Hansard — Thursday, March 8, 2007 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5983
	Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13)
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Coroners Act (Bill 8)
	Hon. J. Les
	Motorcycle Noise Control Act (Bill M203)
	L. Mayencourt

Introductions by Members		5985

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5985
	International Women's Day
	K. Whittred
	C. James
	Bras for a Cause fundraiser in Langley
	M. Polak
	International Women's Day
	C. Trevena
	Royal Canadian Legion
	R. Hawes
	Ann Meraw
	M. Sather

Oral Questions		5987
	Government action on farmworker safety
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Chouhan
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich
	H. Lali
	M. Farnworth
	Immigrant sponsorship debts in family violence situations
	S. Simpson
	Hon. C. Richmond
	C. Trevena
	Home support services for Heather Vaughan
	D. Routley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Housing for individual with mental illness
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Care of developmentally disabled adults
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Student financial assistance
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. Coell

Second Reading of Bills		5991
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6) (continued)
	C. Wyse
	N. Simons
	G. Gentner
	M. Karagianis
	R. Fleming
	M. Farnworth
	S. Simpson
	L. Mayencourt
	J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6019
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)
	M. Sather
	Hon. P. Bell
	C. Evans
	G. Robertson

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Transfer Act.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to introduce the Securities Transfer Act. The Securities Transfer Act is commercial property law that governs the transfer and holding of investment securities. It's modelled on the Uniform Securities Transfer Act that was approved by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It's the product of an interprovincial effort at uniformity. The legislation was proclaimed into force January 1, 2007, in both Ontario and Alberta and is planned for Saskatchewan later this spring.

The Securities Transfer Act does not affect regulatory compliance or impose regulatory change. It is framework legislation to provide legal certainty to current market practices. The Securities Transfer Act will remove uncertainty about the law applying to securities transactions. It will harmonize our law with that of the United States and international recommendations and will provide the legal underpinning to support current commercial practices. Providing this legal certainty will enhance our market's competitiveness with the U.S. and global markets.

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

Bill 9, Securities Transfer Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2007.

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

Hon. C. Taylor: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 2007-2008 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial two months of the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2007.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. This bill seeks supply for two-thirds of the year's financing transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and investments and 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2007.

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

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007. The provisions in this bill complete the government's implementation of the Hughes review recommendations to establish the representative as a new officer of the Legislature, to wind up the office for children and youth, and to facilitate an orderly and timely transition from that office to the new office of the representative. The bill also completes the government's response to Mr. Hughes's recommendations for amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

A great deal has happened since the Representative for Children and Youth Act was passed in May 2006. We voted unanimously in this House in November 2006 to appoint Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as this province's first Representative for Children and Youth. Under the leadership of the Deputy Attorney General and the child

and youth transition team, we have consulted widely with government's external partners and service providers. We have met with the public agencies and officials who play a vital role in child welfare and protection. We have listened to their concerns and addressed their issues in this legislation.

The amendments in this bill confirm the representative has jurisdiction to oversee services provided by delegated directors under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, including directors within delegated aboriginal agencies. In this bill we have addressed the public disclosure of personal information for both the representative and director under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

The bill that I introduce today marks the fulfilment of the government's commitment to implement key recommendations in the Hughes review and provides the framework for the new representative to carry out her responsibilities for the benefit and well-being of all children and youth in British Columbia.

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

Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coroners Act.

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to introduce the new Coroners Act, which replaces the existing Coroners Act, which was drafted more than 30 years ago. The coroner's role has changed over the last 30 years and now plays a significant part in enhancing public safety through the prevention of future deaths.

This report, B.C. Children and Youth Review, which was conducted by the hon. Ted Hughes, made three recommendations relating to the B.C. Coroners Service. Firstly is that the child death investigation function be continued, secondly is that the child death review unit continue with the Coroners Service, and thirdly is that the Coroners Act be updated to bring it in line with the coroner's role today. This legislation addresses these recommendations.

The Coroners Service has always had the explicit mandate to investigate all sudden, unexpected deaths of both children and adults. In 2003 it was given additional responsibilities to undertake the review of all child deaths in British Columbia. This new act gives the child death review unit the explicit and independent authority to perform comprehensive reviews of all child and youth deaths in British Columbia. The reviews, which may be of an individual death or an aggregate review of several deaths, will allow the unit to make recommendations that will prevent future deaths and promote the health, well-being and safety of all B.C. children.

Other significant improvements have been made in the act, including updating and clarifying provisions that set out when a coroner must hold an inquest and the coroner's ability to empanel and direct a jury by incorporation of relevant sections of the Jury Act and the powers of a coroner to control an inquest in a manner consistent with powers given to other government bodies holding public inquiries.

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

Bill 8, Coroners Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

L. Mayencourt: The Motorcycle Noise Control Act strengthens already established legislation under the Motor Vehicle Act in order to curb excessive noise caused by motorcycles in residential areas. This act requires motorcyclists to have a muffler that cools and expels exhaust without exceeding the maximum sound pressure level of 85 decibels in residential areas.

Current regulations permit up to 91 decibels, but many have stated that noise levels from automobiles and motorcycles should be more closely aligned. In my community, noise complaints about loud motorcycles are reaching an all-time high. This bill will benefit not just Vancouverites but all British Columbians.

The city of Edmonton recently introduced bylaws similar to the proposed legislation, also at 85 decibels — a move being considered in Vancouver. However, it has been repeatedly reported that the city of Vancouver has had great difficulty collecting bylaw fines, due to a lack of bylaw enforcement personnel. This bill will create a level playing field across the province and allow police to inspect motorcycles and fine individuals that operate motorcycles that contravene this law.

Additionally, the bill, in creating a provincial offence, will assist municipalities in collecting unpaid fines when an individual renews their B.C. driver's licence or insures their motorcycle. Since 2005 this government has returned all traffic fine revenue to the municipality

A further consideration to be mindful of here is the impact of increasing noise levels on residents and their hearing. More than ever before, citizens are concerned with the levels of so-called noise pollution. Medical specialists have consistently warned about the dangers associated with high noise and decibel levels as well as their potential consequences on long-term hearing abilities.

In addition to bringing this bill forward, I will work with the Vancouver police department and the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists to establish an annual motorcycle noise awareness campaign. This campaign will ensure that all motorcyclists are properly licensed, that motorcycles have unmodified mufflers, and will allow for roadside safety inspections.

Most motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens who share an appreciation of the need to minimize the impact of excessive noise along with the love for riding their motorcycles.

I move that the bill be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Motorcycle Noise Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

S. Hammell: We have two guests in the gallery today, Maj.-Gen. John Woods and Mrs. Carol Woods. General Woods is the colonel commandant of the military engineers branch of the Canadian Forces and is visiting military engineers serving at CFB Esquimalt. He is in the gallery as a guest of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Could we all please make him welcome.

D. Routley: I would like to have the members help me welcome two constituents, Mary Fox and her partner, who are visiting the Legislature to hear us discuss the issues of health care and home support that affect them so deeply.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the opportunity to make an introduction. I'm pleased to be joined today by some children from one of my very important employees. Mike Long is my communications director, who has the real big challenge of trying to make what I say into something perhaps a little more understandable to the public.

Mike couldn't be here because he's busy probably trying to sort out some of the latest statements I've made. But we are joined by his children, Julia, who is ten years old, and Michael, who is eight years old. They are avid watchers of the news and political events, as is their neighbour Sandra Young, who is also here today with the kids. She's joined by her son Coady, who is also ten years old.

K. Whittred: On the wall of my office hangs a poster of Canada's famous five: Emily Murphy, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung — women from my native province who, through their leadership, challenged the status quo. Their courage and temerity forever changed opportunities for women in Canada and around the world.

Today as we celebrate International Women's Day, British Columbia women are able to reflect on their achievements and be confident about their future. From university enrolment to participating in the workforce, to owning businesses, to working in the trades, women in B.C. are increasingly at the forefront.

Now 61 percent of B.C. women participate in the workforce. In the public service, women now make up more than 39 percent of senior positions, a 6-percent increase in the past five years. We're in the top three in the country for small businesses owned by women.

But there is much work to be done internationally. There are still places where female children are not valued. There are too many places where war continues to take its toll on women and children. There are way too many instances where women and their children live in fear, often hungry and without shelter.

So today let us all pause and celebrate International Women's Day in our own way, but let each of us resolve to show leadership, to challenge the status quo, to show temerity, to help ensure that every little girl grows up with the opportunity to achieve her full potential.

C. James: I'd also like to ask the House to join me to recognize International Women's Day. Over 30 years ago the United Nations set aside March 8 as the day to pause and consider the condition of women in our society.

Many speeches have been given in this House to mark the occasion. But like many commemorative days, International Women's Day can become a bit of a habit, a routine. We all need to resist that. Every March 8

we can't just go through the motions, because although women have made great strides — from voting rights and abortion rights to participation in politics and the economy — gender inequality and injustice still scar our province and our world.

The international trafficking of women and children is on the rise, poverty continues to inflict its toll, and thousands of women are victimized every day in war and armed conflict. Here at home, British Columbia has the highest child poverty rate in the country. One in four children lives below the poverty line. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing faster than anywhere else in Canada, and the wage and employment gap between women and men is still far from being closed.

The condition of women in a society is a good indication of the overall health of that society. Yesterday's tragic accident that killed three women farmworkers on their way to the fields is a reminder of how far we still have to come in British Columbia. This International Women's Day, let's reflect again on the struggle for gender equality, and let's celebrate progress toward that aim. But more than that, let's commit ourselves to positive change.

M. Polak: Every year at this time the good citizens of Langley prepare for an evening of audacious fun in support of a very good cause. I'm referring, of course, to the annual Bras for a Cause benefit hosted by Soroptimists International of the Langleys.

In the next few weeks Langley residents and businesses will work feverishly to create theme bras to be auctioned off in support of individuals battling cancer. In the past these artistic and outrageously decorated theme bras have raised tens of thousands of dollars in support of a variety of cancer-related charities. This year proceeds of the auction will be directed toward Ovarian Cancer Canada for the foundation of a Fraser Valley support group and to the western Canada chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada.

The annual Bras for a Cause benefit dinner and auction has become a highly anticipated annual event, because it combines support for a good cause with a healthy dose of humour. Many of the decorated bras incorporate humour in their design and in their theme titles. Others are ornately adorned and framed and include tribute statements that memorialize loved ones lost to cancer. Bras autographed by celebrities, such as Robin Williams and Pierce Brosnan, often fetch a substantial auction price. Even a bra autographed by the B.C. Liberal caucus received a modest bid. Regardless of the final auction value, every contribution is important as our community comes together to show our support for those battling this disease.

I'm certain the members of this House join me in thanking Soroptimists International of the Langleys for their hard work and dedication in making this annual event a great success.

C. Trevena: I too would like to talk about International Women's Day, because I look around this House, and I guess I sigh. There aren't that many women here, and there aren't many women in politics in Canada.

A recent survey of women in politics by the Inter-Parliamentary Union has put Canada at a ranking of 47th. On this International Women's Day, I note that Rwanda has the most women parliamentarians at 48.8 percent, followed by Sweden and Costa Rica. Canada is flanked by Pakistan and Portugal, who do better, and Serbia and Poland, who do worse.

We all have different reasons for entering politics, and we enter it at different stages of our lives. But in those countries in which women are well represented, there's a quota system. The system is fixed towards equality.

I've been travelling around the province from Campbell River to Cranbrook these last months, listening to women — to their concerns and their issues. It's like looking around this House today. I come away from it asking: where's the progress? I've been hearing from women who are still getting paid less than men; women who are struggling, caring for children, for home, for parents and working; women who fear old age because they see poverty, women who are marginalized; aboriginal women and immigrant women; women working in the caring professions carrying a load; women in business who can't access finance; women who feel their voices have been silenced; women who have tried calling out but now look around them and feel their voices were not heard.

On this International Women's Day, I'd like to acknowledge those many women I met on the road. I would like to thank them. I'd like to say that I have heard you.

R. Hawes: The highest honour that a municipality can bestow on a military unit is Freedom of the City. This ceremonial honour allows the unit to march through the streets of the city with weapons drawn and bayonets fixed.

In recognition of their wonderful community volunteerism and the great sacrifice many of their members made in wars past, I'm extremely proud that about ten years ago the district of Mission granted Freedom of the City to the Royal Canadian Legion and branch 57. They were the first legion in North America to receive such a symbolic honour.

Freedom of the City has been exercised several times in Mission, with military parades featuring the New Westminster regiment and veteran legion members from across B.C. and through Washington State.

March 3, 2007, marked the 80th anniversary of the founding of Mission branch 57, and this year numerous other legions throughout B.C. will also celebrate their 80th anniversary.

I ask all members of the House to recognize this anniversary and honour the great work and sacrifice that our veteran legion members have made by helping me complete the legion act of remembrance:

M. Sather: On this occasion of International Women's Day, I want to acknowledge the contributions of a truly remarkable woman in my community, Ann Meraw. Fondly known as the marathon swimmer, Ann has written a book of the same title where she talks about her many years as a swimmer.

Born in Powell River, Ann learned to swim at age one after falling off a log at a local lake. At the age of ten she swam five miles across Howe Sound and five miles back. In 1934 she swam across Georgia Strait. Ann swam the length of Okanagan Lake in 1958, setting four world records and an endurance record for women and men.

Ann set seven world records, and four of these still stand today. When a plan to swim the English Channel was thwarted by World War II because, as Ann put it, "I didn't want to be torpedoed," she became Canada's first female lifeguard.

Moving to Maple Ridge in 1970, Ann remains active. She was up till 11 last night planning her many community activities for today. Ann founded the Ridge Meadows Hall of Fame to honour others from our communities who have their own outstanding achievements. Ann has coached numerous swimming teams and is a very active volunteer. She drives patients to the cancer clinic, holds wellness workshops, writes for a local magazine and patrols the streets of Maple Ridge every day for community policing.

Ann's life is fuller than full, and there is not enough time to list all of her accomplishments. I ask everyone to join me in congratulating Ann for all she has done for her community and our province. Ann celebrated her 90th birthday on the 23rd of February.

C. James: On July 13, 2003, Mohinder Sunar was killed when the van she was travelling in crashed on the Trans-Canada Highway. She was one of 19 farmworkers heading to the fields in a van designated to hold 15. The coroner's report stated: "The use of seatbelts in this incident may have prevented the death of Mohinder Sunar."

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General confirm that a recommendation was made to review and clarify the use of seatbelts in these cases, and can he explain why his government did nothing?

Hon. J. Les: The event, of course, that gives rise to the opposition leader's question is the tragic accident of yesterday. I would remind members again that other accidents that have happened in the past do not necessarily have any relationship at all with respect to the accident of yesterday. It is, I would submit, wrong to draw analogies and parallels between yesterday's accident and other accidents that have occurred.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we refrain from drawing those parallels, as there is an investigation underway, and the circumstances of yesterday's accident are going to be fully explored and fully reported upon in due course.

C. James: I do, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Solicitor General. I'm talking about a report from 2003. Not only did this government ignore that coroner's report, but they also ignored the findings and recommendations from WCB. This government chose not to act — no new regulations, no new enforcement measures, nothing coming out of the 2003 report. This government chose to ignore the risks that are faced by farmworkers every single day in British Columbia.

Again to the Solicitor General: will the government finally, four years after Mohinder Sunar's death, take action on these critical recommendations to prevent future tragedies?

Hon. J. Les: Road safety is an ongoing preoccupation of our government. We have made numerous changes over the years that have the effect of making our roads safer in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, just in this past year I think the number of fatalities was down by about 40. That means we obviously have work yet to do.

With respect to the coroner's report of 2003, ICBC in fact followed up and gave direction to its brokers to give effect to the coroner's recommendation with respect to the issue of seatbelts in buses. The member opposite may well be aware that that has been a matter of debate not only within British Columbia but across North America, in fact. It is a matter of ongoing review within my ministry.

C. James: I do. It is shameful — shameful that this government has ignored the coroner's report. It's shameful that this government ignored repeated calls for a public inquiry into Mohinder Sunar's death. Now the province is reeling after another tragic accident where three women died.

Again, my question to the Solicitor General: how many more tragic accidents do farmworkers have to endure before this government will finally, finally act on their behalf?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite premises her question on a set of conclusions that she has obviously reached. I have not reached any conclusions as to the causes of yesterday's accident, nor should anyone else jump to those conclusions. There is a full and thorough investigation underway. When that investigation is complete, hopefully we will have all of the answers, and we will allow the chips to fall where they may.

R. Chouhan: The Solicitor General and this government can ignore, if they want to, answering all these questions, but British Columbians and farmworkers are demanding answers. The inaction of this government is inexcusable. Four years after Mohinder Sunar's death, nothing has been done. This government ignored their own reports. This government is treating farmworkers like second-class citizens. Why?

Can the Solicitor General explain why he ignored the WCB's 2003 request to reinstate joint roadside inspections?

Hon. J. Les: Well, the member opposite can use all of the pejorative language he likes. Along with his leader, apparently he has reached all kinds of conclusions as to what happened yesterday and why. I'm not that clairvoyant, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we wait for the results of the investigation and see exactly what happened. We will follow through with any appropriate actions that might be required as a result.

R. Chouhan: I find it really appalling. This answer was no answer. I'm asking about the report of 2003, not about this accident which occurred yesterday.

The coroner's report into Mohinder Sunar's death is clear. Reinstate joint roadside inspections. Review the use of seatbelts. Close the loophole between employment standards and the Motor Vehicle Act. Three key recommendations, and this government ignored them all.

Again to the Solicitor General: why did this government choose inaction over lives?

Hon. J. Les: On the one hand the member opposite says he's not talking about yesterday's tragic accident, and then he finishes off his question by referring directly to that accident. He really needs to sort himself out, Mr. Speaker. I think, frankly, it is appalling that we use a tragic accident to further our political advantage.

C. Puchmayr: The coroner's report of 2003. That coroner's report on Mohinder Sunar's death went to the Ministry of Labour, went to the Solicitor General, and it went to the Attorney General. I'm talking about the coroner's report of 2003.

Why did three individual cabinet ministers and this entire government do nothing to address that report?

Hon. J. Les: I've already outlined that ICBC was active in encouraging and requiring of its brokers that they take specific action with respect to the appropriate registration of those vehicles. As I said earlier to an earlier question, the matter of seatbelts within buses is a question that really hasn't been settled anywhere, to our knowledge, in North America. So it is under active review within my ministry. We may in fact be able to bring forward some recommendations with respect to that in the months ahead.

But again I would underline that if members opposite are attempting to speculate as to what happened yesterday, I suggest we leave that for another day when all investigations are complete.

C. Puchmayr: There are over 5,000 farms in British Columbia, and on those 5,000 farms last year there were only 250 WorkSafe inspections. There were 82 employment standards branch inspections. Out of those 82, over half of them resulted in penalties — 5,000 farms, 82 inspections, and half of them result in penalties.

Will the minister commit to take action immediately so that farmworkers are not only safe going to and from work but also safe while they are working in those fields?

Hon. O. Ilich: I want to say that WorkSafe has more inspectors now than at any time in the past and does more comprehensive inspections than at any time in the past.

H. Lali: It was this Liberal government that actually slashed the enforcement of employment standards for farmworkers in 2001. It was this Liberal government that stripped away farmworkers' rights for overtime and minimum-wage protection in 2003 — a hard-won right that it took them 100 years to win. It was this Liberal government that actually disbanded the teams that protected farmworkers from across British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will you learn from these tragic incidents and commit to reinstating the rights of farmworkers in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: Since the member brought up the accident yesterday, obviously I want to also express my condolences to the family. It was a very tragic traffic accident.

To just speak to the point that the member opposite is making…. He is wrong, and they don't have their facts. The agricultural compliance team that was changed in 2001 was a team of federal government people from the Canada Revenue Agency and the employment insurance office who looked around wages and taxes and not safety issues.

Our teams are still in place and, as I said, doing more inspections than ever before.

M. Farnworth: What is appalling is not this government's lack of clairvoyance but its excuses and its lack of action. In 2003 they stripped away farmworkers' rights. In 2003 they ignored the coroner's recommendations that could have kept those same workers safe.

It is 2007, and still they have done nothing — nothing. So my question to the Solicitor General is clear. Why won't he call a public inquiry into the state of farmworkers in British Columbia, and when will he enact those 2003 coroner's recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite, like several members opposite, is jumping to conclusions as to the reasons and the causes of yesterday's accident. That is inappropriate. We should allow the investigation to proceed. We should allow that investigation to come to the appropriate conclusions.

If and when inquiries are necessary, that will be determined in the future. Today is not the day to be making those kinds of decisions, and today is certainly not the day to be playing political football with this kind of issue.

S. Simpson: Nadia Grunwel is a constituent of mine, and she's a victim of the current provincial administration of the sponsorship section of the Immigration Act. After sponsoring her husband to Canada, Ms. Grunwell faced years of documented physical and emotional violence before she left her husband and escaped the ordeal. Unknown to her, her husband went on welfare in 2004, and Ms. Grunwell received a bill from the province for $18,000 to repay his welfare payments. The province put a lien on her home to secure that debt.

To make women pay for their abusers is unacceptable. My question is to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Will he permanently suspend the payment and interest charges for Nadia and other women in her situation under the sponsorship program?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, just to refresh everyone's memory, the sponsorship act is a federal act under the family class section of the federal Immigration Act. Sponsors sign a legally binding agreement with the federal government to financially support sponsored individuals from three to ten years. I quote from the agreement: "I promise that the sponsored person and his or her family members will not need to apply for social assistance benefits."

At the moment the outstanding amount for those who are in the default is in the neighbourhood of $47 million or $48 million. It is money that is owed to the taxpayers of B.C. However, we have undertaken that in specific instances where violence or the threat of violence can be substantiated by a third party, we will look at those cases and suspend collection on an individual basis.

S. Simpson: What the minister doesn't say…. And I'd concur; we're not talking about the broad sponsorship issue here. We're talking about a relatively small number of cases where women are victims of abuse and what happens there. The situation is that the minister wrote me on December 21, 2006, stating that debt collection will be suspended in cases where abuse can be substantiated, but only until individual circumstances change.

I quote the letter: "We will review the individual circumstances at least once a year. Suspension of collection does not cancel the debt and does not prevent additional debt and interest from accruing."

Nadia Grunwel and others have now discovered that they either stay in an abusive situation, or they will ultimately have to pay for their abuser's keep. This victimizes women over and over again.

My question again to the minister is: will he do the right thing and permanently suspend the payment and interest obligations for Nadia Grunwel and others in her situation, and will he call on the federal government to amend the Immigration Act to deal with this flaw in the legislation?

Hon. C. Richmond: I thought I made it very plain that on an individual, case-by-case basis we will gladly review every situation. We just ask the people, such as the person that the member just mentioned, to come forward and talk with us, and we will deal with that on an individual basis, as I said.

However, that doesn't guarantee that we will suspend collection permanently. Situations change. The person may not be in a threatening situation in the future, and the debt is still owing to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: We're talking about extraordinarily vulnerable women. We're talking about women who are faced with violence from a spouse or destitution. There may be an individual, case-by-case basis, but there is also an annual review.

I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance: does he expect women to face destitution or face violence?

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't expect women to face either. We expect them to come and talk to us and explain their case to us so that we may deal with them on an individual basis.

D. Routley: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health should be aware of the case of Mary Fox and Heather Vaughan, who are constituents

of mine. Heather needs constant care, and only a few months ago, in July 2006, she was receiving home support.

Even though her condition is worsening, her home hours are being cut. She must cut back her hours at work in order to care for her partner, but if she does so, she'll be unable to pay for their basic needs. This horrible catch-22 offers Mary no choice.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit to restoring Heather Vaughan's home support?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am well aware of this issue that the member raises. This has been the object of very considerable discussion between the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Ministry of Health and the patient and her caregiver.

I have to say first of all that the best-practices level of home support is established at 30 hours per week, 120 hours per month. That is the support that had up until July been provided in this case.

However, in response to requests for respite support, Vancouver Island Health Authority did, for a period of close to three months, increase the number of hours to 120. That has now been returned to the originally agreed-to level of 30 hours per week, 120 hours per month. There have been no cuts to home care. We spend well over half a billion dollars a year on home care, and it is a great system that we have in British Columbia.

D. Routley: It's unfortunate that the minister should take this tack, because working with VIHA has so far borne no results for Heather or Mary. Heather's doctor has recommended against institutional care for Heather because of her delicate and unique condition, her unique needs, but it seems this is the only choice that VIHA is offering or will consider.

If VIHA cannot do what their head should be telling them, won't the minister find in his heart the reason to help? Why does the minister think that this situation is acceptable?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the Vancouver Island Health Authority does an excellent job of providing services to the citizens of Vancouver Island that they serve. This is an organization which, from my reading of the case provided here, has gone to great lengths in order to try to meet the care needs of the individual in question here.

As I noted, they in fact doubled the number of hours over a three-month period in order to provide respite support. That was again well above and indeed double the best-practices hours around this. I don't see any reason to question or criticize the Vancouver Island Health Authority in respect of this matter.

J. Kwan: Ms. Tara Fynn's mother is on disability and has borderline personality disorder. She is not violent, and she has no addiction issues. No mental health support was offered to her, and she was evicted from B.C. Housing. Her file was closed permanently on February 26, 2007.

She has been homeless for two years, and to make matters worse, Ms. Fynn's mother suffered from heart failure in October 2006. According to her physician, she requires open-heart surgery, and if she doesn't get it, she will most certainly die. She needs safe, secure, affordable housing before she can get her surgery.

The government is on record to say that housing provides the foundation from which mental health and addiction services can be provided. This is the case for Ms. Fynn's mother. Will the Health Minister commit today to find appropriate housing for her mother and mental health support for her so that she can get the life-saving open-heart surgery that her mother needs?

Hon. G. Abbott: I would be very happy to work with the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing to try to find an appropriate accommodation for the individual. If the member could provide me with details with respect to that, we certainly would commit to do that.

I do have to say that our government has made not only unprecedented investments in housing support for the most vulnerable but unprecedented investments in terms of the number of surgeries in this province and the resources that are devoted to mental health and addictions issues in this province. We have come a long, long way in terms of providing supports that are needed by the most vulnerable in this province.

M. Karagianis: Very recently an ad ran in Salmon Arm. The ad said: "Roommate wanted for the care of up to two developmentally challenged adults." The roommate could work full- or part-time. They needed to provide minimal support, and the only qualifications that were required were first aid, a criminal check and FoodSafe.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does the minister consider these to be adequate qualifications for the complex care needs of developmentally challenged adults?

Hon. T. Christensen: I find the question very interesting. The member provides no indication of who ran the ad, why the ad was there and what the situation is.

I can tell the member that the ministry works very closely with Community Living B.C. to ensure that they're able to meet the needs of the clients they serve. Never before have developmentally disabled adults and their families had a greater role in determining the types of services that should be available for that clientele. That's a direct result of the board structure for Community Living B.C., and we're very proud of being the government that actually established that opportunity for the developmentally disabled in this province.

The minister asked who ran the ad. Well, I'll tell you who ran the ad. It was a family, because, in fact, this government is closing down group homes across this province. More and more families are having to seek some kind of alternative care because group home care will not be available for their families.

Again, my question to the minister is: if in fact the minister finds that the qualifications here of FoodSafe and first aid are adequate for looking after the very complex needs of developmentally challenged adults, then I'm asking if the minister is going to assume the liability and protect the safety of these individuals in these situations.

Hon. T. Christensen: The opposition critic's suggestion that group homes are being closed down in this province is absolutely false. As I indicated, the province is working closely with Community Living B.C.

Community Living B.C. is looking at various residential options for the population that they serve. They are being responsive to the population they serve, and they are, when asking what is the best arrangement for a particular individual…. That is what is guiding the decisions of where people should live.

R. Fleming: Taxpayers well remember that it was this government that wasted $14 million of their dollars in 2005 on partisan, pre-election "Best place on earth" ad campaigns. Apparently the spending continues. Last week the government told Canada's second most indebted students that the 30-year-old B.C. student assistance program had been rebranded as StudentAid B.C.

The 2007 budget cut student financial assistance by $23 million. Can the minister tell this House how much the rebranding cost and if it was paid for by the cuts to student financial assistance in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to tell the member that it was done in-house. It cost $1,300.

R. Fleming: Maybe the minister can tell us why this government, given that B.C. students are the second most indebted in Canada…. They now pay 15 percent more for tuition fees than other Canadian students in other jurisdictions. Can he tell us when students can expect some tuition fee relief and when they can expect some relief from this government — if not now, in this year now?

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, if I can tell the member what we've done for students — 25,000 new seats for students, 2,500 new graduate seats for students. A billion dollars' worth of construction on campuses…

Hon. M. Coell: …for students. And you know, Mr. Speaker, they voted against it all.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on the Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6, and in the small House, Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure this afternoon to get up in the House and address Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act.

