Hansard — Wednesday, May 2, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		7431

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7431
	Recognition of foreign professional credentials
	H. Bains
	Orbitones reunion concert
	R. Hawes
	Rights of indigenous people
	S. Fraser
	San Patrignano addiction treatment model
	L. Mayencourt
	World Press Freedom Day
	C. Trevena
	Carbon dioxide emission reduction in B.C.
	B. Bennett

Oral Questions		7433
	Funding for Fraser Health Authority
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Health care services in Langley and Surrey
	B. Ralston
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Surgery wait-lists in Fraser region
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Ambulance service for rural British Columbia
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. G. Abbott
	B. Simpson
	Call for moratorium on raw log exports
	D. Routley
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Business community report on government's relationship with first nations
	S. Fraser
	Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions		7438
	C. Evans
	S. Fraser

Tabling Documents		7438
	WorkSafe B.C., annual report, 2006
	WorkSafe B.C., service plan, 2007-2009
	Hon. O. Ilich

Committee of Supply		7438
	Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	C. Trevena
	S. Fraser
	D. Routley
	D. Thorne
	M. Sather
	G. Robertson
	J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7462
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Sather
	C. Puchmayr
	G. Gentner
	N. Simons
	J. Brar
	B. Ralston
	C. Trevena
	Estimates: Ministry of Finance
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston

L. Krog: The member for Nanaimo-Parksville and I are going to do a bit of tag-team work here today. I am happy to introduce to the House Jim Turley of Turley's Florist of Nanaimo, one of our more active citizens.

I might say that surprisingly for many members in this House, he and his lovely spouse paid a great deal of money to have lunch with the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and me today in the interests of supporting the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

R. Cantelon: There are different types of people in this world: people who watch it happen, people who wonder what happened and people who make it happen.

I'm proud to introduce the Turleys — the other half, Marianne Turley, along with Jim. They're the type of people who make it happen in Nanaimo, whether directing the Nanaimo symphony or paying off graciously to have Leonard and me feed them lunch. So please make the movers and shakers of our community very, very welcome.

B. Simpson: I'd like to introduce a number of steelworkers in the gallery today: Donny Iwaskow, Rita LaJeunesse, Dale Johnson, Jeff Bromley, Doug Morgan and Kim Pollock. The steelworkers have joined us again in the precinct, working with government MLAs on their position that we need an immediate restriction on log exports and an emergency summit on the state of forests in B.C. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the precinct.

R. Sultan: In the House today we have two senior officers from Western Keltic Mines: John McConnell, the president and CEO, and Robin Johnstone, the VP for the environment.

John has extensive experience in the mining industry, most recently with De Beers Canada developing the Snap Lake diamond mine. Robin is very experienced in environmental affairs, with a background at De Beers and with Golder Associates in Yellowknife. They are working on the Kutcho Creek mine, which we hope will soon be in production as part of the fabulous route 37 golden triangle mining resource. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Brar: Today in the public gallery we have eight students from Kwantlen University College. They are accompanied by their teacher, who is called only Nick. They are here to visit this very beautiful historic building. Also, they're here to watch us doing this beautiful debate — as to how beautiful, nice and gentle the debate will be. I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

M. Polak: I'd like the House to welcome two of my constituents. Michele Davis and Mark Davis are visiting with us in the gallery today.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the precincts today we are joined by 38 grade 10 students from Mark R. Isfeld Secondary School in the beautiful Comox Valley. I'd ask you to join me in making them welcome.

H. Bains: Thousands of internationally trained professionals, immigrants as well as Canadians, are unable to utilize their education, skills and qualifications to the fullest potential because we as a province and as a country have failed to establish a satisfactory credential recognition process.

Especially during a time of crisis-level skills shortages, it makes no sense. Consider the high-profile case of Mr. Gian Singh Sangha, who holds a PhD in environmental sciences and has years of suitable experience and was declined a job because he was deemed overqualified by the employer.

A recent study shows that 37 percent of immigrants to B.C. have had difficulty finding the right jobs. There are also well-documented problems facing foreign-trained professionals, such as doctors, veterinarians and engineers facing tough challenges getting their credentials recognized.

In my consultation with organizations such as MOSAIC and B.C. Internationally Trained Professionals Network, it has become clear that there is a need to improve access to the existing training opportunities.

Ontario has attempted to deal with this issue through Bill 124. We must come up with our own process for speedy recognition of foreign credentials. To help trigger this debate more seriously in this House, I have given notice of a motion calling on this House to find a solution to this problem in consultation with various stakeholders, including foreign-trained professionals themselves.

I call on both sides of this House to support my motion when it comes for debate. Let us work together to ensure a better future for immigrants to B.C. and a better future for our province.

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, the parking lot was filled with pickup trucks, and you could see the lights glinting off the slicked-back ducktails as the hall filled up. The smell of Brylcreem was in the air. That was 1957, and the Orbitones were set to rock out on another Saturday night at DeRoche Hall.

Flash ahead. The parking lot is filled with pickup trucks, and you can see the lights glinting off the bare scalps as the hall fills up. The smell of A535 arthritis rub is in the air. That was last Saturday, and the Orbitones were set to rock out on their 50th anniversary reunion at DeRoche Hall.

From 1957 to 1979 the Orbitones filled community halls throughout the Fraser Valley with their versions of Buddy Holly, Fats Domino and Ritchie Valens. Saturday night, four of the Dumerest brothers were on stage with the original drummer Bill Young, bassists Izzie Oystrick and Ron Shoerfet both taking turns on the bass. It didn't matter to the crowd that a few notes might have been missed. The dance floor was filled right from the first dance.

As I watched the magic of old school chums getting reacquainted after 30 or 40 years, and as I gazed at a 50-year-old photo of the Orbitones, I couldn't help but wonder if anyone so young in '57 ever thought about how they would look this many years later.

I also had to wonder if our kids, years from now, would shuffle into a hall somewhere and dance to the music — or the metal — of Metallica or Black Sabbath or maybe the rap of Snoop Dogg. Somehow I doubt it.

As this spring session comes to a conclusion quite rapidly, it is important that we reflect on and address some unfinished business. Last fall we raised in this House the importance of adding our province to the list of signatories supporting the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. British Columbia's aboriginal leaders have spoken strongly in favour of this resolution and await our non-partisan and bipartisan support on behalf of all the people of British Columbia.

Indigenous people and UN member states have been working on this important initiative for 20 years, and it is long overdue. The B.C. Legislature's recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples would advance the human rights council's work to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, including the world's indigenous peoples.

It is important that B.C. assists in this declaration's adoption before the end of the 61st session in September of this year, as recommended by the UN Human Rights Council. So let us unite as a legislature on this important issue and ensure that we can celebrate collectively our role in advancing and promoting human rights and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples in British Columbia, in Canada and all over the world.

L. Mayencourt: I'm talking today about a village in central Italy called San Patrignano, but before I do, I want to say a little bit about British Columbia. In British Columbia we have about 1,000 beds for people that are going through addictions treatment, scattered throughout the province.

It's a great effort, and there are some wonderful people working on it. But the sad truth of the matter is that 85 percent of the people that go through our treatment program will fail within three months and be back using alcohol or drugs or some other substance.

One of the reasons they do that is because they are sent back to the community, often the same terrible community in which they gained their drug addictions. They've also got a lifetime in which they've separated from family and friends and their jobs and everything.

San Patrignano is a model that I'd like to bring to British Columbia because it allows for a longer-term recovery program for individuals living with an addiction. It teaches them not only the ins and outs of surviving their addiction, but it also teaches them vocational skills, how to reconnect with community, how to reunite with family.

I hope that this September, I will be able to open the first model of this project called New Hope. It will be located just southwest of Prince George. Our first facility will accommodate 100 individuals that have gone through treatment programs, and they will come to live at New Hope for a longer period of time.

I'm very excited about the possibility of this particular model being used not just in the Northern Health Authority but in each of the health authorities across British Columbia.

C. Trevena: Tomorrow marks World Press Freedom Day. This House may have a love-hate relationship with members of the gallery and others in the media. I would hope, however, that we all recognize that an independent free media is central to our democratic system.

The media are the eyes and the ears of the public. They're the fourth estate. They're the watchdog and the guardians of the public interest. We're very lucky in Canada and in much of the West, where the media can work freely to report on what's happening without fear of censorship, intimidation or, in the worst case, death.

We hear of high-profile cases where journalists have been killed for uncovering the truth, for telling the stories that the authorities don't want to hear — most recently, Anna Politkovskaya in Russia. We also hear of those terrifying cases where journalists are kidnapped and killed, such as the Washington Post's Daniel Pearl.

This year the International Federation of Journalists is calling for World Press Freedom Day to be marked by the release of journalists in jail or kept hostage. For many, Alan Johnston has become the symbol of those taken hostage. Alan is a BBC World Service correspondent, the only western reporter to be based full-time in Gaza. Just a couple of weeks before he was due to leave, he was kidnapped.

Alan is a good reporter and greatly respected for working and living in Gaza. The calls for his release have been echoing around the world for the last 51 days. There have been protests by journalists within Gaza and in Britain.

Alan is not alone. There are journalists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia and around the world who have been kidnapped. It's becoming frighteningly routine, and it's a terrifying way to censor the media and censor people's access to information.

As we approach World Press Freedom Day, I would hope this House will agree to continue to respect journalists and their work and to join the calls for the release of those kidnapped who are doing their job, trying to shed light on what's happening in the world.

B. Bennett: Climate change is the hot topic of the day. We all know that the world's climate is warming. We all know there are serious implications from that warming. We know that a great many reputable scientists around the world believe that human-caused carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming.

We also know there are reputable scientists who offer evidence that CO₂ is not the culprit. All I know as a legislator is that there seem to be more scientists on the CO₂ side than on the other side, and I say that knowing that science is not about consensus.

We also know that Canada contributes a tiny percentage of that human-caused CO₂, and that could lead rational minds to conclude that whatever we do in Canada will not make a meaningful difference. Should B.C. just forget about climate change and CO₂? Our answer is clearly no. B.C. is a progressive and prosperous jurisdiction. We have an obligation to reduce our CO₂ emissions in this province, and B.C. is taking a leadership role.

We're reducing our emissions by 33 percent by 2020, we're implementing our green cities agenda, we're expanding transit service in the communities across this province, and we're also making sure that all electricity production in the province will have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

Recently, we joined the western regional climate action initiative, a coalition of five western U.S. states and now one Canadian province united in the common goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

B.C. is leading in Canada and in many respects leading in North America. We will do the right thing without undermining our economy and without putting the complete burden of this on any one sector — government, business and individuals.

Let's be proud that we in British Columbia accept our responsibility, and let's make sure that our economy is here to support our efforts to be good citizens of this warming world.

A. Dix: The crisis in the Fraser Health Authority, the result of this government's neglect, is growing. A copy of an April 19 letter from Fraser Health CEO Keith Anderson obtained by the opposition states that the authority is having to make $65 million in cuts this year as a direct result of this government's budget. Mr. Anderson goes on to say: "We recognize that this means many of the good ideas and opportunities we would like to seize on, on behalf of patients, will have to be set aside."

My question to the Minister of Health is simple. What services will be cut, and how many beds will be closed to make up for the deficit this government created?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's great to see the opposition Health critic returning from his self-imposed exile which began on March 1, the last time he asked a question. So I'm really honoured to get one today. [Applause.] Yeah, give him a hand — great.

He has obviously been doing his homework during this period of exile. I was astonished that he was able to come up with this leaked memo. It was only distributed last week to 22,000 employees at the Fraser Health Authority. Of course, the Finance Minister didn't do me many favours by including it on page 39 of the budget documents that were presented to 4.2 million British Columbians on February 19.

Hon. G. Abbott: But I'm glad to advise the member that the chair, the board and the senior administration at Fraser Health Authority are doing a wonderful job. They are very shortly going to present us with a balanced budget plan which will not in any way compromise patient care.

A. Dix: In January both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Purchase, the former chair of the board who resigned in protest because of this minister and this government's incompetence, outlined that bed closures and service cuts would result from the government's failure to provide adequate funding. The funding shortfall meant bed closures in January, and it means bed closures now. Patient care is at risk.

Hon. Speaker, I'll meet the minister halfway. I'll meet him halfway. He may be right; I may be right. Why doesn't he table that letter today from Mr. Anderson so residents of the Fraser Valley, residents of the Fraser Health Authority, can find out the truth about this government's plans for their health care system?

Hon. G. Abbott: When we took office in the province of British Columbia, the health care operations budget for the entire province was $8.3 billion. Today….

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if you're going to make comments, make them from your own seat, please.

Hon. G. Abbott: When we took office, the Health budget was $8.3 billion. Today it is $13.1 billion for health care in British Columbia. Year over year Fraser Health Authority has enjoyed a 7.3-percent budget increase. As well, they are able to access their share of the $100 million health innovation fund. Health has never been funded better in the province.

A. Dix: Well, you know, hon. Speaker, it's true in March, it's true in April, and it's true in May….

A. Dix: It's true in March, April or May that the minister still doesn't answer any question that we put to him. It's simple. No one believes the minister — not Keith Purchase, who the Premier appointed as head of that board; not Keith Anderson; not Trevor Johnstone; not doctors, nurses or patients in the Fraser Health Authority, who have to deal with these issues every single day.

This will be of interest to government members from Langley. Doctors at Langley Memorial Hospital today expressed their non-confidence in the minister, their non-confidence in what's going on in the Fraser Health Authority and their crisis in providing care for patients.

I would ask the minister: will he come clean? Will he tell the truth in this House, come clean and table the letter that Keith Anderson sent him so that people in the region — doctors, patients and everyone in the region — can find out the truth about his plans?

Hon. G. Abbott: Here's the truth about health care in British Columbia and in the Fraser Health Authority. Never, ever have we had better health care. That's been confirmed by the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board of Canada says we're number one and by a large margin — number one in Canada in health care delivery.

The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada — B.C. is number one in Canada. Now the Wait Time Alliance of Canada says B.C. is number one — best in cancer, best in cardiac, best in cataracts. We're number one.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister of Health. Keith Purchase, the former chair of the board, stated in his letter of resignation: "This year's budget process has been totally unacceptable." The doctors at Langley Memorial stated earlier today: "The medical staff at Langley Memorial cannot support continuing to do more with less. The impact of doing so will jeopardize our ability to deliver quality care to our patients and meet the needs of our growing population."

How does the Minister of Health expect the doctors of Langley Memorial to support their patients when the health budget is in such a mess?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we attempted to do in our discussions with health authorities, in preparation for the budget that was presented on February 17 in this House, was to discuss — at an earlier date than had ever been the case before — the figures that they would be probably working with in the year ahead. The earliness with which that discussion occurred did present some issues, but I have resolved and have committed with the chairs of the health authorities that we will improve that process in the coming year. I have no doubt about that.

I will put up that record any day against an NDP government that chronically in the 1990s was advising health authorities, months after the fiscal year commenced, what budget they were going to be working with that year.

B. Ralston: Sure, the Minister of Health had negotiations with the chair of Fraser Health. When he didn't like the answers, he fired him. When he didn't like the answers he got from the chair of the Vancouver Coastal, he fired him as well. Some negotiation.

This year's provincial budget was prefaced by an exceptional series of notes attempting to explain why the budget didn't meet B.C.'s budget laws. The government's budget documents didn't get sign-off from the chairs of Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health.

Doesn't the minister agree that the public in Surrey and Langley have the right to know how his budget mess will affect health care in their region?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, apparently the member must be leaning on the opposition Health critic for his homework. The Fraser Health Authority chair was not fired. He resigned.

The issue with respect to budgets. Again, what we have done in moving budgets in this province from $8.3 billion that we had on coming into office to $13.1 billion today is provide both transparency and sustainability to health authorities across the province.

We have not seen, and we will not see, a record like this: in 1996, $81 million over budget in health; in 1997, $100 million over budget in health; in 1999, $170 million over budget in health; February 2000, $217 million over budget in health; November 2000, another $290 million over budget in health. We have….

Hon. G. Abbott: We have better budget management than ever before in the history of British Columbia. We have stronger and more capable health authorities than ever before in British Columbia. We have the best health system ever in the province.

C. Puchmayr: As a consequence of the mess created by this government, people in British Columbia continue to suffer while waiting for surgery.

One of my constituents, a mother of four children, is waiting for serious back surgery. She was bumped on March 8. She was again bumped on April 6 and again bumped on April 26. She has now been tentatively rescheduled for May 10.

It was this government that reduced the surgical capacity in the Fraser Health Authority. When will the minister deal with the crises that he has created in the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, the member is flat-out wrong. There has never been more surgery performed in the Fraser Health Authority than there is in the current fiscal year — never.

Last year we performed a record number of surgeries in this province — over half a million, over 500,000 surgeries performed in this province. The member, I'm sure, can pick out one case or two where, because of special circumstances in an emergency room or elsewhere, a surgery was delayed. We always regret those, but there are 500,000 surgeries undertaken in this province, including a record number — over 10,000 hip and knee surgeries for the first time in the history of the province of British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: This patient is also a registered nurse — a registered nurse that is waiting for surgery. She is a health care practitioner that cannot function in the health care system while she is waiting for surgery.

This is not isolated. One of the doctors had alluded to having all of his surgeries cancelled in February — every single surgery cancelled in February. This isn't just a one-off; this is happening every day in the Fraser Health Authority.

What will the minister do to bring some confidence back into the health authority and provide health care as the Premier had said — when you need it and where you need it?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member is wrong. We actually followed up on the case that the member laid out there. I'm glad to get the member the information. But what we know is that during the month in question, the surgeries that were cancelled were elective surgeries and that there were more than a usual number of essential surgeries being done during that time.

The member is wrong. I'm sorry that I have to advise the House of that, but as is consistent with that side of the House, his homework is flawed. In fact, we are doing more surgeries than ever before in the Fraser Health Authority and than at any time in the history of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: Normal protocol for 911 fire calls in many areas of the province is to dispatch an ambulance to the scene to monitor the health and safety of firefighters. Last Friday there was a house fire in 108 Mile House, and no ambulance arrived.

To the Minister of Health: was this part of the ongoing dispatch problem in Kamloops or the ongoing shortage of ambulances in the region?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. We have been following this issue with much interest. It's very important to have the details here.

First of all, the fire department was dispatched to the fire at 108 Mile House because of a fire. There was no indication at the time….

Hon. G. Abbott: No, the members may want to get this right. There was no indication at the time of the fire dispatch that there was a medical issue. The medical issue was discovered when the fire department got to the fire. When they got to the fire, they found a gentleman who was in cardiac distress. Fortunately, one of the volunteer firemen who attended the fire was an off-duty paramedic. There was also an emergency registered nurse at the scene, fortuitously. They both began CPR on the victim at that time. There was not an opportunity to call an ambulance in a timely way. They made a decision that they would take….

Hon. G. Abbott: The members may find this funny. I think it is a tragic situation, and I would think that they would want to take the time to get the facts.

Hon. G. Abbott: The patient got to the hospital as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. Regrettably, he passed away. But all of the people who attended that scene did their very best in an extraordinarily difficult situation.

B. Simpson: I agree with the minister that all of the people at the scene did their very best. We are not talking about what those individuals did or the tragedy that occurred. We're talking about the failure to follow normal protocol. Those firefighters expected, when they showed up at that house fire, to have an ambulance there — first and foremost, for them. That's the normal protocol for that region — to monitor their health as they wear their Scott packs and as they deal with the structural fire.

When they arrived, they then called 911 three times. Three times they pleaded for an ambulance to be sent to that scene. To the Minister of Health: why was no ambulance dispatched?

Hon. G. Abbott: I explained the circumstances of this, up to the time that the fire crew arrived and discovered a man who was in cardiac distress. At that point there was a call placed for an ambulance. Both ambulances from 100 Mile House were involved in patient responses at that time. They were both tied up.

At that point the members who were attending from the fire department, and I have noted them — the off-duty paramedic and the emergency nurse, who was also fortuitously on scene — made a decision. I am sure it was a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. But they made a decision — and it was a correct decision — that the most important thing they could do would be to get the cardiac victim to hospital as quickly as possible.

They did that in a fire vehicle. They were able to undertake CPR on the victim through that turn, and they were able to get the victim to the hospital in 21 minutes — far faster than would have been the case had an ambulance even been readily available at 100 Mile House.

Again, I hope the members are not playing politics with an issue where health care professionals and fire professionals did their very best to help a victim in a tragic situation.

B. Simpson: The only one playing politics with this situation is the minister. When he has the audacity….

B. Simpson: When the minister has the audacity to speak about that situation and give us the time and everything else…. If an ambulance had been dispatched as per protocol, it would have been on site, it would have been with the firefighters, and he would have been transported in ambulatory care directly to the hospital.

This individual was a spouse of one of their own. These firefighters were put in an untenable situation, and they've subsequently had to have support, through WorkSafe support mechanisms, for that critical incident.

The day before this incident happened, this minister stated in this House: "Exceptional ambulance services are being provided every day of the year by the B.C. Ambulance Service." Why was the exceptional ambulance service…?

B. Simpson: That's playing politics with this issue. I'm sure the family of this person does not appreciate having this kind of applause when that person lost their life because an ambulance was not there, as per protocol.

My question to the minister is very simple. When will the minister admit that the restructuring of the B.C. Ambulance Service did not work and is not working, and when will he do something about it so that we don't have more incidents like this in rural British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: Ambulance service has never been better in the province. I am entirely supportive of the leadership at the B.C. Ambulance Service. I am entirely supportive of the paramedics who work tirelessly every day to provide exceptional service to British Columbians. Response times have never been better in the interior and the north of British Columbia.

Again, let me say this, because this is very important. It was at 1319 that a code 3 call went to B.C. Ambulance Service. That's 1:19 in the afternoon that the call, code 3, went out. The fire department believed that they were responding to a fire at a residence. They had no idea there was an issue with respect to the need for an ambulance.

The call for an ambulance came at 1319. Appropriately, the discussion occurred between dispatch and the crew in the field that both ambulances in 100 Mile House were engaged in patient calls. At that point the health professionals and the people at the scene made the appropriate decision, which I believe was entirely supportable.

D. Routley: Raw logs are being exported directly from more and more of our coastal communities. Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Cowichan Bay have all had ships loaded with raw logs for export directly from their harbours. This is happening right in front of our closed and curtailed mills. We're used to seeing hun-

dreds of truckloads per day. Now we see freighter after freighter of raw logs leaving our communities, and our jobs along with them.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: when will he stop talking about doing something and act to stop the flow of raw logs from our communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed this in the House a number of times. The member knows there's a coast recovery plan coming forward very shortly. Along with it will be a policy on raw log exports.

D. Routley: More words, more promises, more "we're gonnas" and more reports.

Revitalization 1 failed, the industry is in chaos, our mills are closed, we've lost our jobs, and lives have been lost. At the recent Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities meeting, the local governments voted overwhelmingly to support a resolution calling on the government to impose an immediate moratorium on log exports.

Now we see the same closed-loop approach of revitalization 1 being applied to this revitalization effort — communities being left out. Will the minister respect the wishes of coastal communities and act to impose an immediate moratorium on raw log exports?

Hon. R. Coleman: A couple of days ago I met with people who are actually operating in the bush in British Columbia. I know that the members over there don't want to admit this, but there are 28,000 people affected by the fact that we cut logs in British Columbia. There are people in this province who would be out of work if you banned all raw log exports. In actual fact, by cutting some profile, you actually get another profile to keep a mill open somewhere else in the province, and you protect the jobs.

Hon. R. Coleman: About 10,000 more people actually fix, maintain, operate and sell the equipment that goes into logging in British Columbia. I mean, the member is talking about a ban on raw log exports. But on Voice of B.C. on March 30 the Leader of the Opposition said this: "I don't think that it's possible to look at a complete ban, but we do need a reduction. We do need a reduction."

Hon. Member, log exports are down by 700,000 cubic metres in the first quarter of 2007.

S. Fraser: I know that the Kwakiutl First Nation has some issues with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Regarding the new relationship, to the minister: what feedback has he had from the business community regarding this government's handling of the new relationship?

Hon. M. de Jong: Truly, thank you to the member for the question. All British Columbians, including people in the business community, appreciate the fact that this government under this Premier has taken unprecedented steps to create a new relationship with British Columbia's aboriginal….

They understand that the time has come for us to stand together and bridge the socioeconomic gap that for too long has separated B.C.'s aboriginal people from the mainstream. British Columbians, right from the north to the south and the east to the west, have committed to working with us and to working with our partners in the aboriginal communities and the first nations communities to ensure that we continue to lead Canada in effecting true reconciliation with B.C.'s first nations.

S. Fraser: Well, I appreciate the minister's oratory skills, but he's been very selective and very evasive. Those are problems that certainly have already been alluded to by the Auditor General in this government's handling of the treaty process. Certainly, the Sliammon First Nation and the Kwakiutl First Nation seem to agree with the business community on this government's lack of vision and direction.

This is to the question that I put, which was not answered. According to the New Relationship Business Group, in their recent perspective paper…. This is the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Business Council, B.C. Mining, and the list is long. I don't have time. They cite this government's lack of policy, direction and shared vision that is frustrating ministry officials, first nations and industry.

The minister must have a copy of the report. It was released in January. How has the minister responded to these grave concerns, and will he release that response?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am more thrilled than I can tell you about the opportunity to have this kind of ex-

change with the member, because it actually represents an opportunity for us to begin to get a sense of the differences in opinion that exist on this matter.

Over on this side of the House we not only supported, initiated…. We voted for a $100 million new relationship trust, and they voted against it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Over on this side of the House we embraced the strategy built around the transformative change document that is represented in a number of protocols in health care and education. Over on this side of the House we voted for it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, on this side of the House we applaud, we embrace and we support the work that has been undertaken at treaty tables, which has led to final agreements. We support that. We still don't know what the position of the opposition is on that fundamentally important question.

M. Karagianis: In the gallery today we have two guests: Jim Bennett, who is the government relations coordinator for the Victoria Real Estate Board and the British Columbia Real Estate Association, and his guest Mr. Steve Francks, who is the chief executive officer of the Washington State association of realtors. Could we please make a good welcome to them.

C. Evans: On behalf of the member for Skeena, I'd like to welcome Chief Councillor Gary Williams, social development worker Clifford Sampere, and economic and development officer Alice Morgan, who are visiting today from Gitwangak. By the way, it's Cliff Sampere's birthday today. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Evans: We all table petitions all the time. It's rare to get to table a petition in which the community isn't asking for something, but volunteering.

I have a petition from the residents of the Slocan Valley volunteering to all participate in the creation of a plan to manage the foreshore and to keep their lake from being developed, and asking municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments to work with them to protect their lake. I submit the petition on their behalf.

S. Fraser: I have petitions containing hundreds of signatures from coastal communities, forest communities, protesting the devastating practices on private managed forest lands and the damage to the communities.

Hon. O. Ilich: I table the 2006 annual report for WorkSafe B.C. and also the 2007-2009 service plan for WorkSafe B.C.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in both chambers. For the information of members, in this chamber we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and in Committee A, in the little House, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

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

S. Simpson: It is good to be back, and hopefully over the next short while we'll finish up our work on these estimates. I've got a handful of questions here that relate to emissions projections related to the proposed Gateway project. I may have referenced this with the minister previously.

I had the opportunity to have a bit of a discussion around issues related to emissions and more broad transportation questions with the Minister of Transportation in his estimates. At that time, he made the point that most of the issues relating to levels of emissions and all that would be matters to be addressed by the

Ministry of Environment. Then the Ministry of Transportation would do whatever it was required to do in order to meet the objectives set by the Ministry of Environment. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the expectations are around emissions related to the Gateway project.

