass back to a central location to process. That means that the waste, including the central nervous system and the brain, exists on the farm.

Does the minister or the Ministry of Health or anyone have a definition of what acceptable disposal would be on the farm rather than in a central location?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Environment is actually the one that regulates waste disposal, but I am advised that on-farm disposal is traditionally an acceptable method of disposal and will continue to be. Of course, I can't say that in every situation on-farm disposal would be acceptable if there was a watercourse nearby or there were land constraints or something of that nature. But under normal circumstances, on-farm disposal either through burial or composting would be acceptable in those sorts of situations.

C. Evans: That's a great answer. That would make all kinds of things possible which people…. Sure, I'll clap for that. People where I live believe that this regulatory regime would make on-farm disposal illegal, and people are going out of business who have historically engaged in precisely that line of work.

Who would a person write to or phone in order to get a definition of what will be acceptable following September 30 in terms of on-farm disposal?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Environment is the organization that will be responsible for that. The local MOE staff people would be the ones to come out and

C. Evans: Did the minister say MOE, the Ministry of Environment? So the Ministry of Health is the official regulator, the Ministry of Environment says what's acceptable for on-farm disposal, and the Ministry of Agriculture provides the funding. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: Well, I'm pleased to be able to tell the member that through our award-winning FrontCounter B.C. project, we're capable of dealing with up to 186 different permits at any point in time through a single-window application process. If those individuals want to come into any one of our nine FrontCounter B.C. offices — we do business in 12 different languages here in British Columbia — we'd be happy to make sure that permit goes out.

C. Evans: That's great. So I'll just tell the folks from Slocan City to drive five hours to the closest FrontCounter, in Cranbrook, and they can do business in any language they can speak.

I just would like to advise the minister that we have only one more question related to meat regulations. Then it's my expectation that we will be moving to Lands questions, and they can bring the staff in.

D. Routley: To the minister: I wonder if he's heard of the types of difficulties that I've been hearing in my constituency around the inspection of the abattoirs that are attempting to come up to the regulation levels. The experience that has been related to me is that an inspector will come, issue a dictate but not be willing to put that into writing. Then another inspector will come to inspect the work and say: "No, no. This must be changed."

In one instance it was a plan for a four-inch drain. The first inspector said, "No, the plan is wrong. Put in a three-inch drain," so that was done. The next inspector came along and said, "That must be a four-inch drain," and threatened to have him jackhammer the concrete out of the floor.

Luckily, that one was allowed to pass, but there's great uncertainty around the dictates of the inspectors. I wonder if the minister has heard of this and if he could offer any solutions in terms of issuing a directive to put these requirements into writing.

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, we have heard of challenges in terms of moving through this process. It has not been a simple transition. We have therefore assembled a meat transition assistance program team that is working with Ministry of Health, the federal government and different provincial agencies to work our way through those challenges.

We are working very hard within the team, and there is a very specific team that's assigned to this. If the member has any issues that he would like dealt with specific to his constituents, if he forwards them to me, I'd be pleased to follow up on those.

C. Evans: For the benefit of the minister, we will now switch to Lands questions, from now to 6:30. Any further Lands questions we will put over to the opening in the morning, and then we'll go back to Agriculture.

B. Simpson: I'm glad that we didn't jump to that vote. We have a lot of important information to canvass.

First off, I'd like to have some discussion around invasive plants. My first question is: what is the actual line item budget associated with invasive plants, in the ministry, and does the minister have an idea of the overall budget assigned to invasive plants across ministries?

Hon. P. Bell: The line item that the member is asking about — or the budget for invasives — is in the line item, agriculture and aquaculture management. The original estimate for last year, restated, was $8.302 million, and the estimate for '07-08 is $9.291 million. It goes forward from there. It's in that budget, a component of that budget.

B. Simpson: If the minister could explain the relationship that his ministry has with other ministries that have invasive plant issues under their jurisdiction. How does the government coordinate an invasive plant strategy for the province?

Hon. P. Bell: The ministry actually chairs the Interagency Management Committee that has responsibility for invasives. We also work to direct funds into the various regions and manage them at a regional level. So we chair the committee, we work across government to ensure that moneys are being appropriately spent in each of the regions, and then we apply those funds out.

B. Simpson: The Interagency Management Committee — does it do a public reporting of its meetings, minutes, of its plans and how it does the coordination?

Hon. P. Bell: The committees don't keep specific minutes of the entire meetings, but they do have a detailed list of all the action items that come as a result of the meetings that are held.

B. Simpson: So if a rancher in my riding had concerns about weed control along a secondary or tertiary road, who do they go to for that concern?

Hon. P. Bell: That would be Ms. Janis Bell, the chief administrative officer for the regional district of Cariboo, Suite D, 180 North 3rd Avenue, Williams Lake, B.C. V2G 2A4, area code 250-392-3351.

B. Simpson: I think that's product placement or something. I'm not quite sure. That's an advertisement on behalf of the regional district.

Many people have tried it. I know the regional district has a lead role in trying to do an invasive plant strategy. They've got a program. I'm sure the minister has been made aware that they are concerned about the funding levels for that program and the sustainability of that program.

The question that I have for the minister, though, is…. When you have encroachment of weeds, particularly invasive weeds, along the secondary roads, they're allowed to go to seed. The law requires a rancher on their property to address that. The law also requires the government on Crown property to address that.

The CRD doesn't do the spraying along those ditches and secondary roads. It's supposed to be the Ministry of Transportation that mows those. So when somebody has a complaint about that and MOT doesn't have the budget for it, who do they go to as the champion for ensuring that we are actually managing invasive plants when MOT says no?

Hon. P. Bell: The role of the Interagency Management Committee would be to work directly with the Ministry of Transportation to ensure that appropriate measures are taken, as the member describes. I'm not familiar with the specific area the member is referring to, but if he'd care to pass it on, we can certainly work with the Ministry of Transportation on this issue.

B. Simpson: What about along the railbeds? This has been a contentious issue, particularly in the switchover from B.C. Rail to CN. There seems to be uncertainty as to who's got responsibility for weed control and fencing and all of those issues along the railbed now.

If we can just stick to the invasive plants, I will follow up with a quick question on fencing. But with respect to invasive plants, who is responsible for invasive plant management and weed control along the railbeds now?

Hon. P. Bell: It would depend on who actually had responsibility specifically for that parcel of land. If it was in the rail corridor that they had management responsibility for, actually, the railway would have responsibility for the management. If it was outside of the rail corridor and on Crown land, then it could be Ministry of Forests if it were in the forest land base. It could be a variety of users, so I'd have to understand specifically.

I think what the member is really referring to, though, is the coordinated management effort of that. One of the efforts we'll be taking in particular this year is working with utilities — including railway companies, pipeline companies, B.C. Transmission Corporation, Telus and other utilities who have rights-of-way in corridors — to ensure they're fulfilling their obligations as they currently are supposed to under the appropriate acts.

B. Simpson: What, then, is the relationship with the Interagency Management Committee and the Invasive Plant Council?

Hon. P. Bell: The two entities communicate back and forth on a regular basis. The primary point of difference is that the Plant Council is more proactive in terms of trying to limit the initial spread of the invasives and in terms of education and communicating with local constituents, whereas the Interagency Management Committee has greater responsibility over developing strategies for looking after infestations that are already in place.

B. Simpson: Behind all of this, the Liberal government did, in 2005, embark on a review of invasive plants around the province. They had a panel of MLAs go out on that, and it was referred to as the Chutter panel report. Will the minister release that report and table it in the House?

Hon. P. Bell: This issue was canvassed extensively last year. That is a cabinet document and is not subject to release on that basis.

B. Simpson: I have a copy of the report in front of me. I'm wondering why the government has chosen not to act on the report. It sends a bunch of MLAs around. They seek advice on something as dramatic as the impact of invasive plants on our economy and our environment. They get that advice. They not only sit on the report, but they don't act on it.

My question to the minister is this. What was the cabinet's response to the statement that the current funding levels for invasive plant management have been inadequate and unstable? How did the government respond to that and stabilize that funding?

Hon. P. Bell: To suggest that we haven't reacted to many of the recommendations, I think, would be inaccurate.

I have here the budget and the dollars spent in the years 1996-97 through to '05-06 on invasives. I'll just read them into the record for the member's own knowledge.

In 1996-97 there was $2.4 million spent. In '97-98 there was $1.95 million spent. In '98-99 there was $2.15 million spent. In 1999-2000 there was $1.7 million spent. In 2000-2001 there was $1.95 million spent; '01-02, $1.81 million spent; '02-03, $1.76 million spent.

Then I would direct the member's attention to the final three numbers here. In '03-04 there was $3.975 million spent, in '04-05 there was $3.34 million spent, and in '05-06 there was $4.245 million spent.

As the member will see, taking a quick scan through those numbers, well in excess of double the annual average has been spent in each of the last three years.

B. Simpson: To correct the record, I was speaking to the fact that it wasn't released to the public. I did not

presume that the government hadn't acted on it. I asked the question of whether the government had acted on it or not — and so the minister's answer to that.

In the Chutter panel report it suggests, however, that a minimum funding year over year should be in the order of the magnitude of over $6 million; $4.25 million doesn't approach that. There is still a shortfall there, according to what was presented in the Chutter panel report.

Does the minister believe that we still need to have more resources put into an invasive plant strategy for the province, and is there an intention for that to increase in the coming years?

Hon. P. Bell: The member may note that there was a second study or review done once we had lifted the spending to the level of about $4 million, and now exceeding $4 million, per year. There was an assessment done. I think we actually canvassed this in the very first estimates, so in the fall of '05 I think we canvassed this issue.

That report is posted on the website. It's available on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands website. That report indicated that at a spending level of $4 million per year, we would be able to effectively manage invasives and see a gradual reduction over the years. There's a chart and a graph available in that particular document.

The funding level that we are in, that $4-million-plus-or-minus range, seems to be effectively managing invasives in the province, and we continue to spend at that level.

B. Simpson: The Chutter report actually makes a very interesting statement. It says that the provincial government has not met its legal obligations under the Weed Control Act. That's a result of resources, oversight and enforcement. Is the minister comfortable that that has been corrected and that the government is actually in compliance with its own Weed Control Act?

Hon. P. Bell: Make no mistake about it. Invasives are a huge issue and continue to be in the member's riding and in my riding as well. With mountain pine beetle moving through the province, we're seeing all sorts of new invasives coming into play.

It is important for the member to know that the current level of spending is seeing a slow and gradual reduction in invasives in the province, and we actually have continued to increase levels of spending. I did not provide the member with the '06-07 year, and of course we have not quite completed that fiscal year. That is looking to be in the range of $6 million that we just completed this year.

We take this issue very seriously. It's challenging, it's difficult, and there are lots of challenges to do with rights-of-way that we are working through. We think we have made some progress, and we're going to continue to push hard on the file.

B. Simpson: I do want to switch over to the land use planning side, so a couple of quick questions. The Chutter panel also recommended that the Invasive Plant Council should be given the ability to do a public report card on the status of the invasive plant strategies, both on private lands and on Crown lands.

Has the Invasive Plant Council been charged and given resources to provide that independent audit function?

Hon. P. Bell: The report was posted to the website, I believe, about a year ago. I'm not sure of the exact time line. The data collected in that report was in effect a reporting-out of progress made by the weed committees around the province. The data from that was collected through each of the individual weed committees. The member will know that in his region the regional district, I believe, is the lead on it. The data came together from each of those committees and was reported out on the ministry website through the Interagency Management Committee, which has responsibility for weeds.

We focused the responsibility of the Invasive Plant Council more on the proactive approach in education around the province. That seems to be an appropriate division of responsibilities at this point.

So we do report out. We've invested a significant amount of additional resources this year on ensuring that we have current data. As that becomes available, we'll post that as well.

B. Simpson: I think the intent of the Chutter panel was to have kind of a higher degree of oversight and reporting-out of what was going on than just rolling it up.

Let me move on to the last point on this before we move on to land use plans. The Chutter panel report also recommended an additional source of funding, continuous funding — a $10 million trust that would be established as an endowment for advancing research, for giving the Invasive Plant Council or whoever manages the trust the ability to be more aggressive in dealing with this.

