Hansard — Thursday, March 8, 2007 a.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


Second Reading of Bills		5955
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007 (Bill 2)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston
	Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 3)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston
	Hon. B. Penner
	L. Krog
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	N. Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		5970
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)
	Hon. P. Bell
	B. Simpson
	S. Fraser
	C. Evans
	M. Sather

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call second reading on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007. In Committee A, estimates debate — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007, be read a second time.

Bill 2 amends 12 provincial statutes to implement a number of the spending and tax measures that were announced in Budget 2007. The measures in Bill 2 build on previous budgets and have the twofold objectives of strengthening the provincial economy and improving the availability and affordability of housing.

The changes amend several statutes to reduce housing costs. They implement recommendations resulting from the PST review. They also create two special accounts: one for funding innovation in affordable, social or supportive housing, and one to help with the educational expenses of each child born in British Columbia.

Finally, there are a number of measures to improve the fairness and sustainability of the tax system. I have heard from British Columbians who are concerned about soaring property values. While these rising values are indicative of a buoyant economy and confidence in our prosperity, they can also be a source of concern for many homeowners, especially families and seniors who simply want a place to live.

Recognizing these valid concerns, Bill 2 contains changes to the homeowner grant program, the first-time-homebuyers program and the property tax deferment program to improve the affordability of home ownership.

For many years the British Columbia homeowner grant has helped to keep home ownership affordable. Bill 2 amends the Home Owner Grant Act to provide the grant to low-income seniors, certain veterans and disabled individuals whose homes are above the grant threshold. This will ensure that low-income seniors and other qualified individuals whose properties have increased in value beyond the threshold, but who may face financial hardships, do receive the homeowner grant.

The booming real estate market has stretched to every corner of the province. For that reason, Bill 2 also amends the Property Transfer Tax Act to increase the threshold for the first-time-homebuyers program. The threshold will now be set at $375,000 across the province. That ensures that there are housing options eligible for the first-time-homebuyers program in all regions of the province.

An amendment to the Land Tax Deferment Act provides a further benefit to homeowners by lowering the age at which an owner may begin to defer property taxes on their principal residence to age 55 from age 60. This change supports those who are retiring early by giving them the option of staying in their homes without the worry of rising property taxes.

Through the PST review process undertaken by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue we heard from businesses about various aspects of the administration of the provincial sales tax. Bill 2 implements a number of the recommendations arising from the PST review. These changes will benefit businesses across the province by improving provincial sales tax administration and reaffirms our commitment to an efficient and effective tax and regulatory system.

The major changes in the bill relating to the PST review are as follows. Amending the Social Service Tax Act to extend the date when taxes must be remitted from the 15th to the 23rd of the month. This change provides businesses with a longer period of time to remit the taxes, addressing a concern raised during the PST review.

Amending the social service, hotel room, motor fuel, and tobacco tax acts to reduce the audit assessment limitation period to four years from six years to reduce impact on taxpayers. As well, the refund limitation period is changed to maintain consistency with this new audit provision.

Relieving craftspersons, non-profit groups, and other small businesses that make $10,000 or less gross annual sales and do not operate an established business premise from the responsibility of collecting sales tax, and simplifying the sales tax application to businesses that lease equipment.

To recognize the hard-working efforts of hospital foundations and health care auxiliaries, we are also amending the Social Service Tax Act by providing a PST refund for tax paid on purchases of medical equipment funded by the these organizations.

Bill 2 amends the Financial Institutions Act and the Public Service Benefit Plan Act to clarify that the credit union deposit insurance fund and the long-term disability fund are considered trust funds for accounting purposes.

The Transportation Act is also amended to remove the cap on borrowings by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. We have now established a declining debt-to-GDP ratio as an overall cap with specific debt allocations for each sector, including transportation. These replace the Transportation Financing Authority debt cap as a means for debt control.

Finally, amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act create two special accounts, the housing endowment fund special account and the children's education fund special account. The housing endowment fund special account will leave a housing legacy by establishing sustainable funding for

innovation and affordable, social or supportive housing and in housing development and management.

The children's education fund will provide benefits for future learners. The investment through this fund will apply to children born on or after January 1, 2007, who later enrol in British Columbia–based post-secondary education programs.

Bill 2 also contains several other measures to improve the fairness of our tax system. In summary, Bill 2 includes amendments that will implement many of the measures in Budget 2007 directed at improving housing affordability and continuing to strengthen the provincial economy.

B. Ralston: This bundle of amendments seeks to implement the government's budget, which was just tabled weeks ago. In general terms, the housing measures that the government seeks to implement I think have been widely criticized as being relatively timid and really more a disguised tax cut, nominally called a housing budget. To that degree, the opposition regrets the direction that the government has taken in composing this budget.

But dealing with the specifics of this particular bill, there are two areas which give rise to some question which this side of the House will be pursuing at the committee stage of this particular bill.

The housing endowment fund is funded to the amount of $250 million, and in the legislation, is referred to in 9.3(3). Innovation will be paid out: "(a) innovation in the provision of affordable, social or supportive housing, and (b) innovation in housing development and management."

Now, "innovation" is one of those words that everyone wants to support and no one wants to oppose. It's not at all clear what this fund will do. Obviously, the government had an option of providing that money to B.C. Housing, for example, to build social housing. There are a variety of ways in which the housing stock of the province could be increased rather than simply creating a fund. So the question that will be pursued is: is this the best policy choice? Certainly, given the absence of detail, which will be pursued at committee, it remains an open question.

There are approaches that have been made by various housing advocacy groups. Is this money intended for research? If so, why has the government chosen to fund this through this particular fund rather than through the relevant part of the Ministry of Forests and Range and for housing? One of the areas that it appears to be directed to is innovation in housing policy. Is that what this fund will direct itself to? Does it seek to direct itself to alternate financing mechanisms? Is it proposing to work with banks and credit unions within the province to devise a program which will devise more innovative — there's that word again — forms of finance?

There are programs which seek to assist first-time homebuyers in a way that would qualify them for 100-percent financing. I'm aware of at least one financial institution that has such a program. Is that the direction that this fund seeks to go? Certainly, the government has that option, but given that it is $250 million, it's not at all clear that this is the best policy choice. On that basis, I do have questions about that special account and will be asking some questions about it.

The other area this bill seeks to implement is the children's education fund special account. This offers children born after January 1, 2007, should they enrol in a post-secondary institution…. It's not clear to me, although I may have skipped this in reading it, whether it's for the public universities and colleges or for any post-secondary education institute, whether that includes the private colleges and institutions in the province or not. Perhaps that would be something that could be clarified by the minister at the committee stage. I don't have a fixed position on that, but certainly it doesn't appear to be clear.

But the question is: why, rather than taking the sum of money that's allocated here…? It's allocated on the basis of an estimate of the number of births and adoptions in any given year, money is then on that basis set aside, and the eligibility is obviously many years hence before students could draw on that. Why is the policy choice made to do that in that manner, rather than fund scholarships and bursaries for those presently attending colleges or universities in the province? Again, it's a policy choice.

It would appear that the kind of administration that will be required to track recipients over a lengthy period of time will certainly, at the margins, have some complicated administrative provisions. If someone is born here, leaves the country or the province for 15 years and then returns and enrols, presumably there will have to be some mechanism to recognize and track that. It does have some of the elements of a pension plan in terms of tracking eligibility.

The other provision that seems to be…. And perhaps this is just Ministry of Finance caution. It does seem to predicate itself on a relatively low return. I believe it's probably a reasonable return, but whether the financial projections for the return on the fund are reasonable or not I guess is a question that, again, will be pursued at committee stage.

The other question — I guess, again to be pursued at committee stage — which, in general terms, this fund raises is: what is the ability of the individual, should they be eligible, to defer this? I expect that might be dealt with by regulation. But if one is eligible at 18, how long would a potential recipient be entitled to defer that? Sometimes people go back…. They are in the labour force and sometimes return to, or begin, their education at a later time. Then that raises further administrative complications, which the fund will have to address.

The other, I suppose, more minor point is obviously that, regrettably, some children will not live to receive the benefit. Is there an issue there in terms of how that flows? Is it extinguished at that point, or is there some entitlement of the estate?

Those are questions that we will pursue at committee stage, but the policy question arises: why not sim-

ply take the $42 million a year that this fund contemplates setting aside and place it into the budget of the Advanced Education Ministry for either a reduction in tuition fees or a needs-based scholarship?

The Finance Committee toured the province, and I think the Chair of the committee will confirm that there was a very determined and spirited lobby by student organizations and by professors and teachers at the college level supporting such a change in the structure of funding for post-secondary education, looking for a reduction in tuition fees of 10 percent and a forgiveness of all fees on adult basic education. That was a policy option that wasn't pursued, and there doesn't appear to be any explanation offered in this policy choice.

These two funds involve a substantial financial commitment by the government, and the policy basis appears to be questionable, given the other choices that were available, certainly given what we heard in the Finance Committee, and given the strong representations made across the province by a number of groups about another mechanism of increasing access to post-secondary education.

I appreciate that this is one of those policy initiatives that perhaps flows uniquely from the Premier's office and from the Premier himself, and that therefore there's an obligation to put that into action. Nonetheless, it does appear to have serious limitations in terms of addressing the needs of students now and in the immediate future as opposed to when they become eligible to receive this benefit.

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

Hon. C. Taylor: I move second reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 2 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call for second reading, of Bill 3, entitled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 3, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

Bill 3 amends the Income Tax Act to implement income tax measures announced in Budget 2007 as part of government's overall strategy for making housing more affordable. In 2001 we lowered British Columbia income taxes by an average of 25 percent. In 2005 we introduced the B.C. tax reduction. In this bill we introduce a 10-percent tax cut for the first $100,000 in income.

With these tax reductions, about 250,000 people will no longer pay B.C. personal income taxes. Taxes will be reduced by 30 to 35 percent for most taxpayers, and B.C. will have the lowest provincial personal income taxes in the country up to $108,000 in income.

The tax measures in Bill 3 build on the many tax cuts government has introduced since 2001. These amendments reduce the personal income tax rates for the first four tax brackets by 5 percent for 2007 and by a further 5 percent for 2008 and subsequent tax years. In addition, the rate of reduction for the B.C. tax reduction is reduced to ensure very low-income taxpayers receive a tax cut of at least 10 percent. With these changes, there can be no doubt that British Columbia is a competitive place to work and live.

Bill 3 also introduces an adoption expense tax credit effective for 2007 and subsequent tax years. This credit will provide parents who adopt children with a reduction in British Columbia personal income taxes payable based on the amount of expenses they incur to complete an adoption. This credit is harmonized with the federal expense tax credit.

Communities in the interior are in a transition period in dealing with the impact of the mountain pine beetle and its effect on the forest sector. To help with this transition, Bill 3 introduces an additional 10-percent credit for qualified mining exploration expenses incurred in mountain pine beetle–affected areas of the province. This will bring the total tax credit rate to 30 percent for grass-roots mining exploration in the affected areas.

Bill 3 extends the very successful book publishing tax credit for five more years to 2012. This credit was introduced in 2003 and has helped B.C.'s book publishing industry compete both nationally and internationally. Given this success, the government has decided to extend the credit for five more years.

Bill 3 implements the B.C. training tax credit program to help address the skill shortages in the province. The training tax credits are effective January 1, 2007, and have three elements. First, the credits complement the federal incentives for Red Seal apprenticeship training by providing similar incentives for non–Red Seal apprenticeship programs.

Second, credits are provided that are based on completions of levels 3 and higher for both Red Seal and non–Red Seal apprenticeship programs. The completion credits will provide employers with up to $2,500 for each apprentice that completes a level 3 and up to $3,000 for each apprentice that completes level 4 or higher of an eligible apprenticeship program. Individual apprentices can also receive completion credits of $2,000 for completing level 3 and $2,500 for completing a level 4 or higher of an eligible apprenticeship program.

Third, to encourage greater participation in the trades by first nations and persons with disabilities, these training credits will be enhanced by 50 percent when the apprentice is an eligible first nations individual or a person with disabilities.

To provide businesses with certainty for their research and development plans, Bill 3 extends the scientific research and experimental development tax credit for five more years to 2014. In addition, effective February 21, 2007, the credit will be extended to active corporate members of partnerships that incur qualifying scientific research and experimental developmental expenses in the province.

Bill 3 implements the previously announced elimination of the royalty and deemed income rebate and implements an enhanced dividend tax credit. The royalty and deemed income rebate was introduced in the '70s to provide taxpayers in the resource sector with certain deductions in place of the federal resource allowance. Now that the federal government has eliminated its resource allowance, there is no longer any need for the royalty and deemed income rebate. Industry has been consulted and is aware that these provisions are to be repealed.

As announced in Budget 2006, the personal income tax enhanced dividend tax credit will reduce the extent to which corporate income tax is taxed at both the corporate and personal level. This credit parallels the federal enhanced dividend tax credit and will be set to reflect the amount of B.C. corporate income taxes paid on income received by shareholders as dividends.

Finally, Bill 3 makes two amendments to ensure taxpayers do not have their B.C. sales tax credit reduced by the federal universal child care benefit income and to prevent double taxation in cases where a taxpayer claims a foreign tax credit and is subject to alternative minimum tax.

