Hansard — Monday, May 14, 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		7907

Statements		7907
	Tanya Dumstrey-Soos
	C. Wyse

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7908
	Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion
	R. Fleming
	Celebration of family and friends
	J. Rustad
	Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce programs
	M. Sather
	Mining industry in B.C.
	D. MacKay
	Four Sisters Housing Co-operative
	J. Kwan
	Recovery of fish stocks in Cheakamus River
	J. McIntyre

Oral Questions		7910
	Public affairs bureau coverage of Basi-Virk court case
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	M. Farnworth
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. de Jong
	D. Chudnovsky
	B. Simpson
	S. Simpson
	G. Robertson
	M. Karagianis

Petitions		7915
	R. Austin

Second Reading of Bills		7915
	Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)
	R. Cantelon
	S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House		7916
	Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7916
	Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills		7916
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	C. Wyse
	Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 33)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 22) (continued)
	Hon. S. Bond
	Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 32)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	G. Robertson
	M. Karagianis

Committee of the Whole House		7927
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)

Second Reading of Bills		7927
	Knowledge Network Corporation Act (Bill 23)
	Hon. M. Coell
	R. Fleming

Committee of the Whole House		7929
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18) (continued)
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7941
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)


Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7941
	Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts (continued)
	R. Fleming
	Hon. S. Hagen
	H. Bains
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. G. Hogg
	N. Simons
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	M. Karagianis
	R. Chouhan
	N. Simons
	J. Brar

D. Hayer: I have some very special guests in the House today. They are relatives of our community leader, Sarwen Singh Randhawa, secretary of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver. These guests include Balwinder Singh Powar of New Westminster, Satbir Singh Powar of India, Raghbir Singh Powar of India, Santokh Singh Powar of India, Amandip Singh Power of the U.S.A., Kamaldeep Singh Powar of India, Harkirat Singh Powar of U.S.A. and Rantaj Singh Powar of India. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Nuraney: With us are two very special British Columbians. Al and Fiza Gulamhussein originally immigrated to Canada in the 1970s from East Africa. After initially attempting to settle in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, they eventually found the good sense of coming to British Columbia and made Burnaby their home. Al works very hard. He's got a business in Cloverdale, and his wife helps him at times.

With them also are their daughter Narissa, who has been admitted to UBC for the fall session, and their son Faizel, who of course works with us in the Legislature as an assistant to our caucus research. May the House please make them all welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the House are the mother and grandmother of my legislative assistant, Brian Kowalski. They are Coreen Jenner and Ada Froehlich from the Okanagan. Brian spent all weekend taking them around and doing the Mother's Day thing, and I understand they had a very good time. Will the House please welcome them.

C. Trevena: I had the great pleasure today of meeting 17 grade 11 students from Carihi, one of Campbell River's two high schools. They were here in the House with their teacher, Wayne Demerse, to see for themselves how provincial government works. I hope the House will join me in making them very welcome.

K. Whittred: I have two introductions to make today. Firstly, I have visiting the chamber today a group of North Shore seniors led by Joy Brown. They are going to be here touring the Legislature. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

Secondly, I have three individuals here in the gallery today who work very hard at trying to make me look good. Occasionally they even succeed. They are the people who help me in my legislative office and in my constituency office. With us today, joining us for question period, are Sabrina Loiacono, who is my legislative assistant, Krista Bunskoek, who is my constituency assistant, and Andrea Andrachuk, who is an assistant legislative assistant. Will you join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: We are joined today by grade 11 students from MacNeill Secondary in my riding. Their teacher is Mr. Klose. There are a number of adults accompanying them. They will be coming through during question period, because there are a number of groupings of them as we go forward this afternoon. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: Watching the proceedings today is a very good friend of mine, Curtis Roberts. We grew up together and got into some trouble together, as teenagers tend to, you know, with chess club and such.

The reason that I'm being a bit nostalgic is because by my calculation, this is Curtis's birthday. If I'm not mistaken, Curtis is turning 50. I just want to say: Curtis, you're not getting older. You're getting…. No, at 50 you're getting older. And I'm not 50 yet. Could this House please join me in welcoming and saying happy birthday to Curtis Roberts.

Hon. G. Hogg: Joining us in the House today are a former colleague and his wife. He's a man who has become our hero and continues to be our friend. Would the House please welcome Arnie Hamilton.

G. Robertson: Please welcome a delegation from the Renters At Risk group in Vancouver, who came to Victoria today to meet with MLAs regarding the serious concerns they face, including eviction, if changes are not made to the current Residential Tenancy Act. Joining us in the House today from the Renters At Risk group are Sharon Isaak, Sarah Berry, Dayna Sykes, Janine Fuller and Aerlyn Weissman.

Also here today, supporting the call for immediate changes to the RTA, are downtown Vancouver residents Colette Wickstrom, Vancouver metro chair of the B.C. Nurses Union, and Sharon Costello, former executive assistant to the late Emery Barnes, Speaker of this House and longtime MLA for Vancouver-Burrard. Please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: When our colleague the Minister of State for ActNow introduced our former colleague and friend Arnie Hamilton, he did forget to mention that his wife Carol is with him. Although he mentioned he was with his wife, he did not mention that it was Carol — the more important part.

C. Wyse: I ask the House to join with me today to offer condolences to the family of Tanya Dumstrey-Soos of Bridge Lake. As the House is aware, Ms. Dumstrey-Soos died last Thursday evening as a result of an attack by a caged tiger on her property. Ms.

I thank my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House who have moved quickly to address this matter in the hopes of preventing a similar tragedy in the future.

R. Fleming: Today I would like to pay tribute to a wonderful care facility in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I'm referring to the Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion. The Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion is a complex care facility specializing in the care of people with dementia. They provide care for people in all stages of this condition, from the earliest to the most advanced. This facility is home to 76 residents with moderate to severe dementia and 47 residents who either are physically frail or suffer mild cognitive impairment. Their goal has been to create from the outset a warm, homelike atmosphere by grouping residents into small families of eight to 12.

Above all, the board and staff believe they should treat each other, the residents, families and volunteers with respect, integrity and openness. They encourage harmonious living with one another, and they value religious, ethnic and cultural diversity within the facility. Their team-based approach unites families, staff and volunteers in a spirit of cooperation. Together they arrive at decisions concerning the well-being of each resident.

Today they are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion in 1982. Since they opened as a traditional seniors care facility, their role has changed tremendously. They have adapted and grown with the challenge of caring for seniors with dementia, surrounding them with understanding and love.

Unfortunately, love is not enough to make this facility work. It cannot provide the funding they need to continue this valuable work. While government funding through the Vancouver Island Health Authority makes provisions for their day-to-day operations, it is not enough to allow them to create an environment that reflects the latest knowledge in dementia care and respects the human resources required to provide the very best in care.

Establishing small homelike settings is particularly invaluable for their residents and particularly costly for them. Fortunately, through fundraising by the foundation, they have been able to provide many comforts for their residents, including therapeutic gardens, home furnishings and a van for transportation. They are proud of their facility, which has attracted the attention of dementia experts from around the world, and are eager to continue to provide the best care possible for their residents.

Will the House please join me in recognizing their significant 25th anniversary.

J. Rustad: I normally use these opportunities to highlight individual or group success stories, significant achievements or challenges on the horizon, but today I rise to speak about family.

Almost all of us in society have a network of family and friends that we share our lives with. Throughout our hopes, dreams, aspirations, fears, triumphs and losses, our family and friends are there with us. Laughter and tears mark the passing of time as we grow together or, in some cases, as we grow apart. In everything we are enriched by their love and friendship.

Sometimes we can get too wrapped up in our daily concerns and ongoing challenges, and sometimes we simply forget to say "Hi" or "Thanks" or "I love you."

In this House we debate our philosophical views of the world and our perspectives on how to improve the lives of the people of this great province, because after all, that is our job. Yet often we can overlook some of the important things in our lives. As we go through our debates and estimates this week and for the next two years or beyond, let's remember our family and friends. Let's take a moment to say "Thank you" and "I love you." We ask a lot of them so that we can do the best we can in our work. We should never forget how important they are or take them for granted.

In closing I would like to say thank you to all of our friends and family. Also, since Sunday was Mother's Day, I'd like to ask the House to join me in applauding all mothers for their unfettered love and for everything they do to improve the lives of those around us.

M. Sather: Mr. Speaker, I was so taken with that last speech that I got carried away.

In 1999 the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows chambers of commerce joined together to become the Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce. By bringing together business, individuals and community groups, they put members in touch with hundreds of contacts within the community and across the province.

Facilitating training programs is among the many benefits the chamber offers its membership, and leadership B.C. is one of those programs. Leadership B.C. is a community-based program that brings together local stakeholders to create projects and curriculum that meet present and future leadership needs in communities to ensure they achieve their full potential.

Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce and their community partner, Ridge Meadows College, is the first chamber of commerce in the lower mainland approved to run a leadership B.C. program. This program will provide Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows with the curriculum framework and process designed to provide leadership capabilities of citizens who care about their community, including youth.

The Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce will run their first program in September 2007. Community leaders from community services, media, health care and local government are just some who will join the chamber in facilitating the locally developed programming.

Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce has been working on behalf of my local communities in one way or another since 1910.

By working together with local organizations and businesses, and through the programs and benefits they offer, the Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce makes Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows a better place to live.

D. MacKay: This week is Mining Week. Mr. Speaker, I happen to be very pleased with the progress the industry has made in the past several years. In case you haven't noticed, I happen to be a very strong advocate for the mining industry.

We all saw the drastic reduction in the mining industry in past years, and it's taken a few years to bring the industry back to British Columbia. We have recently seen some very, very positive results, something we should all be very proud of. I'd like to spend a short time talking about what's happening in the north.

They spent $128 million on exploration in the northwest alone last year, and it is very clear that the mining activity is reaching new heights. To capitalize on the new opportunities that will be created by the industry, the provincial government is supporting the Smithers Exploration Group in their partnership with the Northwest Community College's school of exploration and mining. The school will train graduates for work in the exploration and mining industry and will lead to success in projects such as the NovaGold Galore Creek mine, which is expected to create 1,000 jobs during construction phase and approximately 500 once in production.

I'm proud that the north is leading in exploration spending, with more than half of the provincial total spent in my part of the province. The mining industry benefits everyone, from the jobs it creates to the products that we use in our everyday lives. It contributes hundreds of millions of dollars in provincial revenue to help cover the costs of important services such as health care and education.

I don't understand how anybody could be against mining. I encourage every member of this Legislature to show their support for this valuable industry.

J. Kwan: In my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant the Four Sisters Housing Co-op just celebrated their 20th anniversary. Four Sisters Co-op originated as a response to lobbying for housing and for dealing with the impacts of Expo 86. So 150 units of housing were allocated for the downtown east side, with 50 units meant for the First United Church, the Chinese Benevolent Association and DERA.

The First United Church and the Chinese Benevolent Association gave their units to DERA to ensure speedy development and construction. The developer of the project was Randy Cook of Tri-West Development and the architectural firm of Davidson Yuen Simpson. Jim O'Dea and Jim Green were the housing resource people for the project, and the first board president was Terry Hanley.

The Four Sisters was a controversial project for two basic reasons. There was a belief that low-income people could not operate low-income housing and a belief that families shouldn't be located in the downtown east side. The provincial government at that time did not support any social housing, and CMHC, the federal government funder for the project, came to Vancouver to actually speak against rezoning Four Sisters because of the family component in the project.

In spite of that, the community came together. Women, children, seniors, singles and professionals came together and fought for their vision. They stood shoulder to shoulder in support of each other.

Since these early days, Four Sisters has been recognized by the United Nations Populations Fund as one of the best housing models for women and children. Four Sisters has received the Architectural Institute of B.C. award of merit for its architecture, and the Urban Development Institute has recognized it for urban planning.

After 20 years of operation, Four Sisters has proven that low-income people are quite capable of running a major housing project. All urban planners now recognize that the downtown core, when housing is properly organized and managed, is a wonderful place for mothers, children and families alike.

I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Four Sisters Housing Co-op.

J. McIntyre: The Cheakamus River is a part of the stunning natural beauty that characterizes my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. The 70-kilometre river begins in Garibaldi Provincial Park upstream from Cheakamus Lake and joins the Squamish River at Cheekye, just north of the community of Squamish. It's a favourite designation for kayakers and whitewater rafters, and it's also particularly well known for its excellent steelhead and salmon fishing.

On the morning of August 5, 2005, a train derailment killed thousands of fish and caused much concern amongst local residents and the many people who visit the Cheakamus each year. Just this past Friday I had the great pleasure of joining staff and students from the North Vancouver Outdoor School, along with our Environment Minister, to help release 4,000 of the planned 20,000 smolts into the Cheakamus

— a program that will go a long way to helping restore the fish stocks impacted by the spill.

These one-year-old steelhead smolts — which are very beautiful, I have to tell you — were raised by the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. at the Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery in Abbotsford. These smolts were hatchery-reared following the capture of 20 mature spawners last spring and will augment the wild spawners in 2009 and 2010 as part of the short-term augmentation plan.

As the steelhead smolts move downstream toward Howe Sound, they'll be monitored by electronic listening devices that can read signals from miniature transmitters that have been surgically implanted in some of the fish. Their progress, once they reach the Pacific Ocean, will be followed through the Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking System as part of the monitoring and evaluation programs for the recovery efforts.

It's through science and the talent and passion of people in the Ministry of Environment, the staff and students of North Vancouver Outdoor School, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. and the Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery that we will see the Cheakamus fish populations revitalized over time. These efforts deserve our recognition.

L. Krog: Recently we learned that the Ministry of Attorney General is paying a political appointee with the public affairs bureau to attend the Basi-Virk trial. He reports back daily to his political masters. Now, this is not a matter that's before the courts, so the Attorney General can't answer with that excuse today.

Why does the Attorney General think that it is appropriate to ask taxpayers to pay for someone to sit in a courtroom just to keep tabs on this B.C. Liberal legal mess?

Hon. W. Oppal: The person in question is a junior public affairs officer, and he merely reports to the government and other people regarding what's going on in courtrooms. He assists the media, and he assists the people….

Hon. W. Oppal: Members of the opposition may find it surprising that the media has an interest in cases that are before the courts. Mr. Chase is there to assist in the major cases that are of public interest, and he prepares reports on daily court sittings and court activities at all levels of the courts in Vancouver.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, coming from a government that refuses to denounce the practice of taxpayer-funded dirty political tricks, it's a little hard to believe that this type of activity is in the public interest, when the Attorney General won't answer any questions about the trial. The Attorney General has acknowledged today in this House that the taxpayers are paying for this individual to report back to his political masters with information that is not ever made public.

My question to the Attorney General is very simple. If the public is paying for this service, will the Attorney General commit to making all the reports of the public affairs bureau staffer public starting today?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, this person has been there for a while. He sits in on all of the trials; he assists the media. This is nothing new. I congratulate the opposition for finally finding out that Mr. Chase has been in the courts — been there for a long time. He's doing an excellent job.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General says that this public affairs bureau assists the media. It's unfortunate that the Attorney General can't assist this House in their inquiries into these matters.

My question again is to the Attorney General. He says these matters are always before the courts and he can't discuss them. Then, can he tell this House what this taxpayer-paid-for individual assists the media with, what he discusses with the media, and why he cannot table those discussions and those reports in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, it's amazing to me that the member opposite still doesn't understand the role and the distinction between the courts and the Legislature. We do not discuss the evidence that's before the courts.

Hon. W. Oppal: Last November I was asked by a number of members of the media about the admissibility of wiretap evidence, and I gave a legal opinion as to the generic law as pertains to the permissibility of wiretap evidence. Listen to what the member for Nanaimo had to say about that. On November 2 the critic said: "The Attorney General should leave this case to the courts and keep future comments to himself."

Hon. W. Oppal: The opposition critic then went on to say that there have been many high-profile cases in the past where prosecutions failed because of public comments made by politicians. He wasn't content with that. He went on to say: "It is essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial." That's the opposition.

M. Farnworth: This individual is a conduit between the courts and the government. What other purpose is there for this individual if not to report back to government what is taking place and, as the Attorney General just said, to assist the media? Assist the media with what is what we want to know.

My question is to the Attorney General. Did the Attorney General approve the appointment of this individual to monitor the court case? If not him, then who did?

Hon. W. Oppal: I've already said he's not there to monitor any particular court case. He's there. He sits in on the courts, and there's nothing unusual about that. He's not there to comment on any particular case the way the opposition would like us to comment on the cases. He reports to the media. He assists the media.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance aware of this, and has she approved having the public affairs bureau staff at the Basi-Virk court case?

Hon. C. Taylor: I am aware of it as of today. I was told of the situation. The public affairs bureau has informed me that the Ministry of Attorney General made a request that instead of having all of their communication people in Victoria, they would have someone who was in Vancouver and would be able to monitor the major trials as they went forward.

J. Kwan: How many reports have been presented to the government to date from this political appointment who is monitoring the court case? Will the Attorney General commit to tabling all of those reports in this Legislature today?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's nothing sinister about having a person there to advise the public as to what's going on in the courtroom. Obviously, with the economy going the way it is, there's nothing much to ask on that side of the House. But I can tell you that this person….

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Chase has followed a number of the trials, including the Xiao Zhang file that involved the death of the New Zealand physician who was killed in a motor vehicle accident. Those are some of the trials that he's monitored while sitting in courts in Vancouver.

B. Ralston: The Attorney General says that there's nothing sinister about these reports. He's attempting to brush it off. If there's nothing sinister about the reports, then why doesn't he table them in the House now?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know what reports the member is speaking about. The member should know that one of the problems in the civil and criminal justice system is that the public doesn't fully understand the workings of the system. It helps that if there is somebody there monitoring trials, that person then apprises the….

C. Evans: Yes. Whatever I said that anybody took offence to, I certainly withdraw.

Hon. W. Oppal: It assists if we have somebody there explaining how the system works to the public. You know, the criminal justice system need not be a mystery to the public.

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Chase is there to assist the media, to apprise them of the witnesses that are being called and the progress of the trial. That's all he's there for.

B. Ralston: Apparently, the Attorney General won't commit to tabling the reports that we just spoke of

moments ago. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. Since the Minister of Finance is responsible for the public affairs bureau and pays for Mr. Chase's salary, will she commit to tabling those less than sinister reports today in the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if the opposition has an interest in the reports, they can always FOI them.

The Attorney General has said that Mr. Chase's reports are submitted to him and to other members of the government. Can the Attorney General confirm that he has received reports from Mr. Chase, and does the Premier of this province also receive those kinds of briefings?

Hon. W. Oppal: I did not say that he filed reports with me. I said that he's there to assist the public in understanding what's going on in the system, and he's doing that….

Hon. W. Oppal: There's nothing wrong with having an officer sitting in the courtroom to assist the media in….

Hon. W. Oppal: It indicates to me they're not really interested in the answers. They're interested in making speeches. I'll leave it at that.

R. Fleming: Well, the Attorney General keeps saying that this person is in the courts on a daily basis to assist the media. So is this person a spin doctor? What does he do? How does the Attorney General — who has been very careful to remind members of this House on an almost daily basis when he doesn't answer questions that it's a matter before the court — reconcile that and make sure that Mr. Chase isn't politically interfering in the proceedings?

Is this person a delegate of the government? Is he an authorized spokesperson? And once again, will the Attorney General table those reports to the House?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am only curious and involve myself because I'm wondering if the member who just asked the question is prepared to apply those same standards that he professes to expect of others.

Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing unusual, obviously, about the preparation of briefing notes. But I found it odd that the government of the day felt it required a briefing note entitled — well, now the member — his name and "contract," the suggestion being that there was something perhaps unusual about this contract. I won't bore the House with the details now….

Hon. M. de Jong: But when you go to the contract that involved the payment of $38,000 to the hon. member, there is a notation on it that says: "The approval received but not endorsed, service specifications and performance standards sparse comparative to value of contract."

Could it possibly be that the government of the day had to prepare a briefing note because they were concerned that this member and the contract he signed wouldn't withstand the kind of scrutiny that might have applied? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

D. Chudnovsky: The Attorney General has said on several occasions this afternoon that it is the job of the employee of the public affairs bureau to provide advice to the public. Could the Attorney General tell the House what advice Mr. Chase has provided to the public, where and when?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not privy to the advice that he has provided. He's there on a daily basis. He goes to….

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat, hon. Speaker. Mr. Chase is employed in the public affairs bureau, and he reports to the director of communications for the Ministry of Attorney General. What he does is sit in a courtroom, prepare articles and assist members of the media or anyone else who is interested in the progress of trials. That's not unusual at all. It's done in major trials. It's done throughout all the significant trials throughout the province and in other provinces as well.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to just do a little review, as is my wont as a veteran teacher. We've spent a number of minutes in this House this afternoon exploring the activities of an individual who works for the public affairs bureau. It is the Attorney General who has said to us on several occasions this afternoon that it is the job of that individual to provide advice to the public.

It is an entirely reasonable question to now ask the Attorney General: what advice, when did he give it, where did he give it, and what did he say?

Hon. W. Oppal: With the greatest of conceivable respect, the question, quite frankly, is silly. This man sits in a courtroom…. Obviously, the person doesn't understand what happens in the courts. What happens is that….

Hon. W. Oppal: For instance, he's been attending the Pickton trial in New Westminster — a complex trial, a trial that really requires explanations because of the various nuances that are taking place in the trial.

He doesn't file reports to me, but what he does is help people — the media and other people — in the courtroom who need assistance to understand the proceedings. At times, you see, during the course of a trial, a jury may be…

Hon. W. Oppal: …absent for evidentiary issues. A judge may adjourn in order to consider certain deliberations and come back with certain decisions regarding issues. These are matters that have to be explained to members of the public who are not entirely familiar with the workings of the system.

B. Simpson: It seems like the Attorney General does not really understand what's going on in this case at all. He's the one who raised the issue that it was reports that were being produced.

B. Simpson: Then, when asked questions about the reports, he said that they weren't sinister reports. Then when asked further questions about the reports, he said that, actually, reports don't exist. The confusion abounds.

Now the Attorney General is saying that articles are written by this individual. To the Attorney General: where are those articles? How can we find them? Are they published on the Web? Are they published under this author's name or some other name if he's writing in a pseudonym?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat. Mr. Chase is in a courtroom to assist members of the public through the media to understand how the system works, why particular rulings are made, why particular exhibits are filed and all of those things that members of the public may not understand by themselves. That's why he's there.

B. Simpson: The Attorney General said, to start off this line of questioning, that this person writes reports. He's backed off of that. The Attorney General has now said that he writes articles. He's now trying to back off of that. Check the Hansard after this. You will find that the Attorney General said both that reports were written and that articles were written.

Where are these reports, and are those articles published? If so, where can we find them?

Hon. W. Oppal: All right. The officer in question, Mr. Chase, who's employed with the public affairs bureau, works in the courts. He attends various trials, the high-profile trials. He assists in preparing articles. He meets with the media on a regular basis. I'm not privy to the articles that he writes or prepares, and I've never spoken to the man, but his purpose in being there is to assist those people who may not have an understanding of the judicial system.

S. Simpson: The Attorney General referenced the Pickton trial. We know that Mr. Stan Lowe is the government person who provides information at that trial, and appropriately so. The reality of the situation is that Mr. Chase is not a public information officer of the courts. He's a political appointee of this government and a spin doctor for the Liberals.

Frankly, the reality is this. If this minister isn't prepared to release those reports, release those articles. Let us know. Then maybe we can only assume that he is trying to influence the media on this — Mr. Chase. That's wrong, and this minister knows it. Release the reports, and clear the matter up.

Hon. W. Oppal: Stan Lowe is only one of the officers in the Attorney General Ministry, one of the

lawyers who interact with the media. There are others that do it as well. There's nothing….

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no effort to influence anybody's opinion or give a….

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose of the officer being there is to assist the public in understanding the system, understanding some of the rulings and all the things that are going on in a courtroom.

S. Simpson: I'm not aware that Mr. Chase is a lawyer. Maybe we could be enlightened about that. The reality is this. Mr. Chase is a spin doctor for the government and for the B.C. Liberals. That's his job.

If the Attorney General would like to enlighten us, maybe he could enlighten us all and release the information. Maybe he could enlighten us all and tell us what Mr. Chase is telling the media and the public instead of keeping it hidden, keeping it secret and just raising the concern that this is about manipulation by this government of the trial.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we don't need a spin doctor on trials of this nature. We don't need that. You know, those types…. The fact that the member would suggest that a government needs a spin doctor in a criminal trial indicates to me that he's completely ignorant to the workings….

Hon. W. Oppal: The member is obviously uninformed as to the workings of the system. In a criminal trial the Crown lays charges against a person against whom they allege some wrongdoing. We don't have any interest in that particular trial. The Crown lays the charge. They prosecute the case. The judge and/or a jury will ultimately decide the case.

We don't need a spin doctor to put forth the government's view, whatever it may be, in a trial.