As the report points out and as the minister has already spoken to, invasive plants can get away from us very, very quickly. Particularly since the government now is paying attention to climate change, it has to be done in the context of climate change. The panel report's suggestion of an endowment for advancing research and development and making sure that we are on top of this seems reasonable.

Has the government considered that recommendation? If it has been rejected, what was the thinking behind rejecting it?

Hon. P. Bell: At this point we're confident in our ability to manage invasives. We've taken the issue very seriously. We've implemented many of the recommendations from the Chutter report and from other appropriate agencies that have come forward to us. We continue to

We've not utilized that particular recommendation. That's not to say that we might not consider it some time in the future, but we have a great degree of confidence in our ability to manage the bases at this point.

B. Simpson: Moving on to land use plans, I think the most frustrating thing for me — and I canvassed this briefly with the minister both in private conversation in his office and on previous estimates — is that there doesn't appear to be a place that I can go as a citizen and find out the status of where we're at with higher-level plans. Maybe it's just my ineptitude in research, but it would be nice to be able to see a status report.

My question to the minister: is there a status report that says what plans are completed and the status of the legality of the objectives in those plans, which plans are still in the works and what is the time frame, and which plans are slated either to come into existence or there's been a request? Does such a site exist, and does such a synopsis exist?

Hon. P. Bell: I should take time to introduce Kevin Jardine, who's the assistant deputy minister in the integrated land management bureau. Kevin has responsibility for the species-at-risk office as well, and has done just a fabulous job for us.

The answer to the question is on the integrated land management bureau website. There is a map that shows all of the existing plans and the status of those plans that are in place today.

The second part of the question, about the status of plans which are currently in process, is not specifically located on that map and would have to be, perhaps, searched for if one were to type in the key words of the area — as an example, "sea to sky" — to know what all of the various reports are on that project and where we stand on it.

In terms of the existing land use plans, those are available and located on the website. If the member chooses to go and look at that, he can then go off and look at the details of each of those land use plans linked through the integrated land management bureau website.

N. Simons: I appreciate the minister being available, and his staff as well.

I think the minister might have anticipated my question. The residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast have been speaking about a land and resource management plan and the need for one. Stakeholders from local government, business and community members have all expressed an interest in having a higher-level plan conducted for the Sunshine Coast forest district. I was wondering if the minister could perhaps let us know the status of that particular project.

Hon. P. Bell: I should also introduce, joining me now, John Bones, who is another one of the assistant deputy ministers in the integrated land management bureau — another one of the young, youthful, energetic individuals who continue to deliver great services for British Columbians.

The member will be pleased to know that the scoping study has been completed for the Sunshine Coast area and the review done. I've been briefed on that, and we're reviewing the scoping study at this point. We've proceeded to one step further, and we've started consulting with first nations on the Sunshine Coast in terms of their expectations of what a plan may look like. Once that work is complete, I'll be making a decision on next steps.

N. Simons: My follow-up would be that the scoping has taken place. My understanding was that according to the website last month, that process would then result in a recommendation going to cabinet. Subsequent to that, I've noticed that the ministry's stance on land use plans…. A change has been reflected on the website, and I'm just wondering if we could anticipate those recent changes as having any impact on the decision-making process in the ministry.

Hon. P. Bell: I want to congratulate the member for being one of the frequent users of the integrated land management bureau website. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, actually, the ILMB website is the most popular website in all of government, with more individual hits than any other website — again, a reflection of the great work done by the integrated land management bureau.

The member has noticed a minor shift in the process of developing land use plans. That shift was moving from not working with first nations on the front end of land use planning processes to engaging with first nations in the very early phases of land use planning processes. That is the shift that the member may have noted. The impact to the process, going forward, in terms of development of a land use plan would be the need for us to consult with the first nations prior to making a final decision on where we will go on this planning unit.

N. Simons: I appreciate that response, and I have to say that my interaction with your staff has been, as far as I know, cordial and productive. It's just our interaction which sometimes has the emotion that's becoming of this place.

My follow-up question to that would be…. I think it's excellent that the first nations are obviously being consulted earlier in the process. One concern I have is that there was some suggestion that all the ministries would have to be on side in order to go ahead with the planning. I think that's a new twist, because I understand that what we're talking about are competing interests. So I'm wondering if that is in fact true. Will higher-level land use plans go ahead even if one ministry may have reservations or what have you about that?

Hon. P. Bell: The shift or the change that the member notes is more reflective of the desire of ensuring that ministries engage early on in the process so that when it comes to implementation of the plan, everyone has a clear understanding of what the responsibilities for implementation of that plan would be.

Going back to some earlier comments from the member for Cariboo North — who I know has an understanding of some of the other land use plans around the province — plans that have been done historically in B.C. have varying values depending on the quality of the plan that was done and the buy-in of first nations, other government agencies, other agencies in the province and industry in the province. If there is buy-in and an implementation strategy, then you achieve the results that you expected from the land use plan.

I think we've learned that over the years, historically. Not just this government but all governments have contributed to that piece of the equation. We want to make sure that when we engage in a land use plan — like we did with north coast and central coast, like we're doing with Sea to Sky, like we're doing with Morice — we get a product that is implemented, that has the desired results you go into a land use planning process expecting to achieve. It's simply that we're being thorough at this point in time — making sure that if we choose to engage in a process, whatever the process is that we engage in achieves the expected result of the communities and the agencies within government.

N. Simons: I'm pretty sure the minister will know that the Premier has made very favourable comments about higher-level planning in the particular area we're talking about. I think that last year when he was quoted in the newspaper in Sechelt, people's expectations rose, as did their anticipation of early action. So I'm just thankful that the minister is keeping this near the top of the pile on his desk.

I think the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast know that they have to continue emphasizing their interest in getting this done, because the type of strains that are being put on the community now are in all forms of industrial and residential development. I would just like to emphasize somewhat the degree of urgency for a decision to be made, and I'll ask the minister to take that into consideration in the process. I thank him for answering my questions.

B. Simpson: I need to canvass some things that the minister and I have had discussions about in his office and with his staff. I need some of this on the public record because there are a lot of questions out there for it. I wonder if the minister could begin by clarifying the legal standing of higher-level plans relative to the Forest and Range Practices Act and the term "legal objectives" under that act.

Hon. P. Bell: The member will know that we have responsibility in this ministry for establishing legal objectives. That's what the member refers to, I believe, when he talks about higher-level plans. Once those legal objectives are brought into law, as they are in many areas around the province, then the Forest and Range Practices Act states that those objectives must be included in any forest stewardship plans that are brought forward for approval to various statutory decision-makers in the Ministry of Forests.

B. Simpson: For example, in the case of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, is that a legal plan with legal objectives that must be included in any forest stewardship plans that operate in that area?

Hon. P. Bell: I am told that this is a 98-percent correct answer, but we should absolutely confirm this to the member in writing as well. We will do that.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan maintained its higher-level status — it was grandfathered — when we moved from the FDP model to the FSP model, and the legal objectives in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan are still required to be met under forest stewardship plans.

Because this is an area that crosses over between ministries, we will confirm that to the member in writing in due course. But to the best level of knowledge of the folks that we have here today, that is our understanding.

B. Simpson: One more question for this evening. It would be nice, I think, if that…. The minister and I have had this conversation. There's a lack of communication around this whole issue of legal objectives outside of the Forest and Range Practices Act. I appreciate the minister's offer to follow up in writing on this. It would be helpful if we also understood what other higher-level plans were grandfathered, because we get those queries all the time. That would be helpful.

Let me close with this one other question. Does anyone from the minister's field staff or the ILMB review forest stewardship plans with a view to ensuring that grandfathered legal objectives and higher-level plans are in fact in the forest stewardship plans?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to respond, the member's first request was that we follow up on the other high-level plans and who was and was not grandfathered, and we will follow through on that as well.

To respond to his second question: do we have staff that review the forest development plans to ensure that they're in compliance with higher-level plans? No, we don't. That's the responsibility of the statutory decision-maker, and the statutory decision-maker has that legal mandate that they must consider and maintain the integrity of those objectives. It's not necessary to have three or four sets of eyes because the statutory decision-maker carries that responsibility in law.

C. Evans: Just for the benefit of the minister and the minister's staff and for MLAs, it is our intention to carry on with Lands-related questions at the opening of

the session tomorrow, and then we'll move back to Agriculture questions for the duration.

I do not know how long it will last tomorrow, and we'll conclude it whenever we're done.

B. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I request that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

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

C. Puchmayr: Chair, I think we're just continuing on from yesterday. We started off late with WorkSafe. Am I correct?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, Mr. Chair, we were working on the WorkSafe portion of the estimates.

C. Puchmayr: I thank the minister, and I welcome back her able staff. I know we had one submission yesterday on traumatic stress. I believe it was the issue. I'm just going to go through some of the issues that I mentioned in my opening remarks yesterday with respect to pensions and retraining, and some of the concerns that have come forward in my office due to the changes that were made and some of the issues that are now starting to take fruition.

I know that I have spoken to some of the members across, and they, too, have some concerns about some of the issues that are coming into their offices. When it comes to issues such as the cuts to workers' pensions after an injury and an accident and the issues of the reductions of the training, I'm also getting people into my office from constituencies that are represented by members on the other side.

Therefore, I do think that it is timely and important that we explore some of the issues that are happening right now. Maybe I can canvass the minister on the issue of pensions and workers that are disabled from work — on the elimination of the pensions and the restructuring of the pensions. Could the minister give me some rationale and maybe share with us as to whether there is any legislation pending or any direction to WorkSafe B.C. to change the regulation to try to make whole some of these people who are now seriously impacted by those cuts.

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, I would like to introduce the staff that are with me at the moment. Rick Connolly is with me again. He is the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour. Annette Wall, ADM. Also Terry Bogyo is here from WorkSafe. Jim Soles is here, another ADM for the Labour side of the ministry; Pat Cullinane from employment standards and Donna Freeman, a manager with WorkSafe. Those are the staff that are here today. I wanted to make sure that I introduced them because I forgot yesterday, upon the shift change, to do that.

With respect to the question from the member about the changes to pensions, I'd like to tell the member that WorkSafe is an employment replacement system. So the changes that were brought in, in 2003 relate to the employment replacement only.

C. Puchmayr: So the minister's comments would be, then, that if a worker is on a complete pension until age 65, under the new rules that pension would cease at 65 because there is no longer a requirement for worker replacement income?

Hon. O. Ilich: When an employee reaches 65 under the system that we have now, which is a wage replacement system, if there is something that has to be made up from the pension because of lack of work, then there is an annuity that is paid out to accomplish that.

C. Puchmayr: Are the minister and the board looking at impacts of that, which clearly show a significant difference between what safety net was there prior and what is in place now?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the member needs to be reminded that WorkSafe is a wage replacement system,

and it replaces normal wages to the normal age of retirement, at which point there could be an annuity. Most workers at 65 do go on a pension.

C. Puchmayr: Does the minister see that this change has created some hardships to disabled workers?

Hon. O. Ilich: The rates that WorkSafe pays out are amongst the highest in Canada.

C. Puchmayr: That doesn't answer my question with respect to the new rules for people who have their pension eliminated at 65 and possibly an annuity paid. Is the minister aware of severe hardships caused to disabled workers by virtue of the change of those rules?

Hon. O. Ilich: One more time. The WorkSafe program is a wage replacement program. Normally, a worker, when he retires at 65, would go on a pension. Under the WorkSafe program there is sometimes an annuity that is paid out to top up what a worker's normal pension would be.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to a worker on disability who is seriously injured in the workforce, is no longer making a contribution into their pension because of that disability, and now reaches the age of 65 and really hasn't accrued a pension…. Does the minister not believe that WorkSafe or the Workers Compensation Board should look at this and try to address it?

Hon. O. Ilich: When a worker reaches 65, there is a payout of an annuity. So the worker has the option to take a lump sum payment or purchase an annuity. He or she also has the ability to top up that pension, just as you would if you had been working normally to age 65.