The amendments in Bill 3 build on our successes in making British Columbia's tax system competitive for all individuals and families.

B. Ralston: The opposition supports this bill, just so that it's clear, notwithstanding what's been said on the other side. But it is noteworthy that the Finance Minister this fall at the second quarterly in September spoke very alarmingly of a billion dollars in pressures on the health care system, and at the quarterly report in December spoke of $4 billion of pressure on the health care system.

Notwithstanding that talk of financial pressure and using a graph in September, which projected — in my view, erroneously and falsely — health care spending extending to 71 percent of the provincial budget by 2014, the government has found the tax room to implement a personal income tax cut. One really wonders how those two positions are reconciled.

On the one hand, health care costs are, according to the Finance Minister in the fall, soaring out of control. One would, therefore, assume that all the financial resources of the government ought to be focused on dealing with this fiscal problem. Yet in the budget here a 10-percent personal income tax cut is implemented and heralded as visionary and forward-looking.

So it seems to me that the Finance Minister is trying to have it both ways in this particular approach to the fiscal matters in the province — on one hand, to use projections in the fall as a battering ram against the health authorities, and in the spring, no doubt as a result of a cabinet decision, to tell us that there's adequate fiscal room to give a personal income tax cut, which is costed at $500 million a year into the future, for a total of $1.5 billion over the three-year cycle of the cut.

The other point that one is obliged to note at this point is that…. The reference is made by the Finance Minister to the government's fiscal record going back to 2001. But to offset some of the personal income tax cuts, it's noteworthy that there have been many other increases in fees that British Columbians have been obliged to pay.

Medicare premiums increased by 50 percent in 2002. They're the highest medicare premiums in Canada. Many provinces do not have a medicare premium. Certainly, that's something that B.C. families have borne since 2002.

In the budget, after a number of missteps, I would say…. Certainly, on the Friday before the budget was tabled, the clean energy innovation fund was not in the budget. By Monday it was in the budget, at least prospectively in a certain form, and we found out after the budget was tabled that it was going to be funded by a tax on hydro and natural gas bills to raise money for the $25 million clean energy fund. So British Columbians will face a tax on hydro and natural gas bills to pay for the clean energy fund.

Hydro rates, following the increase in the natural gas price, have increased in recent years. For example, Pacific Natural Gas applied to BCUC on January 21, 2006, and received a 21-percent increase in natural gas rates for residential customers in the northwest. Terasen, on October 1, 2005, was granted permission by BCUC to raise rates by 13.3 percent for the lower mainland, Fraser Valley, interior, north and Kootenay customers.

Tuition fees in British Columbia have doubled at B.C.'s colleges and universities since 2001. That was the subject of a very determined and spirited lobby by student organizations, professors and teachers before the Finance Committee, all of which was not reflected in the budget and appears to have been ignored. The tuition fees are returned. They had been abolished prior to 2001 in adult basic education. These are people who return to education to complete their high school qualification. They are charged fees that they weren't before. That was again a subject of a lobby and a lot of representations before the Finance Committee, and that isn't reflected in the budget.

The seniors who don't qualify for premium assistance on Pharmacare are charged $25 a prescription, up to $275 a year. Those who do qualify for premium assistance are charged $10 a prescription, up to $200 a year.

It's clear that the effect of many of the decisions or absence of decisions or political will on the part of the Ministry of State for Childcare will mean that the child

care operating fund will be reduced by 27 percent. That will result in a $2-to-$4-a-day increase for children in day care. For a family of four with two children in full-time day care, this would mean additional costs of $80 to $160 a month.

Yet another area where fees have increased is recreation. These may seem like small increases, but something that I hear about in my constituency office is that when people go on a holiday, they often go camping. There have been increased fees for camping, for hiking, for marine sites, parking fees for day use and for firewood.

Significantly, for those who travel by ferry, since 2001 ferry fares have risen in B.C. by 25 percent to 36 percent…. On the main routes, fares have increased 36 percent since 2001; the northern route, 25 percent since 2001. On minor routes such as Comox–Powell River, fares have increased 30 percent.

The gasoline tax was raised provincewide by 3.5 cents a litre in 2002. We heard the Minister of Transportation saying, in response to a consumer protection bill introduced by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, that he viewed that as a contradiction. In order to change behaviour, I presume…. He's hinting at further tax increases for gasoline in order to — what he calls — "change behaviour," although many people don't have the option of taking an underfunded public transit system in order to get to work and back or to meet their other personal obligations.

ICBC rates went up an average of 3.9 percent in 2004. Rates went up again by 6.5 percent on February 1, 2006. The insurance premium tax was increased by 0.4 percent in 2004. There are other fees in the area of railway crossings, which have been canvassed in the House. People have been paying electronic filing fees for…. Woodlot owners and ranchers have to hire professionals to sign off on their forest range plans and then e-file them.

There is a personal tax decrease in this budget, but in our view, for many people — indeed, most people — that has been offset by the increase in fees. These are only some of the fees and other taxes that people have been obliged to pay.

Hon. B. Penner: I rise to make a few comments on second reading of Bill 3, particularly in response to a few of the remarks I've just heard from the Finance critic for the NDP opposition.

It seems to be typical conduct for this opposition to purport to support things on the one hand but then, when it comes down to the reality of a specific initiative, to be opposed to it. So we hear them say, for example, that they support the tax cut. But then everything else you hear from their members gives reasons for why they don't support it. They want to say things out of one side of their mouth, but then the majority of their comments come from the other side of their mouth.

We heard the opposition critic just a few moments ago talk about their party's opposition to charging people for the use of firewood in campgrounds in provincial parks. Most environmental groups will tell you that is a very good policy from an environmental perspective.

Once again, we hear the NDP opposition claiming that they support environmental initiatives. But when it comes down to actually doing something meaningful to help reduce the overuse of what used to be free firewood, contributing to smoke and particulate matter in campgrounds and in many cases irresponsible use of firewood, then they say that they're against it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you can't really have it both ways. As much as the NDP opposition would like to think they can, at the end of the day you have to make a decision about whether you really support environmental initiatives or you don't.

Sometimes leadership is about making decisions where not everybody is going to agree with you, and this is particularly true when it comes to the environment. It's not always convenient to make decisions that are good for the environment.

For example, the particular example that the member referred to — charging people a small fee for using firewood — actually contributes to conservation. It makes people think twice about how much firewood they're going to use. It makes people think twice about whether they're going to build a bonfire that poses a risk to other campers because of the potential risk for wildfires getting out of control in our parks. That is, in my view, a very progressive policy and in fact has been generally well received and supported by environmental groups who know that it leads to conservation.

Similarly, we hear the opposition say that they would like to see our government do more for green energy or alternative energy sources, even though we have done far more than they ever thought about doing in their ten years in government.

Currently we've got more than $3 billion on the books in terms of clean energy projects as a result of B.C. Hydro's call for proposals just last year. That's $3 billion with a "b." What do we hear from the opposition? They're opposed when it comes to the specific individual projects.

On the one hand they say they support the kind of general concept of clean energy, but when it comes down to making the actual decision about a specific project, they're against it — whether it's the Ashlu river small hydro project which today is under construction…. There are about 45 people working there today starting with a wage of $18 and up. I'm told some people are making more than $30 an hour today. They're working there.

If the NDP opposition had their way, those people — including members of the Squamish First Nation who are employed today on that project — would not have a job. That is the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. We actually mean what we say, and we're creating clean energy projects and putting people to work in British Columbia, who are paying taxes and contributing greatly to environmental advancement for British Columbia. That is leadership. We're doing what we say, unlike the NDP opposition.

My last observation. The critic also criticized our innovative clean energy fund. He says: "How dare the government consider a small surcharge on energy bills to help fund innovative and clean technology?" On the one hand, again they claim to support clean energy. But when we come forward with a specific policy that will create funds to help generate new technologies in British Columbia to solve our own energy challenges here — in no small part created by the NDP's lack of leadership in the '90s when they didn't build new generation for British Columbia, resulting in us being a net importer in electricity….

So we do come forward with a new policy and a new funding mechanism. They're against it. It's another example of them claiming to support something. But when it comes to an opportunity to actually get behind something specifically, to put their shoulder to the wheel, to show leadership, to make a bold and decisive decision, they're against it. They can't quite bring themselves to show that kind of leadership.

It's interesting that they would criticize the concept of a small, less than 1-percent surcharge which would encourage conservation and environmentally responsible use of energy sources. Most environmental groups will tell you that we need to think more carefully about our use of energy if we're really going to combat global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. That is not always convenient. Clearly, it's not convenient for the NDP opposition to actually put two and two together and realize that if we're going to get serious about combatting global warming, we actually have to do something. We can't just keep carrying on the way we did in the past.

For example, in the 1990s, did the NDP actually get serious about creating clean energy projects? No. The record is clear. There's nothing there. We became a net importer of electricity in the 1990s. We are making decisions, Mr. Speaker.

You will find individuals who will say: "It's not convenient for this project to be in my back yard. Can't you please put it somewhere else?" So we have the members from the West Kootenays opposed to the Cascade heritage hydro project — despite the fact that Washington State's Department of Ecology has said that project would actually have the potential to be good for fish over what's currently taking place, despite the fact that it went through a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review and was determined to have no significant environmental consequences, despite the fact that it went through a B.C. Environmental Assessment Act review.

And what does the NDP opposition say? They're against it. Clean energy, new power sources for British Columbia so we don't have to import as much coal-fired electricity from Alberta or the United States — they're against it.

Here's what they can't seem to understand. When it comes to climate change, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, it doesn't matter where those emissions are created in terms of their effect on the global climate and atmosphere. It will have the same result whether that coal is being burned in Idaho or Washington State or Oregon or British Columbia. When we bring forward specific policies to help foster clean energy production, that helps offset and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduces our need to import electricity from outside the province.

And what is the NDP's position on that? They're against it. It takes a little bit of leadership to stand up and help educate the public that if we're serious about combatting climate change, we have to overcome our inclination to say: "Please, this isn't convenient. Couldn't you just put this somewhere else?" We have great potential in British Columbia, but that potential will never be realized if we listen to the opposition's position, which is: "Please, it's not convenient. Let's do clean energy, but somewhere else where we won't hear a single person complain about it."

We've now got over $3 billion of clean energy projects on the books in British Columbia. As I mentioned, the Ashlu river project is under construction today. There are people working there today. The Squamish-Lillooet regional district has issued the temporary use permits for that project, and the Squamish First Nation is firmly behind it.

When I spoke to Chief Gibby Jacob just a few days ago, he told me he believes that is the single biggest economic development project that the Squamish First Nation is involved in. Yet the NDP opposition, including their Environment critic, is against that project.

We support clean energy. We support efforts to encourage conservation, to encourage innovation, and we're going to get it done even if the NDP opposition votes against it every step of the way.

L. Krog: I must compliment the Minister of Environment again on giving once more in this House an Oscar-winning performance. Only a government this arrogant could possibly believe that the public is so stupid to accept that when you raise fees, it's not a tax increase. In their minds, a tax increase is only a tax increase if we call it a tax increase, but if we raise fees, it's not a tax increase.

The minister waxed eloquently about the fee for firewood in campgrounds as a way of discouraging the creation of greenhouse gases. Well, the minister may be right, and it's a very valid point. But I guess I have to ask: what does an MSP premium increase do? Is that to encourage good health in British Columbia? Does that somehow create a healthier body politic in this province?

The fact is that this government simply can't handle criticism. They expect this opposition to stand idly by and let legislation come through this chamber, slide through like a letter through a postbox, without one word of comment or criticism. It's a rather arrogant and unbecoming attitude, and we hear it over and over again in debate in this House.

The fact is that it is entirely appropriate for the opposition to scrutinize and criticize every single piece of legislation that comes before this House and to criticize every regulation that does and every act of this gov-

I'm shocked that the Minister of Environment finds it so difficult to accept that the opposition is here to do something. Thirty-three of us did not get elected on this side of the House to sit idly by while this government made it harder and harder for working people to get by day after day in this province. They didn't elect us to stand idly by while working people paid increased MSP premiums, while they have to pay fees and licences now for services that were formerly properly delivered by government without any expense to them, while they have attacked universal programs across this province, while they have refused to participate appropriately in the construction of public housing so needed for the thousands of homeless British Columbians who sleep on our streets every night.

So I say to the hon. member and to the government that this opposition will continue to do its job as we are rightfully elected to do, and we hope to do it effectively so that in 2009 we'll be sitting on that side of the House instead of them.

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

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 3, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007.

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

Bill 3, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The purpose of the Public Inquiry Act is to replace the existing Inquiry Act with a modern statute. The existing act has been in place since 1927. In fact, part 1 of that act came into effect in 1897. Thus, it is time to modernize that act and to draw upon the principles of the Administrative Tribunals Act of 2004, which establishes a standard for administrative justice and clarity.

The new act would provide for the powers and duties necessary for commissions of inquiry to carry out their functions in a manner that is independent and effective, and which would protect the rights of those who may be affected by an inquiry. An important aspect of the new act is that it would set out the powers and duties under the act as clearly as possible in order to provide guidance to the subject of the act and to reduce the potential for uncertainty and vagueness.