G. Robertson: Now that we've had the Attorney General's hopelessly confusing account of what Mr. Chase is doing at the trial — from "monitor the trial" to "assist the media" to "report to government" to "assist the public" — the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this public affairs bureau staffer, is now aware of this confusing complex of job descriptions.

Does the Minister of Finance think that it's appropriate to have a taxpayer-funded political appointee at the Basi-Virk trial?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said before, the public affairs bureau was specifically asked by the Ministry of Attorney General that instead of having all of their communications people in Victoria, they would be able to have one in Vancouver monitoring the major trials. And yes, that is appropriate.

M. Karagianis: I guess my question to either the Minister of Finance or the Attorney General is: what is the difference between assisting the media or influencing the media, and assisting public opinion or influencing public opinion? Where does Mr. Chase stand in his job description?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would assume that the media is incapable of being influenced. I would….

Hon. W. Oppal: The members of the media are there to report events that take place in courtrooms. Sometimes they're not privy to some of the nuances that may happen and why….

Hon. W. Oppal: Sometimes it's not always evident to a person sitting in a courtroom, the media included, as to why particular witnesses weren't called, who the witnesses are for the next day and what the progress of the trial may be. Those are all matters that the officer is there for. He's there to assist the members of the media and other members of the public who may be interested.

R. Austin: I have a petition here of over 7,000 signatures entitled Sand for Souls. It's a petition requesting better road maintenance and snow removal in northwest British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, to be followed at some point by the Ministry of Attorney General.

This bill had its genesis many years ago when a young man named Wolfgang Zimmermann arrived for his first day on the job in logging. He lost the use of his legs in an accident on his first day. Fortunately, the company worked with him, and he was able to find continuing employment with the company. Then, it was MacMillan Bloedel.

Wolfgang became a passionate advocate of the challenges, both physical and mental, of people with injuries and disabilities re-entering the workforce. He made it his lifelong mission to help those. The culmination of that was the bill you see here today.

He organized an organization called NIDMAR, the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, which is supported not only by both sides of this House but by both labour and management in a unique coalition to provide methods, training and workplace safety. It enables people to bridge that gap. It's certainly a tragedy. It's an economic resource that is wasted. Nearly 300,000 people in British Columbia have suffered injuries, and only 55 percent of them find re-employment.

But that economic loss to the province is really secondary to the personal tragedy that these people face. They have the abilities, they have the skills, but they can't get back in the workforce. In fact, in 90 percent of the cases, if they don't re-enter the workforce within the first year, they never do. So really and truly it's a personal tragedy.

NIDMAR has developed courses that are used throughout the world — in Germany, where there are 30 million workers that subscribe under the protocols developed by this. The courses are offered throughout the world on line. This is going to be a unique opportunity for British Columbia to develop a place of excellence, a university that's committed to this particular and specialized science — that of assisting people finding their place again, re-finding their lives by helping them bridge the gaps and barriers, physical and mental, to re-enter the workforce.

It's going to be a great facility, and it's going to offer hope and opportunity to people for whom much hope is lost. I credit Wolfgang for his passion, his zeal and his determination in bringing this bill to this point.

I would also acknowledge the work and effort that's been put in by the previous member for Alberni-Qualicum, Gillian Trumper. I salute the fact that the current member for Alberni-Qualicum has also taken up this torch and truly made this a bipartisan enterprise.

Every year in Canada 1,000 workers leave for work, and they don't come home. They die in a workplace accident. Approximately 24,000 permanent disabilities occur annually in this country.

In 2004 Canada tied for first place in being the worst place for workplace fatalities. Canada's record for reducing workplace fatalities over the previous 20 years stood alone as the worst. In B.C. nearly 70,000 compensable accidents occur annually, and the death rate is appalling. Thousands are permanently disabled.

None of us are very far away from being disabled in a workplace accident. Workplace accidents happen all too often, and we all face that risk of permanent disability. None of us is immune. The great equalizer, I believe, is how Wolfgang Zimmerman put it. We must be mindful of that and not take it for granted.

The creation of the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences, through this act, represents hope for the future and represents the formal dismissing of partisanships between labour and industry and between both sides of this House on this particular important issue.

I am proud to say that the inception of this endeavour is from my constituency and from Port Alberni. I thank the community for being there from the beginning. I thank Wolfgang Zimmerman and others from NIDMAR who have supported this and have been united in their strength and perseverance.

As the MLA for Alberni-Qualicum, I have been a supporter and promoter of this initiative since taking office. I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo-Parksville for all of the work he's done on this. I know it's been difficult to move this through, and I applaud him for that.

As the World Bank identified in its major research study released in 2004, effective disability management programs aimed at maintaining attachment to the workforce, starting with the onset of a disabling condition, is the most effective strategy for not only lowering disability-related costs, but also increasing the number of individuals with disabilities in the workforce.

At a time when declining employment rates for people with disabilities continue unabated around the world, the vast majority of those individuals express a clear desire to be part of a paid labour force. The creation of this accredited university will play an important part in ensuring that gradually, by understanding that regardless of our disabilities we can all make a continued contribution — a valued and productive contribution, critical to our organizations, society and, above all, to the personal sense of participation in all aspects of our society and our environment….

Hats off to Wolfgang Zimmermann, the executive director of NIDMAR, for his hard work, leadership and perseverance in guiding us to this point. I know he wished to be here today. I believe he's in Ottawa pushing this initiative nationally and internationally — a global centre for excellence in disability management.

This is the leading edge in management research and education and a necessary step, but there is still much to be done. In B.C. we must combine this with a commitment to implementation. The grim statistics speak for themselves.

I close with a challenge to all — all of us in this House and in British Columbia — for a willingness and a commitment to do better.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Nanaimo-Parksville closes debate.

R. Cantelon: I have no further comments but to acknowledge the work…. The department of Advanced Education has been supportive in seeing this bill through, and I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the member opposite.

R. Cantelon: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; S. Hammell in the chair.

R. Cantelon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, reported complete without amendment.

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, now be read a second time. This bill amends a number of provincial statutes.

Amendments to the Community Charter will enhance public accountability and opportunities for community development. Municipalities will now develop and disclose municipal policies in relation to revenue sources, distribution of property value, taxes and use of permissive property tax exemptions. Municipalities will have broader authority to provide revitalization tax exemptions for the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. This legislation provides parallel amendments for the city of Vancouver under the Vancouver Charter.

Amendments to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act will allow decisions made by the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board to be enforced like court orders. This will ensure the act continues to provide a balanced, effective process to resolve complaints about farm practices and provide a balanced approach to resolving concerns about farming for the increasing number of British Columbians who live near farm operations, while ensuring measures are in place for a successful agriculture sector.

The bill also amends the Land Act to allow for an integrated land and resource registry. The registry will

give government and external clients efficient single-window access to information on legal rights and interests on Crown land in British Columbia 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Once operating, the registry will reduce adjudication times and increase certainty for decision-making on land use.

Amendments to the Land Title Act will also create new opportunities for farmers by ensuring they can enter into valid, enforceable long-term leases for unused portions of agricultural land. The amendment addresses side effects of a 1996 decision, a court case that interpreted the act's requirements on leases on unsubdivided land. The decision has resulted in confusion, extra costs for farmers and an unintended burden on local governments. The amendments will enhance farmers' abilities to affordably access unused farmland and set out requirements for leases with terms exceeding three years. The change will promote certainty for land agreements and reduce unnecessary litigation.

In addition, minor housekeeping amendments to the Land Title Act and the Land Title and Survey Authority Act will provide ongoing support for the operation of the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia. The amendments include further clarifications of what services are provided to customers for the various fees charged.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and Insurance (Vehicle) Act will bring British Columbia in line with other North American jurisdictions with respect to vicarious liability and help keep businesses like car rental companies in the province to support major industries such as tourism.

Currently car rental and lease companies face unlimited liability for accidents and damages caused by their customers. Changes will limit the company's liability to $1 million for bodily injury and property damage claims and shift some of the responsibility onto the driver. A minor amendment to the Passenger Transportation Act will support the act's enforcement. The act regulates taxis, limousines, inner-city buses to ensure adequate access to commercial public transportation and public safety.

Currently, operating licences are approved by the Passenger Transportation Board, and a common condition restricts the area in which a licensee may pick up passengers. The amendment will add a new offence to enable a fine to be levied against drivers who operate outside the boundary. Currently only licensees can be fined.

The British Columbia Wine Act is being repealed to reflect the wine industry's new approach to governance and the administration of wine quality standards. The amendments eliminate redundant regulatory requirements and ensure essential regulatory requirements are clearly connected to the administering agency, the B.C. Wine Authority.

In addition, Bill 35 amends the Wildlife Act to identify a new trustee for the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. The new trustee is an independent legal entity registered as a society under the Society Act. Rules regarding the board and its business operations will be moved from the Wildlife Act to the new society's constitution and bylaws.

Finally, Bill 35 amends the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, which is currently before the Legislature as Bill Pr401, to provide consistency with Bill 22, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. That bill amends a number of acts governing private post-secondary institutions with respect to personal education numbers.

L. Krog: Well, it's always interesting to get the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act from the Attorney General's ministry, covering a wide variety of topics — some of great public interest, some of absolutely no public interest whatsoever. I think in general the opposition will support most of this bill. However, there are some very specific and, I would suggest, serious concerns around some of the matters that have been raised.

With respect to the Community Charter and Local Government Act amendments, those I think would probably be seen as appropriate and progressive. But it strikes the opposition that perhaps the government has not fully considered the ramifications of the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement and what impact it will have on the proposed amendments to the Community Charter and Local Government Act.

The fact is that government on one hand appears to be ensuring that the public has access to all appropriate information about the sources of revenue, and then suggesting that local governments will have perhaps even greater discretion or authority to in fact grant exemptions and do things that would work in that local government's best interests. That must be seen by most British Columbians as a very positive step.

However, it is questionable whether or not those amendments will in fact pass the TILMA test. This indeed may lead to all sorts of potential legal challenges. It's quite right that municipal governments should be extremely concerned about the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement as it impacts on their rights, when this series of amendments in fact seems to contemplate that the government wishes to expand their powers on one hand. But TILMA, I would suggest, is in fact going to limit local governments' power.

With respect to the Farm Practices Protection Act, obviously giving teeth to any government body is an appropriate step forward. It needs to have the same effect as a Supreme Court judgment in order for people to pay serious attention. This is one of those things that won't be seen to affect large numbers of the public but is in fact a progressive step on the part of the government.

There are, however, I would suggest, significant concerns around the changes to the Insurance Act and the Motor Vehicle Act. What this appears to be is quite simply nothing more than a gift to corporate providers of vehicles at the expense of the rights of plaintiffs to recover damages in complex legal circumstances. This in fact appears to be nothing more than a reward, if

The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, I can assure the House, are very concerned about these provisions and proposed changes. This will probably have the effect of limiting recovery for people who have been seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents. It will have the effect of limiting the rights of those unfortunate people who are injured in what we call catastrophic accidents.

It will, in fact, potentially limit their recovery so that we will have two classes of plaintiffs: those who are lucky enough, arguably — and I use that term in a somewhat inappropriate way — to face an ordinary situation where there is a single insured driver and negligence and then can make their claim, and those who are unfortunate to be involved in a situation involving a leased vehicle and issues around consent. Those are of real concern to the opposition.

There is no cry on the public's part for this change. You do not see people demonstrating in the streets of British Columbia saying this is a good thing. This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to address the narrow interests of those who make their living leasing out vehicles. It is not good public policy. It does not protect innocent victims in car accidents, and will not do so.

So with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, there is more to this than a simple Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — the old ho-hum, pass-it-through-the-Legislature, let's-get-on-with-it-here approach. Those sections in fact cause genuine concern to the opposition, they should cause concern to potential plaintiffs across British Columbia, and I suspect they will cause significant concern not just to trial lawyers but to all those who are involved in working with people who have been injured in a catastrophic way in serious accidents.

Another matter that is very serious is the government's proposal for the new integrated land and resource registry. We're all delighted that the world is getting Internet-friendly, that people have quick and ready access to government information. That's all to the good; that's all very positive. If we lived in a perfect world where every community had that kind of information readily available, then that would be quite wonderful — if we were all tied into the Net. The fact is that either through monetary inability, economic insecurity, geography or physical or mental disability, all kinds of people don't have easy access to the Internet.

If it's the goal for the registry to be accessible to all of the citizens of B.C., then I would suggest that it is simply, absolutely impossible for this government to guarantee that at the present time. There are currently, as I understand it, up to 120 communities that do not have access to high-speed Internet connections and so do not have connectivity to the integrated land and resource registry. Those are the facts of British Columbia — 120 communities. Heaven knows how many thousands of British Columbians will not have that access.

What we're doing with this is essentially limiting it to those who already have access, instead of expanding access, as is suggested. What we're really doing is making it simply easier for those who already have the tools to get their job done at the expense of those who can't afford or don't have the tools for whatever reason or indeed who may have all the money in the world but who simply live in a part of British Columbia that isn't serviced.

With the greatest respect to the government, this strikes me as an improvement, if you will, or a reform that should only come into effect if, in fact, the government can guarantee access across the province equally. Otherwise, what it means, as the Attorney General noted in his opening remarks around second reading debate, is that those people who are Internet-friendly can access this registry, make their applications 24-7.

You can say that that's a great thing, but to George and Mary living in the Internet-unfriendly community, they're going to assume, like most British Columbians do, that the government office is open from nine till five or eight till four and that that's when they can make their application.

What this essentially does is give a big jump — a boost, if you will — to those who are already in the industry, so to speak, those who are up to the task of handling modern technology. It will give a definite benefit to some and be a definite detriment to others.

So I think the Attorney General needs to reconsider this particular aspect of the bill and that this, in fact, is not a positive step forward on all levels. If it was going to guarantee complete equality of access, one would be entirely sympathetic, but the bill does not guarantee that access.

With respect to the other sections of the bill, some of the more modest provisions are certainly appropriate. No one would disagree with the possibility of allowing for long-term leases, particularly to protect those people in agriculture who we want to support in this province and who I would hope government policy would support on a constant basis.

But there are other matters as well. For instance, section 27 allows that the registrar may cancel, with or without an application, a notation endorsed on the title of land under the Forest Land Reserve Act before the repeal of that Act. One could argue that this is a simple thing and that it simply clears up a title.

In fact, the whole purpose of the Forest Land Reserve Act was to ensure that property in British Columbia from which forest companies had received significant tax breaks couldn't be developed for other purposes and that we would, if you will, help guarantee the perpetuity of the forest industry in this province — to give it longevity, to ensure that jobs would be available in the forest industry for this generation and for every succeeding generation.

What this section reminds us of is that this government essentially gutted the forest land reserve, eliminated it. We now see up and down the east coast of Vancouver Island major private land owners and forest companies putting their land out for developing; pressuring municipal governments and regional gov-

ernments to create further urban sprawl; taking land out of forest production, which provides good jobs for British Columbians, and turning it into subdivisions; putting pressure on municipal governments to deliver services; putting pressure on growth plans and enabling what have now often become large foreign corporations to make significant profits by logging and flogging, instead of logging and creating real jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians.

These changes around the Wildlife Act and the habitat conservation fund are all appropriate. The opposition is not going to have any significant problem with those, except for a number of questions, I would respectfully suggest.

But as I tried to point out in my remarks today, although on the face of it this is just one of those ho-hum pieces of legislation, there are some matters in this bill which give the opposition great concern. The Attorney General and other ministers of the Crown will need to be prepared to answer fully the very appropriate questions and concerns raised by the opposition.

C. Wyse: I rise briefly to speak to this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. In the portion that deals with local government, I would like to bring possible concerns around the sections that develop and disclose municipal policies in relation to revenue sources, the distribution of property value taxes and the use of permissive tax exemptions that, albeit good on the surface, do put additional expense on local governments, particularly the smaller ones, in order to achieve that. In consideration of this, some assistance needs to be provided to those local governments to achieve that down the road.

Likewise, with some other concerns, in order to achieve those particular aspects, it does put some further additional restrictions upon the provision of public services, which may not have been the intent of this type of legislation.

When you look at the permissive tax exemptions, right now it leaves it very much up to the discretion of local governments, as long as the local government is in agreement for that permissive tax exemption. But now having it tied explicitly to the documents that I referred to earlier, it may in actual fact restrict the ability for local government to achieve public service aspects in it. So I share that caution with you.

Likewise, with the aspect dealing with the revitalization of tax exemptions, it no longer requires the designation of a benefiting area. In doing such, it may end up becoming open to a much wider distribution of that type of a tax exemption than what would necessarily have been intended, as well as the point that my colleague earlier mentioned about maybe opening up to further challenges underneath the TILMA legislation.

Finally, with my other hat, dealing with the integrated land use registry, coming from an area that has concerns about access to high speed, I do have large parts of the geography in my area that would be disadvantaged by that lack of a tool being available to them.

As well, I'm not aware from anything I've been able to obtain whether there have been consultations that have gone on with first nations communities around this type of an item. So I bring those concerns to the House on behalf of the rural nature of my riding and the concerns about there being an equal playing field in a tool that is being provided to all of British Columbia.

With land use registry, it is a significant advantage if you're able to access getting whatever it is registered quickly versus those that do not have that particular advantage. It is a concern that I do have.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to bring these concerns to the attention of the Attorney General for consideration down the road.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 35 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate of Bill 33, intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, now be read a second time.

This bill amends a number of statutes under the mandate of the Ministry of Attorney General to improve efficiency and access to justice. Amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act and the enabling legislation for a number of tribunals will clarify the government's intention regarding those tribunals' jurisdiction and discretion to apply the Human Rights Code.

Further amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act will enhance the provisions and authorize the temporary appointment of a tribunal member, providing greater flexibility to address a member's temporary absence or short-term workload needs.

Amendments to the Family Relations Act will enable the child support recalculation service pilot project to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible.

The bill also makes amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to streamline the efficiency of the family maintenance enforcement program and to ensure that children receive financial support

they're entitled to from both parents. These new measures bring British Columbia in line with enforcement in other provinces such as Alberta and Ontario.

Changes to the Supreme Court Act and the provincial act will support the integrity of the justice system in a number of ways, including allowing information-sharing on the conduct of an employee between the chief administrator of court services branch and the chief judge or chief justice.

Amendments to the Legal Profession Act will enhance the Law Society of British Columbia's ability to regulate the legal profession in the public interest. Among other changes, the amendments increase the society's ability to respond if a lawyer is practising incompetently. The amendments also introduce a procedure for obtaining evidence from other jurisdictions that will streamline discipline and credential hearings.

An amendment to the Legal Services Society Act expands the society's mandate, enabling it to provide service and assistance to individuals who currently fall outside its financial eligibility guidelines. Services and assistance to low-income individuals remain the society's priority.

The amendment will permit the society greater flexibility in determining what services to provide, and to which clients. It will empower the society to be a key partner in supporting the government's recently announced justice reform initiatives.

This bill also makes amendments to the Offence Act that allow tickets for a range of provincial offences to be served to people residing outside British Columbia and enable the mail delivery of parking violation tickets.

Further amendments will allow disputants to appear in provincial traffic court via telephone or video conferencing where equipment is available for prescribed offences in prescribed circumstances.

Housekeeping amendments will include a change to the Evidence Act to clarify that electronically recorded images of documents, such as cheques, are admissible in the same way as the original documents.

Finally, Bill 33 provides for a number of validations, confirmations and repeals as well as consequential and related amendments to keep the statutes up to date and to provide certainty.

L. Krog: From the opposition's perspective, the changes proposed in this bill around the application of the Human Rights Code are very troubling indeed. The fact is that if this bill passes in its present form, these tribunals will not have any jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code. They include the Agricultural Land Commission, the property assessment review panel, the Property Assessment Appeal Board, the director of Business Practices and Consumer Protection, the employment and assistance appeal tribunal, the director of employment standards, the Employment Standards Tribunal, the director of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, the Passenger Transportation Board, the petroleum and natural gas mediation and arbitration board, the director of the Residential Tenancy Act, the Safety Standards Appeal Board, the superintendent of achievement of the School Act, the B.C. Utilities Commission and the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

The Attorney General in his opening remarks talked about efficiency and access to justice. How one can suggest that access to justice or efficiency somehow is a good thing in this particular bill is somewhat staggering to my legal imagination. The reality is that it may be efficient in terms of denying to all sorts of individuals the rights, which they presently would have enjoyed, to ask for the application of the Human Rights Code. But it doesn't do anything to improve their access to the justice that they would be entitled to, to ask a tribunal to apply those decisions.

There's another classification of tribunals that may apply the Human Rights Code but do not have jurisdiction over a question of whether there is a conflict between the Human Rights Code and any other enactment: the Community Care and Assisted Living Appeal Board, the Financial Services Tribunal, the Forest Practices Board, the Hospital Appeal Board, the Industry Training Appeal Board, the mental health board and review panel, and the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board.

We're creating all these various classes. There's the one where you can't apply it at all; the other class that may but doesn't have the jurisdiction to determine where there's a conflict; and then finally, the tribunals that may consider application of the Human Rights Code but must notify and provide for the intervention of the Attorney General — the Labour Relations Board and the B.C. Securities Commission.

This isn't about access to justice; this is about the denial of access to justice. It has everything to do with limiting the rights of individuals. It arises out of a Supreme Court case, but — with the greatest respect to this government — they have, I humbly suggest, misinterpreted and have now brought in legislation that goes way beyond the issues that were raised in that case. They apply it now to decide cases as though the Human Rights Code didn't exist.

If the government wishes to repeal the Human Rights Code, then let them do so. Let them do so in open debate, bring it in, have a public discussion about it, send a legislative committee around the province to decide whether or not in fact people want the Human Rights Code abolished. But please, don't come here to this chamber and say it's about efficiency and access to justice. The fact is that you are denying the potential rights of individuals by proceeding with these amendments as suggested.

It will do nothing to enhance access to justice in British Columbia. It will not make us a better province. For whatever difficulties are being caused now around legal arguments involving human rights cases or cases where human rights issues may be raised before these tribunals…. With the greatest respect, let those tribunals make those decisions, but do not limit the application of the Human Rights Code. That is not enhancing the fundamental values of this province or this country.

The fact is that this country has a charter that it didn't have when John George Diefenbaker brought in the first human rights act in this country: the Bill of Rights. It applied only to federal institutions, but it was a great step forward. The province of Saskatchewan had brought in a code, I believe, under T.C. Douglas when he was Premier — a very important step forward. But the Charter was the crowning glory of the repatriation of the constitution to this country.

This government has done everything it can since it came to office to try to reduce the rights of individuals that they should enjoy under our provincial legislation.

The opposition will not be supporting this. It is wrong-headed, and it is not about access and efficiency. It is entirely inappropriate in the year 2007 for us in this House to be contemplating the restriction of the rights of individuals to ask for rulings under the Human Rights Code and have them apply to the tribunals that they attend in front of.

Now, around the provisions that will strengthen child support enforcement measures. I don't think there's any British Columbian who would say that it's not appropriate to ensure that people who have the ability to pay support, whether it's child support or spousal support, are forced to pay it. I want to emphasize again that people who have the ability to pay should be forced to pay their child and spousal support.

But in some cases what really happens — and the Attorney General knows this well from his time in the courts and as a lawyer — is that orders are made, particularly in Supreme Court, circumstances change, and the person who is required to pay is simply not in a position to do so. When that happens, they're already in difficult economic circumstances if they're not paying their spousal or child support, and they're certainly unlikely to be in a position to hire a lawyer.

You're going to need a lawyer, in all likelihood, to go to Supreme Court, to hire counsel to appear on their behalf and to try to get a reduction in those payments. So we end up with this merry-go-round in British Columbia for a fairly significant number of individuals now over time — not the majority by any stretch, but a fairly significant number — who find themselves in a horrible situation.

They can't pay their support, they can't afford to get it changed, and because of the cuts this government made to legal aid, they can't get access to legal aid, either, to get someone to go into court on their behalf and ask for a reduction. This bill is going to do nothing to affect that.

If the Attorney General was committing to work with the federal government around provisions of the Divorce Act to ensure that some simple, cheap and secure system was in place that would enable people in legitimate cases to achieve a reduction in support payments so that they wouldn't end up with thousands and thousands of dollars of arrears which they may never have an opportunity to pay, that would be one thing. But that's not what this is doing.

There is also a significant concern raised by insurance brokers across the province. They already have to face people when it comes to denial of insurance. I want to read into today's debate a letter I received from an insurance broker in Nanaimo — Ted Lewis, President of Nanaimo Insurance Brokers. What he says is this:

The Attorney General well knows the wording of this letter. It was directed to him.

It's a very legitimate concern, and I think the Attorney General and the government need to respond to that concern.

Enforcement — yes. But who is going to do the enforcing? Should it be the private insurance brokers? Should it be women on the front lines dealing with angry individuals? It's a serious question, and I think that the government needs to consider very carefully what it's doing.