Hon. B. Penner: It's my expectation that there'll be an analysis performed and submitted as part of the environmental assessment office review of that project. I'm just checking, but it's my further understanding that that project remains in the preapplication phase of the environmental assessment process.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. We may be leading to questions related to environmental assessment more quickly than I thought.

In order to be able to do that assessment of either the modelling or what might be expected around increases or changes in emission levels, presumably there has to be some baseline to start with. I wonder if the minister could tell us if there is a baseline there in terms of what the projections are for levels of emissions crossing the current bridge and entering the routes that are currently in use.

Presumably, there's some projection of what the growth would be under the status quo before we get to projections on what might happen with the application of the Gateway project. Do we have those baseline figures?

Hon. B. Penner: We're still checking for that. We don't have that with us here in the House. As I did say last week, though, we rely on Statistics Canada at this point to do an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions for the province, and they do that for every province across the country. The most recent statistics that are publicly available are for 2004. My recollection is that those numbers allocate about 39 percent of B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions as coming from the transportation sector.

Personal automobiles are a subset of the transportation sector. My understanding is that the transportation sector takes into account things like trains, heavy trucks and other kinds of vehicles. Just what percentage would be allocated to passenger vehicles and what percentage would be coming specifically from the lower mainland as opposed to the rest of the province is a level of detail that we don't have here.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister doesn't have that information readily available. Here's the question.

The Minister of Transportation has previously said, when questioned, that there was not an expectation that there would be any increase in emissions over and above what would happen if the status quo continued. That's not to say there is not an increase, because when we talked about this in his estimates it became clear that what we were talking about is that under the status quo there is going to be an increase in emissions simply because of increased volume of vehicles in general terms. His comment — and maybe I'm paraphrasing; I certainly wouldn't want to put words in his mouth — was that he believed, and it was the assertion of his ministry, that emissions would not increase over and above what would normally occur. This was all prior to putting the California tailpipe program in place.

The question that I have for the minister is: how do we come to that conclusion? How could that minister — or the Minister of Environment or anyone else — come to that conclusion if we don't have more specific baseline information to start with in terms of what kind of emissions we're getting out of those particular corridors?

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, thank you for permitting me to get up and address the question.

I do have some more specific information as it relates to the lower Fraser Valley. Work has been done. Whereas I said for the province as a whole about 39 percent of GHG emissions are attributable to the transportation sector — which includes not just personal automobiles but other forms of transportation as well — in the lower Fraser Valley, it's estimated that about 34 percent of regional greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to mobile sources, defined as vehicles, planes, trains, marine transportation, etc. Within the lower Fraser Valley a slightly smaller percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector, as compared to the rest of the province as a whole.

Detailed information is available relating to the Gateway project, I'm advised, by going to the environmental assessment office website. Click on the project entitled "South Fraser Perimeter Road Project," then click on "Technical Volume 16" of the environmental assessment application, which has been filed. All that is publicly available. There will be information there that relates not just to the south perimeter road project and application, but it also addresses the Gateway project generally and projections on greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move a little bit now to talk about environmental assessment specifically. I'm pleased that the minister has the appropriate staff here for that. I think as the government moves down the path on its plans related to climate change, as a number of large projects come into play around the province, as we look at a whole range of things, we're going to see an increasing amount of attention to the process of environmental assessment.

We may very well see the need to have some revisiting of the parameters of our environmental assessment process to make sure that it's applicable to what might be happening now. I've got some broad questions related to environmental assessment so as to better understand what the thinking of the government is around that process.

The minister will know that the previous Environmental Assessment Act, which is the Environmental Assessment Act of 1995, I believe, had a whole set of purposes attached to it. Just to touch on them, they

were: to promote sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and social well-being; to provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the environmental, economic, social, cultural heritage and health effects of reviewable projects; to prevent or mitigate adverse effects of reviewable projects; to provide an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment; and to provide for participation in an assessment under this act by the public, proponents, first nations, municipalities and regional districts, the government and its agencies, the government of Canada and its agencies, and British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions.

There were some very specific purposes laid out in the '95 act. When the government replaced that act with the 2002 legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act of 2002, there weren't the same kinds of stated purposes, I would suggest, put in the act. The deletion of such objectives means that there's some question about the guidance that's provided around the activities that go on under the act, etc.

The question I have is: how does the minister assure the environmental sustainability conditions are met through the application of the act if there isn't some formal guidance in the act to achieve that in terms of some stated purposes? How does the minister assure, in fact, that we're meeting objectives when those clear objectives aren't laid out in the act itself?

Hon. B. Penner: The Environmental Assessment Act is pretty clear about things that need to be considered and must be considered by law as the environmental assessment office considers specific projects. In particular, I refer to the act, where it states that the executive director needs to consider the following, whether a project has "a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage or health effect, taking into account practical means of preventing or reducing to an acceptable level any potential adverse effect of the project."

The Environmental Assessment Act, as implemented, provides for an integrated, neutrally administered and balanced process to assess a broad range of effects for proposed projects. Considerations include, as I've mentioned, environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects. Reviews are directed by the environmental assessment office, which is a neutral agency established by the legislation I just referred to. That agency designs and leads rigorous environmental reviews and, at the end of the process, brings a recommendation to the ministerial level for a decision.

It's worth noting as well that early notification to the public, together with provisions for public, government and first nation consultation, help elicit additional views. Experts may bring in additional information to the process, and that is beneficial when the environmental assessment office performs its review.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. The fact is, though, that there was a clear set of purposes in the 1995 act and the decision was made by government to remove those purposes as sort of a test.

We'll know that, in fact, probably if you look at the Supreme Court decision around the Tulsequah Chief project, where the court ordered a new environmental assessment, part of that decision and that judgment was because they deemed that the test that the purposes set out was in fact not met. So I do believe that having those purposes is an important factor, and those purposes aren't there.

The minister made a comment which leads me to the next question I have. Again, I mentioned that the 1995 act, in its purposes, did say to provide an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment. In fact, the notion of neutrally administered was incorporated into the act itself. Now, I may have missed this, but it's my belief that the current act does not incorporate neutrally administered. Rather, it explicitly provides for ministerial input, which is quite different from neutrally administered.

The question I have around that, because I know the minister referenced this notion of neutrally administered, is: how does the minister assure the public that the act in fact is neutrally administered during environmental assessments when that is not a specific requirement of the legislation? It's on the website, but it's not in the legislation, I don't believe.

By doing that, how does it ensure that the environmental assessment is objective and not just clear of potential political interference but clear of any perception of that because of the requirements of any legislation?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the short answer to the member's question is the fact that there is a stand-alone piece of legislation that gives the executive director and the environmental assessment office their authority. I can't overstep that authority. No minister can override legislation as passed by the House. That has supremacy.

The number of authorities are listed specifically. If you work your way through the act, you'll see it giving the executive director authority.

I don't involve myself as minister in the specific reviews — that's obviously done by some of the 50 or so staff that work with the environmental assessment office — nor do I write the reports. All that work takes place by the professional staff under the direction of the executive director of the environmental assessment office, who gets her authority from the legislation that was passed here by the Legislature.

At the end of that review process, after there's been public input and information is gathered, the staff that work for the environmental assessment office prepare a report with recommendations, and they forward that on to the ministerial level for a decision.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I certainly don't believe for a minute that the minister involves himself in trying to manage environmental assessments. I'm sure that he doesn't do that.

Coming back to the question about this issue of neutrally administered, there was a reason why it was put in the 1995 act. It was felt that it was important that that neutrality and independence be identified in the legislation. Clearly, this government felt it important to reference that and reference it on the website of the ministry, referencing it as being neutrally administered. Clearly, this government recognized the importance of that in the environmental assessment process as a standard, yet the decision was made not to include that requirement in the legislation itself.

Could the minister tell us: why has the government chosen not to put the requirement of neutral administration in the legislation, when it clearly feels it important enough to have put on the website and when there was certainly some precedent in the 1995 act to not only have that independence but to clearly demonstrate it within the legislation itself?

Hon. B. Penner: What makes the environmental assessment office operate as a neutral agency is not a word in the legislation that says the office is neutral. Rather, it is the culmination of the various provisions in the act that, when taken together, work legally to make sure that the office is neutral. That is the net result of the legislation and the various provisions and powers that are given specifically to the executive director of the environmental assessment office. That's what makes the agency neutral — the legislation itself.

S. Simpson: We'll move to the next question because I didn't get an answer on why that was removed and why the act is not explicit around this question of "neutrally administered." We'll move to the next question.

One of the things about environmental assessments — and the minister will know this — is that there always is the issue with these projects of quality objectives — the question around quality objectives and having those objectives that ensure the quality.

We know that much of this particular Environmental Assessment Act is very process-focused — not exclusively, but it's very process-focused. Process is an important thing, and it lays out very clearly how processes will work. But to the best of my knowledge, the tracking process for project directors when projects are in assessment is pretty much having a list of things and then going through — for example, checking off that some mitigation has been proposed and having a clear list of those things that you track from reviewers, which reviewers or the public are raising. You are checking them off as you see some work being done on them.

What I'm not sure that I see in here — and I'd be interested to know whether I've missed this — is a formal framework. Not something informal, but a formal framework that ensures that a substantive amount of reliable technical information has been gathered and reviewed and assessed on those particular aspects of an environmental assessment that may be looked at — mitigation, any of the aspects of that — and that there is a process to review the technical work that has been done for the completion of those aspects to ensure the standard and the quality objectives at the end of this.

Because I don't see them in the legislation, necessarily, or in the act, I'm wondering how the minister ensures that the outcome of environmental assessments is scientifically defensible. What is the review process to ensure that these environmental assessments are scientifically defensible and that the measures proposed for mitigation…?

As we know, the environmental assessment process doesn't turn projects down. It proposes a mitigation to adjust and amend and make projects better, presumably. So how does it measure that the proposals for mitigation are in fact viable and are the right ones, and that the science around that is defensible and has been reviewed properly? What is the process?

Hon. B. Penner: At the outset of the process, the environmental assessment office works to establish terms of reference for a review before it's formally undertaken. In setting those terms of reference, various scientific agencies — to use the member's terminology — are contacted.

For example, this can include the Canadian Wildlife Service; Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Health Canada; Ministry of Environment provincially; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Ministry of Forests; Transport Canada; our own provincial Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

All of those are examples of agencies that have within them expertise germane to a particular topic area. So those agencies are consulted to help make suggestions about the terms of reference.

Once the terms of reference are set and the formal review gets underway and information is brought forward to address the various issues that are identified as needing to be addressed in the terms of reference, then those same technical agencies get a chance to take a look at that information and provide comment back through to the environmental assessment office about whether or not those various issues were adequately addressed.

S. Simpson: So what quality objectives there are or how they're proposed…. Those, essentially, are available through the environmental assessment office canvassing the advice of external organizations that may have an interest in any given project. Those external organizations include other ministries or government bodies from other levels of government.

Is their advice or their commentary the extent of the technical review or the extent of any of the science that the environmental assessment office has available to it?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is no. The longer answer is that other experts are free to comment and

can raise issues that then would be looked at by either the referral agencies or the expert agencies, to use the member's terminology, and/or the officers with the environmental assessment office conducting a review.

S. Simpson: If the answer is no, that it's not exclusively there and that a significant portion of that goes on within the environmental assessment office itself, with its own resources, then what are the resources that are available in the environmental assessment office for that kind of more specific technical or scientific review? How does the office access that for itself, to satisfy itself, if it requires that information in the case of an environmental assessment? How does it access that information directly when it's not getting it from some other third agency or third party?

Hon. B. Penner: Sorry, hon. Chair, I think the member misunderstood my answer.

The environmental assessment office gets a lot of information from these scientific agencies that the member refers to. His question, which I thought I heard previously, was: is that the extent of the information that the environmental assessment office gets or relies on? The answer is no. Because of the public consultation component of the process, individual experts who may or may not work for government — who may be unaligned — are entitled to bring forward information and raise issues that then need to be addressed.

In addressing those issues that are raised by third parties, if you will, the environmental assessment office may look at it themselves and may, and I know they often do, refer specific scientific information to the various scientific agencies that I've already enumerated — such as the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, Ministry of Environment, etc. — to get detailed information back.

An example might be around proposed wind power projects, where obviously people sometimes raise concerns about the potential impacts on bird species. Clearly, in those situations the terms of reference would include studies to examine the potential impact on avian species. That would be something that the Ministry of Environment would have experts commenting on, including the Canadian Wildlife Service.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, my question had been — and my apologies to the minister if I wasn't clear — about when we were talking about information with regard to third parties. I was very specifically talking about scientific or very specific technical information, not the broader consultation process that I know the ministry drives.

I know the environmental assessment office accepts representation from those that come forward and want to provide advice to the office on projects. I'm sure that's given fair consideration when that advice is given, whether it be from organizations or individuals who are specifically interested in any given project.

I was talking more about the task at hand for the environmental assessment office to do its own work over and above what it may get through a more public solicitation.

Just to change gears a little bit here. The minister referenced the terms of reference that are done for projects. The minister will know that under the 1995 legislation for environmental assessments, the terms of reference were formulated and written in fact by the office directly. It required members of the project committee actually to formulate terms of reference. We'll talk a little bit about project committees in a minute.

They required the members of the project committee to formulate the terms of reference for the assessment. Those were issued to the proponent, and then the proponent had to meet those terms of reference in doing their work.

The current legislation approaches this in a slightly different manner, as I see it. It in fact encourages the proponent to prepare the terms of reference for the environmental assessment, which are then reviewed and approved by the EAO. The environmental assessment office then reviews and approves those terms of reference that have been prepared by the proponent.

I wonder if the minister could tell us: why was the decision made to have the terms of reference prepared by the proponent of the project, rather than by the office itself, and then given to the proponent for them to address?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect some of this may have been discussed when the legislation was debated here on the floor of the Legislature about five years ago. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the intention is to put the onus as much as possible on the proponent to spend the money and find the resources to do that work related to their proposal.

The draft terms of reference then would be sent back to the environmental assessment office. The environmental assessment office would then send it out to the various scientific agencies or what I would call the referral agencies — the other things like the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy and Mines, Ministry of Forests, Transport Canada or the provincial Ministry of Transportation, including the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — in order to determine whether or not those draft terms of reference are sufficiently comprehensive or shaped in a way that will address the concerns that the various referral agencies and scientists think should be addressed.

S. Simpson: The problem I have around this, just to make a note for the record, is that this puts the environmental assessment office in a bit of a reactive mode where it kind of…. The documents, the preparation, the work is done by the proponent, and then the environmental assessment office kind of looks at it and says: "Okay, all of the categories that we would reasonably expect to be there — are they there? Yes, they are."

It sends out for its review with third parties or external agencies to determine whether they are satisfied that all of the things are on the list. What it doesn't do, though…. I think this is part of the process that the project committee model which was used previously was pretty successful at, and we'll talk about that a little bit in a minute.

But it really doesn't, I think, provide for a group of people within the environmental assessment office sitting down and right at the outset getting their head around a given project in some kind of robust and comprehensive discussion about "What are we really looking at? How is this project likely to unfold? What do we need to be considering?" and kind of getting that grounding that comes when you set the rules for the project. The terms of reference sort of set the rules for how we're going to look at any given project.

What I don't see here is…. Instead we see a review where it comes in, and there's an assurance that all of the proper categories are on the list for the terms of reference. But I'm not sure I see that engagement that needs to happen at that point. I'm sure I'd be pleased to hear the minister comment on that.

What I do want to do is talk a little bit about where that exercise would come from. When the terms of reference were being developed by the office itself, that was a model that often was done using project committees. What the minister may know was that back in those days, the exercise of the Environmental Assessment Act then established project committees. The project committee was the main review mechanism for project environmental assessments.

The committees set their own process, but they were required by the act to do a couple of things: to provide the executive director of the environmental assessment office and the government advice, analysis and recommendations about whether the project should go ahead; and to assess the project and advise the executive director of the environmental assessment office on the potential effects of the project and prevention or mitigation of those effects.

This committee that was put in place would meet to deal with the issues that arose out of the environmental assessment and to develop its recommendations, and then those went forward somewhat independent of the office itself. We know that doesn't occur now, because what we have now is the project director responsible for formulating all of those recommendations. It's now fallen into the hands of fewer people.

My question to the minister is: without that committee and that sort of collective responsibility to give the minister the best advice possible, how in this case does the minister assure himself and the public about the process — and the objectivity and neutrality of the process — and that it's not weakened by just placing so much of this in the hands of a single person rather than in this committee, which brought a range of skill and expertise to the discussion? I'd be interested to know what the thinking was as to why that committee process got set aside to put all of this in the hands of single directors.

Hon. B. Penner: A couple of things. First of all, just to go back to what the member was talking about earlier. The executive director informs me that she does not in any way feel that the environmental assessment office is in a reactive mode, as the member would characterize it, as a result of the way the terms of reference are put together.

In fact, the EAO does put together a working group that includes the various scientific or referral agencies — and that includes the Canadian Wildlife Service, DFO, etc. — at the outset when they bring in the proponent. They have a discussion about what the draft terms of reference should probably consider and how it should look.

Then the proponent goes back and does their homework and spends their money, rather than taxpayers' money, fleshing out those terms of reference in a draft way. Then that draft is sent back to the environmental assessment office and is sent to the referral agencies to see if it does an adequate job.

I think that is a responsible way to handle taxpayers' money — to put as much of the onus as possible on the proponent, rather than having taxpayers carry the freight all the way for the proponents. It still gets subjected, as I've said, to scrutiny by the various scientific referral agencies not just at the tail end but also at the outset. There's a discussion about how it should be shaped and what kinds of things they would probably want to include.

I should also note that if the member is interested in this topic — and it appears that he is — he can simply go to the environmental assessment office website and find a terms-of-reference guide on the website that he can download. Proponents are certainly told to do this, because it tells you in advance some of the things your terms of reference should consider.

That's in addition to the specific advice that's given on individual project proposals by the various scientific referral agencies at the outset. Then, of course, those draft terms of reference are scrutinized again by the various referral agencies to see if various concerns are adequately noted in the terms of reference.

In terms of the second question around legislative requirements for working groups, working groups continue, but I'm advised by the executive director that it works better now that there's greater flexibility to have multiple committees or subcommittees assigned to various projects. The way it works now is there is one particular person that holds the pen rather than a whole group, which leads to greater accountability.

S. Simpson: It would seem to me that by having the office actually prepare the terms of reference…. There's no reason why that has to be at the public expense. There are more than enough tools available to ensure that the real costs of that are covered by the proponents — in terms of the costs of putting their project together — by paying fees related to environmental assessments so that they essentially would end up paying the fee, regardless of the cost of putting that together.

Going back to the question of the project committees, I'm sure that people get together in the environmental assessment office and work together to sort through the projects that the office is working on, and doing that. This process, this decision, was to remove what was a pretty formal process and make it somewhat more informal. As the minister says, to essentially put all of the power in the hands of the project director, who now has pretty much complete discretion around these things…. Again, because we've removed the purposes from the act, I'm not sure I see where the guidelines and the criteria around how this review will be done play out here.

That does raise a concern for me in that I don't necessarily see this as being the same thing. These project committees were a much more formal process to bring more independence, I believe, which comes with a committee that does that work, but the minister has chosen to go in a different direction.

I have one more question specifically related to this process, and then I'll be sitting down and allowing some of my colleagues, who I know have specific questions. This question relates to the first nations. As I referenced in the original purposes of the 1995 act, the purposes were explicit in the need to consult with a whole range of interests, including very specifically the first nations. That specific requirement has been removed from this process.

Can the minister tell us: what are the formal processes now to ensure that first nations always are consulted in a substantive and meaningful way, and accommodated? We know that accommodation is very important. That may include the need for funding, of course, to allow those first nations to be able to engage properly. How do we assure the sustainability of first nations lands and land use practices — that they are engaged to the degree that they expect to be under accommodation?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by the executive director of the environmental assessment office that the office is guided by the B.C. consultation policy when it comes to dealing with first nations and the principles of the new relationship as well as common law — that is, decisions that get made by our courts from time to time.

Specifically, I could refer the member to section 11(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, which requires that the executive director, during the course of the assessment by a government agency, etc., take into account policy of the government from time to time. As the government embarks on new policies such as the new relationship and the principles thereunder, the executive director of the environmental assessment office is required to take that into account and to act accordingly.

C. Trevena: I have a few questions for the minister — a couple relating to parks; then some to potential contamination of the Quinsam River and the Quinsam coal issue, which I think the minister is well aware of; and also environmental assessments when it comes to coalbed methane and quarrying for gravel.

I'd like to start on the parks issue. When we were at estimates last year, I canvassed a few issues relating to the potential extension of parks on Quadra Island. I know there's been ongoing discussion about this, and I wanted to ask the minister for updates.

One of them is the Small Inlet and Octopus Islands parks. There have been negotiations with Merrill and Ring on this for about seven or eight years, and Merrill and Ring is committed to trade its lands adjacent to the Small Inlet and Octopus Islands parks, but there hasn't been any land available for trade.

Apparently, everyone is willing to go ahead with this. We just need the commitment from the ministry to make this happen. So I was wondering if the minister could give me the assurance that the commitment will be there and that everybody's goodwill will make things happen.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll have to get back to the member with some details on that particular proposal.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that, because as I say, it's been going on for nine years, and everybody is willing to make it happen. I think it just needs that bit of a push from….

C. Trevena: Yeah, Quadra Island. It's the north end. I can also give the minister's staff…. It's lots 25, 22 and 27 up there.

C. Trevena: It's exchange land. It's Merrill and Ring, and they're willing to exchange the land.

There are a couple of others. There is one private acquisition that I have raised with the minister before, and the minister has in the past said that he would be looking at this. I wondered if the minister can possibly, through his staff, give me an update on how closely this is looked at. These are two lots of land between Main and Clear lakes — lots 983 and 990. That's also on Quadra Island.

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I'm sorry. I don't have the details on that particular issue, but we are working feverishly here to get some extra information on that.

I can tell the member…. This question has not been asked yet in this estimates debate, but I think it's information that is worthwhile putting out to members of the Legislature. Every year the Ministry of Environment has, as part of its capital budget, money allocated for acquisition of privately held lands to be added to the B.C. parks system. This year's budget is about $3.09 million for that purpose.

The ministry staff, particularly on the parks side of things, basically do an inventory around the province. They prioritize what their top picks are for that particular year, then compare that list against the

I don't know, standing here at this moment, exactly where those properties would fall in terms of the priority list that the ministry staff are developing for this year. But we will be acquiring additional lands this year — that would be my expectation — for inclusion in B.C. parks. We'll have more to say about that, I guess, once that ranking process is completed.

C. Trevena: I'd like to thank the minister, and I will pass on any details about these lots that can assist in getting them higher up the ranking, because they will complete a number of parks in the area.

I'll move on to a couple of issues around Quinsam Coal. I know that the minister's staff have been well informed and talking a lot with the Campbell River Environmental Council about the discharge of effluent into the Quinsam River. The latest exchange, I understand, has shown that there have been about 131 exceedances of the average flow for discharge, although only six have been well above the level.

I wondered if the minister could explain what his staff and his ministry are doing to minimize this and to make sure the discharge into the river has the least impact possible.

Hon. B. Penner: As I suspect the member knows, an environmental technical review committee was formed following the 1983 public inquiry into the mine development. This committee includes the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the city of Campbell River, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and Quinsam Coal Corp.

The member is correct that there are exceedances that have been recorded. I think the offending substance is sulphate, if I'm not mistaken. A review of recent monitoring data shows a downward trend in sulphate levels in Long Lake and Middle Quinsam Lake. I'm advised that there have been no exceedances of the 100-milligrams-per-litre guideline for sulphate recorded in Middle Quinsam Lake since about 1999.

The 100-milligram-per-litre guideline was greatly exceeded previously. In fact, it reached levels of about 200 milligrams per litre in the late 1990s, but they have been showing that the trend has been going downward. It's positive, but there's apparently more work that needs to be done to get the levels to where we're more comfortable.

C. Trevena: I would like to ask the minister: is the ministry working with Quinsam Coal to assist them in bringing down levels? I know that Quinsam is trying very hard to bring down the levels of sulphates. I know that the Campbell River Environmental Council is very concerned about the continuing discharge and would contest the argument that the levels have gone down. I think they see that the permit levels have gone up.

I wondered if the ministry and their staff are working with both parties to try and find a satisfactory solution?

Hon. B. Penner: I can provide the member with a bit more detail in terms of the actual readings. I'm told that in 1996 levels in the Middle Quinsam Lake were recorded at between 15 and 75 milligrams per litre, depending on the depth of measurement. Sulphate levels in the Middle Quinsam Lake have not exceeded the provincial guideline, with the exception of five samples taken from the bottom of the lake between 1997 and 1999, which ranged between approximately 115 and 135 milligrams per litre.

Then in Long Lake — I think I mentioned this earlier — they hit a high of about 200 milligrams per litre in the late 1990s but have subsequently shown a downward trend in the last three years. I'm advised that there's follow-up monitoring and assessment to determine the source, trends and potential significance and impact of the sulphate substances.

The mine itself, Quinsam Coal, is apparently reviewing a mine treatment system or looking at a potentially different design to ensure that higher discharge quantities will continue to be adequately treated.

Environment Canada itself — that's the federal agency — has been doing sampling near the mouth of the Quinsam River. They have identified stress on what's known as the benthic community. Evaluation of data collected indicates that this stress is most likely related to elevated levels of nutrients in the lower Quinsam River as opposed to sulphates. Ongoing monitoring and work is being done to confirm that, and I'm told that Environment Canada will be releasing a follow-up report on this monitoring.

C. Trevena: I think we're reading from different papers. I have a monitoring report which indicates that the sulphate levels in Middle Quinsam Lake and Long Lake are actually increasing.

I wonder if the minister could explain the discrepancy. Obviously, he's trying to come up to speed very quickly on this. As I say, I have a Quinsam Coal Corp. monitoring report of 2003-2004 which says that the levels of the sulphates are increasing. I wondered whether the permit levels have changed so that while the levels are increasing, the accepted level has also gone higher, so it appears the level is less.

To the minister again. As I say, the report I have shows that sulphate levels are going up at Middle Quinsam and Long lakes. What I want to know from the minister is whether, corresponding with those levels going up, the permitted levels are also going up so that it appears the acceptable levels are actually decreasing?

Hon. B. Penner: I may have to get back to the member on that question. I'm not aware of any change in any permits related to Quinsam Coal. I can advise the member that we have had four staff involved with the issues associated with Quinsam Coal, so it is an issue that certainly is a priority for the ministry.

We've gone to the extra length of hiring a professor from the University of Victoria to review and ensure that conclusions of work done by Ministry of Environ-

ment staff and others are sound and supportable. I'm also advised that monitoring data is available for public review at the Campbell River public library.

There was an article that appeared in one of British Columbia's daily newspapers a couple of months ago that seemed to suggest that this information was not being made public. In fact, I'm advised that it does get posted at the Campbell River public library for public review.

C. Trevena: Just one last question on Quinsam. As I say, I know that Quinsam Coal themselves are also trying to make sure that there is minimal impact, and they do have the watchdog of the Campbell River Environmental Council there, so it's ongoing.

The Quinsam mine is looking at expanding. I wondered if the minister could tell me if there's an expansion of this existing mine, whether there has to be an environmental assessment for that, or whether the mine can just expand because it already has the licence for mineral extraction.

Hon. B. Penner: If there is in fact a proposal to expand the size of the mine, there is a regulation in place that determines whether or not a proposed expansion of an existing mine triggers an environmental assessment office review. That is spelled out in, I think it's called, the Environmental Assessment Act "Reviewable projects regulation", which I can get a copy of to the member, if she'd like. But it should also be available on the Internet.