I have a number of comments that I would like to direct to the Attorney General.

The issue that we have in front of the Legislature today is one for the consideration of all 79 of us as legislators here in the House, and that's within which I wish to enter into the discussion and the debate here. You see, in actual fact, we have in Bill 6 legislation that is being put in front of us that will increase the power of the cabinet to determine when and how information is released from a public inquiry.

To the Attorney General: that is a phenomenal carrot to be holding out to government, and to give them that power…. Assuredly, whoever is government will end up using that power. We know from history that, in actual fact, that is what comes with increased power. It increases the use of power in a corrupt form.

When we look at the present situation here in British Columbia that has been in practice for over 100 years, once an inquiry is set up, then the result of that inquiry is brought to this Legislature, and then the public themselves determine what the intent and the effect of the inquiry is.

This legislation, in section 28, changes that profoundly. It empowers the cabinet with that authority to determine how and when that information is brought forward. When I look upon us collectively here as a government, all 79 of us….

That is the capacity that I am standing up in front of the House today — as a legislator. I am here doing my

duty, my responsibility, to bring my caution to this House, to this government. To give power of that strength and that magnitude to government — it is a phenomenally dangerous empowerment that is being put in front of this House.

What I am strongly recommending to this House is that they consider withdrawing the legislation, or at least amend section 28 — the most offensive part contained within this legislation, in my judgment.

Now, I wish to take a little bit of time in the House here and make up an example or two. I do want to underline to the House that my examples are meant to be exactly that — an example or two to help make the point of giving cabinet too much power. Before we do that, I would like to share a learning experience that I obtained here as a rookie MLA a short time ago.

My colleague the Attorney General, likewise a rookie to this responsibility of being in the Legislature…. Inadvertently, I got to learn a very, very valuable lesson privately. Unfortunately, the lesson that I learned privately was a lesson the Attorney General had to learn publicly, and that was the distinction between cabinet and the Legislature.

It's a huge difference. Likewise, it is that same difference about where the report is released — having it go to the cabinet. The cabinet determines, if this bill is passed, the how and the when of what is released to the public.

Presently what exists here in British Columbia is the opposite. The report is released to the Legislature. It is released to all 79 duly elected representatives of the four million–plus British Columbians. We get it equally at the same time.

Equally importantly…. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I'd like you to take those words and allow me to take them back. Not equally importantly, maybe even more importantly, all the people of British Columbia get that same information unfettered, unsanctioned, as was written. The public gets to decide the pros and cons of what their public interest is — a vastly different set of circumstances than what is being introduced here in front of this House.

Earlier in my very short political career, the government decided in their wisdom that they wanted to do something around the Inquiry Act. They had the wisdom to withdraw poor legislation. They took it back and re-examined it. They have worked on it, and they have now reintroduced it.

But history…. It is to the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, that I am making this presentation for his consideration, on behalf of all 79 of us — all 4.4 million people here in British Columbia.

The point is: where do we stop? A government that has been in power too long begins to believe that they have the right not only to govern but also to determine when and what and how information is presented to people. As time passes, year in and year out, history tells us that. History tells us that governments change. One of the signs of a government that is ready to be removed by the people is a government that shows continued and increased arrogance on how the business of the people of British Columbia is enacted.

I would like to return to my examples, and I do wish to emphasize here that they are meant to be examples. I am making them up. I want to underline that aspect of it.

Just suppose that a government decided that there should be a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail, for example. Or another possibility, just suppose a government decided that a public inquiry was required for looking into the development of fast ferries, for example, or for cost overruns on the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Let's just suppose that an inquiry was determined to be necessary to investigate those two sets of conditions, on behalf of the public good.

Where do the politics come into play? Section 28 would empower the cabinet to determine when and what parts of those public inquiries would be released. In my story — and remember that it is my story, trying to look after and convince the Attorney General not to pass this, not to give government this power — just suppose that this was 2009. Guess what. I don't think it's too far-fetched in my story that that report might not come out until 2010 under this existing legislation. I don't just presume that it would be the government opposite that would be subject to that temptation. I suggest to this House, to all 79 of us, that any government would be tempted to use section 28 like that. That's my suggestion, as one of 79 people here in this House.

Because this piece of legislation has been introduced by the government opposite, I'm going to give some examples of where the track record has been around this issue, remembering this general concept of article 28 and the power that it gives — the power to determine when and what and how the information is released. Let's have a look at some examples of the government's record on releasing information. I'm going to give just a few to give a flavour of how any government might be tempted.

Let's have a look at some examples of information release. After signing the federal early learning and child care agreement in 2005, the B.C. Liberals refused to release their child care action plan information — within their right not to do so. But remember, underneath the present situation for the Public Inquiry Act, that information has to come forward.

Another example: the B.C. Liberals have failed to release the key B.C. Rail documents, such as the revitalization agreement and information on the 990-year lease. Where I'm from, that type of information would prove to be very interesting, to say the least.

The B.C. Liberals are currently sitting on a report that they commissioned that is critical of the Oil and Gas Commission — only critical of the Oil and Gas Commission — but the information is not available to the House. A public inquiry report would come forward, and we would have that information, all of us here in British Columbia.

Likewise, we remember going back to 2005, when we were dealing with situations involving child death

reviews. Only after severe public pressure was an edited version of a report on child care released, and then underneath that pressure the full information around that report was released.

Now let's have a look at the aspect of the content contained within a potential public inquiry report, and compare the record of the Liberal government on the releasing of documents. A freedom-of-information request, fielded by us on this side of the bench, requested the House binder on the Minister of Small Business and Revenue. The information that was received — almost completely severed, almost completely blank. As a matter of fact, even the government's own five great goals were removed. At that period of time, even those were considered to be too sensitive to be released, at least in that document.

Back to my story, and I do remind this House that it is my story. I'm making it up to drive my point: the importance of removing section 28 from this legislation so that government, whoever it may be, is not given this power.

In early February of this year we likewise had a situation where the Ministry of Health released a heavily censored version of the resignation letter of Keith Purchase, chair of the Fraser health region. Now, a full version of the letter revealed that the government had edited references to "bed closures and service cuts as well as a crisis situation in the Fraser health region."

Somebody would have to ask the Attorney General why it was deemed appropriate to remove references to something that was politically sensitive to the government. The example I use here suggests how easy it would be if any government in power had all the empowerment given underneath section 28 to withhold information underneath the guise of public interest, when in actual fact it is possibly nothing more than the interest of the government party and their embarrassment.

A handwritten note sent to the opposition by mistake last November caught the B.C. government red-handed in an attempt to cover up facts that contradicted the government claims about child death reviews. The handwritten memo contained a senior political staff suggestion to delete politically sensitive information from the requested document under the pretext that it was advice. The real reason was that some of the information contradicted what we have said to this point.

Audits triggered by financial irregularities involving public funds in B.C. student loans that were requested by the opposition have come back almost entirely blank.

Now, I have attempted to use examples of my period of time here in office. Where I'm sitting, I have history from all over the place, so I've tried to keep the examples around more recent events that have occurred here in the House. I also want to emphasize here once more that in my story, any party that is government will be tempted to use this section of this act to protect their political well-being — not the interests of British Columbians.

Once more, it's important now that we would examine the change of attitude that has been demonstrated here over the last several years. I will go back to the '90s to start with using my examples and move through how, with any government that's been around a long, long time, arrogance begins to creep in. That's what the political scientists tell me, and I'm not one of those. I happen to be just an old-fashioned, earth science geology teacher — down to the earth and get my hands dirty.

If we go back to the 1990s, on July 22, 1998, the now Premier of the province, at that time the Leader of the Opposition…. I hope I did that correctly, Madam Speaker. As a member of this Legislature, I hope I followed all the rules correctly because, again, it's my story. I don't wish to embarrass or do anything incorrectly.

Quoting from a letter to the B.C. Freedom of Information Association, the now Premier, at that time the opposition leader: "Open government is the hallmark of a free and democratic society. Access to government information helps us, as the official opposition, and others hold the government to account, and accountability enhances democracy."

Still quoting — I must quote exactly: "Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity. The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people, not to the government."

Now moving closer to my period of time, in 2001. "It's time for a new era of accountability. Our plan will deliver transparent, accountable government. The B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada."

The victory speech of 2001. The now Premier of the province: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada. I know some people say we'll soon forget about that, but I promise we won't."

The swearing-in speech of 2001: "This cabinet is founded on two fundamental principles: political accountability and improved public access." Finally, in the estimates of 2001: "We think openness beats hiddenness every time, and we want to make sure that people can see what's taking place."

Madam Speaker, this is how we started off — open cabinet meetings, open to the public and televised across British Columbia. People may judge whether those items were anything more than a public image action. However, taking it on face value, they were announced as open public cabinet meetings. That practice has stopped as we begin to move away from 2001. Cabinet meetings have gone back to secret meetings.

I'm coming back, of course, and indirectly leading to section 28 of Bill 6. Moving back to my period of time now, what I'm sharing here with this House, as a member of the Legislature, is the concern about giving this power to any government. Taking how things have moved in the last while, the government opposite, the

members opposite, unilaterally decided last fall to simply cancel the fall session. They did that on their own. This session we're no sooner out of the blocks and the side opposite unilaterally breaks another longstanding tradition and decides on their own, without consultation with the opposition, which is the tradition, to change how the House on a day-to-day basis does its business.

Where does that leave us then? At this bill, with the continued development of putting more and more power into the hands of the government and into the governing part of government, the cabinet, where it is done in secret.

Now let's have a look specifically at section 28, where some time ago I started my story, as a member of this Legislature attempting to convince this House not to give any government this unprecedented power of determining how and when things are released.

Since 1897 — that's even before the '90s that we often talk about in this House; it's the '90s of an entirely different era — the government of British Columbia has had the practice that public inquiry documents are released to this House, where the public and all the legislators get that information unfettered at the same time. Now, underneath this act, that will change. The cabinet will receive the authority to determine when it is released.

There is a section 28(4) that tries to pretty this up by saying that within ten days the cabinet has to bring it forward. But being a bit of a down-to-earth type of individual — not a political scientist but an earth scientist — I go back to session 28(3), where it sets no time limits upon when the cabinet begins the review. So the control of when it gets released is in there. It's in the detail.

The other part is the cabinet's ability to sever the report — unheard of. They will be able to determine what they believe…. They, being the cabinet, all locked up by themselves in some little room somewhere, presumably with the midnight oil burning, will determine if and what parts of the report are going to be released. Then they will make up a bunch of reasons why they didn't release it, but I'm not even certain at this moment in time that I'll even know, as a member of the Legislature, what was not released. Therefore, where does that leave the people of British Columbia in knowing what was contained in the report?

Frankly, to the Attorney General, a very significant point in our democratic system is that the 79 of us here in this House are empowered by the people of British Columbia to be informed, to know what is going on, to look after their public interest and to defend it — all of us. To do that job, we require the information in order to be able to make a reasoned, informed decision. Information is required, and section 28 of Bill 6 does not permit that to necessarily happen. It gives the government unheard-of powers. Government, whoever they may be, can only be tempted to use that power to look after their interests.

Madam Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, on behalf of everyone that may be in government: you, by leaving this section in, put the cabinet of any government in a position of conflict of interest. In my opinion, you now leave them in a position, in looking at a public inquiry document, to determine on that information what protects the government's interests and their political interests, not the people of British Columbia's interests.

N. Simons: Thank you to my colleagues and all those who are interested in this debate. I think it's an important one.

For those in the gallery or watching at home, what we're doing is debating a bill that the Attorney General has put before the House. The bill becomes law once it's voted on, and what we're doing in opposition is pointing out its flaws and appealing to the good sense of the government to reconsider some of the aspects of this bill in order to make it semi-palatable to the people of British Columbia. What I mean by semi-palatable is that it is in the best interests of the British Columbia population, and it reflects our values and the needs that we have of our government.

The bill is called Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act. What it does is set out the rules on how government can look into issues, events or circumstances of significant interest to the community, of significant interest in finding resolutions or answers to situations that have occurred.

When inquiries are called, they're called for very serious reasons: to find out if something's gone wrong either in practice — how someone does their job — or potentially in the systemic problems that might underlie how that individual may have done their job. Inquiries really are an important opportunity for government to do self-analysis and for the population to be part of that, as the government is the representation of the people.

In this particular bill I have some very strong concerns. I had to look closely, but it didn't take me long to realize that what is being presented under the guise of a tool for British Columbians to have to look at government's actions and their policies is in fact almost that — except that there is a part of this act that says: "We get to decide what's in that report ultimately, and we get to decide when that report is released."

Some people talk about three strikes and you're out. In this case, two strikes and you're out. They tell us what we get to hear or read about, and they tell us when. I find that a little bit contradictory to the intent, which I believe the hon. Attorney General may not have foreseen. However, far be it from me to question the motives. All I can see is that in the act itself, it raises a number of questions that I think may lead to the questioning of motives.

I'm not speaking of individuals in government, but the culture of this government since 2001 has been to react to situations that are embarrassing or harmful to them by first denying their existence, then delaying the inevitable and finally releasing a bit of information to

As a person intimately involved in analyzing government actions, I can see how the culture of government can actually be somewhat like a protective shell around itself. While perhaps that meets their needs, it doesn't meet the needs of the population of British Columbia.

I think it's important that the two issues on the table in front of us today…. This bill was tabled. What we have is the ability of government not only to sever the report but to delay the report being released to the public. Having been involved in an inquiry process that took five years in order to determine that in fact government policy led — indirectly perhaps — to the putting into danger of little toddlers in foster care…. The length of time it took for that information to become public was not only shocking; it potentially left a lot of other kids at risk.

In my opinion, the purpose of inquiry, the purpose of self-analysis, is to improve practice. It's not to cover up bad practice. It's not to make excuses for things that have gone wrong. It's to do a careful analysis of one's ability to meet the needs of the population.

For example, if you delay letting people know the reasons why a child might have been placed in an inappropriate home, subsequently to die…. If we know that this could very much be part of the problem and if you know you have a way of figuring it out early, you do that.

You don't let a situation fester. You don't let a bad policy continue to exist if you know that it's a bad policy and a potentially dangerous policy. The problem with inquiries that take so long is that not only is it not in the public interest to delay learning about things that we need to know about, but the effect is only to protect government interests.

The delay of releasing reports is obviously something that government can use to shield themselves from the scorn of community. I'm not suggesting for a moment that government will delay reporting, nor am I suggesting that they're going to cut all the important stuff out of a report. But they have that ability. They have the ability to do this. As I've stated on previous occasions, if we are ever saddled with a meaner government, a crueller government or a more tightly controlled and single-minded government, we may have concerns about how they have made laws to protect themselves from oversight from the public.

I'm not suggesting that this law is necessarily bad for the government currently in power, but it's bad for government from here on in. It's bad for the population of British Columbia from here on in. It's bad for the opposition. It's bad for anyone who would think that perhaps a public inquiry might actually benefit British Columbians.

My first report, which was an internal government report, was kept from the public for a number of years. Subsequently, it was determined that it shouldn't have been kept from the public for those number of years, because its original form was very close to its final form. It found serious flaws in the way government operated — serious flaws in their deregulation, their zeal for reducing regulations and costs.

Well, their zeal for reducing regulations and costs put children at risk, and we have a problem with that. They figured it out eventually, five years later. But throughout that whole space of time, the badly thought-out policy which nobody tested before they implemented it, nobody figured out how to fund it before they implemented it…. None of that was determined.

Shouldn't we try to learn from the failures of our past? We're taught that. I was taught that in school, and I think that for the most part I'm getting it right. But the fact of the matter is that I don't think the population of British Columbia is going to feel like, "Oh, we've got a government we can trust," when that same government says: "We want to have the ability to hide or change documents" — documents which are the results of inquiries into their actions or into actions related to government.

That's not openness. That's not accountability. While I understand my own personal desire to deflect blame for anything that I might do, and there's a bit of a human reaction to that, we're talking about government. We're talking about a government that represents the four million–plus residents of British Columbia whose interests are protected by the 79 people they elected.

My issue with this bill, as the hon. Attorney General may know by now, is section 28(3) and 28(4). The issue, besides the fact that government will be allowed to sever the report…. And "sever the report" means taking a roller and basically covering up the words on the page paragraph by paragraph, saying: "This isn't good for you to know. We know better. You shouldn't really see this. It's not good for you to see this."

Well, I happen to know there's a lot of stuff that I wrote about, which the public is still not aware of. In my inquiry, there a lot that is left unknown to the public. The summary of the report that I wrote was written by the government. The report that I released was severed by the government. Even in just minor internal inquiries, the government has a zeal to make sure that the information is all very well controlled.

I see a relationship between a government that wants to hide facts and a government that wants to institutionalize the legality of hiding facts as a problem. What we have here is a government saying: "We really believe in making sure that we look after the interests of the population. We want to make sure that we protect their interests, whatever they are. And when things go wrong, we need to make sure we get to the bottom of it. We need to investigate. We need to analyze. We need to make recommendations to make things better. That's our goal as government." I would applaud it.

Then in small letters or buried deep in difficult-to-read legislation, they say: "Yeah, but if we don't think this information would be good for you to know or if we think it'd be better if we waited a while for you to

know this information, we're allowed to do it. We don't have to tell anybody. We're government. We won. You lost. It's all about that."

The fact of the matter, I believe, is that as legislators, as 79 people in this House, we should be discussing legislation with an open enough mind to realize that we do represent a very significant population of British Columbia. We are 33 MLAs representing 33 constituencies across the province. These are issues of concern to our communities as well as to the members opposite.

The words that I'm speaking today are geared towards hoping that the government will have another look at this, another examination of the appropriateness of that particular clause. Perhaps there's an opportunity to word it in another way so as to eliminate the cynicism that might have been developed after reading it the first time.

I think it's an opportunity for us, in fact, to see evidence that the promises of openness and accountability aren't just being followed but aren't being contradicted. I would say this is a contradiction of the claim of openness and accountability. It's not neutral. It goes against the numerous promises or statements that have been made. But you know, if they're just statements and clichés, then we're back to the basis of the government — sort of slogans and platitudes.

I believe that open government is an important aspect of a free and democratic society and that access to government information helps everybody and that secrecy feeds distrust. Secrecy feeds distrust; it nourishes distrust. It probably nourishes dishonesty. A culture of secrecy expects dishonesty. I think you can almost jump to that conclusion — that an institution that is built on protecting its internal integrity at the expense of the public good is not somewhere British Columbians want to go.

Oh, by the way, those quotes were from the Premier before he was the Premier. I guess it sounded good at the time. It sounded a lot better at the time. But you know, when their position changed, the words seemed to evaporate.

I believe that in a parliamentary democracy, we need to have the checks and balances that are always there to govern our actions and allow us to do some reflection. I wouldn't want this legislation even for my own government, and the time, I guess, is soon when we'll be on that side of the House. The fact of the matter is that the issue isn't so much what would we do to protect ourselves when we're in government as: what do we do to protect the interests of British Columbians? That should be the first question, not the second question.

The first question is: is this legislation in the best interests of British Columbians? The first question should not be: is this legislation in the best interests of this government? Clearly, it is. Clearly, they'd love it if this was passed, but I don't believe that necessarily translates into the best interests of British Columbians.

We've seen numerous examples of other things that are best for this government but not in the best interests of British Columbians, and I can just go through a series of labels or statements that aren't really backed up by activities or actions of government.

If we think about what the government could possibly want to protect themselves against by blocking out words and taking out paragraphs and severing pages from documents, it's like…. Why would you expect a government to want to do that? Well, it's a question that we'd all ask.

How are we going to define under what circumstances we are allowed to wipe information off a piece of paper? We've seen documents severed. We've seen documents censored for reasons that are not legitimate. We know that people remove information in order to protect their interests, and here we have privacy, business interests, law enforcement concerns or public interest. People talk about: here are the five categories, and then there's one more category to catch everything else.

Who is responsible for determining if in fact it's really in the public interest not to know that the government has lost control of child and family services or whatever the case may be? Who determines if it's in the public interest for law enforcement? Are we going to ensure that law enforcement is part of that decision-making process? Are we going to ensure that business interests are protected?

This leaves the door wide open, in my opinion, for abuses. Government should not pass bad laws. Ultimately, government should be concerned with ensuring that the legislative framework that decides on what we do in this province — whether it's land use, law enforcement or what have you — that those laws are appropriate and that those laws reflect our values.

Nothing makes the public more upset and nothing gets the media more worked up than catching government doing something wrong. You know what? Their ability to hide things is probably commensurate with the finances they afford themselves in the budget. But that doesn't excuse them from enacting new legislation to reinforce that secrecy.

As legislators and as government, government shouldn't be trying to find new tools to protect itself from scrutiny. We need scrutiny. We've seen the failures of government. We've seen failures of government for generations past. The failures have often had to do with protecting something that they shouldn't be protecting and going boldly forward without stopping and thinking and considering and figuring out if it's the appropriate action.

In my opinion, this process is about making law better. This process of second reading is about a fulsome analysis of the legislation and an opportunity to attempt to make that legislation slightly better — better, slightly better, way better? It's a significant part of this act, I believe.

As much as there is a need for some renewal in legislation…. I have no quarrel with the fact that we

need to modernize and update legislation, but there are certain values that were ensconced in the earliest forms of legislation dealing with this issue, and I'm talking about 1897. The principles of openness and reporting to the Legislature were instituted. That's a historical precedent that I believe needs to be respected. We don't know the reasons they used, maybe, back in 1897. Unlike some, I wasn't around.

N. Simons: It's a dangerous temptation. It's almost an invitation to heckle, but I'm standing, so I can't heckle.

But in 1897 it was understood that depending on the generosity of government or the level of…. I have to just gather my thoughts. Depending on the government's attitude towards the general community, one would expect that oversight is welcome. One would expect that a government whose citizens trust it don't expect that government to build up barriers, to block the possibility of some insight into government's workings….

For that reason on its own, once again, it's an opportunity to become more cynical about government. I would prefer to see legislation that reflects government's concern for governing fairly and for the entire population — not just for this group of individuals, not just for that group of individuals, but for everyone all the time and all at once.

We see kind of like segments. This government has governed in segments — almost like a sitcom, in a way. I'm just saying that for the segment part. You know, you have the segments and then the ads and the segment and the ad. Well, we did have that in a way, but we started with the ads here.

What this government is trying to promote is an image of openness and accountability, and here is the ultimate contradiction of that. We see those two ideas coming together and finding very little way around each other. Once again, the statement that they're open and accountable, versus section 28, says: "Yeah, except for when we feel like it."

As far as I'm concerned, that contradiction borders closely on hypocrisy, and I believe that my responsibility to my constituents is to point out what is therefore a flaw; if not a flaw, a hypocrisy; if not bad legislation, then wilful legislation.

I want to make sure that in my opportunity to respond, I'm open to the possibility that this was an oversight. I'm generous. However, I say that because I believe that changes to this act are necessary before it can be seen as quality legislation that benefits British Columbians.

As is the case on a number of occasions standing in this House, it's not all negative. It's not all about finding only the flaws, and obviously we recognize that there are members of this House who share values. In fact, we probably share a lot more than we will let on in here. But the principal value of openness, of a democratic government that's responsive to its citizens, needs to be protected.

We already know that actions of previous governments have resulted in low voter turnouts today — in the last election and the election before, hovering in the 60 percent, 50 percent, up to 70 percent in some places. I believe that has to do with the public's understanding of the relevance of this place. If they realized that every law that's passed in this House has an impact on them, then I think they would look very closely at this legislation and ask why.

Why would this particular part of this legislation be necessary? Was it put in there quickly? Was there an attempt to get it through without anyone noticing? Has anyone pointed out to the government that numerous public interest groups have said that this is the flaw?

This is the flaw. It could be better, but you need to remove section 28 or amend it significantly. Is there the opportunity to do that? Yes, there is. In a situation where the debate can be true and fair and full, we should have the opportunity to recommend amendments, and government should have the opportunity to consider those amendments.

I'm hoping, in closing, that government and the Attorney General will see fit to review in a thoughtful manner, as is his way, this particular section and make the appropriate changes in order for this side of the House to be able to consider supporting it.

G. Gentner: I rise in an unfortunate situation, because I just got word about an hour ago that a very deep friend of mine passed on — Mr. Arne Knudsen, who just recently received the Freedom of Delta award for his gallant fight against fascism and for the rights of all of us here today. Arne was in the tank division that liberated Italy. He was my friend, and he was a friend of democracy. I think Arne would be ashamed today to know what this government is trying to ram through.

He gave his life, and so did many. He was wounded. It affected his life in many ways. Many veterans, as well, came back from that gallant fight, and they have stories to tell. They can talk at great length about why they fought. They fought against regimes that believe in secrecy.

The real power rests in information. It's information that makes people strong, and the right to utilize that

information is what this country was built on, not barriers put in the way that seem to be arbitrary.

I rise with that in mind, with my dear friend Arne, who was my neighbour and very good friend. He used to cuss and swear about governments and what they're up to. Make sure you read the fine lines and read your footnotes, because that's where the real history is. It's not the secondary sources; it's the primary sources. It's those primary sources that this government wants to shelve — the ability for all of us to interpret what truly is. It's a matter of circumventing process itself.

The Public Inquiry Act is this government's Heart of Darkness — you know, the novel whereby the further up the river you go, the further you discover the deeper, darker side of the human condition with all it entails. The further you go up, the baseness, the vileness found up the river, the dark side of the human condition, the horror, the nasty business, the wicked aspect of the human condition….

This government believes that if you just trust the cabinet and trust the people who entail the laws, everything's going to be fine. But we have laws and conditions and regulations and openness for a reason — just in case there is that darker side found in any one of us. No matter what political conviction you may have, what religious conviction you have, there is a tendency and an opportunity, if given, for the human condition to wane off track, to go off rails, to go into that dark side. That is what this base, vile act is all about.

Now the government introduced a version of the Public Inquiry Act for first reading last spring. It was highly criticized by the official opposition and, of course, other stakeholders — they're on line; you can find them: the human rights groups, even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — for severely limiting the transparency and accountability of the public inquiry process itself.

It's not just a small group on this side that's opposed. There's a whole host of groups out there who spend many hours and time and days studying the law and are really quite outraged with where this government's going.

Now faced with stiff opposition, the Liberal government first introduced amendments to the bill and then agreed to carry it forward to this session. We didn't fully understand what those implications were until the Attorney General came forward with his bill.

I would also at this time like to thank the Attorney General for at least putting his time in here this afternoon and being one of the few members opposite who is willing to listen.

G. Gentner: I'm sure many members of this House are here to listen to the debate.

The current version of the bill does not go far enough to address the issues raised last year by us on this side. In particular, the bill allows cabinet to interfere with how and when findings from public inquiries are released to this assembly.

We heard earlier from the member for Nanaimo, who really gave quite a remarkable, scathing attack on where we were going with this bill. The bill erodes the transparency and the accountability of the public inquiry process. There's no question about it. The public gets to see it in 15 days with current legislation.

Now the bill allows cabinet to decide when the report of a public inquiry is made public. That's very arbitrary — extremely arbitrary. Under the existing Inquiry Act, the report from a public inquiry is tabled directly in the Legislature. This has been the case, as was argued, since 1897.

Under the current bill, the report of a public inquiry would be released to cabinet, who would then be able to review it for an indefinite period of time before it was tabled in the Legislature.

This bill allows cabinet to sever the report of a public inquiry. The existing Inquiry Act has no provision for the severing of information from the final report of a public inquiry. Now under the current bill, cabinet would be able to sever the report based on privacy rights, business interests, law enforcement concerns or under the guise of the public interest. Giving cabinet the power to sever the report of a public inquiry could be viewed as a conflict of interest because there may be a strong motive to prevent the release of damaging information.

We all know that the contentious parts are, of course, in section 28, where cabinet could withhold any information for any reason. It can hide misconduct, corruption and bungled government programs in order to cover up an embarrassment of information.

The new Public Inquiry Act is part of this government's agenda of helping their friends and supporters while leaving working families in the dark. This government has a record that clearly shows that it wants to help corporate friends, such as Alcan and insiders like Mr. Ken Dobell, rather than ordinary British Columbians.

This government cannot be trusted to do what is right. It must hide its information through this act and deny people their real power, which is the right to seek and use information. It's what has built this nation. By restricting public inquiries, this government hopes to keep their real agenda secret. Secrecy is what this government is all about.

It's not about openness. It's not about decency. It's not about being transparent, open. In fact, this act impedes. It introduces a real lack of integrity. The lack of integrity is often understood not only as a refusal to engage in behaviour that evades responsibility…. That's what this government is attempting to do. It's negating its responsibilities by hiding under the cloak of secrecy.