A commission of inquiry would be able to control its own process, its own proceedings and determine what information ought to be considered in the circumstances. A commission would be able to determine who may participate based upon a consideration of how a person's interests may be affected by the inquiry and on the contribution that a person's participation would make to the inquiry. It would have the power to inspect public premises as well as private premises with permission.

The new act would provide for appropriate protections for those who are participants in an inquiry. Participants would be able to participate on their own behalf or to be represented by counsel. A person against whom a commission intends to make a finding of misconduct, a finding of fault, must be given a reasonable notice of any allegations and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Witnesses before a commission would have the same protections as witnesses in a court of law.

The act would require oral hearings to be open to the public, subject to the commission's determination that protection of a personal or public interest requires that the evidence may, in appropriate circumstances, be heard in confidence.

The act would provide for two distinct types of commissions of inquiry, which may be established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council according to the particular purpose and the objective of the inquiry. There would be study commissions, and there would be hearing commissions.

Study commissions are designed for the distinctive purpose of being appropriate vehicles to examine, research and provide advice on appropriate issues concerning public policy. Study commissions would be able to retain the services of expert witnesses and expert advisers, hold consultations and public meetings, and receive oral or written submissions.

Hearing commissions, by contrast, would be more investigative in nature. They are designed to undertake investigations into matters in which there may be a possibility of wrongdoing or there may be a possibility of fault. Accordingly, hearing commissions are authorized to inspect, to hold hearings, to receive submissions and evidence under oath or under affirmation, to make findings of misconduct, to compel testimony and production of information, and to apply to a court for orders to enforce those powers to authorize inspection of private places and find persons in contempt if necessary.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would be able to designate a commission as one or both types as it deems appropriate for the purposes or the intent of the inquiry.

This act also incorporates the amendments of which I gave notice respecting Bill 23 in the last session — that final reports of the commissions of inquiry will always be released to the Legislative Assembly. The provisions of the protection of personal privacy and public interest have been clarified by direct reference to

provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I pause here to note that our province, this legislation, is the only one in Canada which mandates that the report be made public through the filing in the Legislative Assembly.

These provisions should ensure that the release of reports will always be consistent with the adequate protection of those interests. To further strengthen openness, it is expressly provided that the provisions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act respecting cabinet confidences will not be a ground on which a portion of the report may be withheld.

In summary, the Public Inquiry Act would provide the modern statutory framework necessary in modern times to ensure that commissions of inquiry are independent, fair as well as effective and efficient. Consequential amendments will replace references to the existing Inquiry Act with references to the new act, the Administrative Tribunals Act, or in some circumstances to modern power authorities specific to and necessary for the affected entity in the circumstances of the case.

L. Krog: The sweet and moderate tones of the Attorney General this morning in describing this modest reform hardly do justice to the Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6. I find it quite astonishing that he would talk about it, making it a modern statute, as if somehow modernizing must always be good, as if modernizing suggests by the very term that this is somehow an improvement.

He says that it follows a path, if you will, started by the changes to administrative tribunals in the province, an area which certainly required reform. He pointedly refers to it as, I think, alleviating uncertainty and vagueness — that it will provide for public participation — and talks about these two types of commissions. Well, when the Attorney General says it will always be released to the public, as if this was some new-found and profound change and reform, it is really quite astonishing.

I want to take the members of this House back a bit. We hear day after day after day in this House about the 1990s. The members in the government benches go on and wax eloquently about the 1990s as if they were the bad old days. Well, hon. Speaker, let's go back to the 1890s this morning and talk about a little fundamental justice in the principles of law.

We are celebrating this year the 100th anniversary of the public inquiries act in British Columbia — the 100th anniversary of the passage of that legislation in the wild and dirty rough old days of frontier British Columbia. When politicians were pocketing money, when gold rushes were being undertaken, when lawlessness reigned in many parts of this province, the Legislature was able to pass a public inquiries act.

I just want to read a surprising bit of that act into the record this morning, because the Attorney General may not be familiar with that particular statute. I make reference in particular to section 10, which says:

Then it goes on, in subsection (2) — and this will come as the greatest surprise to the Attorney General in light of his commitment here today that this act will require the disclosure of this to the public.

Surprisingly, it says: "Every report" — I repeat, every report — "which such commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this act shall" — shall, not may and not after a lengthy review — "be laid before the Legislative Assembly" — not at some unlimited time period in the future — "within" — wait for it — "15 days after such report is made if the assembly be then sitting, or if not, then within 15 days next after the opening of the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

Isn't that remarkable? A hundred years ago this Legislature, in its wisdom, had the brains, the intelligence and the foresight to recognize that the results of a public inquiry should in fact go to the public. Lest any government wish to sit on the results of a public inquiry that might be damaging to them, the statute compelled its presentation to the assembly within 15 days after the report was made if the House was sitting and within 15 days after the commencement of the sitting if it wasn't sitting.

That was a pretty tough road. You got called in front of those inquiries, and you actually had to disclose what you did.

Now we've moved into a more principled era, if you will — an era in which we respect the rights to not incriminate yourself in public proceedings of this nature. But I want to emphasize that 100 years ago, what the inquiry found got out into the public, and it got out Johnny-quick.

Where are we now? Well, we're not in the 1890s. That's for sure. The Attorney General is going to modernize us. He's submitted a bill to this Legislature which enables the government to essentially sit on the results of a public inquiry for as long as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council chooses to do so.

L. Krog: My friend from Delta says it's a brave new world. It is always wonderful to hear reference made to

great works of literature. It is indeed a brave new world under the Liberal government in British Columbia. I know someone is going to yell out 1984 soon, but I just wanted to jump the gun and steal their thunder, if I could, to prove that I too attended high school in British Columbia.

You know, calling Bill 6 the Public Inquiry Act is really an example of something that arises out of what I had a discussion with members of the press gallery about earlier this morning. It must be a slow day. They were talking about their favourite TV shows when they were children. Many mentioned Walt Disney. Some talked about The Ed Sullivan Show.

I didn't bother mentioning it, but it might be Mr. Dressup. We're going to dress up this act, when it was previously called and is now the Inquiry Act, as the Public Inquiry Act, as if somehow the public is going to get a greater right to the results of the inquiries that taxpayers' dollars pay for. In fact, it is just the opposite. So here we are playing Mr. Dressup in 2007 when the show isn't even on TV anymore.

If one compares the sections of the existing statute with Bill 6, which is before the Legislature, some dramatic differences are readily apparent. I come back to my point about the Attorney General referring to this as a modern statute, that it's "time to modernize, reduce uncertainty and vagueness." Anything but.

A document entitled A Public Inquiries Act Issues Paper published in 2003 by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada…. Those Uniform Law Conferences, I understand, aren't terribly liked by Conservative governments, or perhaps Liberal governments who call themselves Liberals but are actually Conservatives. The key recommendations of that report were very clear. Indeed, the current chairperson, as I understand it, of the Uniform Law Conference — or certainly was a while ago — is the distinguished British Columbia public servant Russell Getz, currently serving as legal counsel in the BCAG's office.

What were the key recommendations of that report? "It seems fundamental that once established, an inquiry should have sufficient independence to freely conduct its activities and proceedings and deliver its report for public release."

Cabinet is going to set some fascinating terms of reference for public inquiries under this new Public Inquiry Act. Cabinet is going to lay the road, and the commissioners will not be able to step outside that. The concept of a free-ranging public inquiry that might actually produce information and results and recommendations important to the public of British Columbia is going to be constrained by this statute.

Another key recommendation of that report was: "Once transmitted, inquiry reports should be tabled in the Legislature within a specified time." My goodness. There's a recommendation for reform. Here in British Columbia we'd already done that back in the 1890s. A hundred years ago this Legislature, as I said earlier, said very clearly that those reports would go to the Legislature, not within a month or six months or a year or towards the end of a governing term or in perpetuity somewhere down the road, but within 15 days.

I quote again another key recommendation: "A commission of inquiry should have the discretion to determine who may participate in the inquiry and the manner of participation."

Now, the Attorney General suggests that by implication, the existing statute allows a little too much freedom, a little too much leeway for commissions of inquiry. Surely, if there is a public inquiry into the conduct of the government, one would want that commission of inquiry to have as much discretion and leeway as is possible to determine all of the facts to get to the bottom of the matter to determine the truth and to release it to the public.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission, back in 1992, in its document entitled Report on Public Inquiries, said in its two key points that the independence of public inquiries from the executive and the Legislature should be recognized and protected. Again, I repeat — that the independence of public inquiries from the executive and the Legislature should be recognized and protected.

Cabinet is going to set the terms of reference. Cabinet is going to get the document. Then cabinet gets to sever it. I just can't figure out for the life of me how that fits in with a key recommendation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on the issue of public inquiries.

Another key recommendation is that reports of public inquiries should be tabled in the Legislature or before a relevant legislative committee. The Attorney General assures us that the new statute does exactly that. When I get more into the body of this and my further remarks, I'm going to suggest quite politely to the Attorney General that this particular piece of legislation is so utterly retrograde, so utterly backward that the very recommendations of law reform commissions in this country will in fact be reversed — will not be applied. We will end up with a situation in this province where the results of public inquiries will be buried.

I would remind this Legislature that it was this government which surprisingly closed down a commission of inquiry into a matter of great public importance in this province and of great public interest, and we will never find out why that happened.

If you compare the existing statutes, there are differences that are quite dramatic. Section 1 of the existing Inquiry Act says:

I think there is a growing hunger in this province to have a public inquiry into the issue of the sale of British Columbia Rail. Section 8 of the existing statute says:

Now, what does Bill 6 have to say? Bill 6 simply says, in section 2: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, establish a commission to inquire into and report on a matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers to be of public interest." That's a pretty broad statement. I'm not sure what it means. I'm not sure the Attorney General would understand necessarily what it means. I don't mean that in a critical sense — that the Attorney General isn't a learned person of the law, a former judge in the highest court of this province.

Subsection (2) goes on to say: "In an order made under subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council must do the following: (a) define the purposes of the commission; (b) set the terms of reference of the inquiry." So instead of the language now that would, once a commission got rolling, enable it to inquire into all of the matters enumerated in sections 1 and 8 of the act, we are now going to give that power by Bill 6 to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

For those of you listening at home who don't understand what that means, that is cabinet. That is the government of British Columbia. That is not the Legislative Assembly. That is cabinet — the people who, in most respects, would arguably be the persons most affected by the results of public inquiries into the conduct of government, ministers or employees.

I would submit that in fact Bill 6 allows a narrowing of the focus of public inquiries, and it is aimed directly at destroying the independence of the public inquiry process that has existed in this province for 100 years. It is a shocking step backwards.

I would argue that what comes into this House under the guise of modernization and reform, in fact will now do something that is not provided for in the legislation which has existed in this province since 1897. It will allow, in essence, for a star chamber.

It gives the commissioner power to prohibit a person or class of persons or the public. The public is us, hon. Speaker. It is every British Columbian who would wish to participate in, attend or hear what was going on in the conduct of a commission of public inquiry which the taxpayers of British Columbia pay for.

It is a shocking change from what exists now under British Columbia law. It is a gross restriction on the public's right to know. One would have to question why we are bringing in a statute that is attempting to modernize, supposedly, the law or the state of the law around public inquiries when it now gives a commissioner the powers to restrict public participation in a way that has never existed before.

Now, there have been some significant public inquiries in Canada, generally in the last few years, which have expended a great deal of taxpayers' money. One can think of the Krever inquiry. One can think of other inquiries — well, around that terrible bit of Liberal shenanigans in the federal government and all of those terrible things when taxpayers' dollars were squandered in all sorts of schemes.

Those commissions went on for a very long time and they cost a great deal of money. Sometimes, during the course of those proceedings, court proceedings were started that attempted to stop the commission or restrict information or deal with all sorts of fine legal points that might affect the rights of individuals involved in those commissions. From a general public perspective, I can understand why some people would say: "You know, we've got to put a stop to that. We really don't want people running off to courts and pursuing their rights. It's costly."

Yes, hon. Speaker, it is costly. The pursuit of truth and justice is a costly exercise. It always has been, and I suspect it always will be. But it is the hallmark of a free, open and democratic society.

What does section 19 of the act say? It says in section 19(1): "A commission has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions of fact and law arising or required to be determined under this Act and to make any order it is permitted to make." Not unreasonable. The commission wants to set up, in accordance with practice, how it conducts itself.

But then 19(2) goes on to say — and this is a dramatic change: "An order of a commission under this Act or its terms of reference on a matter in respect of which the commission has exclusive jurisdiction is final

This is a blatant restriction of the rights of British Columbia's citizens. This is a dramatic change from what is the existing law now. I would suggest that it is anything but progressive. It has to do with a penny-pinching attitude about the price of justice more than it has to do with the pursuit of justice.

Lest the Attorney General think I'm critical of every section of the bill, there is something to be said for having the two types of commissions, the study and the hearing commissions. It may provide the government with — how shall I say? — a Chev instead of a Cadillac when it comes to determining some issue, and that may be just fine. That may, in fact, represent some progress.