With respect to other provisions around the improvements to enforcement, again, I come back to my main point that this bill is going to do nothing to deal with those difficult issues around people who are caught in a place where they cannot afford to get relief from orders, where the courts are tied up trying to enforce orders against people who have no ability to pay, where judges and the Provincial Court around enforcement proceedings are saying to people: "Well, go back to the Supreme Court, and get it changed. I'll give you an adjournment for a couple of months." Provincial Court judges know full well, to their complete frustration, that the individual is not going to be able to do it, in all practical application. They're simply not going to be able to afford to do it.

It's time to talk about a system that enables a relatively inexpensive way of reducing child support orders where there has been a genuine change in circumstances. This government, I believe, and this opposition stand firmly behind the enforcement of

orders for those who have the ability to pay and should be paying. That's always been the case.

But there are those cases of great injustice now where orders are outstanding, where orders can't be changed in a practical way, and a great deal of process and frustration is raised. We need to be practical about those situations where people are not in a position to pay, because quite frankly, having the promise of being paid down the road doesn't do much for the recipients, and it certainly doesn't do much for the individual who knows day by day that there's a clock ticking, the amount is going up and they're not making any progress with paying.

Around the attachment proceedings. Of course, attaching RRSPs is an interesting proposition, but it will be somewhat problematic because, obviously, it will add a double penalty. The individuals who see an RRSP attached will in fact see a tax burden created instantaneously because of the withdrawal of the RRSP funds, and then at the same time will see those moneys go to pay child support.

Now, one may argue that that's quite appropriate, but the average individual is going to respond: "If I contributed to an RRSP many years ago and have now fallen on very hard times and am looking at retirement potentially, should that be taken?" These are important and interesting questions. They will certainly occupy some aspect of committee stage of the bill.

The changes to the Legal Profession Act will receive the unqualified support of the opposition. Those changes are appropriate. The Law Society of British Columbia has been waiting for them for a long time. It will improve, frankly, service to the public of British Columbia who require legal services. We can only see that as a positive step forward.

The Offence Act, allowing parking violation tickets to be sent out the way they are — with that improvement — is, again, a step forward. It does give me, I say, some small concern, however, that the Supreme Court Act has to be amended to allow the chief justice to require a judge of the court to attend meetings or conferences. One would have hoped that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would have been in a position to compel that fairly readily, but I guess that discipline at the Supreme Court is probably the same as discipline in the caucus: it's not always effective.

With respect to the Provincial Court Act, allowing the chief judge, not the Attorney General, to designate administrative judges strikes the opposition as a positive step, because it would detract from any suggestion of political interference by the Attorney General or the government as a whole.

Around this bill there are, as I say, a number of sections, as there are in Bill 33, that are of no great consequence that the opposition will not oppose. But around the question of human rights, there are issues that require significant debate. Around the issues for family maintenance enforcement, this bill does not move us forward the way it should in those difficult areas where reform is clearly required in order to ensure that individuals who find themselves in genuinely difficult circumstances somehow have the opportunity to relieve themselves of a burden of payment which they simply cannot afford to pay based on, perhaps, some significant health issue or disability that's arisen that is well beyond their control.

So I would conclude my remarks in response to the Attorney General today, and I look forward to committee stage of this bill.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 33 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call the previously adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading of Bill 32, intituled Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I now move that Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

The bill proposes a number of amendments to the property assessment and assessment authority statutes. The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to continuously improve customer service by providing service that meets the needs of customers, provides for fair and efficient tax administration, and maximizes economic growth opportunities in British Columbia.

The bill proposes amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority Act. The amendments to the Assessment Act will enhance taxpayer fairness to our customers in ports, ski hills and short-term tourist accommodation industries and will attract investment to those sectors.

The introduction of new evaluation methodologies to determine the market value of ports, lands and destination ski hills will….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, do you want to break for a couple of minutes? Take a five-minute recess. This House stands in recess for five minutes.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The new evaluation methodologies will apply to the ports and ski hill properties designated by regulation. The introduction of a new classification methodology for strata accommodation properties used for short-term rentals will provide a more equitable tax treatment based on the actual use of each property.

The definition of "farm" in the Assessment Act will be amended to provide consistency in the act. This will not change government policy or assessment procedures.

Amendments to the Assessment Act will provide recourse to property owners dissatisfied with their property assessment but unable to file a notice of complaint by statutory deadline due to a situation beyond their reasonable control. To ensure that property owners are treated fairly, authority will be provided for the Property Assessment Appeal Board to hear an owner's complaint about their property assessment where the prescribed filing date was missed due to circumstances beyond the person's control.

Amendments to the Assessment Authority Act and related amendments to the Assessment Act will update the governance structure of the British Columbia Assessment Authority to reflect provincial standards for board governance. The current governance structure of the B.C. Assessment Authority was created in 1974 by the Assessment Authority Act. Since 1974 standards of provincial Crown agency governance have changed, and the acts require modernization to incorporate many of the modern principles of good governance.

Updates to the act include clarification of key roles and responsibilities of boards of directors and the chief executive officer of the Assessment Authority, composition of the board of directors, length of term of appointments of directors of the board, public accountability of the Assessment Authority and reporting requirements of the Assessment Authority.

To streamline and clarify lines of accountability in the new governance structure, the amendments eliminate the role of the assessment commissioner. They transfer those statutory duties as appropriate to the board of directors, the Assessment Authority or the chief executive officer.

In addition, this bill includes a number of minor amendments to streamline and modernize the Assessment Authority Act.

G. Robertson: I rise to speak to the second reading of Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, and to outline a number of concerns and issues that certainly require some scrutiny and some further conversation. Many of the comments will be focused in the committee stage. As with many of these statutes amendment acts, there are many details, and the devil is in the details as to how these are applied and how these bills, in turn, affect the people of B.C. and the businesses of the province.

In the case of Bill 32, this bill is initially moving the Assessment Authority to a more modern, corporate-style management with the commissioner effectively eliminated, as the commissioner is deemed to have duplicate responsibilities as the CEO. It does raise the question of the culture of the Assessment Authority. The shift to a more corporate board approach is fairly recent. It is the direction that has been taken by this government.

The transfer of the duties of the commissioner to the board of directors — and in turn, to the CEO or the Assessment Authority as appropriate — will obviously shift how the Assessment Authority functions. It will have some marked effect on the culture of the authority.

This has had a variety of results — and mixed results — in terms of accountability to the public in other Crown corporations where this shift has occurred, so clearly there are concerns that need to be raised with this. The opposition is obliged to do that. There may follow more questions in the third reading and committee stage regarding how this shift will take place and what is envisioned with that.

In terms of the changes being made for valuing of strata hotels, the rules reflect a B.C. Supreme Court ruling so that each unit is classified based on individual use and occupancy. There's a lot of good sense to this happening. It clearly will have implications for a number of municipalities and regional districts in terms of revenue.

Maybe I should preface the rest of my comments with my thanks, through to the ministry staff, for the briefing that was provided to me and opposition staff to clarify a lot of the fine points and details within Bill 32. It was very helpful. I would like to pass that along.

In terms of the net impacts on municipalities and regional districts of this change to classification based on use, my understanding from ministry staff is that there won't be a significant impact borne by any particular municipality or regional district and that it does make common sense.

It will create a lot of benefits in terms of the growth in ski resorts and recreational resorts — the ability for there to be fewer shell corporations and, however legitimate they are, various means by which taxes for unoccupied units are classified or dealt with. This should clear a lot of that up and hopefully make for a more streamlined system.

That said, it is worth mentioning that there will be some impacts on municipalities. We have heard from some of those municipalities that are very concerned about the net result of these changes.

We will certainly pursue that further in the committee stage on this bill to ascertain how much work has been done to map out where those costs basically end up hitting municipalities, with a revenue stream flowing from assessments and affecting those municipalities — where that will occur and to what degree. I'm not clear if the ministry has done a thorough study in terms of what changes that makes.

Thirdly, this bill does give cabinet the regulatory authority to set a new formula to assess the value of designated ski hills and port land. I'll just start with the so-called designated ski hills, which are the large resorts, large ski areas, of the province.

Describing it in plain terms, given the fluctuations, particularly in a time of climate change and unpredictable weather that ski areas face in terms of how much snow they're going to get, their assessments are being shifted by virtue of this bill to how many skiers show up — what kind of revenues they actually receive versus the rate that has been applied previously — and assessing those ski areas or ski hills, for major destinations anyway, based on the size, the value and the capital invested.

Given the variability and the fact that assessments have gone up and down for many of these ski hills, it makes sense, as well, for there to be assessment made on the percentage of gross lift revenues. That is the direction here.

My understanding is that the detail will be in the regulations. Obviously, there will need to be attention paid as to how those regulations are laid out and enforced, but it looks to be, again, a commonsense approach. Rather than penalizing significant investment of capital in ski areas that then have to literally weather the lean years, they are paying tax based on the gross lift revenue. Again, in that section of this bill I think the support of the opposition for that direction is clear. It will be in the fine points.

A question, too, as to how the smaller ski hills — maybe those that are just on the margin in terms of revenues or the number of skiers they see…. Where the line was drawn is where committee stage will be helpful, to ascertain whether there are in fact ski hills that don't quite make it and that have issues. My understanding is that there haven't been appeals or issues from the smaller ski areas, but we need to be certain we're not leaving those out who deserve to be considered as a destination ski hill.

The next component of this, in terms of setting a new formula to assess the value, is related to port land. At this point the current assessment method by zoning for the highest and best use of that port land. Certainly in many of the ports around the province there has been concern over this, and there have been issues raised on these lands, particularly those leased from the federal government. Their highest and best use may in fact be condos on the waterfront in Burrard Inlet. Of course, these lands are not destined to be home to thousands of residents at this point. They are destined to remain as ports.

The restrictive use of these port lands was not taken into consideration by B.C. Assessment. Therefore there is, I guess, a relative hodgepodge in terms of the assessments levied and the revenues flowing from these port lands. Again, with this component there have been concerns as to the change in revenues flowing through to the municipalities.

I'll note in particular the part of the province that I spent my high school years in, North Vancouver. There have been concerns about the impact on revenues flowing to the city of North Vancouver and the district of North Vancouver from the port lands. They have been counting on, or had at least structured their budget around, a significant flow of revenue based on highest and best use, which is no longer going to be the method of assessment.

There will be changes here. The Supreme Court has affirmed this through, I believe, the Western Stevedoring case — that the Property Assessment Appeal Board had set these rents too high. At this point that change is put in force with this legislation. Indeed, the implications for other ports and municipalities that are affected does warrant further questions at committee stage.

It's important that we understand in particular the implications of driving an aggressive growth strategy with the ports. While it may make sense in pure economic terms to turbocharge the growth in the port industry and increase imports and exports through B.C. ports, it no doubt has implications in terms of the communities affected — the development of the foreshore in those communities and the environmental impact of the development of the ports, the rail lines, the highways, the road systems. The network of transportation for goods movement is affected by this aggressive growth.

We in B.C. are perched on a period of intense investment and growth in our ports, which has raised a lot of questions and concerns both in those communities and in the interest groups. They have concerns about the general direction of our society to increase the movement and consumption of goods, about the materialism that drives that increase and about the impact that maximizing the movement and consumption of goods has on our environment, our lifestyle and our health. There are many questions to be raised about that.

That said, to come back to the direct impact of Bill 32 and the changes made to assessment for these port lands, it is important that we look specifically at the impact that it will have on the several municipalities that will be adversely affected within their budgets. There is some assumption that these municipalities should have put provisions in, in terms of their revenue flow, based on the court decision and that they should have done their due diligence in anticipation that these changes would be legislated. It is not clear to me at this time how prepared they are and what budgetary implications they face by virtue of this change taking effect in the very near term.

As well, there could be changes envisioned, pressure on government related to these changes in the assessment of port lands, that is coming forward from other comparable sectors — ferries, airports, other interest groups — that would like to see a reduced assessment based on the use of the lands for the movement of goods or people. Obviously, the methodology that's done in any reassessment is important — the changes that get made there. I trust, with appropriate scrutiny on this bill, particularly through the committee stage, that we are able to understand the methodology and the changes here and that any changes beyond that which is envisioned here for ports are taken very cautiously.

In both cases, for ports and for ski hills, encouraging targeted economic development in these sectors has been a clear agenda of this government. Both are highly dependent on the consumption of fossil fuels, on the growth of our economy being pegged directly to fossil fuel consumption, with greenhouse gas emissions resulting from that. This is an extremely vulnerable strategy, given the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change now recognized by this government and given the impacts on air pollution and human health created by maximizing the movement of goods through highly populated areas, notably the lower mainland, through the ports in Delta.

The impact of flying in ski tourists from all across the world to spend their week or two here and thus fuel our economy is certainly a short-term strategy in terms of its environmental logic. It may make sense for the near term to invest in this strategy to build up these resorts. One has to wonder over the longer term how all the people are going to make it from far-flung regions of the world to the ski resorts and mountains of British Columbia in a time beyond peak oil, in a time when it is difficult to justify long-distance travel. Therefore, a bigger picture of concern targets economic development at industries that are totally reliant on the consumption of fossil fuels and, therefore, the tax and policy incentive structure that goes into play to do that. Those concerns need to be raised in this House.

Certainly, there are a lot of British Columbians who raise these concerns every day. It has reached a critical tipping point in the media. That's reflected, as well, through to constituency offices where we hear these concerns on a daily basis — concerns about the direction of this government on economic development.

To return to Bill 32, another point is around the definition of "farm," which is being amended by this legislation to reflect that the appeal boards can also designate a property as a farm. The regulatory change, I believe, was done last year to allow more time to file paperwork for farm status. This legislation, rightly so, ensures that the right authority is in place by amending the legislation.

There have been many concerns raised by property owners applying for farm status and appealing to the Property Assessment Appeal Board for that. This legislation allows property owners to appeal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board with the leave of that board, if the owner failed to file a notice of complaint within the time required.

With a $1.9 billion food deficit and less than half of our food grown here in B.C. at this time, it is important to encourage farming in British Columbia with any initiatives that support the growing of food and the agricultural use of land, not just by designating that land as agricultural land reserve but by enabling property owners every easy mechanism through the tax structure to ensure that their land — which is growing food, which is providing food in the province — is not burdening them with horrendous paperwork to do that. There's every reason to move in this direction in terms of ensuring that farmland and the appeals for assessment on farmland are clarified and don't get bogged down by the process.

There is a great deal of attention paid in this legislation specifically to what were referred to as short-term overnight commercial accommodation properties, the legendary STOCAPs, which I understand will now be referred to as strata accommodation properties. Again, this is returning to the issue of classifying properties based on occupancy and use — the day lodges, the campgrounds, but mainly the strata hotels in resort areas. This is a classification issue; it's not specifically based on valuation.

There is at this time a great inequity between the strata complexes depending on the deemed use, from residential or class 1 to hotel class 6, or commercial use, and the case flowing from the Legends court case determining that assessment must be based on the actual use. It's important that this now move on into legislation and that it is clear in that legislation how this use impacts resort areas and ownership and, hopefully, that it is able to clear up a number of the confusing issues around classification versus valuation.

It will need to be balanced, obviously, to minimize that impact. My understanding is that as we don't know the impacts specifically, I will look forward to following up with the minister in the committee stage to try and understand what we do know in terms of the impact and what data on occupancy do exist, to help understand what will happen here.

In terms of other details within this legislation, there is a great deal considered in the Assessment Authority Act. I'll just return to the changes that are made in terms of the removal of the commissioner and substitution of the assessment authority, the board of

directors or chief executive officers. These are in sections 33, 38, 39 and 40 as well as 46.

The concern that I think many British Columbians have in terms of our Crown corporations revolves around transparency and accountability. Whether this shift in terms of governance has a limiting effect on accountability and transparency is primary for many British Columbians. When these public bodies, these Crown corporations, are charged with managing very important affairs — flows of revenue from taxpayers through to the public purse — accountability and transparency are absolutely critical for the ability of the public to understand who's in charge, how they got there, that they are of impeccable integrity and that the management of these Crown corporations is completely open to the scrutiny of the public, given that it is a Crown corporation. Again, we will spend some time here making sure that that has all been considered in this legislation.

In terms of other points that are worth raising at this point, many questions are more appropriately asked through the committee stage of Bill 32. I'll look forward to commenting on Bill 32 through committee stage from here.

If there are others here on the opposition side of the House that will make comments in second reading, I will hand over the floor to them.

M. Karagianis: I would like to just rise to voice my concerns about a couple of aspects of this bill.

My time at the municipal governance level as a municipal councillor has made me pretty cautious around some of the issues that come out of assessments. My community of Esquimalt, in particular, has wrestled for many years with issues concerning assessment of Department of National Defence lands. It has in many circumstances had to appeal quite strongly decisions that were made around the assessed value of those Department of National Defence and federal lands, which in several cases resulted in the assessments being downgraded significantly and had a huge and punitive effect on the payment in lieu of taxes to the community. In fact, Esquimalt had to spend, at one point, over a year appealing the assessed value of those lands and left taxpayers pretty much holding the bag for the entire time that that process was going on.

It really taught me a lesson around looking very closely at all aspects of the Assessment Act and, certainly at this point, at the amendments here on the assessment statute. It's with that eye that I turn to the pages here in this act. A couple of things gave me some concern, and I felt it appropriate to raise those in the House today.

There is reference here to modifying some of the definitions around assessed properties, like farms. There was a particularly well-publicized case here, a local municipality that wrestled significantly with a farm designation put on urban lands, very expensive urban lands. I know that the community really had to grapple with the definition that was given to them at that time on assessing farmlands, and it concerns me greatly that we would shift in any way to allow even more of that kind of opportunism, shall we say, to be presented to communities.

Communities rely very strongly on every dollar that's assessed. Those values are in fact the cornerstone of property tax, which is the only thing that municipalities can draw upon in order to fund the services they provide to their communities.

I'm always concerned when we modify any kind of definitions, so I'm concerned about the modification in section 2, in the definition of a farm, and if it slips in any way into allowing more broad and creative definitions of "farm" to be applied to communities, especially communities where there are still large parcels of land that could be designated as farms when in fact they are not. It concerns me greatly, so that's one of the flags that I had here.

I'm concerned that through this act the government talks about new assessment values for things like ski hills and ports. Again, these have significant impacts on the municipal authorities in the areas where either of these usages occurs. If we are going to change the assessment values on this and leave municipalities having to grapple with these issues, either legally or politically, or if it becomes a bit of an obstacle or a barrier or presents complexities that municipalities have to deal with in handling the repercussions of these new values, then that concerns me greatly. I wouldn't be very happy about that.

The thing that concerns me the most here is the change in the style of management that is being proposed around the board of directors. We see a move to a new style of board management. I've sat on boards. I know that there are often new business models that are proposed. There are new styles of having boards run organizations that get proposed. Not all of them are positive, and not all of them succeed in what they purport to be doing.

I would certainly need more assurance. I will be asking the minister as we get to that section in committee around what exactly the implications are of this new style — what the shift is that's being made, why it's being made and why it's important that it is being made.

My fear is that often language that says we get more accountability inevitably results in us getting a lot less accountability. That does seem to be a pattern that emerges more and more in all of these bills, in all of the changes and amendments that are being made to governance here. Often we are moving in a direction that is the complete opposite of what is declared. So at committee stage, hon. Speaker, I will be asking some of these questions of the minister so that I can get some comfort.

At the end of the day, communities are the ones that have to bear the responsibility for these decisions that are made here. If it causes them hardship, causes

them to have to grapple with their own taxpayers on property tax assessments, causes them legal costs, causes them — as in the case of Esquimalt, when you have to appeal assessments — a huge burden that lasts sometimes for many years as you have to wrestle with this legally….

I would be very concerned if any of these amendments take us into that area or give opportunities for anybody to opportunistically use new values, new definitions to their advantage. I'll be watching closely to the minister for answers on that.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Small Business and Revenue closes debate.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 32 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration….

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 32 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate of Bill 18, intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; S. Hammell in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to take a five-minute recess while I prepare to have staff arrive.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise, report modest progress on Bill 18 and ask leave to sit again later today.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I move second reading debate of Bill 23, intituled Knowledge Network Corporation Act.

Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 23, Knowledge Network Corporation Act, now be read a second time.

This bill fulfils our commitment to maintain and improve the Knowledge Network as B.C.'s public education broadcaster. It establishes the Knowledge Network as a Crown agency unto itself, separating it from the Open Learning Agency and paving the way for the repeal of the Open Learning Agency Act.

Today the Knowledge Network is the last remaining component of the Open Learning Agency, established in the 1980s to coordinate distance education in the province. In the past, when people thought of distance education, they usually thought of learning by correspondence or teaching by mail. The Open Learning Agency was a bold step forward, a merger of teaching and technology to overcome geographic barriers separating students from schools.

In recent years the Internet has dramatically expanded the potential for distance learning. In the process, the Open Learning Agency's business model became outmoded. Recognizing this, our government began winding up the Open Learning Agency. We transferred many of its lines of business that were still viable to other providers who were better able and suited to operate them.

That process is nearly complete, and today all that remains of the Open Learning Agency is the Knowledge Network. As a result, much of the Knowledge Network's current legal framework, the Open Learning Agency Act, is outdated and now irrelevant. It contains references to a register, to student information numbers, exams, academic credentials, student society fees and other things that are not relevant to the Knowledge Network.

This bill severs the Knowledge Network's ties to the Open Learning Agency and articulates a new mandate for the network. The Knowledge Network is explicitly designated as British Columbia's public education broadcaster, and its business is described broadly as broadcasting and communications. This avoids limiting the network to our present-day understanding of television and recognizes its extensive and valuable role in developing web-based resources.

Today we understand that education doesn't stop at graduation and is an ongoing experience we pursue throughout our whole lives. This bill affirms the Knowledge Network's contribution to the experience by directing the network to promote lifelong learning through quality educational programming.

The bill also reflects the Knowledge Network's unique suitability to informing British Columbians about their province. It can showcase our history, our people and our culture. And the network can be a valuable resource for information on issues important to British Columbians, such as healthy living, child care and safety.

Finally, the bill commits the Knowledge Network to continue collaborating with independent media producers and fostering growth in our homegrown media production sector. This bill also ensures the independence and autonomy necessary for a public broadcaster in Canada. At the same time it provides transparency and accountability assurances expected by the publicly funded Crown agency.

With this bill the Knowledge Network Corporation will have the powers and capacity of an actual person. It will be directed by a governing board which will have complete freedom to direct the network's program choices, staffing decisions and day-to-day affairs. This is consistent with the requirements of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The bill balances this independence by placing some financial limitations on the network and requiring the network to report publicly on its expenditures and performance under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This recognizes public funding the network will continue to receive.

In sum, the bill provides direction to guide the Knowledge Network into the future as British Columbians' public education broadcaster and does so within a framework that protects the best interests of British Columbians.

R. Fleming: I want to provide just brief comments before we get into the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. Broadly speaking, I think this side of the House welcomes this legislation, in part because it finally shows that the government has signalled a commitment to abandon the privatization and the winding-down of the Knowledge Network and to finally value it for what it is — a public educational broadcaster — and to give it a future, a board, an accountability structure and a relationship with public post-secondary institutions, to basically say that it values the 50 hours of original programming that it produces every year.

While much of this bill is housekeeping, I think the significance of it is that throughout this corporation's history in British Columbia, though it has given tremendous service to the people of the province, it has not always been readily appreciated, at least in terms of if one were to examine and look at the starts and stops of its legislative powers to exist.

So while it has been severed from the Open Learning Agency, I think it's fair to say that government simply didn't know what it wanted to do with the Knowledge Network for an extended period of time. I'm pleased that it has been given a mandate that will guarantee that it does continue to thrive in British Columbia. I think for a while it was treated very poorly. It was hived off, and many of its functions were in fact repealed by previous legislation.

We don't quibble with the parts of this act that are purely housekeeping. But I think what is of interest mostly to this side of the House is the context from which this legislation seeks to give clarity. As we know, the government did try to privatize many of the core functions of government when it came in, in 2001. It sought to fundamentally change the Knowledge Network.

It sought to sell it off, to give it away to a public-private partnership when there was no interest or innovation coming from anyone in that way. It became what it always was — an innovative public partnership between artists, producers and those in the video and television sector in this province.

The government tried for a time to make it revenue-self-sufficient by abrogating what has always been a commercial-free broadcasting network. That didn't work. I'm pleased to see that in the new mandate, the Knowledge Network is going back to its original intention, which is to give commercial-free, high-quality broadcasting and public-interest television to the public.

In terms of its connection to promote lifelong learning for British Columbia and in terms of having a secured, certain future, I don't think that this side of the House will give the government…. Although we might belabour the point of how long it has taken them to come to this realization and express their feelings of value for the Knowledge Network, we will certainly not oppose legislation that does give certainty and a future to the Knowledge Network.

I do have some concerns, perhaps, around transparency and accountability. I will ask the minister for some explanations, when the time comes, about why this entity is…. Though government remains the only shareholder — it is there to serve the public interest — this new corporation is set up explicitly at arm's length from government.