It doesn't want to be responsible to working people in British Columbia. It doesn't want to be responsible working people in British Columbia. It doesn't want to be responsible to the labour people, who are working

hard every day trying to make a living and pay their taxes. But this is what this society and government are supposed to be. It's supposed to have some integrity, one that has an adversarial process, for instance, which has a certain type of integrity in which those engaged in it commit not only to advance the cause of their own side but also to reveal, where required, evidence to the other side — to follow certain rules in the debate and to accept rulings from a judge or arbitrator.

Those subverting this might appear to lack some integrity, and that would possibly hurt their case. So the philosophy of law concerns itself with the integrity of a practical or process style — integrity as a measure of trust in results, which in turn determines trust in authority itself. It rests with how open our society can be.

Hon. Speaker, the new Public Inquiry Act is a contrast to what this government believes in. The Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6, which of course was introduced by the hon. Attorney General, is going to limit the transparency and accountability of the public inquiry process.

In particular, it allows cabinet to interfere with how and when findings from public inquiries are released to the Legislative Assembly. This is particularly alarming considering this government's record of failing to release information and severing documents for political reasons.

Let's look at this record. Let's look at the B.C. Liberal government record, relative to its inability to release and, in particular, its willingness to hide information. After signing the federal early learning and child care agreement in 2005, the B.C. Liberal government refused to release their child care action plan. There's no debate on that one.

The B.C. Liberals have failed to release the key B.C. Rail documents, such as the revitalization agreement and information on the 990-year lease. We also know it has failed to release and isn't willing to release information relative to the Abbotsford P3 hospital. That's a contract that will be played out in the next 33 years, and the public has no ability to ascertain what that really means.

The provincial government is currently sitting on a report that they commissioned that is critical of the Oil and Gas Commission. Can you imagine that? The boreal forest, as we know, is being destroyed, wiped out. Our government here is on record through a so-called climate change preventive measure in the throne speech, and yet the fragile ecosystems that scrub the atmosphere of carbon — namely, up in the boreal forests — are being destroyed. But there's no willingness of this government to release the report that was critical of the Oil and Gas Commission. Not only that, but the types of appointments that were made in that commission — who got what and why. It's been very reluctant to release it.

This government has repeatedly promised to release the child death reviews and only took action on this in the wake of the Hughes report. Where would we be if we hadn't had the current legislation? Where will we be after this act has passed?

Well, hon. Speaker, it would be a very horrible, horrid, base place. It would be further up the river in the heart of darkness, closer to the human condition that can allow itself to do devious things. Openness is the endeavour of honesty — the never-ending inquiry of keeping sure that we follow the moral course.

Now, there are other examples of how this government has conducted itself relative to its inability to share information. The one that comes to mind mostly, of course, is the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. This is an interesting one. The government suggests the overrun is $310 million, $315 million, but we know it's going to be closer to half a billion dollars. The question now is: with this new legislation, what type of information will be released through any inquiry?

We know, for example, that contracts such as cost-plus, which this government debated vehemently against during the '90s when the government of the day was putting together the contracts for the ferries…. This government was adamantly opposed to cost-plus. Here we are now, and what are they adopting? They're adopting contracts that are exactly the same, but they won't come clean and admit it.

They're going to hide behind this legislation. They're going to hide information about who's paying what and how. For example, we have an adjoining convention centre. How much cost now will be hidden or shifted over to that convention centre? It's going to be a cat-and-mouse chase with this one to try and find that information, to understand the concourse that's going to put those two convention centres — which entity is actually going to pay for it.

We're going to be chasing down information relative to the costs, of course, of the Olympics. Those inquiries, possibly even freedom of information, will be sat on. There'll be constraints on time where it was not politically expedient for the government to come forward and tell the truth. They will sit on this information, like they will with regards to the media centre at the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. This is information that the public has to know in order to weigh the success of the games, to weigh the ultimate success of this government and to weigh how much censorship is really being conducted.

You know, you talk about this half-billion dollar overrun on the convention centre. It really makes some of the overruns of the previous government look like a flea market. This government is going to hide its half-billion dollar overrun. It's going to weasel its way through, and we'll have to wait probably four or five years, possibly to a time when most of the members opposite won't even be here. They'll probably be having a great time in Arizona, hitting that golf ball and thinking about how wonderful it was the day we sold B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can we keep the discussion related to the bill, please.

G. Gentner: Playing golf, hon. Chair, I admit may not appear to be anything relative to this act. I'll grant you that.

But B.C. Place is. The roof came down one day, and we saw the light of day. Now supposing this act was in place two or three years ago and there was an inquiry…. I know there's a WCB inquiry happening right now to ascertain what exactly happened there. Inquiries are being made as to who was responsible, and we know who's going to get the blame. It's going to be one person that gets the finger. He'll be the whipping post, but if we ask for that information, we know that cabinet is going to sit on it. It's not going to release it. Why would it? It's politically expedient. It's here to hide the truth.

Of course, we can talk about B.C. Rail. Now that's a real mess that this government would like to cover up. Yesterday I was in here with estimates talking to the Agriculture Minister, and he literally mocked this side of the House relative to information that was asked. He refused to answer the questions. He said: "No, no, throw an FOI our way."

Well, freedom of information is going to be jeopardized. I know there's denial opposite on that one, but when you're able to put on constraints and circumvent the inquiry, we know that information will not be pending. Somehow cabinet is perceiving itself as though it's above the law when it's able to ascertain or put a lid on information.

We know the B.C. Lotteries and the lottery retailers who won 4.4 percent of all lottery prizes — that too is an inquiry. Will that be jeopardized under this legislation? It very well could. I guess we'll find out.

Now, the government got caught red-handed in its attempt to cover up facts that contradicted the Solicitor General's claims about child death reviews. It was caught. Where would we be today, or should we say next year, with this legislation? It too will be hidden.

Another one that comes to mind is the toxic spill from train derailments and how it basically can sterilize a river and kill all the fish, like that up in Squamish — kill salmon and its very habitat for years, if not decades. We would never know what had happened. There would be no inquiries. And yes, there could be a cover-up.

A recent freedom of information revealed that 81 RCMP members were found in misconduct in British Columbia in the last two years. The cases of misconduct range from falsifying expense account claims to having sex with prostitutes. Now, where are we going to be when that inquiry comes? Will the Solicitor General be there to protect all citizens, or will it be politically expedient to protect the police? Where are we going on that one with this act?

The throne speech has engaged in cleaning up the Greater Victoria regional district and its primary sewage treatment — unsafe conditions with extreme levels of toxics. It was the Victoria Times Colonist that revealed it through an FOI and therefore created a massive public outcry to fix the problem. Had it not been for that inquiry and the steadfastness of the newspaper in Victoria, the government wouldn't have acted. It wouldn't have placed it as a priority in the throne speech. That is how valuable and important information is in the hands of the public — not information that is squandered away on a shelf and denied.

What if this government decided that it didn't have the money or the political will to fix the problem? It would go further down the dark river of despair, the horror. It would bury any inquiry, because its priorities would be somewhere else. Well, the priorities of this province are governed by the openness of information that is shared by everybody in this province, regardless of how old or their sex or creed. Everybody should have welcomed access to information. It should not be denied.

I don't say it lightly when there are governments that have been involved with racial profiling. They've hidden that agenda within, and they've hidden the rights. What about other rights — patients' rights, religious rights, women's rights, due process itself? The dark side could take a government to use this legislation as an instrument of a very dark, dark place. It's the trust this government is placing in itself, rather than a trust of transparency, which has built this nation in the course of this country.

This act will hide overruns of all capital projects, and it will be political and arbitrary. Cabinet will hide poor business practices. It will hide untendered contracts, it will hide improper expense claims, it will hide conflict-of-interest inquiries, and it will hide rules for contractors.

As I said earlier, there are many organizations that have stood up to this government. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is one. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is another. I have to give special thanks to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, who are betwixt as to what this government is doing. They have lost the confidence.

This government has lost the confidence of some of the most astute and well-acknowledged libertarians of this province. Three recent members of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association come to mind. One of course is David Suzuki, a world-renowned environmentalist in this province; Rafe Mair, who is a fishing advocate; and a well-known Liberal member who was also sitting on this side for many years, Mr. Gordon Gibson. They are members of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, as are many renowned British Columbia citizens.

I think they're appalled at where this government is taking us. Freedom of information is the statutory right of access to government information. It is a fundamental and essential part of democracy and meaningful citizenship. When you take your oath to become a citizen of this country, you think about what it really means. I brought up earlier my dear friend who died today, 97-year-old Arne Knudsen. He fought in wars and was a well-decorated citizen, a well-decorated person who was willing to give his life for this country — for openness, for decency, for a sense of morality.

Freedom of information helps to ensure that a government is operating with the informed consent of its citizens. That's what it's all about. Power is information,

and without that information we are powerless. More than 46 countries, including Canada, have recognized this and enacted public inquiries legislation. But this one is different.

Canada's federal government, the provinces and territories are all covered by their own version of that freedom of information. It is a principle that is crucial to the health of our democracy. When we insist on government transparency and invest the necessary resources to make it happen, we are rewarded with institutions that are more open, honest and accountable to the public. Citizens are more able to play a meaningful role in their governance and have a greater faith in their democratic institutions.

However, like all freedoms, public inquiry is not without costs, and perhaps this is why the government is going where it is. Governments must realize that expenditures are a necessary investment in the future health of our public institutions, and the public must demand this investment.

Freedom of information exists for the purpose of making public institutions transparent and accountable to the public. When all else fails — when all else fails — it is a citizen's best hope to pierce the veil of obstruction that so often hides the work of government and to find out what is really going on. I don't understand the reluctance of this government to open its arms and say to its populace: "We are willing to allow you to see what is really going on."

M. Karagianis: It's very interesting how things come around and go around and how you find yourself often back at the same place a year later that you thought you had addressed and moved on from. It's interesting that we're back to the drawing board here today.

Looking at the new proposed legislative changes here in the Public Inquiry Act, it's very apparent that once again the government just hasn't quite got it right, despite the postponement of this last year. The postponement was very clearly in response to the inadequacies of the act when it was presented in the House last year.

The opposition stood up and made some very compelling comments and debate about what was missing from the act and about what needed to be put into the act in order to make it acceptable and workable — and in fact, a real public inquiry act. Despite that, government has gone back and spent a year here chewing away on the act and obviously, I guess, examining the entrails to determine what needed to be changed here in order to reintroduce this and try to portray it as some kind of new, better, more open and accountable public inquiries act.

In fact, once again we see that government actually can't quite get there. Despite their best efforts, they cannot develop a transparent and open act without wanting to constrain it, without wanting to tamper with it, without wanting in some way to put in restrictions and conditions that make the whole thing the opposite of what it is supposed to be trying to do.

It continues to be with a sense of great curiosity that I watch how this government is unfolding its legislative acts here in an attempt to try and achieve their great branding, their great logo and their great promotional declaration that they are open, transparent and accountable. But, you know, as with many things, Madam Speaker, actions always speak louder than words. Despite the great promotional slogan that the government likes to march out and declaim at every moment and attach to every single thing they do or say — about the kind of open and transparent and accountable government they are — this act shows us clearly that they have no intention of following through with that.

I find it quite laughable, because if I didn't laugh, I would probably want to cry for the inability of this government to follow through on the promise of openness and accountability. Instead, we see an act here that does the very opposite of opening up this act for full accountability and that limits the transparency, the accountability and the openness. I'm always astonished that the government actually has the cheek to bring it forward, to look the public straight in the eye and say: "Here we are; we're being so accountable. We're living up to one of our great goals here."

By bringing forward an act that has all the mechanisms built into it for this government to continue to tamper with information and to roll it out — not only when and as government wishes but in a manner that can reduce things that are unflattering — it can reduce the potential for information that would show government for its failings. That's what I see happening in this act as it's been written now.

You know, considering the years that the Premier spent in opposition vilifying the government of the day — basically grandstanding on what kind of government he would bring to the province of British Columbia, and untold promises about the kind of government that he would provide — it's very interesting to see what has actually occurred and what began to occur from the moment this government took office.

I look back here to a quote from the Premier, in fact, from the victory speech of winning the election in 2001. Literally, the moment that it was evident the Premier was going to take office, he said: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada." Then he said, and this is the best part: "I know some people will say we'll soon forget, but I promise we won't."

I think that that particular slogan is deserving of much more publicity, because it's very evident that the government forgot the very next day what it had promised to the public throughout its campaign, throughout the years in opposition, and right there on election night. In fact, the government proceeded to rip this province from one end to the other — broken promises; policies that went in favour of only one side of the issue and did not serve the broader public in this

province — and proceeded to systematically eliminate public scrutiny on almost every single level within government.

That has been systematic. It has continued from day one and continues even to this day. In the time that I spent as the Small Business critic, it was very evident that even the whole system of regulatory reform was about finding ways to remove language, to alter language and to change the perception of things that were going on within government.

We've continued to see that throughout all of government's actions. Early on, one of the results of regulatory reform was that government went through every single policy in every single ministry and gave themselves permission to restrain information from public scrutiny — gave themselves permission to restrict the amount of information that the public could gain access to. It gave itself permission, in fact, to run roughshod over the public and do it quietly and stealthily in the background.

Government changed language throughout policies where it was indicated they must do something for the public of British Columbia. They then altered the language to say that, well, they may do something. What an incredible shift the change of one simple word has on the outcome of openness and accountability and public scrutiny.

Now government was no longer required to provide openness and scrutiny, no longer required to provide open documentation to the public, no longer required to be accountable directly to the public. In fact, it had the discretion that it may, it might, at its own will, under its own timing with its own purposes, with its own ulterior motives, communicate with the public.

These attempts since then to try and incorporate even more language that prevents the public from truly seeing what is going on within government, and to truly understand and perceive the results of these subtle changes throughout the legislation, continue right through until today, when we are now seeing a public inquiry act which very clearly does the very opposite of openness and accountability.

This bill gives cabinet the carte blanche to interfere on every level with public inquiries without any kind of censure whatsoever. It negates the whole purpose of a public inquiry if cabinet and a secretive body, a secretive decision-making organization of government, can determine when and how public information is released, how it's severed.

My experience with government on trying to get information has been particularly disappointing. I have had occasion several times to put in freedom-of-information requests, both as the Small Business critic and now as the critic for Children and Family Development. I frequently put in freedom-of-information requests because, of course, information is very hard to come by. Government is not forthcoming with the kind of information that they should be, upon request, and so you have to go through quite a process here.

Again, as part of government's endeavours to constrain the flow of information and to prevent people from clearly seeing and understanding the thread of activities that have taken place, it has become more and more difficult to even get information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Often documents have arrived back in my hands so severely severed as to actually be a waste of paper — a waste of the paper that it was printed on. I received at one point a document that was something like 37 pages with a header and nothing else. Everything else had been severed beyond meaning.

What is the purpose of an act, what is the purpose of a declaration of openness and accountability if, in fact, you cannot get the information, when you do get the information it is meaningless, and all actions under the Freedom of Information Act are being contrived to hold information away from both the people and the legislative process here?

When I see that the government in power tells a completely different story than a government in waiting, it is no surprise to see that this act is going to give us no comfort whatsoever, that the public will be allowed to access information or see reports in a timely manner and that the whole idea of constituting a public inquiry into a situation is going to be a complete mockery.

You know, we talk often in this House about tragedies that have occurred within government, about ill-fated spending projects, about ill-timed projects and about what the true actions of government are that are going on behind the scenes. So we frequently call for public inquiries, and it's pretty common nowadays across this country to call for a public inquiry where an issue is so large and has such impact on the public, on the safety of the public, on the well-being of the public, on the education and edification of the public on what their government officials are doing. We call for public inquiries. We do it frequently.

Now here we have an act which says that we can call for all the public inquiries we want, but they will be tampered with. They will be at the whim of the political process on every level. So we can call for a public inquiry, we can spend taxpayers' money to hold a public inquiry and do the investigations. We could have long, protracted processes around that, and at the end of the day all of that information can simply be reduced by severing, reduced by tampering to the point that it will be not only a waste of time and a waste of money, but a complete injustice to what the public expects and deserves from these inquiries.

I'm not entirely sure why the government feels that they're bringing forward something here that is worth supporting. When I look at clauses in here where it says: "On receiving the report" — the public inquiry report — "the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason…."

If we look at that and say: what is that language actually saying…? The executive council can direct a minister, so even if a minister calls for his own public inquiry, he doesn't even have the right to determine the outcome or the release of that information. Secondly, he could be directed to withhold portions of the report.

So what is the purpose of a public inquiry act that is about crushing and hiding and destroying information?

It defies my imagination why we would even be discussing this if in fact all the language in here is about constraining and destroying a public inquiry's full impact, its information. It says here that the minister could be directed for any reason. Now if that doesn't beg for political tampering, I don't know what does.

Certainly, this is a government that has politically tampered with so many of the very protective aspects of government's watchdogs — our Human Rights Commission and many of the commissions that have been put in place, like the independent Children's Commission. They were put in place as the result, often, of public inquiries, of tragedies, of government's attempts to try to make right and do right for the citizens of this province.

All of those were removed, and now we are seeing a Public Inquiry Act that is making a mockery of the whole process around trying to find out what government has done wrong, do it better, provide better service and be a better government for our citizens of British Columbia. In fact, this Public Inquiry Act here is taking us backwards in time.

It is in many ways, I guess, an attempt to fool the people of British Columbia into a false sense that what you see is what you get with government, and we know that nothing could be further from the truth.

In looking at all of the language around this, I would have to say that the government's record alone of failure on so many aspects of releasing information — of providing open information to the public, of being accountable to the public — gives me no confidence whatsoever in their ability to abide by the letter of the act, even if it didn't contain many of the most nefarious tampering clauses. I have no faith whatsoever that the government would honour this, would stand by this document and would give us the kind of public accountability that we all deserve.

The existing act in fact gives us more comfort and has no language in it that allows this kind of stealthy control of information — this negating of embarrassing or inflammatory or, I guess, unpopular information from being released. So why are we again making an attempt to fix something that is not broken, to rectify something that doesn't need to be rectified?

The existing act — which has been around for a very long time, granted — gives all British Columbians some measure of confidence that when a public inquiry is done, the information will be released here to the Legislature automatically, produced here in this chamber where then the process of government is open, accountable and debatable and where both sides of the House will see exactly what the results of the public inquiry produced, so that we can all learn something from that and do a better job.

You know, we saw the Hughes report as being a very productive process, albeit one government was forced to call because of their own tragic mishandling of children's protection and of reviewing children's deaths in this province. Nonetheless, it was a process that we all took some comfort in: that this report was appropriate, that it was necessary and that those recommendations that came out of that were about making government better.

In fact, the Premier stood up when that report was delivered and said: "I stand by this report. I support this report. I applaud this report. I will follow all the recommendations in this report." There we had a clear example of a public reporting and inquiry process delivered here into the House for everyone to see the recommendations.

The 62 recommendations that Mr. Hughes made were there for everyone to see, for everyone to take comfort in — for the families that had been affected, for all the families that had been waiting for information, for everyone who had been tainted in some way by the pre-existing tragedy and the circumstances around that. All had some comfort.

There we had, straight from Ted Hughes, an untampered, unsevered, unadulterated report that clearly outlined in no equivocal language whatsoever — in very clear terms — where government had gone wrong and where recommendations needed to be adopted by government in order to better protect children, in order to make government a better functioning government for the people of British Columbia.

Can you imagine if the Hughes report had been tabled under this legislation? Would government have allowed that report to come forward with the kind of…?

M. Karagianis: Yeah, it would have been shredded, as my friend from Nanaimo indicates.

For it to come forward…. Would it have been left untampered and unsevered where language clearly said the government was responsible with their funding cuts for the dysfunctionality and the resulting tragedies that took place, which in fact propelled us to the Hughes report? Would the government have allowed that?

It would have gone through cabinet. Cabinet has the ability, under this new legislation, to sever a report of public inquiry. Would cabinet have sat and read this document through and said: "Well, we can't let this go out. It says here that we're responsible with our cuts — the cuts we made in the first four years of our term of office. We're responsible in some way for the tragedies that occurred. We have to take responsibility for that. That is not the kind of thing we want the public to read about. We want the public to think we're wonderful and great, open and accountable. We have these five wonderful slogans that we march out, and we can't allow information in a public inquiry to come back and shine a bad light on us and show that, in fact, maybe we're not all these great and grandiose things we declare ourselves to be."

In fact, I would say that the Hughes report would have been possibly delayed under this kind of legislation,

most certainly severed under this kind of legislation and — who knows? — perhaps withheld entirely from government and from the province and from the citizens of British Columbia.

That's what I see is possible here, and it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see that that is exactly how it would be applied here. How in the world will we ever have faith again that any public inquiry is worth the paper it's printed on, if you get it at all?

The existing legislation is what has allowed the Hughes report and the Gove report and many other reports that have made us a better, more accountable, more responsible government. That process has occurred because those reports could be tabled under the current inquiries act — in their entirety, untampered, unpoliticized and certainly not buried.

Our current and recent examples have shown us that our legislation is working quite well, thank you. Why at this point are we going to put into this legislation so many pitfalls that once again the public will look at government and say: "You cannot believe what they tell you they are going to do. You cannot believe that they will give you the openness and accountability they say they will"?

The public will continue to be disappointed and disillusioned with the process — certainly the process that is supposed to be theirs. A public inquiry is supposed to be for the public. We are about to march forward and say that it's all a fake city down here at the Legislature. It's a faux front on all of this.

We can have all kinds of language around the public inquiry. You're going to get a public inquiry, but we can tamper with it all we want. We can withhold it. We can alter the flow of information, the outcomes, the important aspects of it, and we can do it whenever we want and however we want, and we have legislative rights to do that.

So it's astounding to me that government actually has the nerve to bring this into the House and say: "We're going to just rip into this whole public inquiry process, and we're just going to undermine it." Like many other things, what it looks to be on the surface is an entirely different thing than what it really is underneath. The details are always where the devil lies — right? In the details, in the language, in the subtle changes of words.

I go back to my original comments about the difference between government must do a thing and government may do a thing. Of course, "may" permits you not to do a thing, whereas the subtle shift in importance around how government conducts itself, again, is in all of the fine details of the language.

I will say that I'm always fascinated by that subtle little change in language. It's there in literature, and it's certainly there in the language of the law. It's there in the language around governing at any level — these subtle little changes that are made that completely alter the outcome and very often distract us in a completely different direction than we were meant to go. These things lie within government and forever change the public's ability to get to the truth and the heart of what's really going on under their noses.

It concerns me greatly that we will once again probably have this forced on us by the often very oppressive inability to amend and to negotiate an amendment with government. In fact, this government has shown itself unwilling to do this often. Occasionally — I will say very occasionally, and for those rare times we are grateful.

I think that the government is making a huge mistake at this point, and it is folly for us to allow this to go through with language that I have no doubt the public will be astonished at and shocked and dismayed and disappointed, and that the press will probably have a field day with when they find out that cabinet's going to have the discretion to pretty much destroy any document that they find unflattering or that compels them to do something that goes against their own policies here.

I would say very clearly that I cannot support this. I think it's laughable, and I would hope that government reconsiders the folly of incorporating into a bill language that allows it absolute rights to sever and destroy information on any level for any reason. I would be embarrassed on their behalf if they in fact pursue this. So I will be voting against this, and I yield my chair to the next speaker.

R. Fleming: It is with a heavy heart that I speak to Bill 6 today — indeed that the government introduced it in the first place. You know, when it was called Bill 23 last year and when it was hastily withdrawn by the government, I thought that was the last, fortunately, that the province of British Columbia, the citizens of this great province, would ever see of such an affront on their democracy as that bill. But here it is again. Here it is dressed down, still an ugly bill presented to this House under the sponsorship of the Attorney General of this government for consideration today.

Those offensive passages that were there in Bill 23, which I will speak to in a moment…. I regret to say the most egregious of them are still in this piece of legislation today.

It is a fundamental transfer of power and a distortion of what a public inquiry is all about, which moves it from being really a public inquiry that reports to the public, to becoming a vehicle of greater concentration of power in the executive. It makes a public inquiry — fundamentally about the public and delivering truth and the results of investigation to the public — something that can be kept and manipulated by cabinet, by the executive branch of government.

It fundamentally distorts the meaning of public inquiry, as this province has known it for over a century. I think there will be a lot of public outcry, greater than the public outcry that often launches public inquiries. Governments typically don't want to take on an inquiry of their own volition. It's very often citizens groups, sometimes opposition parties, that are calling for them. It is a very, very small percentage of issues,

which are of such an extent that the government simply cannot refuse the volume of that request, that ever make it into a public inquiry.

So it's not something, in other words, that is abused in this province. They're very infrequent, and they're very appropriate. The previous speaker mentioned just a couple that are of more recent memory to the province: the Gove report and — even more recently to this particular parliament, of course — the Hughes report. Those were initiated for very good substantive reasons. I can't help but feel that the outcome of either of those inquiries, had this law been in place at that time, would have reached a very, very different form to the public.

Let's not forget. At that time, there was no power for cabinet to delay the release of those reports. There was no power given to cabinet to sever the results or contents of those reports, and to decide and adjudicate for itself what it thought the public had the right to know — what it thinks ought to be known.

If you want to talk about conflicts of interest and where they exist in various parts of government, political interests come into play when you give over control of a public inquiry, or any other process, to something that can be infused with partisanship. I think that is at the heart of the debate that we're discussing this afternoon with regards to Bill 6. That is the risk to the public in terms of what they stand to lose by the changes proposed in this bill to over a century of practice in regards to public inquiries.

In reference to the third-party opponents to this bill in its current form and its form as Bill 23 just a year ago, it's not often that we see organizations like the Freedom of Information or B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian taxpayers association getting together to make points and share common concern. But this government has sure brought together a wide coalition that shares the alarm that this side of the House has over this legislation in B.C. today.

This side of the House is not going to let this legislation be rammed through. We won't, because it is of utmost importance. We are talking about a century of practice that is sought to be overturned here in the spring of 2007, barely on the heels of the Hughes report that was brought down only months ago in this House.

Now we're asked to consider cabinet controlling the terms of reference, controlling what a public inquiry can investigate, when and where, who can be part of it — and then, most importantly, controlling the information that is received and compiled out of a public inquiry and deciding for itself which issues, which text, it would like to sever out of those documents in a final report, which the public has a right to know, but which is now going to be with cabinet deciding what the public has the right to know.

I don't think that if you look around at Commonwealth countries…. I can't imagine one that would be considering something like this right now. I know the Attorney General has referred to this in very breezy terms as being an effort to modernize the act we have. He spoke very briefly in moving this bill earlier this morning, and that seemed to be his only point — that we're modernizing this legislation. I can't imagine very many Commonwealth countries that would agree with this cooked-up definition of what modernizing our legislation and our practice is with regards to the Public Inquiry Act.

Perhaps a couple of Commonwealth states that are in bad standing, maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, would consider legislation like this. But I haven't seen the countries of Ireland, Great Britain, other associations that have a tradition as long as ours and longer of public inquiries…. This is completely out of step with that.

One of the things that is dangerous to democracy, dangerous to citizens and a power that would be given to the executive level, to the cabinet, of this government is about when it would release the results of a public inquiry. This bill in no uncertain terms gives cabinet the ability to stifle the release of that information, to control its timing. That includes to control its timing so that results and information cannot be received by the public in advance of elections, for example. They'll be able to hide information for undetermined amounts of time.

I know the Attorney General likes to suggest that under the new bill, that's not the case — that cabinet is obligated to receive it within a set period of time. But that is very deceiving because it actually gives cabinet an open-ended, indeterminate amount of time to review the report. They can do it for years potentially. Once the review is complete, yes, they're obligated to release it to the Legislative Assembly and to the public of British Columbia, but that review is of an indeterminate amount of time. It can stretch on for months, for years.

As I said earlier — and I'll return to this time and time again during my remarks this afternoon — it gives cabinet control over what information is released. It gets to decide what information is severed in the report that eventually goes to the public. I mean, it defies imagination and definition of what a public inquiry is in this act.

The government has the luxury, it has the privilege and it has the mandate to commission any report on any topic, conceivably, that it likes. It can do studies. It can do research projects. It can do experimentation. It can do RFPs — all kinds of documents on any topic it likes that the imagination can span. It gets to appoint who does them. It gets to dictate the terms of reference of those reports and those research projects. It gets to do that by the thousands, and it does. We know that.

Every ministry has multiple amounts of information it's seeking at any given time. There are reports that go to ministers regularly, which they need to do their jobs. That's fine. But the public has only one avenue of independence to get information that it needs as the result of an investigation. It's had only one avenue, and that's the public inquiry. It's had that for over a century. Here we are in this spring session of this parliament talking about ending that, about destroying the very definition and foundation of which the public

inquiry…. So the public will be withheld information, and that is the fundamental point of this bill.