But it is the other sections of this act that are extremely troubling. Section 27 requires and says in 27(1): "If required by the commission's terms of reference, a commission must make an interim report to the minister at the times and on the matters stated in the terms of reference."

It seems kind of innocuous. The commissioner, partway through, has got to make a report. It's kind of like taking your term paper to the prof and getting him to look it over before you hand it in for final grading. On the face of it, it doesn't appear very troubling, except that you have to read the language and listen very carefully to what the language says. The devil, as they say, is always in the details.

"If required by the commission's terms of reference, a commission must make an interim report…." So cabinet decides there's going to be a commission into a particularly nasty bit of politics, if you will. The sale of B.C. Rail could be an example. Anything that might embarrass the government in terms of its results.

What this statute says is that by the very terms of reference for the commission — which are set out by the very government, some part of which may be under investigation under the inquiry…. What it means is that the commission must report to cabinet. So we get a little sense of where the commission is going. Cabinet has an opportunity to see firsthand where it's in trouble. Cabinet has an opportunity to consider its position.

With great respect to cabinets and governments, governments are fairly leaky ships. I have no confidence whatsoever that the information which might have an impact on the behaviour or the keeping of records or the completion of a proper public inquiry might not, in fact, slip out to individuals or governments or ministers or anyone who might be impacted by the commission's good work.

This is again a dramatic change from the existing statute. This is the heads-up. This is one member of the gang riding into town and saying: "Boys, the sheriff is on his way. We better skedaddle out of here." That's exactly what this section does.

Indeed, subsection (2) says that a commissioner "may make an interim report to the minister on any matter relevant to the commission's terms of reference at any time before the commission makes its final report." That's almost like the soother after subsection (1). In other words, we're making it sound like it's a good thing. You know, the commissioner might want to make a report, so let's give him, her or them that specific power. But in fact, the terms of reference that require an interim report to the minister, I submit, create a possibility of mischief that has not existed in the previous statutes or versions of this act.

Now, the Attorney General talked about the fact that results of commissions will have to be given to the Legislature. I've talked a fair bit about that this morning, and I'm going to continue to say a few words because this is such an almost repulsive aspect of this bill. Under the guise of modernization, under the guise of reform, the government is saying through Bill 6 that the public interest is going to be protected because the report must be given to and filed with the Legislative Assembly.

Section 28 says: "A commission must make its final report to the minister in writing, setting out…any findings of fact made by the commission that are relevant to the commission's terms of reference, and the reasons for those findings, and…if required by the commission's terms of reference, any recommendations of the commission."

Subsection (2) says, quite appropriately, that the minister must submit the report to the Executive Council at its next meeting. So cabinet gets to look at it. We'll all get a heads-up and see how good or bad the report is.

L. Krog: "On receiving the report, the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for which information could" — not will, could — "or must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1 [privacy rights, business interests and public interest] of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

We on this side of the House are very proud of that statute. We brought it in when we were government. It was probably the most progressive piece of legislation of its time anywhere in the world around the freedom of information and protection of privacy. Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 run some three-and-a-half full pages of, essentially, various exceptions.

I commend members of this chamber to actually take a look at some of those sections. There are a lot of escape clauses. I'd suggest we might want to consider tightening up this act a bit, because it gives a fairly broad discretion to the head of a public body to refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could be reasonably expected to…. And it has all kinds of exceptions, some of which seem quite sensible and others of which may seem, to the average British Columbian, a bit obscure.

But we are now, by Bill 6, giving the power not to some professional public servant, the head of a public body. We are giving it to the politicians. We are giving it to cabinet, the executive council.

So we can follow this process. The commission makes its report to the minister. The minister submits it to the executive council at its next meeting. Oh, and let me guess, hon. Speaker. I'm just going to guess that won't be one of those funny open cabinet meetings that this government always talks about. I don't think the public will be watching that one on the noon news hour.

On receiving that report, the executive council in its political wisdom and judgment — and that's what you elect politicians for — is going to decide what parts of the report will be withheld. How one can possibly describe this as reform is almost beyond my comprehension.

It then goes on to say in subsection (4) — and these words are the very heart of why this legislation should be withdrawn from this Legislature: "Following review of the report, the Executive Council must direct the minister to lay the report, except any portion directed to be withheld under subsection (3), before the Legislative Assembly."

After the minister has had a look at it and cabinet has chopped it up and taken out the nasty bits, cabinet gets to review it. Then it directs the minister that he must lay the report before the Legislative Assembly.

Surprisingly — and let's go back to the wording that I referred to earlier of the initial Inquiry Act of 1897 — it said that every report which such commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this act shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days next after such report is made if the assembly be then sitting or, if not, then within 15 days next after the opening of the next session of the Legislative Assembly. That's what this Legislature decided in its wisdom in 1897.

The Inquiry Act as it exists now says: "A report made to the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this Part must be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days after the report is made, if the Legislative Assembly is then sitting, or if not, then within 15 days after the opening of the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

I heard not one word from the Attorney General this morning that provided one ounce of justification, not one ounce of good reason or commonsense justification for why this bill would change that 100-year-old provision that guaranteed that the public and the taxpayers of this province, who paid for the inquiry, would be able to get it. I haven't heard one justification today for why that should be changed.

This is the same old wolf from last fall in different clothing. We have a slightly different sheepskin on it this time. Under the guise of suggesting that we're now reducing the 15-day period to ten days, this government is telling us it's a reform. In fact, we know full well it is anything but a reform, because the ten-day period is not a ten-day period. The ten-day period plus the time that cabinet wishes to spend reviewing the legislation…. There is no — I repeat: no — time limit whatsoever on that review process.

In theory, the cabinet of this province, the government of British Columbia, can sit on a damning report until after the next election, should it be so lucky to get re-elected. That's what this legislation means. This is about secrecy. This is not about transparency. This is not about modernization. This is about secrecy. This is shameful legislation, and I am shocked and astonished that the Attorney General would talk about it as being somehow modern.

This government through the chief minister of this province, the Premier himself, always talks about, and has talked on so many occasions about, transparent, accountable government. In a letter of July 22, 1998, to the B.C. Freedom of Information Association he said: "Open government is the hallmark of free and democratic societies." There is not one member of this House who would disagree with that statement — not one member. And if they do, they don't deserve to be re-elected to sit in this privileged place.

He said further: "Access to government information helps us, the official opposition" — as he then was — "and others to hold the government to account, and accountability enhances democracy." Now, I'm still having a little trouble understanding how allowing cabinet to withhold the results of a public inquiry in perpetuity works with that kind of a bold — I say honest — statement from the Premier of this province when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

"The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people, not to government." Gosh, I wish I'd created those words myself. They are wonderful words. They go to the heart of everything that is important that takes place in this chamber.

"This means, among other things, that all citizens must have timely, effective and affordable access to the documents which governments make and keep. Governments should facilitate access, not obstruct it." Well, if giving cabinet the right to examine this in perpetuity isn't obstructive, I don't know what is.

In the famous New Era document of 2001, these words: "It's time for a new era of accountability. Our plan will deliver transparent, accountable government. B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada." Again, I just can't figure out how Bill 6 is going to assist in the creation of

this brave new world of open and accountable government. I just can't quite put it together.

I'm sure that at some point the hon. members opposite are going to stand up and explain to me, because I'm just a simple country lawyer, how that works — how this legislation represents the attainment and achievement of the very goal set out by this government that it pledged to the people of British Columbia in 2001, when it won the election and the privilege and right to sit on that side of the House. I look forward to that opportunity.

On victory night 2001, when my party was punished — punished in a way that no party has been punished in decades in this province, politically…. [Applause.]

The Premier of this province, ready to be sworn in, said: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada." [Applause.]

"I know some people will say we'll soon forget about that, but I promise we won't."

My, oh my, oh my. And here we are on the 100th anniversary of the public inquiries act, giving cabinet authority that it hasn't had in a hundred years of free and open democratic government in the province of British Columbia.

He said in his swearing-in speech in 2001: "This cabinet is founded on two fundamental principles: political accountability and improved public access."

Can I remind the member for Cariboo South that no comment should be made unless you're in your assigned seat.

L. Krog: How can one possibly argue that improved public access occurs when what was formerly required by law to be delivered within 15 days to the Legislature can now, and I emphasize again, be delivered to this Legislature after the next election even?

In the estimates in 2001, the Premier said: "We think openness beats hiddenness every time, and we want to be sure that people can see what's taking place." How the Attorney General can stand in this House and suggest that this bill is progress, is modernization, is almost insulting to the intelligence of members on this side of the House and the people of British Columbia who elected each and every one of us to represent them in this hallowed place.

This government through this statute is going to attempt to diminish, and I would argue almost destroy, a process that has existed for a hundred years in this province — the right of the public to have results of public inquiries conducted by independent commissioners. What this bill does is create terms of reference that will give the government a break, because the government's going to determine the terms of reference. It gives them a heads-up part way through the process, because the commissioner, if the terms of reference require it, will have to deliver an interim report to the government.

Then, when the final report is delivered, cabinet will get to review it. Cabinet will get to sever it, and then cabinet can sit on it until the cows come home. That is why this bill should be withdrawn. It's not just in humour that there is a motion standing in the order paper in my name asking that the name of this statute be changed to the secret inquiry act, because that is exactly what this government is attempting to do with Bill 6.

It is attempting to turn into a secret process a process which the public of British Columbia has had confidence in for decades. It is a process that has enabled unscrupulous individuals to be exposed, has enabled unscrupulous practices to be exposed, has enabled reform to take place as a result of those public inquiries, has enabled British Columbians to have a sense of trust in their government and, most importantly, some sense of trust in the democratic process.

An important tool that has enabled British Columbians to discovery the truth about their government and about its conduct is now being smashed in this chamber. It is being destroyed, and I say to the Attorney General: if this government has any interest in reversing the declining trust of the citizens of this province in government and in politics — which I still regard as the most honourable of professions….

If this government has any interest in that, then this government should go back and review the words of the leader of the Liberal Party, the now Premier of British Columbia when he was Leader of the Opposition on this side of the House and when he was becoming Premier. They should go back and review those words, go back into their caucus and go back into their cabinet chamber and look over those promises and commitments that were made to the people to induce them to vote and support the election of a Liberal majority in this place.

They should go back and look through those and then look at Bill 6 and come back into this House and justify, if they can, why this government should introduce this bill and call it reform in this House. You can clap now.

If they can come back with straight faces and pure hearts and tell this opposition and the people of British Columbia that this is reform and believe it and justify it, well, hon. Speaker, I will stand up in this House, and I will apologize for my unkind remarks about the government today. I will sincerely do so.

But as sure as the grass will continue to grow, as the prophet Elijah says, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, I guarantee I will not have to stand in this place and apologize to the government or the members of the cabinet or the members of the government benches about anything I've said here today, because you don't have to have gone very far in grade school to read Bill 6 and not figure out pretty quickly for yourself exactly what it is. It is not progress. It is false to call

it a Public Inquiry Act. It is anything but. It is not reform; it is a retrograde step.

Hon. Speaker, I ask but one thing of this Attorney General, who I believe to be a man of great character, credit, honesty and integrity: withdraw this bill. Say you're sorry. Say to the people of British Columbia that this government is not going to go down the path that it promised in so many ways and in so many terms never to do. It promised open and accountable government. This is not open and accountable government. This is anything but.

I ask them to withdraw the bill. Do the right thing. They still have that opportunity. They did it last session. They did the right thing then. They can still do the right thing now. It's too late. Withdraw the bill.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak against Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act. My concern, in particular, is with one part of the act. It's section 28. The B.C. Liberals and the Premier and the member that preceded me laid out many of the comments that the Premier made and many things that the B.C. Liberals promised when they came to government.

Amongst the most consistent promise was to create the most open and accountable government in Canada. These things are important. Openness and accountability are things that we shouldn't take for granted. I think there are many members that have lived in other countries in the world. I've lived for six years in Africa. These are things that should not be taken for granted. I think openness and accountability are things that can incrementally, in small ways, drift away.

This is an institution that evolved. It continues to evolve, and we need to make sure that it evolves in a way that is going to work not only in the short term and not only for the interests of this government, but that it is going to work over a long period of time.

Now, section 28 is the area that I have the most difficulty with, and I'll just explain exactly why. There has been, in my view, a steady erosion of the tools that the public has to hold this government to account. This legislation, because of section 28, is a piece of legislation that the people of the province should pay attention to and that they should be concerned about.

In our parliamentary system governments come and go. The legacy they leave is the standard that they choose to set when they're in power. This bill is another step that this Premier has taken in undermining the tools to hold the government to account.

The bill was essentially introduced for the first time last year. It was dropped when the bill did not pass last spring and when we had the fall session cancelled. It was strongly opposed by the NDP at the time, and very credibly done by the critic. It was also opposed by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. It was opposed by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and it was opposed for very good reasons.

The bill has had some changes, but section 28 remains as an unacceptable part of any bill. For that reason alone, Bill 6 should be defeated. It is an erosion of the public's ability to hold the government accountable, and that is never a direction that we should be moving in. It's certainly the reason that I am going to vote against this bill.