Just to touch on an issue that the member asked earlier about Octopus Islands, I believe. I've been provided with some details. I understand that there are about 384 hectares at issue. I'm told that it's a complicated potential transaction and that it would require a need to find exchange land, as I think the member indicated. It will take some time and potentially a significant amount of money to facilitate this transaction.

I'm told that there could be a potential value at stake here in the order of $9 million. I don't know if that's the amount of money the government of B.C. would have to come up with, but certainly that indicates that the value of the land here is somewhat significant, and as I've been advised, it's a complicated transaction.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for getting the response so quickly on that. As I say, I know that the pieces are almost in place. Obviously, there are finance and also staff allocations that are needed. So I would hope that the minister does look positively on that when ranking the list of new parks.

I know that other colleagues have questions, so I would like to ask one last one and shift again on the environmental assessment and the possibility of coalbed methane. It looks like Quinsam Coal may be exploring into coalbed methane around its mine, and I wanted to know what level of environmental assessment would have to be done before any permitting could go ahead.

Hon. B. Penner: Again, similar to my previous answer, it would depend on the size of the proposal whether or not a full environmental assessment review would be triggered under the applicable legislation and the regulations pursuant to that act. But regardless of whether or not a specific proposal for coalbed methane exploration or development was subjected to an environmental assessment office review, any new proposal would have to comply with the requirements as set out in our new energy plan, which was released in the month of March 2007.

For the record here I could just indicate a few of the requirements. Proponents wanting to develop coalbed gas must adopt the following best practices:

(1) Fully engage local communities and first nations in all stages of development.

(2) Use the most advanced technology and practices that are commercially viable to minimize land and aesthetic disturbances.

(3) Companies will not be allowed to surface-discharge produced water. Any reinjected produced water must be injected well below any domestic water aquifer.

(5) Demonstrate the company's previous experience with coalbed gas development. Information must be made publicly available as to how the company plans to meet and be accountable for the best practices.

Coalbed methane gas does hold some potential that we should be interested in, as it is one of the cleanest-burning of all fossil fuels. I understand what the concern is around the exploration and development. That's why we have adopted leading practices, which I think are second to none in North America.

We want to see if we can develop that potentially cleaner fuel source while still looking after the concerns that people have identified. It's worth noting that I think an extensive number of coalbed methane wells were actually drilled during the 1990s without the benefit of these kinds of policies.

If my memory serves correctly, something in the order of 182 wells were drilled for coalbed methane back in the 1980s. We have seen fit to tighten up the requirements that apply to that particular activity.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister and his staff. I'm going to cover a few different areas if I can, and so I hope you can indulge me on that little trip.

I'm going to start with the Beaufort Range in the Alberni Valley and the logging practices that are happening, which are, by anyone's estimation, of a scale and a level of devastation that we haven't seen before on the land base. Certainly, I've never seen it, and I've talked to a lot of loggers in the area that have never seen this kind of logging activity.

It is private managed forest land, and the Beaufort Range…. Specifically, I'm going to talk about the TimberWest operation in the Beauforts. The adjacent property owner, named Wayne Crowley, has witnessed some pretty damaging events along his property.

Every time a letter goes to a ministry — and it's gone either to the Ministry of Environment, to Lands or to the Premier's office — it tends to get shifted off

to the Private Managed Forest Land Council, which I know that this ministry has a role in. I think they appoint one of the members for that council. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer is yes. The Ministry of Environment does appoint an individual to that board, and the current appointee on behalf of the Ministry of Environment is a gentleman by the name of Rod Davis.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer. The series of correspondence that I referred to…. The last one I'm aware of — and I was at the regional district meeting, the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district — was from vice-chair Glenn Wong. Previous correspondence from the chair Hira Chopra has gone back and forth.

In this one they refer to the damage of the recent landslides in the Beaufort Range that were highlighted at this meeting. Mr. Wong states: "I am enclosing copies of photographs of blocks T141 and 144, which an adjacent property owner gave to the regional district board of directors." That is Wayne Crowley. "If these photos represent acceptable logging standards for private land, standards fall short of protecting our environment and our communities."

It goes on by saying: "The board is extremely frustrated by the failure of the province to protect our watersheds and, ultimately, our communities."

Hon. B. Penner: We're checking right now to see if ministry staff are familiar with those photographs. I may or may not have seen them. I'm not entirely sure. I seem to think I might have seen them, but it may have been through the media. I don't know if they appeared in the newspaper or not. I feel like I've got some familiarity with them, but I can't say with any certainty. Anyway, we're checking to see if ministry staff are familiar with it.

This board that we're talking about is separate from government. We have one appointee. I don't know how many others there are on that board. Maybe the member has that detail. I'm advised that the Ministry of Environment only appoints one person to that board.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I have taken the liberty to make 20 copies of these photos. They were sent to the Minister of Lands and cc'd to the Premier also. I do not know if the Minister of Environment has received these. I can make those available right now, along with the letter from the regional district, because it's part of an ongoing problem.

The issue, I guess, around this is certainly…. Mr. Wong, the vice-chair, has laid it out quite succinctly in the letter that I provided there. He said that the environmental damage is clear to anyone living in the region, and certainly the property owners like Mr. Crowley have witnessed it firsthand.

There doesn't seem to be anything happening. The oversight from the council is saying that basically the level of activity is all right, and that is unacceptable. We're trying it find a fallback position, where hopefully the Ministry of Environment will have some oversight role here when obvious practices that are damaging the landscape and the watersheds are occurring, and they're being allowed to occur under the existing regime.

I won't go directly faulting the council here. The council has a mandate that maybe is far too limited to be able to actually provide the level of protection that is needed.

Can the minister give me and the people of the Alberni Valley some assurances that there will be some oversight provided from the ministry to help protect the watersheds and the environment of the Alberni Valley?

Hon. B. Penner: I can have my staff look into this issue. I want to thank the member for providing me with these photographs. I just wonder if the member can indicate when these were taken. That might be helpful for the staff as they look into this.

S. Fraser: The letter that came with the photographs came from the regional district. It was dated April 16, and they were taken that week, so they're very recent photographs. They're the current logging practices that are occurring in the Alberni Valley and surrounding it.

With the release of 70,000 hectares from TFL 44 in 2004, it meant the entire region of the central coast has ringed the community with private managed forest lands. So this activity is happening all around the community.

For the minister's edification, that level of cut…. The timber that's coming off of there is all leaving the valley. Almost all of it is going as export wood. Even with that kind of timber coming off the Beaufort, there were still job losses. It's a double whammy for the community. If the minister can look into that, it would be greatly appreciated — in the sense that it is an environmental problem.

Some of the flooding that has happened in recent years and as recently as November in Port Alberni…. I know the minister is aware that the level of cut…. The Forest Practices Board has already acknowledged in other areas the devastation that happens when this kind of cut happens — these 20-year storm events. I think they said that it's actually down to every three years, potentially, with this level of activity. So it's a very serious situation.

I'm going to just move on to that, because time is limited. I'll look forward to hearing from the minister later on this.

As the minister may be aware, there was a recent announcement that TimberWest has hired a new vice-president of real estate, John Hendry. He's been tasked with potentially removing some of this forest land — large amounts of the forest land. These private managed forest land companies — TimberWest, Island Timberlands — own a large, large portion of coastal

forest land. This inextricably makes up a lot of our environmental watershed issues. They are associated with those lands. We cannot separate those.

With the knowledge that they are preparing to not just, as the ministry would see, strip-mine these forest areas in a way we've never seen before but, potentially, not return them to that forest base….

Is the minister aware of this situation and the potential damage and impacts that can have on coastal communities, on watersheds, and even on planning for future development, should these lands be converted to, say, residential properties?

D. Routley: Joining us in more abundant numbers than we're used to during estimates are the 79 students and teachers from Highroad Academy in Chilliwack. Can the House help make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: The member will be familiar, I'm sure, with the Private Managed Forest Land Act. If the private land is no longer used for forestry purposes, then it's no longer covered by that act.

If it's going to be utilized in some other way for the development that the member describes, there are other provisions that may apply — things such as the riparian areas regulation — and that describe certain measures which must be taken in order to protect fisheries, attributes of various watercourses and that type of thing, and any other legislation that is germane to development in our natural environment in British Columbia.

I just also want to take the opportunity to welcome the students and teachers and chaperones from the great school in Chilliwack. It's good to see you here.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. If the minister looks at the pictures — and I know he will — he will see that a lot of watercourses, drainages and fish hatcheries are already potentially impacted by the practices that are being allowed under the stewardship of the Private Managed Forest Land Council.

I understand that if that land is taken out and used and paved, or used for subdivisions, there is another set of rules that comes in there. It's taken out of the purview of that council. But in the bigger picture of environmental stewardship, we have to look at this from all sides.

I don't have time to pursue this further because I have some other issues, but I ask the minister…. I know he was looking at the pictures. He must have seen the impact, and no one can agree that that is a sustainable level of cut that can continue without damaging the environment, our watersheds and fish hatcheries — and everything that has happened already. Boil advisories for drinking water — all those issues.

On the topic of water protection, we've seen that the Island Corridor Foundation, the new owners of the E&N line, will be proceeding this spring with a Roundup-type material. Glyphosate is the term, and the trade name can be under a number of things — Roundup There are a few other companies that make very similar products.

As the minister knows, I've been fighting the use of deleterious substances to control weeds for a year now. I thought we'd been able to hold that off and look for more inventive means to deal with that. I understand that's in the works and that there's a steam machine potentially being looked at — very costly at this point — and the government has put in some money.

I'll get right down to the issue. We have the potential spraying this summer, this spring, of glyphosate on watersheds. I'm not aware of any Garlon 4, and the proponent has already removed voluntarily the use of 2,4-D, which has been banned outright in many jurisdictions because of its links to cancer, and I applaud those jurisdictions for taking that leadership.

Glyphosate. I have studies that show that this is potentially a health risk. The University of Caen in France, 2005 — the studies there have direct links to placental disorders, potential reproductive disorders in humans. It is not the benign product, according to these studies, that it is being touted as.

Also, moving on a little bit further to environmental issues, it is lethal to things like salamanders, amphibians, non-target organisms that should not be impacted in an attempt to control weeds — not to be introduced as a means to control weeds when it can have this effect.

I'd like to know what level of scrutiny the ministry will be putting on these spray programs. How will they be informing the public of the risks associated — the health risks that came out of the Caen University and the Philadelphia University, which links it to other non-target organisms? And how will that be mitigated? Also, what watershed studies have been done to show where and when to spray, and where the blue- and red-listed species are that will be directly impacted or destroyed along the spray pattern line?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will know the Vancouver Island Corridor Foundation. I believe it consists of a number of different groups, including first nations and local governments, if I'm not mistaken. I'm attempting to get that information. They are now the operator, I believe, of what is known as the E&N Railway.

I have recently heard that they have additional safety concerns, and that's one of the reasons, I think, that the train has been halted or at least operations potentially curtailed. It's due to the spread of weeds and the impact they are having on the integrity of the railbed itself. So out of an interest for public safety, the operation of that railroad has had to be curtailed. That's obviously of concern to anybody who is hoping to see that railway be a success.

Any substance or herbicide proposed to be used would have to be something that's approved by Health Canada. B.C.'s own Integrated Pest Management Act, in regulations, established additional standards for human protection and the environment. I think the member is aware of this. We canvassed this a year ago at some length.

If the member is in possession of some additional information that he says highlights concerns that may not have been identified by Health Canada during the work they did in approving various pesticides or herbicides for application, then I trust that he has brought that information to the attention of Health Canada. Regardless, the railway operator, the Island Corridor Foundation, will have to establish required no-treatment zones around water bodies, wells and intakes and maintain detailed maps of the no-treatment zones along the railbed.

I say that, also keeping in mind that many people have worked very hard to try and make sure that that railway has some kind of a future on Vancouver Island. Obviously, we want to make sure that if it is maintained, it operates in a safe manner both in terms of keeping the trains on the tracks so that they don't jump off the tracks as the railbed deteriorates due to undergrowth, but also that any substance that's applied to help control the growth of weeds and other plant species is done in a safe way.

S. Fraser: If the minister's staff want to refer to the differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase…. This is out of the University of Caen. It's 2005, and you can just google it. It's very quick to find. It's very technical. There are Cole's Notes versions of it, which I had to refer to.

Then there is a further work done at the University of Pittsburgh regarding the effects on amphibians, specifically studying Roundup and its impacts on non-target organisms.

If the minister's staff can check those out and make sure those risks are known and can be made known to the public that are potentially affected by this…. I understand there are safety issues. The Ministry of Environment's role, I believe here, is to make sure that the safety issue is not the environmental factor — the poisons, the deleterious substances on watersheds and in watersheds or to non-targeted organisms. I know the minister knows that.

The Minister of Transportation, I'm sure, can handle the other side of that as far as the train safety goes. I would say that from the minister's purview he should be…. I don't mean to be preaching here.

There certainly is a role to inform the public, who have spoken as one through the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities. They have a resolution saying that they do not approve of the spraying of either the Roundup, Garlon 4 or 2,4D, and they roundly — Roundup-ly — refuse to endorse the use of those deleterious substances as a means for controlling weeds.

Hon. B. Penner: Of course, we do take this issue seriously, and that's why we have the regulations in place that we do. We will be following up on the information that the member provided about the study he found on the Internet regarding…. I think it's Garlon 4 that's the substance.

I can provide some additional information about the makeup of the Island Corridor Foundation. It's a 12-member board consisting of five representatives, I believe, from five different first nations bands. As well, there are five representatives from various regional district governments. So local governments are involved in the operation of this railway, and I understand again from media accounts that they're interested in making sure that the railway can continue to operate. I think that's the goal that most people on Vancouver Island have had over the years.

As I followed the somewhat tortured history of the E&N Railway, there has always been some question mark about whether there was a viable future for that railway and the rail service that it provides. It's our hope that there is. Certainly, from the Ministry of Environment's perspective, we want to make sure that the railway operates safely, not just from an environmental health perspective but also from a human health perspective in terms of keeping the trains on the tracks.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I am aware of the makeup of the Island Corridor Foundation. I'm a supporter of the acquisition by that foundation of the railway, and we have great hopes for that.

They've been left in a very difficult situation. The ministries involved have not enforced maintenance on that line with the previous owners. Maybe it's 20-20 hindsight, but the fact is that they've taken it over and then are being cornered into saying they had to use this because it is the cheapest means — which in the short term, I believe, is true. In the long term it can affect all of us. I think we have to look at the bigger picture on that when we use this.

The Island Corridor Foundation may well be made up of elected officials, but the resolution holds, which came out of the elected bodies — the municipalities, the municipal governments, the regional districts, the cities along that line. They can't override that. That represents the communities. School boards also, along that line, have said the same concerns, as the minister knows.

I will move on to cave and karst protection. It's not a totally unrelated topic, but I will keep jumping to here, and I don't do this on purpose. Karst land is a limestone region that has potential caves and cave systems in it. I have correspondence to the minister on this. We've gone back and forth a few times, and I have spoken on the issue in the House in private member's statements and two-minute statements.

As we speak, I believe that some of the issues we're seeing that have come to light on caves that have been damaged, in some cases on private land, are giving B.C. a black eye internationally. Other jurisdictions in the world have a much greater concern for protecting

these systems and are appalled at our weak to no regulations or enforcement of protection of caves — limestone, karst and non-karst caves.

The EGU conference in Vienna sat through the actual spate cave presentation on April 16. My understanding is they were not pleased with the way we are protecting our cave systems — or I should say not protecting our cave systems — here on Vancouver Island and in B.C. through legislation.

The Minister of Environment has identified caves as environmentally valuable resources that must be protected and managed during land development activities in the province. I'll cite the development and care environmental guidelines for urban and rural development, land development in British Columbia. That's the Ministry of Environment, March 2006.

The IUCN guidelines for cave and karst protection note that cave and karst ecosystems are among the most vulnerable on earth. I am a caver, and I can attest to that. Human activity, especially changes to the land base around the caves or the sinkholes, can have a devastating effect and completely alter and destroy the subterranean systems that we really do not understand.

We're still finding new critters in there. I had the privilege of being in a cave above Sproat Lake a couple of years ago that they had found a new bug in. Unlike many parts of the world, B.C. lacks specific cave protection legislation for caves on private and public lands. It's a common misconception that the B.C. Heritage Act provides this. It does not. In fact, in practice the Heritage Conservation Act only provides effective protection for archaeological materials within caves. We're not seeing that reflected in the actual protection of caves.

There is a gap here, and I have pointed that out to the minister already. Can the minister comment on or acknowledge this gap and please explain how he might be looking at trying to correct that?

Hon. B. Penner: I've just been able to retrieve a letter to the member that I had recalled signing recently. I presume he hasn't yet received it, so at the risk of ruining his anticipation and the surprise that will inevitably result from opening an envelope with my return address on it, let me just read it into the record here, because it does address the issue.

I can also get back to the member on a question he raised earlier around the Beaufort Range. I have since been advised that ministry staff are aware of the issue he raised and are investigating it now.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that reassurance of the Beaufort Range and that the issue is being looked at by the minister. I'm glad that is happening. I'll look forward to hearing where we go next with that, and I know many others will. I know there are other people who are not actively underground right now that are watching this issue around karst and speleological protection. I thank the minister for referring to his letter, and I'll study that further.

The issues of the karst orders regarding forest land. I understand that for forestry purposes it's under the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'm aware of those. But there is specific overarching cave protection legislation — ecosystem-based and separate and distinct from, I think, the karst orders dealing with forestry practices or with the Heritage Conservation Act — that is required to ensure that B.C. caves and all values associated with caves and karst land are protected, whether on private or public land.

Again, I'm heartened to hear that the minister is open to hearing suggestions from the caving community and those involved with environmental issues around that, because these are all water issues too. They all come back to water, which is near and dear to all of us.

Moving along quickly, I just wanted to touch on, while I have the minister here…. I know his staff is working on this already. We've had discussions on the private member's bill dealing with antifreeze; the safe antifreeze act it's known as. I have, as the minister is aware, been submitting thousands and thousands of names on petitions to the minister from all over the province, and they continue to roll in. I've had further contact with some of the larger associations — Sierra Club, Western Canada Wilderness Committee and oth-

ers — who are anxious because we are now in May, and the end of the session is nearly upon us.

I have also spoken with industry reps since I spoke with the minister last. I'm curious. Are we going to be able to see this issue brought forward in a way that might avert it falling off the order paper?

Hon. B. Penner: I can inform the member that we are continuing to work on this issue. I do appreciate the member bringing it to our attention last fall, when he was first talking about it. The ministry has looked at a number of different options and is continuing to do that, about how we could accomplish the objective of reducing the impact on animals and other species that may be affected by this particular substance. To my knowledge, no other jurisdiction in North America has imposed a ban as a remedy. Maybe the member could correct me if I'm wrong. I know it's been talked about in other jurisdictions, but to this date I'm not aware of any others.

That doesn't mean we can't work with our neighbouring jurisdictions — including the federal government, which does have the ability already under existing legislation to regulate this substance. It is something that I remain actively involved in, and ministry staff are still pursuing this issue.

The Chair: If I could remind members that the supply estimates debate is about the estimates and shouldn't really be towards legislation or proposed legislation.

S. Fraser: Yeah, thank you for that, hon. Chair, and thanks to the minister for his answer.

Now for something different: park permit issues. Small operators that do tour operations in parks in my jurisdiction are having some significant problems, and I'm sure it's happening elsewhere. I think it's $265 a year for renewal of a park permit to do tours for a specific park.

We have small operators. These are operators that are stewards of the environment. They actually educate the public. They are with the public at the time they enter the park, so it's a small impact — actually, a positive impact. They usually end up picking up any garbage they find there. It's very, very well done.

There are 106 provincial parks within two hours, say, of Parksville, and we would like to have the freedom to visit them through these operators. At $265 per park per year, that would be a permit fee of about $28,000-plus, by my calculation, and that may include parks that are only visited once a year. This is very onerous on the smaller operators.

What's more, there's the issue of larger operators or full busloads of people. I'll use Cathedral Grove as an example, as the minister knows it. They stop there all the time. They don't do any guided tours, so the public are allowed to tromp throughout there — no disrespect to the public that are tromping throughout there — potentially causing damage.

There's no level of scrutiny or stewardship shown by an operator, and they're doing that for free. Operators from out of province are coming in and doing it for free. We're seeing it in kayak operations. Those that are forced to pay, if they do it properly, can be put out of business because of the costs. They are forced to watch other operators that decide not to pay, and there seems to be no scrutiny of those. It's a double standard; it's not fair.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the issue. I've got correspondence going back for several years now to the ministry and ministry staff, and we're not getting anywhere on this issue. Can the minister please help?

Hon. B. Penner: I am aware of the issue. I've also heard from a number of people, as has the member. In fact, the adventure tourism industry and a number of environmental groups are presently meeting in an effort to develop collaborative recommendations respecting park use permit policy, and they have told me that they expect to get some kind of advice or recommendations to me by the middle of May. That's in about two weeks' time. So they are looking at that particular issue.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm crossing my fingers, because we have had these deadlines over and over and over again, and we haven't been…. We're coming into another season, so these permits have to be purchased. The tourists are arriving, and it's a major hardship for these operators. I'm really hoping that this will be coming to fruition this month, as the minister indicated.

Lastly, because I have run out of time…. I dealt with this issue in the mining estimates. It's dealing with — it's the last time I take you and your staff on this circuitous route; I very much appreciate this — Kemess Mines. There's a mine north of Prince George, Kemess South. The expansion proposal includes an environmental assessment on a lake known as Duncan Lake. It's also known as Amazay, which I have to correct for Hansard. I said it meant mother caribou; it means a caribou calving area. It's the traditional territory of three, maybe four different nations, and they are all opposing the use of that lake as a tailing pond for 350 million tonnes of acid tailings from the proposed mine, essentially destroying the life in the lake.

The minister responsible referred me to these estimates, so I am following his direction. Just last week the minister claimed that there was involvement of the first nations who are opposing this. I have been informed that is not correct. For the record, the first nations involved have only recently received the B.C. EAO funding.

This is more than 14 months since a separate first nations process was promised and has not been delivered. This is almost 12 months since the funding was promised. The federal funding has still not been received due to laborious reporting requirements that expect the first nations to have to spend the money before they can be reimbursed.

The fact that the B.C. funding has been delivered less than four weeks before the final hearings means that the TseK'hene are unable to do meaningful research and hire experts in the field to analyze the company's EIA. However, they will be attending in Smithers — still under protest, the minister should know — and they'll be making final submissions.

The issue is about killing a lake. I'm not criticizing mining…. I visited the mine; it's very impressive. But how can this Ministry of Environment and this Minister of Environment even acknowledge an environmental assessment process that is contemplating killing a lake? This is a magnificent lake. I have visited the lake; it's like Lake Louise. It's a beautiful, beautiful lake. There are animals there. It is a caribou calving ground, as I mentioned. There are fish in the lake. How does that fit with the fourth great goal?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is making certain assertions which will be examined by the environmental assessment process, which is underway. It would not be appropriate for me, as a statutory decision-maker, to pass comment on the merits of a specific proposal while it's under an active review. In this case, it's a joint panel that's been established between the Canadian environmental assessment office and the B.C. environmental assessment office. It will be subject to the appropriate scrutiny.

S. Fraser: In closing, I will make comment on this. The process, as I've just pointed out, has been flawed. The meaningful consultation with first nations has not occurred. Some 350 million tonnes of acid tailings into this lake will kill it. That doesn't jive with any environmental assessment or any fourth great goal that I'm aware of.

D. Routley: I would like to talk about creeks and streams and logging practices and the effects of those on those streams and surrounding areas on Vancouver Island. The previous member spoke about the fact that communities are horrified by what we see occurring on the land base.

I've had a history in logging in my early days in the employment market. I know that the standards for usage and the standards for management of the land have slipped dramatically. As a result we see massive amounts of timber lying on the private managed forest lands especially. This logging debris is making its way into our streams, and it's clogging streams. We see the results of this in flooding and damage to the streambeds.

I brought some of this to the attention of the minister. Saywell Creek in Honeymoon Bay was quite dramatically clogged with logging debris, to the point where a ten-foot dam built up behind a logging bridge. Logging debris caused this. The water rose ten feet and flooded the road on either side of the bridge until it finally let go. The logging debris didn't let go, but the berms that led up to the bridge let go. A massive amount of gravel, rock and water shot down Saywell Creek, causing extreme flooding and the near-complete loss of some homes.

This has been brought to the attention of the minister, and I'm sure he's concerned about the effect that it's having on the streambeds. I'm wondering what action might have been taken and whether or not there's any room in the budget to address the needs of the Honeymoon Bay and Lake Cowichan area.

Hon. B. Penner: Before I get to the member's question, I want to go back to the closing comments from the member for Alberni-Qualicum. I believe he was intending to suggest that there had not been consultation on the part of the province or the environmental assessment office with respect to the particular mining proposal that he was discussing. In fact, the environmental assessment office has been in contact with first nations there since 2004.

They did take the position that they wanted funding from the provincial government, and specifically from the environmental assessment office, to help them participate in the assessment process. The funding they were seeking initially was virtually equal to the entire budget for the environmental assessment office, so it was a funding request that was simply beyond the capacity of the environmental assessment office.

The environmental assessment office today has about 50 or so significant projects under review. To simply acquiesce to a request for an amount of funding — equal to the entire amount of money that the environmental assessment office spends on 50 projects — to assist groups with the review of one particular project was something that was not doable.

However, I am aware that funding has been made available. I'm not sure whether it's been taken up at this point, but there was funding made available from both the federal and provincial governments to assist the first nations to participate in that review. As indicated, it is a work in progress, and it will have to run its course.

In terms of the question from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, the ministry is familiar with some of the issues that he refers to. It is something that we take seriously, and staff do follow up when the issues are brought to their attention or when they discover it on their own.

D. Routley: I'm sure that the ministry staff do what they can to be aware and to react to these things, but it is a crisis that needs to be dealt with.

We've gone through a very difficult winter, with the acceptance that climate change will bring more frequent extreme-weather events. I think we can expect more of the same. We also can expect the outcomes from logging practices not to go away overnight. As soon as the weather turns again in the fall, the residents are afraid they'll face similar flooding issues.

They are concerned not only with flooding issues but with other creeks. Robertson River is the source of

drinking river for Honeymoon Bay. There's a small dam which collects the drinking water. For the same reasons — clearcutting just above the dam — the dam now fills up with gravel almost immediately. Last fall 260 truckloads were excavated from behind the dam. Within weeks, more gravel had practically filled the reservoir.

I hiked up there two weekends ago to see it myself. It's absolutely full to the top with gravel. As a result, the township of Honeymoon Bay must pump their water from the lake, which is a much less satisfactory source of water — less clean, less clear and more prone to pollutants.

It is an immediate problem that will not go away and will continue to recur as the weather turns again. The people of Honeymoon Bay and the Cowichan Lake area would very much appreciate a commitment from the ministry to address these issues around drinking water, creekbed damage and flooding — issues which are affecting not only their properties but also the salmon beds.

We've seen streams entirely reroute themselves because of this damage. I wonder if the minister has looked at what steps could be done to remediate some of those effects environmentally.

Hon. B. Penner: It would require staff on the ground to take a look at the specific situation and to determine for themselves what the appropriate course of action would be. I do believe ministry policy would dictate that any remedial action required would have to be paid for by the person, persons or corporate entity responsible for whatever degradation had taken place. That is the policy of the ministry: to make sure that the polluter pays.