It is not considered part of government, though we know that in fact it is the taxpayer that funds it, it is the taxpayer who has the right to ask questions and access it, and it is the taxpayer to whom it should be accountable.

I will leave it there, Mr. Speaker, for my second readings comments, and I thank the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Advanced Education closes debate.

Hon. M. Coell: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Knowledge Network Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate, Bill 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; S. Hammell in the chair.

B. Simpson: Section 1 is a definition, and it flows through the rest of the amendments. It's a substantive redefinition of annual allowable cut determination. I'm curious with respect to a number of aspects of this.

First off, are there immediate implications with redefining annual allowable cut in this manner? Will we see something that occurs on the ground as a result of some activities that the government has undertaken that this would then immediately apply to? If so, what are those immediate implications?

Hon. R. Coleman: The new definition "allowable annual cut available" is being added. The term is currently used in the act to indicate a portion of the allowable annual cut of a tree farm licence that is accessible to its holder. This will have no immediate implications. It's just clarifying the definition throughout the act.

B. Simpson: I struggle with that answer a little bit, because this is a fairly substantive redefinition as far as I understand it. Maybe what I'll do is state how I understand it and seek clarification on that, because it does flavour quite a substantive part of the rest of the bill.

My understanding is that in changes of tenure — whether there are deletions or additions or partitioning of a tree farm licence, etc…. As it's explained in here, in order to make an adjustment to the annual allowable cut, you have to go through the normative chief forester process, which is a very extensive process that involves ground surveys, data collection in order to make a determination of an annual allowable cut. I believe it's around 16 to 20 months for that process to go through.

What the change in definition does is allow for an administrative adjustment to the annual allowable cut. Now, that's a substantively different process than a science-based, data-based adjustment to the annual allowable cut. My understanding of this change in definition is that it is a substantive change. It's referenced in the act as a substantive change.

Am I understanding it correctly that it is switching from a science-based, data-based annual allowable cut determination, in order to get efficiency and expediency, to go to an administrative change? In which case, then I have questions about that. Do I understand it correctly?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member, the question was: are there any repercussions of this definition? I said no, there are not. But maybe I'll walk through what it means.

The administrative adjustment to annual allowable cut — the allowable annual cut, as we write it — is actually in section 4 of the committee stage debate. We can get into that there.

Basically, the new definition formalizes the means by which the portion of the annual allowable cut that is accessible to a tree farm licence holder is determined, and it's needed because of the allowable annual cut reductions under the Forestry Revitalization Act.

In order to ensure that those reductions are taken into account in determining the allowable annual cut that is available to a tree farm licence holder under the Forest Act, it is necessary to explicitly reference them in the act.

The amendment will make all allowable annual cut reductions made under the Forestry Revitalization Act permanent. This will address the concern that the current legislation does not ensure that the volumes taken back under the Forestry Revitalization Act are permanent and that licence holders could eventually reacquire the AAC reduction of volume.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's reference last time to section 4, so I'll move my discussion of that to section 4.

On section 3. This is a delegation of authority to a minister's appointee — a person employed in a ministry, a class of persons or an agent of the Crown. With respect to delegatory authority, could the minister explain who or what might be an agent of the Crown?

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 3 will provide for a governance model, based on delegated decision-making, which will provide a greater ability to achieve consistent decision-making throughout the province. It harmonizes the provisions of the Forest Act dealing with this matter with other ministry statutes.

The new section will allow the minister to delegate a power or duty under the act to a ministry employee, a government employee or an agent of the Crown — i.e., someone from the Oil and Gas Commission — who has to make decisions from time to time. The minister may provide directions that are binding on a delegate in the exercise of the power, duty or function that has been delegated. The delegation direction may also be varied or revoked.

B. Simpson: The example given of the Oil and Gas Commission. We have issues, as the minister is well

aware, of integrating decision-making with respect to oil and gas exploration, with respect to resource road utilization. It's something which people were expecting would be rationalized in this act, and it's not.

If an agent of the Crown is, for example, the Oil and Gas Commission, are there explicit regulations that stipulate a restrictive list of who an agent of the Crown is that the minister can delegate authority to in this particular case?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I continue, I have two staff members with me. Melanie Boyce is an RPF. She's a director with the forest analysis and inventory branch. Richard Grieve is a policy and development legislation manager for the strategic policy and planning branch of the Ministry of Forests.

The minister actually decides who he delegates to, so the minister actually creates the list.

B. Simpson: With respect to additions to any kind of list or delegated authority defining agent of the Crown, are additions to that list done through order-in-council or done through legislation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no list. It's basically a list that the minister of the day creates, and he delegates the power.

B. Simpson: Because this bill has quite a bit of delegated authority given under this delegation of authority with respect to first nations, is it possible, for example, that the B.C. Treaty Commission or an agent of the B.C. Treaty Commission could be given delegated authority under this stipulation?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's really geared to the day-to-day business of the Ministry of Forests. What the member describes is a possibility, but it's not anticipated.

B. Simpson: It seems to be a refrain in this House that something isn't contemplated but is a possibility. Of course, whatever is being contemplated at the moment, once it becomes possible, may then be contemplated. So it's important that we get clarity on these kinds of things.

With respect to the fact that an agent of the Crown is effectively determined by the minister of the day, as you said, as day-to-day-business, is it possible that an agent of the Crown could be a consultant or a consulting company of some kind? Or does it have to be some entity associated with government in some form?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's not possible — what the member described. It has to be an agent of the Crown.

B. Simpson: So with respect to the delegation of authority, where does the coordination lie? If, for example, the Oil and Gas Commission or, at some future date, the B.C. Treaty Commission has delegated authority from the minister, where in here is the requirement for that to be coordinated with other activities that are occurring or regional manager activities or communities? I'm just trying to understand the relationship of that delegated authority with respect to other requirements for consultation or decision-making and other decision-makers. How is that coordinated?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think I should maybe go back to just the one explanation. We coordinate that cross-ministry, and then that's how it's done. The minister can provide directions that are binding on the delegate when they exercise of the power, duty or function that has been delegated, and the minister can take it away at any time. So he who giveth can taketh away, I guess you could say.

If it's something temporary for the Oil and Gas Commission to accomplish something with regards to a resource road, a delegated authority could be given. It would obviously be communicated from my office out to my regional or district office that was also affected so that they would have that coordination on the ground. But the central coordination and the decision-making sit with the Minister of Forests, and if so, we would coordinate that with the other ministers.

B. Simpson: Subsection (3), I guess, of this does a further delegatory authority to the person who has the delegated authority. So is it possible that the minister delegates authority to the Oil and Gas Commission and, if I read this correctly, they then have the ability to delegate authority further? Is that correct?

That delegation can go one step further down and one step further removed from the minister, which then goes to the question of coordination. Will you get such dispersed decision-making and delegated authority that it's hard to control what's going on?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually contained in most of our acts, just so that we're clear. The act does allow the minister to decide whether there would be any subdelegations, so that he can decide not to do that if it's appropriate or otherwise.

It's not unusual, though, to have a statutory decision–maker that does have delegated authority below them so they can subdelegate, because the work needs to get done, and you can't just have the one person always responsible for it. But there is the ability in this to…. Under the act and under the section, I can decide as minister whether it would be subdelegated or not or whether that be allowed in a particular case.

B. Simpson: I'm aware that the designated decision-maker process does apply. This is an addendum to or an amendment to the existing act that explains it further.

I just want to clarify a couple of things here. Given that we're moving into the domain of bioenergy, is it possible that an agent of the Crown in this case could be either B.C. Hydro or an individual with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, if in fact

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm also joined in the chamber by Shawn Hedges, policy forester with the Ministry of Forests and Range. Always have to get these guys in Hansard so their families know where they are today.

The fact of the matter is that a Crown, which is Hydro, could be delegated to. And, of course, as the member described, any employee within the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources could also have authority delegated to them.

B. Simpson: As the minister is well aware, one of the concerns within the forest sector is the issue around liability with respect to professional reliance. I'm unclear — and maybe others are — as to the liability aspects of this delegated authority with respect to land base decisions, particularly if you're going to delegate authority outside of individuals who are foresters or who have the primary interests of the Ministry of Forests and its mandate.

You go to the Oil and Gas Commission or you go to B.C. Hydro or you go outside of that jurisdiction, and something happens on the land base. There's a stewardship issue, or something occurs, or there's a transgression with first nations. Where does the liability lie when an individual is acting with the delegated authority of the minister who in some cases will then delegate that authority one step forward?

Where does the liability lie? Does it lie with the decision-maker? Or does it rest with the minister who delegated the authority forward?

Hon. R. Coleman: Ultimately, it's the government. Ultimately, it's one and the same. We actually take the liability.

I think, though, it's important to recognize that this is actually important to do. As the member knows and we both know, the whole pressure on the land base is changing. The ability to do — whether it be forest service roads or issues with regards to energy and the coordination of roads between them or clearing out underneath a hydro line or whether it be…. When we actually get into it later on, at some point in time…. I don't think we'll discuss it today, but on the land base we know there are pressures for resorts and that sort of stuff.

I think the day when we as a ministry actually controlled everything on the land base is gone. We are trying to manage the land base in coordination with a number of other ministries, so at the times you need to delegate that authority, you can do it.

The ultimate side of the thing, too, though, is that on the land base operation, even if you give them the authority to do certain things, we still hold the ultimate statutory decision–maker things on forest stewardship plans and all of that stuff. I think this just basically gives us that power to delegate and to be able to handle this so that the functions can be coordinated across government.

B. Simpson: So effectively, legally, the individual who delegates the authority forward is one and the same as the person who has been given the delegated authority. Again, my question in all of this is…. The minister correctly says that the land base is under pressure from all sorts of values and enterprises and desires for it.

Once you step outside the Ministry of Forests, though, there is a different set of interests at play, whether that's the oil and gas interests or bioenergy or first nations interests. Where does the coordination then occur to protect the particular interest of the Ministry of Forests, which is a long-term sustainability of the forest sector and of the land base with respect to timber values?

If you delegate outside of the Ministry of Forests, that timber lens could easily be lost. I'm just trying to understand. Is it through ILMB that the coordination is done? Where does the coordination occur so that we don't dissipate the one thing the Ministry of Forests brings to the table, which is the timber pre-eminence and the forest sector viability?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, to the extent that we delegate to anybody, they have to exercise the same standards as we would exercise within the ministry with regards to the land base and forestry. ILMB doesn't get a delegated authority from us with regards to what they're doing, because they're basically the higher-level planning.

They do the coordination for the planning that we all get affected by — whether it be the central coast or midcoast plan, where they went to EBM and decided on what was going to be a protected area and park. That all had to come through a pretty extensive process. Then we manage, frankly, within that, oftentimes trying to make sure people understand that the shrinking land base is an economic driver backward on what we have for the efficiency of being able to operate a managed forest too.

We are part of that process and those discussions, whether we come to a committee or a cabinet meeting. But at the same time, this is really about delegating authority for somebody to do something on the land base that really doesn't need to be done by our staff necessarily, because they've got other work to do.

The classic example is the one in and around Hydro and the oil and gas stuff, like a pipeline and stuff like that. You should be able to identify what the values are on the land base and what you expect and then delegate some authority for them to get their portion of the work done.

B. Simpson: On section 4, this is the section that the redefinition applies to of the annual allowable cut. Again, I just want to be clear that it is a shift from the longer-term process of data- and science-based determination of annual allowable cut to a redetermination

from an administrative perspective when there are tenure changes or deletions or various things that occur.

My question with respect to that is: will there be…? I understand why there's a desire for an administrative adjustment. How will that administrative adjustment be examined with respect to potential cumulative impact?

As we're well aware, tenures are changing fairly rapidly now. We've got all kinds of things occurring in the interior with respect to the land base and the forest health and so on. We've got the corporate concentration that we're seeing, and it looks like we're ready for another round of consolidation and whatnot.

What are the fail-safe measures that prevent us from doing a whole bunch of back-to-back administrative adjustments that then move us away from the more science-based and data-based adjustments to the annual allowable cut, which are supposed to ensure that we have a long-term timber supply? That's the reason that we do the reviews when we do them.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and come at it from two directions, and the member may have more questions to help clarify. Right now we already do that analysis for all the impacts. For example, if we have a park, we do an impact analysis on how it affects the cut, and all that work is done.

The amendment supports stewardship and sustainability objectives by enabling more timely and responsive adjustments to the cut. It provides that in specific circumstances the AAC for Crown land, for certain timber supply areas and for a tree farm licence can be automatically adjusted.

Circumstances in which the AAC can be automatically adjusted will include a TFL that has been consolidated and subdivided. So you already know what the AAC is, but you are subdividing the AAC, and maybe somebody bought a smaller portion of the tenure if it was subdivided.

The TFL and TSAs of an area had areas that are deleted and/or added under the Forest Act. Other prescribed circumstances, for example, are areas that are deleted and/or added from and to a TFL or a TSA for reasons associated with tenure reallocation under the Forestry Revitalization Act or, as I said, things like parks where we do an impact analysis.

B. Simpson: There is a clause in here later on that says, specifically with respect to tree farm licences, that the administrative adjustment is that you add the two AACs together, and that's what you get going forward. So on the tree farm licences, there's an explicit clause later on that clarifies that.

With respect to how the administrative adjustments will be done, have any of the draft regulations been created so that people understand that shift from science- or data-based to administrative-based? Do we have a sense of what the determinants will be of a new AAC?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification, it's a simple formula that's based on the timber harvest land base. We should remember that in subsection (2) of this section it provides for an allowable annual cut adjustment that is only effective until the next annual allowable cut determination, where more detailed aspects or changes in the land base and management will have to be considered by the chief forester.

It's an interim measure during a period where we haven't had the reallocation of the cut or whatever the chief forester does based on the science base. But you get some change on the land base that allows you to say: "Well, in this TSL and TSA this portion of the cut can be here, and this portion of the cut can be there." Then it gets reassessed on the annual allowable cut that's done by the chief forester.

B. Simpson: In any given TSA you could have a circumstance where you issue community forest licences, woodlot licences. You have partitioning of the tree farm licence that occurs as a result of consolidation or a mill shutting down, and the tree farm licence is sold as a separate entity or whatever the case may be. You could have a lot of activity occurring that would have, potentially, these administrative adjustments accumulating.

As the minister indicates, eventually you get to review, but my understanding is that the legislation requires that every five years. If that's the case and you happen to do it right after you've done one review, you could have a substantial cumulative adjustment to the AAC occur, and five years out you're now going to do the science-based adjustment. All I'm trying to get at is: is there a determination, or in the regulations that will be drafted, will there be some fail-safes around the ability to look at the cumulative impact?

An example. We're just about to come up to the beginning of — and I'm sure that if we ever get back to estimates, we will canvass this — the falldown in most of the mountain-pine-beetle-impacted areas. The opportunity to do administrative adjustments to annual allowable cut may be an opportunity at that juncture to start pulling back some annual allowable cut in certain areas that are assigned. So it could work both ways.

I'm just trying to understand what the nature of any of the fail-safes is, to look at cumulative impact or to make sure that if you have a whole range of changes, you don't avoid kicking in the longer-term process. You actually say: "Enough. We've made five or six changes here. What we really need to do is go back to the chief forester's process, kick it in early and get the proper AAC review done."

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn't affect the mountain pine beetle areas per se. This is about if you have land base ownership changes. That land base ownership could be something where the Ministry of Environment takes, through the process of ILMB, another 5,000 hectares for a park, which then affects the fact that we've got to adjust the TFL and the TSA within that with regards to what the annual allowable cut is.

If there's a subdivision of the cut, that's a decision as to which amount of the AAC goes to which portion of the subdivided thing. It's something that's over 5 percent of the land base, as I understand it. Less than that is done basically administratively today. I'm not sure if administratively is the right way to describe it, but we don't do anything with that under this type of thing.

The member mentioned the woodlots and community forest licences. This doesn't affect that. Those are determined in areas where we think we have wood available within the operating area that government has. We have identified how many cubic metres might be available for a community forest woodlot program, and then we try and allocate it from there. We don't actually go in and take it out of a TSA or TFL in that particular case. It's usually identified ahead of time by the ministry to me.

B. Simpson: I want to refer to section 24 as well. Again, it's one of these integrated pieces. My understanding is that this allows the minister to actually specify applications for NRFLs, non-renewable forest licences, and it looks somewhat similar to a reinstitution of the small business enterprise program.

First off, let me just clarify that that's what we are in fact doing. We're effectively looking for a mechanism to give the minister discretionary authority to assign licences for economic purposes — for example, for driving the value-added or for log home builders or whatever the case may be.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it is. As the member knows, one of the issues has been what we are going to do with cat 2 going forward — category 2 type of bids and that sort of thing.

As I came through this exercise, I did ask the ministry to look at whether there were ways we could address some of those issues going forward for small operators — people like log home builders and that sort of stuff. Because as the member knows, oftentimes in the bidding process today there might be something to bid on, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to have a client they can trade logs with.

Basically, this defines a forest licence application process, and it includes an applicant's eligible criteria, deposit information and application approval requirements. Then it goes on and has a new subparagraph being added to expand the definition of "eligible applicants" to include a category of applicants for non-replaceable forest licence categories. That becomes established by regulation, so you would establish by regulations those people that would be eligible. This new subsection is being added to allow the minister to restrict bidding for non-replaceable forest licence to categories of applicants.

The amendment is being made to ensure the forest sector remains diversified for the small mill and the value-added side on certain non-replaceable forest licences, to be restricted to specific categories of applicants that are defined in regulation. The intent is to ensure that those companies are able to participate in the forest sector, providing means for those companies and mills to access timber.

As the member knows, there have been some challenges with regards to that. I was asked by a lot of the value-added sector to take a look at cat 2. This is basically getting us to where we'll be able to do the regulation to address that issue.

B. Simpson: I wholeheartedly support the reinstatement of this. As the minister is well aware, this has become a significant issue out there. I want to be clear, however, as to whether or not the original category 2 qualifications will be what are used here. Because as the minister has already indicated, there are questions existing. Where the category 2 program was being phased out, you've got existing category 2 people. You can't have any new entrants in the category 2.

If this puts a whole new category and a whole new set of criteria out there, it doesn't necessarily resolve the category 2 issue, because all it does is create another category. Will this be a reinstatement of the cat 2 program, or will it be a different program?

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent here is that…. Basically, I've already announced or said to the industry that category 2 will continue until this is worked out — that we would consult on the category 2 folks is part of this. But there will be other entrants that aren't necessarily in the cat 2 wood-type operation today and that will also be defined in regulation as we come through this, so that we can actually give it a bit of a broad base. We'll not just deal with the category 2 but with others that have raised similar issues over the last couple of years.

B. Simpson: With respect to that, then, I know that the category 2 folks will be looking for some explanation. I understand that the minister is working with them, particularly through B.C. Timber Sales and the structural review that was done of that.

Will the intent here be for it to be exclusionary in the definition so that the major licensees can't do surrogate bidding? Well, let me leave it at that. Will the

criteria be exclusionary of major licensees so that it is a true small business–type venture?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think what we should do is understand that this isn't just about cat 2. This is actually to allow cat 2 — some of those people — to be able to move into a longer-term stability with some of their tenures that they can get to as we go through this to attract additional capital. It's an integral part, obviously, of the beetle strategy, and it's important to the value-added strategy. We'll design this regulation so that it can deal with cat 2 and other things with regards to value-added and other opportunities.

To the member's question. There's no question that it is the intent to get it to an exclusionary level where the major licensee is not in this. There are always some relationships on some value-added between different levels of licensees, which we have to, I guess, be cognizant of with regards to that.

But what we're trying to solve is this problem that is sort of being told or explained to us, as people in the field, with regards to how the bidding process is working for small operators today. They are saying: "We need to be able to have an opportunity too, but if we do a bid and then somebody else does a surrogate bid, somebody won't buy our wood because of this or that." The intent is to try and get a line drawn there saying that on this level of sale, this is what this is intended to accomplish.

B. Simpson: I understood before that it wasn't restricted to cat 2, that there's going to be some sort of redefinition that's broader than what the traditional cat 2 will be.

With respect to the issuance of the licences, there's one thing — the structure, the categories and the appropriate applicants…. The other issue is: where is the annual allowable cut coming from? Is this presumptive of some kind of new partition that will occur?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not. We have 20-percent takeback. We do know that in our sales we can structure something that we think can work, as we do what we're doing now.

There's been a lot of work done, actually, to get to this section, as the member is probably aware — to try and find a way to balance it and find a solution for the value-added sector as we try and drive a value-added strategy on top of everything else.

I think this gets us to where we need to get and defines this stuff in regulations so that we can deal with this sort of issue that's been out there since I became minister, anyway. It was brought to my attention pretty early on by some of the smaller operators.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear. This is an issue as a result of a deliberate choice on the part of the government to try and extinguish the category 2 program and try to go straight to a direct-award cash basis for awarding future licences.

With respect to the 20-percent takeback, I just want to clarify what the minister said. My understanding of the 20-percent takeback was that it was supposed to be allocated to B.C. Timber Sales, first nations, community forests and woodlots. So I'm not sure how there is room then from the 20-percent takeback to now have a whole other category of individuals that you're going to bring in to get allocated something that's supposedly already allocated to a bunch of people at this juncture.

Hon. R. Coleman: We think the volume is there. When we have B.C. Timber Sales every year — the other allocation of wood — an apportionment of that wood could go out to smaller sales. There's nothing that says it ought to be a larger sale.

We have the beetle uplifts which we can also apportion, and we also have undercuts around the province that we can apportion. So we have ways to find the wood, we think, to make this work.

With respect to the undercuts, I know we've got a section in this bill that seems to be suggesting some ability to take that undercut back and do something with it and the AAC uplifts in the mountain pine beetle area. As the minister is well aware, some of that wood is deteriorating rather rapidly, and so it may or may not be useful for whatever sector is going to be looked at here.

With respect to B.C. Timber Sales, however, my understanding is that B.C. Timber Sales is constrained to a bid process and not a direct-award process. There's nothing in this amendment act that gives B.C. Timber Sales the ability to change what I understand is its current legislated mandate.

I want to be crystal-clear because the minister mentioned B.C. Timber Sales, but I see nothing in this amendment act that actually gives B.C. Timber Sales the ability to issue licences that are direct licences, direct awards or could have constraints on it other than who comes forward with the best pocket of money.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I have to do a mea culpa, evidently. B.C. Timber Sales is not part of this. They have to drive their business to market pricing. This is really about the undercut lift set by the AAC that's not committed through forests and forest licences that come up for renewal. That's where we will get the wood from versus B.C. Timber Sales. I misspoke there, so I should make sure that's clarified, because I think they were all shivering on both sides and behind me when I made that portion of my comment.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Agriculture and Lands told me one time of actually being physically pulled back down into his chair, so your staff is a lot more polite than his staff was at that time.

Again, one of the issues here, and I think it's a good move to have the ability to do this, is whether or not there's actually room on the land base to do it — whether the timber is available. The minister has indicated that non-renewable licences or forest licences

that come to term would make some potential wood available. If you look at what the minister has suggested….

We've taken B.C. Timber Sales out of the area now. The annual allowable cut uplift…. We've already indicated that all signs are that the economic viability of a lot of that wood is deteriorating. There's a reason that the undercut occurs predominantly on the coast, and that's because it's not economically viable to go in and cut it.

So I'm not clear, again, where we're going to get the volume unless we go to a partition of some kind. That's why we had the partition in the first place with the category 2 sale: to actually assign a volume — whether it's in a timber supply area, by timber supply area or overall in the province — to allow this to occur.

In particular, the concern is that we still haven't given sufficient volume to first nations to make them economically viable. The woodlot program has not been doubled, which is a promise that's on the books. Community forests have not all been assigned, and community forests are saying that they want more volume.

So with respect to a program with criteria, it begs the question of what the volume is. Has the work been done to substantiate the minister's claim that the volume actually exists? Let me ask that question first. Has the work been done to substantiate that the volume exists to support a new small business program?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, when I was talking about B.C. Timber Sales earlier…. We don't want B.C. Timber Sales getting into direct awards. That's what I meant when I said B.C. Timber Sales. They can take an apportionment of their 14 million cubic metres annually and put it up for sale, like a category 2. They can do that by policy. I've been advised that we believe that, in addition to any of that discussion, the volume is there to do this. It's there, and it's available.

The challenge, of course, is if you can take a smaller opportunity and somebody can make a business case for it. We don't know what that business case is, necessarily. The classic example is on the coast, with hemlock. If a small operator could get hemlock from a certain type of block, which they think they could sell into a different marketplace, their challenge is getting access to the fibre at a lower level so that they could even try the business case. As we come through all this, there's no question that it's complicated, but we believe that the volume is there to do this through the undercuts and the lift that comes to the annual allowable cut.