In our parliamentary system the need for close scrutiny has been recognized. We all publicly make statements about that importance. It is clearly in the public interest to hold the government to account.

Obviously, with the controversial sale of B.C. Rail and the ongoing mismanagement of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project, there are possibly going to be public inquiries that this government will want to bury, facts that they do not want to come forward.

Section 28 changes fundamentally the way a report from a public inquiry is presented. At present it comes to the Legislature, with the law as it exists now, within a set and limited period of time. With that it is immediately open for the opposition to use, for the media and for the wider public. That can be something the government — any government, perhaps — is uncomfortable with, but it is certainly in the public interest that that be the case.

If you look at section 28(4), it does two things that British Columbians should find troubling. Rather than being presented to the Legislature — as has been the case since, I believe the critic said, 1897 — instead section 28(4) sends it to cabinet. In there, there's just one word, really — "review." "Following review of the report." It gives the opportunity for the cabinet to review the report.

The problem with that is that the review is of an indeterminate time. As my colleague said, that can be for as long as cabinet wants to review it, which means a report that would previously come at a fixed and limited period of time before the public will now sit as long as cabinet wants it to be kept from the public. That is a fundamental change, and I cannot imagine that anyone could argue that as an improvement.

Now, there's an arrogance in any government — I would argue this one in particular — the feeling that they will be in positions of power forever, but it will not be the case. They, too, will fall, and what they will leave behind is a set pattern of how things are done. Is this the legacy the government members want to leave — put power in place for a cabinet to sit on reports and deny the public access to them? I would argue that nobody who really believes in the democratic process would say that's acceptable.

The question is: in the short term will this government use every trick possible to keep things hidden? In my short time here I would say that clearly there's a pattern that that is the case. There's a quote here from Vaughn Palmer: "The government exploits every technicality in the information law to minimize embarrassment." From my view, I see every tool that the government has to keep embarrassing information locked away from us used, and I think others who watch would see the same thing.

In my time here I'll just highlight a few things that I've seen. The manipulation of the appointment of the Auditor General: playing with rules to do something that breaks precedence and that British Columbians, if they followed it closely, would find unacceptable. The arbitrary cancelling of the fall sitting was something people didn't like. They found that it interfered with the accountability that they wanted the government to be held to. Unilateral changes, most recently in the hours that the House sits. That breaks precedent. It sets a new lower standard for how things are done in the House. All of these should concern everyone who sits in the House.

We see the changing of the reporting procedures, and we know that they have a fundamental impact. For the Attorney General, I'll just use an example that he would remember. It's an example I use when I go to classes to speak. What I'm talking about is the need to do things in it a certain way and the importance of certain principles that, when you come to the House, it takes a while to recognize.

I think that the Attorney General shared an experience with me. We learned at the same time, he in a more direct way…. I bring the Attorney General back to September 21, 2005. Now, we all know that the B.C. Liberal government in its first term broke its commitment to protect children. One of those things was to get rid of the children's commissioner. The children's commissioner reported directly to the Legislature. She was replaced by another position, and that position essentially reported to cabinet, not unlike what we're doing here.

In my first week here I remember questions from the critic for Children and Families to the Attorney General basically asking that this government put back in place a children's commissioner that would report to the Legislature. The Attorney General, perhaps unclear about how this place worked, said that fundamentally there was no difference in the two positions.

The children's commissioner reported to the Legislature. What's the difference with somebody who reports to cabinet? He was quite correctly called to task, not only by the opposition, but I remember when he went outside and the media scrummed him. Vaughn Palmer and others immediately jumped on the point that, no, there is a fundamental difference.

How I use that in class is that I say: "Here is someone who is eminent in all ways, who comes with tremendous intelligence and grace, but it takes a period of time before you fully understand how this place works."

Now he learned the lesson in a much more public and difficult way about the difference between reporting to the Legislature and to cabinet. I learned it through him that, yeah, there's a difference there. It's an important difference. If it comes to the Legislature, it is public. It is public knowledge. If it stays in cabinet, it remains secret, because cabinet meetings are secret, and there is a strong political interest in keeping it secret if they are able to.

This section, with the innocuous word to "review" with an indeterminate time, means that it stays secret until it is politically opportune to release it. That is the first problem, and people in British Columbia should be deeply concerned about that. It is not the direction ordinary British Columbians want to go.

That's problem number one. Problem number two comes with the ability to vet — the ability to take pieces out. Instead of the way that it currently is, where the full report would be put in front of the public, we now have a system where the government can remove pieces. They do not have to put the full report in front of the public. I cannot understand how anyone here can explain how that is in the public interest.

The Attorney General, I have no doubts, will explain that the scope for the removal of information is really narrow, but I don't see it that way. It talks about a term like "public interest." Well, that to me is a very nebulous and wide term that is subjective, open to the expedient interests of government. They can define as openly as possible what is in the public interest. Therefore, they can sit on a report — part one. Secondly, when they put it in front of us, they can have cleaned off all of the things that are potentially embarrassing.

Do they do that? Well, yeah, they do it all the time. We put an FOI for the booklet from the Minister of Small Business and Revenue. They get a binder for estimates that gives them advice on answers to questions, and we are allowed to use the Freedom of Information Act to get that information. The government has the right to go through and lift out certain things. It's supposed to be very narrow what they can lift out. We get a binder that's empty — a binder that even removes the great goals. That's secret too.

So is the government going to do it? Yeah. They're going to use every trick that they have at their disposal to hide things. I know that happens with this government. If I was absolutely fair, I would say that happens with every government. You set up the tools for people to hide things, and they will.

The problem with this legislation is that it takes the democratic institution and in a small, incremental way makes it less open, less democratic. That is expedient for government. You're in government now, so members think: "Well, that's fine." But in the long term, you have left this institution slightly, slightly less than when you came here. It's not what you came here to do.

This is a bad piece of legislation. It is a bad piece of legislation in my view because of section 28. I think that you will not be able to stand up and defend that section. You do have the numbers to sneak it through, but this is something that all who look at it and really study it should oppose.

If that section's in there with Bill 6, I will vote against it. I urge all others members to do the same thing. What the critic said…. Of the points that he listed, the one that hit strongest was that section 28 should be removed. It has to be removed. I will vote against it, and I would encourage all other members to join with me in demanding that that change.

C. Wyse: Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we adjourn debate, and I reserve the right to pick up my point later.

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

Hon. P. Bell: Maybe I'll just open by saying we concluded a line of questioning yesterday that referred to the establishment of higher-level plans being legally required objectives under the new Forest and Range Practices Act. I gave it a 98-percent level of certainty that we were correct about that. I can now confirm to the members opposite that I have a 100-percent level of certainty and that high-level plans were in fact grandfathered under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister, although I think the minister is being a little presumptive that we concluded the line of questioning yesterday, because we just got started.

I would like to just give the minister notice of what this morning may look like. I do need to go back. I took the minister's advice and made a phone call yesterday around invasive plants, so I need to go back and canvass the minister around what my findings were on that. Back to the higher-level plans. Then some discussion around private managed forest land and the ministry's association with the activities on private managed forest land. And climate change. That's our intention under the Lands regime today. Then individual members will have pieces of that as we go through the day.

Back to invasive plants. As I indicated yesterday, one aspect of the Chutter panel report from 2005 was the statement that the provincial government has not met its legal obligation under the Weed Control Act.

The minister did a product placement ad yesterday for the CRD, so I called the CRD. Their version of reality is different from the minister's version. They don't believe that everything is right with respect to invasive plants. They agree more with my contention that we have serious issues on secondary and tertiary roads. They believe Highway 97 is okay. We have inventory and control mechanisms in place — but not on those other highways, as I had stated yesterday.

They also inform me that the funding is not sufficient and that they have made repeated requests to government for additional funding. This year, in fact, they've been told they need to take a $35,000 decrease in funding through the Ministry of Transportation, in this case, where they're asking for a $200,000 lift in funding to particularly address secondary and tertiary roads.

My question to the minister again is this: who has that overarching responsibility? If we get this disagreement on the ground where the CRD is saying, "If we're going to do this, we need $200,000 more," and the Ministry of Transportation is saying, "You've got to do it with $35,000 less," who is actually making sure that the government is in compliance with the Weed Control Act and that invasive plants are being treated in a due-diligence fashion?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to clarify the member's comments earlier, when I was referring the member to the phone number, name and so on for the Cariboo regional district, the question was: who would I call if I had a challenge with weeds in my area on a secondary or tertiary highway? I referred the member to the weed committee for the region, which is chaired and managed through the Cariboo regional district. That was the response and why I gave him that response.

In terms of the management of invasives, again, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands chairs the Interagency Management Committee that manages weeds throughout the province. The Ministry of Transportation has responsibility for corridors. The Ministry of Environment has responsibility for land inside parks. Those would be two examples of areas where other ministries have responsibility for specific management of lands. However, the Weed Control Act, which is the act that regulates all of these areas, is held under my ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. We work with the other ministries in order to ensure that they accomplish their responsibilities and meet the needs of the individual communities in the regions.

B. Simpson: In this case, what I'm trying to clarify…. When we first canvassed this back in the fall of 2005, I think the minister, with a bit of a blush on his face, admitted that he was the minister responsible for

the Weed Control Act. So I understand that part of it. In the case where a regional district…. And they are not alone. We're hearing from many other areas of the province that we are not on top of invasive plants at all, that we don't have a proper inventory for it — not only on the corridors but on Crown lands in particular — and that we don't have a sufficiently robust eradication strategy.

Again, my contention is that we are still not in compliance with the Weed Control Act. When the CRD cannot get a response from the Ministry of Transportation, or gets a response from the Ministry of Transportation that MOT wants them to cut by $35,000 and they are asking for a lift of $200,000, who mediates that? Is there an opportunity for the Cariboo regional district to come to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and say this isn't right? Because the minister has the fiduciary responsibility for the act, can that be mediated through the minister's office?

Hon. P. Bell: I think it would be a two-step process for someone like the Cariboo regional district, if they had a specific concern. My recommendation would be to first bring it up with the regional Interagency Management Committee, which we chair as the integrated land management bureau.

There would be an Interagency Management Committee based out of Williams Lake, so they would be able to deal directly at that level initially. If they felt they were unable to resolve their concerns at that level, they would elevate it to the interministry management committee, which would be based out of Victoria and would be led by one of the deputies, associate deputies or assistant deputies.

I should introduce Larry Pedersen. I've already introduced, yesterday, my deputy minister and my associate deputy minister responsible for the integrated land management bureau, Mike Lambert, as well.

Finally, if I can add — perhaps understanding another question that may arise — that I mentioned yesterday that a significant amount of money last year was spent building the appropriate data sets to understand what is happening with weeds on the provincial land base. That information will be available later on this year and then be able to be updated on a regular basis, so we will be able to monitor at a provincial level what sort of activity is happening on the land base with regard to weeds, whether the weed issue is getting worse or better and at what level.

B. Simpson: I really like it when ministers put their ESP into gear and answer questions in advance of my asking them, because it makes me seem a lot smarter — that I actually have advance questions.

With respect to what the minister has just said…. I guess what I struggle with, with that answer, is that this is a government that prides itself on reducing regulation and streamlining processes and everything else. I'm bringing forward a concern from one area of the province that says that they are already in a dispute with a line agency. The line agency wants them to reduce a program by $35,000. The regional district is saying: "No, we need an extra $200,000." I'm raising it with the minister just now. Would the minister undertake to examine that issue rather than having the CRD go through the ILMB, then go through the interagency and then finally run it up?

This is an issue that has been going on for some time. There have been resolutions passed. There has been correspondence back and forth, and it's not being resolved. I don't necessarily like to put people on the spot, but in this case, I would like to, because they need it addressed. We need the weeds controlled out in the Cariboo region and other regions of the province.

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, we'd be happy to do that. We'll follow up in the next week or so with the Cariboo regional district to try and get a good grasp of where they stand.

This government does pride itself as well, though, on trying to move decision-making processes closer to where they are impacted on the ground. That's why we have established the Interagency Management Committee, chaired by the local executive member or director of the integrated land management bureau.

The notion of being able to interact at a local level is far more effective and produces timely results than if an issue is forced up to Victoria and then back down to the front line at the same time. So we think that by perforating the ministries and creating this Interagency Management Committee where the managers meet on a regular basis and talk about the challenges and the crossing jurisdictional issues they are faced with, we'll be able to provide a better level of service at a constituency level.

That's largely what the integrated land management bureau is all about. It's trying to bring together all of the various groups that have responsibility for some form of land use or land management in the province in one room and manage it in an effective way for constituents, understanding that the impacts of mining, energy, agriculture, tourism, forestry — all of the various land uses — impact the way we have to manage the land base.

The notion of the Interagency Management Committee is very effective, and we encourage groups to work at a local level first, where they can, because we think we can be far more reactive in dealing with the issues. But if a community doesn't feel like they're getting results, we certainly are happy to deal with it.

I have not heard the member say that there was contact made with the integrated land management bureau to try to funnel it into the committee. What I think I heard was that the Cariboo regional district had been working specifically with the Ministry of Transportation. If that's the case, I'd encourage the member to consider canvassing that with the Minister of Transportation, because he would have a far better understanding of his specific budget accountabilities.