C. Puchmayr: Unfortunately, people are now working beyond age 65 because of hardships. Will the minister look at the fact that a person who is totally disabled doesn't even have the ability to work beyond 65 by virtue of an industrial accident that was no fault or could have been no fault of their own?

Hon. O. Ilich: In fact, WorkSafe does recognize that 65 is the standard retirement age, but it also permits…. What we have right now is a continuation of benefits when it is satisfied that a worker would not have retired if he or she had not been injured. What they do require at that point is evidence by an independent source to confirm a worker's statements regarding the intent to work after age 65. So it does allow for a continuation.

C. Puchmayr: Will the minister commit to work with advocates in that field to clearly look at the situations and the hardships that are being caused, so we can address these in maybe a legislative or new regulatory way?

Hon. O. Ilich: WorkSafe is constantly looking at ways they can improve services to workers, and any suggestions about how that happens usually come through the board of directors of WorkSafe to the minister.

C. Puchmayr: Recently there was a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a new injury versus a pre-existing injury. I don't have the case before me. I'm sure that WorkSafe is aware of it. It was brought up in the House when the judgment came down.

Can the minister tell this committee if in fact the government has engaged in an appeal of that decision?

Hon. O. Ilich: The government is not appealing that decision. I just would like to add that WorkSafe is abiding by the court's decision by reassessing the claims of workers who are entitled to permanent disability awards prior to June 30, 2002.

C. Puchmayr: Has there been a written change of policy with respect to that?

Hon. O. Ilich: The policies of WorkSafe are now in accordance with that decision.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister show the surpluses for the last fiscal up until now on pensions — actually, an overall surplus would be good — and a breakdown of the costs of vocational rehab?

Hon. O. Ilich: The annual report for WorkSafe for this year is out at the end of this month — towards the end of this month. They will have those figures in it. Last year's figures were available in last year's annual report, and we can provide that to you.

C. Puchmayr: The rates of occupational vocational rehab — do you anticipate a further drop in that expense?

Hon. O. Ilich: The rates this year will be in the same range as they were last year and the year before, which is $48.7 million in 2005 and $47.6 million in 2004.

Hon. O. Ilich: That is the vocational rehabilitation money that has gone to real people — real dollars. That's what it has been for the past three years. It's been almost the same. It has not decreased.

C. Puchmayr: The recent hearings into the death of Grant De Patie that have gone on throughout the province…. Could the minister please update this committee as to the status of those hearings?

Hon. O. Ilich: The hearings have concluded. A report will be going to the board of directors shortly.

After that, there will be more consultation, or new regulations will be brought into effect.

C. Puchmayr: So they're not concluded? You said there may be more consultation. Could you maybe explain to this committee what you mean by that?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I just said, the consultation has gone on throughout the fall and early spring. The board of directors is going to review the submissions at the March 2007 meeting, and they may ask for clarifications and some more information. So where there have been some suggested changes, that may be going out for a little bit more consultation. But it's certainly the intent to get these things wrapped up and changes made to the regulations.

C. Puchmayr: I just wanted to clarify a little bit on that. At the last hearing that I attended, there was some discussion about the fact that the points of reference that were to be discussed, which were the urban/rural, I believe, and the limited effect of pay-as-you-go…. Overwhelmingly, the submissions were for 24-hour pay-as-you-go, and I believe no distinction between urban and rural. Would that require a notification again to some of the stakeholders that may not have attended in view of what the initial hearing was about?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer to the member is that if significant changes are made to the regulatory language that was taken to a public hearing, then a further public hearing may be required.

C. Puchmayr: On the other round of hearings on the regulations, when does the minister anticipate a final revision or potential revision of those regulations that were put to the public?

Hon. O. Ilich: I've just gone over this with the member. The board of directors is going to receive the information at their March board meeting. If there are significant changes, they may ask for one more public hearing. Generally, once a decision has been made, it will be 90 days after. These things will be happening in a timely manner.

C. Puchmayr: The scope of the hearings was specifically different, and different issues were addressed. But I'll accept that as a combined answer to when the board of directors will be dealing with them. So thank you on that.

I would now like to move to transportation, specifically transportation of workers. With respect to farmworkers, could the ministry reveal to this committee how many inspections of transportation companies or farms or labour contractors that were engaged in transportation were undertaken in the last fiscal?

Hon. O. Ilich: Neither WorkSafe nor the employment standards branch inspects vehicles. We do have a role to play in the transportation of workers, and that is that we want to make sure that there are enough seatbelts and that they are transported in a safe manner.

C. Puchmayr: To the minister: could you share with this House how many inspections were done to ensure that workers were being transported in a safe manner and that the vehicles did in fact have seatbelts?

C. Puchmayr: Are there different regulations for transporting farmworkers than regular transportation?

Hon. O. Ilich: The rules and regulations around transporting people are no different for farmworkers than anybody else.

C. Puchmayr: Does WorkSafe B.C. or the Workers Compensation Board have a category for transportation of farmworkers?

Hon. O. Ilich: There is no special category of inspections for farmworkers' transportation.

C. Puchmayr: The minister's comments were that they would inspect for those basics, which would be the seatbelts, and I don't recall what the other one was. Seatbelts and…?

Hon. O. Ilich: The regulation says that the vehicle has to comply. So the vehicle is inspected, and the number of seatbelts must be the right number for the people that are being transported. It's the same for any other vehicle.

C. Puchmayr: It would be WorkSafe that would merely inspect the issue of the seatbelts? I think I heard the minister mention another one.

C. Puchmayr: To the minister: would there, then, be a document that would show the numbers, the volumes on the last fiscal? Is it broken down in a category where someone could look in the last fiscal and see how many inspections, written orders or site visits identified issues with vehicles that were used to transport farmworkers?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just would like to remind the member that it is in fact the Motor Vehicle Act that governs vehicles, that does inspections on vehicles. What WorkSafe requires is that people be transported in a safe manner. If they violate this, they are in contravention of the Worksafe B.C. rules.

C. Puchmayr: I'm a little confused now. The minister states that it would be governed under the Motor

Vehicle Act or the Transportation Act but that a violation of it would be a penalty under WorkSafe rules. Could she tell me how the two interact to ensure that there is safe compliance of vehicles that are transporting farmworkers on roads in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: It is an obligation of the employer to always make sure that employees are safe, whatever statute might govern that. If they are in violation of any rules and regulations, then it's a violation of WorkSafe's rules.

C. Puchmayr: At one time there was an agricultural compliance team. Is the minister familiar with that model and with the role that it played with respect to safety in that industry?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are four dedicated inspectors under the employment standards branch who actually make sure that there is compliance with the employment standards, but there are a lot of WorkSafe inspectors that do inspections in addition to the employment standards people.

C. Puchmayr: To the minister: did I hear that correctly? There are four — only four? What areas do they cover?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are four dedicated inspectors for farmworkers in employment standards. That's not to say that those are the only people that inspect farms. There are four dedicated just to farms. In addition, there are a whole lot more inspectors from WorkSafe that also go out to check for compliance with WorkSafe standards.

C. Puchmayr: Does the minister have a plan to look at reinstituting a model that will ensure that the transportation of workers is addressed in a more in-depth manner?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I stated previously, the transportation of people, whether they are farmworkers or anybody else, is governed by the Motor Vehicle Act. The Employment Standards Act does say that the vehicle must be licensed and inspected. WorkSafe also regulates it by saying that any transportation of workers must be done in a safe manner.

C. Puchmayr: In the July of 2003 accident that cost a life and injured workers…. Were those covered under WCB?

C. Puchmayr: We're certainly starting to see some ambiguities and some gaps here. Here is a governance under Motor Vehicle. Here is the elimination of a team that brought certain agencies together to ensure the safety of workers. Here is an accident that happened in 2003 and another one today. I'm not prejudging that the one today will be WCB, but the 2003 accident was clearly WCB. What does the ministry intend to do to ensure that there are not gaps in the governance, inspection and safety of the transportation of farmworkers in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: The accident in 2003. At that time it was found that the workers were at work, and therefore they were covered by the act. It's too soon to tell about today's accident. We need to do a lot more investigation to make sure of the facts from today's accident. But in 2003 there was an investigation and those workers were deemed to be at work, and so they were covered by the act.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you, Minister. I did state at the beginning that I wasn't prejudging whether they were deemed at work today or not. My line of questioning is with respect to…. Since the 2003 accident there was an investigation. Certainly, there was a coroner's inquiry. There was a WCB investigation. We don't see any changes that came out of that.

In view of the potential risks that farmworkers are involved in and in view of the fact that nothing changed in 2003, will the minister commit to looking at an integrated model that brings Motor Vehicle, RCMP, farmworkers and farm owners into a model of governance where they can inspect and ensure compliance of safety regulations?

Hon. O. Ilich: The motor vehicle has to be inspected, and under the Employment Standards Act, a farm labour contractor that transports farm labourers has to do that in a vehicle that's inspected. All of the other rules of the road apply. If workers are injured and they're deemed to be at work, then WorkSafe also does an inspection and applies. But we don't think it takes a team of people to inspect vehicles. They are inspected under the Motor Vehicle Act.

A. Dix: It was a question through you, hon. Chair, to the minister that was just asked and not answered by the minister.

The minister and her staff will be aware of the work of the agricultural compliance team and of that work that brought together a number of ministries and efforts. The Ministry of Labour was very strongly involved in that. It had a remarkable record of success in terms of protecting agricultural workers, and it appears to have been largely disbanded by this government.

I'd like the minister, given that we're looking forward to this fiscal year, to say what she thinks of that model and whether she thinks that it is an appropriate model for the future.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm informed that the member is mistaken. In fact, there never has been a compliance team

that inspected vehicles. What there was, was a compliance group that worked with the Canada Revenue Agency to deal with unemployment insurance issues. The people that we have, have never been disbanded. There is still a group that goes out and does site inspections of farms to make sure that they're in compliance with the labour standards, and they do education. They continue to this day to do that.

A. Dix: People who work in the sector know that the work of this group has been profoundly undermined by the government. I'll just remind the minister. It may be news. ACT won the 2000 gold public service award for teamwork. Its manager received a public service gold medal award for his role in creating a multi-agency, joint provincial-federal task force to better regulate fruit and berry crop hand-harvesting.

B.C.'s public service commission concluded: "ACT has had tremendous success in documenting the extent of abuse and has put corrective measures into place to protect this very vulnerable workforce." That effort has been undermined by this government.

What I'm asking the minister, given all that we know…. I know that the ministry negotiated — didn't involve farmworkers — an effort in 2003 to eliminate overtime pay and reduce wages and so on. They didn't involve farmworkers in that, so clearly they've gone in a different direction.

I'm saying: in light of what we know, isn't that approach to dealing with these issues, including expanding it to include other agencies…? Wouldn't that be an effective way to deal with abuses suffered by farmworkers? Isn't that a reasonable suggestion, given the extraordinary success — the success recognized by her own ministry — of that program in the past?

Hon. O. Ilich: That was a program that concentrated on unemployment insurance with the Canada Revenue Agency. The Canada Revenue Agency withdrew from that, and we continued doing the work that we did. Having said that, we're quite happy to go and talk to the Canada Revenue Agency and the unemployment insurance inspectors to see whether or not we can reinstate that.

C. Puchmayr: There's a regulation that states that the officers of the board may assist an employer in measuring seats to determine seating capacity but will not designate or rate the number of passengers a worker transport can carry. Can you explain what the intent of that regulation is?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer to that question is that it's still governed by the Motor Vehicle Act, but WorkSafe does help the employer to make sure that they're in compliance. We don't have the exact citation, but we can get that to you by the end of the next couple of days.

C. Puchmayr: So let me get this straight. It's governed by the Motor Vehicle Act — the safety. Why would there be a provision for a measuring of seats through the Workers Compensation Board or through WorkSafe B.C.?

Hon. O. Ilich: WorkSafe helps employers to make sure that when they are looking at other rules and regulations, they are in fact in compliance.

C. Puchmayr: Well, it states clearly that it doesn't rate the number of passengers that a vehicle can carry; it merely assists with measurements. Is there an engineering service that is possibly redesigning the engineered standard of a vehicle that may well be used in transporting farmworkers on major roads?