Let's discuss a little further some of the things contained in the clauses of this bill. This bill allows cabinet to decide, as I mentioned, when the report of a public inquiry is made public.

R. Fleming: It's different than under the existing Inquiry Act, where a report from a public inquiry is tabled directly in this Legislature. I would think the member for Vancouver-Burrard would appreciate, as a backbench member of the government, that reports are directly tabled to him as one of the 79 members of this House and that he can directly communicate it with his constituents. That's about to change, but he apparently welcomes the change. I'm surprised he welcomes the change. Maybe his constituents will be interested to know that he is cheering this government along and handing over his power, frankly, as a backbench member, and handing over some of his responsibilities as a backbench member to cabinet.

This bill allows cabinet to sever the report of a public inquiry. This is something that we are giving up and introducing an executive power that is coming into place. The existing Public Inquiries Act has no provision at all for the severing of information from the final report of a public inquiry.

Can you imagine the government doing that to the Hughes report? Under this bill, were the Hughes report still to be produced, they could do that. They couldn't do it this time last year, but they could do it in future. They haven't given us the decency of a proper explanation in motivating for this bill.

The remarks of the Attorney General, in the vaguest of terms, referred to modernization. Is that modernization? Reduced accountability, transparency and ability of the public to receive information which, incidentally, they pay for through their tax dollars. All of the investigations, all of the testimony, all of the hearings, everything that composes a public inquiry, which is done in the interests of the taxpayer in the first place, are paid for by the taxpayer. But now they can't receive the final product unedited. The final product rests with cabinet, the executive level of this government. They'll get a fraction of it, and cabinet will decide what they get to see.

In terms of further clause-by-clause review, let's look at section 28. It states: "On receiving the report, the executive council" — this is the change — "may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for which information could or must be withheld by a public body" under other sections of the act. That includes privacy, business interests and public interest as broadly defined.

They get to decide — cabinet members get to decide — what fits that definition. It's incredible how broad the latitude is to censor and sever the information that the public will eventually receive. It's unbelievable, or maybe it's not so unbelievable. Maybe it's something we've grown to know under the B.C. Liberal government that promised openness and transparency and has delivered something far, far different from that by every benchmark of what an open and transparent government is — whether we're talking about the way freedom of information is accessed and received by the public….

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin spoke about some of her experiences filing and then having untold delays in receiving FOIs. I think every member of this House that has filed an FOI could echo those sentiments and those experiences with the freedom-of-information regime such as it is today in British Columbia.

There are problems with that act too. There are problems that allow the government to filter the release of FOI requests due to political sensitivity. That's actually what is happening today in British Columbia with FOI requests, how long they're taking and how much information is kept out of them.

I filed an FOI recently about a private college in Surrey, based on over a hundred students coming to their MLAs with complaints about how they were treated and how they were frankly robbed of tuition fees at that institution. There were rumours in the community that there were police investigations, but there was no proof, of course. They were all rumours.

I filed an FOI request — six months of delay and a further three months of delay. When the FOI was finally returned to the official opposition, of the 25 pages in that document, 23½ of them were blank. That's freedom of information in British Columbia.

R. Fleming: Yeah, it is an independent office, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard reminds the House. I thank him for doing so because if you're going to go out and say as this government has, as this Premier has, that we're the most open and transparent jurisdiction in B.C., then you better walk the talk.

Our FOI officer, that independent office in British Columbia, ranks sixth — out of eight provinces which have officers of that nature — in terms of its funding levels. I think everybody knows that that office has been underfunded for years and that that inhibits the ability to respond to the public on a timely basis. That inhibits democracy in action.

Every independent officer, it seems, is in a similar position. The Auditor General, for example. Of the ten provinces with an Auditor General, B.C. ranks eighth in per-capita funds to its Auditor General. It's as if they don't want independent assurance. They don't want scrutiny. They don't want accountability.

That's the record over the last five years. Here we are in the sixth year of this government, reviewing a piece of legislation which fundamentally changes what a public inquiry is in this province, fundamentally

changes what we have come to know as a public inquiry over a century of practice in this province of ours.

Let me go back to the point about how cabinet will be empowered under this bill, should it pass. Hopefully, backbench members of the government will join with this side of the House and have some second thoughts about it and what it means to them and what it means to British Columbians.

The power that will be transferred to cabinet. The major fundamental change of this bill is that it will give cabinet control over the timing and release of the information and the results of a public inquiry, and it will be indefinite and indeterminate. This isn't just hypothetical. I am sure that members of this House will not have to stretch their imaginations too far to think of a scenario where this might happen.

This might be a scenario where an inquiry comes due a year or six months in advance of an election. Under this new act, rather than the report being submitted to the public through the Legislature within a set period of time of a session of this Legislature…. Now under this bill, cabinet will be able to belabour as long as it likes the review of that inquiry.

If the Hughes inquiry had been submitted under these provisions, it could have been reviewed by the cabinet for years, for months. If there were an inquiry as the member for Delta North suggested there ought to be…. And maybe he has a point here on the cost overruns of the conference centre, which are now running into hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Were there a situation where the government simply could no longer refuse taxpayers' requests for an inquiry, were it to come, let's say, in the next several months and the inquiry took a year and then we're only about six or seven months from an election…. Can't you just imagine the temptation, coming up to May 2009, of this government, of this cabinet, wanting to sit on that information about how a project like that ballooned and doubled over budget? I can imagine that scenario.

I can imagine a cabinet member saying: "No way. Wait until after May 2009." Under this bill, they can. Let's say that exact hypothetical situation happened, and it got through an election period. It's not a stretch of the imagination by any means to see a scenario where this government would do that, because if it has the power, you better believe they'll take it.

They haven't acted in four years on a coroner's recommendations around safety of farmworkers, so to suggest that they would bury a public inquiry which was potentially damaging to the government — on a project around cost overruns, in this example — to politically time its release is not a stretch of the imagination at all.

If and when they did that in this scenario, under this new legislation, when cabinet has finally deemed that it has reviewed the report — which can stretch on indefinitely, as I mentioned — it can then release a report in any form it likes. It gives cabinet new powers to decide what the report will look like. I can't imagine a person of the integrity of Justice Hughes ever submitting to this kind of legislation.

They can appoint whoever they like in future to head up public inquiries. They can do their public inquiry in good faith and with due diligence, invite the public, receive the testimony, hold the hearings, gather all the investigative information that they need. Then when it gets to cabinet, who can review it indefinitely, cabinet gets the additional power of being able to sever whatever it likes out of that report.

You can imagine what kind of abuses could arise, given the nature of politics, given the nature of this government over here, given the nature of their record on openness and transparency and its poor state today in British Columbia. You can imagine what they would use these new powers for if the Public Inquiry Act were to be changed so fundamentally, as is proposed in Bill 6.

I think it will be a sad day for British Columbia should this bill pass. We will change the nature of public inquiries forevermore in British Columbia should this bill pass. It shouldn't be named the Public Inquiry Act at all. It should be called the secret inquiry act, because it allows the information to reside and be deposited with the cabinet, to be released on their terms.

It gives them control over the terms of reference completely. It gives them the ability to censor and sever information at will — whatever they deem to be in their interests, under the guise of it being in the public interest. But we know, politics being what it is, that political interests do arise and do take precedent sometimes in this place. I don't even think some of the members opposite can argue with me on that point.

But that's the reality. That will be the new British Columbia and its Public Inquiry Act. After a century of practice of being a genuine public inquiry act that doesn't pull punches, that reports fully its information and gives complete independence to the information gathered and how it's released through this Legislature — through this House of the people — that is going to be changed. This is going to become a cabinet-only secret inquiry act.

I gave an example of how this could be abused in future around the timing of elections, for example, where government would seek to bury reports. The consideration of timing of the release of information would become completely subordinate to politics, to political interests. I think there are many scenarios where this could be the case.

The point is not to just think about the scenarios. It's to acknowledge that it could happen very easily and to think twice about not letting it happen. We have that opportunity right here. We don't have to vote for this legislation. The Attorney General has withdrawn it once before. It was offensive to the people of British Columbia then. It's offensive now.

He can withdraw it again. He can abandon this little project of changing a century of practice in British Columbia and fundamentally changing what a public

inquiry act is and get rid of that. Strike it off his priority list. Move on to other things. There are a lot of other things that the Attorney General could be working on, which are in the public interest, than stripping the Public Inquiry Act of anything to do with the public. I would urge him to do so.

I want to maybe look at one other aspect of the act in my final space of time here, and that is the so-called division of commissions. Now the government — the cabinet once again — gets to decide what kind of commission should be struck in pursuit of a public inquiry. It divides them into hearing commissions, and it divides them into more investigative…. Sorry. The hearing commissions are the investigative commissions, and the other alternative that cabinet can use at its disposal is to deem them study commissions.

Well, it certainly sounds like one is a commission that deeply involves the public and the other is a much more passive, secretive, contemplative, behind-the-scenes kind of commission. The government will get to decide — and this almost always happens under the heat of pressure — when it takes on an inquiry. I mean, for every ten that are suggested, there's probably less than one ever adopted in public life. That's been the practice in government regardless of who's in power.

But now they get to decide the type of commission it is. Very clearly, there's the insertion of a commission here of a much less rigorous style. So the government will have the luxury once again of saying that, in fact, there is a public inquiry underway, but it's one that doesn't have hearings. It's one that doesn't hear from experts or victims or whatever the case may be, depending on the topic of the inquiry.

It gets to decide that it's a study commission — a quiet, contemplative, behind-the-scenes pseudo-public inquiry going on here in British Columbia. That is another power given over to the executive level of government.

We've got the timing of the report. They get to sit on these results of public inquiries. That is offensive for the reasons I've stated. They get to control the scale and scope and what the appointed chief investigator heading the inquiry can look into. They get to control what finally the public gets to receive — the control of the actual information itself.

So timing, control and style of the commission — all of these are new powers given over to cabinet and taken away from the Legislature, taken away from the people of British Columbia when it comes to the Public Inquiry Act. We're calling it modernization of this piece of legislation.

That's the rationale. That's the best rationale the Attorney General could provide this House with this morning when he moved reading of this bill. I say it's not good enough. You can imagine other public inquiries that the people of B.C. have benefited from and that families in British Columbia have benefited from, which have led to actual substantive changes in government and then legislation beyond that because of public inquiries.

The Gomery Commission even, in that respect, has led to substantive changes in how various departments in the federal government now operate. Those are all things that could potentially be disallowed or never see the light of day in terms of the public result under legislation like this.

It's offensive because the Public Inquiry Act is supposed to find the truth. It doesn't serve any political interest. It serves the public interest first and foremost. It's initiated generally by public outcry and public demand. Those are the taxpayers that ask for these types of inquiries to occur. Tax dollars then pay for them to occur. The information is supposed to be received by the public through this House, which represents them in every part of British Columbia. But in actual fact, that will all change under Bill 6. It will start and stop at the cabinet table.

For that reason and for many of the other reasons stated by my colleagues this afternoon, I oppose Bill 6. The people of British Columbia are speaking against Bill 6. This Legislature would be a much poorer place, and democracy in British Columbia would be in a much worse state should we have to live under the new so-called Public Inquiry Act — the secret inquiry act — in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Even on the government side, and I haven't even started speaking. I don't know whether this is appreciation or encouragement to get to the end and sit down.

Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take my place in the debate on Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act, and offer some comments on this particular piece of legislation, and to stand with my colleagues who have spoken against it — to raise the concerns we have on this side of the House about this particular piece of legislation and what we feel is wrong with it and what its consequences are, either deliberate or unintended.

One of the things that strikes me about the remarks that I've heard today, from the Attorney General and others on the government side and not necessarily spoken in this chamber, is that this is modernization of legislation to bring it into where it should be in these first years of the 21st century. Well, I'm reminded that at the opening of this Legislature the Attorney General tabled a bill, Bill 1, the supremacy of parliament act that dates back to the 1600s, I think — 1683, if I'm not mistaken.

M. Farnworth: It's 1603. I'm corrected by my colleague the Attorney General, and I thank him. Elizabeth I, no doubt, just months before James I, who took over after her death in that year.

It's a bit of a history lesson, but I raise the point because that bill has not changed. The supremacy of parliament act has not changed, because it is right. Its truth is in its rightness, and it works. It has not changed. It does not need to be modernized. It does not need to be updated because it works. It worked in 1603; it worked in 2003; it works in 2007.

M. Farnworth: The Minister of Health makes a comment about NDP policies. Well, I will say this, hon. Speaker. Despite his party's best efforts, the agricultural land reserve still stands today because it's right. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia still stands because it was right then, and it's right today.

Despite the best efforts of this government, B.C. Hydro still stands today. Even though it was W.A.C. Bennett that introduced it back in the 1950s, it stands today because it was the right thing then, and it's the right thing now. So, hon. Speaker….

M. Farnworth: The point I'm making and the members opposite want to make, as well, is that good legislation stands the test of time. It doesn't need to be changed. It meets the needs of yesterday, it meets the needs of today, and it meets the needs of tomorrow.

I did a little research. We didn't use to have a public inquiry act. Back in the days when the hon. Sir H.P.P Crease, QC, was Attorney General there was no need. We were a small province. Not a lot of people. Not a lot of controversy that demanded a public inquiry, though there were no doubt events that should have been.

By the time 1897 came along, when the Attorney General was David M. Eberts, QC, and the Premier was J.H. Turner, things had changed. Legislation was introduced, and it set up the ability to do public inquiries, and it worked for this province. It has worked for this province for over 100 years.

It has allowed public inquiries to take place and for that information to be released to the public here in this Legislature so that all members may have it. It stands on its merits, and those inquiries are there for the public to see uncensored. That's accountability. That is accountability. The public has paid for it, and the public should be able to see the results.

But what's happened in the last few years? The Inquiry Act is just one part of accountability and openness. We have other institutions that are important pillars of accountability and openness in this province.

As my colleague from Victoria-Hillside has pointed out, the Auditor General's office and the freedom-of-information office are important institutions that ensure openness and accountability. The Auditor General, regardless of political stripe or government, has been an important watchdog in this province to ensure that oversight is done not just here in the Legislature but outside and independent of this Legislature.

The freedom-of-information office. The legislation that set that up was hailed as groundbreaking when it was introduced in the first term of Mike Harcourt's New Democratic Party government in the early '90s. It was groundbreaking legislation that set the standard of modern policy that contributed to openness and accountability. It joined the Inquiry Act as being an important part of what it is, of what makes our system so open and so accountable.

What we have seen since 2001 are events that give us cause to be very concerned about this piece of legislation. We have seen a deliberate and systematic dismantling of those institutions, either by legislation or by budgetary starvation, to limit their ability to do their job. That causes us great concern. I'll go through those in a minute and how I make my case here and what raises our concerns on this piece of legislation.

The freedom-of-information office. That legislation was hailed as groundbreaking. It set a standard for governments not only in this country but in jurisdictions in North America. It was a model that was studied across this continent and by jurisdictions overseas. It required disclosure of information in a timely and affordable manner so that not just those with big pockets of money could access information but ordinary people, ordinary groups, community groups and yes, the opposition, could do their job. It was an effective tool that ensured government's openness and accountability.

Since 2001 what's happened? There has been a tightening up. There has been a closing of the parameters of what can be released. There have been restrictions. There has been an increase in blank pages. There has been an increase in whiteout. There has been an increase in clouding over, making inaccessible and covering up, some might say — but I won't say that. Clearly, it has been made much more difficult for people — ordinary people, ordinary community groups — to access information in a timely way.

Even those with deep pockets find it difficult to access information. The other thing they did was to jack up the fees to make it prohibitively expensive to access what rightly should be and what had been considered open information for the public.

They've taken what was a model, taken what was good legislation to be emulated, tightened it up and dumbed it down, and we are no longer the role model which we used to be. For a government that wants to pride itself on being the "Best place on earth" to be, when it comes to freedom of information, their motto should be the "Most closed place on earth." That's one of the reasons why we have serious concerns about this piece of legislation.

They've tightened up the budgets of the office itself. Not only apart from the time constraints that have been put in because of the additional requirements, they've

also made it harder for the FOI commissioner and his office and staff to do their job. As my colleague pointed out, of eight provinces that have an FOI office, ours ranks sixth in funding. It ranks sixth in funding.

This government's great golden goals are to be number one in everything. It's a shame it doesn't apply to freedom of information.

M. Farnworth: My colleague the Minister of Health says it's all about the money, and it's not about the quality. Well, you know what? It is about quality. It is about quality and the inability of the people of this province to have quality access to freedom of information. It's about the inability of groups, whether business or labour or non-profit — whatever — to have access to quality information and a quality freedom-of-information agency. And it is about money. It is how this government has starved — starved deliberately — institutions like that, so they know they cannot do their job.

We are not talking about tens of millions of dollars. The Minister of Health knows that, because as a cabinet member he would have sat around the cabinet table and seen the requests that come from the freedom-of-information officer and the Auditor General. He would have known about the systematic decline in their budget year after year after year and approved those declines and starved those institutions.

So freedom of information is one aspect, one part of this government's record where we can look and see their approach to public accountability. The other is with the Auditor General's office. The Auditor General asked for money to be able to do more effective audits, more audits on different topics at a time when this province is undertaking some of the largest public expenditures it has seen in some time — on the Olympics, on the RAV line. It's important not just for good public policy; it's important to the taxpayers of this province that they know whether those moneys have been spent wisely or not.

The Auditor General's job is to do that. The Auditor General's job is to produce reports that are tabled in this Legislature that can be examined and debated by opposition and by government, by the media, by the public. They're open and they're accountable. Yet when his request came for an increase in budget, it was denied. It wasn't a huge amount of money that was being asked for, and that budget was denied. It was trimmed — year after year after year since 2001.

It's another way in which this government has clamped down on the public's access to information, clamped down on accountability and clamped down on what is the taxpayer's right to know.

What do they replace it with? They've said they want to be the most open and accountable government. In fact, I'm reminded of some comments that the Premier made on this issue. He said in 2001: "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." [Applause.]

He applauds that statement. I guess what he's applauding is what I said a few moments ago: the deliberate financial starving of important institutions on openness and accountability — the freedom-of-information office and the Auditor General.

Applauding the replacement, applauding what their idea of openness and accountability is — so-called open cabinet meetings, which are, by any stretch of the imagination, a sham, hokum and bunk and creations by spin doctors. They're not televised. In fact, we're not even sure if they're running. But that was the government's big announcement to openness and accountability. Rather than deal with well-funded, well-resourced independent institutions, their idea of openness and accountability is to resort to spin media and 200 PAB, public affairs bureau, employees — designed to make sure that none of them get into trouble.

That's what their idea of openness and accountability is. That's what replaced openness and accountability. The Minister of Health says it's all about the money. Guess what. In many ways, it is. If you took half, a quarter or 10 percent of the budget of those 200 PAB spin doctors and put it into the Auditor General's office or the freedom-of-information office, you would have a far better system of accountability and public openness in this province than we have right now.

This brings me to the legislation before us and why specifically, on this piece of legislation…. As I pointed out, the flaws in what has happened over the last five years in those pillars of accountability and openness bring us to our concerns around the Public Inquiry Act and what it is that makes us so concerned.

M. Farnworth: As the member and my colleague the Minister of Energy points out, it's always been about the bill at hand. This is the background for the bill at hand — the rationale behind the reasoning — why we have the legitimate concerns that we do and why the public has the legitimate concerns that they do.

As the Attorney General points out, there's a significant difference from last time — the ten days; must be released in a timely fashion. Well, as my colleague

the more-than-able member from Nanaimo said: "Same wolf, different sheep's clothing."

M. Farnworth: Actually, for that member to talk about it being different sheep's clothing is a bit rich. He's got at least three different types of sheep's clothing in his closet.

Well, the issue and the point is that a public inquiry will go to cabinet, and cabinet can take its time and review it. They can review, and they can review, and they can review, and then they can make decisions about what should be taken out if they want, and that's not right.

We do know what will happen. We know from this government's actions what will happen. They will sit on things, if the timing doesn't suit them. We have seen how they cancelled fall sessions because it did not suit them to have a fall session, because they didn't want to face the accountability of this Legislature being in session.

I know exactly what will happen. A public inquiry will come in, like the Hughes report. The government will see that it's damaging, that it is going to cause them political problems, and they will sit on it. If we're in an election year, they'll sit on it until after the election. And then they'll be busy reviewing it ad nauseam, ad nauseam, ad nauseam.

M. Farnworth: Actually, hon. Member, every one of your heckles is an ad nauseam.

M. Farnworth: Again, I would remind the hon. member that second reading debate…. Perhaps if you serve another term…. Although I know you haven't made your mind up whether or not you will serve this term out or challenge Hedy Fry in Vancouver Centre. But if you do decide to serve this term out, you will come to understand that second reading debates are wide-ranging. Second reading debates are big picture. It's in committee stage that you must be tight and concise. I offer that advice in all sincerity, hon. Member. No viciousness or anything untoward — just friendly advice.

The point I am making is that it will be sat on until after an election. If it's not an election year, it will be sat on…. In the case of this session, I believe that we adjourn on May 31. It will be sat on till May 31. Then maybe June 1, when the media have gone on holiday, when we are all away from this place, then and only then will it be released. It will not be subject to debate in this chamber. It will not be subject to the scrutiny that we would normally get. That, hon. Speaker, is one of the chief significant concerns we have.

It places too much power in the hands of cabinet, a cabinet which we know in many instances is actually not the source of the decision-making. In fact, an even more tightly controlled cabal of unelected individuals are the ones who actually make the decisions, communicate them to cabinet, and cabinet are the ones who then publicly go on and say they're approving them.

That is one of our key concerns. It puts into cabinet's hands too much power. It creates too much discretion in terms of when something will be released, what will be released, and what will be severed.

Now, I can understand arguments if there are potential criminal proceedings, but that is where you could bring in the freedom-of-information officer. There are ways of dealing with that. I think you have to put a time line on that cabinet must review it by.

Let's be clear. In dealing with a document and a public inquiry, even if it's a lengthy one, it does not take weeks and months to figure out what the sensitive parts that may relate to an investigation are, if that's taking place. That's not hard to identify. It does not take a great deal of time to realize there needs to be…. But the rest does.

We need to ensure that there is a timely review period if there has to be one, because the way it is right now, we will not support it. We cannot support it. I mean, you've got groups as diverse as the Canadian Federation of Taxpayers on the one hand and the New Democratic Party on the other hand and freedom-of-information organizations, as well, all saying that this is not a partisan difference with the government. This is a broad cross-section of the political spectrum that is saying there are problems with this legislation.

I see that my colleague across the way, the Attorney General, is smiling. I understand why he's smiling, because he knows I'm right. More than that he knows that this legislation came before this House once before and fell off the order paper. The government didn't pursue it in a fall session, because they knew it was bad legislation. They brought it back, and it still has fundamental weaknesses in it. It grants too much power to cabinet and it is not timely enough, in terms of the ability of cabinet to sit on it and review it for a considerable length of time, to ensure that the public gets the openness and the accountability that it needs.

With those words I will take my place with the rest of my colleagues. I will be voting against this particular piece of legislation as it's currently structured.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to stand in my place and to speak to Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act. This is an important piece of legislation; there's no doubt about that. It's also a piece of legislation that is very disturbing for anybody who believes in the principles of transparency, accountability,

open government and natural justice. This is a very compelling argument that we have here, that we make. This act is a problem.

We know that Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act, is in a slightly adapted form. It's the reintroduction of a piece of legislation that essentially fell off the agenda after the 2006 spring session, and that was Bill 23. As we know, that bill fell off the agenda because the government felt great pressure coming to the end of the spring session and decided to pull that piece of legislation back.

I suspect they pulled that legislation back because there was an awful lot of concern expressed. As my colleague the previous speaker mentioned, there was concern from across the political spectrum; it wasn't just concern from the opposition. It was concern from organizations like the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, it was concern from organizations like the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and it was concern from organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

All of these were organizations that said that piece of legislation, Bill 23, would have radically increased the secrecy of this place, would have put increasing power in the hands of cabinet to be able to hide the information that it chose to hide. Of course, as we know, had there had been a session of the Legislature last fall, that legislation probably would have come back. We know that in addition to the moves that we're now seeing in Bill 6, which I'll look forward to talking to, we also know that the other strategy that the government has used, has implemented to be able to deal with things, is the strategy of avoidance.

The government decided not to have a fall session even though there was a commitment to that. Rather than be here and be held accountable for their actions, it's much easier for them to run away from this place, hide out and not be accountable to the people of British Columbia.

I'm hopeful, though, that we won't see that despicable conduct by the Premier and the government again. We won't see that despicable conduct because the people of British Columbia, regardless of political stripe, were outraged by the decision to cancel the fall session. The people of British Columbia would like to see their legislators where they belong — in the Legislature.

S. Simpson: I know that the Minister of Energy doesn't like to be here, because it's a pretty embarrassing place for him most times when he gets to stand in this place. I'm not surprised that he likes not having a session.

The reality is this. Bill 23 generated an awful lot of outrage around this province. When it was introduced, it was palpable — the level of outrage. Civil libertarians were concerned. Freedom-of-information advocates were concerned. Legal commentators all condemned the efforts to increase secrecy. It closed the doors of transparency, and it turned out the lights on accountability.

Here we are almost a year later, and the government is back to try again. This time it's Bill 6. Bill 6 is legislation that is no better, and it is legislation that says that cabinet is all powerful. It is legislation that says cabinet has the right to control all public information. It is legislation that says cabinet can limit the information that rightfully belongs to the public. It is legislation that begins to embrace the notion of the star chamber, only in this case it's the cabinet of British Columbia.

You know, I have some understanding of why that happens. My colleague earlier talked about the public affairs bureau and the work of the public affairs bureau. I understand that. I mean, the public affairs bureau is a pretty effective…. What is it — about a 10-to-1 ratio, I believe? I think the way it works is that for every minister, there are about ten spin doctors. That's pretty good, because it probably takes about ten spin doctors to keep every one of these ministers out of trouble.

The reality is that Bill 6 allows cabinet to decide when and how information will be released. It says that cabinet has the right to review public inquiries before they are released, and it puts no limits on the time that they can hold those documents at cabinet — a year, two years. They could do that.

This law says they never have to release it as long as it sits on that table. They never have to release it.

S. Simpson: Yeah. Well, you know, the superficiality of the other end is in abundance today.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please direct all your comments through the Chair.

It says that cabinet can sever information. Cabinet can choose what information gets released. It does this under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act, but it doesn't say that a respected public official, like the freedom-of-information officer, would do this. It says cabinet would do it. Politicians will make those choices.

How does this decision fit with some of the things that we know about public inquiries? Well, we know that public inquiries are an essential piece of the work of government. The ability to be able to investigate independently actions that go on, whether it be a B.C. Rail decision, whether it be a decision around children and families…. The public inquiry is an effective and essential tool to deal with those things.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission in 1992 wrote a report on public inquiries. They quite rightly said in that report that the independence of public inquiries from the executive and the Legislature should be recognized and protected.

That was an important statement. It is essential that any credible public inquiry has to have that autonomy and that credibility in order that when that document does come to be tabled in this place, it is a credible document. That credibility, I believe, says that the document has to be able to come here in a timely manner after it's been produced. It has to be able to come here whole so that we as legislators have the opportunity to review that document, to see what in fact it says, and the public has the opportunity to review that document and see what it says.

We know that we have good reason to have concern about the decision of this government with this piece of legislation to begin to close those doors. We can look at some of the previous actions that we've seen from the government around the failure to release information. We know there's a whole series of documents around the B.C. Rail sale that have been asked for time and time again in this place and outside this place. The government has absolutely refused to release those documents.

We know the government is sitting on a report that they commissioned, which is extremely critical of the Oil and Gas Commission. That document is not being released. We know that the government has repeatedly promised to release child death reviews, and they only took action after Ted Hughes came and challenged and obliged this government to take action.

We know the government is not above editing documents as well. Severing information is what I think Bill 6 will allow them to do. All we need to do is look at the letter from Mr. Keith Purchase, who is the chair of the Fraser health region. That was a letter that was released in a heavily censored version. But as we know, a full version of that letter was ultimately released. It came through Vaughn Palmer from the Vancouver Sun, where it talked about bed closures and service cuts and a crisis in the region. But the real critical piece of that was, as Mr. Palmer said, that this government exploits every technicality in the information law to minimize embarrassment to the politicians. That's what that letter from Mr. Purchase was edited to try to deal with, and that's what Bill 6 will allow this government to do with public inquiries.

Going back to what we know that the Ontario Law Reform Commission and their 1992 report told us…. The independence of public inquiries from the executive and the Legislature should be recognized and protected. The question we have to ask is: does Bill 6 take us down the road to better ensure that that is what occurs? I would argue that it takes us in exactly the wrong direction.