B. Simpson: I will follow up with the Cariboo regional district about approaching the local ILMB —

that due process as the minister has outlined it. I will canvass this with the Minister of Transportation in particular. Mostly, again, what I'm trying to understand is: who has got that overarching responsibility?

One of the difficulties with a dispersed approach…. While it may help facilitate decision-making, sometimes you lose the big picture because you're just getting these one-offs, or a resolution, and you don't roll it up. The issue here on invasive plants for the province is the big-picture issue.

Let me move into another area. We canvassed yesterday the issue of CN and the transfer from B.C. Rail to CN, and a lot of issues that have been raised around concern for that. I didn't get a chance to canvass fences yesterday, so I want to do that now and then come back to invasive plants.

What is the status of that? I know the minister has had people write to him and ask him explicitly who has that responsibility now. We've certainly been lobbied very hard in our area around it. Nobody seems to know who is responsible for fencing along the rights-of-way and who is responsible for the cow movements and all that. So if the minister could, on the record, clarify his thinking on that, it would be helpful.

Hon. P. Bell: This was an issue that there was a tremendous amount of activity on — about a year ago, I think. I don't kind of remember exactly the time frame under which conversations went back and forth. I communicated personally, direct, with the Minister of Transportation on this issue, and there was a significant amount of communication back and forth at a staff level.

I am going to enter a somewhat dangerous area here, because I don't have responsibility for this specific area. I am simply going to try to reiterate my recollection of the discussion and the outcomes of the discussion. But I certainly would encourage the member to canvass this with the Minister of Transportation as well, because he will be able to more fully answer the questions.

My recollection of the issue is that B.C. Rail used to, on a voluntary basis, provide for fencing on the rail line to ranchers and farmers. When the rail line was leased by CN, there was some confusion about that. CN's policy was somewhat different than B.C. Rail's policy had been in the past. I understand that they landed on a place eventually where they would provide fencing on properties where the railway bisected the property after the property had original ownership, but if an individual bought property adjacent to the railway after the railway was there, they would not provide fencing.

But I would encourage the member to canvass that with the Minister of Transportation because we don't have responsibility for it, although we did communicate extensively about it about a year ago.

B. Simpson: Again, I will canvass that, and I appreciate the minister's advice on that.

On CN, though, with respect to invasive plants, to come back to that…. We did canvass it a little bit yesterday. The update that I got from talking to some people about this is that CN has refused to participate in any discussions about weed control along their rights-of-way. Despite repeated attempts to get them to come to the table and participate, they simply won't.

Again, because the minister has responsibility for overarching weed control in the province, I'm asking the minister again today if he would intervene with CN on this matter and get them to — at least in one area of the province, with the Cariboo regional district — come to the table and tell the Cariboo district what their plans are for weed control.

Hon. P. Bell: I think I alluded to this briefly yesterday. We are, in fact, in the process of reviewing the legislation and all of the forms of tenures on different rights-of-way, including railways, gas lines, power lines, telephone lines, cable — all of the various rights-of-way that are in the province.

We're in the process of reviewing all of the tenures and the specific responsibilities of each tenure holder, and we're actually in discussion with some of the tenure holders about how we can continue to more effectively manage that. CN would of course be included in that group of monitoring their responsibilities and enforcing what is their fiduciary responsibility under their tenure.

B. Simpson: As the minister knows, the issue of invasive plants…. Every season that we go through and these seeds go is a lost opportunity and becomes an incremental cost to government and to — particularly, the trouble that is expressed to us — the private landowners who have to stay on top of this, bear the costs and so on. Then they watch it not being dealt with either on Crown area responsibility or on something like CN.

In terms of timeliness, how timely would this review of the regulations legislation be relative to another season of weeds? If it's not going to be done before there is another season, would the minister intervene with CN just now to get them to come to the table and tell them what their plans are — and get the weed control done?

Hon. P. Bell: We should be able to have that work completed within two months. We're very cognizant of the time frames of having it completed prior to this weed season and ensuring that everyone is in full compliance.

I am advised that over the last number of years there have been a few compliance requirements of railways, so it's not unusual. We do have the ability to do that. If the member wanted to provide us at some point with the specific areas, if he's aware of some, we'd be happy to get on that right away and deal with that issue for him.

B. Simpson: With respect to compliance, it raises the issue of enforcement. Who enforces the Weed Control Act? How is that done, and what's the budget for that?

Hon. P. Bell: In many cases local governments have delegated authority already to issue letters to groups that they feel are not appropriately managing invasives. Rail lines are different. That's managed through the ministry. The budget line the member passed for the amount of money budgeted to this is within the $4 million–plus budget for invasives. It's contained within that budget line. We have about four staff dedicated to this issue, as well, around the province.

Each of the respective letters that would go to an individual organization or to someone who needed to look after an invasive issue is not actually a notice per se. The actual notice would be issued by me as minister in the event of having to get to that level of compliance.

What we find, though, is that normally that can be dealt with at a local level through the manager and sending various letters and requiring a compliance through that model.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear on something that the minister commented on when he talks about CN Rail and the responsibility for compliance and enforcement. He said "through the ministry." I just want to be clear that's the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and not the Ministry of Transportation.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct, and I should also indicate that I can delegate the authority to a senior individual to file notices as well.

B. Simpson: Then the four staff involved in this…. Have any of them actually gone down the rail lines and investigated where CN is with respect to weed control?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the four staff I mentioned earlier, who have primary responsibility for invasives, are out on the ground for much of their working time each week. They do cover off railroads as part of their responsibilities. It would be hard for me to say they did cover this specific kilometre of rail line, but it is one of the areas that they do actively engage in monitoring.

B. Simpson: Have there been any written orders against CN under the Weed Control Act?

Hon. P. Bell: Staff advise me that they believe there have been some, but we don't have that level of detail here with us. We will provide that detail to the member within two weeks.

B. Simpson: I thank the minister for the offers of following up in a timely fashion.

With respect to the written orders, what are the requirements for follow-up? Is it a time-based written order? Is there specific work that needs to be conducted? When CN gets a written order against them, what is it they're actually required to do?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll read the section of the Weed Control Act, which is "Notice to control noxious weeds." I think that will largely answer the member's question. It's section 4: "(1) An inspector may serve a notice directing an occupier, in accordance with the notice, to control noxious weeds growing or located on land, premises or property occupied by the occupier. (2) If a notice is served on an occupier the occupier must promptly bring the notice to the attention of the owner of the land, premises or property that is the subject of the notice."

So "promptly" would be an expectation of the occupier dealing with the issue immediately. There are follow-up consequences, should the individual not do that.

B. Simpson: Has the Ministry of Transportation had any written orders against it?

Hon. P. Bell: Not that we are aware of with the limited resources we have with us today. Certainly, we are in constant communication with the Ministry of Transportation, identifying any specific issues we feel they need to follow through on.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear. On the CN–B.C. Rail issue, that land base technically is owned by the Crown and leased to CN. There are written orders against CN, as far as we know, for not doing control. In many secondary and tertiary roads, the weeds grow full-blown — eight feet high, as I said yesterday — and on many occasions they become a public safety hazard, period, just because of the ingrowth and height. Yet the ministry of highways doesn't get written up for not complying with the Weed Control Act.

There seems to be either a double standard or a failure in the system of getting a Crown agency to actually meet and comply with the Weed Control Act. Does the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands have the capacity to write an order against the Ministry of Transportation if the Ministry of Transportation is not in compliance?

Hon. P. Bell: I momentarily felt the powerful hand of ADM Daphne Stancil as I was about to leap to my feet and respond. It was a good thing I waited for a second, because now I have a clearer understanding of the issue.

In fact, as the invasives issue has evolved over the last number of years, particularly with the mountain pine beetle infestation, it has been unclear whether or not the ministry, through the Weed Control Act, has the ability to write notices on Ministry of Transportation corridors. We're currently in consultation with the Attorney General to determine the current regulatory regime around that and whether or not we have that authority.

So I'm unable to give a clear yes or no answer to the member on this, but simply that we are currently in discussions with the AG's office to get that answer. I'm guessing that the member would like to know if I would provide that answer to him once we have that, and I would be pleased to provide that answer to him once we have that answer.

I need to clarify one more layer on this, and then we do need to move on to other things. The other layer is — and we're sort of coming full circle here — the Ministry of Transportation contracts, in the case of the Cariboo regional district, with the Cariboo regional district. The Cariboo regional district then takes on the responsibility for inventory eradication programs on the ministry of highways corridors. Do they then incur the liability of weeds for that whole area through the contract?

Hon. P. Bell: I need clarity. Is the member asking: does the Cariboo regional district acquire that liability?

B. Simpson: Yes. Does the Cariboo regional district incur liability under the Weed Control Act if they fail to control and eradicate weeds in their area?

Hon. P. Bell: The legal responsibility for weed control in the described circumstances would still remain with the Ministry of Transportation, unless in the contract with the Cariboo regional district — which I have not seen — they had accepted legal responsibility for that. I have not seen the contract, but unless there is something specific within the contract that assigned the legal responsibility to the Cariboo regional district, it would remain with the Ministry of Transportation.

B. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. Second-to-last question on invasive plants. The Invasive Plant Council — we talked about it yesterday. It's my understanding that they are looking at a budget shortfall this year. I'm curious whether the minister is aware of that.

Who is actually responsible for coordinating with them around their budget and what their needs are and making sure they have sufficient resources to do the important job that they do?

Hon. P. Bell: There are ongoing discussions with the Invasive Plant Council. I am advised by my deputy that last year they were able to find a positive resolution to their fiscal requirements for the year and that it operated efficiently. I'm also advised that there are ongoing discussions at this point, as well, for the '07-08 fiscal year.

B. Simpson: To wrap up the invasive plants component, I think from yesterday and the minister's enthusiasm for where we were at and what was going on — you know, more good news and everything's good…. We've been able to explore it a little bit and realize there are still issues around resourcing for invasive plant eradication and inventorying on the ground.

There are issues around compliance and enforcement. There are issues around the sustainability of the Invasive Plant Council, and there are still serious questions about whether or not the government is actually in compliance with the Weed Control Act.

My final question to the minister on this is: will the minister release to the public the Chutter panel report? I don't see any reason for not releasing it now, because it captures all of this and would hold the government to account to their own MLAs on what needed to be done. They can determine for themselves whether or not appropriate action has been taken.

Hon. P. Bell: In the spirit of ActNow and energy and enthusiasm, I'd also like to advise the member that there have been some other interesting projects around invasives which haven't yet been canvassed, including one that we're working on with the Solicitor General's office to develop the utilization of inmates to control invasives. There is actually a lot of good and interesting work.

As I mentioned to the member earlier, the budget has lifted from about a $2 million level during the 1990s — or actually under $2 million most years — to about $4 million for the previous three years — last fiscal close to $6 million. We continue to invest heavily in the control of invasives.

The member has been quoting from, I gather, a copy…. I don't know what copy it is, because I've seen the copy the member has of a report that he refers to as the Chutter panel report. Clearly, I guess there must be some copies of something out there somewhere. But the report is a cabinet document and as such would be inappropriate for release. It would set a dangerous precedent. I'm glad he has something that appears to be somewhat of a copy of that so that he can continue to ask productive and useful questions about invasive plants in the province.

B. Simpson: I'm glad my questions are productive and useful. I guess we're going to have to canvass this a little bit more in the public inquiry debate that's going to occur, because I'm not quite sure what the purpose is of sending out a bunch of MLAs to find out what is on the minds of British Columbians and then keep it as a secret cabinet document at the end.

We have to move on. I would like to come back to land use plans and higher-level planning as promised. The minister indicated that he's now got 100-percent certainty around the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. The question I was asking about was whether or not it had a legal standing under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Could the minister clarify for me what the term "grandfathered" means in this case? And were all land use plans that were completed at the time of FRPA coming into play grandfathered? So clarification of grandfathered and what plans were grandfathered.

Hon. P. Bell: The definition of grandfather is: somewhat older than the member for Cariboo North and somewhat younger than the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, I think, but I'm not positive that's the case.

In terms of the grandfathering process of higher-level plans, the higher-level plans were under the old Forest Practices Code. They were defined as the objectives under which the approvals had to be made, and

the objectives established underneath the higher level-plans had to be met in any forest development plans that took place.

Under the new Forest and Range Practices Act, the forest stewardship plans must take into account the legal objectives for the land use plans. As there was the transition from the old code to the Forest and Range Practices Act, the objectives that were articulated under the higher-level plans became the legal objectives that are required to be followed under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

B. Simpson: Let's explore that a little bit more. I know the minister has to be aware of this. He's been copied in the correspondence. With respect to the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, which the minister is indicating does have legal standing under the Forest and Range Practices Act, as the minister is aware, a multi-stakeholder brief has gone back and forth with respect to forest stewardship plans in the 100 Mile House area and the Williams Lake area, indicating that they cannot get any guarantees within the forest stewardship plans of the objectives that were in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. These are plans that are either approved or in the process of approval.