D. Routley: Would it be possible to exact from the minister a commitment to direct staff to look at this problem over the short term? The people of that area are very concerned that this problem will only worsen. Some of the people affected by the flood have had their properties eroded to the point where they've lost 30 percent and 40 percent of their property to this issue.

These are huge losses. Damage to homes has been covered somewhat by the provincial emergency preparedness program, but loss of entire thirds of properties is not being addressed. They're facing a real crisis.

It seems to be the consensus that there would be required an environmental engineering study of how the creek has been affected by a rerouting project that took place some 70 years ago. There's a widespread belief that the river is attempting to return to its original course. If that were true, it would put the highways ministry bridge in the wrong place, and put roads and houses at extreme threat.

Would the minister agree today to take a look at this issue and consider the possibility of an engineering study being done for this area?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll ask staff to go out, to take a look at this and to report back.

D. Routley: Thank you very much, Minister. I believe the residents will be very glad to hear that. Often with these problems, the residents are frustrated at public meetings by the local politician referring to the provincial role and by the provincial politician — never me — referring to the difficult federal fisheries role. There's an obvious need for a partnered approach to this issue.

Is the ministry open to partnerships with federal and local governments around remediation of creek and streambed issues?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that I share the member's pain. Coming from the Fraser Valley, it's been an ongoing struggle, for example, to get a regular regimen of environmentally responsible gravel removal from the Fraser River for flood protection purposes. So I fully appreciate what the member is saying — that the public gets frustrated hearing of various levels of government not being able to get the job done.

We are working hard, in the case of the Fraser River, to get the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to a place where we can get a more regular removal regime in place. We've made some progress. Obviously, there's more work to be done.

In the case that the member mentions, we are interested in those kinds of cooperative approaches as well.

D. Routley: That ends my questions. My thanks to the minister. I'm glad he shares that concern. I know that with the Fraser and the lands there, it's on an incomparable scale, but the rightness and wrongness of people being affected is still every bit as strong. So thank you for that, and I'll pass to my colleague.

D. Thorne: A little confusion with our timing there. Anyway, I'll go ahead. Hopefully, I won't be too, too long. Thank you for letting me speak.

I have four or five different questions. They're all a little bit different. Yesterday I rose when we were looking at second reading of Bill 24, and I referred to one of the issues that I want to bring up today, which is the IPPs or the run-of-river energy proposals for the Upper Pitt River and Pinecone Burke provincial park and the transmission lines through the northern part of the park.

I want to ask the minister again today: what is their assessment of the preapplication plan around these run-of-river projects? Actually, it's one application, I believe. The end result will be the damming of eight tributaries. All of this will necessitate running a transmission line likely through part of Pinecone Burke, which was only recently made a class-A park by the government in the last sort of 15 years.

Our understanding in Coquitlam is that these kinds of applications would not be accepted, that we wouldn't be looking at running transmission lines and things like that through a class-A park — with some verification from his own department and the federal government around this being actually illegal in a provincial park.

I'd like some clarification of that, of whether or not it is legal to even go to the preapplication stage with this. Also, if this should pass the environmental assessment and we do degradate Pinecone Burke with a transmission line in order to make this independent power project work, how is his department going to mitigate for the fisheries impacts on those eight tributaries with the damming that is going to occur, according to the project prospectus?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry has not received any formal request to remove any lands from Pinecone Burke provincial park.

D. Thorne: My understanding from my constituent is that we are moving into the preapplication stage with this IPP, and that the only way it could work is to have a transmission line through the park.

I have maps in my office showing where the line would likely have to go. My concern, and I guess the nub of my question, is: why are we going into a preapplication stage? Is this legal to do this, or is the minister saying that you haven't decided yet whether you're just going to turn this IPP down cold and not even go into a preapplication stage? Perhaps I should rephrase in that way.

Hon. B. Penner: The member may be confusing two different processes. One is the Environmental Assessment Act and the reviews that are conducted by the environmental assessment office pursuant to that legislation. There's a trigger under that legislation. In terms of electricity projects, if there's a project of 50 megawatts or larger in size, then that triggers an environmental assessment office review.

The second process the member may be alluding to is policy guidelines that are publicly available on the Ministry of Environment website for consideration of park boundary adjustments. That's a separate process that is not under the Environmental Assessment Act review or part of the environmental assessment office process.

D. Thorne: I mean, it is confusing — right? There are so many acts, etc. You know, even the public sometimes can't figure it out.

The letter of March 14 that your office received from the Burke Mountain Naturalists — and that I have a copy of — regarding these IPPs and the park states that they have spoken with officials in your ministry and in the environmental assessment office who acknowledge that a hydroelectric transmission line through a class-A provincial park is illegal.

Now, I've rarely known Dr. Elaine Golds to misunderstand information that she's gotten, but I suppose it's possible that this could be in error — that this is illegal. It seems like you're referring to both of these — your department and the environmental assessment process department, office, whatever you want to call it. It looks like they're communicating with both and working with both, and I think that's not unusual for this group. It's a pretty well-known and well-respected group.

I guess maybe this is something that I can ask your office to follow up on and to get back to me when I can get the answer to my question, which is: why are we allowing even an application of this magnitude when the only way it will work is to put a transmission line through the park with the damming of eight tributaries that are all fish-bearing tributaries?

More and more people, particularly people associated with the Upper Pitt…. The man who runs the fishing lodge up there, who's done lots of work with the provincial government, is now strongly opposed to this IPP when he realizes the environmental degradation that's going to occur if this does pass through these different processes, whether they're in your department or in the environmental assessment department.

I don't think they care which department it's in or how it's going to happen. They want to know why it's happening, why we're even considering it when these are the end results. If I'm supposed to talk to somebody other than yourself, you just need to tell me who we need to talk to and how we can do that publicly.

Hon. B. Penner: The member, I think, stumbled upon a very important phrase just at the conclusion of her remarks when she says: "If these are the end results." She said that, however, after saying…. I think I heard her say correctly: "People shouldn't even be allowed to make proposals and shouldn't be allowed to bring certain projects to the environmental assessment office for review."

That's a pretty dangerous proposition, not to allow due process to take its course. That's why we do have legal mechanisms in place to review projects, to see whether or not they can be done in a way that meets the various environmental, social and economic criteria that are laid out in the Environmental Assessment Act.

I'm not going to make a decision standing on the floor of the Legislature about any specific project that hasn't yet been reviewed, and I would suggest that the member opposite shouldn't either.

That's why there are engineers. That's why there are biologists. That's why there are hydrologists and other experts that get consulted on things to do with wildlife and other issues who participate in these Environmental Assessment Act reviews.

We spent close to an hour, I think, earlier this afternoon discussing here in the chamber how environmental assessments are undertaken, the various agencies that get involved, including the Canadian Wildlife Service; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Health Canada; the Ministry of Environment, provincially; the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; the Ministry of Forests; Transport Canada; the provincial Ministry of Transportation; and the aboriginal affairs ministry.

Those are all potential referral agencies that get consulted when proposals are put forward, and that helps determine and inform a decision.

I hope the member is not suggesting that we don't need to consult with those referral agencies before making a decision about a specific proposal. There is an extensive process that goes on. Again, we could refer the member to the Hansard transcript from earlier today, when we reviewed this entire process in some detail.

I would also just suggest to the member that it would be helpful for people who are interested in learning more about how run-of-river projects work to take the time to visit one. I'm not sure if the member has had the opportunity to do so. I understand the critic for the Energy Ministry visited the Furry Creek project last fall and was heard to make the observation that it looked like a great project.

These projects can be done in a way that's environmentally responsible, but I can't stand here today and tell you whether any particular proposal that has not yet been subject to a full environmental assessment process or has otherwise been scrutinized by ministry employees is worthy of support.

That's why there are processes established, and frankly, that's why we have people working in the Ministry of Environment and other agencies in government, provincial and federal, to determine whether or not projects are worthy of support and should be allowed to proceed.

We'll have to see where this particular project goes, if in fact it advances to a specific proposal. At this point, I'm advised that we have not received an application for a park boundary amendment, which I think was one of the member's questions early on.

The Chair: May I remind all members that the debate should be directed through the Chair.

D. Thorne: I just want to assure the minister that if I said we shouldn't accept proposals, I misspoke. I certainly didn't mean that. Of course we should accept proposals.

I guess I assumed that the preapplication stage was further along in the process and that there were certain criteria that a project would have to meet or, shall we say, not meet before they'd even go into a preapplication stage. So I do need to, obviously, follow that up more. I was trusting on my constituent, Dr. Elaine Golds, who has visited all of these areas many, many times and is in contact with the ministry and with the proponents quite often, I would assume.

I guess what you're saying is that you don't have an application yet. So when you do get the application, it will proceed into an environmental assessment — that happens, I'm assuming, in every case — at which point you decide whether the environmental impacts would be too great before it gets turned down.

I'll leave that for now, but I will follow up on that at a later date when the application actually is received and the work starts.

My next question concerns the proposed rock quarry in Burke Mountain, which is part of the Gateway project so is, in fact, through the Ministry of Transportation. But Coquitlam council has voted unanimously to oppose this project — on April 16 — because they are concerned about several things, mostly about flooding and environmental destruction.

I would like to know what involvement the Ministry of Environment has with this proposed rock quarry and how the environmental destruction, which city council is so concerned about, is going to be mitigated.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not intimately familiar with the project or proposal that the member refers to. It's likely, if it's dealing with aggregate, that it would be an application that would be forwarded to the Ministry of Energy and Mines for determination. If so, then my understanding is that the Ministry of Environment would play a referral role. That is, the Ministry of Energy and Mines would consult with the Ministry of Environment about our perspective on that particular application. I don't have any information here with me about that particular application.

D. Thorne: I did ask the minister of mines last week in estimates, and he referred me to the Ministry of Transportation. I thought since I was asking questions here today that I would refer to it. I know it's an upcoming project, so nothing has started yet. I'm assuming that Coquitlam council will be getting in touch with the Ministry of Environment about this, so they can expect to hear much more about this in the near future.

My next question also concerns the Gateway project, actually. It's about the crossing of the Coquitlam River. I'm wondering if we're looking at the impacts of new lanes on the bridge or the new crossings across the Coquitlam River because of upgrades to the Mary Hill bypass in particular.

There is a lot of concern about the wildlife management area under the bridge. It's the largest heron nesting area in the lower mainland. Colony Farm, which is right next door — it almost is part of it — provides a critical feeding area for the herons. There is a fair amount of concern amongst the Colony Farm group — the Burke Mountain, all the naturalist groups in the Coquitlam Tri-City area — about the herons and what's going to happen when we start the new crossings, etc.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the environmental assessment office website has information on it pertaining to the Gateway project. The terms of reference have been posted. If you point your browser in that direction, you'll see all the different things that are supposed to be examined as part of the review. It's still in the preapplication stage, to my understanding, but the terms of reference should be available on the website.

D. Thorne: Obviously, most of my questions this year are pre-preapplication stage questions, and I'm

kind of jumping the gun on several things. Perhaps when we're in estimates next year I'll be able to get more specific answers.

For my last question I'll wind up back where I usually wind up, which is the Pipeline Road, the Coquitlam River and the gravel mines on Pipeline Road.

I'm wondering how the ministry is feeling about the aggregate task force this year: if we've had a good year; what new initiatives the Ministry of Environment is doing to ensure that the fishery in the river is maintained; what different kinds of programs might have been started, implemented, since last year; and how that's all going.

I'm still getting lots of complaints from people about the river. I also hear that the task force is actually doing quite well and coming along much better than in previous years. That's pretty reassuring to me. That concludes my remarks.

Hon. B. Penner: Pleased to hear from the member that she…. I think she indicated that the task force is working well, but I'll see if I can determine on my own and get some additional information about that.

M. Sather: I want to start off by asking the minister a question about the greater sandhill crane population in Pitt Meadows, which is very tenuous. We do a crane count there every year, and we only have about ten to 12 birds remaining of a population that was reportedly in the thousands at one time.

I met with the minister's staff last fall. They were very receptive to the idea of enhancing habitat for the cranes. There's a very critical period when the crane young are flightless. They tend to move out of the wildlife management area into fields that used to be green fields but now are berry fields and so are not really suitable for foraging for the birds.

I also did an on-site visit with one of the ministry staff. He had a proposal and a budget to do a burn to remove some of the woody habitat to improve the habitat for cranes. I just got an e-mail from the minister this morning in reference to that, reaffirming what I've said. I'm just wondering where we're at with the possibility of carrying out this project.

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have the information with me about that particular project or whether it's been funded in this fiscal, but we can definitely check that and get back to you.

M. Sather: I doubt that it has…. I don't know whether it's been funded or not. What I do know is that the window, unfortunately, has passed, I think, according to the information I got on the ground there that the burn would need to be done in early to mid-April.

Not only that, but the thing is that now the cranes are nesting in the vicinity. It would be pretty risky to do that while the birds are on the nest. I'm hopeful because it is a good project. It could help the birds in their desperate plight, as it were.

I know the ministry was receptive and keen on doing it. I'm just wondering…. It doesn't seem like it's possible this year. Is the minister…? How does he feel about it being done next year, then, if it can't be done this year?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll have to follow up with our ecosystem staff to see just where that project's at. I can't purport to be familiar with that at this time, unfortunately.

M. Sather: I'll move on to another area that the minister is familiar with, and that's the Blue Mountain area in Maple Ridge. A group that is carrying forward the concerns around that area met with the minister and also the Minister of Agriculture last spring and had subsequent meetings with ministry staff.

I went to one of those on February 26. There were Environment staff there, Agriculture and Lands staff and I think somebody from forestry as well. The greatest concern for the residents in the Whonnock area — which is sort of downstream, if you will, or downhill from Blue Mountain — is about their water supply.

They're not on city water. They all have wells, mostly shallow wells, and there's a lot of activity on Blue Mountain. Some of it is recreational activity. There are concerns about vehicles going through streams there and what effect that could have, but there are also concerns that they have about forest cover removal and what effect that might have on these shallow aquifers.

On the meeting that I attended…. It seems that it's a little difficult to determine — or maybe more than a little bit — which ministry is really taking the lead role on this file. But one of the ministry staff that was there — I believe her name is Julia Berardinucci — said that a basic hydrogeological study should be done to determine the boundaries of the recharge area for the Kanaka Whonnock Creek aquifer, as it's referred to on Blue Mountain.

Apparently, my understanding is that what she said…. She put this proposal forward to her superior, and it was denied. I wonder if the minister could comment on why it would have been denied.

Hon. B. Penner: Staff have been checking, but we don't have the details on that particular application. Was it in the last fiscal year, 2006-2007? Or is it for the current fiscal, 2007-2008?

M. Sather: It would be, in my understanding, for the current fiscal year because the statement by the staff member I mentioned was in February of this year. I'm not 100-percent sure which fiscal it would be, but I'm hoping it would be this fiscal. I can't really say, but that was my understanding.

Hon. B. Penner: Unfortunately, I don't know exactly how much this study would cost, and we don't

have the details here with us. But I'm advised by my assistant deputy minister for the water stewardship division that the ministry would be willing to provide some advice to the community if they were wanting to hire a consultant themselves to do the study. We could assist them in finding an appropriate person to do that.

M. Sather: The community certainly wants to see some scientific data gathered on the boundaries of the recharge area. The Ministry of Forests had done kind of a drive-around survey for a couple of days in February. But you really don't come up with enough data in that respect.

So there are some problems, obviously, for a grass-roots organization to come up with the funding that's necessary to do these kinds of studies. But particularly with global warming now, and it seems that we're getting a lot of drought in the lower mainland and the wells are getting quite low and drying up in some cases…. So before a study can be done, because we don't know exactly when it can be done, can the minister say to the community what will be done to protect the aquifer?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll have to take this particular issue under advisement because we don't have the details here with us about the project that the member is referring to.

M. Sather: What the community also wanted me to ask the minister is that the bottom line for them is if they lose their water supply, if the aquifer fails…. You know, to hook up to city water is a huge expense, and I don't know that the municipality would even go for that. So their question is: who's going to pay for the loss of their wells and the associated costs if their wells go dry? Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. B. Penner: It sounds like a bit of a hypothetical question. My understanding is that those wells are not dry at this time. We certainly do encourage local governments, communities and individuals to adopt greater measures in terms of water conservation.

As a ministry, we're looking at a number of options provincewide that we can implement to try and get local governments and individuals to think more carefully about their water supplies. Traditionally in British Columbia we've had the expectation that if you open the tap and let it run, the water should just keep on flowing. But increasingly around the province we're finding that our water resources are getting pretty close to being fully allocated. In some cases, it's possible that they may be overallocated, oversubscribed.

I know that's hard to believe when we're just a couple of weeks away from the spring freshet, and I know many people are concerned about what the Fraser River is going to do, whether it's going to stay confined within its banks or if it's going to overtop the banks. Certainly, we hope that the river does stay within its banks.

The most recent information that I've seen from our river forecast centre and snowpack measurements indicate that the month of April was not particularly kind to us in the Fraser Valley, or to people living along the Fraser River generally, because we continue to see significant snow accumulation in some of the key watersheds in the northern and central part of British Columbia. So we're mindful of that fact, but at the same time, even as we're preparing for the potential of high water, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we need to do a better job of conserving our water resources.

I'm not singling out this particular community but just making a general observation that in British Columbia we've tended to take water for granted, particularly drinking water. We need to better value that resource because it is limited in quantity, which is hard to believe after coming through the winter we just did with some pretty heavy rainfall and snow accumulations.

In other parts of the province and in certain times of the year, even in the lower mainland and on the wet coast of British Columbia, we are running into water scarcity issues. So it's a big challenge for all of us, and we'll be looking at a number of measures we can adopt to help people make better use of the water that is there.

M. Sather: I wanted to go on to ask the minister some questions about an area of high environmental sensitivity, and that's a big development that's proposed to happen in southwest Mission by Genstar Development in the Silverdale area and also Silvermere Island, which is right on the Stave River. It's Silvermere Island that I want to confine my remarks primarily to because it's right on the Stave River, which has the largest run of salmon in the lower mainland and a variety of species. It's a very rich area in terms of waterfall habitat and nesting habitat.

Dr. Marvin Rosenau was the senior fisheries biologist for the ministry on this project and noted: "The upland terrestrial system on the island at this location is unlike anything that I am aware of in British Columbia and should receive special consideration." He was 20 years in the ministry.

The primary concern that's being talked about is that the developer wants to use a 15-metre riparian area setback as opposed to the 30 metres that is recommended by the municipality at this point. Dr. Rosenau noted that the riparian boundary setback for large bodies of water like Stave River and Silvermere Lake required 30 metres. He also said in his report: "It's my professional opinion that the proposed Genstar development at Silvermere Lake will cause considerable negative impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems." He added: "This project constitutes one of the most environmentally damaging development projects that I have had occasion to review." Very strong words for a senior biologist with 20 years with the ministry. He has concerns about the environmental consultant's report. It's the Pottinger Gaherty environmental assessment, and he said that it seriously undermines the impacts associated with this project.

Subsequent to giving this report, he was removed from this project by the ministry, and I would like to know why.

Hon. B. Penner: I caught most of the preamble to that question, but I don't think I actually heard the question itself. I wonder if the member could repeat.

M. Sather: After giving that damaging report, Dr. Roseneau was removed from that project by the ministry, and I wanted to know why he was removed.

Hon. B. Penner: I don't talk about personnel issues related to specific employees in the Ministry of Environment.

M. Sather: Well, it certainly is a concern to the community, and it certainly does raise a flag as to why that happened, and it's certainly viewed as an unfortunate occurrence, to say the least.

I wanted to ask the minister, then, about this report. The Pottinger Garety Environmental Consultants' report of December last year — has the ecosystem section of the ministry received a copy of the report to review?

Hon. B. Penner: There's a pretty significant paper flow in and out of the ministry, but as to that particular report, I don't have that information here with me in the House about where that one ended up.

M. Sather: It's unfortunate we can't get more information on this project. That's some of the concern, as I'll go on to talk about.

Another possibility with regard to an assessment like this is a requirement for a Water Act section 9 approval. As I understand, there's a project in Abbotsford at the Mineralde Grove, one of the two, at the moment where this is taking place. Will there be such a section 9 approval for this project?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 9 approvals under the Water Act are granted to permit construction or other works in and around a water body or a stream course. Whether or not a specific application is granted, I suppose, turns on the merits of that specific application.

The ministry receives numerous applications every year related to flood protection work and the construction of water intakes for community drinking water purposes and for a variety of other purposes, including the generation of zero emission hydroelectric power. But as to whether a permit will be granted on this particular application, it's difficult for me to say because I won't be the person making that decision. That would be the people authorized under the act to make that decision.

M. Sather: I wanted to talk a little bit about the background to this issue. Genstar Development complained back a number of years ago, when they started this project, that with the 30-metre setback requirement it would "seriously jeopardize the successful development of southwest Mission." The member for Maple Ridge–Mission, who is a known supporter of Genstar…. I mean, he's appeared at public hearings with the Genstar T-shirt and speaking in favour of the development. It's on the public record that he has received donations from Genstar. After that, that member then chairs a committee that comes up with the riparian areas regulation, which dropped the requirement from 30 metres to 15 metres.

Does the minister have any concern and would he make some comment about the involvement of the member in this project and then chairing the committee that comes up with the 15-metre setback, which is obviously to the benefit of the developer?

Hon. B. Penner: The member may want to check his sources about what the riparian areas regulation actually does. It appears that whoever is giving him information hasn't given him the accurate information, and that's unfortunate. In fact, what the regulation does is permit the development within a 30-metre riparian assessment area only if a qualified environmental professional has certified that the development will not result in a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

It certainly doesn't operate the way that the member describes. That's not its intent. In fact, its intent is to look at what the outcomes are that we're hoping to achieve, which is the protection of the form and function and nature of the watercourse.

M. Sather: I have to totally disagree with the minister there. It certainly is a move to reduce the requirement to make it easier for development.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission appeared at an April 19, 2006, meeting of Mission council to encourage the municipality to adopt the 15-metre RAR setbacks. He indicated that in the event of a municipality's setback requirement differing from a setback recommended by a qualified professional — that would be the professional who would be provided by the developer — compensation could potentially become an issue and that the government is looking at legislation to deal with this issue.

Is the government looking at introducing new legislation that could force a municipality, by way of compensation to the developer, to adopt the RAR regulation?

Hon. B. Penner: No, but I would encourage the member to actually read the riparian areas regulation. He'll be better informed about how it operates.

R. Hawes: Madam Chair, the member is making some allegations of what he purports that I may have said to Mission council. The fact is that that is not a factual statement. I did not say that to Mission council. I would like him to withdraw that.

M. Sather: I'm going by the minutes of a meeting of Mission council. I can provide them to the member afterwards, if he'd like.

R. Hawes: Just further on that point of order, Madam Chair, to my knowledge, legislation has never

been considered such as the member purports. If Mission council says something in their minutes, he can say that Mission council says that. But I can say that I never said those things to Mission council, because to my knowledge, that legislation has not been considered by government.

C. Evans: I think this is a wonderful moment in the history of this place. I get quoted all the time by members of the opposition saying all kinds of haywire things that I've said. I've always wanted to stand up and say, "That's out of context, that's not true," all that kind of stuff, but I sat here and sort of sucked it up.

Now, I would like to advise my friend and colleague: take it back and then we can do the same thing forever when quoted inappropriately by friends opposite.

M. Sather: I will attempt to take my learned colleague's advice, and I did not mean to indicate in any other way that the member had said this other than it was reported as having been said. So if the member is offended by that, I would certainly withdraw it.

I just wanted to finalize by asking the minister one other question with regard to this project. The one other hammer that the government can invoke to ensure, I suppose, that a project would proceed would be the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. I would like to know from the minister whether or not he would contemplate using that legislation or whether he could assure the House that he would not.

Hon. B. Penner: If I heard the member correctly, he was referring to the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. That's a piece of legislation that I am not responsible for, and I would remind the member that we're actually debating the budget estimates for the Ministry of Environment, not for some other ministry.

But while we're on the topic of the riparian area regulation, which I still would encourage the member to take the time to read and think about, I can inform the member that the regulation's science-based assessment methodology establishes standards to be implemented by qualified professionals to determine potential impacts of development and to design developments to avoid impacts.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials have agreed that development proponents following this process would be considered to have exercised reasonable due diligence under the Fisheries Act. DFO has publicly communicated that they are in agreement with the riparian area regulation approach.

G. Robertson: I have some questions for the minister specifically on oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast. Are there any ministry resources allocated in this budget and the ensuing service plans and budget and fiscal plans for assessing any of the risks associated with tanker spills, marine pipelines, etc., that could impact on B.C.'s coastal ecosystems?

G. Robertson: My question was whether there were ministry resources allocated to studying and assessing the risks associated with oil and gas tanker traffic on the B.C. coast and marine pipelines.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just ask the member for some further clarification. I think at the tail end of his question, he used the phrase "marine pipelines." I'm not quite sure what he means by "marine pipeline."

There is an underwater pipeline to Vancouver Island, for example, that brings natural gas. I'm not sure if he's referring to that existing pipeline, and whether we're monitoring that existing natural gas pipeline, or some other potential pipeline somewhere else.

G. Robertson: I'm referring to any existing marine pipelines and any proposed marine pipelines, such as those on the north coast related to pipeline proposals in Kitimat, for example.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of the member's specific question around monitoring underwater pipelines, I'm told that is not something that's within the purview of the Ministry of Environment. That's beyond our jurisdiction. It would be a different agency that would be responsible for that.

The Ministry of Environment does partner with jurisdictions up and down the west coast, other states, in terms of preparing for the potential and the need to respond to spills that occur in the ocean marine environment. So we do participate and partner with jurisdictions up and down the west coast.

G. Robertson: Can the minister identify the agencies that he refers to that are responsible for monitoring the marine pipelines on the B.C. coast?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my understanding it would be a federal organization. It may be under the auspices of the National Energy Board, but I don't know that for sure.

G. Robertson: Specifically on oil and gas tanker traffic, the minister mentioned efforts in collaboration with other jurisdictions, other states. Does the ministry actually know what internal budget there is and FTEs that are working on risk assessment monitoring and research efforts related to oil and gas tanker traffic and the potential for spills?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry does have personnel, entitled spill response officers, that work for the ministry. In addition, there are people who — this is typical in government, but also the Ministry of Environment — are trained to perform a variety of tasks and so, depending on the situation, can perform a variety of different roles.

The member will recall the very unfortunate, tragic sinking of the Queen of the North last year. I think that was in the month of March or April, if my memory serves me correctly. Coincidentally, just a short time before that, the ministry had completed an exercise involving a variety of different agencies simulating a spill of very similar magnitude.

I've been advised since that time that the ministry has participated in exercises with our neighbours, including Alaska, where a simulated oil spill incident was planned, and then our different agencies worked together to put together a response. That response is then evaluated. So the ministry does participate in these kinds of exercises and planning on an ongoing basis.

G. Robertson: From the minister's response, my translation is that there is no dedicated ministry staff and budget allocation to looking at tanker traffic, oil spills and potential impact of increased tanker traffic on the coast. Is that right? There are no designated FTEs and allocated budget?

Hon. B. Penner: That's not quite correct. We do have personnel whose job is dedicated to spill response, planning and coordination. I don't have the specific breakdown here, but I know I've met them when I've gone out to various scenes in the past.

G. Robertson: Given the example of the Queen of the North and the consequences that continue to play out there, I would appreciate the minister agreeing to provide that information on what staff and resources are allocated in future. Will he be agreeable to that?

I'll carry on. A question specific to the federal moratorium on oil tankers transiting the north coast of B.C. through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound: is the minister in favour of this moratorium being lifted to allow for oil tankers having access to the north coast of B.C.?