At the same time as we do that, we still have to understand the other half of the member's discussion: what happens if the economic viability of the particular resource goes down too fast? That is anticipated, in some areas of the region that the member comes from, as being a bigger challenge than just talking about value-added or what might be available for that. It's a challenge for everybody. We don't have any control over that sort of situation.

It would be nice if we could do some small business–type opportunities within an area of the province like the northwest, where we have a particularly good growing area and some decent fibre in there mixed with some tough fibre, which is 50-percent hemlock and pulp logs. If somebody could find something to do that…. But until we're able, I guess, to fire up that small business opportunity for people, to get on that base to see if they can make something work, maybe we don't accomplish anything.

I'm advised that we have enough wood here to make this work within all of these areas, but in addition to that we're hoping that other opportunities will be found.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point. In certain areas you've got problem forest types where you've got an entrepreneur that can do something with that, but we don't have the capacity to do any kind of sale or to configure it in a way for them.

I just want to clarify one thing with respect to volume availability. During estimates debate we had a discussion about woodlots and the doubling of the woodlot program. The minister indicated that there are some areas of the province where that's going to be problematic.

In this case will there be TSAs where it will be just explicit right off the bat that we probably don't have the room to issue these? So individuals who are looking to engage in this program don't go looking in timber supply areas for an enterprise that's not viable, because the volume won't be allocated in that area. Will we actually be designating some areas where we just don't think the volume is there and being clear on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that's fair comment. We don't want to raise expectations unnecessarily, and there are areas where this will not necessarily be able to be done. What we're trying to do is to accomplish something where we're trying to find some value-added opportunities and trying to buy a way for small amounts of wood to get to other users on the land base.

Even after we do all of that, there are still going to be some that will say, "Now that I've got 10,000 cubic metres, I actually need to trade for 1,500 cubic metres of a particular lot with somebody else to get the wood that I want, and who's going to sort it?" — and all of those issues that come along with the thing. We're trying to create some dynamic, and we'll try to design it through regulation.

There's no intent, I don't think…. They were both nodding at the same time here, so they obviously agree with the fact that we're not going to put something out there and raise expectations if we don't have wood.

B. Simpson: Just a point of clarification. Section 24 of this bill talks about direct awards and giving district and regional managers that ability, but it seems to constrain that we'll get there. It seems to constrain it to first nations. As a consequence, I want to make sure that

this isn't simply for first nations direct awards — that it will be open to all comers, depending on what the nature of the program is.

B. Simpson: Also, is it possible through this process to engage in energy tenures? As the minister is well aware, moving into the bioenergy domain, this is a possible way to provide access for individuals who want to get into bioenergy or pellets.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it is. Hopefully, we don't have to use it. It has certainly always been my thinking that if we're not going to get cooperation on the bioenergy side in one way, we're going to do it another way.

It's an important aspect to the future, I think, probably particularly in the area where the mountain pine beetle is, so that people recognize the fact that we want to get that waste — the decadent wood that's not going to go through the normal, traditional forest site — out of the bush. That ability is there, and this does give us that ability.

B. Simpson: With respect to that, we have some licences already existing — two for Ainsworth, two for TallOil. As the minister is well aware, there are problems with those being realized.

Is there any sense at this juncture of what the constraints will be on actually acting on the licences so that we don't get ourselves in the circumstance where somebody can hold a licence in a restricting fibre supply scenario? They hold the licence for purposes other than what the licence was issued for.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we can structure them with large performance bonds and other restrictions in them, so that's possible.

B. Simpson: One aspect of what's going on just now, of course, with TallOil and Ainsworth with the OSB is the seeming ability of the individuals who have been given the licences or the company given the licences to come back and renegotiate terms or to try and get some leeway. With respect to these licences, will it be more ironclad? If you don't do it by such a date, it's gone, and allow somebody else to come in?

Part of the problem with the old small business program was people playing the small business program to become log-sellers, and that's the concern, again, around what is happening with the OSB licences and the tall oil licences — that we may be in that circumstance.

Will this end up being more restrictive — that the time frames, the delivery and the expected outcomes are more strictly adhered to?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just don't want to sort of prejudge what may or may not be coming from tall oil, because we have nothing in front of us at this point in time. There is some anecdotal discussion out there, and there may be something coming forward.

To the member's question: yeah, I would think that in the future, as we've learned from some of these things, we would make them even more airtight as far as performance, time and bonds and that are concerned with regards to this.

Sometimes when we do these things, something like first nations consultation and location on lands can cause some delays. That isn't unusual, but I think that within reason you can deal with those things. But certainly not for somebody to sit on an award so they can become like log-sellers or think they are going to sit there and play this thing as something they're going to hold for a long period of time. I think we need those restrictions in place to make sure that doesn't happen.

B. Simpson: The comments that I'm making with respect to Ainsworth and TallOil are both in the public domain. They've both made it to the press, that they don't believe they're going to meet the deadlines for the requirements. So I'm not speaking out of turn.

With respect to these kinds of licences, has there been any discussion at this point with respect to terms and volume availability in the licence?

Hon. R. Coleman: The volume is a portion in the forest licences now. We know that the volume is sitting there. The portion that will be allowed for the value-added and the small tenure is not yet determined. It will be determined once we pass the legislation, and then we go to do the regulation.

B. Simpson: What I was trying to get a sense of was whether or not some work had been done around the size of the actual licences that might be issued — how many cubic metres, or the term of the licence. Will it be a five-year non-renewable with 20,000 minimum or whatever the case may be? I was trying to understand whether or not the work has been done around the size and term limits of the licence.

Hon. R. Coleman: It would be typically between 50,000 and 100,000 cubic metres and on a five-year term.

B. Simpson: Last question on this point. What will the consultation process be to finish this off so that we actually do get a program that works, that takes into consideration the past program? I know that through B.C. Timber Sales a structural review…. A number of submissions were made there for individuals who had ideas around what we would do with the residual partition or the old cat 2 program.

Will there be a definitive consultation process here, or does the ministry feel it has enough information that it's just going to do it internally and come out with a program at some later date?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Timber Sales Advisory Council is going to meet this Thursday, and one of the agenda items is this particular issue. In fact, I don't believe that with the work that's been done we're going to go out for extended consultation. It's more like: let's get moving.

After the legislation is passed, we will have to get the regulation drafted and ready to go. It may or may not be able to be done by the end of July, which would be typically the last cabinet meeting before September. Otherwise, it would be in September. The work will be done in parallel, so we feel we should be in a position to advertise these sales by fall.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear on section 7 — and there are other sections that refer to the end dates of forest licences and so on — I would like to understand what is the nature, the stimulus, for making these adjustments on the end dates? What does it buy the ministry with respect to changing these end dates?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is all about making the process more flexible. Currently section 15 allows the minister to make an offer for an early replacement of a forest licence during the six-month period following the fourth and the eighth anniversaries of the licence, after first giving the licence holder at least six months' notice of intent to replace the licence. If the offer is not made, the ministry is required to make an offer six months following the ninth anniversary of the licence.

Section 1.1 is added to extend the time period for a forest licence replacement that may be offered to a holder of a licence. The amendment will allow for a replacement licence to be made six months after the fourth anniversary and ending on a ninth anniversary of the licence.

The extended time period in which an offer may be considered will ensure that the first nations consultation does not have to be truncated in order to make an offer for replacement. The notice period for intent to offer replacement is shortened from six months to two months. Experience has demonstrated that the current six-month period is not needed. Then the notice can be shorter, and we can get on with the process to get them their renewed licence.

B. Simpson: With the shortening of that, what are the implications for first nations negotiations? The term end of a licence is an opportunity for first nations, if they're working in an area, to actually have area that they're interested in freed up and the licence not renewed in that area. If you shorten that, do you not, then, impinge upon the first nations' abilities more than if you actually lengthened the renewal window?

Hon. R. Coleman: It actually does the opposite. It makes it so we have more time for the consultation. What happens is that you give the notice of the six months. Then you can start your consultation when somebody says, "I'm going to take the notice" — right?

This way we say, really: "We could offer you the replacement with two months' notice." Then you can say, "Okay. I accept," and then we can start the consultation sooner.

B. Simpson: Sections 9 through 15 have to do with tree farm licences being surrendered and, I believe, being changed. There's a reference in there to a management plan, and it's the management plan for the tree farm licence. There's another section later on that makes reference to the management plan.

Are we going to keep these management plans with respect to tree farm licences? What's the relationship between those management plans and forest stewardship plans? I'm just unclear about the nature of that relationship.

Hon. R. Coleman: This section is actually consequential to section 15, where we probably would deal with the member's questions with regards to the tree farm licences and the management plans.

Basically, section 16 provides that after a tree farm licence has been surrendered, the minister must not enter into a new tree farm licence until a management plan is approved. The amendment to section 16 changes the approval of the management plan from being a chief forester responsibility to a management plan approved under section 35.2, which is consequential to the content and process for management plans being moved to regulation.

Basically, when we get to section 15, I think we could probably canvass that portion of it in more detail.

B. Simpson: I'd just like the minister, then, to clarify the nature of the chief forester's not being involved. If I understood him correctly, it's going to go to regulation. I'm just not sure what the difference is and why we would keep these management plans — if in fact we've moved into the world of results-based code and the area will have to be covered under a forest stewardship plan anyway.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is right. This does allow us to slim down the process. This is a new section dealing with tree farm licence management plans. It will allow the content requirements for these plans and the processes associated with them to be set out in regulation.

Tree farm management plans are rarely used by the ministry staff and licensees, and they overlap other

forms of planning. Moving the content requirements from the act to the regulations is the first step to reforming their content.

B. Simpson: On this, I just want to be clear that section 20 gives the ability for a regional manager, district manager, to enter into a probationary community forest agreement without being directed by the minister and that it extends the term of a probationary community forest agreement or increases the area covered by the agreement.

I want to be clear because we're using forest range agreements just now. There's the ability for first nations to buy tree farm licences. There have been some community forest licences issued to first nations. But is this a presumption that another way of giving volume to first nations is giving the regional district managers more authority to issue community forest to them directly — as opposed to by provincial policy or with the minister's discretion or involvement?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, this accomplishes two things. The first thing it does is…. If an FRO is issued to a first nation today and they find where the operating area is going to be, it's then got to come back through the process to the minister, as I understand it, to actually award that to the first nation — even though there's an enabling agreement in place.

Once we've signed the enabling agreement, like the FRO, this allows for the district manager — the regional manager or the district manager is going to do the work anyway, as to where the operating area is — to directly award that so they can get on a land base quicker.

B. Simpson: I guess what I'm struggling with…. Section 24, which we'll come to, gets into the direct award of specified licences. Section 20 is using the term "community forest" as a specific licence term. Community forest, as we're aware, is a different form of licence than giving a non-renewable forest licence or whatever the case may be.

I'm wondering why the community forest agreement or the community forest licence process is being used when in the later section you give the district manager or the regional manager the ability to just directly award licences. Why use the community forest licence as a vehicle for this?

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes when we draft legislation, I guess it gets confusing.

There are two sections in here that deal with direct awards for first nations. One of them is if an FRO happens to reference, say, a community forest licence. This is the section that allows for the direct award of that particular licence if it was in an FRO.

The other section the member mentioned is the one that deals with all other licences that could be direct-awarded to first nations. Basically, what we're doing here is streamlining our existing business process to allow for that direct-award enablement to take place.

I hope that helps the member. If it doesn't, by all means we'll clarify in the next question.

B. Simpson: One point of clarification I have been asked to get on the community forest agreement…. I understand what the minister is saying with respect to how the FRO is issued will determine what direct-award vehicle is required.

With respect to the community forest agreement, though, there's some lack of clarity around reallocation of the 20-percent takeback, because there's a discrimination between the apportionment to first nations and the apportionment to community forests.

If we have given the first nations a community forest licence in a timber supply area, does that mean that's an allocation against the community forest, or is it against the first nations? There are other communities that want a community forest licence, and they want to know where that allocation and that apportionment are coming from.

I get the intent of this, but there's a further clarification that's required on behalf of some of the communities that are asking me that question.

Hon. R. Coleman: We would only use the first nation allotment. All this is, is the form of tenure. We won't go to the community forest program, for instance, and take fibre away from the community forest to create one of these. This would come out of the first nation allotment that would go out in an FRO, which identifies that they could have a tenure that looks like a community forest agreement. But we will not be taking volume away from the other community forest program.

B. Simpson: The minister clarified some of my questions around this, and I won't get into the detail, just because of the time that we've assigned to this debate.

However, there is a form of licence used here that I'm not sure has been that successful, and that's the community salvage licence. My understanding is that other communities and other individuals are being told that the community salvage licence program will not continue. They won't issue community salvage licences.

I just want to be clear that something that wasn't successful for others isn't necessarily now going to be used as a mechanism for direct award to first nations. Is it the intent to use that vehicle to award to first nations when it's not going to be used for others?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're not changing policy, but what it is, is that there are references in the act today to community salvage licences. It's in the act, so we have to reference it in this section.

B. Simpson: I let 26 go by, because in 26 and 27 the explanatory notes are similar, but I'm just curious. This is one of those ones where there are a couple of words being changed, but it seems to have significance.

The section is simply a minor amendment changing some language out, but the explanatory note says that it allows the minister to make available for disposition to a person other than the holder of the forestry licence the portion of Crown timber on Crown land that is subject to the forestry licence, etc.

Is this one of the vehicles available to the minister to take some annual allowable cut back and use it for other purposes? Is that what's occurring here? Or is it just as it appears — a bit of a tidy-up?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a tidy-up. Basically, it allows for us to have a licence to cut within a TFL — for instance, for BCTS roadwork which isn't specifically allowed for today.

B. Simpson: Again, a minor point. I'm just trying to understand the relationship, because it keeps relating back to the definition of the annual allowable cut that's available and the clarification that in a cut control period it exceeds 110 percent. What's the relationship between the redefining of annual allowable cut and the cut-control provisions?

My understanding is that the cut-control provisions exist anyway. Is there something that occurs here? If you're going to do an administrative adjustment of the annual allowable cut, I'm not sure why we have to roll in the cut-control period. I just need clarification that we're not giving the ability for more cut after an AAC determination has been re-established or an administrative change has been made.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm advised that this is purely drafting. Basically, in the previous section we took out four or five words that said "that for that period are" and put in the clarification available to the holder, strictly to clean up the language in the act.

B. Simpson: Just another clarification here. The continued reference of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act…. My understanding is that as of April 1 this year we should be acting under the Forest and Range Practices Act, and yet we continue to carry forward on a number of occasions the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.

Is that simply because some areas are still being cut under forest development plans as opposed to FSPs? Will that eventually be removed? We don't want to be in a situation in the province where we're operating on the land base under two different forest practices codes.

Hon. R. Coleman: It really is like if ten years ago you had a responsibility to some reforestation which had been under the old code. That act is still enforceable on you if we want to go back and deal with some contravention you would have had under the old code.

B. Simpson: Okay, this is an interesting one that wasn't in the news release. Giving the district manager or giving the delegated authority, I would imagine, the ability to cancel or refuse cutting permits or road permits…. What is the reason for giving what is effectively quite a strong responsibility to the district managers through the minister to cancel a road permit or a cutting permit?

At that juncture, the planning will have been done. The groundwork will have been laid. If it's a cutting permit, blocks will have been laid out and planning completed and, in the case of roads, all of the scoping for the roads will be done. Then the district manager, I would imagine, through the minister's delegated authority has the ability to say: "I'm not issuing it."

I'm not clear why this responsibility is required when there's a whole planning process in front of this. Why would you allow somebody to intervene at that stage and just shut it all down?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have worked through this one with industry, and they have worked through this one with us. It really is about protecting unauthorized encroachment on market pricing areas where we would use the sale of the wood for the market pricing systems so that we don't get encroachment into those operating….

It addresses the B.C. Timber Sales concern regarding unauthorized volume base, tenure holders, operating areas critical to the B.C. Timber Sales program. It facilitates the harvest of high-risk timber by refusing to approve cutting permits to cover other types of timber — i.e., we don't want people going into a green stand if

we can help it, frankly. If we can get them where we can say, "You have to go to that red stand, that pine stand…." Those are probably the two critical pieces about that part.

B. Simpson: I know that there was considerable discussion with industry over this point, because there are a number of folks out there who find it unpalatable that you use an axe like this at this stage in the game. Is it also a way for the government to ensure that objectives set by government are either protected or adhered to?

For example, under the forest stewardship plan, there has been considerable dispute about higher-level plans, about the ability for us to protect those higher-level plans. The minister's own staff, in the case of Clayoquot, in a presentation to the Clayoquot resource board stated categorically that under FSPs, the higher-level objectives there could not be protected.

Is this also a way to protect higher-level objectives by refusing cutting permits or road permits if indeed the district manager does not believe that they can be protected?

Hon. R. Coleman: This isn't for high-level plans. It's going to be only an objective-specified rating and won't have anything to do with high-level plans.

B. Simpson: In the ministry's document that was floated out around proposed 2002 legislative changes, it states explicitly that section 81 of the Forest Act needs to be changed in order to not only protect government revenue, as the minister indicated, but to ensure protection or to avoid compromising forest management or forest health objectives. It states that there is currently no tool to refuse to approve harvesting in these situations.

I'm thinking of the guidance that will have to be given to the delegated authorities around this. Will this be capable of being used to protect broader objectives that are not yet explicit in forest stewardship plans or where a district manager is getting significant push-back from a community with respect to a forest stewardship plan that's approved but there's a concern that a higher-level objective that's not yet a legal objective needs to be protected?

Will the district managers and delegated authorities be given direction to use this authority in those cases?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try this. It's actually so that if somebody comes in and says that they're going to go cut in a certain area as they do their plan, we say: "No, not in that particular area, because that is an area that would be volume that would be critical to the market pricing system in a B.C. timber supply area or a B.C. timber excise program."

We'll say that at the beginning, but what this does is give us the ability to say no when they come in and they still decide they're going to try that. We say: "Sorry, we have a piece of legislation that says no."

B. Simpson: I understand that. What I'm trying to understand is: if the direction is given to the delegated authority of when they should say no, will they have the ability to say no when there are forest management concerns as well as revenue concerns — where there are other objectives at play as well as revenue concerns?

The minister just spoke to the revenue concerns. I'm trying to get to the direction that the district managers will have to be able to use the delegated authority to say no. Will it be encouraged for them to use it for other reasons as well?

B. Simpson: Again, with respect to time, section 66…. It provides the ability for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations, and it's interesting because one aspect of that — in subsection (b)(10) — is to "make different regulations for different management plans, including management plans."

What I'm trying to understand in this case is: does this give the ability — through OIC, order-in-council, or through the cabinet dictate — to add other values to the Forest and Range Practices Act as opposed to through legislation? As the minister is aware, people have been asking for some values around fire, forest health, worker safety, and so on.

Am I understanding this correctly that that power now comes to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as opposed to having to do it through legislated authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is basically a consequential amendment that gives us the regulation-making power to do what we say we're going to do in the act and not outside what we've defined in the act.

B. Simpson: Again, some of this ought not to be rushed, but that's the nature of the game today.

Section 77. I just want clarification. Is this an opportunity through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to add additional values to the Forest and Range Practices Act other than the ones circumscribed? As the minister is well aware, people are asking for those values. They're quite disturbed that in many ways we don't have amendments adding values for forest health, climate change, fire, or forest worker safety.

Does section 77 give the minister through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to add values and then force confirmation for forest stewardship plans that are already approved?

B. Simpson: This is a big part of the news release around mud-bogging, etc. The reality is that all this does is allow for prohibition of damage that's not conducted under permit. So somebody goes in with a four-by-four, a snowmobile or whatever….

One of the questions associated with this is: where will the resources come from for actually doing this on the ground? It's one thing to make it possible to have this regulation and to fine someone under the act, but where will the resources be for this to be conducted?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we were doing this, I asked this question with regards to the resources the government had available to deal with compliance, because I believe it's important to know that. I'm told that we have the ability within our compliance officers' time frames to be able to deal with this.

Most of this is complaint-driven. We get information about one that's going to take place, particularly a large mud-bogging or something like that. The Ministry of Environment has conservation officers that will be made available, as well, based on complaints and stuff in the land base.

Of course, there's also the local police authority, which in B.C. outside of the lower mainland — with the exception of Nelson, who have their own city police force; they don't do any rural work, but they do have some integrated work they do — is basically the RCMP.

We felt, after looking at it and looking at the number of complaints there might be, that we could quite easily handle it within our present capacities.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

R. Fleming: I want to ask some questions this afternoon about the Belleville ferry terminal, located very, very near to these buildings — the status of that project.

It has been six years, really, since government has done anything significant with that site or with that project. I think it's very important that if we are to fulfil this government's goals of doubling tourism revenues by 2015, it's important to recognize how much time we have wasted already in building up what is an incredibly valued gateway, if you will, to the capital region and to the tourism and transportation interests of this part of the province.

There are four ferry terminal operators there now. Some of them have threatened at various times in the last few years to cease operating or to move. They've looked at other sites because the government has been appallingly slow to act.

The minister will know that in 2001 the last sort of significant flurry of activity around that site was when the property was successfully rezoned through the municipality of Victoria, shortly following the site consolidation and the ownership questions between federal, municipal and provincial governments. Significant federal properties were divested to the province. The lead agency to take forward that project was and is, I presume, the Provincial Capital Commission.

Maybe I could start there and ask the minister if the lead agency for the redevelopment of that terminal project is still the Provincial Capital Commission.

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I want to say that I'm really pleased to hear the positiveness expressed with regard to this project. It hasn't just been six years. When I was in government in the '80s, there was a lot of talk about Belleville Street. I think it's been a topic of conversation around Victoria for at least 25 years.

Certainly the Capital Commission is one of the important partners in this. As you know, nothing can happen on that site without the city of Victoria and without involving the neighbourhood, the business community and the tourism sector. That's what we're doing now, and I'm hoping that we can make some progress.

R. Fleming: The minister will know that there are no constraints in terms of the municipality's permission to proceed in terms of a rezoning. That's all been taken care of, and the government inherited that situation. All that heavy lifting around consolidating properties, consulting with James Bay and with the city of Victoria, and doing a comprehensive redevelopment was done. It was shelf-ready for this government to then fund and proceed with the project, and nothing has happened there.

I'm wondering if the minister could update this committee as to whether the province, through the PCC or another vehicle, intends to seek a new rezoning on that property.

Hon. S. Hagen: The mayor is the one who structured the blue-ribbon committee. The mayor must obviously have some questions about the zoning on the property, or he wouldn't have structured a blue-ribbon panel. The blue-ribbon panel, as the member knows, is a cross-section of the community — people who have various interests in that property, including the local residents.

I'm looking forward to the report that comes back to the mayor, and then to me, from the work that they've been doing. I look forward to receiving that, and then we'll see what the next steps are.

R. Fleming: I won't ask the minister to prejudge the report, but certainly there must have been some guidelines, the terms of reference, that he agreed to in consultation with those people that are now working hard to achieve a workable plan for this project. I wonder if the minister has talked about what sort of finances might be expected from the province.

As the minister is no doubt aware, transportation ferry terminals are not often moneymakers. They need some assistance in the capital phase. That's the same with airports and other kinds of terminuses of this sort, and government needs to take a lead for that very reason.

I wonder if the minister could tell me whether there was a commitment, an in-the-range figure, if you will, that this mayor's blue-ribbon panel could expect to work with and base their recommendations back to him around.

Hon. S. Hagen: We were looking for the mayor's terms of reference, and we haven't found them yet. This is basically what the mayor has asked the blue-ribbon task force to do: to develop a new vision for the redevelopment of the Belleville terminal site — including the recommended mix of uses, services and amenities — and a plan and approach to enable the vibrant, financially feasible, market-driven project to be successfully completed.

The blue-ribbon panel is chaired by Terry Farmer with other members, including representatives from the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, Provincial Capital Commission, development community, small business, Tourism Victoria, the neighbourhood association and marine stakeholders. Provincial and city of Victoria staff provide a resource to the committee.

Redevelopment of the terminal site has been envisioned as the province's contribution being a long-term lease on the land and as the city's contribution being zoning. Local government's support is critical to the success of this project, given that zoning decisions are made at the local level, and that it is likely that the upland development will also help pay for terminal redevelopment. All that the province has put on the table is the land.

R. Fleming: From the outset there has been no capital contribution committed at all? In other words, this committee, which I think has existed in one form or another for the past six years, frankly…. There have been various task forces and organizations, the Harbour Authority and others, working collectively and sometimes independently of one another, looking for a way to get this project moving.

It has always been for the lack of a contribution, which they can then match federally or provincially or create a revenue stream, a ticket tax or anything that you could go to the bank with and borrow money to accomplish this project…. That has always been the major stumbling block.

Am I to hear the minister correctly in saying that all that the province has brought to this table is a commitment for a long-term lease for the property that they already own, and that there are no actual capital dollars for the comprehensive redevelopment of this facility?