How is it, then, that forest stewardship plans in those areas can be approved without those people who were sitting at the table getting a guarantee from the licensees that the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan objectives will actually be met under the forest stewardship plans?

Hon. P. Bell: I can advise the member that the objectives that were established under the original higher-level plan for the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan will be translated into legal objectives, which must be met under the Forest and Range Practices Act. That's the responsibility of the appropriate approval authorities within the Ministry of Forests, as those plans are approved.

I can also advise the minister that of the 26 LRMPs in the province, 13 had higher-level status and were grandfathered into the Forest and Range Practices Act. Out of the SRMP, 65 out of 195 have legal objectives.

I can advise the member that the approving authority will have responsibility to meet the legal objectives that were established originally under the Cariboo-Chilcotin higher-level land use plan, which have now been converted into legal objectives.

B. Simpson: The minister has indicated that the sustainable resource management plans have been designated as legal plans. However, Tolko, for example, has indicated to the multi-stakeholder group that the objectives and content of lower planning documents — for example, the sub-regional management plans, sustainable resource management plans, land and resource management plans, etc. — clearly are not legal objectives, as far as they're concerned, for forest stewardship plans.

There seems to be a disconnect between how the licensees are understanding legal objectives. They're understanding it as only legal objectives as defined in the Forest and Range Practices Act and seem to be able to discriminate as to what they are going to carry over from higher-level plans. So why is that dissonance there if it's so clear, as the minister had indicated?

Hon. P. Bell: We'll reiterate what I have already previously indicated, which is specifically that the Cariboo-Chilcotin higher-level plan has been grandfathered and is now considered to have legal status and legal objectives established. Any application for a forest stewardship plan under the Forest and Range Practices Act would have to meet those objectives. The district manager, the approving authority, would have to ensure that those objectives were met.

The member mentioned the SRMPs around the province. As I indicated, 13 of 26 LRMPs have legal status and have been grandfathered to have legal objectives, and 65 out of 195 SRMPs have the same status.

I might say that Tolko has a large operating area and operates in many different land use planning areas around the province. There may be some confusion on the part of that organization, because clearly they would be working in some areas where the LRMPs had legal status and where they were grandfathered into the Forest and Range Practices Act.

They also operate in areas where perhaps that has not been the case — where there were not higher-level plans, where the legal objectives weren't set and where there wouldn't be a grandfathering process. That may be where some of the confusion is.

However, if the member wants to pursue the question of whether or not the decision-making authorities are taking into account their responsibilities to ensure that the legal objectives are being met, those individuals fall underneath the responsibility of the Minister of Forests, and he would be better capable of answering those questions than I.

B. Simpson: I just want to clarify something in the minister's understanding of Tolko. The response that Tolko has given is explicitly with respect to the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. There are SRMPs under that land use plan that everybody understands were endorsed by government as having legal status.

In response to questions, Tolko indicates the following. They're responding to the statement from the multi-stakeholder group that the endorsed SRMPs for this region are specified, integral requirements of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan.

Tolko's response is: "SRMPs have not been declared by government as higher-level plans and, therefore, are considered by Tolko as non-legal guidance on achieving the objectives of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. SRMPs have been reviewed by Tolko, specific to their objectives and strategies. Where practicable and enforceable, they will be brought into the FSP."

They don't recognize in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use planning area that SRMPs are legally enforceable.

The minister's ministry is the one that's responsible for the higher-level plans. In a case like this, who is responsible for making sure that there's clarity?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, to be clear, the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan has legal status, and the objectives in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan have legal status. Of the 195 SRMPs around the province, some of which are in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, 65 have legal status.

If Tolko were to bring forward a forest development plan within an area that has legal status, they would be required under the law to include those objectives in their forest development plan and meet those requirements.

If they were not to do that, the appropriate decision-maker at the Ministry of Forests should not approve that forest development plan.

Without knowing the specifics of the area the member is referring to, whether or not the specific SRMP has been legalized as opposed to the overall grandfathered LRMP which has been legalized, it's hard for me to respond any more definitively than I have. However, if the member has a specific forest development plan he's concerned about or a specific part of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan in a sub-SRMP that he'd like to refer to, we'd be happy to provide the technical information that's necessary around that.

The higher-level plan has been legalized and is required to be included in the objectives, and the appropriate decision-maker would of course take that into account.

B. Simpson: I want to clarify for the minister, because he's using the old language of forest development plans and these are under forest stewardship plans. I think the legal framework was clearer under the forest development plans — hence, as the minister has already talked, the need to grandfather and find ways to get the higher-level plans outside of FRPA cleaned up.

With respect to the minister's comment, then, who is the arbiter if a citizens group like the multi-stakeholder group in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use area gets an approved plan in their area and the designated decision-maker approves the plan, and yet those individuals involved in that process do not believe that the objectives they have all signed off on are in the forest stewardship plan or will be protected within the forest stewardship plan? Who is the arbiter of that? Where do they go with that complaint?

Hon. P. Bell: The question the member asks really relates more to the Ministry of Forests, which has responsibility for delivery of forest stewardship plans. Fortunately, I have a very capable pair of deputy ministers here who have a good understanding of the Ministry of Forests as well. So I will venture into another minister's territory momentarily, to say that initially the district manager would be petitioned if the local individuals felt that the legal objectives were not being appropriately considered. If that were not to meet the needs of the local constituent group, then the Forest Practices Board would be the next level of appeal.

B. Simpson: Let's switch over, then, to another area of the province. I have had this discussion with the minister in his office, and I'd like to explore it a little bit more.

If we're having struggles in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area, where we do have an officially grandfathered land use plan, then the struggles get exacerbated when you don't have one in existence and when there is uncertainty.

As the minister is aware, the Ministry of Forests and Range made a presentation to the Clayoquot resource board with respect to the Forest and Range Practices Act. For the record, one of the slides from that ministry's presentation — so this is from the Ministry of Forests and Range language in their slide — states this under a heading, "Land use objectives." Bullet 1: "None established by government under the legislation at this time." Bullet 2: "The Clayoquot Sound land use decision, the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel recommendations and Clayoquot Sound watershed plans are not objectives set by government." Bullet 3: "The FSP holder has no responsibility to directly address these government-endorsed plans, as they are not objectives set by government under the Forest and Range Practices Act."

So in that particular case, how do we protect all of that work and all of that activity? As the minister is well aware, that was the heart and soul of the war in the woods. We don't want to go back to a war in the woods.

How do we protect the land use decision scientific panel recommendations and watershed plans if they are not designated as legal objectives and don't have to be included in forest stewardship plans?

Hon. P. Bell: The member and I had an opportunity to discuss this in the last week or ten days, I think it was. I'm happy to have it on the record as well. There was a letter sent from the central chiefs to the Clayoquot regional board in July of 2006, which advised that the Clayoquot Sound technical planning committee has initiated the interagency discussions that are required with regard to setting legal objectives under the Forest and Range Practices Act for the Clayoquot Sound.

This process takes some time due to the consultation that is required with first nations in the region. We're moving through that process right now, and we're confident that we will be able to take forward legal objectives for Clayoquot Sound.

In addition, I can advise the member that the two forest licensees that are currently located in Clayoquot Sound, in the area that has been described, have both agreed to voluntarily accept the objectives that have been articulated by the Clayoquot Sound regional board and will be utilizing those in the establishment of any forest stewardship plans until those objectives are legalized.

B. Simpson: I want to clarify that last point. We talked about the voluntary compliance. I wasn't aware, and that's why I want to be crystal-clear. Will those licensees take those non-legal objectives and include them in their forest stewardship plan as part of that process so that they will actually be guaranteed in their approved forest stewardship plan?

B. Simpson: Let me just clarify the legal objectives component of it. I'm curious why, and I admit my own ignorance here as to whether or not this was possible…. The government and the party the government represents indicated in '95 that they were going to get rid of the Forest Practices Code. In '01 they stated their intent to get rid of the Forest Practices Code. In '03 they introduced a Forest and Range Practices Act, the so-called results-based code. We're in '07. It still hasn't been enacted, so there are questions around that.

There is a window there of 12 years of foreknowledge. I'm curious why — particularly in the case of Clayoquot, where it was the heart of the war in the woods — those are not legal objectives now, in advance of forest stewardship plans having to be approved?

Hon. P. Bell: The member will know that this area is a very, very sensitive area, and the level of planning that had to be done in the Clayoquot region was very detailed at a watershed level. It took a tremendous amount of time. In some ways I think the member almost kind of answered part of his own question when he identified that this work began in '95 — actually, I think, almost back to '93.

Under a previous government there were a number of years where there were no legal objectives established at all. It's only since 2001 that we have been able to move forward, albeit slowly, on this issue. It's a very important issue, and I don't want to minimize the importance of it.

Clayoquot certainly has international resonance in the environmental community, but really for everyone. That's an area that's very important. I think the model that's been established — with the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and local non-aboriginal members having equal numbers of seats on that board, and taking the objectives they have articulated and turning them into legal objectives — is the right step. So I think it's a very positive outcome. I guess, to respond to the member's question — why is it taking so long? — all good things take time.

S. Fraser: I'm going to probe that a little bit further. In the integrated land management bureau…. This is a press release from a number of years ago. It says: "On October 15, 2003, the first three official Clayoquot Sound watershed plans were brought into effect, after being endorsed by the two parties of the Clayoquot Sound Interim Measures Extension Agreement" — IMEA. The two parties are the Nuu-chah-nulth central region chiefs and the province of British Columbia.

Again, in 2006 another three watershed plans were endorsed, and these were watershed plans based on the science panel recommendations that came out in the '90s. So if these watershed plans have been endorsed by this government, how can they not be…? I believe the ministry official said that the science panel and watershed plans are not part of provincial objectives. Those statements to the central region board several weeks ago were a shock to the board, the provincial appointees and the Nuu-chah-nulth representatives.

How did that disconnect happen? How do we have world-class plans that have been worked on for years, endorsed by the government, that are somehow not part of the provincial objectives after they've been endorsed?

Hon. P. Bell: The difference between what the member is describing is the process of legalizing the objectives. So the objectives have been endorsed, and we are in the process of legalizing those objectives. It does take some time to do that work. The member, interestingly, reads from some sort of a bulletin from 2003 from the integrated land management bureau, which I find odd because the ILMB wasn't created until 2005.

S. Fraser: The bulletin is actually referring to 2006 — the last three watershed plans, I said. Obviously this is post-2006, but it is referring back to, in this case, a total of 11 watershed plans that were endorsed between 2003 and 2006 by this government.

A little bit further, Minister. You mentioned that consultation had to occur with the Nuu-chah-nulth. Now, this announcement that the science panel recommendations and the watershed plans that have been worked on for years by the central region board were not objectives of the government. That was a surprise to the Nuu-chah-nulth members, the Nuu-chah-nulth co-chair, as well as to the provincial appointees.

So what level of consultation occurred with the Nuu-chah-nulth or the central region board prior to this meeting and this announcement to the board, and how is that consultation going now?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize. I actually didn't answer the member's previous question, and I will do that now.

The member asked why it is that a government representative from the Ministry of Forests is coming into the community and saying that there are not legal objectives with regards to the Clayoquot Sound area. It is because the objectives have not been legalized yet. We are in the process of legalizing those objectives. The term that the Ministry of Forests staff person would have used is, in fact, accurate. There is not a legal objective set yet; it is in the process of legalizing those objectives. That's why we have gone and worked with the local licensees. The local licensees have indicated that they are happy to voluntarily apply all of the objectives that are articulated in the Clayoquot regional board recommendations in the interim, until those objectives are legalized.

I should also advise the member that I have met with the Clayoquot regional board chair, Jim Lornie, in the last ten days or so — I think last week some time — and expressed our continued support for the Clayoquot regional board. I know the board was concerned that they have that ongoing support.

There is an interesting dynamic, of course, going forward with the Nuu-chah-nulth right now and the ratification vote for a number of the first nations in the area, the Maa-nulth. That of course may change the way things look. I think the Clayoquot regional board has done an excellent job with the relationship, and the partnership between the Nuu-chah-nulth and the rest of the board has been very positive. We intend to continue to see that board operate on an ongoing basis and continue to work with them. We will legalize the objectives, as I indicated.

The level of consultation required varies, of course. We should be able to move forward on the legalization of these objectives in an orderly fashion in the sense that six of the members on the Clayoquot regional board are from the Nuu-chah-nulth, so there has already been a level of consultation. There is a fiduciary requirement for us to go back and legally consult with the first nations in the establishment of legalizing those objectives.

C. Evans: What both of the previous lines of questioning have led to is that in both the Chilcotin and the Clayoquot areas and, I would submit, elsewhere…. Other MLAs from both sides could come forth and make pretty much the same explanation. There is at present a general public perception that the land use planning process has wound to a…. It's stuck in molasses, and people don't know whether the remaining plans will be proclaimed legal. The Forest Practices Code is over, but the results-based system cannot function in the absence of legal guidelines to say what results we're meeting.

All around the province there is a general belief that we're operating without a regulatory regime. I think that would go away if the minister was able to give the general public a date and say that the existing and not-yet-legalized plans will be made functional in law by this date and that the areas not yet planned will be done by this date. Then people would begin to believe in the process.