Hon. B. Penner: I know there's been some discussion about whether or not such a moratorium actually exists in law or not and whether or not it was intended, if it did exist, to apply to through traffic passing through our waters from, let's say, Washington State to Alaska, as opposed to heading for a destination in British Columbia.

Obviously, it would be difficult to bring a vessel into a port in British Columbia if that policy was in effect. There is a proposal, I understand, in Kitimat that would establish some form of a pipeline loading or off-loading facility. That project, as far as I know, is subject to an environmental assessment.

G. Robertson: Is the minister aware at this time of oil tankers accessing the north coast of B.C. into Kitimat via the Dixon Entrance or Hecate Strait, which would be in violation of the federal moratorium — which, as the minister pointed out, is a policy moratorium, not a legislated moratorium? Is the minister aware of tankers currently transiting those bodies of water to access the north coast?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect the Canadian Coast Guard would be aware. They have responsibility over navigable waters. I don't have personal knowledge one way or the other. I do know there's a proposal to establish a facility, and it's subject to an environmental assessment.

I do recall receiving letters from local first nations expressing some interest in that project. I think there's support from local first nations in the Kitimat area for the economic development that such a project would bring, but I think that's a matter for the environmental assessment office to consider.

Going back to an earlier question the member had around the personnel we have in the Ministry of Environment: the appropriate title is environmental emergency response officers. We have 17 regional staff and three in Victoria.

G. Robertson: It's with great concern that I hear the minister assuming that the Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for paying attention to whether or not oil tankers are accessing the coast and thereby violating the moratorium that exists federally.

Given the example, again, of the Queen of the North and the ramifications for the environment on B.C.'s coast, one would think that the minister would be aware of what was taking place in terms of extremely hazardous materials in B.C.'s coastal environment and the potential for spillage and long-term impacts to the environment and the communities.

I'll ask it again. Reports are out there that oil tankers are accessing the north coast and transiting bodies of water in violation of the federal moratorium. Is the minister committed to looking into this and ensuring that B.C.'s environment is safeguarded and that the federal moratorium as it now exists — and obviously the implications for B.C. are huge — is upheld and oil tankers in violation of that are not permitted to access B.C. ports on the north coast?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by a couple of staff with me, including my assistant deputy minister for oceans, that there is no moratorium, as the member suggests, involving a prohibition on tankers using B.C. ports.

He may be confusing the arrangement that had been talked about, about Alaska oil tankers transiting Inside Passage waters through B.C. to get to Washington State. That's something we're familiar with, but the staff of the Ministry of the Environment are not aware of what the member is referring to when he suggests there is a moratorium prohibiting tankers from visiting B.C. ports.

There are a number of projects proposed in the Kitimat area, including a liquefied natural gas terminal that's been approved and has the support of the first nations in the area. I think the Haisla First Nation, for example, are a partner in that project. There's the Pembina condensate project, which I think is in a preapplication stage and is subject to further review. Those are the ones I'm familiar with.

I'm not sure if the member is suggesting today that those projects should not be permitted, should not be allowed because tankers will be required to have those projects operate. I seem to be sensing from the member that he thinks those projects should not be allowed.

If what he's suggesting is that tankers should not be allowed to visit our shores, that would be quite distressing, I would think, not just to the Haisla First Nation but to the community of Kitimat, due to the economics involved in these proposals and the potential to the northwest part of this province and its economy.

So I'm not sure if that's the position of the official opposition — that they're opposed to that project that's supported by the Haisla First Nation — or not.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and participate in the estimates debate for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I have a number of questions I'd like to get on the record, and we have very little time, so I'm hopeful we can plow through this.

Earlier on this afternoon there was a discussion about logging practices on private lands. There are two rivers, watersheds in my constituency, Kelvin Creek and the Koksilah River, that have been adversely affected by logging practices.

In the case of Kelvin Creek, which was historically a year-round creek, it is now a gravel pit for much of the year, a gravel body, as a result of erosion from the hillsides into the riverbed, affecting resident cutthroat as well as other flora and fauna in and around the creekbed.

So my question, firstly, to the minister with respect to Kelvin Creek: has anyone in the ministry visited the creek recently to observe logging practices in the area?

Hon. B. Penner: No, I'm not aware of that particular creek nor the incident that the member refers to.

J. Horgan: Well, with respect to the Koksilah River, recently the Cowichan Valley regional district with the assistance of the Cowichan Tribes removed tons and tons of what would have been slash had it not been jammed underneath a bridge backing up the Koksilah River and flooding adjacent areas.

I've been in discussion with the Minister of Tourism with respect to the impact those floods had on the Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club and other private properties. To the best of my knowledge, the ministry did not participate or involve itself in the cleanup.

I'm wondering if there would be any investigation forthcoming from this enormous log jam on the logging practices in and around the Koksilah watershed.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll have to ask staff to pursue that and get back to me on the details on that. The staff that are with me in the House aren't familiar with that issue.

J. Horgan: Just for those in the Maple Room, then, I'll say that I would like to move now to contaminated sites. I'll conclude by looking at environmental policy with respect to stocking lakes on Vancouver Island — if those watching could get their books ready.

With respect to contaminated sites, the minister will know we had a debate — sadly, not face to face or even in real time — around a contaminated-site repository at the Evans gravel pit in the Glenora area of my constituency. There's been some debate back and forth — toing and froing — with the proponent there and people in the community.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise if, prior to the issuance of a contaminated-soil removal permit, there was a site visit done by ministry staff to the Evans ready-mix site?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member knows, this issue goes back some time. In fact, it goes back to May 2000 when I think the member had different employment — working, I think, for the previous Premier of the province under a previous government. It was at that time that the relocation of 4,500 cubic metres of soil was authorized under a contaminated-soil relocation agreement issued at that time to Lunn Small Holdings Ltd.

Again, that was in May 2000. I don't have all the details here about the various things that were undertaken at that time in terms of the approval process by the ministry back in 2000.

J. Horgan: Well, the minister is ahead of me. That's the Spectacle Lake site, and I agree that the minister wasn't responsible at that time, nor was his government. But there is a remediation challenge there that has not yet been resolved, to the best of my knowledge. There was, I believe, a directive from the ministry for a remediation plan by the end of March.

Although that wasn't my first question, I'll make it my second. What's the status of the Spectacle Lake site with respect to the remediation plan, now seven years late?

I'll go back to my first question, if I could. It's the Glenora site, which is many kilometres north. It's an existing gravel site that has recently become a contaminated soil repository, receiving permits on the minister's watch.

My question on that site was: had the ministry done a site visit before the permits were issued? The rationale for the site visit was the location of the pit, nestled between the Koksilah River and Kelvin Creek.

Hon. B. Penner: I just want to make sure we are speaking about the same issues, so that we're on the same page here. The member's first question: was it related to what my notes refer to as the Koksilah Road site?

Hon. B. Penner: I can advise the member that ministry staff believe that the soil already meets residential soil standards before it's moved to that site. So to portray it as contaminated soil, while perhaps technically correct in terms of the legal definition, is perhaps unduly alarming to residents, because I'm advised that the soil meets residential soil standards.

J. Horgan: My question, though, was: did any ministry staff visit the site? It's critically important that the minister understand that this location is between a salmon-bearing river and a resident cutthroat creek in the middle of prime agricultural land in the Cowichan Valley. The concern of residents is that the soil may well be residential standard, according to the minister today, but if the process and the activity persists, it may well not be the same in the future.

The issue for my constituents is: did the ministry visit the site and get a sense of its location with respect to (a) these two rivers and (b) dairy agricultural land, where milk cows are eating grass that could at some point in the leaching process suck up some of the contaminants that are being dumped there? It's the site visit that's of concern to my constituents.

Hon. B. Penner: I know that ministry staff and mines inspectors have been to that site. Exactly when they were there, I don't know. I don't have that information here in front of me. I am familiar with the issue from last summer.

Again, it needs to be stressed that the soil meets residential soil quality standards, and it's going into a receiving environment that qualifies the same way. It's at the same standard.

Ministry staff have been to that site. I don't know exactly when they were there, but nothing that they've seen since they've been there to inspect it has raised any additional concerns.

J. Horgan: I'll just ask, then, if the minister could, when his staff get an opportunity, review the time that those visits took place. Perhaps he could provide me or this House with any reports that were prepared by those staff so that I can assure the constituents in the Cowichan Valley that the minister's assertions today in the House are correct.

I would also just point, again, to what was going to be my second question, which the minister started to answer in his first response. That's the Spectacle Lake site, when he referred to the 2000 relocation.

My understanding was, when we were having our discussion through the radio waves, that the ministry had demanded a remediation plan by a fixed date. I believe that fixed date has passed, so if the minister could assure me that he will return to this place with information on what the status of that plan is, I would be grateful.

With that, noting the time, hon. Chair, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

M. Farnworth: Yesterday we were on emergency preparedness, talking about the flooding and diking, and I know that my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows had asked some questions. I know that my colleague from New Westminster wants to ask some questions, and he will ask them shortly.

Before we start, I just wanted to quickly let the minister know that once we've dealt with emergency preparedness, I hope we are then in a position where we can move to the Crown corporations shortly after that — the Lottery Corporation and ICBC — and proceed on issues with that. My colleague from Delta North will be taking both those issues.

In terms of flooding — what the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows had left with — if the minister can respond, that would be great.

Hon. J. Les: Perhaps, so that I can respond accurately, the member opposite may want to put the question again, just so that I remember all of the relevant details of his question.

M. Sather: I was asking the minister about the allocation of money vis-à-vis the Fraser Basin Council report having come out back in December about the necessity to raise the dikes one metre, and why the minister and the government hadn't provided funds in the budget, with that notice, to address the problem rather than the emergency last-minute funding.

Hon. J. Les: I think a couple of facts are relevant here. The $33 million that has been advanced is the single largest allocation of that kind of funding ever in the history of the province. It has increased the previous best allocation by a factor of four. Clearly, we've had a very robust response this year to the potential flood threat.

We are also on the ground much earlier than had previously been the case. In 1999, for example, when we last had a flood threat — a snowpack that was similar to what is out there this year — response and preparation didn't begin until much later.

I mentioned yesterday in my remarks that our staff were meeting as early as the first week in January, getting themselves prepared and organizing and strategizing as to how we could meet this flood threat.

In terms of the diking infrastructure and issues of that nature, I'm sure the member is aware that what we are dealing with is a problem that has been developing over many decades. Everyone in the Fraser Valley that has any knowledge at all of the Fraser River and its tributaries is frustrated and has been frustrated for a long time that we are not been able to remove the silt and the gravel that is necessary to maintain the flow capacity of those streams and of that river.

That is something we need to re-engage on with the federal government, who have some of the regulatory processes in their hands. So we are left, in dealing with the potential threat that we face this spring, with making sure that our diking infrastructure is in the best possible shape.

We have, as I said, made $33 million available. Many communities have taken advantage of that. Do I think for a moment that that addresses all of the problems? No, it certainly does not. But it addresses many of the problems that we can deal with now and actually accomplish before the freshet begins.

M. Sather: I want to clarify something the minister said yesterday about the $33 million. My understanding is that that is being provided by the province. But the minister had said, as I understood it, that the province is looking to the federal government to cover off half of that amount.

If I understood that right, does that mean, then, that the whole $33 million is not available until the federal government comes forward? If the minister could just clarify that for me.

Hon. J. Les: We announced — I think six weeks or maybe going on two months ago now — that we're making $33 million available, and that money has all been allocated. We also said at that time that it is our belief that the federal government should be good for half of that.

I have been in discussion with my federal counterpart, the hon. Stockwell Day, with respect to that. I've said: "Your half of $33 million would be $16½ million." I do not yet have any response officially from Mr. Day — yes or no. However, that's immaterial at this point.

Quite frankly, it is our felt obligation that we need to be prepared. We have a responsibility to the public to ensure that the infrastructure is in place. We felt two months ago that we couldn't wait for the federal government to make a decision. We had to advance the money now. I would hope, and I still expect, that the federal government will come through with $16½ million.

C. Puchmayr: I thank the minister for entertaining the mayor and me in a meeting recently on this issue. The city of New Westminster has a very unique role in the GVRD — the fact that it is the geographic centre of the GVRD. It also has, along the key waterfront, quite a few thousand residents that live there, and the city is working very hard to do mitigation in that area. I believe they've spent close to $800,000 now of the city's tax dollars in mitigation.

The other components that are very crucial in that area…. You can just imagine, if you take the 400,000 cars that run through New Westminster on a daily basis, what impact that would have on the entire transportation grid from the Fraser Valley into Vancouver if they weren't able to run through there. It would be just an incredible impact on that structure.

We have the major North Fraser perimeter truck route that runs through New Westminster. It benefits all of the region. We have three railways. We have the Southern Pacific, CN and CP that run through New Westminster along the corridor that's in question.

We also have a fairly significant containment pond, an environmental containment system, which was put in to take road runoff water. It was a partnership between the GVRD, the provincial government and the city of New Westminster. That containment facility is not yet complete. It's still being constructed. It is exposed to some extreme risks should there be flooding in that area.

My question to the minister: in view of how the city plays such a structural role in the region of transportation, why would the government not look at this closer as a high-crisis need for mitigation?

Hon. J. Les: I was pleased to be able to meet with Mayor Wright and the member opposite — I think it was about a week ago — to discuss the particular situation in the city of New Westminster. I should point out, first of all, that two projects were in fact funded in the city of New Westminster. The value of those two projects was about $175,000.

I think it's important to keep in mind that as we fund these particular upgrades to infrastructure, it is of course in addition to all of the investment that has happened over the last 50 or 100 years right across the province, and certainly in the case of New Westminster as well. It isn't as if we're starting from ground zero. I'm also mindful of the fact that in 1999, when we had almost the exact same type of flood risk, there was no investment in additional flooding infrastructure in New Westminster, at least not by the province at that time.

With respect to the application that the member refers to that was not funded, there were, in the judgment of ministry staff, some issues with that. It was apparently of a temporary nature. What we were looking for here was the type of infrastructure that could be put in place and left in place for a long-term solution.

In spite of the fact that that particular project was not funded, I don't want to leave the member opposite, or anyone, with the impression that, as the next number of weeks unfold and we end up with emergency situations, we will be unable to respond. We have distributed sandbags to quite a number of municipalities across the province, including New Westminster. Those obviously could be useful.

We also have new technology available today in the form of gabion weirs. We apparently were just testing that out in the last day or so in Mission. These are structures that can add as much as a metre to the top of a dike. If you are talking about a 24-hour period, apparently we can do some two to three kilometres of that in that period of time.

Clearly, we have some options if a critical situation arises. We have no intention of just ignoring these situations, but we did have a bit of a self-imposed mandate to ensure that the $33 million of funding was put in places where it would endure to lasting effect and also make sure that those works could be accomplished well before the middle of May.

C. Puchmayr: Actually, I was on city council in 1999, and there were moneys from the province on some of the preventative measures that were undertaken in the city.

Certainly, there is a need for the federal government to come to the table. The minister makes reference to the issues with the Fraser River and the lack of dredging. I should let the minister know that there is a type of dredging that is being used now by the federal harbours board. That dredging is called channel dredging.

The idea is to dredge a river in such a way that it's self-flushing. The consequence to that is you end up with a lot of sand on the sides, so we have a lot of sandbars in areas that used to…. One of our marinas is completely covered over with sand because of the impacts of the channel dredging by the federal government.

So that has been taken into consideration, and maybe the minister can, when he's talking to Mr. Stockwell Day…. I know Mr. Stockwell Day is ready for flooding because I saw him in a wetsuit once. But I think that certainly has to be considered. The impact that the federal Harbour Commission is having on that water system and the river system really alludes to the fact that they need to come to the table.

My final question, I think, will be…. Our engineering said that the mitigation can't be done in a real short period of time — that it's not an area where you can do mitigation in a short period of time.

Can the minister assure me, my city and the commuters from all over who travel that route that mitigation can in fact be done on a very short notice without impact to looming disaster?

Hon. J. Les: If it comes to that and we do have critical situations that arise, our staff and government will certainly be there to do whatever is possible to ward off any danger to communities, to commuters and to residents. Obviously, that is our obligation, and that is one that we intend to fulfil to the utmost of our ability.

C. Puchmayr: I checked with the city engineering just a few minutes ago, and the fruits of the meeting we had…. No one has contacted them yet. Is the minister aware of any communication that's ongoing now? What needs to happen to put your people in touch with the engineering on this matter?

Hon. J. Les: I made a commitment that ministry staff would be in contact with the relevant staff from the city of New Westminster, and that will happen.

M. Farnworth: Before we go on to the Crown corporations, I have a few questions around Victim Services and crime statistics in general.

Between 2001 and 2005 there have been some significant changes around the issue of victim services. Many of the services have been reorganized. Has the minister monitored the reaction from victims during that time, particularly in the last 18 months to two years, to see how those changes have impacted the victims and their satisfaction with the program?

Hon. J. Les: I very much appreciate the question. In terms of monitoring how we're doing in terms of Victim Services across the province, we have each of the 150 Victim Services organizations across the province — whether they are community-based or police-based — report into the ministry. So that's obviously happening on a regular basis. We also employ focus groups, particularly in aboriginal communities, that are helpful in terms of determining a future direction in Victim Services.

We have not as yet implemented formal satisfaction surveys amongst victims groups. That is not to say it's something we won't do in the future, but to date we have not done that. We are relying on the monthly reporting processes and on the focus groups to give us the feedback that we need.

M. Farnworth: Well, given the importance of this particular issue and the terrible impact that occurs to

people when they have been victims of crime, I think it's important that the ministry do that. Whenever significant changes to programs are made, I think it's important that we monitor and survey and find out the satisfaction level amongst the people that we're trying to help to ensure that those changes are meeting their needs and that we can, if necessary, revamp, fine-tune and introduce new ways of dealing with the issues.

I would ask the minister to make that a priority. That is something that definitely needs to take place. I'll illustrate with some examples in a moment.

Has the minister had discussions with the federal government in terms of improvements that need to be made to the Victim Services program — recognizing there is the provincial program, but also the federal government can and does have a role to play in this particular area?

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member opposite is aware, in quite a number of areas of government policy there is involvement by the provincial and federal levels of government. From that flow federal-provincial-territorial working groups that report into ministerial meetings — in some cases, several times a year.

That is the case here as well. Our staff is involved in federal-provincial-territorial working groups with respect to Victim Services. As a group, they also do research into Victim Services delivery. From time to time, some funding actually flows from the federal government to help with that research.

As a province, obviously, we are significantly involved in that FPT process. Sometimes we, in fact, lead those processes. I think we are there. We're at the table, and we can be very proud of the role that our staff play in those processes.

M. Farnworth: I think in any of those processes our staff will be doing a terrific job. The question I'm wondering about is at the political level. Are there any specific initiatives that the minister is spearheading with the federal government?

Hon. J. Les: With respect to our involvement in federal-provincial discussions, we are very much spearheading the issue of the delivery of victim services to communities in the north and in aboriginal communities.

That, in part at least, comes about as a result of the tragic situations that we've had around Highway 16, where there have been a number of disappearances of women and a lot of traumatized families as a result. We have been very interested in making sure that we are at the leading edge of being able to deliver victim services to those communities who have been so horribly traumatized by these events.

I think we have benefited from that. Victim services in the north along the Highway 16 corridor have certainly benefited from those discussions, and that is something that we want to continue to support very strongly.

M. Farnworth: Those are important issues, and I want to say that they need to continue. We need to look at how we provide victim services to aboriginal communities and to aboriginal people and also to other parts of British Columbia. I also think we need to look at how victim services currently work and look at gaps, which is why I asked the question before about is there monitoring taking place.

I'm also concerned about the issue around the federal government's role, because I think they do have a role to play. It's important that the minister pursue those avenues. I've been raising some issues around Victim Services and how they relate to families who suffer.

For example, in one particular case in my riding, their son was murdered. It's had a devastating impact on the family. It has made it extremely difficult. There are some services there, but the effect on that family and their ability to stay together, particularly as it comes to the financial issue of being able to pay the mortgage and pay the bills, is significant.

One of the things that maybe is being looked at — I have raised it with the federal MP, Dawn Black, from New Westminster–Coquitlam; she understands the issue around victim services — is the area around employment insurance, for example.

I know that's a federal responsibility, but the ability of a federal program to be either changed or modified to take these types of circumstances into account as part of victim services is the type of thing that the province could be working with and pushing the federal government to recognize.

I have spoken with my own MP, James Moore. He understands the importance of victim services in this type of issue. The message I want to give the minister is that we need to be looking at ideas. We need to be talking to victims, we need to be monitoring the services, and we need to be saying — even if they are outside our jurisdiction, if they are coming forward with good ideas — that here is a way in which you can deal with some of these issues.

They don't impact a large number of people, but the number of people they do impact is significant. If there is an opportunity, then we should be taking a leadership role. I think the minister has that ability, as this province's Solicitor General, on these round-table discussions to do exactly that — to raise these types of issues as being a priority and say: "We are willing to work with you, federal government, to do this."

That's what I'm asking the minister. I understand the importance of the initiatives that he's outlined. What I also want the minister to do is to recognize that by monitoring the effectiveness of programs, looking at them in terms of how the province can do things…. Will he also recognize that there is the ability for him to play a leadership role and do that in terms of where there is an overlap between the province and the federal government?

Hon. J. Les: I should say first that I certainly appreciate the comments that the member opposite has made. I think they're well-founded.

Two things. I want to get on the record as well that our staff participate — I think they are the only provincial representatives — on the national victim advisory committee, which gives them another great opportunity to advocate for victims at the national level.

Often we need what are referred to as out-of-the-box solutions. The member opposite has just suggested one, which I'm somewhat attracted to.

Attaching EI funds for this purpose is probably not out of the realm of the possible, particularly as we're in the happy situation in British Columbia where we find very little takeup of EI funds at the moment. Perhaps we could divert some of that to Victim Services. I certainly would have no philosophical objection to that. If and when I have the opportunity, I just might be advancing that notion.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad to see the minister is receptive to comments from his critic. I agree. We need to recognize that the impact of crime on victims is significant. We need to recognize that it's sometimes not just the things that we think they need but that it's often much deeper than that. We need to be creative and think outside the box — much as I hate that term — in how we approach the issue.

Another example I'd like to raise to the minister that I think is important…. It often concerns young people who become victims of crime, particularly victims of crime in gang violence, and that is the issue around cooperation with the police in terms of qualifying for the program. That is an important principle. No one disagrees with that, but there are also circumstances where you have individuals who feel absolutely terrified and terrorized that if they say something, then they will suffer very severe consequences.

As a result, they sometimes find it difficult, in terms of Victim Services, dealing with claims or dealing with their ability to access the program, because that is a key component of that. I don't disagree that that should be an important principle, but I also think we need to recognize, particularly at that age group — teenage, adolescence and early adulthood — that it can be very, very traumatic and trying.

I want to ask the minister: have they recognized that this can be an issue, and if so, are they doing anything about it?

Hon. J. Les: Just a couple of points I'd like to make in terms of youth and gang violence. First of all, it's something that the ministry and the victim assistance staff are highly aware of, obviously.

There's a pilot project currently going on in the Broadway Youth where they are given a supportive environment, where they are able to learn how to deal with peer pressure. We also have a Youth Against Violence line, where youth can provide information and report situations that they are aware of on an anonymous basis. We think that's an important outlet for them. That allows them to keep a sense of security so that they're not exposed.

We also have a youth gang strategy where youth are encouraged to work in fairly close contact with the police and with the justice system to eliminate some of the alienation or the perceived barriers that sometimes exist between youth in the community and the justice system generally.

All of this is a lot of hard work. It's not easy to overcome some of those barriers, particularly when there are gang environments. But we do some good work in the ministry to try and give youth a sense of security, particularly if they wish to cooperate with the authorities.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, at this point I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Delta North, who will have some Crowns to ask questions on, and then we will return after that.

G. Gentner: Just a quick heads-up to the minister that chronologically, we're looking at probably liquor, quickly…. I certainly would like to thank the Liquor Distribution Branch, who had the meeting with me and my colleagues this morning.

I'll follow with some questions relative to ICBC and the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and maybe afterwards we could have some housekeeping. If things go well, I can't see why we can't move on and finish today, hon. Chair.

N. Simons: My questions are going to be around the issue of rural agency stores and an issue that's affecting some 230 such stores in the rural parts of our beautiful province.

Recently the government introduced another increase in the discount that private liquor stores, LRSs, receive when they purchase alcohol for resale. It was 10 percent, I think, back in 2000. It went up to 12 percent first, I believe it went up to 13 percent around 2004, and then it went up to 16 percent now.

My concern is about the fairness of that. My concern is about the fact that this has actually put a lot of rural agency stores in a less viable situation when they're now competing with stores that are able to purchase alcohol at such a high discount. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain some of that for those people who live and work in rural parts of our province.

Hon. J. Les: I'm quite well aware of the rural agency stores and, as the member points out, the 230 of those that we have across the province. I should first of all point out that these stores were never meant to be full-fledged liquor stores. These are stores that, in the first place, offer quite an array of different products for sale. They're corner stores, general stores — gas bars in

some places. The general rule of thumb is that the sale of liquor will not exceed 20 percent of their gross sales.

They are, in essence, an extension of the government liquor store system. They buy their alcohol at a 10-percent discount, and they undertake to sell that alcohol at government liquor store prices. I'm not sure that that should place them at any great position of disadvantage with respect to the LRSs. Most of the LRSs seem to be retailing their liquor in and around government liquor store prices — in some cases, a little higher. I don't think their competitive position has eroded as a result of that.

I think there would be quite an outcry if suddenly we were to increase the discounts available to the RASs — or, indeed, if we were to take the cap off the prices as well. This is a convenience service that was extended for these more remote and rural businesses to be involved in. I think for the most part that they have very much appreciated having an additional line of business within their overall business, and we do not contemplate any changes at this point in time.

N. Simons: Well, thank you for the answer. I think I would like to take issue, if I may, on a number of points that were made.

First of all, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to compare the business reality that the rural agency stores face right now as opposed to even five years ago before the private agencies started opening. Also missing in the minister's response is an explanation of how you can compare some urban big-box liquor outlets and their ability to make profit when they get a 16-percent discount versus the small general store. We're talking about little general stores in the small coastal villages and the far regions of the province, in the Peace River and the interior. They're all asking about the same thing.

There was an outcry when the minister increased the discount once again. The outcry was from people who are trying to make their businesses run, often small business owners, often people who are the only employers in their region. In some cases, the jobs and the values that these small agencies add to their communities are significant. I don't think it should be overlooked, especially when in the rural parts of our province the economic successes that we see in some sectors don't always impact on everyone equally.

I think the business reality is that we all know the big-box stores compete now for food. Originally, when rural stores started opening, they sold food too, and people did their grocery shopping there. Their reality has changed, and that should be recognized. Their whole economic viability is further impacted by the increase in the number of outlets. Now we see, in fact, that some of the private liquor stores are advertising that they are able to beat the government liquor store prices.

I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on the disadvantage that the rural agency stores seem to be having in the face of this stiff competition that's been dictated by government at a benefit to the private industry of $20 million a year. I think that's a conservative estimate of what this further discount has meant to the large liquor outlets.

We're talking about potentially the liquor barns and the liquor worlds and the expansion of big liquor. I think if you think about the fact that most people who are tourists now…. If they're going to stock up on food, they're going to stock up on alcohol. In the old days you'd wait until you went to buy the worms and the ice and the fishing tackle and the beer.

Now the situation is that a lot of these stores…. The tourism industry is a traditional strong supporter of these rural stores, whether they're marina stores or a place where you go camping or fishing or mountaineering or what have you. They need to know if they're about to lose out significantly to the private interests.