Bill 6 allows cabinet to set the terms of reference for a public inquiry. Under those terms of reference, the cabinet has the right to demand to see an interim report from the inquiry. Now, let's just assume for a minute that this was a controversial inquiry. Let's assume for a minute, for example, that the government somewhere down the road was obliged to launch a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail to CN. Let's just assume that for a moment.

There could be a whole lot of information in that, and we know that. We know there are questions about the sale and whether it was a good sale. We know there are questions about whether, in fact, the safety measures that were put in place were adequate. We know there will be potentially a whole realm of cases of information and questions that will come out of the court proceedings that are now heading on their way in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. All of these things could present very, very embarrassing information for the government. Now let's just assume that that inquiry was to have happened and that we were talking about an inquiry of the B.C. Rail sale to CN.

The cabinet could require that a copy of an interim report of that inquiry be given to them before the final copy was written. Cabinet would have the opportunity to use those 200 people who sit in the public affairs bureau to figure out how to manage their way out of what would probably be a pretty embarrassing result when that report finally came to light.

Well, you have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker: is that really what public inquiries are about? Are public inquiries really about giving the government a heads-up so that they can figure out how to manage the message because it's not one that they're going to like and be comfortable with? I don't think so.

I think that public inquiries are about finding the truth, doing the analysis and reporting out to the people — through this place and to the general public — on what the results of that particular inquiry are, regardless of the topic. That's what public inquiries are about — informing the public and determining and providing some recommendations, hopefully, that will solve those challenges for the future.

I'm not so sure you get that when you get an interim report. It particularly becomes concerning when that interim report can be delivered to cabinet, and cabinet can contemplate that interim report and where it may be going, think about it for a while and begin to have a discussion with itself about the severing of information. We know that Bill 6 will allow the cabinet to sever information from those reports.

The bill gives cabinet the power to withhold portions of the report "for any reason for which information could or must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

The problem — as I said before, and it is a serious concern — is that this isn't about some independent civil servant making this decision. It is about a political decision being made at the cabinet table about what information they may choose to sever.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how you cut it, this is a breach of any credible measure of accountability by any standard. We really do need to ask ourselves whether that's what public inquiries are all about. We really do need to ask ourselves whether in fact that's what the government should be pursuing.

It has spoken many times about being open and transparent. The Premier certainly talked about those

things in 2001. He talked about them in 1998 when he was in opposition. He talked about being open and transparent. He talked about the value of that, but this piece of legislation does not reflect the words of the then Leader of the Opposition in 1998 nor of the newly elected Premier in 2001.

It's a challenging situation that we face with this piece of legislation. Historically, we know there has been a commitment that public inquiry reports would be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days of their submission to government. The Attorney General has told us that it will be ten days now, not 15 any longer, but what we don't hear in all of this is that, in fact, that will be ten days after cabinet deigns to allow it to leave their table.

That's a problem, because it can sit on that table for as long as cabinet chooses to keep it there. That's their choice. There are no time limits on how long that inquiry report could sit on that cabinet table. Bill 6 says that the cabinet can spend as long as it wants looking at that report before they choose to release it. In fact, they could choose to leave it there for years. I'm not suggesting that would necessarily occur, but it's possible under Bill 6. It could sit there and never leave that table.

So what we have here is a situation where, if Bill 6 is passed, the cabinet will set the terms of reference for the public inquiry. They will get an interim look at all the material on where the public inquiry is going. They will be able to sever and hide any information they want, and they can take as long as they want before releasing the documents to the Legislative Assembly and to the public. That's what Bill 6 does.

The Attorney General may have called this modernization. I certainly don't see this as modernization, and I believe you'll find, hon. Speaker, that the public won't see it as modernization either. They will see it for what it is — a crass attempt to be able to hide the results of public inquiries when the cabinet deems that to be a necessary thing in order to meet their political objectives and save their political hide. That's what the government wants to do with Bill 6. The most secretive government in Canada will now set a new standard of secrecy — certainly a new standard of secrecy in the history of this province.

S. Simpson: I'm sure he must just cringe. The Attorney General must be saying: "God, how did I get stuck having to introduce this thing into the Legislature? It just makes me cringe." I'm sure the Attorney General is going: "God, all my years in the courts, all my years as a lawyer. How on earth did I get stuck having to bring this forward?" But I'm sure the Attorney General will sleep one of these nights. The most secretive government in Canada is setting a new standard of secrecy in this province.

It is about protecting the self-interest of government. It's about stonewalling the critics. It's about masking the results of a public inquiry from the public that it's intended for. This is antithetical to any principles of openness or transparency.

I'll go back again, because I want to reflect back seven, eight or nine years — something like that — to the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier. On July 22, 1998, the then Leader of the Opposition wrote to the B.C. Freedom of Information Association. He said a number of things in this letter that he sent to the B.C. Freedom of Information Association. He talked about: "Open government is the hallmark of free and democratic societies." He talked about: "Access to government information helps us" — then the official opposition — "and others hold the government to account, and accountability enhances democracy."

The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, went on and said: "Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity."

He went on, and he said: "The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people, not to the government."

He said: "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, those are pretty lofty words. My question to the government would be…. Somebody over there should stand up and explain how, when cabinet…. Often when public inquiries are done, it is ministers who are responsible, who will bear the brunt of criticisms in those public inquiries, and rightly so.

Going back to those comments by the then Leader of the Opposition to the B.C. Freedom of Information Association, how can members of this government justify giving cabinet the power to set the terms of reference, to look at the material before it gets released, to be able to sever and hide information they want, and to take as long as they want to release the information, if ever?

I don't see how the Premier today squares his comments in 1998 with what he's attempting to accomplish by driving Bill 6 through this Legislature. It does not make any sense. It's inconsistent. It isn't credible. The only thing we can derive and deduce from this is that all of that talk in 1998, all of that flowery talk in 2001 after the government was elected, was just that. It was talk.

It was like a lot of what goes on, on that side of the House. It was just talk. It didn't mean anything then, and it certainly doesn't mean anything now. If you want any evidence of what little it means today, read Bill 6, because Bill 6 says that the door is closing on transparency and the lights are being turned out on accountability. The government is proud of it because they're hiding under the rock on this one.

S. Simpson: It's troubling. I think that's a very good comment. My colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca says it's troubling.

What we need to do now is make a decision in this House. We get to make a decision around this bill, and the decision we need to make is: are we going to stand up for the citizens of British Columbia in this House? If we're going to stand up for the citizens of British Columbia, then we have to decide we are going to ensure that the best possible information is made available to those citizens on the issues that are important to them.

We know that information is power. That's reality in this world. We know that the information that public inquiries potentially provide is powerful information. Unfortunately for the government, more often than not, that will be information that will end up being power in the hands of the opposition, power in the hands of critics. So the government decides: "We're not interested in facilitating that, so we're going to close the door on giving power to our opposition, to our critics."

I understand that. But the principles around transparency, around accountability, around open government have to trump the notion of the government protecting its own self-interest, and this bill does nothing but protect the government's self-interest by closing doors on the interests of the public. That's not good enough.

I would hope that the Premier — as the leader of the government, as the leader of the executive council, as the person who ultimately makes the decision about this bill — would reconsider. He would reconsider that. I think back to the days of W.A.C. Bennett. W.A.C. Bennett was always known for being prepared to kind of give second thought to things, to reconsider things periodically. He was always prepared to do that, and I credit him for that.

The problem here is that maybe this Premier…. Because I know that this Premier has at different times looked to model himself somewhat after the Bennett clan that governed the province for such a long time, maybe he would learn something from W.A.C. Bennett and give some sober second thought to this issue too.

That question would be for him to say: "I'm going to go back and read that letter that I sent to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association in 1998. I think I'd better go back and read the letter that I sent to them in 1998." Maybe if the Premier went back and read that letter, he might sit down and just contemplate whether this was the best idea that he ever had. Maybe he'd do the right thing.

There is no question about what the right thing would be here. The right thing would be for the Premier to sit down with the Attorney General. I have to believe that if the Premier came in and said, "Attorney, I'm not so sure about this," the Attorney General would say: "I'm with you. I'm with you right now. I'm not so sure about it either."

S. Simpson: Yeah, he's agreeing, and I understand that. I'm sure that the Attorney would say: "Mr. Premier, I'm with you on this one right now. Let's think about this again."

Let's put this one back on the shelf where it belongs. Let's look at changes, if there are to be any, that make the public inquiries process more open, more complete; that provide additional resources to allow those inquiries to occur; that provide greater support to those who want to engage in the process; that ensure, when inquiries go ahead, that all British Columbians who want to be part of the discussion around those inquiries and who have something to contribute get the right to contribute; that the results of those inquiries are provided in the most timely and complete form to this place and to the public in general.

Hon. Speaker, we then would be moving ahead. I believe that the Premier once believed this stuff — in July 22, 1998, apparently. I'm not so sure now. So I'd say to this House: let's stand up for what the Premier said in 1998, what he brought forward in his letter in 1998, and we will be a better place for it.

A little second thought. Let's say no to Bill 6. Let's move on with real openness, real transparency and real accountability — and not this sham of Bill 6.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 6, which is before the House right now. I've been listening for, oh gosh, about six hours now to the opposition. In that six hours the crux of their argument is twofold: that cabinet can hide information that comes before a public hearing and, second, that cabinet can delay or allow a hearing's report to sit on the shelf for a long time.

I'd like to talk just for a few minutes and then allow members opposite the opportunity to respond to any comments I make or any others that they want to make. But before we start on to Bill 6, it's important to understand what Bill 6 is replacing.

Bill 6 is replacing the Inquiry Act. The Inquiry Act does not allow for and does not require the public to be able to come to the inquiry. They're not allowed to. This is a closed-door piece of legislation from the '70s that says that cabinet can set up terms of reference and can require a report. But in this Inquiry Act, it does not require that the government release the report. It doesn't require that the government allow the public or even the news media to attend.

What's wrong here is the first thing about the Inquiry Act. It's a closed-door process, and it just doesn't work in today's world. You see, people like to go to

inquiries and hear what the witnesses are saying. They want to know what's going on. They want to know what the issues are. They don't want that filtered through a news media, and they don't want it filtered through government. So they have the ability under Bill 6, for the first time, to attend any public inquiry. That's the first thing about this bill.

The second thing about the bill that's important is that it does allow for the cabinet to sever or take out pieces of evidence within the public inquiry, subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Members opposite should be familiar with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, because they actually brought it in when they were in government. Today they stand in this House and say to us: "Throw that away." They say: "No, no, no, we're not going to protect the integrity of this inquiry."

Why does government need to be able to take something through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? Why do they do that?

They do it for several reasons. They sever that information because disclosure might be harmful to law enforcement. They sever that information because it might be harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations. They can do it because it might be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body. They can do it because it is harmful to the conservation of heritage sites. They can do it because it is harmful to public or individual safety.

When members on both sides read Bill 6, it is really important that they understand what section 28 actually means. Section 28 is not there to hide something from the public. It's there to protect individuals and entities that could be harmed simply because they were named in a case. For example, if the NDP had their way today and there was an inquiry into something like Woodlands where a bunch of individuals were named, victims were named in a sexual abuse case or some other form of abuse, they would have all of those people's names in the report.

That's wrong. That's very, very wrong. A victim of a crime that happens to be the subject of a public inquiry should not have their privacy infringed upon. They have a right to their privacy as well.

Disclosure that might be harmful to law enforcement? Well, what if they were to disclose information in a public inquiry that was going to be part of a court case, say for organized crime or what have you, and disclosing that information in advance would deny the people the right to a fair trial? It would also probably blow the cover of anybody that's been involved in providing that information to them, and it would harm the effectiveness of the investigative techniques that were employed.

There are other reasons why individuals might want to protect themselves against this, but the real point of this is that the NDP, when they were in power, developed a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that today they applaud. The thing that they hate about Bill 6, the thing that really burns them, is the fact that we are respecting that act, that we are going to recognize that individuals have a right to privacy. Those are individuals that may have nothing at all to do with a criminal matter, but their name is mentioned in a hearing — and suddenly that has to be part of the report? That's wrong.

So the privacy considerations…. Section 28 is not about hiding government's blemishes. Section 28 is about respecting the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, something that has been missed on some of the members over there that clearly have not had a chance to read the Freedom of Information Act. If they did they'd understand that those things are put in there for good reason, and we defend them as government even though it's a bill that was put forward by them many, many years ago.

So it makes sense to me that if they're going to criticize our ability to sever information, they ought to read the act that makes it our responsibility to sever that information. Section 28(1) says that the commission shall make its final report, subject to the order in council that established the commission, to the minister in writing. So they've got to get the report to the minister.

Now, the minister has to take that report to the very next cabinet meeting. He has to take the report to them, and he has to say to them: "Look, here are the contents of this report, and we have to review it, and when we have reviewed it, when we've had our opportunity to do it, we have to respect the NDP 's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because that's the law in British Columbia."

That's what those sections are actually about. It's about making sure that we protect the personal privacy of individuals or corporations that might have nothing to do with the case, which might harm a criminal investigation. There are very good reasons for having those sections in there. It refers to them specifically. There's nothing that could be said that says that this is trying to get rid of government's blemishes. I'm sorry.

As a matter of fact, this legislation is the first piece of legislation in Canada that actually requires a public inquiry to report and have that report not just brought to cabinet, but actually into this chamber. I think that's a pretty good place for it to come.

Right now we don't have to do that. Government in the past has not had that requirement. Now they do. Now, there's another thing that happens. Sometimes in the past, government has said that because it has happened in camera or a report comes to cabinet and they

have discussed it, it is therefore not allowed to be discussed outside of the chambers. In other words, they're not allowed to talk about it, and therefore they can suppress the report.

This piece of legislation prevents that from happening. This piece of legislation actually says in it that you cannot use cabinet confidentiality as a means of not bringing this report forward. It says that you must bring the report forward at the next sitting of the House or within the next ten days.

The members opposite have talked about the Inquiry Act and how wonderful it is, but I'm not allowed to go to an inquiry under the old act. If I wanted to go to a public inquiry under the new act, under Bill 6, I could walk in there. Not only I could walk in there, but other people can walk in there — people like the media, people like the public, people that have an intense interest in what that inquiry is about, people that are seeking to make a contribution to it.

That's a powerful part of public inquiries and public hearings, and that's not been permitted in the past. This requires it, unless people have to be excluded under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — once again, a piece of legislation that those guys over there actually defend. They're proud of it.

You know what? As a member of government, I'm proud of it too. But I'll tell you, I'm going to…. If they're proud of it, then why would the members opposite not want government to respect the law which they themselves introduced? They themselves applaud that law, yet they want us to exempt public inquiries from that.

They would have names of children that were sexually abused at Woodlands listed in there, and if government blacked them out, that's a cover-up. Well, I'm very sorry. I don't want that kind of government. I don't want that kind of information. What I want to know is that if something has gone wrong, government is going to have a public inquiry which the public can attend, which the media can attend, and they will respect the good parts — the very important principles behind the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The areas which we would really very much love to see the members recognize is that there are areas when freedom of information cannot be provided simply because it provides too much information on an individual who may have just been a third party to it. Someone who happened to be involved just by the course of walking through life got involved in something, and their name is mentioned in a public hearing, and all of a sudden the members of the opposition want that person's name to be public record. That's not right. It's not right, and that's why they actually introduced that act.

The other thing that this act does is allow for either a study or a hearing commission. There are lots of times government needs to have information gathered. For example, we're doing some right now around the Conversation on Health. Now, that's not a public inquiry at the moment. But what if government were to do something like that — like the Romanow report or what have you — where you need the administrative ability of the commissioner to be able to call witnesses, to bring them into a room, give us some information?

Then you have the issues of the public hearings or the public inquiries or the hearings, which are much more sensitive, and government needs to compel witnesses to speak and give information. What we're doing here is we are allowing for both of those things to happen.

I think that Bill 6 is a step forward. It allows for the commissioners, whenever they are appointed, to delve into areas that are of big interest to British Columbians — should be discovered, should go to cabinet. Cabinet should know if there's a problem with government policy. Cabinet should act on that, and cabinet must bring that document into this chamber for all members to see.

L. Mayencourt: You'll have your chance. Mr. Speaker, the member from Juan de Fuca will have his opportunity.

After the review where the cabinet sees the report, cabinet directs the minister to put the report before the Legislative Assembly in session within ten days or file it promptly with the clerk. The minister must summarize any portion of the report that's been withheld.

For example, there's been something that's been withheld because it's protecting someone's legal rights or protecting a criminal investigation. The minister actually has to give and table with the report a summary of the report that has been withheld.

The other thing about this is that if for some reason government decides to sever information, and someone says, "No, no, I want to have more information," they still have the right to go to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It doesn't get stopped just because the cabinet has said it's not going to happen, or we're not going to provide that information.

The individuals or applicants can come forward and say: "You know what? I want that information unsevered." If they can put forward a good argument to the independent Privacy Commissioner of the province of British Columbia, then he will order that that information is released.

It's really important that you understand that there is no province or jurisdiction in Canada right now that has as strong a directive that those reports have to be tabled. They're going to be tabled in a timely manner.

I don't know where the cynicism comes from on that side of the House, but I can assure you that this side of the House understands that government, when it's conducting a public hearing, actually want to see the report. That's why we actually go through spending all that money. That's why we bring in witnesses. We actually want to find out what the facts are in the case.

When those facts are shared with cabinet, once they have removed the freedom of information and privacy-protected information, then it comes into this chamber with a summary from the Attorney — or whoever the minister is that's responsible for that — of any information that's been severed.

It's not a big secret. This is a piece of legislation that just simply allows us to have a more comprehensive understanding and a more public process that the public can actually go to. I think that that's a very important part of this whole bill.

I think at that point I'd like to just take my place and offer the floor to members opposite. I support Bill 6. I certainly hope that other members will read the Inquiry Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Bill 6. It's a very good read, and it makes sense.

It's time that members opposite spent a little bit of time looking at the bill and deciding whether or not they want to engage in scare tactics or filibuster or whatever it is they want to do, but that they will focus on what the bill says and what it does. What this bill does is require public inquiries to be public. It requires that their reports be released in this chamber after confidential information or protected information is removed, and that's all that it does.

I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak in this House, and I yield the floor to the member opposite.

J. Horgan: It's just delightful to be on my feet here on a Thursday evening, well past six o'clock. Of course, we have new hours in this place, as the Speaker and the members well know.

It's a great opportunity for me to respond, at least in a shortened way, to some of the comments from the member from Burrard before I get into the substance of my assault on this legislation.

I'd start by saying that the pattern of behaviour is inconsistent with the rhetoric. That seems to be the theme that troubles me the most about this piece of legislation. Listening to the member from Burrard, you would think that when government appoints an individual or individuals to undertake an inquiry, that they're somehow dullards and that they're not capable of protecting individual rights and privacy.

They're not capable of understanding that the content of their report may or may not have an impact on criminal proceedings. I would think that if we're appointing dullards to head up these inquiries, then perhaps the member opposite would have a legitimate argument.

The fact of the matter is that we usually appoint very learned individuals to head inquiries. They're not about to stumble into the territory that the member alleges we need to protect them from. We're protecting the inquirers from themselves by allowing cabinet an opportunity to just pass their hand over it and make sure everything's fine.

The reality is that the cabinet is buying time to help with the spin. We know that. They know that. The public knows that. The challenge, I think, for legislators at this point — the second time around for this piece of legislation…. I know, as my colleague from Hastings said, the Attorney General must be troubled by having to bring this back a second time. It was probably embarrassing enough the first time.

Last fall Ted Hughes, venerable individual that he is, did an inquiry for the people of British Columbia. He called the Premier's office. He called the Leader of the Opposition's office. He said, "I'm done," and then he released the report. No time for spin. No time for management. No time for control. He said: "Here it is. We're done." He dropped it on the table.

There was no manipulation by the public affairs bureau. There was no opportunity for executive council to protect themselves from any of the information that may or may not have been in that report. That, it seems to me, is a reasonable test of openness and transparency. That is why we on this side of the House have significant difficulty with section 28.

I know the member is concerned that he won't be able to take time off to go to public inquiries if the act doesn't change. I don't know if that's, in fact, the case. I think it's a little bit of a growth industry, public inquiries. We certainly are calling for enough of them on this side. If only those on that side of the House would take us up on it, we would have jurists all over the place looking into these issues for the people of British Columbia.

The challenge we have, again, is the pattern of behaviour being inconsistent with the rhetoric. We've heard today people referring to comments of the member from Point Grey, the Premier, and then Leader of the Opposition — his comments from the 1990s about the importance of openness and transparency and honesty and all of that.

It sells well — bite-sized nuggets of purity. But the reality is something quite different. We've seen that time and time again over the past number of years.

J. Horgan: It's not nuggets of gold. I know my friend the Mines Minister would be all over it if there was. There would be some exploration if we were dropping nuggets of gold on the floor here.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by a couple who are committed to the democratic process and who have been working hard within the context of that for years. They're in Victoria these past two days participating in a conference on fetal alcohol syndrome.

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

M. Sather: Continuing the discussion on mountain caribou. I want to ask of the minister if the science team recommendations around heli-skiing in mountain caribou habitat that included reductions of some of the runs…. Is the minister in favour of supporting that recommendation?

Hon. P. Bell: The species-at-risk coordination office has not yet brought forward final recommendations, as the member will appreciate. The consultation period for feedback to be provided from various organizations just ended a few days ago, so when I receive the final recommendations, I'll certainly be looking at all of those.

I think that the member should also be cognizant of the fact that we probably need to apply adaptive management processes to this over time as well, and I think the lessons will need to be learned. Perhaps some areas will have to be closed. Others maybe needed to be closed in the future, depending on the circumstances. We want to be proactive, certainly, but also adaptive to the caribou needs as we go forward through this recovery strategy.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister, too, a related question around heli-ski operations and the application for long-term tenures — 30 years in some cases. Canadian Mountain Holidays — that one, I believe, is in Cariboo Mountains Park. Is the minister favourable of tenures of that length of time? What's his view on that?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to not answer the question directly, but I think the answer may be the theme of where the member was going on this particular question, which is if a 30-year tenure was to be issued or currently exists — there are longer-term tenures that exist — are we able to make the appropriate changes that are needed to protect caribou within those tenure areas?

The MOU that we signed with HeliCat Canada does specifically say that. That is one of the components in the memorandum of understanding — that changes may be necessary to the structure of various tenures. Government does have the ability to react and protect areas within existing tenures, as longer tenures may exist in the province.

M. Sather: Yes, that's helpful. I'm wondering, though, what kind of adaptive changes might be envisioned. The minister spoke of changes that could be made within these tenures to allow for caribou protection. What would those be? Could you give an example?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll give the member an example of an area that traditionally would not have been seen as high-value caribou habitat but that we're discovering is currently of very high value. That is an area that was harvested, I believe, in the order of 25 or 30 years ago, but there was a 30-percent retention patch of some old-growth fir left in the area.

That traditionally would not be seen as an area that would be particularly attractive mountain caribou habitat. In fact, what we found is that the opening up of that area has increased the growth of lichens on the 30-percent retention patch that existed. Caribou have migrated to that area because it's a very attractive, very productive food source for the particular caribou herd in that area.

That would be an example of an area we wouldn't, perhaps, have seen as a likely candidate for protection

ten or 15 years ago. But today, with a better level of knowledge, we understand that it may be one of the areas that would be favourable for protection to ensure that the caribou have appropriate food sources.

M. Sather: I appreciate that example, and I'm glad that the science team or the folks in the field found that. But is the minister suggesting, then, that logging is improving caribou habitat?

Hon. P. Bell: I am simply providing the member with an example of a new piece of science we've learned in the last year or two that was not knowledge available prior to that, where habitat was enhanced in that particular situation.

M. Sather: The minister, I'm sure, has heard many requests and points of interest from people in the public wanting to know that habitat is being protected for caribou. We know that there are some access control measures that are being taken. There are some other kinds of measures that are being contemplated.

Can the minister assure the public that, along with those other measures, there will be measures to protect the habitat for mountain caribou?

M. Sather: I wanted to move on to another land use issue — this one in my community. It has to do with an area known as Blue Mountain, and the minister will have some familiarity with that. This is an upland foothill area above a rural residential area known as Whonnock. There have been a number of concerns with regard to Blue Mountain, and damage done to that habitat.

Years ago — not that many years ago — surface water was obtained from Katherine Creek in Blue Mountain for our residential area. It subsequently became contaminated, residents believe, by vehicles going back and forth through the stream and causing turbidity.

Residents now are primarily looking at the aquifer that they depend on in Whonnock for their water supply. It's a shallow aquifer that they do depend on. They have wells there; they're not on city water, so it's exceedingly important to them.

We've had a number of warm summers recently. We've had wells drying up, and there is a concern for that watershed. There are a number of forest removal tenures in that area. Two of them are woodlots. The most recent two interim licenses to first nations in the area have given rise to concern for residents there.

Looking at the issue in the broader perspective, we know that we're dealing with global warming and that it's having an impact in many areas, including water. The warmer summers that we're experiencing, the droughts, may be a result of that. But it's essential that that local water shed be maintained, because right now most of Maple Ridge gets water from the Coquitlam watershed — the reservoir in Coquitlam.

Particularly with global warming, we can't count on there always being an ongoing supply of water from Coquitlam. With the growth that we're experiencing in Maple Ridge, it's really important that that local watershed be protected. That's what the Blue Mountain Kanaka Creek Conservation Group has been asking of the minister and of the government. The minister will know we had a meeting with that group last May here in these buildings.

I attended the meeting with this group on February 26 in Surrey — the Ministry of Environment. It was chaired by Peter Jones of the integrated land management bureau. Staff was there from the Ministry of Environment and from Tourism, Sport and the Arts. This was the subject of discussion.

At the conclusion of that meeting, we were told that there would be a meeting of the…. I'm trying to remember the name of the group. The minister will know, and I know the member for Cariboo North mentioned it recently. There was a subsequent meeting to be held about that issue, and that meeting has now taken place. I wonder if the minister or his staff is aware of that meeting, and what the outcome of it was.

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that information here with us. The meeting apparently occurred fairly recently and at a lower level. We'll try and get that information before end-of-day today and read it into the record. If we are unable to get that information by the end of the day today, we will provide it to the member in writing over the next week or so.

M. Sather: Another big issue, of course, at the meeting that I attended is: who is responsible for protecting the aquifer in Whonnock? Can the minister answer that question for me?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Environment has responsibility for water quality.

M. Sather: This is the curious issue that's happening with this. Certainly at that meeting, the Ministry of Environment did not take any responsibility for the protection of the aquifer. In fact, it was suggested at that meeting that the Ministry of Health may be responsible.

The group wrote to the minister and did receive a reply, and his reply was that they would only be involved if there was a health hazard. The group and, I think, a lot of residents in that area — the community association — feel that they are facing a health hazard. They're facing the loss of their water, yet it's not that they have a pollutant in the water at the time.

How, then, does the minister see that the Ministry of Environment is responsible? That's good news, I guess, or it's new information for me, but it's not what we heard before.

Hon. P. Bell: I may have provided a confusing answer. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for

water quantity. I said water quality. I was mistaken. It's water quantity. The local health authority has responsibility for water quality and the measurement of that quality.

M. Sather: Certainly the concern is that with the removal of forests from that area, they are going to get less infusion into the aquifer. That's a big concern, along with a broader concern of global warming.

I know that the aquifer issue has been around a long time. I've read documents going back into the early 1900s, but it still seems that at this time in our evolution there's no clear line of responsibility. The ministry, the health authority — again, whether it's the Minister of Health or the health authority — will only become involved if there's some immediate concern, like a pollutant in the water.

Can the minister…? I understand and saw that his ministry is involved in coordinating the discussion that's been had in Whonnock. I'm sure this issue must be germane to other areas in the province as well. Can the minister give the residents some assurances that his ministry or his government will come up with a plan where they can be assured that their aquifer will be protected?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm unfortunately going to complicate this even further by adding another ministry to the mix here, but I think I'll close with an offer that hopefully we can make this work for the member.

Under the Forest and Range Practices Act, when a forest stewardship plan is prepared, if it is prepared in an area that has a community watershed designation, of which there are some 600 in the province, there are much higher standards and objectives that must be met for that forest stewardship plan. The decision-makers are obligated legally to take into account those standards and those objectives. Again, I apologize because I'm complicating this issue even more for the member than it is.

The reason why the member saw the member from the integrated land management bureau chairing that is exactly this: the integrated land management bureau chairs the interagency management committees throughout the province. It is the agency that pulls together all of the various ministries that have overlapping areas of responsibility. That's why the member saw the chairmanship of that particular meeting under the control of the integrated land management bureau.