The minister made quite an accurate statement earlier that there are corporations — Tolko was his example — that exist in areas where there are legal plans and where there aren't, and within a company there is an absence of understanding.

Can the minister tell us by what date the existing plans will be made functional in law? By what date will we be finished with the planning process and cover British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: This answer is going to have to be a bit longer just by the nature of the question that has been asked. First of all, to reiterate, of the 26 LRMPs that exist in the province, 13 have legal objectives that have been grandfathered into the current model and will apply to the Forest and Range Practices Act, so roughly half in terms of the quantum of number of LRMPs.

The member suggests that land use planning is…. I forget the term he used; stuck in molasses, I think it was, but something to that effect. Perhaps the member hasn't been reading his clips, but last year the central coast and north coast land use plan was announced: 6.4 million hectares. It's one of the most contentious areas in the province — 30 different first nations up and down the coast, 24 of whom have signed off on that land use plan.

We have had a set of preliminary objectives out for consultation under ecosystem-based management that creates some of the highest standards anywhere in the world around forest objectives. The consultation period is closed off on one of those planning units and about to close off on a second planning unit in the next few days, if it hasn't already — but shortly. We'll continue to work to put that together.

In addition, we've made tremendous headway on the Sea to Sky land use plan. I'm hopeful that that plan will be formalized and come forward later on this year.

The Morice land use plan is also looking very promising. We continue to work with the St'át'imc First Nation, with detailed consultations around the land use plan in the Lillooet area. We continue to work with the Haida First Nation and have made very, very good progress in terms of developing a strategic land use plan or a land use plan for Haida Gwaii. We're hopeful to see work come about in that area. In the northwest part of the province we're working extensively with the Taku River Tlingit and Tahltan First Nations in terms of developing land use plans around there.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast knows that we've been engaged in a scoping study, and that work has been completed. We're now consulting with first nations on the possibility of doing a land use plan in the Sunshine Coast planning area of the province.

There is extensive work that has gone on. I think where the big shift has taken place in this is that the government takes very seriously its responsibility to consult with first nations. We're now trying to do that in a different way than has occurred in the past, at a government-to-government level. It's the first time that has been done in the history of the province. Those consultations have been meaningful and positive and have resulted in consensus positions for the first time, which I think speaks very positively for the long-term economic opportunities for first nations around this great province.

There has been a lot of work that has gone on. For the member to ask me if I can give him a date when all land use planning projects will be completed in the province…. I don't think that's possible. I don't think you'll ever complete land use planning in the province.

The member for Cariboo North will be able to tell the member that the dynamics in his part of the province have changed significantly since the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan was first done. The values and

the objectives that were established under that land use plan may or may not all apply today.

One of the key areas that we have to look at as the climate changes — as you see significant changes on the landscape, like mountain pine beetle — is that we have to re-evaluate. How do we manage that?

I've been working extensively with the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board in looking at how we can effectively manage the land base at a local level and establish groups of local citizens and other interest groups to support land use planning and changes on an ongoing basis as the landscape changes.

We do things on the landscape today that we never took into account. We didn't anticipate the possibility, as an example, of wind projects extensively when land use plans were done for the province. Now we're starting to see significant interest in those types of projects, yet those land use plans didn't always incorporate objectives that were appropriate for wind-type projects. Run-of-the-river projects would be the same thing. The amount of mining activity in the Tahltan traditional territories is significant, and we're having to work through those challenges.

Oftentimes I think plans need to be adaptive. We have to apply adaptive management principles to the land use planning process. We're consulting with first nations not at the end, not at the middle but at the very front end of the process so that we can incorporate first nations into the actual planning process. They're full partners in the land use planning processes.

Things have changed, but to suggest that land use planning is stalled in the province, I think, would simply be inaccurate. There is a need for us to have ongoing levels of work in land use planning. I look forward to doing that going into the future. It is different, it has changed, but I think there are positive outcomes out there that we can point to as well.

B. Simpson: I just want to clarify what the member for Alberni-Qualicum was getting at. It's an explicit question. The press release he's talking about looked backward to October 15, 2003, and it stated that at that time, there were three official Clayoquot Sound watershed plans that were brought into effect and endorsed.

My question is: going back to the legal objectives process — that was in 2003 — was any work undertaken to make those watershed plans into legal objectives at that time?

Hon. P. Bell: At the time that that work was done, the sense was it was more appropriate to wait for the additional five plans to come forward and legalize all of the objectives at the same time.

B. Simpson: I'm going to cut to the chase here, because we have some other things to do, and ask some specific questions about the uncertainty people have around this. The minister wrote to the lead person on the multi-stakeholder group in the Cariboo-Chilcotin issue and stated that the government will continue to assess the need for additional legal direction in response to a need for clarification and, to address a value at risk, consider further action through either the government action regulations or land use objective regulation.

My question to the minister is this. We're having trouble on the ground getting the legal objectives that are recognized under the higher-level plans incorporated into forest stewardship plans on the first iteration of these plans. We have areas that don't have plans. We have areas that have plans that were not grandfathered. Once they get legal objectives and there's already an approved forest stewardship plan, how do you insert the legal objectives into an already approved plan?

Hon. P. Bell: The implementation of new objectives under the Forest and Range Practices Act is a complex matter. Being that the Forest and Range Practices Act is under the purview of the Ministry of Forests, I recommend that the member canvass that issue with the Minister of Forests.

B. Simpson: Yet the minister's response to the folks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan was that it wouldn't be under FRPA. It would be under mechanisms within this minister's domain of control, under government acts and regulations and under the land use objective regulation.

My question comes back to the minister again. We have a situation where FRPA only recognizes very limited legal objectives within the Forest and Range Practices Act. Even the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan is not recognized under the Forest and Range Practices Act. It's recognized outside of the act.

My question to the minister, again, is…. It's within his area of control. How does he guarantee that if there's an approved forest stewardship plan, additional objectives can actually be met and inserted into those plans?

Hon. P. Bell: Fortunately, we have some dedicated civil servants who have experience with the Ministry of Forests and Range, because I'm foraying into an area of another minister's responsibilities when I answer this question. I'm advised that FRPA actually says how objectives must be taken into account in FSPs and, if any new objectives are established, how that would be managed within existing FSPs.

Again, this is outside of the normal scope of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands or the integrated land management bureau. The ministry and the integrated land management bureau articulate and establish the legal objectives. It is the responsibility under law of the appropriate decision-maker in the Ministry of Forests to implement those objectives.

B. Simpson: To the minister: I appreciate that he's answering what he believes are questions more di-

rected to the Ministry of Forests and Range but again reiterate that the higher-level plans — ILMB and so on — come under this minister's jurisdiction. The legal coordinated approach has to be done through some kind of function — I imagine, ILMB. So it is in the minister's jurisdiction.

Partly, what I'm getting at is that the government was forewarned that the way the Forest and Range Practices Act, the results-based code, was constructed would lead to a legal quagmire. It was forewarned by everybody: the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, the Forest Practices Board, the UBC School of Forestry, all the ENGOs. Everybody said: "Don't do it this way, because what you're going to create is a mess."

What we're experiencing today is: we've got a mess. We've got these land use plans that everybody worked so hard on. They can't be guaranteed, and they are legal. We've got ones in the works which we have to go and ask for voluntary compliance. Who knows? In today's world of corporate concentration, those voluntary compliers may be ousted by some other company very shortly here, and the voluntary part goes out the window. That's not very comforting to a lot of people in the Clayoquot area or elsewhere.

We have this question of how we do work when, as the minister has already indicated, it's an iterative process which is going to change. How do we do that when you've got five-year minimum-legal-objective plans written by lawyers — not foresters — who are simply trying to cover the licensee's legal derrière.

My question to the minister is this, and it's explicit. We're going to switch to some mountain caribou here. The minister is responsible for the SaRCO process that's going on and has a role in that. We met with the folks around that, explicitly about mountain caribou. Again, that process is going to lead to some outcomes and some recommendations to government.

How quickly does the minister believe that this can be rolled up into legal objectives so that we don't log the land base under forest stewardship plans before we actually can get the mountain caribou protected? I will read for the record that this has been raised by the stakeholder group in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. It was raised directly with the minister.

They state: "As you will see from our brief, the issue here is that the terms and conditions of our Cariboo-Chilcotin land use higher-level plan are not being applied in the forest stewardship plans, and this is placing the mountain caribou at risk of extirpation and gravely endangering our world-class salmon and trout fisheries."

How quickly can that SaRCO process become legal, and how will it be inserted into the forest stewardship plans?

Hon. P. Bell: The member will know that the consultation period has just been completed. There's been some very good input from a wide variety of groups to the caribou recovery strategy, and the work of the science panel should be congratulated as well. It did a tremendous amount of work.

The caribou is a very interesting species. The telemetry data we have on caribou are really second to none for any species. They're probably the most studied species that we have out there. We have very, very good information on caribou — the habitat they travel in and the food they eat.

The member asked a question, specifically, as to what types of actions we can take in the shorter term to respond to the needs of mountain caribou — if we identify specific areas. Three of the objectives we can bring into play that have a fairly quick effect would be old-growth management areas, the wildlife-habitat areas and ungulate winter range — all of which have to be applied in short order.

M. Sather: Carrying further with regard to the mountain caribou, there are a number of herds in the areas that are being studied there, as the minister knows. What is the government's commitment to the recovery of all of those herds?

M. Sather: Well, the minister has received a raft of responses to the information that was put out last month, I believe, by the species-at-risk coordination office in the minister's office. What people want to know is: what steps can they see on the ground this year with regard to implementation of those plans?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm also joined now by senior ADM Kevin Jardine, who has responsibility for the species-at-risk coordination office.

The member asks what actions we can take this year to have an impact on mountain caribou recovery. Perhaps I'll start by indicating to the member what actions have already been taken in the past year or so in the development of the recovery strategies.

Right off the top, about 70 percent of the caribou habitat or the area in which caribou range is currently under some sort of management regime for mountain caribou. Included in this, about 21 percent of that range is actually in parks or protected areas already, and then 48 percent is being managed for caribou under very specific objectives that have to be followed. In addition, there were over a million hectares where we placed a moratorium on any new tenures, recreational tenures or any other form of tenure — for mountain caribou. That was done over a year ago.

We have best-management-practices standards with the forest industry that have been developed and in place for some time. Last year we signed a memorandum of understanding with HeliCat Canada in the development of specific management regimes around the management of the activities that they participate in, in caribou areas. There's a series of things that they do. We'd be happy to provide the member with more details in that area.

We're also working with the B.C. Snowmobile Federation on an MOU, as well, and there are a number of

other key strategies that are taking place. Those are things that have already occurred up till now, so we're not standing and waiting until we have a plan in place to ensure that caribou are protected.

The impact has been fairly positive. Caribou numbers are up. The censuses over the past five years have shown a small increase in the total caribou herds. The one in the north is doing very well, and that's where the growth is largely being seen. The ones in the south, in the southern Kootenay areas, are really struggling, and it's going to require a lot of work to recover those herds.

I'm sure the member is familiar with the work of the science team that was posted on the website he referred to. That was actually posted on the website in October of 2006, so that information has been out there for quite some time. There's very, very good work done by the science team — good solid recommendations. We've gone through the consultation period. We have received lots of good, positive information from a broad range of sources. I recently met with ForestEthics — in fact, yesterday or the day before — and a number of other environmental organizations.

We think that this recovery plan is something that's going to have to be adaptive. We're going to have to ensure that we're utilizing strategies that are appropriate over the longer term and assessing those strategies on an ongoing basis — I don't think we can roll out a plan today that won't have to change and adapt — to ensure that we're meeting the needs of the species and to recover them appropriately.

The good news is that the science team clearly indicates that this species is recoverable, and this government is committed to making sure that happens.

M. Sather: If I could have your indulgence for a few more minutes, I have a number of quick questions.

Is the ministry prepared to fund all of the activities of the caribou recovery efforts, and where would those funds come from?

Hon. P. Bell: Our job within the species-at-risk coordination office is to coordinate all spending for species-at-risk recovery strategies, so the funding is not necessarily specific to the SaRCO budget line or office. Some will come from the Ministry of Environment. It could be from Forests, it could be from a variety of different sources, but we coordinate that spending.

M. Sather: Is there money in any of these budgets, then, for caribou recovery this year?

Hon. P. Bell: I can't speak to each of the individual ministry budget lines, but certainly, we work through the interagency management committees with each of the individual ministries to ensure that they understand the work we're doing and what the expectations of those ministries will be. Mike Lambert operates under a board of directors. The members of that board are the deputy ministers of each of the ministries that have any sort of responsibility that's attached to the land base. Those decisions in terms of spending are made through that board and funnel down into the appropriate agencies.

M. Sather: With the forbearance of the minister, we'd like to continue for a few questions on that after the break. I'd like to call adjournment of the debate.

C. Evans: For the benefit of the staff, we'll just do a little bit more on caribou — that would be the Lands area, generally — and then we'll move to Agriculture after lunch. If there is time, we might have some aquaculture tenuring questions after five o'clock — between five and 6:30. You can arrange staff accordingly.

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.