Hon. S. Hagen: This project, if and when it is developed, will be developed in the P3 model. I'll know when I get the report, but I think what the committee is looking at is whether or not it's possible to build this in a P3 model and have it pay for itself.

R. Fleming: Is there any contingency should a P3 model be unappealing or unattainable? I know that this government first sought to construct the new Trade and Convention Centre in Vancouver on a P3 model. It

wasn't able to attract the partners to do that. As I mentioned in my comments earlier, sometimes transportation terminuses are not seen as good investments without some kind of sizeable commitment to the partnership from the government side. I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that kind of a contingency.

We want to see this project happen. It has hit the same stumbling block time after time again: the lack of dollars on the table from senior governments. Municipal governments, as he's well aware, just simply don't have the ability or, frankly, the mandate or expertise to reconstruct major international ferry and transportation terminals. They don't.

Leadership has always been looked for from the landowner. In this case it's the province of B.C. I wonder if the minister could comment.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not going to prejudge the report, and I'm sure the member wouldn't ask me to. We're going to receive the report after the mayor has had a look at it. Considerable thought has gone into this. I'm looking forward to receiving the report. There's a lot of interest in the private sector in the property, and I don't think there will be any shortage of bids if and when we go out to tender.

R. Fleming: I think it remains a concern for those of us who represent Greater Victoria in this Legislature — and, I think, for people who have a responsibility to promote the general good of the province — that this project has, for many reasons, just simply not gotten off the ground. It has never been for a lack of interest.

There has been growing pressure to redevelop this site. It has come from all quarters, including the long-term tenants that operate ferries there now and from the Department of Homeland Security, which has expressed its concern to this government about its space inadequacies for two or three years. There have been threats to walk away from this facility.

I think the urgency is of the utmost, and I'm disappointed to hear that government has not launched this exercise to create a vision — this delegated task it's given the mayor to then report back to the minister — with any commitments at all on money. This has always been the stumbling block that has caused failure in the past. I predict here today that this will again be a stumbling block, potentially, in the future.

I think that a long-term lease and upland benefits are completely imprecise. It's not something that is likely to be successful in getting the kind of partnerships we're going to need to make this successful.

I thank him for his answers today. I look forward to the report, and I trust that he will provide me with a copy of it as soon as he's able to, because there is interest, I think, on both sides of the House. Indeed, there should be interest from people who have the provincial interest in mind in this project. It is a major gateway to the Island, and this is a major tourist destination for this province.

I want to ask him about the Provincial Capital Commission's mandate, which is not specifically to promote the capital anymore. It's confusing because the title of this Crown entity is still the Provincial Capital Commission, but it's now tasked with promoting British Columbia in this, I suppose…. It's supposed to be doing that in every corner of the province.

Its mandate has been changed, the minister will recall, to primarily an educational, promotional type of Crown entity. Previously it was involved in many other things and was, more traditionally, a capital-beautification type of Crown entity.

Given that they are in charge now of promoting British Columbia and given that the PCC has a CEO, that it has expertise and that it has contracts with people that do promotions of British Columbia, I wonder if you could tell me why there is now a 2008 secretariat in addition to a 2010 legacies, if you can tell me whether each of these entities — the PCC, the 2010 and the 2008 secretariat — has a CEO, and whether there is any cross-ministerial collaboration to make sure there is in fact no duplication and that taxpayers are getting the most efficient promotion of their province possible.

Hon. S. Hagen: Legacies Now has a CEO. The PCC has a CEO, and 2008 is operating within the ministry under a director-level individual. There is a great deal of interministry cooperation that takes place, particularly with B.C. 2008 and also Legacies Now.

R. Fleming: The 2008 secretariat. I know the budget is something like $28 million, of which I believe $20 million is for the so-called Spirit Squares program. That will be dispensed with upon application by local governments, presumably. I mean, 2008 is celebrating 150 years of the colony of British Columbia. So it's really a celebration of about half the 604 area code, as it is today.

This is presumably a provincewide secretariat that will have events and things. I wonder if the minister could tell me: of the $8 million, could he describe programs that, presumably, all of British Columbia will have access to — not just half of the 604 area code?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, you're right; 2008 is the celebration of 150 years of being a Crown colony — the first time the name British Columbia was used. It's going to be celebrated all over the province. At the UBCM convention last fall here in Victoria, I met with probably 40 municipal councils from around the province. Every one of them — one of them as far away as Taylor, B.C. — was really excited about the opportunities for a year-long celebration in 2008.

The various programs. Some of this has been rolled out, and some of it hasn't. It's going to be rolled out over the next weeks and months. You mentioned the $20 million for Spirit Squares. The North American Indigenous Games in Cowichan and the Walk for Reconciliation are part of the celebration.

We're working with the two railways to see if we can get some use of track and move some cars around

the province — cars that will be outfitted by the Royal B.C. Museum. There are local heritage, museums and school programs; a commemorative book program; a multicultural program; community celebration and event affiliation programs; Picture B.C.; and creative collections.

R. Fleming: I want to go back to the Belleville terminal for just a minute. The minister mentioned that provincial staff are a resource available to this blue-ribbon panel committee that the mayor is chairing, which is charged with coming up with a vision. I wonder if he could tell me if Partnerships B.C. is involved at this point in time and whether they are resourcing this committee.

Hon. S. Hagen: Partnerships B.C. is not providing any resources, but they were asked by the committee to attend one meeting, which they did. The staff resourcing are one ADM and a manager.

R. Fleming: I think — ever since there was the reorganization of government and that committee which the Premier headed and which cabinet was a part of, in terms of looking at every single Crown and every single ministry — that, when it came to creating a new mandate and vision for the Provincial Capital Commission, it's been poorly served.

Having said that, I think it's reflected today by the fact that although they have been charged with promoting B.C. and creating programming that celebrates British Columbia, they're not involved significantly with the 2008 celebrations or with the 2010 legacies. Instead, we've created separate entities.

That is the record of government when it comes to the PCC. I think it is probably more directionless than one would like. I'm now hearing they don't have any specific role in the Belleville terminal project, even though they are the landowner in this case.

I want to ask the minister. You've changed their mandate and focus. We're talking about a Crown entity that has always been sort of land-rich and cash-poor, if you like. They have perhaps $100 million worth of land, some of which they derive income from to fund their programming. I want to know if the minister can tell me if the PCC is still being reorganized or reoriented and whether that means that the PCC will be divesting further properties.

They may be, for example, involved in some kind of lease on this property, or they may be taken out of it altogether. Is the PCC going to realize the revenues from a lease at the Belleville project? What is government's view of other properties the PCC owns?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to read into the record that the Provincial Capital Commission's mandate is to connect and celebrate the capital with all British Columbians, which they're doing a good job at — connecting schools, particularly, schools with similar names, as it turns out.

Having said that, they were requested in their shareholder's letter of expectation to examine their property holdings. They have presented a report to government. Government will review that report and then will make decisions with regard to the report.

R. Fleming: I would agree with his comment about the value of some of those programs. I think that the school programs, as many members of this House know, have been significantly improved. They're highly visible. Almost on a daily basis we see the students that benefit from those, and I know that the PCC has played a large part in that.

In terms of the other part of his answer, I appreciate that what he's saying is that government is now in possession of a property plan, so to speak, for the entire portfolio of land and buildings that the PCC owns. I'd be very curious whether the minister would allow the committee to have that property plan. I think there are things of interest to members here, especially after the collapse of the B.C. Experience in the Crystal Garden. I know there are changes there and a contract pending, perhaps, with the city of Victoria.

There is a plan that makes recommendations, presumably, to dispose of or retain land and building assets, and I wonder if that's something the minister would give to this committee as part of his service plan here.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure what you mean by "committee." Are you talking about…?

Hon. S. Hagen: Committee A? Okay. Well, it is future government policy, so you will certainly be made aware when decisions are made. But we haven't made any decisions at this point.

H. Bains: I would like to move the discussion on to a slightly different area. As the minister will know, and we all know for a fact, B.C. has become one of the most multicultural societies as a result of folks from different countries from all around the world having made a decision to make this province and this country their new home. As such, they bring with them their culture, their art and their sports.

My question is to the minister. What concrete programs are there to work with those different diverse communities to identify, first of all, the sports they play and, secondly, the sports that they brought here? Thirdly, what concrete program does the ministry have to have those programs promoted so that the rest of the community can enjoy those games and sports that everyone else has brought here and to make them as regular as the rest of the sports that are here?

Hon. S. Hagen: Are we going to move into sports, then, for a while? Because then I'll make some personnel changes here.

We fund Sport B.C., as you know. Sport B.C. works with provincial sports organizations, particularly focused on the multicultural part of society, to generate best practices and focus on inclusiveness and participation.

H. Bains: Is there a written directive from the ministry to Sport B.C. that requires the program that the minister talked about to have inclusivity of different cultures, different communities, to address those issues that those communities may have?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have with me the Assistant Deputy Minister of Sport, John Mills, who used to head up Sport B.C. We have an agreement. He can't recall whether that's specifically in the agreement, but I'm happy to provide a copy of the agreement for you.

H. Bains: I want to move to a specific area of that. I appreciate getting a copy of that program. I will be interested to see if there's a ministry directive that requires Sport B.C. having a mandate to have an inclusivity clause in their programs, both at the administration level and at the delivery level of the sports.

But I want to talk about one particular sport that is becoming very, very popular, especially in B.C. — not only in the lower mainland, but all across B.C. It's a sport that is played by folks from Punjab, called kabaddi. This is a sport that generates dozens of tournaments all across the lower mainland and other parts of British Columbia, attracting up to 10,000 to 15,000 spectators in each of those tournaments — and probably more.

I think that is the sport that the community would like to take to the next level, which means having official, formal government recognition of this sport as a sport similar to basketball, hockey, baseball and other popular sports that we enjoy here in British Columbia.

My question would be: is there any particular program directing Sport B.C. to promote kabaddi, to bring it into the mainstream, so that the rest of the communities can actually enjoy and start playing it and so that we can actually have this as a sport no less important than all of the other major sports that we have here?

Hon. S. Hagen: Sport B.C. has criteria established for determining whether funding is made available or not. At this point in time, and you may disagree with this, what Sport B.C. is saying is that this is still localized to the lower mainland. They would like to see it provincewide. Now, having said that, they have provided some capital, as you know, for some grandstands for kabaddi.

At this point, they're not providing other funds, but I know that Sport B.C. is interested in seeing the sport develop provincewide, so any assistance that you could give Sport B.C. in that would be appreciated.

H. Bains: Yes, you know, you could see what's happening on the ground level. The city of Surrey donated a playground for them to play on out in Surrey. The community is really appreciative of that effort from the city. The funding came from…. I don't know where it came from. There was $250,000, I believe, that was provided to put some bleachers, some seating, up there, but I'm told that it hasn't provided the seating that it requires.

It requires more funding. You could see, if you went to any of those tournaments played on that particular ground, that those seats are filled. I think there are about five times more folks standing or sitting on the ground, which creates a bit of a problem for the organizers, for the sports and for the spectators to watch and to enjoy the game. There's that particular area that still needs to be addressed.

My question is more on the official directive or the policy of the ministry through Sport B.C. or whatever organization they can work with, so that they can meet with the players, with their organizations and with their community to find ways they can actually make it a provincewide sport and not leave it localized, as the minister has said that they view it as. It isn't. This game is actually played all across B.C., in all different communities out there: Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George and the lower mainland — a number of tournaments. Anywhere you see those folks living, you see the tournament.

Therefore, I think we need leadership from the ministry, which could directly filter down to the level that is required. They can start working with those folks, or all the stakeholders that I mentioned earlier, to put together a program to help that community to take it to the next level, and so that we could actually have it in the B.C. Summer Games or in the schools as a recognized sport, to be funded.

So those are the kinds of programs…. I'm looking forward to listening from the minister if they have it in the existing programs. If they don't, then what efforts is the minister prepared to take to make sure that the concerns of those communities are fulfilled?

Hon. S. Hagen: Not only has the ministry, the government, provided that $250,000, but as you know, when Premier Campbell announced this, the headline was: "The first kabaddi stadium in the world outside of India officially opened."

The member shrugs his shoulders as if that's not significant, but in fact it is significant. It's a very significant step. The member has my commitment to work with Sport B.C. and to work with multicultural communities, but there is a responsibility on the community themselves. It's not always up to government to pull people up. It's the community that needs to get behind this, make their point and make it well.

H. Bains: What I was kind of amused by was the statement: "the first outside of India." I wasn't so sure if that was a true statement, because there are stadiums out there. There are multi-use stadiums. I'm not sure whether they're completely dedicated to kabaddi. But, anyway, that's beside the point.

The issue is this. The community has done their part. I may want to it bring to the minister's attention. The players have done their part. The association has done their part. They have displayed over the last few years a professionalism that is required to take that game to that level.

They have put rules in place. They are actually talking about doing drug testing for the players. So they are doing everything that they can, but they do need some assistance from the ministry so that the game that they have brought to such a higher level now be moved to the next level so that this game actually can be viewed and played with the rest of the games and the sports that we have in British Columbia.

Yes, the community does appreciate the funding. They appreciate the city of Surrey. Now they are saying that they have done their part, as the minister has asked, to show the professionalism and the organizational skill that they needed to put together a real world-class tournament. They are actually world-class tournaments, with world-class players coming to play.

Therefore, now they are coming to the minister and this ministry, looking for support so that the minister can send a directive down through either Sports B.C. or whatever else it takes to sit down with those players, their organization, and the community folks who could actually work with the ministry and find a way to take it to the level that the community wants to take it to so that all British Columbians can enjoy the support.

It is a very exciting game. Everyone will enjoy it. It is actually starting to be played by communities outside of the Punjabi communities, and there are a number of examples out there. One of my opponents who ran against me in my election became a very good kabaddi player.

I'm suggesting to you that the community has expanded this game and has brought it to a level that now requires the minister and the ministry to come down to meet with them and find ways so that this game actually is recognized in schools as a regular sport, and it can actually be moved to a level where we can take it to the B.C. Games or Canada Games or whatever it takes.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, you have my commitment that I'll continue to work with the community. We want to make sure that everybody's included and that we can nation-build together.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to go back to the question around Belleville terminal with the minister for a moment.

He mentioned in one of his responses that a potential funding source for the redevelopment of Belleville terminal would be development of other government-owned properties — unspecified uplands redevelopment of properties.

I wonder if the minister could tell me which properties are under consideration for redevelopment that then might fund new buildings and redevelopment of the Belleville terminal. Could he specifically tell me whether those lands, those sites, involved are inclusive of the Victoria accord's lands — those ones that are surrounding the legislative precinct on Menzies, Government Street and Superior?

Hon. S. Hagen: Because of my excitement for that project, I got a bit ahead of myself. So I'm going to go back to my statements earlier that I'll wait for the blue-ribbon task force and see what they recommend. Then government will make whatever decisions we're going to have to make.

R. Fleming: I think we're all waiting for the report, but you did mention that redevelopment of uplands properties presumably owned by government off-site, perhaps density transfers…. If the minister could just tell me that those discussions have occurred, not conclusively, but are they under consideration? Is that one of the alternative means of financing this redevelopment?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know if those discussions have gone on in the task force, but I know they've been asked to look at all possibilities. I look forward to their report.

R. Fleming: In terms of the province's role, the minister said that they've told the blue-ribbon panel that they can look at things like a long-term lease as a contribution. They can look at…. They have other contributions. They have provincial employee resources directly at the table and at the disposal of this panel.

Is he telling me, then, that property owned by the province in and around, adjacent to, this site may be something that this task force can look at as a means of a provincial contribution to getting this project off the ground?

Hon. S. Hagen: The mayor hasn't constrained the group. I haven't constrained the group. They are, I assume, going to be looking at every possibility, everything there is. I know they've got maps of the harbour showing city-owned property and provincially owned property, but I'm not going to second-guess what they're going to recommend in the report.

R. Fleming: I earlier asked a question about the real estate holdings of the Provincial Capital Commission and what changes, if any, might occur. That's been the historic means of generating revenue and near self-sufficiency or entire self-sufficiency for that Crown corporation and its operations. The minister said that there was something pending to him and to government and that no decision's been made.

I was surprised to hear that, because I know that the PCC's property portfolio has been under intense examination for many years, even going back to when I was a director for the city on the corporation.

I think I recall glancing at a 2005 Treasury Board minute notation that there had been discussions then about PCC properties. Again, I would ask the minister

if he could tell me whether there is in fact a plan now that is perhaps under further revision. Is there something that government has in its hand that outlines options or recommendations to dispose of or to take various actions on the PCC's property portfolio?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've mentioned previously, in the shareholders' letter of expectation the PCC was asked to come out with a plan. They have produced a plan. That plan is in the hands of government. No decisions have been made.

N. Macdonald: I understand that when the estimates are finished, the minister will come back and give sort of a wrap-up. I'll say something quickly before that.

I think what we need to do now is move to the Minister of State for ActNow. If we could do that, and then, as I say, we'll come back in the not too distant future and wrap things up.

Hon. G. Hogg: I believe that the members of the committee have met the members of staff that are here, with the exception of John Mills, who is the assistant deputy minister, and Ron Duffell, who is the executive director for ActNow. These other two you've been putting up with for some time, I understand, and therefore don't need any further introduction.

I want to say firstly how much I appreciate the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for accommodating the timing in terms of putting these together. If it had actually happened on Thursday, I would have been able to talk how it was world Move for Health Day and how we were participating in that.

Because of our ability to participate and the timing, I was able to go and participate in the day, where we had something like 50,000 British Columbians in 90 different schools participating in Move for Health Day, as we're trying to recognize that as developed and appointed through the World Health Organization and the United Nations. I thank him very much for that.

Actually, I should also make reference to the comments made by the member for Saanich South in his two-minute statement with respect to ActNow and activity, where he actually received a thunderous standing ovation from all members of the House as a result of those comments.

I heard last week that former President Clinton — I guess he's still a president — was speaking to school trustees at an international conference in the United States about the things that are happening with schools. He started by saying: "You know, all the great work that you're doing in the school systems and all the wonderful things that you're doing to take the challenges of education are potentially going to go for nought. They're going to go for nought because we're not looking at what's happening with our next generation of children because of issues of their health."

He went on to say, as we've been hearing so often now, that there's a good possibility that the next generation of children will not live longer than their parents. That's a frightening edict to be sitting out there. When Clinton did this last month, I think it was, in San Francisco and was talking to about 5,000 people, apparently about 500 of them got up and walked out in the middle of it. Apparently, they walked out because the issue of obesity and health hits so close to the core of people. The report was that a lot of these people were overweight and didn't want to focus on that.

It's an issue which has significant challenges for people when we start to talk about it, because it reflects our personal values and the way we see each other. It reflects the way we work with and relate to each other. I think the fact that so many people walked out in the middle of that, reflecting their personal values, is an important thing for us to understand as we're trying to look at ways to make significant changes in terms of the issues within our province.

As, hopefully, most people know, the goal of ActNow B.C. is to help ensure that British Columbia becomes the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We want to grab the vision of the Olympics, which brings communities together and allows us to look at ways that we can relate to each other, and ensure that we do take advantage of the focus that's going to be on our province and country.

We've certainly got lots to be proud of. The life expectancy in British Columbia and in Canada is, I think, next only to Japan. That's pretty promising and positive — the fact that we are the healthiest jurisdiction in Canada and, indeed, in North America. Still, we've got lots of issues and lots of problems to focus on. One out of four B.C. children ages two to 17 is overweight. We have doubled the number who are overweight and tripled the number who are obese in the last 15 years. There are challenges with that.

Some 35 percent of British Columbians don't exercise regularly, and up to 60 percent of our youth do not exercise enough to foster optimal growth and development. I think those are certainly big challenges.

ActNow is here because 2.7 million deaths worldwide can be attributed to a low intake of fruits and vegetables. Twenty percent or more of cases of type 2 diabetes, stroke, coronary heart disease and colon cancer results from too sedentary a lifestyle.

The research is now telling us that obesity could shorten life span by seven years — exactly the same as smoking. And obesity crosses all socioeconomic lines. There is lots of research that suggests that in fact a lot of the obesity is in higher socioeconomic classes, and that's certainly an issue.

Of course, the great edict behind all of that is the fact that the next generation of children may well not

live longer than their parents. That would be the first generation in history to have a life expectancy less than that of their parents.

The good news in that, if there is any good news, is that some of those trends can be changed, can be modified. That's the goal of ActNow: to look at how we can modify and change those.

Eating the recommended levels of vegetables and fruits can reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and heart and stroke by up to 30 percent. Because I didn't get to talk last Thursday, today happens to be World Hypertension Day, which is the date to look at and focus on all the issues of hypertension and the impact that it particularly has on cardiovascular disease and strokes. It's important that we get our blood pressure taken. It's important that we look at that because it's a precursor to the things that can happen with respect to strokes and heart disease.

The more we become aware of it, the more we can actually take action. While information doesn't mean change, it's a precursor to change. We know that from the great kinds of social marketing programs we've had across the world and specifically in British Columbia — things like recycling, drinking and driving, and wearing a seatbelt.

We know that it's a long, complicated, multifaceted approach that we have to take in order to address those and get those cultural changes taking place. But if we do those things and are successful in them, we can reduce the incidence of cancer by up to 50 percent, type 2 diabetes by up to 90 percent and cardiovascular disease and strokes by up to 30 percent. That's the really good news in it. The research is telling us there are some pretty positive things that can happen as a result of taking some actions.

ActNow B.C. is a cross-government, multi-sector partnership that's based on health promotion strategies designed to provide British Columbians with the information and support they need to make healthy lifestyle changes. Despite not having as high a profile as we'd like it to have in British Columbia, it has already received a fair amount of acclaim.

The World Health Organization has looked at it and has given it kudos for the work that it's done, saying that it's an innovative and positive approach to addressing the issues of health promotion. The Canadian Public Health Association last year gave it the Ron Draper Award, which is the first time they've given the award for health promotion to a government. That's a very positive thing.

We still have to raise consciousness and awareness within it, and at the World Health Organization, through the United Nations, we're talking about the innovative and groundbreaking approaches that they sought, which included particularly the multifaceted approach that we've taken.

The strength of the things that have been given to us in terms of accolades are not really about exactly what government has done, but it's more about how we've been able to engage communities. It's about how we've been able to engage the Healthy Living Alliance and partners in the community, and it's about the recognition that changes of this magnitude are things that can't just be done by government. Government certainly has to participate in it and support it, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

We have many partners who are a part of that — the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance — that have come together to work with us: the B.C. Lung Association; B.C. Pediatric Society; parks and recreation association; Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon Division; Canadian Diabetes Association; Dietitians of Canada, B.C. Region; Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon; Public Health Association of B.C.; and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

They have come together and are working with us and meet with us regularly, looking at how they can be engaged in this goal. The specific goals that they have set out are the goals which we the government have adopted. They are very challenging goals as we look forward trying to effect significant changes within the context of the province.

We want to increase physical activity by 20 percent. Right now in British Columbia it's about 58 percent, and we're wanting to move to 70 percent. We want to increase by 20 percent the number of people who are eating the prescribed number of fruits and vegetables. We're wanting to move that from 40 to 48 percent.

We want to reduce by 20 percent the number of British Columbians who are overweight, which moves from 42 percent to 34 percent. We want to reduce by 10 percent the number of British Columbians who are using tobacco, so that's moving from 16 to 14 percent. And we want to increase by 50 percent the number of women who are receiving counselling and information with respect to the impact of alcohol during pregnancy.

Those are pretty lofty goals in a province that is trending the wrong way in many of them, and many jurisdictions of the world are also looking at trending the wrong way. I am comforted often by the words of Michelangelo, who said that our fear should not be setting our goals too high and failing to achieve them, but our fear should be setting our goals too low and achieving them. These are stretched goals that are ambitious, as we move forward.

2010 Legacies Now is also an important partner in assisting us with community outreach, specifically through delivering the Action Schools program, which has been quite a positive success. I think that we now have 1,288 registered action schools, which include 307,410 students, and 100 percent of the school districts are involved. There are 12,081 teachers and administrators who have been engaged and have been a part of it.

The active communities initiative is a cross-sectoral initiative focused on supporting communities to increase physical activity by 20 percent. They have engaged in a number of communities. I think that the last I heard, the number of active communities is about 115 to 118 communities that have passed a resolution saying: "We are active communities, and we want to be engaged in increasing the physical activity of British Columbians by 20 percent."

The Union of B.C. Municipalities is engaged in the Healthy Communities initiative and supporting it.

ActNow is working with all of these groups as well as across government. One of the things that we've been able to do, hopefully quite successfully, is to look at my colleagues in cabinet and at all of the ministries in terms of developing programs that support ActNow, and a number of ministries have done that.

Public Safety and the Solicitor General has an FASD awareness program. The Ministry of the Environment has its Healthy Ecosystems Healthy People and pick your trail. Advanced Education has "healthy, wealthy and wise" empowering students to make healthy decisions.