My recommendation and suggestion to the member is that because this is as complicated an issue as it is, with overlapping responsibilities…. Rather than suggesting that the member question other ministers in their estimates, I would suggest that we arrange to bring together individuals from each of the appropriate agencies and ministries within government and sit down and work through this issue collectively, specific to his constituency, at a time that meets his needs.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that offer. That was the kind of meeting that we just had. Interagency management committee. Thank you; that's the name I was looking for.

With regard to the forestry, I'm not sure whether they have a watershed plan such as the minister referred to. I do know that the community has for years been involved in discussions with forestry, to no avail. It definitely is going to need coordination, but I think it's also going to need some determination.

Finally, the bottom line for the community. In addition to the loss of their water, they want to know: if the aquifer does fail, who will be responsible for the costs of that failure?

Hon. P. Bell: The member asks a very complex question and one that's difficult to answer. I might point to another part of the province to explain that. If the member considers the Summerland situation, where that particular aquifer appears to have been oversubscribed, not through any log-harvesting activities or anything but, certainly, climate change…. I know that the member has personal concerns over the issue of climate change. That's impacting the amount of water that's available through watersheds, and this is something that's an ongoing challenge.

Watersheds are not guaranteed for life. There is no guarantee placed on watersheds. We do our best within the integrated land management bureau to plan effectively how watersheds are managed and utilized. The Ministry of Environment handles the actual water-licensing issues in terms of the quantity, as I said earlier, of water that is available to each of the various user groups.

The member points out that we are in a very interesting time, that we all have to pull together and try and manage that precious resource very effectively. If we go back a few years to when the member's hair was dark and I had some, we never thought of British Columbia as a place where we'd run out of water. No one ever could perceive or consider the possibility that water was something that was of limited quantity here in British Columbia, with the incredible lakes, rivers and streams and the rainfall and so on that occur.

Yet now it's something that we at this level of government have to start thinking about and considering. The Ministry of Environment, I know, is very actively engaged. We're looking at watershed management planning on an ongoing basis. So I am unable to answer the question from the perspective of who has specific responsibility, and only point out that watersheds are not guaranteed. We continue to manage them as best we can to ensure water quantity and quality on an ongoing basis.

C. Evans: I think we'll move to Agriculture for at least the next two hours. I wanted to start with some questions about fencing and railroads.

I sat in the kitchen of a rancher a little while ago, Marvin Monical and his wife, in Lac la Hache. The minister might know Marvin's story. After B.C. Rail was sold to CN, apparently the historical relationship — where B.C. Rail would keep an eye on fences and, at

minimum, advise ranchers if the fence was knocked down and, at maximum, provide fencing themselves — ended. Marvin and his wife discovered that when the CN ran over and killed a cow.

Now, I want to get into the legalities of their experience in a minute. But starting — just to make a historical background — I'd like to ask the minister: when B.C. Rail was in the process of negotiating with CN to be sold, was the Ministry of Agriculture invited to any discussions on behalf of ranchers concerning the maintenance of the fencing provisions along the B.C. Rail line where it crosses through ranches or Crown grazing permits?

Hon. P. Bell: During the process of negotiations of the lease of B.C. Rail to CN, we are not aware of any consultation that took place between the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. But we have somewhat limited resources here to try to answer that question.

C. Evans: So then whose responsibility would it have been to consider the well-being of the ranching industry in the negotiations to lease B.C. Rail?

Hon. P. Bell: It's difficult for me to comment on this specific issue because I was neither in cabinet or the Minister of Agriculture. I think it was Agriculture, Food and Fish at the time of this discussion. So I wouldn't have been knowledgable of the discussion at the cabinet table nor would it be appropriate of course for me to discuss that with the member, given the nature of cabinet confidentiality.

C. Evans: Is the minister or his staff aware of Marvin Monical's situation? Did the death of his cow, the failure of the fence outside Lac la Hache and the subsequent negotiations come to the minister's attention?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, it did. It was a very unfortunate situation and, certainly, not one that we wanted repeated. That, along with other communication, led to us working closely with the Ministry of Transportation to try and find appropriate resolutions to the issue.

C. Evans: I'm pleased to hear that an after-the-fact intervention is possible, even if the ministry was not involved prior to the negotiations leading to the lease of B.C. Rail.

Marvin advised me that after lots of letters going back and forth and difficulty, he was offered, by CN, a payout for one cow that required him to sign a promise that he would never ask for any further funds in the future for any of the rest of cattle. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. P. Bell: I wouldn't have any knowledge of that offer or whether or not it was accepted. I don't know whether that was the case.

What I can tell the member is that our focus was to ensure that appropriate measures were put in place to protect our ranching industry. After the change of structure where B.C. Rail was leased to CN and our interest in protecting our cow-calf operations up and down the rail line and throughout British Columbia…. So the focus of our discussions was to advocate for our industry and ensure that they had the protection that was necessary.

C. Evans: At the same time — this was around last August — I think five cattle belonging to Wendy and Lee Braim of 130 Mile were killed, also by CN. In this case, it's my understanding that CN….

Well, maybe I should back up. Historically, if B.C. Rail injured an animal, they took it upon themselves to send out someone to put the animal out of its misery and then to advise the rancher. It's my understanding that in the case of Wendy and Lee Braim, CN left injured cattle to wander in the bush, attempted to bury the evidence of the dead cattle that they had left along the side of the track and at no point made any attempt to contact the ranchers. Is that the minister's understanding of the situation as well?

Hon. P. Bell: We did have a similar understanding through the reading of some news reports of that specific issue. We wrote to the provincial minister. We also had discussions at the federal level to ensure that the ranching industry was protected. We were very concerned about the amount of activity that was going on and the number of animals that were being injured or killed. The incident that the member describes in particular was very disturbing. I was not happy with that performance. I did speak with officials at CN, as well, personally on that issue.

I believe that most of this has been sorted out at this point, and there are appropriate measures in place for protection, but we're going to ensure that we advocate in the best ways we can to support our industry and protect them in the event of this type of behaviour that the member describes.

C. Evans: I am pleased to hear the minister's comments about his own feelings about the Braim situation. I also thought that what appeared to be cruelty to animals and also an attempt to hide damage or killing somebody else's property took this insult to a whole other level.

I have since seen communication from ranchers in Quesnel, from the Lac la Hache Livestock Association, from the Cariboo regional district, from the Cariboo Cattlemen's Association, from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and from the Big Lake cattlemen's association — and I may be missing some — all concerned with this fencing issue.

I want to move now to: what are we going to do about it? The minister has twice said that although he couldn't say how the negotiations took place that led to this situation, he has attempted to intervene since. So

let me ask this specific question. Has the minister managed to reinstate a commitment from CN to provide fencing along their rail line?

Hon. P. Bell: I did actually answer a question, I think, somewhat similar to this earlier to another member. We were very concerned about this issue, and particularly, there seemed to be a series of incidents that took place. We were working with all of the various cattlemen's associations up and down the B.C. Rail line and, also, working with the Minister of Transportation, the federal ministry. I understand that CN is doing a complete review of their fencing policies right now. Although that's not out yet, I understand it will be out in the future.

This area is a direct area of responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation. Our area of responsibility in this is more an advocacy for our ranching industry. That would be the role that we would play, both at the individual tables with CN and at the cabinet table.

C. Evans: Has the Ministry of Agriculture been invited to or requested that they participate in CN's review as an advocate?

Hon. P. Bell: CN has not asked us to participate. However, what we have done is work with local cattle associations and encourage them to make appropriate representations to CN and work through the cattle associations.

C. Evans: I would like to request that the minister consider asking to be part of that review because if we don't ask in front, then we have to comment later, which is never as easy.

The minister several times today and yesterday commented about the excellence of his staff. I agree. They're wonderful people, and they might be a benefit to that process, whereas the cattlemen association is largely volunteer. The expense of getting to participate might be somewhat onerous and, frankly, I don't think that CN is going to listen to them very well. I do think that they'd listen to somebody who had the Minister of Agriculture behind them.

So my question is: will the Minister of Agriculture at this moment ask if his representative could sit or participate with CN as an advocate for cattlemen in British Columbia as they review their fencing policy?

Hon. P. Bell: I suspect that the member, in his indications that there are excellent staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, would also state that that could be because he trained many of those employees over a time, in his time as minister.

I think that the member's recommendation for us to take a more aggressive role is an interesting one. Our role up until now has been through the Ministry of Transportation. That's been the appropriate chain or linkage through government, but I'll certainly take the member's comments under consideration and review them with staff at our next staff meeting. I'll report back to the member on what our final decision is at that point.

C. Evans: While we're engaged in repartee here, I'll just simply point out that there never was a minister who trained anybody. They get the job, and then the people that are there train them. Everyone knows that.

Given that the minister has answered in the affirmative and will consider asking to participate as an advocate, my next question is to the specific. Back to Marvin's situation, where it's my understanding that the CN has offered a rancher a payment, but the rancher is required to sign a piece of paper that says there will never be any more payments. Will the minister consider asking that that be removed from the behaviour of CN where they cross the rancher's property and, when they kill someone's cow, that that cow will be recompensed without any promise that they'll never do it again?

Hon. P. Bell: Marvin has not approached us and asked for advice on this issue or asked us to be involved or engaged, as far as we are aware at this level. We've not received any correspondence to that effect. Certainly, it would not be my personal recommendation to Marvin that he sign something of that nature. If I was a rancher I wouldn't be signing a document of that nature. If Marvin is interested in our input or advice, we'd be happy to provide that to him.

C. Evans: I'll take Marvin's name out of it. I made a mistake by personalizing it. I meant it to be more of a policy intervention. I would like the minister to ask that his staff ask that CN, in their review of their fencing policy, remove any obligation that farmers sign a cease-and-desist letter in order to receive recompense.

Hon. P. Bell: The member has actually kind of jumped ahead and presumed that we will be engaging with CN in their reassessment of their policy, which is not what I'd indicated to him earlier. What I'd said was that we will at our next staff meeting — we meet weekly — discuss that issue and make a call for a decision on it. I'll report that back to the member, but we'll also add that to the agenda item — the issue of whether or not it is appropriate for us to intervene on that at that level.

I will say to the member that if any company, CN or anyone else, asks me to sign something of that nature, I would not. It would not be my recommendation to anyone in the ranching industry to sign anything of that nature. We will certainly discuss that at our next staff meeting, and I'll advise the member as to the final decision on that issue as well.

C. Evans: I wouldn't sign it either, but I make seventy thousand bucks a year, and I might not need the $6,000. There might be people for whom that cash in their pocket in that month is so important that they

When the minister meets with his staff next time to discuss this, would the minister please also put on the agenda the idea that CN, when they injure cattle, should be required to shoot those cattle or notify the owners and not allow them to wander free and injured?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to add that to the agenda, and if the member has any other items he'd like to add to the agenda, within reasonable limits, I'd be happy to do that as well.

C. Evans: One more for sure. Would the minister please also add to the agenda that when CN kills cattle, they will notify the owners of those cattle and not attempt to hide them or bury them and that if they don't notify the owners of those cattle, they will be in contravention of some contractual arrangement with the minister or the government?

Hon. P. Bell: I think actually what the member is asking me to do is consider adding a regulation of some type. In order to have a contravention, we would have to add a regulation or a piece of legislation. I'm not aware whether that exists or not. But the member's theme or request, which is that it's only appropriate for a rail line operator to inform a rancher should they injure or kill an animal, I think is certainly an appropriate behaviour.

We'll take that discussion forward and try to better understand where that would fall within the existing regulatory mandate, whether it's required to be actually a regulation or can simply be an informal request and compliance.

C. Evans: On the subject of fencing generally, as the province develops…. Historically, people had to fence cattle out, and in more recent years people have to fence cattle in. There's a grey line there on free range and where new subdivisions start and where new roads are built. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not there is a cross-ministerial — the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Forests — policy that exists in regards to who is responsible for the maintenance of fencing generally.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to try to, probably, oversimplify this, but we'll give it a whirl anyways. Generally speaking, the Ministry of Transportation has responsibility for fencing animals out of an area — in other words, highway corridors. The Ministry of Forests has responsibility for fencing animals in — i.e., different forms of rangeland and tenure.

We've taken an active interest in this file, particularly in the last six months or so, because of the windstorms and the volume of beetle kill. Particularly in the central interior part of the province, a lot of fencing has been significantly damaged. There was a lot of blowdown that occurred of beetle-killed timber on fence lines, so we've actively been working within in the ministry to develop an interministry strategy on repairing that fencing and updating the fencing, as we have more open rangeland available for cattle as a result of the pine beetle kill.

It's kind of a complicated answer on one side, simple on the other side, but it is complex because of the different users of the land base. It's something that we are definitely on top of as well, though.

C. Evans: I'm very pleased that there's a cross-ministerial dialogue on the subject of fencing, and I would like to make a suggestion. It is my understanding that lots of the fences where I live in the Kootenays were put up in the 1930s and that the fences are made out of split old-growth cedar. It was sort of a make-work project, where the wood was made available by the Crown at the time of the Depression for people to make fences.

They are all rotted away because, of course, that's been many, many decades. At present we have huge interest by snowmobiles and quads and hunters and recreationists and all kinds of people wanting to cross those fences. As they deteriorate and the interest increases, there is greater tenancy and, as the minister said, windstorms.

It has occurred to me that a cross-ministerial initiative to re-fence all that land might be appropriate because of the pine beetle. It would give us a rationale for the harvest of the immature or undersized pine, to get it off the landscape and do something creative with it, and then we would operate for another 50 years with fences in place and decrease the opportunity for car accidents, train accidents — the sort of interface trouble with the recreation industry — and give some assistance to ranching and forestry at the same time.

I'll make a simple question following a long speech. Will the minister please add the possibility of using the pine to essentially do what we did in the '30s across the province at this point as a way to benefit all ministries?

Hon. P. Bell: Finally, we're one step ahead of the member. This is one of the items that is under consideration. I will highlight for the member, though, that as he will well know, in the utilization of pine versus cedar, it will rot out far more quickly. Different fencing techniques will have to be applied in order to ensure the type of longevity that we achieved out of cedar split-rail fencing.

C. Evans: I'm well aware that we have to put stuff on it that we won't mention on the record, in order to make any pine last any period of time, and that's fine with me.

My last fencing question. In the East Kootenay, which is the fenced land that I know best, there is a lot of trouble with recreational users cutting fences and spreading noxious weeds and letting cattle out — because they don't know better — either with quads or snowmobiles or the like. There is….

C. Evans: In the East Kootenay they do? Okay. In the West Kootenay we're not as smart as in the East Kootenay, and there are people who actually cut fences.

C. Evans: That's all right. Repartee is fine with me so long as I get to stand, and you….

There is an initiative to require some form of licence in order to operate vehicles on private land, in order to allow ranchers to be able to turn in that person who is in trespass. Can the minister tell us where that initiative is at present?

Hon. P. Bell: That, I understand, is under ongoing review, not part of this ministry. I believe that it's Tourism, Sport and the Arts, but I'm not positive that that's where that particular initiative lies.

There was some very good work done by a consortium of different organizations ranging from… Well, a broad, broad group of different interests came forward with a consensus report. I know that's been under review, and I think it represents a good body of work. I can't, unfortunately, update the member beyond that because I'm not aware of the status. That would better be canvassed under Tourism, Sport and the Arts, if I'm not mistaken.

C. Evans: I have the same question as before. Will the minister then ensure that some member of his staff participates in that review as an advocate for ranchers?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, I have sat in on some of those meetings personally. I will continue to do so because, as someone who owned some farmland in the Prince George area, I know the importance and the amount of damage that can be done to fencing by quads and snowmobiles and the like. I had some fences that I lost to that as well — so absolutely.

G. Robertson: I have a few questions for the minister stemming from a meeting that the critic here and I had with some wine producers here in B.C. These are B.C. land-based wine growers who at this point have difficulty marketing their products into the B.C. liquor distribution branch. There is a premium of 100 percent returned to VQA wines here in B.C., whereas the independent wine producers here in B.C. who are not VQA members only receive 50 percent of that price returned to them.

My question to the minister…. This is one I canvassed with the Minister of Small Business and Revenue as well. He conveyed that he would be working with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands and with the Solicitor General on solving this problem so that B.C. independent wine growers can have equal access to BCLDB and don't suffer from reduced revenues because they are not members of VQA.

Would the minister inform us of his activity on this file and where he believes it's headed?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to. Actually, I've been pretty involved and engaged in this particular file. I should highlight that our primary area of responsibility here would be the standards under which B.C. wines are produced and the quality measures that are applied to those.

We've been going through a longstanding governance review of the standards, and I think we're nearing a conclusion. I could go into a lengthy history of this file. It's been one that's been very, very complex. There was a B.C. wine authority established last year, of which the member points out one of the groups that has a seat at that table — one of four seats, or five with the chair.

Our role in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, therefore, is more focused on quality, on research and development, on measures and standards around that. However, we do also have an advocacy role for all of B.C. wines, and I have personally sat in on meetings with the producers that the member has identified with the Solicitor General — the Solicitor General wasn't there, but staff from the Solicitor General's branch — in promoting some of the concepts that this particular group has brought forward.

Our focus as a ministry would be primarily on advocacy from that perspective — from the perspective of access to the liquor distribution branch and the assorted margins that are applied to different types of product produced in British Columbia — and then, of course, around the standards and quality and so on, as well, that we play a key role in.

G. Robertson: Maybe the minister will clarify. When he uses the word "standards," I think most people assume that the government is responsible for monitoring health standards and that the wine is safe to drink. In this case the discrimination is around quality standards, which of course are subjective, and the VQA is a membership organization that uses subjective standards to apply their mark onto those wines.

Will the minister clarify that the ministry is not directly involved in subjective standards around the taste or quality of the wines as they apply to access to distribution and fiscal remuneration for those wines?

Hon. P. Bell: I think perhaps the member is confusing two issues here. In terms of how wine is sold in

British Columbia, that is the purview of the Solicitor General and the Liquor Distribution Branch. That is the ministry that would manage and issue licences.

We do have an advocacy role for the wine industry, and we work closely in terms of promoting the product. Just as an example, as I indicated earlier, I was part of a meeting at which the group that the member points out attended. The ministry staff were there from the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, unfortunately, was unable to attend that particular meeting. But we certainly advocate on behalf of the groups and promote the notion of B.C. wines.

The other component of the member's question, in terms of quality standards and objectives, is managed under the B.C. Wine Authority, which is held by act in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. This has been a very difficult file to work with. There was an agreement in 2004 by the four primary components of the wine industry that were represented in the room.

Since 2004 there have been ongoing negotiations. Those resulted in a plebiscite late last year, which passed on the number of wineries voting but failed on the quantity. It had to be a double-majority passing rate. Since then, I have re-engaged in that file and have had discussions with the respective groups, the four different groups that are represented in that.

It was requested of me by all four of those groups to make a final and binding decision on the respective groups. I've done that. That information is currently being drafted and put together. I expect that to be concluded over the next six weeks or so. I then indicated to each of the respective individuals in that group representing the industries that I will present to them the final decision on the standards around objectives and truth in labelling — all of those types of components — and give them seven days to reach a consensus agreement.

If they decide on a final consensus position at that point, we will implement the consensus position. Otherwise, we'll implement the final decision that I brought forward. That's a detailed outline of where the file stands currently.

G. Robertson: I appreciate his update on the situation. We on this side of the House obviously trust that the government will not discriminate between small B.C.-owned and -operated wineries in terms of what they produce and that they are treated on an equitable safe, healthy B.C.-grown product. We'll look forward to seeing the results of that work in the weeks ahead.

Some questions on food security, and this is flowing from questions last year. A year ago I asked the minister specifically what the ministry's role was and what was on hand in terms of understanding the food supply within B.C. and of being certain that in the event of a significant catastrophe or disaster, we do, in fact, have enough food here in B.C. to feed ourselves for a term which would see us through that period of imported food not keeping our people alive.

The minister replied at the time that the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and the Ministry of Health were working on that process — I assume working on a piece of work that would clarify how secure B.C. is in terms of our food supply. Minister, do you have an update on that? We haven't seen anything resulting from that in a year's time, and it would give us all a little comfort that some work has been done there.

Hon. P. Bell: There's been quite a bit of work done on this particular issue, and there is an interagency emergency preparedness council that is chaired by the Solicitor General's office. However, we sit on that council at a provincial level.

Each of the regions has subcommittees with the appropriate individuals in each of the regions. Each of those regions would have a specific plan relating to food quantity and quality supply for their region given the nature of what types of emergencies they may prepare for. As an example, on Vancouver Island it might be more along the lines of earthquake preparedness or tsunami preparedness, whereas in the central interior it may be forest fire preparedness or something of another nature.

So across the province: a number of different committees chaired by the Solicitor General's branch and the PEP group, and we have a seat on that and have responsibility for the management of food supplies. That's done through looking at the local suppliers that are available, the amount of product that's in the community at any point in time, understanding that and then understanding where the supply lines would come from in the event of a major disaster.

G. Robertson: Good to hear that it is in place, that this interagency council exists. I'm curious, moving up a step in terms of the bigger picture and what this ministry's focus is and what goals are set, there doesn't appear to be anything in the service plans that is directed specifically at food security.

Although there's obviously work that's being done in terms of emergency preparedness, which is good, the overall goal of eliminating, as the provincial health officer's report in 2005 identifies, a $1. 9 billion deficit in food security, if it was measured as trade deficits are…. Why isn't eliminating a $1.9 billion food security deficit an immediate goal of this ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: Interestingly, the member, I think, points out a valid point. One of the things my colleague, the member for Delta South, is working on within the ag plan is all the strategies around both the quantity and quality of food that we produce in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: That's all well and good that there is a member of the government working on this. However, within the next three years and the service plans that have been put together that are in front of us here, there is nary a mention of a very significant food security deficit.

Does the minister have any intentions of bringing an initiative forward to address that food security deficit before the next three years go by?

Hon. P. Bell: I wouldn't want to prejudge the work of the member — the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning. We'll allow her to bring that work forward and make a decision at that point.

G. Robertson: The question that's related to local work on food security. I know that in my riding in Vancouver, there is a Vancouver Food Policy Council that puts a good deal of work into food security and local food production, urban agriculture. I'm not aware of the ministry's financial support for local food policy councils or initiatives such as this that address food security on a local basis. Does any support exist in this budget?

Hon. P. Bell: Typically, that sort of support is provided by the local medical health authority. I actually attended a workshop in Prince George last summer that spoke specifically about food security and local purchasing.

We also funded a study on regional farmers' markets that was very productive — in the order of $116½ million a year of direct economic impact. About half of that is direct farm-gate sale of product; the other half, other spinoff benefits in the communities around farmers' markets. That's one of the initiatives that we think has significant potential to expand upon.

We think of things like community gardens, as well, that were mentioned in the throne speech. We're looking at establishing some initiatives around urban agriculture and how we can utilize parcels of Crown land that are not currently being utilized to support urban agriculture.

There is work going on in this area and in a number of different venues. But in terms of funding some of the groups the member refers to, I'm aware of at least one or two situations where there is some funding that's been provided through the Ministry of Health and the local health authority.

C. Evans: I really like this book that the Ministry of Health produced; I just don't like it that the Ministry of Health produced it. I wish it was the Ministry of Agriculture.

There is a definition — the first one I've ever seen — of what is food security. It says: "Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy lifestyle." That's the United Nations.

Is food security, as defined there, an objective of the government, and who is the lead ministry to deliver food security?

Hon. P. Bell: I just was checking because there is work going on around this piece. But I was checking back to see if perhaps in previous years this was an objective of the ministry as well. Going back to pick an arbitrary year — say, around 1996 — we're not aware at any time that this has ever been a goal of the ministry.

C. Evans: If a person chose to be interested — and I think thousands and thousands are — in what they call "food security," defined any way you want it, what would be the lead ministry in government that carries the file?

Hon. P. Bell: As I said, it's not currently a goal and has not been a goal that I'm aware of, certainly back into the 1990s. However, there is work going on around this, and it is a combination of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands that are leading it.

C. Evans: There used to be a program in B.C., run by the Ministry of Agriculture, called B.C. Sharing, which was aimed at the food security issue. It was a part of Buy B.C., and it was to make British Columbia–produced food available to people in grocery stores.

C. Evans: That is a part of the Ministry of Agriculture that has been involved in food security as well as production for a long time. I would like to argue that the Ministry of Agriculture needs to be involved and, in fact, be the lead agency.

As I say, I quite appreciate this book, Food, Health and Well-Being, produced by the provincial health officer, but I wish that it was the Ministry of Agriculture. The reason is that I wish the business of farming was more tied to this issue of food security. I think we have the capacity….

As the hon. member said before, the Ministry of Health identifies a $1.9 billion trade deficit. In other words, we buy more food from other provinces and countries than we sell to them or consume. The business of farming and food production, it seems, ought to be tied to our needs, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food ought to be the driving agency.

Let me ask a specific question. There is quite a wonderful report produced in Vancouver by the planning agencies involved called the Vancouver food assessment report. Is the Ministry of Agriculture the appropriate place for the supporters of this process to attempt to achieve their objectives, or is there some other ministry in government that they need to contact?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm probably not as familiar with the work as I should be, of the group that the member refers to, but I would suggest that it would be the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands that would be working with that particular group to try and meet their goals and objectives.

I will just add one more piece into this debate as well. We're currently in discussions with the federal government on the next generation for the agricultural policy framework, better known as APF 2.

One of the pillars that we are considering and looking at is around how food quantity is managed throughout

Canada and direct local marketing types of initiatives. That's part of the broader range of discussions with the nine other provinces and the federal government that we're currently engaging in. That next agricultural policy framework, or APF 2, would be coming into play in a couple years.

C. Evans: The initiative to have community gardens and food plots available in communities…. Is the Ministry of Agriculture the appropriate ministry for communities to approach on that program?

Hon. P. Bell: We're actually just starting to work on that program right now. My guess is that it likely will be the integrated land management bureau, but it could be a combination of the two, both of which fall under my responsibility.

C. Evans: Is there an appropriation for the minister? Are there staff assigned to that file and funds for them to do their jobs?

Hon. P. Bell: There is on the first nations front. This work has been ongoing for some time. This is a new initiative that we're just starting this year, and we're doing an analysis of what properties are available in communities around the province which could be utilized for this specific purpose and then looking at what else we can do to support community gardens in terms of bulk seed purchases and the like. That work is ongoing, and I look forward to some positive results from it.

C. Evans: So if the cities of Castlegar or Nelson or Cranbrook knew of a lot that belonged to the Crown that they were interested in, the appropriate person for them to approach is the integrated land management branch?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. But I want to highlight that bulk seed purchases would be of the vegetable kind, for the member's edification, in the Castlegar area.

Anyway, another initiative that has historically addressed food security in British Columbia is the Good Food Box. It started in South America. There used to be 16 such programs in British Columbia. I think they are falling off, as there appears to be less funding.

I'm guessing that the minister knows what the Good Food Box is. If an organization wishes to get started with the Good Food Box process…. We did it in Nakusp, so it doesn't have to be a big city thing. Tiny little places can be involved.

Is the Ministry of Agriculture the appropriate place for a community group to go to look for assistance to get the Good Food Box happening in their community?

Hon. P. Bell: I am advised by staff that it would be the local health authority that takes responsibility for that area.

C. Evans: Okay. Just because I don't like an answer doesn't mean I…. I should accept it, shouldn't I?

Let's talk about the sort of huge public interest in "grow local", which is moving from the organic interest a decade or five years ago to people wanting to access food in their own community. Is the Ministry of Agriculture pushing the grow-local initiative, marketing the grow-local initiative as a way of assisting farmers as well as providing food for food security issues?

Hon. P. Bell: The member touches on a point that certainly I'm very passionate about and think has a huge potential for the profitability of our local farmers. We have invested a significant amount of time and energy in developing other alternatives and venues for selling local produce and food products into the consumer marketplace in the immediate community.

Those include a significant increase to the fairs and exhibitions funding to promote local agriculture. We have instituted a provincial level of fair that was awarded last year. We increased the funding, I think, by 150 percent, to the fairs and exhibitions.

We have invested in research and development around local farmers' markets. We're looking at how we can advance that opportunity within the individual communities, expanding to 12-month-per-year farmers' markets, so there's that direct-marketing initiative.

We have worked with the Ministry of Transportation to identify agritourism opportunities, where products are sold direct to the consumer from on-farm locations. There is a circle farm tour in the Fraser Valley that is doing just a fabulous job promoting local products direct to the consumer. There's a wide variety of activities that we have participated in, in the past year and a half. I've just touched on a few of them right now.

I think it's an excellent initiative. It's something that I think is important for us to continue to grow and expand for a whole bunch of really good reasons and something that we will be committed to on an ongoing basis in the ministry.