Hon. O. Ilich: Just to go back over that again. It is the Motor Vehicle Act that does inspections and governs how many seats a vehicle is licensed for. All that WorkSafe does is make sure that employers are in compliance by assisting them with the understanding of those rules and regulations.

C. Puchmayr: Well, could it be that if more young workers were travelling in a van, as opposed to older workers, there would be a different configuration of seats? And would WorkSafe be advising on that?

R. Chouhan: Is the minister aware of something called Jacob's Law in the States which deals with these kinds of unsafe vehicles in the fields?

R. Chouhan: I would strongly recommend that the minister's office look into that. Perhaps that can provide some answers to what we are going through here in B.C.

I have other questions. Under the provincial nominee program, what we have seen is workers coming to Canada from other countries, especially Mexico. Initially they were coming here for a one-year period, and now I think it's extended for two years

Last year we heard a story about a couple who came from Mexico and worked in the fields in the Fraser Valley. They had a new child born during their term here in Canada. In a situation like that, what would be the status of a farmworker coming under PNP? Would they be allowed to stay here because they now have a Canadian child?

Hon. O. Ilich: That's actually a federal program. That's not our program. The foreign worker program is something that's negotiated between the foreign country and the federal government.

R. Chouhan: When the workers work here in B.C. on B.C. farms, would they be covered under the Canada Health Act as they are covered in Ontario and some other provinces? If not, why not?

Hon. O. Ilich: The Canada Health Act is a funding agreement between the federal and the provincial governments. Could you clarify what the question is? Are you asking if workers are covered for medical benefits? If that's the question, could you clarify that, please?

R. Chouhan: My understanding is that when these workers work on B.C. farms, they are not covered under the MSP. When they work in Ontario, the provincial medical program would apply to them. My question is: why is it not applying to these farmworkers when they work here in B.C.?

Hon. O. Ilich: Whether or not somebody is covered under our MSP is a question really to the Minister of Health. What I can tell you is that any foreign worker that comes here is covered by an agreement worked out with the foreign government. In British Columbia they have a private insurance coverage through RBC.

R. Chouhan: So does that mean that these workers would be treated differently from any other worker when they work in the fields? Why would they not have the same protection under the B.C. MSP and other coverages like other workers have? Why are they treated like second-class citizens?

Hon. O. Ilich: Seasonal agricultural workers are treated exactly the same as any other worker that comes into British Columbia. We have a three-month waiting period when you first arrive.

Having said that, foreign workers coming under an agreement — the foreign workers agreement that is worked out with the foreign government under the federal program — are covered with a private insurance program. That is a condition of that employment.

R. Chouhan: My last question is about weighing scales in the fields. In the early '80s we had inspectors and industrial relations officers that would go to the fields and inspect the weighing scales on a regular basis — if they were accurate or not. My question to the minister is: are those inspections still occurring? How frequent are they during the picking season?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are four inspectors that are dedicated to the farmworkers, and they do go out and do site inspections. One of the things that they inspect for is to make sure that farmworkers are paid properly and on time.

R. Chouhan: Obviously, it's not the last question as I said. Those four dedicated inspectors — during the season how often do they go…. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of farms out there. How frequently would they be inspecting each worksite?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'll just give you the numbers for 2006. There were 27 complaints investigated. In addition, the employment standards branch conducted 82 site visits. Those are random visits.

There were also 39 payroll audits completed, and there are still further audits going on. Those are the figures from last year that resulted in a number of contraventions and some fines for people.

Hon. O. Ilich: Last year there were 44 contraventions in that sector. They were: five operating without a licence, 24 for failure to pay semi-monthly wages, 12 improper payroll records, one failure to produce payroll records and two failures to allow inspections by the employment standards branch.

Hon. O. Ilich: Penalties are mandatory, and they would have been levied in every single case.

C. Puchmayr: Could you tell us the amount of the penalties that were levied?

Hon. O. Ilich: Well, $500 is the penalty for a first offence, and it escalates after that: $2,500 and then $10,000.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to WorkSafe B.C., how many site inspections were carried out?

Hon. O. Ilich: Are we talking solely about the farm sector? Could the member clarify?

C. Puchmayr: I'm sorry. One of my future questions is for both, so if the minister wishes to give me the overall and then a breakdown for the farm sector of the three questions that I will be asking on that, I would appreciate it.

Hon. O. Ilich: Last year approximately 250 of those were in the farm sector.

C. Puchmayr: How many written orders were there out of those 250 inspections?

Hon. O. Ilich: Last year the overall orders written were 46,163. We don't have here with us today how many orders were written just for the agricultural sector. We can get that to you.

C. Puchmayr: Is that broken down in that manner, and do you not have that at your disposal at this time?

Hon. O. Ilich: That information is in the database. We can get that, but we don't have it here with us today.

Hon. O. Ilich: Every site inspection would generally be for a separate site.

C. Puchmayr: Do you have inspectors that are designated strictly as WorkSafe inspectors? I know you have the four in employment standards that are strictly in the agricultural sector. Do you have designated inspectors in WorkSafe B.C. that are designated strictly to the agricultural sector?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are inspectors who have expertise in the farm area, but the member can probably appreciate that farming does not go on all year long. They do have expertise, and they do have language skills in Punjabi and other languages that are used on the farms.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister tell this committee if the greenhouse sector has now been removed from the agricultural distinction?

Hon. O. Ilich: We did 34 inspections last year of greenhouses. It is a separate category, but they are all different categories. For instance, horse ranching is one category. Poultry hatchery, poultry farming, poultry catching, orchard, white mushroom farming — these are all separate categories, but it's still being inspected.

C. Puchmayr: I just wanted to clarify that I think the minister's comments were that farming doesn't go on year-round, but in fact it does. In all the categories that she named, many of them do go on year-round, including the hand-harvest in the local hothouse industry. I think the minister needs to understand that this is a situation that needs vigilance year-round, not merely in the summertime.

Also, the last statistics that we received didn't show a significant increase in inspections during the actual harvest times, which would reflect to me that there would probably need to be more inspections during hand-harvest — outdoor hand-harvest — as opposed to during times when there isn't hand-harvest being done in the outdoor sector.

So my question with regards to the site inspections, the 250 site inspections for all the farms in British Columbia: what were the numbers…? Okay. You couldn't get me the numbers. I recall that statement, and you will forward those numbers to this committee. What was the total of the fines levied on those 250 farm inspections?

Hon. O. Ilich: I can get that information for the member. But I can tell the member that for all the businesses that were fined last year in the province, the total was $1½ million.

C. Puchmayr: In view of the drastic reductions in on-site inspections from '01 to '04 and certainly the significant reductions in penalties and in written orders, and after seeing what we have seen in the forest sector through the forestry inquest, does the minister anticipate increasing the worksite inspections specifically in this province but more specifically in the forest sector?

Hon. O. Ilich: As a matter of fact, there are more inspections going on now than we've ever had before. Last year there were 25,920 inspections. There are more safety officers now. There are 222 safety officers now. In 2002 there were 194. So we have more safety inspections going on and more safety officers now than ever in the past.

C. Puchmayr: Well, it's great to slash those officers in the field and then add some of them back and boast that there has been an improvement or an increase. That certainly isn't the case.

With respect to forestry, I know during the Gramlich inquiry there was some discussion about some increases that were done in that forest sector on a short-term basis to increase the inspections. I was actually quite alarmed to see at what rate those showed infractions in that sector.

I'm wondering if that program is going to be sustained into actually putting inspectors back into the field. Or is this just a temporary measure?

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, I'd like to make sure the member opposite understands that there was never a slash of inspectors. In fact, we've added more inspectors than we've ever had in the past. So we've got more working now than ever before, and there was never a reduction in the number of inspectors. I don't want the member opposite to say there was a slash.

We do have an integrated forestry compliance strategy. So 50 occupational safety officers are trained to inspect worksites strictly in the forest industry, where we conducted 300 site visits last year and wrote about 650 orders. I think we talked about this yesterday. We take safety in the forest industry very seriously, and we've brought a lot of focus on that in the last year or two.

C. Puchmayr: I'll read some statistics that certainly I have put on the record numerous times not only in the Legislature but in public as well. One inspection shows that between '01 and '04, inspections dropped by 45 percent. Inspectors were cut by 30 percent. Written orders compelling employers to improve safety dropped 49 percent. Penalties imposed on unsafe employers dropped 36 percent. Education spending on

workplace safety dropped 54 percent. One-third of health and safety regulations were cut in the forest sector alone, and 559 workers died on the job.

I fail to understand why the minister believes that putting a few inspectors back is such a good-news story.

Hon. O. Ilich: I want to go back to that. Today we have the highest number of WorkSafe inspectors that we've ever had and the highest ratio of inspectors to workers of anywhere in Canada. In 2002 there were 21,000 inspections done. In 2006 there were 25,000 inspections done. The magnitude of the orders written has also gone up.

At one time there was a small decline, but it went from 194 inspectors in 2002 to 222 now. The only year that it was down was for a short period in 2003. But the number of inspections continues to be at an all-time high, and we have more inspectors or a higher ratio of inspectors to workers than anywhere else in Canada.

C. Puchmayr: With regards to the forest sector, I want to touch a little bit on that at this time. We talked briefly yesterday about some of the recommendations in the inquiry. Would the minister agree that the changes to the regulations in the forest caused some severe gaps in the understanding of the regulations and may very well have had some serious impacts on the safety of workers in the forests?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would not agree, and I think that we need to see the Auditor General's report, which is going to be coming out in June.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I'm certainly looking forward to that report, but we have other recommendations and concerns that were put forward in an inquiry. It clearly showed that there are ambiguities and inconsistency within the act that potentially create difficulties in determining safety responsibility and accountability.

That's all a fact of taking away, really, the strong onus of safety — other than in a written format — from the tree farm licence holder or the prime lot holder and cascading that down to many individual companies, without good communication as to the working conditions, as to who's working where and as to whether a helicopter can come in in the event of a medevac.

So those were certainly regulatory-driven. Does the minister not see that, especially from looking at the requirements of the inquest — the 22 points. Doesn't that clearly show that the cuts were severe and, in my opinion — I hate to use this word, but I will — reckless?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think that we canvassed this yesterday, and what I said at that time was that we are looking at the Gramlich inquiry. We are acting on all of the recommendations of the Gramlich inquiry that pertain to the ministry and to WorkSafe.

In addition, we have asked the Auditor General to take a look at what we've been doing in our response to the special task force. If the Auditor General's report comes out and makes recommendations, then we will look at those as well.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to logging roads — I believe I tried to canvass this late yesterday — will the minister communicate with the designated forestry coroner to look at the incidence of fatalities on logging roads in British Columbia with the intent of improving and rectifying some of the hazards that have been created?

Hon. O. Ilich: The Auditor General is going to take a look at all of the aspects of forest safety. We don't get in the way of what the Auditor General looks at. He can take a look at anything that he would like to look at. As I've said, we will respond once the Auditor General's report is available.

C. Puchmayr: Does that preclude WorkSafe B.C. from looking at any aspects that may be brought to their attention with respect to forest logging safety?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have asked the Auditor General, as I mentioned, to do a complete review. But that does not stop the ongoing operations and the ongoing work. As a matter of fact, I think that we talked yesterday with the member or we mentioned to the member yesterday that there is a review right now of part 26 of the act and that is taking a look at forestry operations. So that is out right now and, in addition, we asked the Auditor General to look at how we are responding to the task force.

C. Puchmayr: One of the regulatory changes was taking out the need to survey a forestry road. When you take out the need to survey to build a forestry road, you have in essence taken away the engineered standard.

That has been addressed, actually, by people from WorkSafe B.C. as a concern that had been raised. It also is a concern that seems to be reflected in the standard of some of the forestry roads that exists now in the province that were built post the change in that minor standard.

It has been brought to the attention of WorkSafe B.C. Would that be something that maybe would be highlighted to the inquiry into those changes?

Hon. O. Ilich: The Ministry of Forests is the responsible ministry for that. Having said that, both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services have asked the Auditor General for this review. So this is something that is included in the Auditor General's scope of work, and we will address that when we get that report.