All ministries, as part of their service plans, have included ActNow initiatives within them. It's something that goes across all of the ministries, and assistant deputy ministers meet monthly to look at those things, to look at what can happen within each of the ministries as we're trying to change the culture both within government and within the province to more effectively look at these long-term goals that we have.

Workplace wellness is another important link in terms of the ActNow plan, and there are currently many programs in place. The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has developed their Tour de MEIA, which is an on-line system that encourages them to go out and walk, and they can track themselves as they walk around to visit the MEIA offices throughout the province.

During healthy Heart Month, MEIA offered cardiovascular testing for interested staff. The Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts has energized, inspired, nurtured and grown a program, which the minister is actively involved in as he continues to grow his health through his yoga classes and massage.

Hon. G. Hogg: It's referencing the minister as the bad visual with respect to massage and yoga.

Just two weekends ago, over 900 public servants participated in the Times Colonist ActNow 10K walk and run, which was the largest turnout, I believe, ever — to have public servants engaged in that. That was, again, looking at the culture, looking at how we can have people more actively involved in it. I think that they serve as great role models as we ensure that the cultural shifts are starting to take place.

There's a great deal of research with respect to what happens when employees are healthier. We've worked with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and have a program with them called Health Works Here. That program has sent out a toolkit. They've identified a thousand small businesses with fewer than 50 employees across the province, and they have sent out these tool kits to them to talk about the things they can do to ensure that they have a healthier workplace. The issues of reduced health costs, reduced number of accidents, fewer compensation claims and further incentives to recruit are all part of what happens with that.

In the first nations, which has particular issues or concerns…. We know that the first nations' life expectancy is six to seven years less than other British Columbians', and I think that's a travesty we have to work on. The incidence of type 2 diabetes is much higher, as is pneumonia and HIV/AIDS.

We really have to look at ways to work with the first nations, and aboriginal communities as well. Towards that end we placed a $6 million grant through the University of Northern B.C. and the aboriginal leadership council to develop a specific aboriginal ActNow program. They are working at doing that now.

Part of our action plan includes what we're calling "on the road to health." We have two semitrailers that have a 9,000-square-foot display. It almost looks like a little bit of circus coming to town. We're going to visit about 20 communities over the summer and then, hopefully, repeat the same in the next year.

I think we're close to having determined what those communities are. I believe that one of them is Sechelt. But I think the member just departed, so he won't get to hear that exciting news as yet, except when he goes back to reference Hansard, which he said he was going to do.

The travelling exhibit includes a team of 12 young British Columbians who travel with the tractor-trailers. It will be decorated with the ActNow initiative. and "Every move is a good move" is a part of it. It will spend three to four days in each of the communities.

Our hope is to engage the local MLAs, the mayors. As it kicks off, our goal is to have a pledge which would be signed by the presidents of each of the major partners — B.C. cancer, diabetes, lung — all of the members of the Healthy Living Alliance and then, as they go into local communities, have the local representatives also sign on to that pledge so we can tie it more closely to the local communities.

There will be a web-based tracking tool that will be a part of it, some displays that will take place. Things like: you will get to ride a bike which will power a video game, and the faster you pedal, the higher you'll be able to make your airplane fly and the faster you will be able to make it fly — those types of things. So we can look at how we can make those crossovers to engage a lot of younger people in particular with the things that they like to do. But how can we make those things healthier in terms of the activities that happen with that?

The first phase is our public awareness part of it, the bigger part that the deputy likes to refer to as ground cover….

Hon. G. Hogg: Oh, pardon me. Air cover. We're the ground cover; they're the air cover.

So it has gone on now. We've done some TV ads to raise consciousness around the brand of ActNow. Part of that is because we're being told that while we have some 180 programs around the province in ActNow, not all of them have been called ActNow. There are a fairly diverse number of names, and it hasn't allowed us to develop a brand that people can specifically identify with.

Part of our public awareness campaign has been to move towards that. All of us — or at least, I — had some concern about spending money on advertising and doing that, asking: "What would happen if you actually took that money and spent it more specifically on a programmatic side?"

I have taken some solace in having recently read the book that was passed to all members, I think, by the Salvation Army on the history of the Salvation Army. I took some solace in the great debate they had about whether or not they should go into advertising when so much of their money is generated from people ringing the bells and gathering money in the pots. They were wondering: if they went on to a national campaign, what would that do for their fundraising and for the people who worked at the local communities?

They made a decision to go forward, and they spent millions of dollars engaged in buying halftime at a nationally televised NFL game. I think it was between the Dallas Cowboys and the Tennessee Titans, and they had Reba McEntire. Much to their joy, it actually increased the amount of money that was received in the pots. I think it was something like 15 percent, and those local communities that aligned their message specifically with the halftime message saw increases of over 50 percent. As I was told by the public relations people and the advertisers, this is something that's really good and ties into it, and I take solace in the fact that such a respected organization as the Salvation Army found that to be a very positive part of their campaign and did that.

We've been focusing on young children and heads of households and physical activity through this process. Our next phase will be moving into seniors, and physical activity with seniors, and in the fall we'll move into the issue of nutrition. Again, physical activity and nutrition are the major issues that we want to move forward with.

There are a number of accomplishments that I think we have achieved. As I mentioned earlier, our goals are stretch goals that provide us with significant challenges.

I want to be able, obviously by 2010, to say that we've actually started to change the trends — that we're starting to move forward in terms of being able to address the needs of British Columbians to have a healthier future. The provincial health officer has talked about the amount of money that can be generated and saved if we actually focus on these things. The impact on the health care system and acute care can be specifically reduced dramatically, from $1.7 billion to $3 billion. I've heard all kinds of these numbers around there.

As I go around the province, I don't think there are many people who seem to be really cognizant or concerned about saving government a whole lot of money. The issue, I think, is quality of life, and as we relate to each other and how we care about each other and our family and our loved ones, it's about how we can ensure that these people have quality of life to end of life. How can we give people the best chance to have quality of life to end of life? How can we raise our awareness and consciousness about what the challenges are?

A lot of people don't know that there are challenges out there as we have seen the world become supersized. And the fast-food industry…. We know that the number of soda pops that are being consumed over the past ten years has gone up something like 127 percent. The number of pizzas being ordered has gone up over 400 percent. So there are lots of challenges around how we do that, as we've supersized and are eating foods that are not as healthy.

We have become more sedentary at the same time. Twenty years ago something like 50 percent of children either walked to school or rode their bikes. Now it's less than 20 percent. While we've supersized and eaten things that are not as good for us, at the same time we've reduced the amount of physical activity that takes place.

If we can reverse that — if we can start getting awareness of that out there and then have programs so that people will find the right choice to become the easier choice and that people can see that every move can actually be a good move — I think that we can provide some positive options for individuals in British Columbia. It's really about having money to be able to do other things, but most importantly, it's about ensuring that people know what's happening and become aware of that and are able to make good choices to have healthier futures for themselves, their families and all British Columbians.

N. Macdonald: I thank the minister of state for the opening. I think the minister of state has been very good-natured about some of the initial criticisms that came when the ministry was set up. He has been good-natured about that.

The premise of the ministry is one that I strongly support and that all members, I think, strongly support. There's no question of the direction we need to be going. The minister of state identified that we need to be looking at prevention as an important part of our health system, and we need, of course, to address it as an important part of raising the quality of life for all British Columbians.

With that in mind, I want to understand some of the things the ministry has done. In looking at the ministry of state, I want to begin with the understanding

that this is new. You're in the setting-up stage, I would assume, still. I want to say that it would be my hope that this is something that would continue through a variety of governments, that it's a direction we need to be going.

I recognize, as well, that it is a complex task that you have set out to accomplish and that many of these goals don't have simple answers. They are going to be complex. They are going to be interrelated, and I think it makes sense to focus in this way on trying to achieve those.

The questions that I have, then, are just to understand what the minister of state is doing to make sure that the stated goals of government are being met, that the resources are there and that the strategy is one that is going to be sound and going to be continued by future governments.

The cabinet-size issue I know was raised when this was set up, and that's something for the Premier to answer for. I don't think it's up to the minister of state to respond to that.

The first question, though, does relate to just the setting up of the ministry. Does the minister of state have a clear idea of the total cost for setting up the Minister of State for ActNow? Do you have the range? If you could also give me a sense of how many full-time-equivalents the minister of state is responsible for.

Hon. G. Hogg: Actually, the operational portion of the minister of state's office is $857,000, which is roughly in line with the ministers of state under the Ministries of Children and Family Development and Energy, Mines and Petroleum, which are both in the $850,000 to $900,000 range. That's just the operational part of it.

There are six FTEs, three of them in the ministry and three of them in my office, that function out of the office specifically. Outside of that, the overall budget for the ministry, which looks at the programs, as well, is $5.4 million. Then the delivery of programs goes across all of the ministries.

Part of my responsibility is ensuring that the service plans of the other ministries do include ActNow initiatives — that they do look at things. As an example, the Ministry of Transportation. With respect to highways, we want to make sure that in every case possible we would look at things like ensuring they're including bike paths and walking paths and continuing with that. There are lots of things that accrue value to the ActNow goals that happen within the context of all the other ministries as well.

N. Macdonald: One part that perhaps, or likely, the ministry of state would not directly control but would have input into is the television ads that the minister of state referenced earlier. The question is: how much do the TV ads cost for this year? And what are the budgets?

I would assume there are subsequent television ads in '08-09 as well as in future years. If you could give me an idea of the total cost and how that works, and which branch of government is responsible for putting together those ads in terms of content and in terms of running the contracts.

Hon. G. Hogg: The public affairs bureau has the responsibility for the financing of the ads and the campaigns. We become one of the clients in terms of the evolution and development of the ads and what goes into the ads. But they're the ones that have the money and make the decisions with respect to that.

That falls under the Minister of Finance, so I don't know the exact numbers that come out of that. I guess the Minister of Finance, through her estimates, will be able to have that — or coming out through public accounts. I don't know the specific numbers with respect to that.

N. Macdonald: The public affairs bureau controls the ads. Could you describe the process that would involve you in terms of the content and describe, as well, if you are involved in the setting of contracts in any way? Or is that something that's entirely controlled by the public affairs bureau?

Hon. G. Hogg: The public affairs bureau has an agency of record, and that's controlled through the public affairs bureau.

I had conversations with respect to what I felt the focus should be, which was initially on six-to-ten-year-olds and the heads of households and the issue of physical activity. That was as a result of first consulting a number of professionals, saying: "Where can we have the biggest impact in terms of being able to effect these changes we want to try to make with the understanding that exists around the needs and moving towards particularly the issues of obesity and physical activity in younger children?"

Those are the things from ActNow that we were pushing. This is what we want you to do. They engaged an agency of record to be developing the commercials to work and focus on that. They came back to me and showed me a couple of examples. Then we said: "We think that one is the best one."

They went out and did some focus groups. They provided us with what the focus groups said. They said that these seemed to be the ones that will have three choices, and the one that we picked was the one they ended up going with. We picked it because the focus groups reflected that it would have the greatest and most positive impact.

I understand that subsequent to that, it was successful in terms of becoming named one of the top commercials in North America for one period of time.

N. Macdonald: So the company that's doing that…. If the minister of state could let me know who's done it — just name the company — and then if you could also give me a sense if you have the ability to say no to a particular ad.

Do you have the final say in terms of the advertising, or is it just something that's presented to you and

you have input, and then that's either taken or not taken — as opposed to having complete control in terms of the message that is being put out?

The public affairs bureau is the one that deals with the agency of record. They're the ones that are professionals in putting it together and dealing with it. I don't presume to be able to have the knowledge of what works and what doesn't. I said what I want us to achieve, and they came up with the ways to achieve that.

N. Macdonald: I assume that if I need to get that information, I need to get that information from someplace else. In terms of just the company that's doing the advertising….

N. Macdonald: Well, okay. If you can give it to me, that would be fine. If there is another process I need to go through, then I'll go through that.

Can we move to newspapers and what sort of campaign you have there? Again, who is doing it, if you can provide that information? If we're not into a campaign like that, is that something that is foreseen for the future? What's the scope of it? Is it something that would be provincewide, or is it simply lower mainland media and so on?

An idea about what's going on with the newspaper ads, and then at the same time maybe you could address magazines — if there is any thought of that — and then other media, and if you want to talk about radio as well and what the scope for different projects is.

With each of these I'm interested in the companies. As I say, I'm picking up that the information will not necessarily be provided, but if it can be, that would be helpful.

Hon. G. Hogg: The agency of record is TBWA, and it's a comprehensive program that they deal with. It's in ethnic media and provincial media. Outdoor ads are a part of it — bus stops and such.

The ads that focused on the six-to-ten-year-olds and the heads of households — basically, that campaign ran out roughly two weeks ago. The next one will be moving into seniors and their physical activity. I assume the agency is doing some work with that and will come back with some ideas around what that will look like. We don't have any details at this point.

N. Macdonald: So with each of these campaigns it's comprehensive. It's not only television, but there are corresponding radio advertisements as well as the print media. These are all wrapped up together and go for a specific period of time.

Can you give me some sense of the time as well — how long the campaigns usually go for? As I say, if it is one company that's handling all of that, that would be interesting to know, or if there are a variety of companies involved.

Hon. G. Hogg: There was no radio purchase in it. It was a comprehensive program that went out, which did not include it. It's adapted basically on what the focus group might be. The focus of this, again, was six-to-ten-year-olds and heads of households, so television and print were a part of that. As we move into the next one with seniors, there will be different components that will be better able to address seniors. Then as we move into nutrition, they'll look at how that modelling will occur as well.

There are three phases to it. The first phase was March through April of this year, which was the youth and family physical activity portion. The second phase is June to July, which is seniors physical activity. The third phase is September through October, looking at nutrition.

The phase cycle will repeat itself, hopefully, over the next three to five years and continue to contribute to the increased message and retention of that message, as the success for the brand grows and, consequently, the ActNow brand as part of it. The actual television commercials ran for six weeks as part of phase 1, and I think the print stuff ran for the same period of time. But some of the billboards and the bus stop stuff will apparently stay up until somebody comes along and buys the space again.

N. Macdonald: So the media aspect of it is rolling out. I'll just use education as an example. One of the things I struggled with as principal was getting a playground built. That's something where you spend a tremendous amount of time working with parents to raise money. When we look at something like this, it seems an initiative that ActNow would naturally want to see promoted. You have issues like that, which you identified — not necessarily that one.

Just give me a sense of how it works with the Ministry of Education. How do you look for things like that, which you think the Ministry of Education should be focusing on and providing funding for? Just describe your role and how you would make something like that a priority for a different ministry, which in the past hasn't necessarily shown an interest in making sure that's a priority.

How do you make that work? What leverage do you have as the minister of state to make sure that the priority that's stated by government is followed through with various ministers?

Hon. G. Hogg: A number of provinces have gone to Ministers of Health Promotion, and I think it's now

down to just two that are continuing that. I believe Ontario and Nova Scotia continue to have a minister responsible strictly for health promotion and kind of divided up the Ministry of Health around that type of framework.

What we have tried to do here is integrate rather than create a whole new bureaucracy. That's one of the reasons that the Canadian Public Health Association has recognized what has happened in this province. We haven't gone out to try to re-create or create a new bureaucracy but have tried to coordinate across the ministries as they exist in terms of that type of delivery.

The assistant deputy ministers committee that meets monthly has all of the ministries present in it, and each one of the ministries is asked to look at all of their programs — their full service plan — through an ActNow lens. What is it? How does that contribute to ActNow and to the vision of what we're trying to achieve? How can you be a part of that? How can you support those initiatives broadly?

That's the way we've tried to do it from an organizational perspective. It's not just a political review. At the assistant deputy ministers level, they're looking at those things and trying to make practical decisions around the broad-based political vision to deliver on that.

As an example, you made reference to the Ministry of Education and physical activity equipment. There was a shared announcement between ActNow, 2010 Legacies and the Ministry of Education in March that every elementary school, middle school and junior secondary school in the province received a contribution of $850, and every secondary school $1,000, to help them look at physical activity equipment. This is kind of seed money that has gone out to assist and support that type of initiative.

We've been able to come together around some specific initiatives like that. One other example would be the fruit and vegetable program, which we have initiated. We're now in 51 schools around the province. We've been able to bring funding together for that through three different ministries — to be able to contribute to that. It's a program which we're going to expand further, and it's an example of our responsibility to coordinate the ministries which have the bigger budgets and the individual responsibilities, but wanting to make sure that there is a more holistic approach to it rather than sort of a siloed specific approach that might happen in the models of Ontario and Nova Scotia.

Again, it's about a vision, coordination and finding ways that we can work together to take a holistic approach to the issues.

N. Macdonald: The seed money approach for playgrounds is a good start. Of course, there are still tremendous difficulties in raising the money.

I understand there are different grants that you can apply for. Nevertheless, there is a need as time goes on, I would presume, from the minister of state, that the ministry would see pushing in that area. Once identified by the minister of state, they'd be pushing for more and more programs from the Ministry of Education so that you would be helping them set priorities to meet the ActNow goals.

The minister brought up another question I had, which was around healthy lunches. There has been an initial program. I assume that was just a start. How large a program do you see the government putting in place based upon the minister of state pushing for it, in terms of healthy lunches at public schools? What is the outcome that the minister of state sees? What is the time period for that?

Hon. G. Hogg: I am going to make an assumption here. I'm assuming that the member is referring to the fruit and vegetable snack program, which I just made reference to. As I said, it is in 51 schools now. We are going to be expanding that in the fall and then moving to being able to touch on every school in the province before 2010.

Some of the anecdotal information has been really positive with respect to that. I have read some of the comments from parents. One parent said: "My daughter came home and said she wanted a cucumber in her lunch." She'd had a cucumber at the snack program. She said: "I could never get her to eat them when she was at home and we were serving them." There is a lot of anecdotal information such as that.

We also have the University of Victoria doing a more evidence-based review of the impact of the fruit and vegetable snack program. When we receive that report, which I believe is due at the end of August, that will give us some evidence in terms of how it's working. But we've made a commitment to want to do that.

That's just to improve health and awareness, but it's also to ensure that we're able to provide access for healthy produce that's developed and grown locally and close to the schools. It's been a good combination as we've met with the agrifood industry and their interest in it. Certainly, the dairy industry is a part of that. It's been an integral part of being able to do that as well as the fridges in the schools and the milk program.

Those are all part of the nutrition component, which we wanted to continue to expand. I think it's been quite successful at this point, but it's been successful because of the willingness of these various organizations to be engaged in and a part of contributing to their communities at a local level.

N. Macdonald: The measurements that the ministry has put together…. For instance, we'll just look at healthy eating. "Increased by 20 percent who eat the recommended daily servings…." Maybe just quickly describe the data that you are depending upon — how that's actually going to be measured, how much money is going to be put towards meeting that goal.

Is there going to be any sort of interim measurement that would be available on this or the other five tasks you have set out? Is there going to be an interim measurement — perhaps in 2008, when we meet next time — that I could look at and get some sense as to whether the government is meeting their goals?

Hon. G. Hogg: The baseline data that I made reference to in my opening comments was all developed through the Canadian community health survey, which is done by Stats Canada and is used by every province. So it's deemed to be highly relevant and appropriate and as accurate I guess as statistics can be, ignoring the comments of Bernard Shaw with respect to statistics.

So that is the baseline data. As we develop the baseline data, we are going to measure through the same survey. They're being done in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. It'll be every year. These will be coming out of Stats Canada, and we'll be able to compare the data from the baseline data we have to develop those. It'll be compared from the same survey process. We're not changing the methodology in terms of doing that. It's consistent.

We've also engaged a number of experts in the field for a one-day session at Royal Roads University to look at what methodologies make the most sense in terms of doing it. They're coming back with a report so that we'll be able to make sure we can cross-reference that.

The reason for that is that the survey data goes across the whole province, yet a number of the programs that we're referencing — as the member has just made reference to around the fruits and vegetables program — are targeted groups, so they're focusing on children. They're not usually captured in a phone polling or in a survey model. So we also need to look at ways that we can focus more specifically on some of the initiatives that happen there.

Last week I also met with some of the University of Victoria people who are doing some of the mapping provincewide in terms of looking at different variables and the impact that has. That will teach us that in some parts of the province, we're much more successful in some of these initiatives than in others. What can we learn from that?

So those three strategies are being employed to do that. One of the things, for example, that we've learned is that obesity — overweight — is more prevalent in the rural parts of British Columbia than in the urban parts, which for me was a bit counterintuitive. But certainly the research tells us that.

There are things that some parts of the province are doing really well, and we need to be able to ensure that that information goes to other parts of the province. We can learn from each other to ensure that we're able to have the best successes possible.

Those three strategies will be employed to look at how successful we're being, and we'll be able to measure those. Those will be available in the next go-round — I guess in '08, this time next year — in terms of being able to do that. Those statistics come out from Stats Canada, so they're very public. People can look at them and compare where we are to where we're going.

N. Macdonald: As I say, we really don't have nearly enough time with this. I know that it's a ministry that is just beginning. As I've said before, it's something that I think is the correct approach in terms of trying to make this direction one that is pervasive in government and in fact in other levels of government as well.

I can tell you from my view in rural life that it's not surprising that obesity is an issue. We have kids that are on school buses for far too long. So when we talk about the funding for small rural schools and the fact that the funding formula has changed over the years, and therefore these schools are closed down, it does mean we have very young kids on school buses for 50 minutes. That's an issue.

It means that they're being fed there at the school. You need a program that's really going to make sure that at the school, they're eating the proper things. I know that's something the minister understands and that he would work towards.

This is something that's just beginning. I think the approach of going throughout government and within each ministry making sure that they have this sort of a mindset…. If you're talking about transportation, the roads that are being built should allow safe travel for bicyclists. That's something that in the past I've seen wasn't necessarily there.

I'll give you just one quick example. There was a resurfacing — and this goes back several years — of a road that had supported the golden triangle. You had a very well-established bicycling route. In resurfacing they used a resurfacing that made it a much rougher and much more difficult ride. When that was raised with the ministry, they said: "Well, our focus is cars, so that's coincidental to what we're actually doing." Whereas a much more reasonable approach would be to take both into consideration and make sure that you could accomplish that.

The approach is correct. Of course, the challenge will be for government to make sure that there are more than just words. I know the minister of state recognizes that that's the area we'll be looking at next year to see that the resources are put there, that the correct words are followed up with the correct actions.

I realize we're under a tremendous constraint of time. I'd like to give the minister of state an opportunity to wrap up, and then we'll move back to the….

The Chair: Members, would you please direct all your questions through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: I'll just allow my colleague to ask quickly, and then I'll give the opportunity for the minister of state to wrap up.

N. Simons: My question for the minister is about a program that I believe he's familiar with, which I think works very well into the ActNow philosophy. I know

that ministry staff actually went and visited on the Sunshine Coast to pursue this more. That's the Sprockids program, and the mountain biking and incorporating it into the school curriculum. There are many aspects of that program. Everything from nutrition to anti-bullying to math and physical exercise is a part of the Sprockids program.

It's created by a teacher in Gibsons. I've been familiar with it since its inception when I was a social worker involved in that particular school. It's grown to be an international program, and it's recognized by the Canadian Cycling Association.

It does provide an opportunity for the working group that's ensuring there are ActNow components to various ministerial policies. It's probably something to look at, and I just want to encourage the minister and his staff perhaps to have another look at that program and see how it could actually work in the entire province. There are places ready to pilot it. It's showing remarkable success, and it certainly builds school cohesion.

Hon. G. Hogg: I thank the member for the comment, and I had an opportunity to meet with him with respect to the Sprockids. I think one of the things that is particularly valuable about that program is that it is a holistic program. It's not just a physical activity program, but the physical activity provides inroads to deal with a number of other issues that come forward — whether it be psychological or emotional.

Certainly, the Shapedown program that we're working with, with Vancouver General Hospital — working with obese adolescents and the successes it's having, based on a California model — is because it does take a much more holistic approach to dealing with the whole person.

Too often as we focus programs around specific things, we don't understand the full implications of those types of programs and looking at the social, the psychological, the physical, the emotional and the spiritual part of a human. We do it, then, as people when we do that.

Sprockids certainly has done that. I know that the assistant deputy minister, John Mills, was familiar with the program from his days with Sport B.C. and has spoken quite highly about the program and has agreed to look again at that.

Part of what we're doing in ActNow B.C. is that we haven't been focusing as much on the programmatic side. We're trying to create the culture and the environment and have the programs delivered in many ways through the Healthy Living Alliance, which was given a grant of over $26 million to look at the program sides — again, trying to empower the non-profit societies to be able to come into and be a part of it, entering into partnerships.

At this stage a lot of the programmatic side things are coming through them rather than through this portion of it. As I say, John is prepared to look at that again and feels quite strongly about that type of programming.

Your references with respect to understanding the challenges of rural life and what happens with respect to overweight and obesity, I think, are as you describe it. In my visits to the north, certainly I thought it was going to be idyllic. Out there travelling, it's long trips on buses. There are cold times. You start your truck or your car from in the house, and you run to your car and travel and go through the drive-in and all of those things. All of those are things that start to contribute to some of the challenges that we have.