G. Robertson: On that same theme of direct marketing and farmers' markets, I didn't see a mention of farmers' markets or direct marketing in the service plan — well, specifically farmers' markets. Is there a line item in the budget? Is there a specific dollar and FTE commitment in this budget to direct marketing in farmers' markets?

Hon. P. Bell: There's actually only one staff that has specific responsibility in this area — so just one FTE — but all of the regional staff have responsibilities in this area and work directly with local farmers' markets as well as many of the other staff where there are crossover responsibilities.

In terms of the specifics of funding around this, we work with the Investment Agricultural Foundation, which we provide ongoing funding to. They work with local farmers' markets. Also, we're looking at other

initiatives where we can engage and work with farmers' markets, including the Towns for Tomorrow program.

That is a fund that we established last year through the Ministry of Community Services, where communities of under 5,000 people can apply for up to an 80-percent grant for an infrastructure grant for the development of projects within their communities. That's one of the potential sources of funding to develop some of these 12-month-a-year-type farmers' markets. There are other sources of funding as well.

This is something where we think there is significant potential. The public is calling for locally grown product. There is no question about that. The B.C. Wine Institute is developing a concept around a wine and culinary institute that focuses exclusively on B.C.-grown products. We funded them with some money last year to do a feasibility study. That work, I believe, is either complete or almost complete at this point in time, and we think there are good marketing initiatives around that.

We're trying to get away from the old Buy B.C. notion of kind of a rubber-stamping system that was not adding significant value to agriculture. We're looking for better ways of spending fiscal resources, in a way that will enhance farmers' opportunities to sell direct into the marketplace. Certainly, farmers' markets and the initiatives around that would be a key piece of that.

One of the things that is very positive is…. There was a study that we helped fund last year, by a UNBC researcher David Connell, that did a very, very detailed and accurate assessment. It's available on the UNBC website, I'm sure, if the member would like to go and look at it. It's a very detailed and accurate assessment of the economic benefits of farmers' markets around the province and the number of farmers' markets. It is significant.

The great thing about that piece is work is that we'll now have a baseline data set that we'll be able to compare future year's research to, and know whether or not we're achieving our goals and objectives in increasing farmers' markets opportunities in B.C.

G. Robertson: I'm concerned that in that lengthy answer all I got from it in terms of dedicated resources within the ministry to expanding farmers' markets and locally grown and marketed food was one staff person and no mention of any budget spending that is targeted for that. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. P. Bell: Well, perhaps I spoke too quickly, and the member should go back and check the Hansard record. I will reiterate my comments.

There is one specific staff member that has responsibility for farmers' market. There are many staff members within the ministry that have a component of responsibility around farmers' markets in the regions around the province.

I can't give the member a specific FTE count in terms of if you combined all the pieces of responsibility for those individuals, but it is a significant objective of the ministry. In terms of fiscal resources, last year we provided, as I indicated to the member, some money to do the research around that. There are various sources of funding available to farmers' markets.

One thing I find somewhat concerning as we go through the questioning over the past day and a half here is that it seems that members opposite think it's all about money all the time. Oftentimes you can provide the necessary resources through staff allocations or finding innovative approaches to delivering services. Unfortunately, it appears that the opposition is focused strictly on dollar values.

G. Robertson: I will remind the minister that we're here to talk about dollar values. That's the purpose of budget estimates. We're talking about dollars being spent, taxpayer dollars being spent, and therefore the opposition is focused, as we must be, on where those dollars are going and the priorities of this government.

My concern — in this case, with direct marketing and farmers' market spending — is that it is not being accounted for. The minister describes an array of spending in different realms, some of them within the ministry, and staff time that is not aggregated. There is no specific goal in the service plan around farmers' markets and direct marketing, and supporting farms and their communities to increase local food production, marketing and consumption.

I'm concerned that it all sounds good in a paragraph of answers but that there is no real target being set here and no clear allocation of the funding — which we are here to debate — in the budget to this critical piece within agriculture and lands, and the food that comes off of those lands via agriculture.

Just to circle back for a moment, because I think there is a parallel here to the conversation we just had on food security. A similar answer may be even more vague, there, in terms of the work that is being done by staff within the ministry on food security.

The quote that I'll pull from the minister's responses to that is that there is work going on and that the member for Delta South, in her work on a committee that the opposition has not been invited to participate on, nor have any input on…. Despite the fact that some of us in the opposition have operated farms, been farmers and been active in the food industry for many years, we are not involved that process.

We are not aware, either, what exactly the minister means by "work going on" in terms of food security. Is there a precise dollar value within the budget of this ministry that is focused on food security in B.C., and FTEs that are directly associated with that?

G. Robertson: I will just come back to the subject of the farmers' market and direct marketing. I know that a tireless champion and really a giant in the world of

direct marketing here in B.C., who has been the anchor in the ministry on direct marketing for many years — Brent Warner — is retiring this year.

On behalf of the opposition, I just wanted to extend our sincere appreciation for all of the great work that Brent has done — and the ripple effect of his work across North America and beyond — in supporting direct marketing and really growing that work.

I hope that Brent is not considered the one staff person dedicated to direct marketing and farmers' markets. If he is that one staff person, it will probably take a dozen to replace him, given the amount of work that he has achieved in his career with the ministry. So I'll just pass that along through the Chair to Brent and those who work with him.

I have some questions specifically on climate change. I was very concerned to not see a mention of the words "climate change" or "global warming" in the service plan this year, given the attention paid to climate change in the throne speech just a few weeks ago, the Premier's new-found commitment to addressing climate change in a meaningful way and the provincial government focusing its attention — although the targets that have been set are distant.

Within every ministry that we've canvassed so far, there does not appear to be any direct activity. And from looking at the budget documents and service plan, my sense is that climate change has not been on the radar for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Will the minister clarify whether there are, in fact, budget resources allocated for climate change measures within the ministry, and FTEs associated with that?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the Minister of Finance made it fairly clear that 2007-2008 was a year for the development of key strategies across government, that there was not a significant amount of funds allocated specific to climate change in '07-08 but that that would be the case going forward once those plans are appropriately developed.

What I can tell the member is that for some ten years we've had the Ag-Environment partnership committee working. I addressed that committee about two weeks ago here in Victoria. It's a consortium of staff from the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands as well as key representatives from the different sectors of agriculture around B.C. We talked extensively about the opportunities for agriculture to engage in a significant way in climate change.

I see that committee, and a consortium of stakeholders, as being the lead committee within the ministry in developing our strategies around the support of the efforts through the Ministry of Environment around climate change. Then of course we sit on the appropriate committees, as well, that are chaired by the Ministry of Environment on dealing with the issues around climate change.

I think the answers to the questions are: no budget line this year — that's been pretty clear from the Minister of Finance, that this year is the year for developing strategies — then '08-09, of course, is where you'll start to see more of that come into play.

There is work that has been going on for an extensive period of time already around specific environmental issues with regards to agriculture. We're going to utilize that work group, since it's well prepared to engage in the work around climate change, to go forward and develop the strategies within the agricultural sector to support the work by the Ministry of Environment.

G. Robertson: When you say, "We will utilize that group," can you give the public and the opposition a more clear sense of who that group is and how it's affiliated with the ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: That particular committee is jointly chaired by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, the provincial Ministry of Environment and the B.C. Ag Council. In addition, members on that committee include the federal environment ministry, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ag Canada and approximately ten association representatives from different industry associations around the province, both regional and industry-specific representations.

G. Robertson: My understanding of that committee, though, was that it has a much broader focus. Climate change clearly needs some dedicated input. I'm confused how the minister sees the activity of an external committee actually driving the climate change initiatives that need to take place within this ministry. Is there no commitment to driving it within his ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: What I said was that I thought this committee was ideally suited to support and help drive the initiatives. It's been up and running, I believe, for about ten years. At this point, there are already relationships that have been built between the various agencies. It appears to me, after the speech that I gave two weeks ago and in discussions with the individual members of that committee, that it is the right representative body to do that type of work.

They are also very excited about engaging in that type of work. They see that as a bit of a new lease on the committee and an opportunity for them to engage in a very, very worthwhile and meaningful exercise.

How that will shape up over the coming weeks or months I'm not entirely sure, but certainly I think that's a good representative group to start from in this work. Whether it needs to be a subcommittee, the same committee or a different committee I'm not sure yet. But certainly I think we've got the right body of people in the room to start with.

G. Robertson: Again, I'll restate my concern that there is no one specifically within the ministry who is tasked, at this time, with climate change action planning. Given the scope of the ministry's activities on the

land base across the province, and with an industry that is a contributor to our greenhouse gas emissions…. No doubt the industry has desires to reduce their output of emissions into B.C.'s environment.

It doesn't sound like the ministry has any energy, at this point, going into working with the agriculture industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The minister clarified that there is no spending in this fiscal year, in the budget, for it. There doesn't appear to be any in the two years ensuing that have been committed to in the service plans.

Is there any sense of how revenue will be allocated toward climate change initiatives in the years hence, in the second and third year that we have in front of us here, and how those will be allocated within the ministry? Will there be a climate change office within the ministry? Has any work been done to envision how this moves forward within the ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll try to provide the member with an indication of some of the things that are going on around climate change within the ministry, because he quite inaccurately has tried to intimate that the ministry is not doing any work on this very important issue.

Daphne Stancil, who joins me here, is one of the senior ADMs in the ministry. She is leading the policy work that's being done through the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in terms of developing the policy structure that we will need to implement going forward around climate change.

I can give you an example. Last year we spent about a half a million dollars on a hydrology study in the Okanagan looking at the impacts of climate change on water. That work is ongoing.

Senior executives meet, of course, on an ongoing basis, both on an interagency basis and within the ministry, to discuss the issues around climate change. Last year we spent $14.5 million to upgrade our lab facilities in the Fraser Valley and Abbotsford. We continue to do extensive work and analysis in that lab facility. It's one of the leading labs in Canada now, or it will be once the completion of the existing facility goes ahead. It will be one of the top two or three labs.

We continue to work with the Ministry of Environment, as I indicated, on a senior level around how the ministry, and specifically agriculture, can work to enhance its opportunities within the climate change agenda and what we can do to meet our specific industry targets. We'll be establishing industry targets for agriculture over the next year in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

We have a biofuel strategy that we have been working on with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Last year we funded a feasibility study for the development of biodiesel in the Peace region. That work has recently been released and offers some promising opportunity around the development of a biodiesel facility in British Columbia.

The member points out that there is no specific line item in the '08-09 or '09-10 budget years specific to climate change. I might remind him that we update the budgets each and every year. Last year there was no indication of a $51 million increase to the ministry's budget that, in fact, took place this year.

G. Robertson: With all due respect, it sounds like there are dedicated staff working on this, on climate change, as there should be.

That said, in concert with my comments on food security and direct marketing…. As the minister lays it out, it ends up sounding like a hodgepodge of projects and staff time that's revolving around an issue versus focused on an issue.

Climate change is more than an issue. As I think everyone in this room agrees, it requires a lot of focus in the short term. So my overarching concern here is that there is no focus in the ministry dedicated to addressing climate change, but a smattering of programs and work done with other ministries.

We'll look forward to hearing that tune change by next year. Certainly, it will need to, if any of the promises that have been made this past month in the throne speech are to be even close to honoured.

I have a question here, following up on one last year, related to chemical use — pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers — in B.C.'s agricultural system. I had asked the minister last year whether the ministry was tracking, in an aggregate way, the use of synthetic chemicals and their release into the environment.

Clearly, there's a Ministry of Environment role in this, within the agricultural sector — the release of these chemicals into B.C.'s environment as a result of the sector. There was no indication that there is any kind of an aggregate being kept by the ministry. The minister referred to environmental farm plans and the program that's going, encouraging farms to voluntarily track what they're doing and what their impact on the environment is.

Again, I'm curious. Today in the House we addressed the issue of farmworker safety. There's a very, very direct correlation between farmworker safety and the use of agricultural chemicals. In many countries where it is less regulated than in Canada, there are unbelievable numbers of deaths of farmworkers associated with chemicals.

Does the minister have any update on this? Is there any work done by the ministry in an aggregate way to know what chemicals are being used and released in B.C.'s agriculture sector?

Hon. P. Bell: As I indicated to the member last year, chemical sorts of activities are the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, but there are some very good examples of work that this ministry has done to minimize the use of chemicals on agricultural crops and products.

One of the items I would point out to the member is the sterile insect release program in the Okanagan. This ministry has invested something in the order of $5 million

over the last number of years. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston would agree that that's an excellent program, one that's continued to be worthy of ongoing support. That's something that this ministry has continued to support.

I will highlight for the member that the environmental farm planning work that has been undertaken over the last year has been very good. Altogether, there were seven resource and reference publications prepared and published within the ministry.

There were 993 environmental farm planning workshops delivered around the province, with 3,466 attendees at various workshops. There were 1,302 plans completed around the province. By September 30 of 2006, there were 996 beneficial-management-practice project applications approved and $5.4 million in program funds committed or expended on the projects, worth up to a total of $18 million.

The issue around environmental farm planning is very important. Organics have been a key component of the agriculture industry here in B.C. I think we had a growth of about 12 percent in organics last year. It was the fastest-growing segment of the agriculture industry and continues to offer significant potential going forward.

In answer to the member's question, the Ministry of Environment has responsibility for the management of chemicals in the province. That is ongoing and will continue to be the case. We look for alternative opportunities to utilize non-chemical activities to control pests. That extends actually to our invasive plant strategy as well. We try and use biologicals wherever we can.

C. Evans: I just have one or two more questions related to the food security issue, and we'll get on to other things.

The Ministry of Health document Food, Health and Well-Being in British Columbia provides information which I have not understood. It says that 17 percent of British Columbia's population in their survey could not afford the quality or variety of food they wanted, or worried about not having enough to eat, in the previous 12 months.

The national average was 15 percent, and B.C.'s lower- and middle-income households were most likely to have food insecurity, with 30 percent of the households in the province reporting at least one instance of not having enough food to eat in the previous year. That puts us higher than the national average.

It seems to me that the B.C. Sharing program was aimed precisely at that population and is a mechanism, a tool, available to the ministry to deal with food security, which might be enhanced. I have been into all kinds of stores — Safeway, Overwaitea, Thrifty's — where the B.C. Sharing coupon was either invisible or the clerk had no idea what it was for. I've been to food banks and soup kitchens in Nelson, in my own town, where they had no idea that they had the right to access those funds.

So I would like to ask the minister: what is being done with the B.C. Sharing program to inform the corporate sponsors, the stores and the clerks who the customers interact with of the purpose of the coupon? What is being done to make sure that food banks and soup kitchens understand their right to access B.C. food through the B.C. Sharing program?

Hon. P. Bell: I understand the member's interest in this, and I understand that perhaps it was initiated when he was minister with this particular area of responsibility. Interestingly, in discussion with some folks that live in the greater capital regional district, they've all identified that where they shop, they actually utilize this program and service on a regular basis. It seems to be that it's been very positively received in this region.

In our discussions, if the member thinks that it may be appropriate to see other expansions, there would be an opportunity to apply into the Investment Agriculture Foundation to help promote and expand this program. That's an area that would qualify for funding in that area.

C. Evans: I appreciate that. I would like to ask the minister…. I see in my notes that I had one more Lands question. Are the Lands people still in the room?

C. Evans: I think that I know the answer to this question, because I've had the opportunity to talk to public servants. But I want to put it on the record, because the people in Nelson-Creston along the Arrow Lakes reservoir would like me to ask the question.

There was some talk a few years ago of selling a large amount of Crown land along the Arrow Lakes reservoir in order to put the money into general revenue from the sale of Crown land in order to accrue a fund to build a causeway across Arrow Lakes. It is my understanding that this initiative is now finished and that there will not be a major sale of Crown land along the Arrow Lakes reservoir in order to build a causeway. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not aware that the proposal has actually been cancelled at this point. As far as I know, the file is still active. But I should point out to the member that this particular area is part of the Ktunaxa traditional territories, and of course there's a treaty

negotiation going on with the Ktunaxa at this point as well. So that creates an ongoing, overlapping interest in the property as well.

But we would be pleased to follow up the current status of that file for the member and report back to him.

C. Evans: Now I'd like to move on to the subject of wildlife, which farmers refer to as wildlife damage, around the province.

It's my understanding that the population of ducks and geese in the Delta-Tsawwassen-Steveston area, which increased arithmetically for decades, is now increasing exponentially. Is that the understanding of the minister?

C. Evans: It's my understanding that the population of elk, which increased arithmetically in the Peace and in the East Kootenays for decades, is now also increasing exponentially because of logging and farming and essentially the increases in grasslands. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't know that it would actually be accurate to use the term "exponential," because that does describe a certain arithmetic phenomena that is significant and describes an uncontrolled growth curve. However, I would add to the issues that the member describes in the causation of increased wildlife abundance, and that would be the issue discussed with the member for Vancouver-Fraserview recently around climate change. I'm advised that for the first time ever there are deer in the Yukon territory, which is interesting, I think, to see that particular species migrate that far north.

I won't presuppose where the member is going, although I think I have a sense of it. I'll leave it at that — that I think exponential may be an inaccurate term, but significant growths of population would certainly be accurate.

The estimates of the Peace River regional district are $3 million to $4 million in crop damage in the last fiscal year — summer, fall, winter — from deer and elk, both from feces in the fields prior to harvest and also from grazing in forage and then feeding out of winter storage areas. Is the $3 million to $4 million figure one that the minister would agree with?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have any specific numbers. I'm sure there have been estimates produced. The reality, particularly in the Peace region this past year, is that damage from wildlife was somewhat minimal. That would be because there was a very small amount of crop produced because of drought so there wasn't really anything for the wildlife to get into over this past year. But I recognize the notion that the member's articulating, which is wildlife damage, and we do realize that it is certainly a factor.

C. Evans: I'll just read into the record a communication from the Peace River regional district in which they say: "At our wildlife committee meeting on January 16, 2007, a presentation by the Peace Region Forage Association reported a loss to producers in the $3 million to $4 million range. They did a survey of 54 producers, and 47 of them have experienced high losses. There are approximately 600 producers in the region. While there are varying degrees of damage, there are very few who are reporting no damage."

I just want to debate a little bit the minister's comment that there's very little forage and therefore nothing to eat. While the minister is correct that drought radically changed the growth pattern of the grain crops and also forage, there was still $3 million to $4 million worth of damage done, so there obviously was $3 million to $4 million worth of grain and grass that could have been either consumed by livestock or sold. So there was some production and great damage.

My point is — the same with ducks and geese in the Tsawwassen and Delta area — that we are reaching a point where what was considered a relatively acceptable, troublesome loss for decades and decades in British Columbia is now ramping up to the place where it actually affects the ability to do business in both those areas and maybe, also, in the Okanagan. Certainly it is in Creston, in replanted areas, because we cut down great big trees, we plant little trees which are basically the height of a deer, and then we feed that very expensive plantation to ungulates. So the question becomes: what are we going to do about it?

I guess I want to start by asking the minister: are there provinces in Canada where the Crown accepts responsibility for wildlife and pays for wildlife damage in the same way that crop insurance is paid for?

Hon. P. Bell: I was going to mention to the member that he was referring to the new style of orchards. I think that, actually, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country helped devise the lower orchards so that he could pick all of the fruit in his riding as well. He tried to.…

Hon. P. Bell: Finding it was challenging to reach higher there in the past. As an orchardist from the past…. Where was I going with this?

Oh, so the member asked: are there other jurisdictions that offer some sort of wildlife compensation losses? I am aware that there are programs in the prairie provinces, perhaps Quebec as well. I'm not as certain about that one. We do have a small program that's administered through the B.C. Ag Council, specific to the geese and waterfowl situation in Delta and the lower Fraser Valley. That amounts to a million dollars per year.

In addition, we've been actively working with the Ministry of Environment. The member may be aware that there was recently an antlerless deer season reopened in the Peace area three or four weeks ago through to, I believe, March 15. We're also working with the ministry around an elk opening, and where that will go, I'm not sure. But certainly, we're aware of the situation. We continue to work with the Ministry of Environment.

Normally, large compensation programs like those offered in Alberta are done through the ministry of environment for wildlife compensation, since they hold the act and responsibility for that specific part of the province.

C. Evans: If the province decided to have a compensation program for wildlife damage, would that be GATT-able?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have our trade experts here, but the general sense is no, it wouldn't be.

C. Evans: Is there a point at which wildlife damage to business would reach a level where the province would consider, either through the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Environment, treating wildlife damage in the same way we treat hail or other natural disasters?

Hon. P. Bell: This issue is actually an issue across Canada, as I think the member pointed out. It's currently part of discussions around the agricultural policy framework, APF2. We're looking within the ministry right now in terms of the crop insurance programs and kind of doing that analysis work. With each year that's gone by without a severe winter, it has become a bigger and bigger challenge.

It's going to be interesting — given that the winter conditions this year were a bit more severe than they have been in the past — what the survival rate of the wildlife populations will be through the winter months. But this is an issue that I've met with the Minister of Environment on many times already, and we're continuing to look at all the options of what's available to us around this area.

C. Evans: I want to talk about…. I think this is a terribly important issue right from Delta to the Peace. In the Peace it becomes a bit of an anomaly, of course, because as the minister has pointed out, we have one regulatory regime on one side of the border and another regulatory regime on the other side of the border. So you might have two brothers who own two farms, one in Alberta and one in B.C. One person is being compensated for wildlife damage, and one is not.

My question relates to the TILMA. Under the terms of the TILMA, would the brother in British Columbia, then, be able to sue and stop the Alberta government from paying wildlife damage on their side of the border, given that it's not available here and makes a business disadvantage to the British Columbia businessperson?

Hon. P. Bell: The member asks if a farmer in the B.C. Peace would be able to sue the farmer in the Alberta Peace if a deer came and fed on the crop. I was tempted to respond that if it was an Alberta deer, yes; if it was a B.C. deer, no. But I won't respond that way.

What I will do is point out to the member that it is arguable that this would be one area where you could easily have a discussion around whether it falls under TILMA or not. There is a list of exemptions in part 5 of TILMA that apply to various categories, and one of them is "measures adopted or maintained to provide compensation to persons for losses resulting from calamities such as diseases or disasters."

If I was on the Alberta side of the border, I'd probably try and argue that it was a measure adopted to compensate for a disaster. If I was on the B.C. side of the border, I'd probably try and argue that it was not a disaster, in the event of this particular area, but it would be one that would have to go through a detailed discussion in order to know the level of requirement to be achieved prior to a disaster being considered.

C. Evans: You can see the embarrassment that would happen to British Columbia if a B.C. farmer sued under the TILMA and reduced the excellent protection against wildlife damage that exists in Alberta. Given that we appear to be on a road to level our regulatory regimes, will the minister consider, or ask staff to prepare, a report of what it would cost for British Columbia to pay for wildlife damage to farmers at the same level that is provided in Alberta?

Hon. P. Bell: We're already doing that analysis, but I'd also suggest to the member that this shouldn't be a race to the bottom — that we should be encouraging Alberta to maintain a level playing field as well.

C. Evans: That's absolutely right; I completely agree with the minister. It wasn't my intent, actually, to have Alberta lower their standards. It's my intent to try to convince the government of British Columbia to raise its standards to the Alberta level.

My last question on the subject of wildlife damage, both for the folks in the delta with geese and everybody else, is: what would be required to add wildlife damage to crop insurance? Is it a regulatory change, and if so, does it require the federal government to agree?

C. Evans: Is there an ongoing risk management consultation table between the province and farmers where this shift could be discussed?

C. Evans: Would the minister consider putting wildlife damage on the agenda of the next meeting of the consultation table to discuss risk management?

Hon. P. Bell: I know that the opposition at one time was known to do things retroactively, and I might suggest that this has been on that agenda and that table for some time already.

C. Evans: The minister is saying that this risk management table is already discussing the possibility of having wildlife damage covered under crop insurance?

C. Evans: And could I be invited to a meeting where wildlife damage will be discussed?

C. Evans: Through the Chair to the minister: I don't get it. Why? I'm a nice guy.

C. Evans: I want to stick with wildlife, but I'll reverse positions a bit and talk about bird cannons. I have always been a fan of the right-to-farm law. In fact, some people in my own caucus have been grumpy with me in the past because of my defence of the right-to-farm law and its implications in lower mainland municipalities.

However, for the very first time in my elected experience, I am getting letters — all kinds of letters — from the Fraser Valley, primarily, and the lower mainland on the subject of bird cannons, and they actually come from farmers. Farmers are writing to me saying that the use of bird cannons is becoming offensive. The letters tend to suggest that absentee landlords use cannons and then the cannons misfire or continue to fire through the night, and they are unable to get attention through the historical mechanism, which is a group of farmers that help to intervene.

So my question to the minister is: is the minister aware of bird cannons becoming a more onerous issue than historically was true?

Hon. P. Bell: This has been a controversial issue ever since the invention of propane cannons, and I think anyone who lives in the Fraser Valley, in particular, and the Okanagan, as well, finds that this is a challenging issue. The blueberry crop, as the member will well know, is a valued crop, one of the more profitable crops in B.C., and does require some form of protection from birds.

The ministry has helped support funding for a liaison officer that we work with, who was in place last year and will be in place this year as well, who goes out and works with farmers to ensure the appropriate utilization standards around propane cannons. There are very specific best practices and regulations around the utilization of those cannons.

I can advise the member that, on average, since 2002 we've received between 70 and 124 complaints per year from between 39 and 51 complainants. Typically the complaints, obviously, come from individuals who are closer and are likely the same individuals that have to deal with it.

It is an ongoing challenge for the industry and one that there are no easy answers for. We have to rely on best management practices of farms. Where those are not in place, there are appropriate penalties if the farmer is not utilizing propane cannons by a means which falls within the best management practices.

C. Evans: Would the minister like to put the person's name and phone number on the record who…? I forget the word they use — this employee who goes out and investigates complaints.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have that with us but, through the miracle of BlackBerrys — as opposed to blueberries — we'll endeavour to have that on the record before the end of the day.

C. Evans: It appears to me, and this is purely anecdotal, that the use of netting is increasing on delicate crops all the way from the Okanagan down through the valley. Does the minister have data on the affordability of netting as opposed to cannons?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have the exact data on the expansion of the utilization of netting. There are also other types of control measures, including falconry, which are used to control birds as they relate to different crops around the province. The member points out quite accurately that there is an increase in these alternative measures, and I would presume an equivalent decrease in the utilization of propane cannons as well.

C. Evans: My last question on the subject. It seems to me that the line of demarcation between responsible and irresponsible use is actually whether or not the user is physically present on the property. Where a farmer uses propane cannons and lives there or stays there during the crop season, someone is minding them and making sure that they fire accurately and shut off at night. If they are offensive, they are offensive to the farmer as well.

It appears that those which people write to me and say are offensive are those where there is an absentee operator. Will the minister consider a regulatory change which would require that when they are in use, the owner or operator of the cannons is physically present on the property?

Hon. P. Bell: We have not noticed the same alignment of cause and effect that the member has noticed. However, understanding that it is a concern, we'll be advising the liaison officer of that issue. We'll ask him

to monitor and report back to us in this year's season if there is an alignment of cause and effect with regards to a local operator with the residents in the area of the blueberries. We'll monitor that.

C. Evans: I want to move to the subject of succession planning. I don't want any staff present having me think…. I'm not suggesting anybody's old — okay? Would the minister advise me how many employees there are in the agriculture side of his ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: It's noted on page 52 of the service plan, and there are various breakouts in terms of the number of staff. The food industry development is 157; agriculture and aquaculture management is 83; risk management is 35; executive services, 10. There are 146 in Crown land administration, 22 in the Agricultural Land Commission and 347 in the integrated land management bureau, for a total in the 800-to-820 range, depending on the year.

The member had pointed out earlier, or he was concerned, that he might not be invited to attend a session where wildlife damage was being discussed with industry leaders and ministry. I was advised that's because as minister he used to throw the civil servants out of his office.

I'm really only interested at present in those FTEs that work on the agriculture part of his ministry. My next question is going to be: how many of those employees that work in agriculture will retire in the next five years?

Hon. P. Bell: in Agriculture, 300 direct staff. It may be a little higher than that, but we'll use that number for now. About a third of the staff is eligible for retirement in the next five years. But one of the interesting things about this ministry is that turnover is very low. It's actually the second-lowest turnover rate in government, if I'm not mistaken, both in the integrated land management bureau and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Not that long ago we had to pass an order in council to allow John Robinson, who works in the lab in Abbottsford, to work beyond the age of 65, because he wanted to continue to work for the ministry despite the fact that he'd reached the age of mandatory retirement. As the member will know, in the throne speech there was a commitment to eliminating the age of mandatory retirement as well.