C. Puchmayr: This is a bit of a crossover ministry, and I understand that. I want to deal a little bit now

with the Kimberley mine disaster where you had two workers that worked for Teck Cominco — one of them was a contractor for Teck Cominco. We also had the tragic deaths of two paramedics who worked for the ministry in the Ambulance Service. The concern that I have with the minister is the fact that there are two different sets of definitions of confined space. Certainly, with the tragedy at the minesite we saw some real concerns with the notification process and the communication process on working alone.

My question to the minister is: is the minister willing to look at an audit of how the mine safety and reclamation act may be separate from some of the provisions of WorkSafe and the Workers Compensation Act in an attempt to harmonize so that we have the best practices of the two working together for the benefit of the health and safety of our workers?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I've stated more than a few times now, we're always concerned about the safety of workers. We'll always look at how to improve the safety of workers wherever they are working in British Columbia.

That particular aspect was governed by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. If there is a gap there after the coroner's report is released, then I'm sure that we'll be taking a look at it with them.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister advise this House as to whether the ministry is looking towards adding two cancers to the firefighters' presumption of cancer, which would be non-smoker lung cancer and testicular cancer?

Hon. O. Ilich: I had the great pleasure of meeting with the firefighters yesterday, and I did talk to them about the addition of those cancers. The first set of cancers that were listed and were made presumptive were…. They were added because it was evidence- and science-based. I did commit to the firefighters that if they could prove that with these additional two, we would certainly consider it.

C. Puchmayr: I'm almost out of my allotted time, and I want to touch just a bit on vocational rehab or retraining services. I have a question with regards to a…. Maybe I need a clarification. Does the Richmond Auto Mall have a contract with WorkSafe B.C. to engage in some form of retraining of injured workers?

C. Puchmayr: Does the ministry have contracts with private companies that may not be training institutions but that are training workers in a form of vocational rehabilitation or occupational rehabilitation?

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, training on the job and vocational rehabilitation is a responsibility of WorkSafe, not the ministry. It is often done on the job, and it is often done by employers.

C. Puchmayr: Are there any training components contracted out that aren't specific to a job on a specific site, that are merely to upgrade a person's skills and that they may be able to use elsewhere?

Hon. O. Ilich: Training for particular jobs could happen in a number of places. It could happen on the job or at a training institute.

C. Puchmayr: Has the ministry contracted that work out to jobsites that aren't registered training institutes?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to remind the member again that it's not the ministry that provides training or makes sure that training is done and conducted in a manner consistent with WorkSafe rules and regulations. It is, in fact, WorkSafe. Training is done at various places to make sure that workers and employers understand what it is they have to do.

C. Puchmayr: To the minister and ministry — and by the ministry I mean all the divisions and entities associated with the minister. I apologize if there seems to be some misinterpretation of that.

Could the minister, through her resources, tell this committee what governance there is of those potential learning institutions — what type of governance, what kind of monitoring. How can we ensure that people are being retrained at a level that will actually get them employment again?

Hon. O. Ilich: The licensing of training institutions is done by the Ministry of Advanced Education.

When there's training on the job, that is in fact done by a WorkSafe rehab and occupational safety inspector.

C. Puchmayr: My last question. Yes, I would like the minister to give me the information on the Richmond Auto Mall on what it is they are training in the component of an assessor for motor vehicle damage. What is the institute that governs that to ensure that people who are taking that course being paid for by WorkSafe B.C. are actually receiving accreditation that can get them back into the workforce in that line of work, which would be a new line of work?

C. Puchmayr: I just want to thank the staff. I apologize to them that I have run out of time, but I want to thank them for their input, and I thank the minister for her contributions. We certainly have some concerns in this province with regards to the directions that we have gone with worker safety. We are seeing some impacts of that.

I look forward to working with both sides of this House in committee stage and in the Legislature to ensure that we repair the damage that has been done and that we work towards enhancing the standard of health and safety, enhancing the standard of benefits and pensions to injured workers so that we all benefit from the same and that no one is left behind.

Hon. O. Ilich: I assume that we're going to have a changeover to the other side of the ministry, so I would ask whether or not we can have a small break so that we can have the other staff come over, if that's okay.

Hon. O. Ilich: Thank you for that quick break. I would like to introduce the line change that we've had here. Lori Wanamaker is here with me. She is the deputy of Labour and Citizens' Services. We have Sharon Plater here. Sharon is in charge of FOI. Tara Faganello is behind me, as is Jim Weir. Elaine McKnight and Trish Stewart are here. We do have Fred Cuzner here as well. That's the team, I think, that is going to be up — as well as our chief information officer Dave Nikolejsin.

H. Lali: I want to first of all thank the staff who are accompanying the minister on these estimates. I know how hard staff worked to prepare the minister's manuals and all of the work that is needed to bring the minister up to speed on the number of departments and sections that are in any particular ministry. I know how hard they work, and so I first of all want to put that on the record in terms of the time and effort that is spent by the minister's staff in the ministry in terms of preparing these documents.

Having said that, as I indicated to the minister earlier, I want to start with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I'd like to ask the minister what her philosophy is in terms of the right to access information and accountability in terms of the freedom of information and also the rights of individuals to have their personal information protected.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to say at the outset that we are very committed as a government to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I personally believe that the right of access to information is the cornerstone of our democracy — or one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

Having said that, we always have to balance that with the privacy of individuals. I am very proud of the record that we have on FOIPPA. For instance, we now cover more than 2,000 bodies and we've added about 65 in the last number of years. We've also moved to include whistle-blower protection and limit the foreign disclosure of personal information. We understand the importance of transparency and accountability. We take the right of public access to records seriously, but also the protection of privacy of individuals.

H. Lali: On July 22, 1998, the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, wrote a letter to Mr. Darrell Evans of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association in which he stated: "Open government is a hallmark of a free and democratic society. Access to government information helps hold the government to account, and accountability enhances democracy." These are the Premier's own words.

The Premier, when he was the opposition leader, at that time also strongly committed to three principles here. He says, and I'll read them: "(a) maintaining and enhancing the rights and protections enshrined in B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, (b) ensuring that resources are available so that all provincial government public bodies are able to meet or beat statutory disclosure timetables, and (c) ensuring that no search or photocopy fees are charged to any citizen requesting copies of their personal records."

I'd like to ask the minister if she agrees with the statement of the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now Premier. How have the Premier and the Liberal government actually lived up to the commitments that he made in 1998?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, I do agree with the Premier, and I would like to point out to the member that there has been no increase or change in the fees since 1993. We currently do not charge and never have charged for access to private information or personal information.

H. Lali: I appreciate the minister, who agrees with the Premier's statement in that letter. The Premier has on many, many occasions also asserted — I think it's one of the goals in the 2001 election — that he was going to make British Columbia the most open and accountable government in Canada. I think that the Premier's own words are coming back to haunt him.

I want to read some information from some documents that I have here. Actually, I have three different reports that I'm going to read from, on the record, and ask the minister some questions. You know, these aren't my words; these are the words of other folks.

The first one is…. In September 2006 the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association did an analysis and a report on the B.C. government's response to freedom-of-information requests between the years 2000 and 2005. The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association is also known as FIPA. Their report is called Access Denied.

Again I say, for the record, these are not my words. These are the words of FIPA. I'll read into the record, starting on page 1, "Introduction and Summary:"

These are not my words. These are the words of a citizen-oriented, independent body, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, which is actually a watchdog of the laws in this province and what the actions of the government are.

What this report is saying, this independent body, is that the Liberal government, since taking office in 2001, has done everything possible to make sure that the words that were spoken by the Premier, who was the Leader of the Opposition in July of 1998, are not true. That's what they are saying.

I'd like to ask the minister how she can say that they actually are living up to the letter of the law that the Premier laid down in 1998, in that they're going to make this British Columbia government the most open and accountable government in all of Canada. How can that be, when this independent body, this watchdog over freedom of information and privacy protection, is saying completely the opposite of what this minister and this Liberal government are saying?

Hon. O. Ilich: I am, in fact, familiar with that report. I did speak to that conference, and I did read the report.

I would like to say again to the member opposite that the act now covers more bodies than it ever has before; 65 bodies have recently been added. In August of 2006 the statistics of the government's performance in responding to access requests were posted on the ministry website. Since October of last year there have been 3,943 visitors to that.

Two weeks ago I was at a privacy and security conference here in Victoria, where there were 900 experts from across North America who praised the government of British Columbia for the act and the openness. I think that we are committed to open and accountable government, and we remain committed to that.

We've also enacted many of the recommendations of the special committee, something I would like to point out to the member opposite that the NDP government did not do. So we are working very hard to make sure that we remain open and accountable.

H. Lali: The minister said that the act covers more bodies. That's absolutely true. It does cover more. There are more responsibilities that have been given to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, no doubt about it. But this is the same government which cut 35 percent of the funding. They gave the commissioner and his staff more responsibility, then cut him off at the knees by cutting funds to his department by 35 percent in 2002. It has actually made his job more onerous and the ability of people to access information that much further out of reach.

The minister likes to say that under the NDP it was different. I'd like to quote again from Access Denied, this information. It's an independent body that said that. They said that the act that the NDP government brought in, in October of 1993, was hailed as the finest act of its kind at that time. Since then, over the years, amendments have blunted its original force, especially under this Liberal government. Since taking office in 2001, the Liberals have brought in, in terms of the sections and that, over six dozen amendments — to make access to information, the people's information, that much further out of reach. The facts do not jibe with the statements of the minister and of the government, when they state that they've actually made it more accessible.

Hon. O. Ilich: The member is talking about the years 2001-2002, when all ministry operations were asked to tighten their belts. Since that time we have been steadily increasing the budget. In fact, this year Mr. Loukidelis's budget has been increased by almost $400,000.

I would like to point out that the total number of FOI requests received by ministries in the first three quarters of this year is up almost 19 percent. We are working very hard. We do more routine reporting than ever before, and we remain committed to open and accountable government.

H. Lali: When FIPA did its study and its analysis of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, they conducted this study actually of the FOI performance to determine how well, for instance, the B.C. public's legally enshrined rights to access to information were being fulfilled. In particular they wanted to know, and there were three questions here: is the public able to access documents they have a right to? Are the legislative time lines for responding to requests being respected by this government? Are politically sensitive requests or requests from certain sectors receiving deferential treatment?

As I mentioned earlier, the ministry has a corporate request tracking system. It's a very sophisticated database, developed by the government since the 1990s to manage and individually track all of the FOI requests. The CRTS provides numerous details in terms of who is making the request, the responses, times and eventual outcomes. It also allows each ministry to award a sensitivity ranking to each new FOI request, and that was never there before 2001.

A request is assigned a sensitivity rating of high, medium, low or none. In addition, the CRTC also allows a request to be centrally flagged by the corporate privacy and information access branch — CPIAB. So it's a powerful tool for government in terms of monitoring requests, and one of the things that happens is the….

The minister made a comment that requests were up in the last year by 19 percent. What the findings and the analysis of FIPA show is something different. One of the troublesome trends that they uncovered was in the number of requests in terms of general requests made each year.

In the chart they give here, in 2005 the government received just 1,567 requests for general information. That compares with 2,449 general requests in the year 2000 and 2,839 in 2001. Those are declines of 36 percent and 46 percent respectively. Also, the number of individual users of the act, as opposed to organizations, showed a disproportionate decline of 40 percent between 2000 and 2005 and a 68 percent decline between 2001 and 2005.

How does the minister explain that? The minister says that in the last year the requests were up by 19 percent. But for the five-year period since taking office, requests have been down. How does the minister explain that?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would just like to point out to the member opposite that, in fact, the sensitivity rating on the corporate registry was dropped last year. I would also like to say that there is more routine release, which goes on all the time.

Having said that, the response time for FOI requests received by ministries has increased by less than one day, from an average response time of 54 days to an average response time of 55 days. We do have a 19-percent increase in FOI requests received during the period of that increase.

While there are legislated time lines for responses to FOI requests within a certain time period, those time lines are often legally extended either by the public body itself or by the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office. So because of these extensions, the fact that ministries respond to FOI requests in an average of 55 business days does not necessarily mean they are not responding outside the legislated time lines.