Hon. J. Les: I guess I should underline again for the member that when rural agency licences were made available to these general merchandising stores five years ago, it was never intended that liquor would become their main source of income. It was an additional line of business. The suggested maximum would be about 20 percent of their overall sales.

It was very warmly welcomed by that small business sector at the time, and I'm assuming that they still welcome that additional line of business that they previously did not have available to them. They are restricted to selling their products at government liquor store prices, and while there may be a few LRSs that are selling at less than government liquor store prices, my strong suspicion is they are not in locations where they are at all competing with the rural agency stores.

Rural agency stores tend to be located in places where they do act as a convenience store. I think it's also fair to say that when they got their RAS licences five years ago, many of them actually saw the rest of their business increase as well because the availability of liquor in those locations actually drew more people to their establishment, and there was a lot of incidental buying going on as well.

Generally speaking, I think it has been good for the convenience store sector. As I said before, I don't see any particularly convincing argument at this point that the current environment should change.

N. Simons: Convincing argument. We started out by selling liquor in rural agency stores because we didn't want people driving far to go get their alcohol. We thought we were in an era where there was some social responsibility being accepted by the community in terms of drinking and driving.

If you look back, the Evans report was one of the first that started saying that this is how we start structurally changing the system to reduce the number of people who are going into the city, buying alcohol, using alcohol and driving back drunk. I think that's a very strong public safety argument in and of itself.

I think the question of fairness…. You just go to the values and mission statements of the Liquor Distribution Branch, and you can see they talk about integrity and respect and teamwork and all the rest of the

things. We will see an impact on the small agency stores — some more than others. If you happen to have a big box outlet in Duncan, the rural communities near it are probably going to suffer. It is what draws people in, in many cases.

Just as our shopping habits have changed, so have our drinking habits. Recognizing that evolution in purchasers' habits, I think we need to really be careful about the impact on these small stores. If I may, the viability of rural stores should not be based on their ability to sell alcohol — sure. I don't think it always is.

Here's from the Maple Leaf Store in Crescent Valley: "While our costs continue to escalate, and we support our community school, sport teams and organizations, we receive no concessions from the government as do the private stores, who are mainly located in the larger business areas."

You see the impact that sometimes one of the only businesses in the area, the general store, where you can, as I said, buy your bread, your beer and your wine…. Bathgate General Store: "It's become increasingly difficult to maintain a high level of service and support in a small community when the playing field isn't even." So there's a perception of an unevenness in the playing field.

I think the previous minister was clear that his intention was to make the purchase of alcohol the same for all vendors. I'm wondering if those arguments aren't enough, because I may have some more while I listen to the minister's response.

Hon. J. Les: The fact of the matter is that this is how the system was set up five years ago. We do have a lot of establishments around the province where alcoholic products are available. I think that has added a great level of convenience for the public. The rural agency stores are part of that. Alcohol is part of their business. It's a minor part of their business. That was always the intention. That was the clear understanding at the time.

I have never heard my predecessor talk about a level playing field — in other words, the discount being equal to all — other than in a speculative context where there was some discussion going on at that time about government exiting the retail business altogether in terms of alcohol.

We're not doing that, as the member is well aware. So we have a situation where rural agency stores can sell alcohol as a convenience to the public. They get a 10-percent discount. They sell at government liquor store prices. The sale of alcohol is no more than 20 percent of their overall business.

LRSs, on the other hand, have a 16-percent discount. They can price wherever the marketplace indicates, but they are restricted from selling pretty much any other products. They sell basically alcohol only.

If we were to start turning rural agency stores into what effectively would become liquor stores — if they had the same rights and privileges as LRSs — then pretty quickly the LRSs, I think, would have a case to make where they should be allowed to expand their lines of business as well.

We have a relatively stable situation today in liquor retailing in British Columbia. I propose that we leave it that way.

N. Simons: I'd just like to correct one little fact. Many, many of these private liquor stores are starting to sell other items. In fact, one store, the Duhamel Store in Nelson, wrote to you, I believe, saying, "We notice that wine and beer stores are selling an ever-increasing inventory of items such as lottery, snack foods, non-alcoholic beverages and various other promotional items," and I'll add ice.

Many of these stores are actually competing with the convenience of the rural stores. If you're heading to the dock or to the campground or to the cottage, you'll pack up with everything in the city.

I'm not saying that the rural agency stores should get a special extra break, but I think that a 16-percent break to what are probably going to be large multinationals versus a 10-percent break to the small mom-and-pop stores that are operating…. They're the stores you walk into, and there are wooden floors. You get a sense of history in so many of these places. Not to mention some of the newer stores….

One, the Shearwater Marine Group, I think, wrote a letter saying that they were actually told: "Don't bother applying for an LRS. We're going to make all private liquor stores, including the little ones, the same." So they didn't.

There are business people who are put out by this. I know that the British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association is concerned about this, and they're asking that there be some sort of discussions around this issue.

Back to the jobs. The Slocan Valley co-op. Our business model is one that works well, creating a vast number of jobs. Our store alone supports a base of 16 employees, with an increase during the summer season, indicating again the relevance of the stores for the tourism traffic. I think we need to try to do what we can to encourage and, I would even say, not just encourage, but allow it to be an equal playing field. I don't think anyone would see a 16-percent discount for one private retail outlet as the same as a 10-percent discount for another retail outlet.

Then you look at the other factors — the social factors about driving and the impacts on the rural communities. These baseball teams are supported by these little mom-and-pop stores. I really think it would probably be a good idea, if it's possible, to engage in some discussion through, perhaps, the food services association to discuss the impact, or to at least measure the impact, that these further discounts for private agencies will have on rural stores.

I would like it if they were treated fairly and equally. At the least, would the minister be able to tell the people in the rural parts of this province, who want to be able to live…. We need people living in our rural areas. We need to encourage community cohesion in rural communities, and if we find ways of encouraging that good, but let's not find ways of discouraging that.

That's what I think is ultimately at issue here: what is perceived by many as the unfair advantage to the private liquor stores. Will the minister be able to tell the people in the province that there will be some further discussions around this issue at minimum?

Hon. J. Les: I don't want to give rise to unfounded expectations. I do not intend to engage in a serious way in terms of increasing the discount or of lifting the cap on retail prices in rural agency stores. We need to be clear. We have 230 rural agency stores across the province. That is a service that is available to residents of mostly rural communities, where they can now access alcoholic beverages at government liquor store prices.

I think that is good news for rural British Columbia and, at the same time, I will also submit that was good news and still is good news for the owners of those small businesses who now have an additional line of business that they did not previously enjoy. On that line of business, they receive a 10-percent margin. I have never been in the retail business. I'm not sure whether a 10-percent margin is good, bad or indifferent. I suspect it's not bad.

Now, I get the fact that there will always be some pressure, a little bit of agitation, to see if we can maybe shave a little bit here and bump a little bit there. I understand that. I appreciate that. Nothing wrong with that. But the fact of the matter is that we've, I think, been very clear. The situation, as it is now, seems to be working relatively well, and there seems to be no overwhelming need to adjust those margins for that particular class of licence.

N. Simons: Well, I would just take issue with the minister's characterization of the situation as going reasonably well. "Reasonably" is subjective, I suppose. To many people, it's reasonably well. To the people who can purchase alcohol at low prices, it's good. But for people who are trying to support business in an environment where competition is unduly influenced by government intervention, I think that's another story altogether.

I'm just wondering if maybe the minister can tell us the economic impact of the further reduction to 16 percent of the LRSs and their costs to the government revenues.

Hon. J. Les: At face value, the difference in the discount would be about $22 million. Of course, we will not know what the actual difference will be until the end of the fiscal year because we're showing very strong growth right now in terms of all kinds of retail sales across British Columbia. The liquor sector is also enjoying that upsurge in retail sales.

The other thing that's useful to keep in mind…. When the discount was increased from 13 to 16 percent, immediately you saw a lot of advertising going on where licensee retail stores were saying: "Come on in. Buy your liquor products at our place at government liquor store prices."

It clearly had a downward effect in terms of retail liquor prices, which I would suggest is and was good for the consumers of British Columbia. So it would be wrong to suggest that the $22 million migrated straight to the bottom line of the LRS operators. In fact, there's lots of evidence to suggest that a significant portion of that difference went straight into the pockets of British Columbian consumers.

N. Simons: Using the minister's rationale, it would be a benefit to all consumers if we just made it a 50-percent or a 60-percent discount for everybody. It's not a question of how big the discount is. It's a question of: why is there a discount for one private liquor outlet and not…? Why is there an unequal application of this?

I think it is a question of fairness, and I'm not talking about, you know…. The rural stores aren't the ones that have huge resources behind them. Many of them are just operating in the community, providing a service and being a hub for the community. They're not fabulously wealthy.

I think that their charges have been increasing yearly. Their reality has changed. Their freight charges are exorbitant. Their fuel charges are high. Their insurance costs are high. Their utility costs are higher. They're already at a disadvantage.

Yes, they do provide a service. They provide a service willingly, and they provide a service, I might add, very ably. They provide the highest standard of liquor service in the province, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as I know, we don't have a lot of complaints about under-age drinking or selling to under-age…. I don't know what the statistics are on that. I just think that it behooves this government to look carefully at the needs of rural communities and of the stores that often form the core of those communities, and I think a dialogue is essential in order to address those particular concerns.

What is the relationship between ministerial policy and…? How is it directed that these discounts take place? Who's in charge of saying: "Do another discount"? I'm just wondering where that direction comes from.

Hon. J. Les: Obviously, we monitor the wholesaling and retailing of liquor closely across the province, whether that retailing occurs in government liquor stores, LRSs, RASs, pubs, bars or restaurants. There are of course any number of different types of locations in which alcohol is bought, sold and consumed across the province.

When we had an evolution, frankly, in the last four or five years in the province where alcohol was now allowed to be sold in what we refer to as rural agency stores, this was business that they did not previously have. When the member talks about being supportive of rural communities, allowing these rural small merchants to sell liquor as well was in fact a policy direction that was very supportive of rural communities.

It was at the same time very supportive of the consumers in those rural communities, as they're able to access those liquor products in their communities through rural agency stores at government liquor store prices, which are the same right across the province.

When we watch the operation of the liquor retailing enterprise across the province and there is evidence that a certain discount level is not working as well as it should — in that it is keeping prices too high — then clearly decisions are made to take a discount level to another place, which was done in the LRS sector.

As I've already indicated, it seems to be working its way through the economy rather well and producing significant retail price discounts for consumers. I would suggest that is a good thing.

N. Simons: The minister, I think, just told us that the private liquor industry said: "We wanted to make a higher profit." The government said, "Good idea," and they increased the discount.

I don't know what other explanation there has been. It seems to me there's been no demand from the general public that they increase the amount of profit to these private liquor stores. I don't know whether there has been a letter-writing campaign that I'm not aware of.

I certainly can tell you there's been a series of letters written from East Kootenay, West Kootenay, Cariboo North, Cariboo South, Columbia River–Revelstoke, Peace River North — you name it. These are rural ridings represented by both sides of the House. This is not really an issue about partisanship. I think it's an issue about fairness.

I've had letters from people from the Liberal Party. The constituency president in Powell River even wrote a letter. I skipped the part with all the glowing things he said about the government, because I had to skip to the important part. That was that he found this an unfair advantage. I believe he's also the owner of an LRS.

I thank the minister for his responses. I hope we can move this issue forward. With that, I cede the floor to my friend from Delta North and the islands.

G. Gentner: There are no islands yet in Delta North. We'll see after the floods and how well the Solicitor General is able to provide protection — well needed and afforded to the people of Delta.

I want to speak about the increase on the discount rate. On November 28 the Liquor Barn Income Fund released a press release. A leading operator of private retail liquor stores in western Canada today commented on B.C. liquor distribution branch's recent announcement that the wholesale purchase discount rate will increase from 13 percent to 16 percent. "We are pleased with the BCLDB's announcement, as the increase in the purchase discount enhances our overall operational flexibility."

To the minister: why would a large liquor corporation in Alberta be commenting on this increase in the discount rate?

Hon. J. Les: I do recall the memo to which the member refers. It of course was issued by an income trust whose shares at that time, quite frankly, were somewhat under water. Clearly, what they were trying to do was take this new reality and hype it, in hopes of raising the value of their business.

As the member may be aware, there have been subsequent negotiations between themselves and others with respect to sales and acquisitions and those kinds of negotiations that corporations enter into. I of course disagree with the assumption that was being made in that memo, and I think subsequent events have borne that out.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the ministry and the distribution branch are monitoring the activities of big-booze or big-box chains moving into British Columbia. Can the minister tell the House how many independent liquor stores over the next five years are anticipated to be bought up by these huge franchises?

Hon. J. Les: I'm here to answer questions relevant to my ministry. I have no idea what the particular plans are of Liquor Depot, Liquor Barn, Wal-Mart, Eaton's or any other particular chain.

I'm sorry about that, but I'm just not equipped to answer questions on behalf of the private sector.

G. Gentner: I raise it because the notion of selling liquor to private stores — I'm not talking about the rural stores, but the ones that were adjoined to pubs, for example — was a policy that was evolved in, I think, 2001-2002 to allow them to increase profitability. But there has been quite a big shift in that these independent retail stores are now being bought up, and obviously the minister doesn't care whether or not that is the case.

I asked the minister, because this is now a shift in policy: how many retail outlets that are attached to pubs are now being bought up by the big box franchise chains?

Hon. J. Les: I don't have that information here. I will undertake to get that for the member.

It's important to remember that licensee retail stores remain attached to liquor primary operations. I'm sure the member is aware of the genesis of that. That essentially has always been the case. The only way that you get a licensee retail licence or an LRS is to have a liquor primary licence in the first place. That association continues.

G. Gentner: If I'm right, the minister is suggesting that there are no independent retail liquor stores that were attached to a pub that now have been removed. I mean, that there are two separate operations: one is a pub owner and one is the new franchise purchasing. Am I correct: the minister said that type of activity is not occurring?

Hon. J. Les: You have a liquor primary operator who has an LRS operation. It is perfectly okay for that particular individual, that business owner, to enter into a third-party agreement with another liquor store operator to run that side of the business on his behalf. But that initial attachment still remains.

That doesn't mean that the liquor primary licence disappears. It remains in effect, and in a sense that LRS still remains attached to that liquor primary, even though it is being operated through a third-party agreement by another franchisee.

G. Gentner: I'm glad the minister clarified that, because I think there is a profound shift in the sale of liquor and how the market is going to change, very similar to what we have seen in Alberta. Ergo the comments from the Liquor Barn and how elated they are that this government is encouraging discount pricing.

Just reading several service plans…. I talked to Mr. Smukowich to give you a heads-up on this question. I know it's somewhat philosophical. This is sort of devil's advocate, if I may, but why is distribution still in government hands? Why don't you turn that over to the market?

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, I'm asking the question to the minister: whether or not he philosophically believes that distribution of liquor is better held in government hands or private hands. We've seen this privatization over a long time. We've seen the model in Alberta. If that is a model and seeing the trend….

Hon. J. Les: There are currently no plans to move the distribution of liquor outside of government.

G. Gentner: I want to know, therefore, since it's a quasi monopoly on the distribution side but on the retail side it's now free enterprise, how TILMA is going to affect the distribution of liquor. Will the private monopoly of the distribution in Alberta, wanting an equal playing field, not come forward to your ministry and ask for the same thing? What correspondence…? What is the expectation of the minister for the distribution side of it being brought forward as a controversial issue in the TILMA agreement?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that I have a fulsome answer with respect to the impact of TILMA on either the wholesaling or the retailing of liquor in British Columbia — or Alberta, for that matter. I have had no concerns raised whatsoever by ministry staff regarding the impact of TILMA on liquor retailing or wholesaling. It seems convenient nowadays that anytime somebody wants to raise an issue, you raise the bogeyman of TILMA, which probably in most cases is just a smokescreen.

We know from the research the Conference Board of Canada has done that TILMA is poised to generate huge economic benefits for all British Columbians in terms of 78,000 additional jobs and billions of dollars' worth of economic activity in the province.

If there are implications with respect to liquor in either Alberta or British Columbia, I am sure we will work through them. At this point, I am not aware that TILMA will raise any difficulty in that regard.

M. Sather: With regard to the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, or TILMA, the Minister of Economic Development has made it really clear that the issue is about discrimination and non-discrimination. So if you have a private distribution system on one side of the border and a public distribution system on the other, it seems to me a reasonable prospect that, let's say, the private distribution people in Alberta could say quite clearly that they are being discriminated against because distribution here in British Columbia is not open to them. That's the whole point of TILMA, according to the minister — that it not be about discrimination of one party by the other, of one province by the other.

I would have thought the ministry would have discussed that possibility. It seems to me like it's a fairly reasonable, plausible scenario.

Hon. J. Les: Well, I know that particularly that member opposite thinks that TILMA is the end of the world as we know it. Actually, it's not. In many cases it will be absolutely business as usual, and we think that that's the way it will be in the liquor business as well.

The member opposite may also want to consider that actually, in legal terms, the liquor distribution business in Alberta is still very much in the hands of the Alberta government. They have contracted out the physical service of distribution, but they are still the receiver of record, as we are here in British Columbia as well. Certainly in terms of that, they are still very much in the distribution business.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the distribution of beer is already carried out by the private sector, by the manufacturers of beer. There are no wineries in the province of Alberta that might be concerned about any TILMA implications. I believe there is only one minor distiller in Alberta that may or may not have any issues. We have not uncovered any issues to date that would cause us to have to do a thorough examination of all of this with respect to TILMA, and we don't think there will be.

As I've said, the benefits of TILMA have been well-canvassed. I know that the members opposite perhaps don't share the belief in free and open trade between provinces within our country. That's fair enough; we beg to differ. We think it can be advantageous to all British Columbians.

G. Gentner: Well, TILMA's enough to make anybody want to go out and drink. It's going to be very interesting where we're going to be in the next couple of years with TILMA, because I don't think this government understands the full implications. Nevertheless, we will move on.

U-brews are great; they're a wonderful thing. They are there so that any adult can make their own brew and wine to take home for one's personal consumption, and I do so. I certainly frequent my local U-brew guy all the time. Clearly, one may not provide U-brew beers or wines for public consumption at any public event. My understanding is that you must purchase

your liquor from a B.C. liquor store or another source approved by Liquor Distribution Branch.

Can the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for liquor distribution and enforcement in the province, explain how it is that his ministry spent $480 at Scotties' U-brew?

Hon. J. Les: Frankly, I have no idea how it came to be that $480 of ministry funds were spent at a U-brew, nor whether in fact any alcoholic product was purchased with that money. We can certainly chase that down for the member opposite and get back to him with that information.

G. Gentner: Well, I'm not here to try and embarrass the minister — because his is not the only ministry that has this sort of problem. Even the government's own principal lawmaker, the Attorney General, spent $544 on the same U-brew. It may sound like a small pittance, but nevertheless, we're talking about the taxpayers' credit card.

I'm not going to go at great length on some of the abuses here. There is actually, for example, Zsu Zsu Hair, Skin, Nails in Regina from your ministry. There's a whole host of other suspicious, interesting entries here, but I want to know from the minister what type of oversight he or his ministry is conducting with the use of the people's credit card.

Hon. J. Les: Frankly, I'm somewhat sorry to hear that line of questioning. As I'm sure the member opposite is aware, we have a practice in government of rewarding government employees from time to time, who work hard every day to serve the people of British Columbia. When we do this, frankly, we buy prizes or entitlements to various things, in keeping with an appropriate reward or a pat on the back.

This isn't the first time that the member opposite draws unfavourable attention to that practice. He can be assured that we do everything possible to make sure we spend every dollar that we obtain from the taxpayer very carefully. But a good human relations strategy is a very important part of any successful operation.

Frankly, if from time to time management staff find it appropriate to reward employees and individuals for work well-done or a service well-provided, that will continue to get government support. I would hope that the member opposite will see the benefit of that as well, and not, frankly, harshly criticize those hardworking public employees who are often so richly deserving of that kind of recognition.

G. Gentner: I thank the minister for his comments on the line-by-line items. True enough, there may be some gifts that are rewarded to some staff, but there are entries here like Moores Clothing and other retail here that I just don't find appropriate.

Be that as it may, we'll now go to ICBC. If we can make a shift and thank the good people from the Liquor Distribution Branch for coming today, my good friend from Surrey–Panorama Ridge will lead us off.

J. Brar: The question I have to the minister is with regard to the Central City property we have in Surrey. That property was put on sale last October, '06. My first question is…. I would like to know from the minister: what is the rationale behind selling that beautiful property we have in the city of Surrey?

Hon. J. Les: Because of the commotion and the changing of staff, I didn't hear the question appropriately. So I'll ask the member opposite to repeat it.

I will take this opportunity, however, to introduce staff, which I have not been appropriately doing all afternoon — as I should be with quite a number of staff moving out. To my right, of course, is Paul Taylor, the president and CEO of ICBC. To my left is Anne Worchadarie, who is the comptroller, and Mark Whitenshaw is here — the vice president for drivers services.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for introducing staff members. I appreciate the extraordinary work the staff members are doing, particularly in assisting with providing us the appropriate answers.

My question was with the Central City building ICBC has in the city of Surrey. That property was put on sale in last October, '06. What I want to know is: what was the rationale to make a decision to sell that property?

J. Brar: What was your rationale to sell that property? Why did you sell that property?

Hon. J. Les: The member is quite right. At Central City in Surrey, ICBC is the proud owner of a very large building — probably the largest building in Surrey — and has been the owner of that building for quite a number of years.

Obviously, it is a very, very significant asset. However, with that building comes the prospect of future development. ICBC is not first and foremost a development company; it is an auto insurance company, and it wants to focus on its core business.

As an investment…. ICBC really is not in the land investment or building investment business either, so the board of directors, after reviewing the entire situation, came to the conclusion that for the purposes of ICBC's business going forward, the best solution was to liquidate the building and market it internationally. That is what they have done. I believe they are not far off from making a final decision in terms of who the successful proponent was, but that final decision has not yet been made.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the clarification and information about the property.

My understanding, from the comments made by the minister, is that the property has not yet been sold. I would like to know from the minister on what date this property was put on sale and where the property has been marketed — whether it's locally or internationally. What were the steps taken to market this property?

Hon. J. Les: When you have a very large real estate asset like Central City in Surrey, obviously you have to market well beyond local boundaries and even provincial boundaries. If the member reads The Economist magazine, he probably would have seen this asset being marketed through The Economist magazine. This was an international marketing effort. There were dozens of responses from interested investors around the globe.

J. Brar: I understand the size and quality of the building. My question is very simple — whether this property was put on sale locally and internationally at the same time or vice versa. Was it chosen to market the building first internationally or locally? I want to clarify that.

Hon. J. Les: The building was made available for sale on a non-discriminatory basis locally, provincially, nationally and internationally — all at the same time.

J. Brar: I have this e-mail I would like to share with the minister, and I want to ask for a response from the minister. This is a real estate agent from the city of Surrey who was interested and who, according to this e-mail — not only one e-mail, but a lot of e-mails back and forth to ICBC — had a buyer for this building.

He was told that once the information was ready, information will be provided to him. This is what he is writing to ICBC. This is exactly what he wrote. I would like to just quote from him.

"Thanks for your reply. My partner talked to Mr. Kevin Michael, and he said to my partner that they are just working on the price and that once they are fine with the price, they will take this property to Europe for a month or two. After then, they will share the information locally."

I would like to ask for a response from the minister to this e-mail, which is actually a response from the company which was handed over this project for sale.

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite, I'm sure, is aware that if this building actually sells, it will be the single largest real estate transaction in the history of the province of British Columbia. It is a big deal.

To engage in that process, one is involved in something that is somewhat different than selling your average home on any street in Surrey, British Columbia. You engage, for example, in the process of signing a confidentiality agreement, which allows you to receive certain information.

I have no idea, in terms of the letter or the e-mail that the member has in his possession, whether this particular realtor seriously engaged in this particular process or not. But I can certainly confirm that all seriously interested parties were afforded a full, fair and non-discriminatory opportunity to be involved in putting forward proposals for the acquisition of that asset.

J. Brar: The question is still very simple — whether this property was put on sale in Europe first for two months or not?

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the clarification. My understanding is that this property was put on sale at the same time locally as well as internationally. That's what I take from the minister. If that is not correct, I would like the minister to correct that.

This is the e-mail which this real estate agent got. His name is Harpreet Purba, and he got an e-mail from Paul Reilly, who is the president of Surrey Central City Mall and the person who was kind of the lead person on the sale side. In his e-mail to this real estate agent, he writes back: "I'm sure that they will provide you with the proper information when it's ready." According to these people, they never asked anything else.

I understand the size of the property and the seriousness of confidentiality and all of that, but they were never told anything beyond whether the information was ready or not. I would like to ask the minister why these people were not given the opportunity or option. This property is a big property, and in order to be a part of this, you need to sign whatever the agreement is. But these people, according to this e-mail, didn't get that information.

Hon. J. Les: Let me simply say this. When the property was put on the market, we had dozens and dozens of parties from around the globe who successfully engaged in the process. They signed the appropriate undertakings and they were provided with information. I can only surmise that if the process worked for all of these people, it should have worked for the member's constituent as well.

I can't speculate as to why that particular individual was unsuccessful in engaging in the process. I am satisfied that we undertook a process here that was completely fair and open and, in fact, available to everyone who was seriously interested — whether they were local, provincial, national or, indeed, international.

Obviously, given the size and scope of this transaction, it was necessary to be absolutely above and beyond reproach. I think we have certainly achieved that.

J. Brar: If that's the case…. I'm talking about e-mails back and forth, 20 e-mails. Not even one e-mail suggests that there is a process that he had to follow through — which I can understand, and which is a fair thing to do. I would like to ask the minister: if my constituent provides you with the full details of the infor-

mation as to what he did and why he was not made part of the process, is the minister willing to look into his complaint or his concerns?

Hon. J. Les: Certainly, we're quite open and eager, actually, to look into the specific concerns. As I said earlier, I think we have engaged in a process here that's been completely open and fair to everyone. There may well have been issues that prevented the particular realtor from being involved in this deal. I don't want to speculate as to what they may or may not have been, but if the member opposite wants to provide us with that information, we will follow through from there.

J. Brar: I appreciate the comments by the minister and the confidence the minister has in the fairness and openness of the process. The number of e-mails I have in front of me, which have been going between my constituent and ICBC — and the company that was hired by ICBC to sell this property — certainly seem to indicate that this person somehow was not offered the information of the process. That's why there are a lot of e-mails.

I would put on the record that of course it will be helpful for the people of British Columbia and for my constituents if the minister can clear the air. I will certainly ask my constituent to send this information to the minister.

G. Gentner: Just one last quick question on the matter. Can the minister explain to us how many applicants ICBC received for the possible purchase of the property?

Hon. J. Les: We ended up, actually, with upwards of 50 qualified bidders in that process.

G. Gentner: I want to quickly move to the Olympic sponsorship — as the press calls it, the $35 million Olympic-size cash grab.

The purpose of licence plates during Expo 86, for example, was to advertise the fact through the so-called Spirit of B.C. flag — I don't know if you remember that — that signalled in the mind the up-and-coming event. But it didn't cost the taxpayers anything extra, so why should the Olympic plate?

Hon. J. Les: The Olympic plate doesn't cost the taxpayer of British Columbia a nickel.

G. Gentner: The minister is correct. It's the ratepayer that's going to pay for it — correct. Why shouldn't the Olympic plate be given out free to customers so that everyone can market the games in B.C. and wherever they travel?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure if I correctly heard the latter question. Perhaps the member can repeat it.