Interestingly, I was in the northern part of my riding last Friday, in MacKenzie, and I had two local individuals, one a teacher and one a civil servant, who both are very excited about the elimination of the age of mandatory retirement. I think July and August are their 65th birthdays this year. Both are looking forward to working beyond that.

This is a huge challenge for government. We do have, I think, some pretty exciting opportunities and initiatives around succession planning. I'm guessing that's where the member is going. But I'll let him ask the question, and we'll go from there.

C. Evans: I'm concerned about renewal in the Ministry of Agriculture, and I would like to know what the minister's plans are for succession planning, for replacing a third of the ministry in the next five years. I get it that some folks might stay on past 65, but assuming the traditional age of retirement, that means you have to replace a third of the ministry in five years. What's the plan?

Hon. P. Bell: This is an area that I really enjoy working in. I think that employee recruitment, retention and succession planning are extremely important in any organization. Particularly as we see the baby boomers moving through that retirement age, I think it's absolutely critical.

The reason I was taking a few extra moments there is because there's a lot of work going on. I'm just going to highlight some of the components. There is actually much more than just this.

Last year we introduced a summer student extension program that brought ten students out of the colleges and universities. I think one was even from Alberta, if I'm not mistaken. Most were from B.C., but I think there was one from Alberta. They worked in all of our regional offices and started to get comfortable working within the public service for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

We're expanding that program from ten summer students to 20 this year, so it's a doubling of that program. We'll continue to focus on that. We think that's an excellent potential resource for attracting staff into the ministry.

We're also creating new entry-level positions within the ministry so that people coming straight out of university or colleges can come directly into the ministry rather than requiring them to get five, ten or 15 years' experience in some form of industry. We have a strategic human resource plan that details all of our requirements, where we're going to be recruiting those folks from and how that's going to happen.

This year we shifted some of the dollars from traditional contract use — where we would go out to contractors and hire them to provide specific services — back into the ministry to increase the FTE count. I believe we're increasing the FTE count by 20 staff this year again, to try and build some capacity within the ministry. We're looking at adding an aboriginal internship program within the ministry as well.

Most importantly, this minister would never throw a civil servant out of his office.

C. Evans: Let the record show that I am in exceedingly good humour and have no response.

Moving right along, it's reported to me that farm cash receipts in B.C. fell 2.5 percent in 2006, which was the sharpest decline in the country. Is this true?

Hon. P. Bell: Staff are just looking up some more detailed numbers, but while they are doing that, I'll read into the record the phone number of Nazam Dulat, who is the liaison officer working on complaints with regard to propane cannons. His phone number is 604-864-2117.

I'll also take this opportunity…. I'd indicated to the member that I would read into the record the locations of the applications for the meat transition assistance program funds around the province. I believe there are 58 of them. I'll read those into the record:

Darfield, Courtenay, Prince George, Farmington, Gabriola, Kamloops, Enderby, Fort St. John, Black Creek, McBride, Cowichan Bay, Vanderhoof, 150 Mile House, Lower Nicola, Port Alberni, Creston, Big Lake, two in Kamloops, Prince George, Rock Creek, Telkwa, Parksville, Redstone, Cranbrook, Enderby, three in Fort St. John, Qualicum, Saturna Island, Cranbrook, Sooke, Grand Forks, Keremeos, Louis Creek, Nanaimo, Salmon Arm, Black Creek, Duncan, Westholme, Cranbrook, Salmon Arm, Cranbrook, Quesnel, Slocan, Duncan, Qualicum, Aldergrove, Black Creek, Lone Butte, Pender Island, Dawson Creek, Sidney, Salmon Arm, Burns Lake and Terrace.

In addition, I have more information that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows was requesting on Blue Mountain. The interagency management committee is aware of the issues at Blue Mountain. Their issues are water quality, damage to their groundwater wells in the aquifer, and recreation. The Ministry of Environment is the head in addressing the potential impact to the aquifer from proposed timber harvesting. They're dealing with that issue.

We do believe an official community watershed designation is in place, so it would be required to manage any forest harvesting with that objective under consideration in the approvement of any forest development plan. The Minister of Health has been corresponding, and they're planning on doing further hydrological discussions. The integrated land management bureau is working to bring all of the agencies together. The IMC will get back to the Blue Mountain folks in the next month. So there's some additional information.

I think I still owe the member one more thing, and I'm not sure what it is. We'll see if we can get to that before the end of the day as well.

On the question the member asked with regard to the drop, the answer is yes. We think it was likely a one-time drop. B.C. is the only jurisdiction that has shown continual increases over the last number of years. All other jurisdictions across Canada have been in negative numbers consistently. That is disturbing from our perspective.

Most of the decreases were shown in the beef sector, which I think we've talked about earlier, but I'd be happy to go back and revisit what we're trying to do to support the beef industry. Also, there was a significant drop this past year in the horticulture sector.

C. Evans: Does British Columbia continue to lead the country…? No, I'll say it differently. Does the number of registered farms or properties considered by the Crown to be farming continue to increase year over year in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: Although it's early to have all the statistics in, we believe there has been a levelling in the number of farms operating in B.C. It is somewhat early to have definitive numbers, but we don't believe that we've grown any further at this point.

C. Evans: Does British Columbia remain the second-lowest in Canada in terms of support for farming, both in terms of dollars invested by the Crown as a proportion of gross domestic product and as a percentage of the budget?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not able to answer that question, because this is a new budget and $51 million was added specifically for agriculture in this budget. Other budgets across Canada have not been released yet, so it's impossible for me to advise the member where we sit as it relates to total percentage of budget or as a percentage of farm-gate sales. That calculation would have to be done after other budgets are released across Canada this coming spring.

C. Evans: Yesterday we were canvassing the subject of Candy Land in Chilliwack, and the minister wanted to come back with more information today. Would the minister like to present information on that subject?

Hon. P. Bell: This is a very complex file. These are just handwritten notes, but I'd be happy to provide the member with these notes afterwards if he'd like them.

In the 1960s this was one of several parcels acquired by the Crown for freeway right-of-way. In 1981 Chilliwack made a presentation to the minister of Lands, Parks and Housing of the day to acquire the 38 acres for relocation of the Chilliwack fall fair. Of that 38 acres, the property that the member refers to, which is locally known as the Candy Land property, is approximately ten acres.

The minister of the day in 1981 agreed to provide the land use for an agricultural fair, display grounds or public recreation purposes. The Agricultural Land Commission agreed with that decision. In 1982 Chilliwack prepared a concept plan for commission review. The commission advised that the application was necessary at the time. In 1984 the commission indicated that it could support agriculture-related proposals. In 1987 the commission allowed a Mennonite heritage centre. In 1994 the commission allowed a forest interpretation centre. In 2002 the commission allowed what has been referred to by the member as the Candy Land development within the ALR, with no exclusion.

The primary reason at the time, I'm advised, was that the property was surrounded by non-farm uses and this was an isolated parcel. The requirements around the activities would be that it would be a family-oriented attraction with guest services, washrooms,

administration, concession, storage, maintenance, caretaker residence, a picnic area, a playground, rides and parking, and that it would complement the adjacent uses of the property, which I think the member is aware of.

That's the history of the property from the 1960s to today. As the member knows…. I believe there is a vacant concrete building on the property at this point in time.

C. Evans: I very much appreciate that information. The minister doesn't have to provide it for me, because I'll get it from the public record.

I only have one more question on the subject of Candy Land, then. As society evolves and we learn and change and get smarter, everything changes. We are now into a time where obesity and nutrition are a focus — correctly so — of the Crown, and the government has an ActNow program. My question for the minister is: does he think that Candy Land, as it has been proposed and allowed, is any more in keeping with the values that we want the agricultural land reserve, the ALR, to represent?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is asking me to evaluate a decision of the Agricultural Land Commission that was made some time ago. I try not to be judgmental of decisions. I try and look at the broader decisions that the Agricultural Land Commission makes and then look at the policy structure changes that would be necessary if those decisions don't appear to be appropriate decisions.

Any individual decision that has been made…. Arguments can be built on one side or another of that, whether it was an appropriate decision by people who have an interest in a particular parcel or property. I guess that's to be expected. I would not want to speculate on whether or not that was an appropriate decision. It was a decision made by the Agricultural Land Commission, and in my ongoing review of the ALC, I would factor into account that decision, and other decisions they make, in my assessment of whether they are meeting the policy needs of the agricultural land reserve, as I think the people of British Columbia endorse.

C. Evans: I think we both think that Candy Land as it was proposed does not appear to be moving ahead. As the minister says, it's an empty cement building. How long does a developer have to fulfill what they told the Land Commission they would do before that permit is revoked? Or is it infinite?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to try and answer this question in two ways. There is no specific expiry date unless the commission applies one to an alternate use or an approved use. I understand that was not the case. There was none in this situation, so there was no expiring date for this as an acceptable use.

There is another angle at this, as well, which is: if a jurisdiction or an individual applies for an alternate use, or some use, of agricultural land and does not execute on the approved use but uses the agricultural land for something else. There is recourse back to the owner of the land that would enable full compliance of the requirements around that alternate use.

There was an application, I gather, in this situation for a specific type of venue at this location. If the individual or whoever may own or lease that property now…. It's owned by Chilliwack, if I'm not mistaken. If Chilliwack wanted to put an alternate use or a different use than what this original proposal was, they would have to come back to the Agricultural Land Commission and apply for a new use, unless it was a use that was in alignment with the original decision of the Agricultural Land Commission.

No, there is not a date at which this…. If they haven't fulfilled what the original plans were, the approval would be cancelled. In this situation it could be applied; in other situations, that could be a component of the decision.

If the proponent or anyone tried to use the land for another use that did not meet the original specifications of the application, then that would be an unapproved use. There is the ability for the ALC to provide for appropriate compliance action in that event.

C. Evans: I'm holding up a large file, and I'm holding it up sort of as a prop. I won't hold it up very long. I just wanted the minister to be able to see how many letters there are. These are letters about equine dentistry. I'm guessing that the minister has a bigger file on the same subject in his ministry. Is the minister aware of the controversy that is extant?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, I am aware of the incredibly controversial equine dentistry issue.

C. Evans: Cognizant that we won't solve it here today, would the minister like to put on the record that not only is he aware but he has some resolution?

My concern is that there are lots of people who think there is something going on that we don't understand. If the minister would like to put on the record that he has a plan for solving the problem and calming people down, we'd all love to hear it.

Hon. P. Bell: I think that the court has already resolved this issue for me by ruling that the individual concerned here did not have the required authorization to practise equine dentistry unless he was under the supervision of a registered veterinarian. I think the issue's actually been resolved by the courts.

C. Evans: If I have more questions about equine dentistry, I'll go and talk to the staff. What I was hoping to give the minister was the opportunity to put on the record that the ministry had no agenda here, other than what the courts were imposing.

We'll move to Buy B.C. Would the minister like to put on the record the rationale for ending the Buy B.C. program?

Hon. P. Bell: The Buy B.C. program was not ended. It was transferred to the B.C. Ag Council in 2002.

C. Evans: Obviously, I'm a big fan of the program, and I think that when it had the power of the Crown behind it, it was much, much more effective. The Crown has bargaining authority with the retail sector, and the Crown has the capacity to advertise and promote and educate, which the B.C. Ag Council does not. Is the minister considering moving the ministry or the Crown back into a partnership role in terms of Buy B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't want to give the member false hope that the Buy B.C. program could come back into government, but we are looking at all the options of how to promote B.C. products. There are different branding exercises going on around the province in terms of how to best manage the branding of different B.C. products in a way that enhances the interest in purchasing local products.

I don't want to leave the member thinking that the Buy B.C. program will be back tomorrow, but I do want to leave him understanding that this is an area of real and significant interest that I have personally in terms of marketing and promoting B.C.-grown product.

I think that actually the member…. Well, I'm not allowed to say that the member was out of the room, but the member will understand what I mean. There was a period some time ago in the last few hours when this was debated at some length, and I highlighted some of the areas where I have an interest in promoting B.C. products — through fairs, exhibitions, farmers' markets and other forms of branding exercises, the B.C. Wine Institute and culinary centre that is currently under review and the potential around that.

There are a number of different strategies for promoting B.C. products. Buy B.C. could fall into that and could be a part of that. It's part of the mix currently, but I just don't want to leave the member thinking that Buy B.C. is the only solution. There's a variety of solutions that we need to bring to the table to promote the use of B.C.-grown products, and I certainly support that and want to continue to engage in that.

I mentioned, I think, already on the record that we provided a significant increase to the B.C. fairs and exhibitions association to promote B.C. agriculture. That was very successful last year. We're continuing to do that this year, and there are a number of other programs that we're engaging in. So we're actively involved in the marketing and support of B.C. agricultural products in the local community. Buy B.C. is part of that picture but only a part of that picture.

C. Evans: Thanks to the minister for his answer. Of course, Buy B.C. would never be the only branding exercise or marketing venture that we would engage in, but I just want to try and articulate a tiny bit of why I think some kind of overarching branding campaign is appropriate in British Columbia.

The Buy B.C. program came into being and grew during that period of time where Canada — well, the world — was trying to figure out how to comply with the GATT and the NAFTA and the free trade agreement. Many of the protectionist behaviours that we engaged in, in the '60s, '70s and '80s were passing away. Buy B.C. turned into a very successful, non-protectionist exercise that allowed consumers to participate in making choice.

As the minister will know, the idea of "brand" requires a year after year growth of public understanding. Once you achieve a certain level of public understanding and people get what it means, then your market share increases. It is such a good way of getting around the ending of protectionism that we had people from the European Union coming here to study Buy B.C. to see if they could imitate it in their countries, knowing that the European Union was about to do away with protectionist devices within their own organization.

I don't mind to say on the record that I think a wonderful program went down because of the partisan nature of British Columbia politics. I think we had to kill it because it came in under the term of one party and the other party couldn't pack it into their future. Now that both parties recognize that it was a wonderful device, we can't get it back because we can't figure out how to celebrate something without celebrating one side or the other.

So my plea is to the minister. If Buy B.C. is perceived of as the idea of one team which he does not wish to enhance, or his party doesn't, then think up an alternative. Call it something else, and I'll get my team to support it, because consumer choice is the perfect antidote to the ending of market protection in the food and agriculture field.

Having made a little speech, now I'd like to say: would the minister like to take the Buy B.C. philosophy and apply it to provincial provisioning for, say, prisons, colleges, ferry boats, universities and other institutions that the province can control — to start Buy B.C. by requiring provincial institutions to buy British Columbia food?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate, actually, the historical lesson that the member provided me because I wasn't aware that Buy B.C. came in through the 1990s. So clearly, that wouldn't have factored into my thinking around the viability of Buy B.C., and I think I've already indicated that there is some value to it. I'm just suggesting that it isn't necessarily the only piece of the equation.

The member articulates the need to have consistent, thoughtful programming. I agree with that principle, as well, and that's why we've extended the farms and exhibitions grants lift a second year and plan to have that as an ongoing program that we're going to continue

to support. We're looking at all the other components that we've articulated already here today.

One of the areas I might point to for the member's benefit is the commitment we made in the 2005 election around fresh fruits and vegetables in the schools. That's specific to B.C. product, and that commitment is to have that fully implemented in all schools across British Columbia by 2010. If the member goes back in the election document, he'll find that that was a specific commitment to B.C. product as well. So I think we're already on that road to a degree and will continue to pursue the opportunities to promote B.C. product wherever we can.

C. Evans: I like it, and I would like to applaud the minister on, I think, the 50 schools that are engaged in a program to feed British Columbia product and healthy product. Would the minister like to comment on my request that such a program be expanded to prisons, ferries, universities and colleges?

Hon. P. Bell: I think there is a point of difference here in terms of what's being done with the school programs versus, as an example, to have the product in the B.C. Ferry system, where it is sold. So actually promoting the product through the school systems, we would see as an appropriate and proper opportunity to promote B.C. products. Requiring it to be sold in ferries, as an example, would not be an area that I think would be appropriate at this point in time.

C. Evans: There are some members who would like to ask some questions regarding agriculture tenuring. Are those people here? Yeah? Okay, so you want to come up there?

G. Robertson: I have some questions related to the ministry's activity around geoduck farming — geoduck clam aquaculture. As I understand it from the integrated land management bureauwebsite, there are ten proposed farms or geoduck farm applications pending or in process listed on the site. As I understand it, the first licence on that list was issued to the Underwater Harvesters Association — the association's research society off Hernando Island, and there are two off Savary Island that are approved.

Can the minister confirm that information and the status of the approvals in terms of the licences being issued? What steps remain for those two?

Hon. P. Bell: I just need to explain the difference between a tenure licence for the member. There were ten sites that were originally proposed as potential sites for expansion of the geoduck pilot project. Of those ten, there have been three tenures issued by the integrated land management bureau which provides access to a specific area. In those three tenures, there has been one licence issued that actually permits the farm to proceed.

So the licensing is the key point in time that actually allows the farm to start engaging in activities around geoduck aquaculture, and there has been the one licence. There are two more licences that are under review on the two additional tenures that have been issued. But those go through a process, and there is an independent statutory decision-maker that makes the decision on the licences being issued. It would be premature for me or anyone else to presuppose that those decisions will allow for farms in those locations until that decision is made.

G. Robertson: In terms of the step remaining for the licence to be issued, is there an environmental assessment or any other process or scrutiny involved prior to the statutory decision-maker issuing the licence?

Hon. P. Bell: I should also identify Gavin Last, who has now joined me from the ministry.

There is a provincial biological assessment process that each individual site goes through. There can also be a CEAA process. Depending on the nature of the site and the complexity of the site, that may or may not be required. Then of course there is the first nations consultation process that is also required.

G. Robertson: In terms of pre-existing, this phase of geoduck aquaculture, our understanding is that there is an experimental research farm off Hernando Island that is permitted. Is that it as far as geoduck farms go, or aquaculture operations?

Hon. P. Bell: The only licensed geoduck farm in British Columbia is the one the member refers to, and that licence was issued in 1996.

G. Robertson: In terms of the remaining seven sites that are in this phase 1 of geoduck farm applications, is the ministry's intention to continue pursuing working towards approval and issuance of those sites, given the amount of concern raised by the communities and the first nations affected in those areas?

Hon. P. Bell: There were ten sites identified in the review of the pilot project, so the potential for up to those ten sites would be considered. No further sites beyond those ten sites would be considered at this point in time. Each site is considered on its own merits.

As I indicated earlier to the member, they go through the provincial biological assessment, and depending on the nature of the site, they may be required to go through a full CEAA process as well.

G. Robertson: I suppose one has the licence issued now. Of the remaining nine, which of those sites requires a CEAA process before it is issued a permit to operate?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have that level of detail with me, but each site would be reviewed, depending on whether it required a navigable waters permit or other

forms of tenure. That would be the decision-making process by the federal government on whether or not it would have to enter the CEAA process. We haven't necessarily gone out and evaluated each site ourselves. That work would be the responsibility of the federal government.

G. Robertson: The website that has information on geoduck aquaculture also mentions an application process for a next phase of geoduck farms. The minister's indication is that the ten in phase 1 are all that are being considered. Does that mean that the next phase has been shelved for the time being, or is it in fact in process?

Hon. P. Bell: As I indicated, there were only ten sites that had been identified for moving to the second phase of this pilot project. If anyone were to come forward with alternate sites, or different sites — which I believe is what the member is alluding to — we would certainly assess that. But at this point our interest is in moving into the second phase of this and being cautious and ensuring that any geoduck farming that does go on is done in a sustainable way and that it can provide for solid economic benefits for first nations and non-aboriginal communities on the coast.

G. Robertson: My last reading of the website indicated that an application process had been underway for an additional phase beyond these ten sites in phase 1 and that the application date deadline had passed last month, I believe, or earlier this year. So I'm not clear how that factors into the minister's answer there.

Regarding these initial phase 1 farms, the ten farms, the minister's staff in the last Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture meeting indicated that the consultation for these initial ten applications was finished with communities and first nations. Can the minister verify that, please?

Hon. P. Bell: That's incorrect. A consultation process for each farm, as a licence is going through the process, is required with first nations communities prior to the statutory decision-maker allowing that licence to be released, if the statutory decision-maker sees fit. So that is part of the criteria of any licence tenure permit that's offered around the province and one that we take very seriously.

G. Robertson: The first three tenures that were approved were in and around Savary Island. I'm sure the minister and his staff have received the reams of mail, recently, from residents and property owners on Savary Island — my office has been copied on many of those letters — extremely concerned about these approvals and the fact that there was no community consultation with residents and property owners there.

Can the minister clarify exactly what consultation was done with the residents and property owners on Savary Island?

Hon. P. Bell: The level of detail I have with me here today is that over a two-year period we met with federal fisheries officials and also local governments, first nations and other stakeholders to find suitable geoduck aquaculture sites. The public information meetings were held on Quadra Island in June and Cortes Island in July of 2006.

What I was going to offer to the member to try and fulfil his need in this area is a detailed list of where all of the various meetings were held in the pre-tenure process — so in the period 2001 to 2005 — on the selection of the original ten sites. We could provide him with a list of all of the various discussions at different levels — who was spoken to, what days the meetings were on, where they were held and all that type of thing.

I would ask his indulgence. It may take three or four weeks to pull all of that information together, since it was over a five-year period, but I'm happy to provide that to him.

G. Robertson: That would be helpful information. I thank the minister and staff for providing that.

My primary concern here is that the minister and myself and other members of the Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture have received volumes of mail from residents in that area — on Savary, Cortes, Quadra — who were strongly opposed to these approvals and to the applications in the first place, but the approvals in particular. The public meetings on Quadra and Cortes were resoundingly negative around the geoduck aquaculture and its looming approvals in the region without independent science and without more community process and consultation, particularly around the siting of those farms in the communities there.

I'll specifically raise with the minister the communications we've had from first nations in the region. Sliammon First Nation, Klahoose First Nation and letters from chiefs and councillors with those first nations indicate their strong opposition to the commercial shellfish licences for geoduck aquaculture in their traditional territory.

I'm concerned here that the minister is saying that meaningful consultation took place. Clearly, it is the opinion of the first nations, whose traditional territory these approvals took place in, that consultation was not done. Can the minister clarify his case for consultation having been done when the first nations, in writing, strongly disagree with that?

Hon. P. Bell: It's interesting that the member identified a letter in the Legislature a number of weeks ago on this issue, and yet we had no record of that letter ever being received by the ministry or in my office. However, we have obtained a copy of it and responded to it, despite the fact that we had not ever received that letter.

I'm happy to outline for the member the consultation that we engaged the Sliammon First Nation with.

On May 4, 2005, the Sliammon First Nation was sent a joint letter from the integrated land management bureau, the then-Ministry of Ag, Food and Fish and DFO regarding planned pilot projects that identified the proposed geoduck farm sites. There was no response received to that letter.

On September 8, 2005, there was a second follow-up letter sent. On October 17, 2005, an invitation was sent to seven first nations about a November 3 meeting to be held in Courtenay with the affected first nations. The Sliammon did not attend that meeting.

On November 16, 2005, a letter was sent to the Sliammon expressing regret that they'd not been able to attend the November 3 meeting. The letter contained four documents describing the pilot project. No response to this letter was received either.

On April 10, 2006, the integrated land management bureau sent an initial referral letter about the land tenure application for a geoduck farm. The letter requested that the Sliammon First Nation provide comments with respect to the application.

On May 9, 2006, the Sliammon First Nation responded, outlining concerns and requesting further consultation. That was the first letter that we'd received back from the Sliammon First Nation.

August 21, 2006, the integrated land management bureau responded to the concerns and invited the Sliammon First Nation to meet to discuss the application. The Sliammon First Nation did not respond to that letter.

On September 7, 2006, the integrated land management bureau followed up with a phone call to the Sliammon First Nation to set up a meeting. On September 26, 2006, the integrated land management bureau and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands staff met with Chief Walter Paul and band administrator Maynard Harry. The Sliammon First Nation committed to providing a letter summarizing the Sliammon First Nation position. No letter has been provided to date.

On October 19, 2006, before approving the application, the statutory decision-maker phoned the Sliammon First Nation to see if there was any additional information it wished to provide on the aboriginal interests. The Sliammon First Nation were advised that a decision was pending, and they did not provide further information.

So altogether, there were six letters, two phone calls, three offers to meet and one meeting with the Sliammon First Nation.

G. Robertson: So am I to infer from the minister's statement that meaningful consultation was in fact done with Sliammon First Nation?

Hon. P. Bell: That was the considered opinion of the statutory decision-maker on the file.

G. Robertson: And did the statutory decision-maker coordinate or consult on his decision with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation or the Premier's office, given the new relationship?

Hon. P. Bell: We are in regular communication specifically with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Specific to this file, I'm not aware whether the statutory decision-maker did speak or not.

But I will just highlight the final step in this progress that happened on October 19, 2006. Before approving the application, the statutory decision-maker did phone the Sliammon First Nation to see if there was any additional information they wished to provide regarding their aboriginal interests. They were advised that a decision was pending, and they provided no further information.

G. Robertson: Well, it strikes me as a complete contradiction to the new relationship that even though there were letters written — and note, we have copies of letters from the Sliammon First Nation to the integrated land management bureau expressing their outrage with the process and the approvals — it is their traditional territory, and the ministry, or the statutory decision-maker in particular, imposing a time line on the first nation whose traditional territory this aquaculture approval is intended to infringe upon….

I think it strikes a really bizarre chord from this government to proceed with these without a clear indication of support from the first nations whose traditional territories are affected by these decisions.

I will move on, noting that the consultation, from the minister's comments earlier around Savary Island…. There were no public meetings or anything directly conveyed with the residents or property owners on Savary Island, where these approvals are all located. I will look forward to the detail on whatever else did happen in that area.

I'd just like to move on to the issue of purge harvesting in advance of these aquaculture operations. The wild geoduck beds are subject to the preceding fishery, where the aquaculture tenure area is harvested of all its wild population in order to make way for a geoduck farm and the seeding of farm geoducks. Is there a TAC adjustment for the same amount that is harvested in that preceding fishery, from the wild harvest that takes place in the geoduck industry? Is there a direct subtraction in terms of a TAC?

Hon. P. Bell: That responsibility would actually be under the federal Fisheries management. They would have responsibility for setting the allowable harvest. I might point out to the member that it's actually the Underwater Harvesters Association, which is the association that represents the wild geoduck farmers, that holds a licence on this tenure. I highly doubt that they would do anything that was not in the interest of a sustainable wild geoduck fishery as well.

G. Robertson: In the sites that have been listed…. I mean, there are ten sites in phase 1, preceding that. In the 2004 DFO paper — the only research paper of any relevance to geoduck — subtitled "Geoduck Aquaculture," there are 21 sites listed, with estimated biomass and historical landing data.

On these charts for the sites, there is estimated biomass. I'm curious if the preceding fishery allows for the entire tenure area to be harvested or only for the so-called aquaculture area? Are the tenure holders expected, in the preceding fishery, to harvest the entire area of the tenure or just the aquaculture area?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that level of detail here with us, but I'd be happy to provide the answer to the member in the coming days. Specific to that site, it should be a matter of a day or two before we'll be able provide that answer. I think I'm correct in assessing that the question is…. As an example, the tenure is 25½ hectares, the farm is somewhat smaller. So are you harvesting the 25½? Or, say, if it's ten; I don't know what the number is…. We'll provide that level of detail to the member over the next few days.

G. Robertson: There is a lack of clarity in the documents that I have gone through related to this preceding fishery. In addition to that, in correspondence earlier this year from the federal Fisheries Minister, he has said that the preceding harvest policy has not been finalized.

Can the minister clarify, at this point, that the preceding harvest policy has not been finalized. And if so, what is the rationale for going forward with approvals and issuing licences without that policy being articulated?

Hon. P. Bell: That's a federal policy and falls under the responsibility of that particular government.

G. Robertson: That's all well and good, but the province is issuing tenures. The province is issuing licences here to operate — obviously, in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans federally — so that aquaculturists can move forward with these operations.

Is the province not coordinating, in any way, the preceding fishery and how it is done?

G. Robertson: I'm not clear that you have answered it. I'll have to try asking it a different way. Does the province have any role whatsoever in the preceding fishery and determining how that is done, what area is affected by it and who gets the yield from that harvest?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll try and be clear. The preceding fishery falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The Chair: May I caution the member. He has clearly indicated the answer to your question several times. So if you wish to take a different approach.

In terms of the activity preceding the aquaculture operation beginning…. Is the way that the province approaches this that they work with the aquaculturist in terms of the approval and the issuance of the licence, then there's a window of time in which this preceding harvest takes place, which is directly related to the federal government and fisheries specifically. And the province has no role in that. Then the province's role begins again when geoduck seeding and aquaculture takes place. Is that basically how it works?

C. Evans: Noting the time — and I want a little help with the wording — we ask leave to report progress and leave to sit again.

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