H. Lali: That's probably the crux of it as well — that they've changed the rules. This Liberal government since 2001 has changed the rules in terms of response times.

I want to point out, again, in this document that was done, that one of the reasons the requests were down for that five-year period is because of a declining faith in government transparency — that's what this document states — since the Liberals took office.

Most FOI requesters who actually contact FIPA express their extreme frustration with the process and say they have decreased their use of FOI requests or stopped entirely due to increased difficulty obtaining records. What they also go on to say is that when the government fails to meet the mandatory time lines for responding to requests, it is termed "a deemed refusal." This, in the opinion of FIPA, is clearly a violation of the law and is a serious matter.

One wonders why these requests are down. Since taking office, there were a number of amendments which were made under Bill 7 in 2002, entitled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002. Less than a year after actually coming into power, the Liberal government, in its first comprehensive amendment to the FOIPPA act, weakened access to government information by doing a number of things.

First of all, they increased the onus on applicants to provide sufficient detail in their information requests. The onus was on them. They could send it back and turn around and say that they need more information. That was a delaying tactic. They also increased the time lags by requiring public bodies to actually give an applicant a written estimate of the total fee before providing disclosure services — so as to throw the book at them and say they are going to be charged an exorbitant fee. They increased the time limit within which a public body must respond to an information request from 30 days to 30 working days — i.e., the 30

You know, they change the rules. They change it a little bit here and there to say: "We're living by the letter of the law or the legislation." In fact, they changed the legislation so they wouldn't count weekends in there. They also increased the time period during which a public body may transfer a request to another public body from ten days to 20 days — that added another ten days in terms of delay — and also excluded certain periods from the calculation of the 30 days within which a public body must respond to a request for information and permitting an extension of that 30-day period under certain circumstances.

The minister likes to say that they are living by the letter of the law, but then they change the law. They changed it by extending the time period by which people can get access to their information, further putting the information out of their reach, often when they need the information for a certain event or for whatever matter that they need it. The time has long come and gone, so they end up abandoning their request for FOI information.

How can the minister stand up and say that things are improved in terms of the statement that the Premier made in 1998? Yet, the fact is that everything is going backwards because of the changes that they have made.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd just like to correct a couple of things. The commissioner's budget has in fact increased from $2.13 million to $2.95 million, which is an $820,000 increase over the period from 2002 to this year's budget. The central rating and tracking system of FOIs that the member was talking about has in fact been in existence since 1993. That was the corporate request tracking system.

The latest process for rating requests was put in place in June 2000 under the NDP's administration. We just changed it last year to take that sensitivity rating off. Over the last number of years the fees which we are collecting have declined, and the fees have not gone up since 1993. We are collecting less. So we're obviously charging fewer applications with fees.

H. Lali: First of all, the government now has an average of 42 days to respond to a request, rather than the original 30 before they took office. I also want to say that what was also troubling in terms of the finding by FIPA was the number of abandoned requests, which increased proportionately by over 200 percent between 2000 and 2005 because of the kind of measures that government has put into place.

I want to talk about Bill 7 in 2002, the amendment act, which also allowed public bodies to require an applicant to pay a deposit prior to the public body providing disclosure services. I'll give you an example of that right here. This is a request to the B.C. Lottery Corporation from our caucus, hon. Chair. Here's a letter from the B.C. Lottery Corporation on January 30, 2007, regarding requests for information. This is BCLC file 06-27.

"This letter is further to your December 13, 2006, request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for copies of all travel costs incurred for the 2005-2006 fiscal year for all employees listed in the Financial Information Act and British Columbia Lottery Corporation's letter of January 23, 2007."

The estimate that is given by the Lottery Corporation is that the fee for providing the records is estimated to be $12,560. They're also saying: "Please provide us with a cheque or money order representing the deposit for the above services in the amount of $6,280."

That's 50 percent up front. The hon. minister likes to say that the fees have not gone up. I think she's referring to the fee structure — that the fees have not gone up. The fact is that the structure is being applied not only more and more, but it is being applied in so many cases that it is making it onerous for so many public bodies and individuals who can't afford the exorbitant amount.

Here we've got $6,280 being requested up front for this request. It's exorbitant. It's scaring people away. People are refusing to use it. The response time is slower. People can't get the information they need on time, or they don't get it. They end up actually not using the Freedom of Information Act in terms of accessing their information.

I also want to put into the record…. Actually, I'll talk about that later. The minister says that the fees have not increased yet talks about it in terms of the fee structure. How can she say that people aren't being charged more for information that in the past was routinely available either free or for a minimum token fee, when they're being asked to pay exorbitant amounts?

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, let me correct some statements there. Over the past two years, fees have only been charged for 11 percent of access requests. The average fee has declined from $2,610 in 2004-05 to $1,702 just last year.

The total amount of assessed fees has decreased from $610,000 in 2004 to $353,000 last year. I also want to say again that the fee schedule has not changed significantly — or in any way, actually, not just significantly — since 1993. So there has been no increase in fees.

The request to provide an estimate and ask for a deposit was a recommendation of the first special committee, a special committee that was struck by the NDP. It was one of the recommendations made then, so I guess they would have been in agreement with that.

Under the act, the head of a public body may waive the fees if the release of the information will benefit the public at large and not just the individual or the group that is requesting the information. If they think that the fees should be waived because there is a benefit to the public, then that is an option that's also available. Finally, there's also an appeal that can be made at any time to the commissioner.

H. Lali: Continuing under Bill 7, the amendment act put in place by the Liberal government in 2002, some of the other changes that were put in place included expanding the grounds under which the commissioner may authorize a public body to disregard information requests from an applicant, expanding the powers that the commissioner may delegate to include the power to permit public bodies to disregard information requests and also providing the commissioner with the discretion not to proceed to an inquiry in all cases.

Under Bill 62 in 2002 — the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 — which is approximately six months after the enactment of Bill 7, the Liberal government also took an unprecedented step towards cabinet secrecy and away from open government.

Section 9 of Bill 62 amended the FOIPPA act to extend traditional cabinet secrecy to Liberal caucus committees by giving cabinet broad discretionary power to exclude committees that relate to cabinet or include a cabinet member from disclosure obligations under the FOIPPA act.

Really, what happened is that Bill 7 and Bill 62 appear to represent the clearest….

The Chair: Member, could I remind you that there's a broad scope of discussion on the estimates but that we are dealing with the estimates for 2007-08. We are not talking about legislation or bills. Your questions should be directed back to the estimates that are on the table.

H. Lali: Well, I am talking about the estimates, because I'm getting to my question, hon. Chair.

H. Lali: Basically, these amendments that were made are still in place under this government and represent the clearest and most dramatic assaults on open government and access to information since the Liberals came to power.

I'll just go back to what has happened to individual requests or requests from organizations. There is a well-publicized story that was in the news in March of last year. Randy Christensen of the non-profit Sierra Legal Defence Fund was actually forced to file a freedom-of-information request to discover which companies in B.C. are failing to comply with pollution permits. He was astounded to learn that the fee requested was $172,947.50.

Basically, this was another attempt by the Liberal government to keep the public's information from coming out in terms of who some of these polluters were and whether or not they were complying.

I'd like to ask for the minister's comments. She has indicated that fees have not gone up. But how does she explain this request last year for $172,947.50 to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund? Also, what is she doing to make sure that this sort of situation doesn't occur again, where a legitimate request for access to information by individuals and organizations is being denied because the Liberal government is scaring people from proceeding further on their requests?

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, I would like to say to the member one more time that the schedule of fees has not been changed since 1993. It's exactly the same schedule of fees that was in existence when that member sat on our side of the House. There have only been fees charged over the past two years for 11 percent of access requests, and the average fee has in fact declined.

There is also a provision that somebody who wants to apply for a fee waiver can do so. If it is found that the information is going to benefit the public and not just an individual or a private body, then that can be looked at. Also, a commissioner has the right to look at anything like that.

Lastly, I would like to say that the member is reading letters about individual applications, and I really can't comment on that other than to say, again, that the same fee structure has been in effect since 1993.

H. Lali: One of the things that has happened as a result of this sensitivity filter that was put on and applied vigorously by the Liberals since taking office in 2001 is that it has resulted in more partial rather than full disclosures. I have talked about how people have abandoned their requests for disclosure of information, but also there is a lot of information that is not supplied.

Perhaps the most troubling finding in this study is that records that were deemed sensitive at either the IPPB — which is the information and privacy protection branch — or the ministry level resulted in a higher proportion of instances where records actually do not exist. "Records do not exist." I was really wanting to ask the minister: why don't these records exist? Were they lost? Were they stolen? Were they destroyed? I'd like the minister to explain that.

Hon. O. Ilich: Obviously, if records don't exist, then the government can't hand over those records. If something is asked for that's not in existence, then we can't give that to them.

I just want to say again that the tracking system that the member keeps talking about was in existence from 1993. The latest process for rating requests was put in place in June 2000 under the NDP and was just changed by us in the last year to remove that sensitivity rating that was put in place by the NDP.

H. Lali: The sensitivity rating, when the NDP put that in there, was not to be applied as a political sensitivity rating. The rating was there, and the vigorous application of it was done by a Liberal government since 2001, and it was done quite deliberately.

The focus of a lot of these…. Most of these requests that had the sensitivity filter applied to them were

either from political parties or groups that were deemed by the government not to be friendly to the government, this Liberal government, or else from media requests by members of the press, the radio and television media — so that information would not be supplied to these individuals and organizations in a timely fashion, so that the government would not be scrutinized and held accountable.

The costs were either too onerous, or the information was not available at all because it did not exist, or it was partial information that was supplied, or the delays were too long so that the issue had come and gone. It was basically to put people's information further out of reach of the hands of the people in order to hold this government accountable.

The minister says that the sensitivity ratings were there from the beginning. But what she fails to tell us is the fact that it was this Liberal government that vigorously applied it and actually changed it to a political filter so that public scrutiny would not be the end result, and accountability would not be the end result. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. O. Ilich: I want to tell the member opposite one more time that the central rating and tracking of the FOI system was put in place in 1993. The process for rating requests, the sensitivity rating, was put in place in June of 2000 under the NDP. There were no changes in the instructions to how that would be applied until we completely removed it last year.

H. Lali: Again I want to read from this report in terms of…. When you look at the B.C. government's database, FIPA says they:

The minister can state all that she wants, but the fact is that the vigorous application of the sensitivity filter to look at politically oriented requests, or requests from bodies and individuals that were deemed political by this government, has resulted in a delay of information that was coming forward. It wasn't there before, but it started happening under the Liberal government.

The minister says that they don't apply the sensitivity filter. I'd like the minister to give me some examples since the last year — since they said the sensitivity filter is not applied anymore — pointing out to this body here an actual decline in those percentages that I just mentioned.

Hon. O. Ilich: I have been told one more time that the sensitivity rating, and the instructions as to its application, was never changed until we completely removed it last year. Furthermore, the number of requests has gone up. Lots of times they're much more complex, and they do require a few more days of investigation and consultation so that we can get the proper responses out.

Having said that, the response times for FOI requests received by ministries have increased by less than one day, from an average response time of 54 business days to an average response time of 55 business days, despite the fact that there has been a significant increase in the number of requests.

We continue to do more routine release than we've ever done before, and we remain committed to the access to information. Furthermore, we continue to be committed to working with the commissioner on strengthening the FOIPPA act.

H. Lali: FIPA did some FOI case studies in terms of barriers to access. The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association called upon Dr. Martin Dowding, of the school of library, archival and information studies at the University of British Columbia, to conduct an anonymous survey of frequent users of the act.

Over 300 groups were contacted by Dr. Dowding's research team in early 2006, which resulted in responses from 59 individuals representing a broad cross-section of British Columbians who used the Freedom of Information Act.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the process of making an FOI request, and 91 percent of respondents said that they had encountered excessive delays in using the act. These are not just people who make requests on a one-off basis. These are organizations and individuals who make requests on a regular basis, so they are used to seeing the history of freedom of information since its inception.