Let me just put on the record, as well, that the Olympic plate sponsorship arrangement does not cost the ratepayers of ICBC any money either.

G. Gentner: To the minister: How much extra does it cost to create an Olympic plate over an existing plate?

Hon. J. Les: It's amazing — the amount and type of information that we have available. I'll tell you what. I would have had no idea, but here we have the information. An Olympic plate costs $7.75 to produce. The regular plate costs $3.87. I guess that would be a difference of just under four dollars.

The funding to insure the VANOC fleet of vehicles comes from the optional side and not the basic side. How much more will it add to the cost of optional insurance to pay for it?

Hon. J. Les: I should point out that this whole Olympic sponsorship arrangement is actually part of the marketing effort of ICBC. But if you break it down, it amounts to something like 50 cents per year per ratepayer.

G. Gentner: This is an involuntary contribution, so won't you somewhat discourage those who disagree to buy insurance elsewhere? You're saying it's only 50 cents. That's all it's going to cost per insurer?

Hon. J. Les: It's a $6 million cost, and obviously ICBC — the board of directors — made the decision to engage in this program because they felt it would be helpful to advance the marketing of ICBC's products. Frankly, I agree with that.

So you take that $6 million cost over six years. That's $1 million a year, and if you spread that out over the number of ratepayers that ICBC has, you come up with the 50 cents per year figure.

That's part of ICBC's marketing program. The Olympics are the greatest opportunity that we in the province of British Columbia have ever enjoyed to market our province. Clearly, major corporations, of which ICBC is one, are enthusiastic about engaging in this marketing opportunity that is the Olympics.

The Olympics are certainly a sporting event, but they are one huge marketing opportunity for the province of British Columbia. ICBC wants to participate in that, and so they are.

They have this sponsorship arrangement with VANOC. It has been reviewed by the Ministry of Finance and, I believe, by the Auditor General as well. I'm quite serene in the fact that it is an appropriate arrangement.

One other thing to point out here. Nobody is obligated to buy an Olympic plate. It is entirely voluntary. If the member opposite does not wish to obtain an Olympic plate, that's fine. Many other thousands of British Columbians do wish to obtain an Olympic plate, and in fact already have obtained Olympic plates. So that is their sense of developing a sense of ownership and belonging to the Olympic experience in the province of British Columbia.

G. Gentner: ICBC is going to ensure that the games' fleet of 4,500 GM vehicles is subsidized — for free. Just briefly explain to us how this is going to work.

Hon. J. Les: This insurance is obtained on a fleet-policy basis. ICBC essentially buys the basic insurance for this particular fleet and then manages the optional insurance product. The cost, as I have already indicated, is $6 million, and that of course is spread out over a period of six years.

As I have indicated, ICBC feels, and I certainly agree, that this is a very useful way for ICBC to extend its marketing. The member opposite, I'm sure, recognizes that ICBC is today in a competitive marketplace with respect to its optional insurance products. So obviously it wishes to take advantage of this marketing opportunity.

When you look at it — for what is, in the scheme of things, an extremely minor contribution — ICBC receives access to what are arguably the most sought-after marketing assets in the world — that is, the Olympic rings. We have had corporate entities from around the world that have negotiated access to those marketing assets, but they have paid, in some cases, into the hundreds of millions of dollars for those rights and privileges. So the fact that ICBC was able to negotiate the arrangement that it has is great access, indeed, for a very modest contribution.

G. Gentner: I believe GM is the official auto of the games. Is that not the connection, yes? Therefore, will all GM products used by all Olympic sponsors of the games be compelled to buy optional insurance from ICBC, since you are the carrier of auto insurance for the games?

Hon. J. Les: No. As a matter of fact, optional insurance is exactly that. It is optional in the first place, and secondly, where you buy your optional insurance is up to the individual purchaser. VANOC is just another consumer out there. They can buy their optional products wherever they like.

G. Gentner: I'm surprised ICBC didn't include that as part of being the auto insurance carrier of the games. There are so many vehicles that are going to be insured for the games, and it is only going to have recognition for 4,500 vehicles of GM's.

On these GM cars insured by ICBC, where will the ICBC logo be located — since you're the sponsor?

Hon. J. Les: There will be no ICBC logos on these VANOC vehicles. The deal is all about giving ICBC access to the Olympic rings, not about giving the Olympics access to ICBC's logos.

G. Gentner: If ICBC didn't insure the Olympic fleet of vehicles, then the Olympic organizing committee would have to foot the bill. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, if ICBC had not negotiated a sponsorship arrangement with VANOC, then I am sure that another insurance company would have been glad to do so. As I have said, access to the Olympic rings for marketing purposes is a very sought-after commodity, and there is no doubt at all that VANOC would have gone shopping for an insurance sponsor if ICBC had not concluded an agreement with them.

G. Gentner: So ICBC has the world Olympic rights as the official car insurance of the games. What value does this international exposure give to ICBC? Does it sell insurance outside British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: Frankly, I'm not sure how useful this all is, but I'm sure the member knows and understands that ICBC sells auto insurance only within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia. But it is in a competitive marketplace with respect to its optional insurance. It competes with private sector insurance companies for the provision of optional insurance products to the automotive sector. In that context, it needs to not only provide good insurance products but also to market its products, as any other business is required to do. In that context, access to the Olympic rings is not a bad asset to have.

G. Gentner: In a press release, ICBC stated: "It operates in a competitive marketplace on the optional side of its business, and like other auto insurers, it is always looking for marketing opportunities to promote its products to current and potential customers." So can you explain the benefits?

Hon. J. Les: Before this sponsorship arrangement with ICBC was worked out, our own consultants were telling us that the Olympics have always had an auto insurance sponsor and that if ICBC did not become that sponsor here, then someone else would have.

The member also might be interested to know that a 1-percent loss of market share impacts ICBC's bottom line by $5 million to the negative. Clearly, marketing is an important preoccupation for ICBC when only a 1-percent shift in the market has a negative impact to that effect.

I'm sure the member can understand quite clearly that a $6 million contribution spread over six years is a modest contribution indeed that obviously has the prospect of allowing ICBC to maintain its market share.

G. Gentner: In a press release, Jeff Schulz, VP of strategic marketing, said that it made good business sense to promote our products and services this way. However, since ICBC already has 85 percent of the optional market share, how much increased optional business do you expect to gain, beyond the 85 percent, for your participation?

Hon. J. Les: The whole objective here is for ICBC actually to maintain its market share — grow it if possible, but maintain it in the first place. As the member may be aware, ICBC is entering into a new phase where optional insurance products will be more transparently competitive, and that obviously is good for

consumers. But ICBC is going to have to sharpen its efforts to maintain its share of the optional business.

G. Gentner: That's interesting, because $35 million is being spent to maintain it, when you are the government that basically brought in private insurance on the optional side. So that's another cost because of the actions of the government.

I want to go back. I know the GM cars aren't going to have the logo, but how will those buying a licence plate? Will they have the ICBC name on it, or a logo, since it is the Olympic sponsor?

Hon. J. Les: I'm confused by the member's line of questioning, frankly, at several levels. ICBC's logo has never existed on any licence plate — regular licence plate, vanity licence plate or Olympic licence plate, for that matter.

The other thing I'd like to clarify with the member is his continuous reference to $35 million. He's making something up or reading the wrong briefing note or something like that. I'd be interested to know where that $35 million figure comes from.

G. Gentner: ICBC did a customer survey that found 160,000 households that expressed interest in getting the commemorative plates. When was this survey conducted, and who initiated it?

Hon. J. Les: That survey was initiated by ICBC about a year ago. We can get the exact information for the member if he wishes to receive that.

G. Gentner: The survey was initiated, therefore, from the marketing team within ICBC. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, that's true, Chair. I would indicate to the member opposite, given that he has a significant FOI request filed at the moment, that all of this information will be provided to him as a result of that FOI request.

G. Gentner: There's been so much happening in the last couple of weeks in the Leg. here regarding bureaucrats, and I'm certainly not here to besmirch the good character of Mr. Taylor. I just wanted some information. My understanding is that Mr. Taylor is a director or participates with VANOC.

Hon. J. Les: Well, this is indeed unfortunate and is simply an extension of the opposition's efforts to smear people who contribute significantly to our province.

Mr. Taylor was a significant participant in the 1988 Olympics in Calgary, which I'm sure the member opposite may well remember. He has had no role whatsoever in the Olympics that we are about to hold in the province of British Columbia. That kind of silly speculation, frankly, is not appreciated. Frankly, I suspect the member would appropriately apologize for that kind of nonsense.

G. Gentner: The firm that did the survey in marketing — we still haven't established who that firm is. Could the minister elaborate?

Hon. J. Les: I'm sorry that the member opposite hasn't apologized for attempting to besmirch a reputation here.

With respect to the question, we do not have that information here, but we will undertake to get that to the member either way, in terms of responding to the questions raised in this forum or by way of FOI requests.

G. Gentner: Can the minister elaborate on how much money was spent on this survey or promotional budget?

Hon. J. Les: Again, we don't have that specific information here, Chair. We will undertake to get that for the member. Again, this is information that is totally and transparently available. Given that the member seems to exhibit a keen interest in these matters, it will all be provided for him as quickly as possible so that he can amuse himself with all of those details.

G. Gentner: Many people are interested in some details here. The question is: why can't you keep the plates as souvenirs when the Olympics are over?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, the member is not completely up to speed, I suspect. Actually, people who purchase these plates will be able to retain the front plates as souvenirs.

G. Gentner: In the spirit of communications at ICBC, maybe there should be a big splash tomorrow in their marketing strategy. I'm sorry. I missed that point.

The question is: why did ICBC consider a second-tier sponsorship and not a first or even a third? Who in ICBC decided what tier?

Hon. J. Les: This was a decision obviously made by the ICBC board of directors on advice from ICBC management. There are several tiers of sponsorship. Clearly, the very large international corporate sponsors — the likes of NBC, for example — would buy sponsorships in the range of several hundreds of millions of dollars. Clearly, that's not the league that ICBC ought to be playing in, unless the member opposite would like to suggest otherwise.

It was felt that tier-two sponsorship was the correct level of engagement for ICBC. When you look at the numbers and at the business case that's been made, obviously, it is a situation that pretty much recommends itself.

G. Gentner: Well, ICBC for some time has been involved in all this, and I'm wondering why it hasn't

really appeared in the service plan or even as part of a business plan that has gone public.

Hon. J. Les: I guess it's going to come as a surprise to the member opposite that marketing has always been part of ICBC's business. It's part of their strategy to maintain their market share.

Let's be clear. Although he seems to be wavering a little in terms of his desire to obtain an Olympic plate or not, I suspect the member opposite is just simply against the Olympics. He's against the Olympic plate sponsorship, as he is against a whole bunch of other things.

I'm not sure that I will satisfy him today in his quest to somehow try to characterize all of this as unfortunate and unusual. In fact, it is good news. It's going to be part of a great Olympic experience in just over two years in British Columbia.

G. Gentner: The Olympic sponsorship is a new approach to marketing. How many more venues will be sponsored by ICBC in the future? We have the Memorial Cup, for example. Why not?

Hon. J. Les: Well, clearly those will be ongoing decisions that will be made by the ICBC board of directors. I hope that going forward we have lots of top-drawer, high-level sponsorship opportunities not only for ICBC, but for the corporate sector generally to participate in, in British Columbia. I'm not sure whether that's the Memorial Cup, or whether that's the Police and Fire Games that are going to be occurring. There are numerous opportunities for sponsorship.

British Columbia is a place in the world where a lot of significant international events occur, and the corporate community often is very interested in engaging in those because it elevates them in the global marketplace. Obviously, ICBC will be participating in those wherever it is appropriate and wherever there is a business case that supports that.

G. Gentner: It's clear that perhaps we're going to see many corporations lining up for similar sponsorships in the next decade, if that is the new policy.

Before moving to the question of bonuses for exempt staff, I have to ask the question: what perks are involved with this tier? What are we expected to have from the sponsorship package — free meals, traffic, travel expenses, Olympic venues, tickets to figure skating games? Is there not some sort of package of venues that the corporation is expecting here?

Hon. J. Les: Along with this package there is access to certain events and venues, but we will have to pay for them. The intention is that we will use those accesses to different events and venues as a part of ICBC's marketing strategy.

B. Ralston: Following on the previous discussion, will the minister then agree to table the details of that package in its entirety?

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member understands, this is actually an agreement between two parties — ICBC being the one party; VANOC being the other. I feel no particular reason why we should not be able to share that information, but clearly our other party to this agreement would have to agree as well. We would have to see whether VANOC was amenable to releasing all of the details with respect to that agreement, but as I stand here, I have no particular reason why I would not be amenable to that.

B. Ralston: Will the minister agree to table the correspondence making that request within 30 days from today's date?

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member is aware, I believe it's his colleague that has an extensive FOI request into the ministry and ICBC. So in the context of that, all of this information will be released.

B. Ralston: Given the answer to the question, can the minister then advise just when this information might be released from the most open and transparent government in the history of Canada?

G. Gentner: On April 2, 2007, ICBC announced that it will no longer disclose the size of bonuses paid to executives because it doesn't want to risk giving the impression its managers are being overpaid. To the minister: are they?

Hon. J. Les: The question is: are they being overpaid? I would say to the member opposite: certainly not. I think ICBC staff and management have served British Columbians exceptionally well. We have a public auto insurance company that I think is the envy of many. It has managed to keep rates low and stable. It is managing to do that in an increasingly competitive environment.

It's quite to the contrary if the member is suggesting that senior management are overpaid. There are lots of examples to indicate that, in fact, that is clearly not the case and that it's easier to make an argument that they are underpaid.

Hon. J. Les: There's certainly no intention of not making disclosure of all the things that ICBC needs to disclose, and the full remuneration — including both basic remuneration and bonuses — always has been and will be fully disclosed. I can read into the record, if the member wishes, some of the remuneration figures for the year ending 2005, which is the last year for which we have complete information.

We comply fully with government policy with respect to the disclosure of that information. There is certainly some discrepancy amongst the various Crown corporations within government in terms of exactly how that information is disclosed.

We are currently working on developing a common template that will guide the disclosure of all of that information going forward so that ICBC, B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Lottery Corporation and other Crown corporations will be disclosing that information transparently and using the same principles and guidelines.

B. Ralston: The manner in which the salaries and total compensation package is disclosed now is a single figure, as I understand it. Really the issue is: what part of the total compensation package is a bonus? That's not revealed in the document the minister has open before him.

So the question is: is the minister prepared to reveal the dollar amount of the bonus for the senior executive team and the CEO?

Hon. J. Les: As I was explaining earlier, ICBC is one of a number of Crowns within the government of the province. The intention is that we have a common template for the disclosure of that information. When such a common template has been created, if you will, I think the member will find that basic salary information as well as bonus information will be recorded and reported separately. So certainly, that information will be available.

B. Ralston: It sounds like this proposed template is the subject of negotiation between a number of Crown corporations. While I have some faith in the ability of the corporations to move forward on this agenda, it doesn't sound like it's likely to happen very soon in the future.

Can the minister commit to directing or requesting that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia issue the kind of salary figures, with the bonus number separate and the method by which the bonus is calculated, to the public within 30 days?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, this is not a matter of negotiation between Crowns. This is a matter of government direction. Where government expects Crowns to uphold the standard of transparency, the government expects.

G. Gentner: Express shops. How many ICBC-accredited express shops are there today in B.C as opposed to, let's say, five years ago?

Hon. J. Les: We don't have the exact numbers that the member opposite is looking for. We can get those numbers for him and supply him with that important information in the next number of days.

G. Gentner: Therefore, for the record, I wouldn't mind if we could add on this information: how many applied last year, and how many were refused, looking for new owners for accreditation for collision repair business? How many were accepted? Could the minister agree to provide me that information, within the next couple of weeks?

Hon. J. Les: It would be a great pleasure to supply that information to the member opposite for his nighttime reading.

G. Gentner: How many ICBC supply numbers — of shops or mobiles — have been cancelled last year, and also within the last five years?

Hon. J. Les: This is not information that we've got right here at our fingertips. We will get that for the member as soon as we can.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to clarify what the minister said a few moments ago about venue access in exchange for the plate deal. So who would get access to the venues? Would this be ICBC management, or would all of ICBC staff have that opportunity?

Hon. J. Les: I'm certainly happy to clarify. First of all, this sponsorship package does not come with an allotment of free tickets. It gives ICBC the ability to purchase a certain number of tickets. When it does so, the intention is to make those tickets available for marketing purposes. They are not going to be freebies to ministers and senior ICBC staff.

B. Ralston: Is the minister saying then that ICBC management won't have access to this opportunity to buy tickets, or not? I'm not clear from the answer.

Hon. J. Les: The plan is not to have these tickets available for staff of ICBC. The intention is to use them for marketing. I think I understand what the member is trying to get at here, but no, this is not a large giveaway of tickets to friends and insiders at ICBC. That's clearly not the case.

B. Ralston: Well, just in the context of marketing and creating good customer relations, who is the proposed target group that will be receiving this opportunity to attend Olympic venues? Obviously, tickets for these events will be in short supply, and they will be highly desired. I wonder if the minister could help me with understanding just who he thinks are going to use these tickets.

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure if I got the entire question here, but clearly the appropriate use for these kinds of tickets that ICBC will have access to are for contests, rewards, suppliers and brokers — those kinds of things.

If you have a broker that has really excelled and sold a lot of ICBC product…. You might have a contest ongoing for a period of time, where all brokers compete with one another or where all repair shops might compete with one another in any number of different areas. I'm sure the member understands how that

might work and how that would be fairly distributed at the end of the day amongst that community.

G. Gentner: Minister, what happened to the proposed Westside claims centre? Marion Phillips from ICBC stated there would be no movement in 2007. Can you explain why that is so, and when we will see that claims centre built?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, whenever a business like ICBC is considering its investment in infrastructure, you need to make those decisions carefully, based on emerging markets, population shifts and those kinds of things.

Also, you need to take into consideration the expense. Claims centres are not cheap to build. ICBC is not yet ready to commit to a decision to build a claims centre at Westside. Obviously, those options remain open. But when a decision is made, it will be made in the context of a good, sound business plan. To date, the board has not seen fit to proceed based on the current realities in the marketplace.

There's a difference in how car insurance is provided in B.C. and Alberta, particularly with regards to optional car insurance. TILMA — here we go again — covers governments and their entities, which are defined in part 7 as meaning Crown corporations and entities that are owned by the Crown. Those that are a monopoly are exempted from the agreement, but the optional side is no longer a monopoly.

Can the minister tell this House how TILMA will affect optional insurance in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. Where there is a Crown monopoly, and in this case that would be the basic insurance side of ICBC's business, that is indeed exempt from consideration under TILMA.

With respect to the optional insurance products, the business is optional, and insurance providers from Alberta — or anywhere else, frankly — can come to British Columbia and offer their optional insurance products.

G. Gentner: The minister is suggesting that he's anticipating that there will be no legal challenges to ICBC's provision of optional insurance and its relationship on the monopoly side.

How much has been spent to defend ICBC's optional provision? Have you done any research at all? How much money has ICBC set aside for dispute resolutions relative to TILMA?

G. Gentner: I'd like to now move on to the B.C. Lottery Corporation, if we can. I'd like to welcome the good people from the B.C. Lottery Corporation, gaming enforcement branch, etc.

Just a real quick little bit of housekeeping here. There are many venues that of course the president, CEO and staff have attended. I'd like to know how many members of the Lottery Corporation attended the Sports Betting and the Game seminar/convention at Munich, Germany, June 6 to 10.

Hon. J. Les: We don't have that information here, but we will find that information and make sure that it gets to the member soon.

G. Gentner: I know that Sam Huey went. Could the minister confirm whether or not the CEO attended?

G. Gentner: That's somewhat of a relief, because those who attended were able to attend the World Cup soccer contest and have all the perks that were included there. I'm just interested in who took in the good old Bavarian fest — there, of course, in Germany.

I want to know whether or not any of them attended the seminars relative to Internet gaming and sports betting. Could the minister possibly relay that information to me when or if he gets it soon?

Hon. J. Les: The lottery business is no different than many other endeavours. People who are involved in management of that business need to avail themselves of information and insight wherever they can find that.

The Lottery Corporation is a member of the World Lottery Association. This is an organization that sponsors seminars and events on at least a quarterly basis in different places around the world. Eighty countries belong to the World Lottery Association, so it is an important source of information for people who are engaged in the lottery business throughout all these countries to come together, share information and learn from one another.

I think the member opposite mentioned something about whether or not the particular individual who attended last year in Germany would have gone to a session on Internet gaming. I do not know for sure whether he did or did not. However, I would have no difficulty with staff attending sessions of that nature because, clearly, it is incumbent on management within the B.C. Lottery Corporation to be as knowledgable as possible, even in areas where we have no intention of going.

G. Gentner: In today's broadcast news, particularly with the CBC, Ms. Sue Reid came forward with her FOI information on what's known as the lack of concern by casino employees regarding due diligence in marking gamblers. The FOI suggested that 85 percent of casino employees surveyed in 2004 said they believe that the gamblers themselves are responsible for seeking help for their problems, according to one of the corporation's internal documents.

Hon. J. Les: Let me first of all say, given that we have a pretty extensive gaming enterprise through the B.C. Lottery Corporation, that it is government's expectation that we ensure that gaming is carried on responsibly in the province. For the vast majority of people who participate in gaming, whether it's at casinos or by buying lottery tickets, they're able to do that as part of their entertainment, and no particular ill consequences flow from that.

For a very small percentage of people, it can lead to gaming addictions issues. Clearly, we have a responsibility — whether it's at the B.C. Lottery Corporation or with the gaming policy and enforcement branch in my ministry — to ensure that we minimize to the greatest extent possible the number of people who fall victim to gaming addictions and, where people do succumb to those issues, that we are there to help them to the extent that we can.

With respect to the staff at the B.C. Lottery Corporation, they receive training on an ongoing basis. That training has been in place for several years now. The survey that the member referred to earlier is a somewhat out-of-date survey.

A lot of the training that I'm referring to has been going on in the last two years. Some 5,000 staff at the B.C. Lottery Corporation have so far been able to take advantage of that training. I am confident that that training is going to have the result of making them more positively responsive to people who exhibit gaming addictions issues.

G. Gentner: I take it that the minister is suggesting that all employees of casinos have been properly trained and can cut off problem gamblers when they see it, in the same way that a bouncer or someone working in the beverage industry can do the same.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case. I know there was a Mustel report, a survey that came out very recently. It's very subjective, and it really doesn't identify any corrections I can find in that survey.

How much money has been spent on determining what the benefits of gaming are in British Columbia? I mean, you must do your research.

Hon. J. Les: I'm not aware that we've done a specific survey that would have as its core mandate trying to determine the benefit to communities. I am certainly happy to relate to the member the various benefits, as I see them, that flow to communities across the province.

I'm looking at figures that are for 2006-2007. In that year $144 million flowed to non-profit community organizations across the province, and $78 million flowed to local governments that are host communities to casinos and community gaming centres. Local economic development projects benefited by a factor of $14 million, and $5.2 million enhanced the horse-racing purse in the province.

There are apparently somewhere in the area of 10,000 people who hold direct jobs related to the gaming industry in the province. There is $147 million that goes directly into the health special account in British Columbia — so clearly it contributes directly to health services in the province — and then just over $600 million that goes into the consolidated revenue fund.

As we know, if you use general government revenues as a guide, 43 percent or 44 percent of that goes into the provision of health care as well. Clearly, there are many benefits that flow in a variety of ways to British Columbia and British Columbians. I'm not exactly sure whether that was the nature of the member's question. But if his interest is where the benefits lie, I suggest that some of the things I have just enumerated are fairly substantial benefits.

G. Gentner: It's a leading question. I can grant you that. I'm going to lead to the next obvious one. How much money has the ministry spent on research on the social effects of gaming?

Hon. J. Les: We monitor the effects of casino operations, particularly in the lower mainland. As the member will be aware, that is an evolving thing. Where a number of years ago there were essentially no casinos, we now have casinos in several of the lower mainland communities — in some cases, casinos that have only recently become established.

I'm thinking, for example, of a community like Langley. We have in place there an ongoing study to indicate what the social impacts might be of the casino being present in that particular community.

We're conducting what is, in effect, an ongoing impact study. It's managed by a steering committee comprised of staff from the gaming policy and enforcement branch in the ministry, the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the cities of Vancouver, Langley, Surrey and the township of Langley. It's fully funded by the province to the tune of $395,000.

Hon. J. Les: The impact study that I have just referred to actually involves the operation of four casinos in those communities that I have outlined. Clearly, the results of that study will be quite indicative of the impact of those casinos on their surrounding communities, as they involve a fair diversity of communities — all the way from Langley to Vancouver.

G. Gentner: Very briefly on this, and then I'll move on. When do we expect to release this report?

Hon. J. Les: The final report of the impact study is due out next month, in June.

G. Gentner: The responsible gaming people have been doing some work, and they referred — I quote the last survey of gambling, which was done back in 2002 — to those who lacked control of their participation in gaming and gambling as having a disorder.

Why isn't this funding or some funding used to treat these disorders through the Ministry of Health, and the ministry of state for mental health and addictions?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that it matters much exactly where the funding comes from. I'm sure the member is aware that we have undertaken to make gambling addiction services available to whoever needs it at no cost to the individual. That budget has been set at $7 million for this fiscal year that we're in today.

That's, I think, a very significant commitment by this government to maintain the commitment that we've been consistent with all along — that anybody who needs gaming addiction treatment can get that treatment where and when they need it at no expense to that individual.

G. Gentner: With all due respect, it does matter where the money comes from and who the stewards of delivery of treatment are. Is it the pushers of gaming, or is it those in the mental health field who know how to treat it?

I want to also ask, since we've done all of this research regarding treatment and gaming and gambling: what is the average cost of rehabilitating a serious gambler — a person with serious gaming problems — or on top of it, the other tier which is known as just plain problem gamblers? What does it cost to rehab somebody?

Hon. J. Les: We don't have a particular figure here, although we can get that information for the member opposite. I gather what he's looking for is an average treatment cost. We'll have that information for him in the not too distant future.

G. Gentner: The proportion of British Columbians taking part in casino gambling activity has risen significantly from previous surveys. The average individual spending has increased among British Columbians who gamble.

To the minister: how much has the individual spending on gaming increased between 2005 and 2006? How much does the average British Columbian spend on gaming?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that we have numbers here that compare 2005 to 2006, but I do have the Canadian provincial gaming spend per capita. This information is from March 2005. I don't believe that's changed too much.

The average British Columbian spent $427 in gaming products. The average Albertan spent $720, significantly more than is the case in British Columbia. In Saskatchewan it was $684; Manitoba, $595; Ontario, $506; Quebec, $486; New Brunswick, $363; Nova Scotia, $505; Newfoundland, $529; Prince Edward Island, $331 — and the Canadian average being $516.

What those numbers tell us is that British Columbians spend well below the Canadian average in terms of their participation in gaming. There are only two provinces where the average spend is less than it is in British Columbia, those being New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

When you look at the significant differential that exists between Alberta and British Columbia, where Albertans spend $720 per capita and British Columbians only $427, I think that relates to a basic decision that we have maintained in British Columbia. That is that video lottery terminals are not randomly available everywhere as they are in some of these other provinces such as Alberta, where you can play a VLT at any corner store, gas station, pub, bar and what have you.

We have made a deliberate decision in British Columbia that those kinds of games are available only in our casinos. Clearly, that is helping to keep gaming addiction issues in check.