Eighty-one percent of respondents said that the requests actually took longer than 60 working days to process — so it's different from what the minister is saying — and 41 percent felt that response times were actually getting worse. Sixty-five percent of the survey respondents had been charged a fee to access documents, and 53 percent felt that fee requests were being charged more often in the last five years, presumably the first five years of the Liberal government. Thirty-one percent had abandoned a request because a fee was charged. Those are telling figures.

In terms of withholding information, 87 percent of the respondents reported having information blocked out from requests, and 36 percent felt that this situation was getting worse. It wasn't getting better; it was getting worse. Seventy-six percent had documents withheld altogether, and 39 percent felt that this situation was actually getting worse. Every one of those people that sent in their submissions, the respondents, felt that the FOI process could be improved.

Again, I would ask the minister: what concrete steps has she taken or is willing to take to make sure that in terms of all of these deficiencies and weaknesses

that have been pointed out by this independent body, the minister is actually going to do something to make sure that she lives up to, and this government lives up to, the Premier's own words of making this the most open and accountable government in Canada?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to state one more time that since 2002 we have added 65 more public bodies which are covered under the act. In fact, some of the requests for information, which the member opposite is talking about in that report, are reports or information requested from bodies that we don't actually control but that we have mandated should be covered, such as municipalities and other bodies. What we do provide to those particular other agencies is training.

The freedom of information requests requested by ministries where we do track the response times…. I can tell you one more time that the response time has gone up by one business day, that we have not increased the fees since 1993, that the sensitivity rating and tracking have been eliminated, that we have increased the commissioner's budget over the last while and that he remains the person of last resort if there is a complaint about our service.

H. Lali: I want to talk about the commissioner's office and get back to some of the comments that the minister has made about adding more bodies to be covered under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hon. Chair, as you're quite well aware, the commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislature and acts as a watchdog and advocate on behalf of the public. He also holds very specific legal powers to make sure that there is compliance with both the freedom of information…

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I understand that. I'm talking about the duties of the commissioner, and I'm getting to some questions here to ask of the minister in terms of her responsibilities and the funding that goes into it.

The Chair: Okay. That's the direction towards the estimates for 2007 and 2008. Thank you.

H. Lali: In any case, with the commissioner people can now file a complaint. The staff in the office process complaints, requests for review and inquiries from the public. The commissioner can also review the file and, if necessary, order a hearing to settle the matter. The commissioner also has a duty to report to the Legislature in terms of government compliance with the act. He also has a vital public education role on information and privacy rights under the act.

Since the Liberal government came into office in 2001, the resources that have been available to the commissioner — and therefore the public — have been steady eroded by this Liberal government, while at the same time the legislative responsibilities and the caseload handled by the commissioner have drastically increased.

This is where the minister keeps saying that we're improving people's access to information because we've added 62 more bodies or all of these other responsibilities under the purview of the commissioner. But that doesn't improve the performance, and I'll tell you why.

For instance, in 2003 the commissioner's office handled 2,193 cases with a budget of $2,130,000 and a staff of 21. By 2005 the caseload had increased by 27 percent, while the budget was cut by 35 percent. That goes against what the minister is saying.

Four staff were lost as a result, so by the end of 2004 the Office of the Privacy Commissioner experienced their first-ever backlog of cases, with 189 cases carried over into 2005, a workload of two full-time case officers. The situation actually was made worse by the additional workload resulting from the passage of the Personal Information Protection Act, PIPA, in 2004 by the Liberal government.

In addition, between January 2004 and December 2005 the workload for the commissioner's office under the FOIPPA act grew by 20 percent, indicating the growing problems with the administration of the act.

I also want to give you some other figures for members' indulgence, comparing B.C. with other jurisdictions. In 2005 the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was handling 155 percent of the caseload of the OIPC for Alberta, with only 50 percent of their budget. When you look at Ontario, the B.C. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was handling 122 percent of the caseload of their colleagues in Ontario, with only 19 percent of their budget.

The minister keeps saying that they've added more bodies. That's correct. But really in terms of the structure of the mechanism, the ability to deliver…. The delivery mechanisms for the commissioner's office again have been cut off at the knees. I know there has been some increase, with a couple of additional staff hired for a year's term.

I want to ask the minister to put on the record: what is the minister prepared to do and willing to do to make sure that she lobbies Treasury Board, cabinet, the Premier and whoever else that she has to, to make sure that she could actually go out and proudly say that the Premier can live up to his word of providing the most open, honest and accountable government in Canada by putting his money where his mouth is, and that is into the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, so he could do his job effectively on behalf of the people in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd like to say to the member that the commissioner is perfectly capable of coming and pleading his own case and talking about the workload that he has, how much work he is doing and how much more money he may need.

I would like to remind the member that the budgets for government were significantly in deficit in 2001, that all government ministries and government agencies were asked to tighten their belts. Since that time the budget for the commissioner's office has steadily improved and increased, and we have added more bodies and covered more people.

The commissioner is quite capable of coming forward and asking for his own budget. This year there is a 38-percent increase from 2002-2003 to '07-08. He's now getting $2.95 million, and in 2002 it was $2.13 million.

The Chair: Member, just from the Chair's point of view, this comes under Vote 5 for the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and it hasn't come up for debate in the House. This debate will take place in the House at some point in the future. So if you could direct your questions more to the estimates for 2007 and 2008.

The minister says: "The commissioner is perfectly capable of coming forward for his own budget." Well, the commissioner did just that in terms of appearing before the Finance Committee: "I am here to ask the committee to recommend for approval an increase in the funding for our office that is necessary to enable us to meet the service demands that continue to be placed on us and also to meet the costs of certain increases that are beyond the control of our office." That's David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The minister keeps going back to saying that we have expanded the scope and the responsibility under the commissioner's office. There is no dispute from this side of the House. I agree. I think I've agreed about half a dozen times, but I think the minister just doesn't get it.

Adding more responsibilities and duties under the purview of the commissioner does not mean that his ability to do the job and to carry out the requests and appeals that come forward from people is that much improved. As a matter of fact, by putting more work on the table of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the minister is hampering and the Liberal government is hampering his ability to do his job effectively.

So when the minister gets up time and time again and says that they've put more bodies, more responsibilities under the purview of the commissioner, she's actually talking against what she wants to say. She's actually agreeing with me that his job is that much more difficult to do. The fact of the matter is that the increases the hon. minister has talked about are not even enough to cover the inflation since 2001 to now — six years now in terms of the inflation that has taken place. It doesn't take into consideration the salary increases that have gone on.

In fact, when the minister says that there is more funding that has gone into the commissioner's office, that's true. It has. But so have more bodies. So have more responsibilities that are under the purview of the commissioner that make his job that much tougher to execute. When you go back to 2001, the commissioner still doesn't have the same number of staff and still doesn't have, in terms of real dollars, the amount of money that is needed to do his job effectively.

In essence, the minister keeps agreeing with me that I'm right when I'm saying that the commissioner's job is being hampered by the lack of resources and also by the additional responsibilities that are put on his table. Again, I'd like the minister to respond to say that the minister's committed to making sure that the commissioner's job, his duties, are carried out in an effective manner and that he is given the required number of resources to do his job effectively.

The Chair: Member, if I may just remind you that we are debating Vote 37 and the questions and your comments are more relative to Vote 5, which is not under debate right now. If I may ask to you please refrain from remarks that are not relevant to our debate this afternoon.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to say that we are very proud of the work that Mr. Loukidelis does. His appointment was renewed a couple of years ago. We continue to be committed to an open and accountable government. Mr. Loukidelis and his office are very much a part of that. As the Chair has indicated, he will be here himself to talk about his budget under Vote 5.

H. Lali: I had quoted from Access Denied, a document put out by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

Here's another document called Behind the Numbers. It's put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, CCPA, in September 2006. It's entitled "How Does B.C. Rank on Openness and Accountability? The Government's Approach to the Auditor General and Access to Information." It talks about both. It was written by Keith Reynolds.

I want to quote from here, to put it on the record: "In the last five years the ability of both the Auditor General" — it's not part of this, but it's part of the quote here — "and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner to do their work has been undermined by budget cuts and inadequate resources for the new and expanded mandates. Funding for both offices is lower today in real terms than it was in 2001."

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of another independent body which doesn't have anything to do with government, the opposition, the Liberal Party or the NDP. They're an independent body. They go on to further say: "Of eight provinces that have a stand-alone freedom of information and privacy office, B.C. ranks sixth of eight in its per-capita funding." Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are the only ones that have less.

I'm not asking the minister, because of the clear direction that the Chair has given…. There is another quote in here: "Funding for both offices" — that I've mentioned here — "should be increased immediately to make up for past budget cuts and reflect new responsibilities."

The reason I say that is that the minister has talked about additional responsibilities that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has, and I wanted to respond to that by putting that here. Again, it states in here that in 2001 the B.C. Liberal Party actually published a document, the New Era document, which promised the most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada.

When you look at the CCPA's work that they have done and the analysis of what's taking place here in British Columbia, it's not very flattering to the Premier or to the Liberal government, and it certainly doesn't agree with the words of the minister opposite.

Alberta, as mentioned, spends more money and has a smaller population than British Columbia. It spends twice as much on a per-capita basis as British Columbia does for freedom of information and privacy protection.

Also, they state here — and I mentioned it earlier in terms of some of the changes that were made under Bill 7 and Bill 62 by the Liberals in 2002 — that it's basically putting even the caucus committees out of reach of freedom of information, giving them certain powers in terms of secrecy that are actually given to the cabinet.

Some of the dramatic changes in terms of the responsibilities are that some 380,000 businesses and non-profit organizations will be covered by a comprehensive set of privacy rules. As the minister says, all these bodies are now going to be covered — 62 of them. But in 2002-2003, the commissioner had some concerns about areas of government that were actually being eliminated from public scrutiny through the FOI legislation, and it's actually true today. He said:

When we talk about that, there are a number of bodies that come into play that are actually covered. B.C. Ferries, for instance, is one of them. The role of Maximus, the MSP premiums, is in there. Accenture, which is Hydro records and billings. And then you can also look at the Northern Development Initiative Trust, the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust and the Vancouver Island development initiative trust. There are a number of bodies that are now put at arm's length. VANOC is another one, and a whole lot of P3s also come under the purview of this. All of these are now put at arm's length.

It's the taxpayers' money that these quasi-governmental, quasi-independent bodies spend. If there is only one taxpayer in this province, it's their money that is being spent. Yet there is absolutely no accountability, and the minister agrees with the Premier that they want to make British Columbia the most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada. How does putting all of those bodies…?

They're still there, at arm's length, out of the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. They're out of the reach, where people can't get access to their own information of these quasi-government, quasi-Crown bodies that they have set up, and they're spending literally billions and billions of dollars. Actually, there was an estimate that was done. It was $27 billion worth of projects that are being done as a result of all of this, and people don't have access to their own information.

So I'd like to ask the minister: how can she say that they are living up to the Premier's statement of being the most open, accountable and democratic government when clearly they are not? What is she willing to do to make sure that people can get access to their information from these quasi-independent, quasi-government bodies that I've mentioned?

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, I'd like to make sure that the member understands that if they are a service provider to government, they are in fact covered under the act in the same way that would be if we were performing the service ourselves.

As to VANOC, there are some criteria under the act that will allow the decision whether it is covered or not. For instance, in the case of VANOC there is no controlling interest in the share capital owned by the government of British Columbia or any of its agencies. It does not perform any functions under an enactment of the government, and there are no members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or a minister to that body.

H. Lali: In his 2004-2005 annual report the Information and Privacy Commissioner said:

Again, these aren't my words. These are the words of the Information and Privacy Commissioner as quoted in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives document, Behind the Numbers.

This document also says that in general terms there are some principles that actually could be applied to funding…. They also talk about the Office of the Auditor General and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

They're basically saying that the funding for both of these offices should not be cut and should at a minimum be raised enough to make up for the past cuts and, where necessary, restoration of staffing take place. Staffing levels and core spending budget allocation should be increased to reflect new responsibilities, and British Columbia should move towards at least the midrange of funding levels for these offices in comparison to what is being done in other provinces. I gave some figures earlier.

I'm just wondering if the minister agrees with these principles that they have laid out.

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to point out that the quote from Mr. Loukidelis that the member was just reading was from a 2004 report. Since then the budget for the commissioner has been increased. For 2004-2005 the budget was $2.28 million, and this year it's going to be $2.95 million. So there is an increase. I want to repeat again that I'm sure Mr. Loukidelis can come here and defend his own estimates and has his own vote before the House.

H. Lali: Just for clarification, I wasn't asking the minister to support the funding increase. I'm just asking if she agreed with the principles as they were laid out, because there were no dollar figures or anything that were put in here. I just wanted to put that on the record for the minister.

In some of the conclusions that are drawn by this document by the CCPA, in terms of both the offices of the Auditor General and also the Information and Privacy Commissioner…. Both the offices play key roles in ensuring that there is transparency and also accountability in the government's finances and also in its policies. So in the last five years the ability of these offices to do their work has been severely undermined through budget cuts and inadequate resources for new and expanded mandates.

Perhaps the last word on this should be left to the recently retired…. Well, it's actually the Auditor General, who said in terms of this in his final report: "My final observation is that public business should always be public. When officials set out reasons why the public does not need to know about a transaction or why making information public is somehow against the public interest, rigorous public scrutiny is almost always even more important."

So really, in view of the Premier's words which I quoted earlier, how does the minister then reconcile what the outgoing Auditor General said last year, in terms of these words — that the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office, for our benefit here for these estimates, is very, very important in terms of rigorous public scrutiny? Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. O. Ilich: Perhaps I can state one more time that we have gone over the finances of the commissioner. We have gone over what we understand to be the record. We've gone over fees. We've gone over timing.

I want to say again that the government is proud of its record with the FOIPPA act. We have made additions which we think have strengthened it. We have included the whistle-blower protection. We've moved to limit foreign disclosure. We do understand the importance of transparency and accountability, and we do take the right of public access to records seriously. We remain committed to continuously improving the act.

We view the Information and Privacy Commissioner's and others' input as an important component of that process. We remain committed to open and transparent government, while at the same time we know that we have a duty to protect the privacy of the information that we hold.

H. Lali: I now want to turn the focus of the minister to a third report, which I have here. It's a report that came out in May 2004 by the Legislative Assembly's Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It's entitled Enhancing the Province's Public Sector Access and Privacy Law.

There was only one New Democrat on there, former opposition leader Joy MacPhail. Every other member of this committee was a Liberal, many of whom are still in the House. I think there were 14 people on there, and only one New Democrat. The rest were all Liberals, which reflected the makeup of the House, obviously, at that time.

One can safely make the conclusion that this is a document that is not written by a New Democrat or somebody who is left-leaning or a social democrat or a socialist — all of these terminologies that people say. It's actually a very good document, I must say, which was written by a special committee of the Legislature, which the Legislature had appointed. An overwhelming majority of the members, with the exception of one, were all Liberal MLAs. There are some good recommendations in here.

All of these points that I've talked about in the reports by FIPA and by CCPA, a lot of them are reiterated here. On the issue of sensitivity, the committee here actually has concluded that they think that the sensitivity ratings which were used by the Liberals — the ratings process used by government — was an issue that warranted special attention. In the opinion of these legislators: "The use of the term 'sensitivity ratings' reinforces the public perception that certain requesters are being identified solely on the basis of their names and/or affiliations."

The committee was also concerned about "the new practice of ministry-based communication staff having access to the names of the requesters listed in the branch's weekly update." I mean, there is an example of one our researchers from our caucus whose name was actually let out publicly. It appeared in all the newspapers. That's when most people actually realized she worked for the New Democrat caucus. That's just one example of names getting out.

The committee believed that this practice actually contradicted the basic principles of equal and fair

treatment for all before the law and also violated the privacy rights of certain citizens in the province. They urged the government to act quickly in terms of their first recommendation, which was: "Change the administrative policy and practice regarding the sensitivity ratings process used in the corporate records tracking system to ensure that complexity becomes the sole criterion for classifying formal requests for government records and that the new complexity ratings process treats all requesters equally and impartially and protects their personal identity."

I also want to point out that another one they had was in terms of the time limit for responding. It said that there were complaints about delays in responding to formal requests and that these delays were actually common. People were really complaining about that, even in terms of: "If an applicant submits vague or confusing request, the 30-day clock does not start running until the applicant provides enough detail to identify the record."

The committee made a recommendation, recommendation 8, which said: "Amend section 11(1) to make the time limit for transferring a request consistent with section 7(1)."

Then in terms of information released and the timely basis of information released, the committee wanted to "encourage all the public bodies in the province to consider releasing other types of non-confidential information as a matter of course," rather than to have to ask for it.

Recommendation 12 stated: "Amend section 13(2) to require the head of a public body to release, on a routine and timely basis, the information listed in paragraphs (a) to (n) to the public." They also talk about some of the new technologies, how they were helping the access to information and also how the new technology would help protect the private information of individuals.

Recommendation 15 said: "Add a new section at the beginning of part 3 of the act encouraging public bodies to incorporate the use of privacy-enhancing technologies approved by the commissioner into the privacy policies and practices within a reasonable period of time.

Recommendation 17, which comes under general powers of the commissioner: "Amend section 42 to explicitly give the commissioner the power to require public bodies to submit statistical and other information relating to their processing of freedom-of-information requests in a form and manner that the commissioner considers appropriate."

Recommendation 20: "Amend the act to combine the complaint process and the review and inquiry process referred to in sections 42(2) and 52(1), respectively, into a unitary process for the commissioner to investigate, mediate, inquire into and make orders about complaints respecting decisions under the act or rather allegations of non-compliance with the act."

Basically these two recommendations were to restore some of the powers that actually the Liberal government had taken way from the commissioner.

There's one more. This was actually on how to sever some of the information that was given out in a disclosure. That comes under part 5, "Review and Complaints."

Recommendation 23 was: "Amend sections 58(2) and (3) to permit the commissioner to order a public body to perform the section 4(2) duty to sever excepted information and disclose the remainder of requested records."

In all there were 28 recommendations. I agree with almost all of them. I wanted to ask the minister how many of these…. I mean, this is a document, again, which is not put out by some independent body or New Democrats or a New Democrat–associated body. This is the Legislature's own committee overwhelmingly dominated by the Liberals, with a Chair who is one of them, a Liberal MLA.

This is a very good report. Both CCPA and FIPA have abundantly quoted from this document. I put on the record some of the recommendations that were highlighted in these two reports not because I thought they were the most important or anything, but because they were in here. I wanted to ask the minister: how many of these recommendations have actually been acted upon in terms of the recommendations given by this standing committee?

Hon. O. Ilich: I want to say that these are recommendations of the second special committee. In fact, his government had a special committee that was appointed in 1997 that reported in 1999. None of the recommendations of that committee were enacted until 2002, so they were done by us. Many of those recommendations were done in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006.

The second special committee reported out in 2004. As the member said, there were 28 recommendations. Some of those have been dealt with in full through legislation. Some have been resolved. Three are scheduled to be dealt with through regulation, and nine have been addressed, in part, through policy.

I want to say again that the recommendations of the special committee that we struck have been taken into consideration. More than half of them are in the process of being dealt with or have been dealt with, and the other recommendations are still under active consideration for implementation.

H. Lali: I was wondering if I may ask the minister if her staff can provide me, specifically, a checklist of which ones have been enacted, which recommendations are in the process of being enacted — obviously that will leave the ones that haven't been enacted — so that the opposition can get a clear picture of the progress on this, and a possible time line when I may expect this information to be made available to me.

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, I have been informed that we can give you that. We can have that to you by next week.

H. Lali: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. To the minister: I had some important House business we were discussing. Would you mind repeating that answer to me, please?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, we can get that to you, and we will have it to you by next week.

I just wanted to ask some questions on the lobbyists registry. Does the minister need to change staff, or is that fine?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, that is the Ministry of Attorney General. It's not this ministry.

H. Lali: Okay, thanks. I guess I'll just talk about lobbyists then. I just wanted to find out from the minister, since she has become Minister of Citizens' Services, how many, if any, lobbyists have made appointments to meet with the minister to talk about issues that are important to them?

Hon. O. Ilich: I actually don't have that information available at the moment.

H. Lali: Okay, and I appreciate that. Perhaps the minister can, when she gets up the next time to provide that information at a later date, perhaps with a time line as well.

I would also ask if she could add how many lobbyists, if any, have met with her political ministerial staff — ministerial assistants, special assistants, executive assistants — since she has become Minister of Citizens' Services.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to just say that we can provide that information, but quite frankly, it's not my habit to be meeting with lobbyists. We do meet with people, as do the members of the NDP, when they come and talk to us. I noted that some NDP were at the firefighters' reception. I don't know if you would categorize them as lobbyists.

We meet with groups of people who need to inform us. I don't think it's relevant to the estimates if I'm meeting with various people who need to inform me of things. I don't know if that helps the member.

The Chair: Member, do I need to remind you? Let's keep our remarks to the debate.

H. Lali: I understand that. I'm actually not talking about the lobbyist registry now. That's under a different ministry. In the role of the Minister of Citizens' Services…. I'm also not talking about the public lobbies that we have at various venues outside of the Legislature either, where the NDP and the Liberals are all invited to those. But rather, registered lobbyists who are registered with the lobbyist registry but would want to meet with the minister on issues pertaining to Citizens' Services.

That is a legitimate question that I am allowed to ask. And if political staff have also had meetings with registered lobbyists in their role as caretakers of the Citizens' Services department.

Hon. O. Ilich: We don't keep those records, so I can't answer that question.

H. Lali: I'm just wondering: does the minister not keep records? Or is it that the minister just doesn't meet with folks who would be on the lobbyists registry? There's a distinction here between that, actually — either not meeting or not keeping records.

Secondly, the question I would ask the minister is…. The records may not be tabulated, but if there are meetings taking place between the minister and registered lobbyists and between the minister's staff — I would also include senior staff — in the ministry, there must be schedules or daily calendars in which such meetings may have been noted that information can be compiled from.

For both questions, I'd like to ask the minister if she's making a distinction between not meeting with the lobbyist registry and not keeping records, and whether that information would be available on those calendars for individuals.

Hon. O. Ilich: I don't ask somebody whether they are registered as a lobbyist. Certainly, nothing springs to mind when I'm meeting with somebody that would shout out at me that this is a lobbyist for a particular organization.

I do know, as I said a few minutes ago, that we usually meet with the same people when they come and talk to us as groups. For instance, just to repeat, we were all meeting with the firefighters. Those are the people who are lobbying on behalf of their organization. They come to inform us, and they come to inform the NDP as well. But I did not check to see whether they were registered as lobbyists.

H. Lali: I just want to turn the attention, in terms of Citizens' Services, to any contracts, any advertising budgets and, also, any consultants that may be hired. Were any contracts let out to consultants, or any form of advertising, for the minister's responsibility under Citizens' Services?

Hon. O. Ilich: The member opposite is asking about contracts and if I've met with lobbyists about contracts. I can actually say no, I have not. In any case, the contracts have all been let according to the proper procedures that we have in place for letting contracts.

H. Lali: I was actually not making reference to registered lobbyists getting contracts. I mean, they could be just contracts that the ministry had let out — whether it's to do a specific task under Citizens' Services, some polling, some communications work — to a private outfit. You know, it's those sorts of things.

I want to make a distinction. I'm not talking about registered lobbyists — rather, other contracts that ministries normally do in their day-to-day, week-to-week affairs. I was wondering if any of those contracts have

been let out of the minister's office or even by the ministry under Citizens' Services for these kinds of things.

H. Lali: Actually, Minister, I don't have any further questions, and I do note the hour. I will take my seat.

I want to thank the minister for her responses. I also want to thank the staff for being here and taking time out of the evening to be with us to do this. I'm sure you do this on a regular basis, but again I want to put on the record the great work that staff in all of the ministries do on behalf of the people of British Columbia. So I want to thank the minister, and also I want to thank the staff that are here with her.

Hon. O. Ilich: Shall the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again?

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