G. Gentner: My understanding is that there are, as of the annual report of 2005 and 2006 — and maybe the ministry can correct me — about 30 contracted professional people who deliver counselling for problem gaming. Are these contracted professional people full-time, or are they part-time? How much of their professional time is actually used in the day for counselling problem gamers?

Hon. J. Les: Perhaps, just by way of update…. I think the member might be working from 2006-2007 numbers, which indicate we have 31. We're actually moving that up to 37. Just the other day we announced that there will be a further six individuals contracted to provide gaming addiction services. Almost all of these people work for us on a full-time basis.

G. Gentner: I'll have to do some homework on that one. That hit me. I don't know what certification that really means.

These people spend 100 percent of their time, of their working day, with problem gamblers, if I have that correct. If I look at it, we had in 2005-2006 almost 7,500 help line calls, of which there were 3,500 or 3,600 referrals to the problem gambling program. Of that, only about 1,115 were admitted for counselling services.

Hon. J. Les: The reality is this. Quite often when people call the addictions help line, they are suffering from multiple addictions. So although they will be directed to assistance where they need it, it doesn't necessarily go to a gaming addictions counsellor. It might be somebody involved in a different area of help for these people.

It is also the case that not everyone who calls the help line actually is specifically looking for assistance. There are a variety of reasons why people call. I'm sure

the member can understand that not every call that's made even to 911 is necessarily a call for the kind of service that that particular emergency setup is there to provide.

G. Gentner: The minister's response — was that the ministry responsible for gaming and policy or the ministry responsible for the revenue stream from the B.C. Lottery Corporation? Which hat were you speaking out of?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, I'm very difficult to split in half. I was talking about our government's responsible gaming strategy. It is a responsibility that we take very, very seriously. Whether we're talking about the gaming policy enforcement branch or whether we are talking about the B.C. Lottery Corporation, it is my expectation in both cases that we do the very best possible job we can to deal with any issues that arise from people's inability to partake responsibly in the gaming industry.

G. Gentner: According to statistics, 11 percent of B.C. adults are at-risk gamblers, 4.2 percent are moderate problem gamblers and 0.4 percent are severe problem gamblers. When you do the math for the B.C. adult population, this translates into a best estimate of gamblers of about 150,000 problem gamblers, including 136,000 moderate problem gamblers — of which we have close to 15,000 severe problem gamblers.

My understanding is you are spending about $4 million on assisting gamblers. My question is: how much of that is really going into counselling?

Hon. J. Les: Some 90-plus percent of that money is going directly into counselling services. We have a very small administrative staff dealing with that particular area.

Just let me go back, though, to some of the projections that the member opposite was just sharing with us. It's a good illustration of how you have to be very, very careful when you're throwing numbers around. He extracted several percentages there and then applied them against the entire British Columbia population of 4.2 million people.

Well, I can come up with interesting numbers then too. But clearly, that kind of projection is entirely irrelevant and rather silly, if I can characterize it that way. It's of no particular usefulness whatsoever. Clearly, every man, woman, child and baby in British Columbia does not participate in gaming.

So you have to, I think, be a little more careful in terms of producing those kinds of projections, but I guess that would be inconvenient for members opposite who are trying to make an entirely different case.

G. Gentner: So I have it correct: 80 percent or 90 percent of the $4 million is spent on counselling — or thereabouts.

G. Gentner: It's 90-plus. Okay. And the rest went to administration. How much money is spent on prevention, and how much money is spent on advertising to tell people the ills of gaming?

Hon. J. Les: I don't have that specific number here. Again, I'm sure we can dig that out for the member and make it available to him.

M. Farnworth: I actually have a specific policy question and a problem issue that is a particular problem in a couple of areas but certainly in my community. That is around access to lottery funds in particular.

School district 43, for example, unlike most school districts, does not have coterminous boundaries with the community that hosts a casino. As a result, within the city of Coquitlam, which has the casino and gets of course the revenue-sharing, schools are able to receive community grants which allow them to upgrade playground equipment. The result is that the other schools in the district outside the municipal boundaries don't have the ability to do that. This causes a severe inequity and a great deal of problem for a lot of parents.

Anyway, this issue has made its way to the provincial PAC — parent advisory council — and they have passed a resolution, which I will read for the minister. It says: "Be it resolved that the BCCPAC urge the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to implement changes to the gaming regulations that prevent PACs from applying for a direct access grant for minor or major capital projects in order to replace school playgrounds."

Rationale: physical activity is required for children as much as academic activity. Schools located in communities where a casino's located may be able to apply for large grants from casino funds through the host community to help build a playground. This creates an inequity for students in areas where there is no casino, and all students in the province deserve equal access to adequate and safe playground equipment.

It's not one of those issues that is in terms of core funding from the Ministry of Education, but it is the type of issue that would be perfect for being able to access lottery grants for. So I'm asking the minister to recognize that this is a problem in a number of areas of the province, and I'm asking him to implement changes that would resolve these inequities.

Hon. J. Les: I am generally aware of the situation, not only in terms of the inequity that exists, but also in the fact that there is a need to constantly be upgrading equipment in school playgrounds. I have had some discussion already with my colleague the Minister of Education. We're not yet at a point where we have a solution, but I can certainly let the member opposite know that I want to arrive at a conclusion because I think this is an area where we do need some improvements and equipment — in a large variety of schools, frankly, across the province.

This seems to me to be a good place to be sharing some of the benefits of the gaming industry in the province. So I would encourage all members to keep an ear open in the future, when hopefully we'll be able to address this in a positive way.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, Minister. I can assure the minister I will continue to follow the progress of this issue and raise it at other opportunities.

B. Ralston: I have a question about the speed cameras on the Pattullo Bridge. I'm going to switch gears slightly here. I don't know if….

B. Ralston: No. I think the minister can answer this without the benefit of staff given his position — unless he's changed dramatically. This issue has surfaced again in the news media, and I want to read to the minister a couple of brief quotations from senior police officers both in New Westminster and in Surrey.

The New Westminster Police Staff Sgt. Casey Dehaas — he heads the traffic enforcement unit there — says: "I firmly believe stationary traffic cameras for speed enforcement on the bridge would be really beneficial." He also goes on to comment that at the north end of the bridge, it's not possible to do it given the way the road is structured. He says: "It's almost impossible to do enforcement on our end. The members have tried it, and it's just too dangerous to try and work radar enforcement."

On the other side of the bridge, the jurisdiction of the RCMP, Surry RCMP Sgt. Paul Mulvihill, who is the detachment's NCO for traffic services, said he's measured northbound drivers at well over 100 kilometres an hour who know they've been clocked but actually speed up because they're immune.

The Surrey detachment devotes over 900 hours of policing time a year — Z\n of the total traffic enforcement time in the municipality — and issued 3,000 tickets last year. What he says is: "I think the viable option we would like to see, and I know it's a political hot potato, is some kind of speed camera automated enforcement on that bridge. It would free up my members and give us almost 1,000 man-hours to target the other problem areas of the city."

Given that two senior police officers — one in New Westminster and one in Surrey…. At one point the minister's cabinet colleague the Minister of Transportation said that he thought it was an idea worth pursuing. Is the minister prepared to reconsider his position and follow the advice of these senior police officers, or does he just flatly disagree with them?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's been made abundantly clear ever since 2001 that we committed to British Columbians that we were getting rid of photo radar. We've done that, and we do not plan to reintroduce photo radar.

When the member refers to some 3,000 tickets being issued on the Pattullo Bridge over the last year, that would indicate to me that there is an awful lot of very good policing happening there. I'm not aware, particularly, of a political hot potato. I think there's good work being done there, and I salute that.

For a member in the Surrey detachment to suggest that the effort being expended on the Pattullo Bridge is somehow equivalent to Z\n of their traffic patrol capability in the city of Surrey…. When you think about it, that's actually pretty ludicrous. That would suggest to me that they only have three members related to traffic in the city of Surrey. I'm sure somebody who knows nothing at all about the deployment of police resources would understand that that's simply not so in a detachment where there must be upwards of 500 sworn members of the RCMP.

The level of enforcement, obviously, has been stepped up, and the provincial government, as the member is aware, is making significant new resources available to communities. We have turned over $50 million worth of traffic fine revenue to communities so that they are able to access more police resources. We have, at no cost to communities, purchased a dedicated police helicopter that I'm sure is useful in terms of enforcing traffic on the Pattullo Bridge. We have put in place integrated road safety units of the various police detachments.

In fact, British Columbia is the most integrated policing jurisdiction in Canada. We have better working relationships between police departments. We have put in place a whole variety of measures that enable more effective policing in communities and between communities in such locations as the Pattullo Bridge.

We have been consistent on this. We will not be installing photo radar again in British Columbia. We scrapped it. We made that commitment, and it's going to stay that way.

B. Ralston: If I could just quote from Staff Sgt. Casey Dehaas of the New Westminster police traffic enforcement unit: "We're not asking for the full reintroduction of photo radar vans…It would be stationary camera enforcement at both ends of the bridge, with large signs warning drivers. Anything we can do to get drivers to slow down on that bridge will help save lives."

Clearly, the minister disagrees with the notion of saving lives that the police officer advances. Can he explain to the public why?

Hon. J. Les: Obviously, the member and I don't necessarily disagree, but look, this discussion in the last several days came about as a result of a fatal accident on the Pattullo Bridge. I think it was about a week ago. The two contributing factors to that fatality that I've heard about were the fact that the person who died was not wearing a seatbelt and, secondly, that the vehicle containing the individual who died had in fact crossed the centre line. I don't know whether speed was a factor; I haven't heard about it.

The fact of the matter is that we're dealing with an old bridge built to standards that prevailed, I guess it

was, in the 1930s or 1940s. It is the case that sometimes accidents happen for a variety of reasons, but I suspect strongly that when we have the kind of policing presence that is obviously being deployed at the Pattullo Bridge, it is a good and effective form of policing that is almost certainly going to produce safety benefits to everyone who uses the bridge.

When you see a policing effort that produces 3,000 tickets in one year, those tickets will not have been generated just as a result of speeding. Those tickets will have addressed a number of driving infractions, and that is precisely the benefit that is obtained when you have police officers in person providing enforcement activity, as opposed to a camera taking a picture and generating a bill in the mail some weeks after the fact.

B. Ralston: It's clear the minister is not going to change his position. That's crystal-clear, and in my view, that's unfortunate. This bridge was built in 1936-1937. Will the minister commit to pursuing with the Minister of Transportation provincial cost-sharing with TransLink, who owns and operates the bridge now, to fund the construction of a new bridge in the near future?

Hon. J. Les: That is clearly a question that is appropriately put to the Minister of Transportation.

G. Gentner: To wrap up the business on casinos, I want to talk briefly about the unknown fund called the facility development commission fund, now referred to as the accelerated facility development commission fund. The Great Canadian Gaming Corporation has $37 million in this type of fund that's there for improvements. I know originally it was there for helping improve some of the old bingo halls. This is quite the little slush fund that's hanging around there relative to improvements at large casinos. Certainly, it doesn't necessarily work for those who are trying to compete against casinos.

My question to the minister is: can these funds accrued — and we're looking at…? At one time I believe it was 2 percent of the gross revenue. Now it's 3 percent of the gross revenue that can be put into this type of fund. Are these exclusively used only for slot machine areas of a casino, or can they be used for other expenditures, capital expenditures, within the hotel, within the convention centre, for restaurants, pubs, parking lots, etc?

G. Gentner: Originally, this revenue was supposed to come back to the province, if I have it correctly, and now it's been changed from 2 percent to 3 percent. My question is: regarding the casino River Rock, how is it these funds could be used to purchase a parking lot off of Canada line?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, let me clarify that these funds never did accrue back to government. They were always available for the improvement of casino properties in a variety of ways. The more directly that improvement was related to the casino property, the greater the percentage of money that was available from this fund. In some cases it went to a show lounge. In other cases it went to parking facilities. So that practice continues today.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of questions to the minister which I'm not sure he'll be able answer. It's not to do with lotteries. It's not to do with gambling. But they are a couple of questions which, if the minister isn't able to answer directly, whether he and his staff can provide me with the answers…. I would like to know how much money is going into Highway 16 projects this coming year, following last year's commitments.

Hon. J. Les: I thank the member for the question. Actually, it's unfortunate. The staff that would have been able to provide me with that information was actually here yesterday. If the member has further questions dealing with Highway 16, perhaps she could put those questions, and I will undertake to make that information available to her.

Highway 16 and the issues surrounding the tragic disappearance of so many women there has certainly been a preoccupation of my ministry and the victim services branch. Our involvement there is ongoing, and I'm quite prepared to make whatever information the member wishes available to her.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that note. I will follow up with him and his staff.

The other question I have, which I'm sure the people who I needed to have the information were here yesterday…. It's the victim of crime surcharge fund. I wanted to know from the minister how much has been accumulated and how much of that is going to sexual assault centres.

Hon. J. Les: Again, the staff member who is involved in that was here earlier this afternoon. So I'll take that question as something we need to follow up and get that information back to the member.

M. Farnworth: With that, we can wrap the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

To make a few closing comments, I think there are a number of issues that we have explored in a wide variety of areas involving not just the Crown corporation responsibilities of the minister, which were done by the member for Delta North, but also some of the key program issues around public safety involving our prisons, involving the crystal meth program, involving victims of crime.

I know that during the course of these estimates, the minister indicated an undertaking to provide certain amounts of information or statistics — or what have you — so I look forward to receiving that.

At this time we are ready to pass the vote and move on to the next set of estimates.

The Chair: At this time we will take a short recess and reconvene with the Ministry of Finance estimates.

Hon. C. Taylor: If I may, what I would like to do is just introduce at least the individuals I have from ministry staff who are sitting with me now, and then as we make changes over the next weeks and months, I'll make the new introductions as we go along.

Of course, right beside me is Tamara Vrooman, who I think everyone knows now is the Deputy Minister of Finance. She also is secretary to Treasury Board and also CEO of PSEC.

Behind me we have Tara Faganello, and she is acting assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer. On my right we have Steve Klak, who is the acting senior financial officer.

I will not do a wordy introduction because the Minister of Finance actually has the privilege and opportunity in presenting the budget to talk about what our goals are, what our priorities have been and how we're approaching government. So I look forward to the questions from our critic.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the staff who have come here. I don't expect we will be too long today, but we'll doubtlessly make some progress tomorrow.

I wanted to start off by talking a bit about a response that the minister gave in question period on Thursday, April 19. This is a standard peroration that the minister sometimes engages in.

She was speaking of the 1990s. We were losing people, we were losing businesses, and unfortunately we lost head offices that will never come back. I take it that the conclusion she is seeking to point people to is that it was a cause-and-effect relationship between the then-government and the loss of head offices.

Is that the case, that in her view the NDP government caused the loss of head offices?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to talk about this a little bit, even though the debate is to be about this year's Finance Ministry budget. But I will just in explanation say that in 1999, which was at the end of a number of years of difficult circumstances in British Columbia, I was asked to be a co-chair of a task force that was set up by the B.C. Business Council.

The task at hand was to travel around the province and ask people how we could get the economy back on track. The reason that we were asked to do this was because, in fact, we'd lost lots of jobs, business was not doing well, we were losing people, and we were losing head offices.

I spent a lot of time, along with a number of other people that fall, travelling around the province. We would go into small centres and set up in one of the local hotels or motels and just have two microphones on the floor. It was open to anyone to make presentations.

Because I was in a situation of being the chair at many of these meetings, I had the opportunity to frame the debate. The debate really was to ask the question: how does British Columbia turn this economy around? How do we get back on track? How can we start to do things in a way that will be more positive for the economy? We put out a report at the conclusion, which was quite a thick report with a lot of ideas.

We separated out three that we put upfront in the report, which we believe to be non-controversial and the most important issues for government to face. The first was the taxation issue. It became very clear to us as we travelled the province that you cannot have punitive tax regimes and expect people to stay. Business, these days, is global.

We are sitting beside a province like Alberta, which is a tough competitor. If you had, as we did in the '90s, the highest marginal tax rate of any province in the country, or if you have high corporate tax rates, which we did — 16.5 percent — you just can't expect businesses to stay when they have so many options.

The second recommendation we had was on regulation. We heard story after story, as we went around, from small business people and from individuals talking about the hardship that had been caused by regulations, which were sometimes overlapping and sometimes contradictory but for the most part — for small businesses, in particular — were a real burden. So that recommendation was to reduce the regulatory burden.

The third, which will be of interest for everyone to know, I'm sure, was that people really wanted to stop the confrontation. They really just wanted government to get on with the business of governing. We had the privilege of presenting this report to the Premier at the time, Ujjal Dosanjh and the Leader of the Opposition Gordon Campbell.

We did that. We put it on the table and really believed, having talked to unions and people from all political parties — from community leaders to professionals — that if we could somehow get at these issues, we'd be able to turn the economy around, which in turn would start to grow jobs in this province.

I think everyone now knows that we have taxes that are, for an individual earning up to $108,000 a year, the lowest taxes of anywhere in Canada. We now have a corporate tax rate reduced from 16.5 percent to 12 percent. We've increased the threshold for small businesses, at which they can continue to pay the lower rate, from $200,000 to $400,000.

On the regulatory side, we've cut our regulations by 41 percent, and in fact have been so successful at

that that the federal government has asked British Columbia if we would help them do the same thing and look at their regulations as well.

So yes, I made those statements in the House. I stand by those statements, that the economy was in pretty rough shape and that it was important to have a different kind of policy initiative going forward in order to turn the economy around. I think most people would be very quick to say that the economy of B.C. is now doing very well.

B. Ralston: Well, my question was about head offices, and I don't think that question was answered. Does the minister agree or is prepared to state that the number of head offices has increased since the B.C. Liberals came to power in 2001?

Hon. C. Taylor: I really don't know what this has to do with the budget of the Finance Ministry, but that is not what I said. When you lose head offices, you can't get those head offices back. Companies take a long time to make a big decision like moving a head office. What we are hoping for, and we are seeing some of, are new kinds of head offices — a lot in the technology area. I see examples as I travel the province all the time, but I don't have specific numbers.

B. Ralston: Given that this was a statement made in the Legislature by the Minister of Finance on a matter of some economic importance, I think it's entirely appropriate that it be discussed here. Perhaps I can help the minister. The Business Council of British Columbia issued a paper called Corporate Headquarters and Head Office Employment in British Columbia: 2006 Update, based on a Statistics Canada survey which was issued in July of 2006.

This survey found that the trend in head office employment in B.C. had seen a steep decline: "Between 1999 and 2005, employment at the B.C.-based head offices included in the Statistics Canada analysis tumbled by 28.5 percent." The same is also apparent when looking at head office employment in metropolitan British Columbia, which also fell 29 percent over the same period.

The report goes on to say: "Greater Vancouver also stands out as by far the worst performer among major…metropolitan areas in the trend in head office employment." That's continued, and the Business Council expresses a concern that that's continuing, that the decline continues.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge, perhaps, that her very categorical and ideological statements that she just made about the reasons for head office decline are perhaps not accurate?

The Chair: Member and Minister, just one moment. I'm going to ask the member — versus attempting to carry on a debate that took place in the Legislative Assembly during question period — to try and refocus based on what we're here to deal with, which is the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. If you could put your question to the minister related to that.

B. Ralston: Frankly, Mr. Chair, I'm afraid that if that's a ruling, I respectfully disagree. The latitude that's ordinarily given in these kinds of debates is fairly broad. This is an economic matter. The minister speaks on behalf of the government on economic matters. This touches on the operation and the health, or not, of the B.C. economy. In my view, it's perfectly appropriate that this be discussed here.

If that's the case, I'd appreciate some further guidance from the Chair or from the Clerk as to what the limits are. If this kind of debate is not permitted here and I'm not permitted to question the minister here in these circumstances, where would the Chair then suggest that this debate take place?

The Chair: Member, it is not an official ruling I'm making. I was encouraging you to come back to Vote 31, which we are discussing, and to bring your questions to the minister based on that.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, this government believes that a competitive tax policy is one of the ways in which we can encourage the economy of British Columbia. When you look at now having the lowest unemployment in 30 years at 3.9 percent, when you look at the increases in terms of non-residential construction, residential construction and retail business, I don't think there's anybody, except perhaps the member opposite, who doesn't believe that the economy has turned around from the '90s.

We do believe that our policies have been a big part of it, but this is for the budget debate, which has happened in the House. I'm very keen to talk about the Finance Ministry itself and about our expenses.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister references the corporate tax rate and concludes that that's one of the factors, although the study is very clear that the number of head offices in British Columbia has continued to decline, notwithstanding any changes that have been made in the corporate tax rate since 2001.

Has the minister or the ministry done any studies as to the efficacy of the cut in the corporate tax rate in attracting head offices to British Columbia? The evidence studied by Statistics Canada and by the Business Council of British Columbia suggests that notwithstanding those cuts, the number of head offices continues to decline. They're very worried by it, and they have some possible solutions for it, which the minister may not be interested in but which I can provide, if she is.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I'm quite happy to give my budget speech again. I do think that the people of British Columbia…. We went through the '90s, and we had eight deficit budgets out of nine, when we saw

people leaving our province, when we became a have-not province. That's not me making it up. This is the federal government's designation of what happened to British Columbia as a result of those policies.

We have turned this around. We are now a have province. We've got 300,000 more jobs in this province, just in the last few years. We now have a more competitive taxation regime. I don't believe the job is finished. I think there's lots more work to be done and lots of work to be done in encouraging people to invest and locate here.

B. Ralston: One of the things that the Business Council of B.C. says is: "A necessary initial step is for public and private sector leaders to acknowledge that a problem exists." So apparently the minister is not prepared to acknowledge that a problem exists.

Apparently, since 2001, everything is peachy. That's not what the Business Council is saying. That's not what Statistics Canada is saying, and they do have a number of proposals to address that. Notwithstanding the corporate tax cuts, the number of head offices in this jurisdiction continues to decline, and that is a serious problem.

Hon. C. Taylor: I don't think that the member opposite is listening. I said: "There is lots of work still to be done."

B. Ralston: Among her many duties, has the minister met with the Business Council of British Columbia to discuss the decline in head offices in British Columbia with a view to soliciting their advice on what the solutions might be?

Hon. C. Taylor: I have met with members of the B.C. Business Council from time to time on a number of issues.

B. Ralston: I guess that begs the obvious question. Has the minister asked the Business Council to provide their views on this and some of their solutions that they have in their paper, which is dated December 2006?

Hon. C. Taylor: We received this information, and like all of the information we receive from the community, business groups and unions, we thoroughly look at the research that is presented to us. As we present our budgets and as we actually build our budgets, we take all of these issues into consideration.

B. Ralston: I'm not quite sure what that response means, but there are some specific solutions proposed here. They don't appear to be related to the tax environment. Is the minister, as part of her duties as the chief economic spokesperson for the government of British Columbia, prepared to pursue those or not?

Hon. C. Taylor: I would like to make this the last question on the budget and get back to estimates. But I will say that Jock Finlayson, who is with the B.C. Business Council, actually sits on our economic advisory council and gives us advice in that format as well as the public format.

B. Ralston: I'll close off on this issue. The Business Council does have a number of suggestions, including setting up a central regional development agency that many other American cities…. Mr Finlayson in discussion mentioned Phoenix, Arizona, as one where there is a regional economic development agency, which is very effective — and doesn't exist in the lower mainland — and he talked about a number of other possible solutions.

I'd encourage the ministry, if this is the appropriate one, at least to have that discussion because it doesn't appear to be related to the environment that the minister spoke of in such ideological terms not too long ago.

I will move on. Looking at the budget document and Estimates that we have before us…. On page 3 of the budget, in a letter signed by the deputy minister, the ministry spoke of ongoing negotiations with two major health regions, both Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health.

They hadn't provided their sign-off on the budget at the time that it was tabled, so I'm wondering if the minister can advise what is the progress of those negotiations or those discussions with the health ministries in order to resolve the issues that were in doubt, as the deputy minister set out in her extraordinary note to the budget and fiscal plan?

B. Ralston: The minister made a number of statements at the tabling of the second quarterly report and earlier about health care costs and the monitoring by the Ministry of Finance. With respect, it just isn't good enough to say that it's over to the Minister of Health.

She's the Minister of Finance. She's monitoring the ongoing development and expenditure in this very important part of the budget. So can the minister advise what reports she has received about the issues that are raised by Ms. Gruman in the preface to the budget?

Hon. C. Taylor: With respect, this is not the budget debate. This is estimates on the Finance Ministry.

The Chair: Member, just before I recognize you, I do want to encourage you…. There is latitude from the Chair, but this is on Vote 31, and this is dealing with the estimates for the Ministry of Finance. This is not budget debate.

B. Ralston: Looking at page 38 and page 39 of the three-year fiscal plan. Quoting from the bottom: "Two health authorities have also projected deficits for 2007-2008, totalling $119 million — Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, $54 million; Fraser Health Authority, $65 million."

The Chair: Member, that would clearly be in the realm of the Ministry of Health estimates. Again, I will encourage you to direct your questions dealing with the Ministry of Finance estimates, which we are here dealing with today.

B. Ralston: I understand that the Ministry of Health is responsible for the expenditure of the funds. Does not the Ministry of Finance — in shaping its forward plan, certainly its three-year fiscal plan — have any monitoring of what's being developed and what's being spent?

The subject of the note at the outset of the budget was required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which is an act that the minister is responsible for. The deputy minister, in this extraordinary note, felt obliged by section 7(d) of that act, which the Minister of Finance — not the Minister of Health — is responsible for.

Those two health authorities haven't signed off on the budget, and the budget note is very clear. I'm asking what monitoring of those negotiations, or what reports, the Minister of Finance has received in looking out to the spending over this fiscal year?

B. Ralston: I take it the minister is not prepared to answer that question. I gather that. That's unfortunate, but I'll take it up with my colleague and the critic for the Ministry of Health. I am of the view that the Minister of Finance, given the statements that she's made publicly about health care spending, has some obligation in this process to put her views on the record and doesn't appear to be willing to do that.

In a news conference last December at the tabling of the quarterly report, the minister spoke of cost pressures on the budget of some $400 million. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the source of that calculation was. Was it from a document produced by the Ministry of Finance, or was it a document produced by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. C. Taylor: I am repeatedly on the record at the budget debate at the first quarterly, at the second quarterly, at the third quarterly on the budget.

Today we are here to discuss Vote 31, which is the running of the Ministry of Finance.

B. Ralston: Once again, I take it that the minister is not prepared to answer that question, and I think that's unfortunate. Within the confines of the Legislature and this process, I think there's certainly some room for a response to those important public pronouncements that the minister seemed so willing to make but does not wish to be accountable for here in the Legislature.

I think the silence is telling, but if that's the approach of the minister, then so be it. The public will have to judge whether that's the right approach or not.

If I could move to another area, then: the trade and convention centre extension project. In the budget on page 62, table 1.23, "Capital projects greater than $50 million," the budget number there is $281 million for the provincial share of the convention centre extension project.

The Chair: Member, once again, the debate you're on is a budget debate, and what we are here for is the Ministry of Finance estimates based on the ministry operations. That is still before the House; the Ministry of Tourism is where that would fall under. I would encourage you to direct your questions through that process during those debates or to one of your colleagues who would be the critic for that.

B. Ralston: Presumably, the Ministry of Finance is going to make an allocation out of contingency for cost overruns for the trade and convention centre extension project. What I'm interested in the minister answering is: what is the latest information that she has received — as the Minister of Finance, monitoring what that expenditure is?

Hon. C. Taylor: These are budget questions. They are questions for different ministries, not Finance Ministry. The convention centre is under the Ministry of Tourism.

B. Ralston: It seems a little early, perhaps, Mr. Chair. But following your direction, then, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and progress on the Ministry of Finance, and ask leave to sit again.

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