Your reference to that and your reference to the healthy living in schools are really important, because I think the research is showing that of the adults who are overweight or obese, 80 percent were overweight as adolescents. The early lessons perhaps weren't learned, as we try and make those transitions.

It's about information. It's about ensuring that the information is there, that people know what's happening. I know there are a number of things we can do that will start to change that.

It seems that societally, when we make changes, we do them so incrementally. We look at what the next little thing is that we should do. Should we be dealing with the issue of trans fats and those? We take different things with smoking and sort of pull out a little bit incrementally and move along.

I think we have to start looking a little more boldly and bravely. If we could make things much better, where should we be 20 years from now? What would that look like? What are the changes that we need to do? Maybe move more boldly in terms of that. We're certainly leading the world in a lot of ways.

The things we're doing with the vending machines. The junk food in the vending machines in government buildings has caused quite an uproar. I know that from personal experience, with people coming from Atlanta, Georgia, telling us: "You're the first place ever to do this. There's a big challenge with it, and we're concerned about that." Maybe we're doing some things right around some of those initiatives.

I think, again, that it's about how bold we can be and if we're really committed to being the healthiest jurisdiction. It's not just about being the healthiest jurisdiction for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It's about how we can ensure that the people of British Columbia know what the issues are and that we're giving them some opportunities, some programs, some choices to actually be healthier, be more responsible for themselves.

Individually, we have to be responsible for ourselves, for our families, but we have to have initiatives within the communities and programs that they can link to. I'm looking forward to the challenges that exist over the course of the next year to do that.

I appreciate the member's understanding of the concept, support for the concept, and expect to be held accountable for how well we can deliver in a programmatic sense and in a conceptual sense the

initiatives around that. I think they're probably as important, if not more important, as any other initiatives that are going on in this province as we look forward to the future of the next generation and the future of our seniors today, who we know can have quality of life to the end of life with the information we have. We have to create the options so that they can make those choices and so that those choices could become the easier choices, knowing that every move is a good move.

I thank the member, and I look forward to being held accountable for the things that we've talked about today. With that, I turn it back to the man who was over in the corner laughing through all of this, the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

N. Macdonald: I'll take the opportunity to thank staff and the minister and the Minister of State for ActNow for the answers to the questions. The minister's staff and I will put together a list of the documents that over the last day and a half or two days the minister, on behalf of his staff, is going to put together for us. I look forward to receiving them and continuing debate over the year on a host of issues, and I look forward to doing this again next year. With that, I turn it over to the minister to wrap up.

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to thank the member for his questions throughout the estimates debate and for his colleagues' questions. I want to use a couple of minutes to say thank you to the staff. I have a wonderful staff. I think this is my tenth ministry, and the staff in this ministry certainly ranks among the top. You know, whether they're working on arts and culture or sports or recreation or tourism, the staff work tirelessly to make sure that programs are delivered and that British Columbia remains the best place on earth.

It's great to work with the Minister of State for ActNow, who I think has certainly brought this activity to a new level. I had a meeting the other day with some school sports people, provincial sports people. I said: "Do the kids in the schools know about ActNow?" And they said: "You bet they do." That's good to hear.

The folks in the ministry that I've recognized make my job very easy. They do all the work, and I take the credit. It's a pleasure to be the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, and I look forward to spending some more time in the ministry.

The Chair: Now we'll recess for a few minutes, and then we'll proceed when the Attorney General is here.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to introduce the staff who are assisting me here today. They include Allan Seckel, the Deputy Attorney General; Deborah Fayad, the Assistant Deputy Minister and senior financial officer; Bob Gillen, Assistant Deputy Minister; Jerry McHale, Assistant Deputy Minister; Tom Jensen, Assistant Deputy Minister; Rob Lapper; Jay Chalke; Darrion Campbell; Helen Pedneault; Carol Anne Rolf; and Doug Hyndman. Staff will be assisting me from time to time, and I want to thank them at the outset for their assistance and thank them for their preparation for me here today.

It is my honour as the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism to begin the debate on the ministry budget for the fiscal year 2007-2008. The overall budget for the ministry for the fiscal year 2007-08 is $519.775 million.

Our ministry is responsible, of course, for delivering an effective, accountable justice system that ensures that our public affairs are administered according to law, that we operate under the rule of law, that we proactively reform the law in order to keep it current so that the law would be responsive to the ever-changing needs of our province. As well, it's our objective to provide an effective, accessible justice system that shields the rights and freedoms of all people in this province. Our system is among the best in the world, and British Columbians ought to be proud of it.

You know, we are held to be the model throughout the world. Many groups send their professional people here in order to be trained. We ought to be proud of the fact that we have an accountable, open, transparent justice system.

I'm equally proud of my other role as the Minister for Multiculturalism. Our economic and social fabric is enriched in this province by virtue of the fact that over 40,000 people per year come to British Columbia. We are second in Canada in terms of the numbers of people who immigrate to British Columbia. Only Ontario exceeds British Columbia.

The drive, enthusiasm and the efforts that the immigrants bring to British Columbia are something that we need and that we're proud of. Our province needs to be enriched by the impact and the contributions made by immigrants who come here. A key objective of the ministry is really to welcome new immigrants, to accelerate their settlement here and to assist them in achieving their social and economic potential. It is through multiculturalism and immigrant settlement programs that the government is striving to assist immigrants to pursue further education and skilled jobs so that they can be assisted in becoming useful citizens who contribute to our social fabric.

Our anti-racism initiatives help to create communities that are welcoming of newcomers by addressing

them about the attitudes and perceptions that lead to racism. One of the unfortunate by-products of multiculturalism, which is a principle that we embrace and promote, is that we have amongst us elements that promote racism. We are responsive to that problem, we have addressed that problem, and we will continue to do so.

In the area of justice services we are committed to the transformation of the civil and criminal justice systems so that they keep pace with the evolving and the changing needs of British Columbians. We are in the process now of transforming our civil and criminal justice systems.

A moment ago I said that our system, by all accounts, is one of the finest in the world. It's accountable and transparent, and we are the envy in many ways. However, in recent times, events have overtaken us in some particular areas. In the case of civil litigation, for instance, the public finds that our system is rule-bound, cumbersome, expensive and at times inaccessible. Similarly, in the criminal justice system our trials are becoming more and more lengthy. When those factors continue as they are continuing and have been in the past while, they invariably lead to a deterioration of public confidence in the system.

The government will focus its justice initiatives on seeking solutions first and resolving problems through other disciplines such as counselling and resolution services. In other words, what we want to do is have a system that solves problems. We want to have a system that resolves issues. It's a system that's based on solutions rather than on procedural rules.

Where a trial does proceed to court, we will attempt to simplify the trial process by ensuring quicker justice. One of the issues we must deal with is delays within the system. We are working towards establishing a community court pilot project later this year in the city of Vancouver. The Vancouver downtown community court project is innovative. It's creative. It's the first of its kind in Canada. It will hold offenders — many of whom have substance use, addictions or mental health problems — accountable for their actions in a timely and meaningful way.

The bane of the downtown existence in Vancouver now is street crime. We know from our numbers and our knowledge of the environment in the city of Vancouver, for instance, that most of the crime, well over 80 percent of the crime, is property crime.

We know that it's being committed by less than 10 percent of the people. Those 10 percent of the people who are committing those crimes are invariably addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffering from mental illness, or they're homeless.

What we're doing…. We have now proposed a strategy, through the establishment of a community court, that will seek proactive solutions as opposed to reactive solutions to our street crime problem. We want to work with other ministries, and we are working with other ministries. For instance, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the corrections authorities, the police, the prosecutors and the lawyers will all work together in order to ensure that the system operates effectively and that we have a viable community court that will deal with solutions and will deal effectively with the root causes of crime.

We have made significant improvements to courthouse services such as court administration, registry and trial support. The ministry also has enhanced courthouse security, which is vital, particularly for major trials and for family court matters. The ministry is a key partner in British Columbia's Justice Review Task Force. The task force was formulated, was established to identify reform initiatives for a more responsive, accessible and cost-effective justice system.

Their most recent work, in November 2006, was a Civil Justice Reform Working Group report. It was entitled Effective and Affordable Civil Justice, and it provides a framework for the transformation of the system that I made reference to a moment ago. The report proposes two broad strategies. The first is to provide early front-end integrated information and services. Second, that means championing a single, highly accessible point of entry — a place where people can get information, orientation, preliminary advice and direction.

We want to assist people at the front end of the system so they can get the necessary information. This information hub will support people who want to resolve their legal problems without being involved in an acrimonious, costly court system. It will help the public to navigate their way through the legal issues, which have become ever so complex and ever so costly.

The justice information hubs, as we call them, would also provide referral to the services they need to solve legal problems on their own. The Nanaimo Family Justice Services Centre pilot project is an example of this approach. The centre, established through the collaborative efforts of the Ministry of Attorney General and the Legal Services Society, assists separating or divorcing couples and other family members. The hub provides information, assessment, advice, mediation and referrals to help them make the best decisions for their families.

The second broad strategy in the report is a streamlined, accessible, efficient court system where matters can be settled and are settled quickly and affordably. Matters that need a trial go to trial quickly and in a more affordable manner. In that particular vein, we are in the process of streamlining some of our procedural rules, which we think are in need of reform.

The report's recommendations are based on four key and fundamental principles. The preservation of and respect for the rule of law will remain the foundation of our judicial system. Proportionality, to ensure that the process is proportional to the value, complexity and the significance of the issue that seeks to be resolved; flexibility and the matching process to the dispute and needs of the parties; and a more active judicial involvement in case management are absolutely fundamental.

Based on the findings of the task force and its recommendations, we are moving forward aggressively with a number of pilot projects that will help

British Columbians deal with their legal problems in more effective, cost-saving ways. Government is rewriting the Rules of Court for the B.C. Supreme Court. By streamlining the rules, we hope that judges can work more effectively and more actively with lawyers and clients in order to resolve legal cases as quickly as possible.

Rewriting the rules would allow us to include as an explicit, overriding objective that all proceedings are dealt with justly and pursuant to the principles of proportionality. We expect to have a concept draft by the end of June with the civil rules in place by 2009 to 2010. It is our objective to solve issues that develop between parties in a cost-effective way. We see this particularly in family cases, where the conventional acrimonious trials result not only in delay but are counterproductive and not in the best interests of our population.

In applying the new rules, the court will consider each case in terms of its complexity, the number of parties involved, the nature of the legal issues, the monetary value of the case and the importance with respect to the public interest that's involved. Some examples of the proposed new rules will include eliminating interrogatories and limiting oral discovery. Now examinations for discovery, in many cases, will go on for days, and that's prohibitively expensive to those people who are involved in the civil justice system.

We also want to, where possible, limit production of court documents and set limits on the number of experts who testify in court. We are, as well, exploring a pilot project to test highly expedited procedures for small claims cases with monetary values of less than $5,000. Approximately a year ago we increased the jurisdiction of the small claims court to $25,000. We are now moving forward from that to see if we can expedite procedures so as to resolve issues that exist between parties. The pilot will provide a simple, fast process for resolving the disputes.

Another major recommendation in the report is that government require case planning conferences. We want the lawyers to be prepared, and we want the litigants, where they are unrepresented, to be prepared. This would require all parties to attend in person for the purpose of allowing for discussion and direction to promote early dispute resolution. Case conferences help streamline the delivery of just resolutions. Consultation on the report is continuing. We will continue to work with the bar and with the judiciary in streamlining the processes.

Finally, a family rules working group, which includes representatives from my ministry, the provincial and supreme courts and the private bar, is also rewriting the rules for family law cases, which are often the most difficult cases to resolve in our civil courts.

Budget 2007 will further the transformation of this province's civil, family and criminal justice services. It will begin to address the cost delays and the complexities that British Columbians experience every day so they can become more confident that the justice system is available when or if they need it. We'll also enhance courthouse services, administration and security so that those who work in the system are fully supported.

On the multiculturalism and immigration side we will partner with a number of other ministries, including Economic Development, Advanced Education, and Education to make British Columbia the destination of choice for newcomers to Canada and to help immigrants to settle and adapt to their new home in this province.

These priorities are investments in early solutions and faster justice in a society where cultural diversity is a valued part of our heritage and our communities.

L. Krog: I want to thank the Attorney General for his modest attempt at being a little briefer this year than his opening remarks last year. That was much appreciated, given the limited time we have left in this session.

My first question is: has there been any reduction in spending for any program area? And if so, what's the rationale for the cut?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can say that there have been no reductions in budget. There have been no cuts except where the issues involving the children's representative have gone to another ministry.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, then, that's the only area of responsibility that's been moved out of the Attorney General's ministry in the last year?

L. Krog: Have any performance measures from the service plan been dropped or added? If so, which ones and why?

L. Krog: Is there some reason there's been no change in any performance measures? Given the experience, one would have thought the performance measures might have changed over time.

Hon. W. Oppal: Considerable changes took place two years ago, and it was thought, in light of that fact, that no further assessments were necessary at this time.

L. Krog: I realize this may be a difficult question for the Attorney General. The government has made much around the issue of climate change. Is there anything within the ministry that's been changed in pursuit of that great goal, in terms of either reduction of electricity usage or a greening-up of the ministry, if you will?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are embarking on a number of different issues now. We're re-examining the climate change issues. However, to answer your question more directly, we've achieved reduction by increasing video conferencing for appearances in court. We've reduced the number of people who are required to be transported to a courtroom in order to make personal

We continue to make those changes. Where possible, we're having witnesses testify by video conferencing. That happens more often in civil cases. Where that is done, then we have an inherent reduction in other costs such as transportation and such forth.

L. Krog: How much was the public sector pay increase budget in this ministry this year?

Hon. W. Oppal: The increase was $5.374 million, but that doesn't include the settlement for Crown counsel. Those figures are not available at this time.

M. Karagianis: If you would just indulge me in asking a few questions. I know they are slightly out of sync with the questions that the member has been asking, but he has indulged me in my schedule today.

I would like to ask a couple of questions on Woodlands, if I may. Does that require you to bring in additional staff?

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask if perhaps the minister could elaborate on the current status of the Woodlands case.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think it's safe to say that it's in flux right now. Settlement discussions were taking place between counsel who are acting for the claimants and the government.

To back up a bit, a class action was certified. Then there was a dispute amongst the claimants and the lawyers as to who should be the lawyer acting for the claimants.

There was a hearing scheduled for February 27 of this year, and that got adjourned. My recollection is it's set for sometime in May.

Hon. W. Oppal: Sorry. I stand corrected. It's now adjourned to June 7. We expect we will achieve more clarity at that time when the lawyers who are acting for government will know who they can settle the case with, if it's possible to be settled.

That's where it is. It's a confusing situation now regrettably, because we've always said that we would like to settle the case. It's always in the best interests of everybody to settle it as opposed to having the matter proceed to trial. There have been a number of procedural difficulties that have taken place. That's where we are now.

M. Karagianis: I take it from the minister's comments that in fact the government at this point is looking to perhaps create a settlement out of this next contact with the Woodlands legal representation rather than go through a protracted court case, certainly knowing the fragile nature of the members involved.

Just to clarify: is it within the realms of conceivability that there is a settlement that does not drag these individuals through any kind of public hearing or testimony?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's always our intention to settle a case. We want to settle it fairly for both sides. We don't really know who the representative on the other side is, but our lawyers are there to settle the case.

As I said a moment ago, it's preferable to settle these cases as opposed to having the matter proceed to trial. I emphasize that whatever settlement takes place must be one that's fair not only to the claimants, but also to the government. So that's where we are.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate the minister's words. I would certainly hope there is some view to actually continuing to negotiate some kind of discussions for settling it out of the court setting entirely.

In fact, it continues to create great pressures on these individuals, some of whom have extremely fragile lives and some of whom are really not in a position to be able to weather the procedure of any kind of court setting or court discussion.

I would again encourage the government to move to aggressively to try and find a way to keep this from causing discomfort to these individuals.

I would like to ask the minister whether or not he knows how many of these individuals from Woodlands are currently under guardianship of the trustee and if that is part of his responsibility.

Hon. W. Oppal: The first part of your question I can answer by resorting to what I said during the course of my opening, which is that we want to settle cases. We want to settle all the cases. We think the most effective system of civil justice is one that offers solutions in an expedited cost-saving manner. For those reasons, we would like to settle the cases.

The second part of the question is a little more difficult, because there have been a number of people who have been dropping in and out of the action. There are lawyers involved who have some disputes going on between them. I think there is a third lawyer involved now. We're also told that some of them may have died. So it's really unclear as to how many plaintiffs or claimants are left.

M. Karagianis: I did ask if any were under guardianship of the trustee. In fact, I would broaden that to say: do you know how many of those individuals are currently receiving support or some kind of care under Community Living B.C. or under the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm unable to give a concise answer to those questions, regrettably.

M. Karagianis: Is the minister able to find out that information for me — those members of the

Woodlands group that are under the care of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, under the care of Community Living or in the guardianship of the trustee?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would like to say yes, but I can't. The reason for that is that it's difficult for the government in an adversarial process to find out exactly who is on the other side, particularly in light of the confusing situation and circumstances surrounding legal representation.

Once the case passes that initial hurdle, where we know who we're dealing with, we'll be in a better position to know how many claimants there are. But at this stage, apparently, some are unrepresented, and then there are a couple of lawyers involved at least. So we're sitting here prepared to go and settle the case, but so far the proverbial ball is in the other court.

M. Karagianis: Just one final question, then. Is there any way for me to establish how many of the Woodlands survivors are currently, in one form or another, known to the government, under protection of the government, receiving funding from the government or in some way being under the guardianship of the government?

Hon. W. Oppal: I could say that I could put you in touch with the lawyers that are involved, but that may not be a complete answer. When you have class proceedings, people move in and out of classes. Sometimes lawyers who undertake a cause of action where there is a class proceeding don't know who all their clients are, and sometimes it keeps building.

We could put you in touch with some of the lawyers. That may assist you, but I would have my doubts. That's the best I can do.

M. Karagianis: Sorry. I do have one final question, then. The government has been involved in this case for some time now. It's a case that has been fairly public and that has certainly been an embarrassment to us all as a province for what happened at Woodlands.

It would seem to me that government would have a better feel for how many of those individuals are currently under the protection and care of the government in some form or another. In fact, if we are engaged in a class action lawsuit or discussions, or even in the potential negotiation of a settlement, we would have a clearer idea of how many of those individuals are currently under the care and protection of government and that government already has responsibility for and to.

I'm quite concerned that we're so vague about these survivors. This is a group that is publicly very well known and very highly identifiable. I'm actually surprised that the minister can't assure me that we know who is being cared for under the guardianship of the trustee.

Whose responsibility is that? Who do I ask, if not the Attorney General? Who is caring for and watching out for these individuals? Who may already have responsibility for these individuals? Why would we be so, I guess, devoid at this point of a respectful engagement with these individuals?

I want the information. I think that it's right for that information to be made available, and I will ask every single minister involved with this. I will ask in the estimates for Children and Families if any of these individuals are known to the government on their behalf. But I would expect that in this particular case that this minister would have more of an understanding of who these individuals are and what responsibility government currently extends to them, in addition to what the future holds for them.

Hon. W. Oppal: With respect, I must disagree with the member. The list is not easily identifiable. We're not withholding any information, but it's impossible for a defendant in a class action to know the identities of all of those people who are claimants because we don't know who is in that class and who isn't.

Theoretically, I suppose, we could go back and find out all the people who were residents in Woodlands from whatever it was — 1880 — to the present time. But that wouldn't help us find out who or what number have become claimants. It's impossible for us to do it with the legal parameters the way they are.

In time we might be able to do it. In time I would expect that if the case gets back on its rails, and we expect it should soon, then we'd be in a better position to know how many claimants there are. But so far it's impossible for us in our set of circumstances to know who is claiming against us and who isn't. Suffice it to say that we want to deal with the case fairly.

We want to settle the case fairly, and we await the other side's move. We're waiting, and our lawyers have been waiting, in order to settle the case. I would like to answer the question in a more precise manner, but it's impossible the way the law is and the way the parameters of class actions are.

M. Karagianis: I would then gather from all of the comments that the minister has made that the government is no longer denying that there is a case by the Woodlands survivors.

Hon. W. Oppal: I said nothing of the sort. I'm not going to comment on this case at this stage with respect to whether there is liability or not liability or damages. Those are things for the lawyers to iron out in court. As a matter of fact, I'm not even privy to all of the evidence that's involved in this case. It would be totally improper for me to make a comment here on who is at fault and who isn't at fault or any of that at this stage.

R. Chouhan: Last year when we had these debates, I asked the question to the Attorney General about the Human Rights Commission, my favourite topic and his. I was advised at that time that when the Human Rights Commission was dissolved, there was no impact on the human rights cases, as the tribunal was

functioning as it was supposed to be. Therefore, no cases were delayed or anything of that sort.

A few minutes ago I had a conversation with Dr. Bajwa and Dr. Bhullar, the veterinarians. I'm sure the Attorney General is well aware of their situation. They have now advised me that their hearing has been again postponed. They were supposed to go in front of the tribunal last year — twice postponed. It's now scheduled for June.

They don't know if it would again be carried through in the month of June or not. They are telling me, and I would like to know, that the reason they were told to postpone it is because the Human Rights Tribunal doesn't have the capacity and they don't have the lawyers, the legal staff to continue with their case.

My question is: can the Attorney General tell us why that delay happened again? Would they be able to continue with their hearing that is scheduled in June this time?

Hon. W. Oppal: The veterinarians' case is one that I'm really not permitted to comment on because it is before the tribunal. We understand that the tribunal can hear the case, subject to the availability of counsel.

The Human Rights Tribunal is an independent body, an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, and it would not be proper for government to direct the tribunal to hear a particular case.

I can say that the Human Rights Tribunal has been a significant success. The reason I say that is that there is no wait-list for hearing complaints. Most of their decisions are resolved within six to seven months. It's a direct-access model. It appears to be well received, and it seems to be doing an efficient direct-access job.

R. Chouhan: Obviously, it's not working. They first were supposed to go in front of the tribunal in 2004, according to one information.

It's a clear issue that with the resources the tribunal has, they cannot provide on-time hearings for these kinds of cases.

If the Attorney General cannot interfere in the proceedings heard in the tribunal, what about launching an inquiry about the conduct of the professional organization of these veterinarians to get to the bottom of the issue? They are clearly facing discrimination. It has been established many times over. Is there any possibility that the Attorney General can check into this matter and get to the bottom of the issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: Unfortunately, because the case is in litigation — it's before the Supreme Court — there's nothing we can do in order to interfere with the progress of the case. We would not order an inquiry based on our knowledge of what has happened so far. While the member alleges that there's been discrimination, this I would think would be the issue that would be before the Human Rights Tribunal. I'm not really afforded the luxury of coming to that conclusion, and it would be improper for me to make that comment in any event.

The tribunal is independent. As I understand it, there's some litigation, and it has to take its course. Inquiries are not held where there is litigation going on, and there are many reasons for that.

R. Chouhan: Somehow I'm not surprised with that answer. I expected to get that answer. It's kind of a trend of this government not to do anything.

My other question is about settlement services and the money that we are receiving from the federal government. Last year I believe it was $1,074 per landing. Could the Attorney General please advise us how much money we are receiving now from the federal government and how much of that money is used for settlement services?

Hon. W. Oppal: We get approximately 40,000 or thereabouts immigrants per year. The federal government used to pay British Columbia $1,009 per immigrant. The province of Quebec would get $3,400 per immigrant. We negotiated a deal with the federal government, and it's the best agreement that's ever been negotiated by this province. I can tell that you the Minister of Economic Development, the Premier and I negotiated that deal, where our funding now parallels that of Ontario and is fairly close to Quebec.

Last year we received $40 million from the federal government for settlement services. This year, in '06-07, it will be $63.3 million, so it's up $23.3 million. For '07-08 that figure will be $75.4 million.

This is the best agreement that this province has ever had, and we negotiated that, because we're getting over 40,000 people per year coming in here as immigrants. That comes to around $2,100 per immigrant. So we're very optimistic about where we're going.

I should say one more thing. The agreement was announced in the middle of November 2006, but it was only recently that we received the money. In January the figure was confirmed, and I think we got the cheque sometime later after that. We're just in the process of getting all of that money now. We're very optimistic as to what we can do with that money and how it can assist the immigrants who are here.

R. Chouhan: Last question. How much of that money is directly spent on settlement services? In the past we used 47 percent of that money on some other…. It was put into general revenue accounts. Could you please enlighten us and tell us how much money would be used on settlement services?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, $17.1 million will go to the Ministry of Advanced Education for adult ESL. The remaining money will go into the Attorney General's ministry for settlement services. So all of it will be used.

N. Simons: Just to follow up on that: are there any other ministries receiving money that is designated for settlement services, besides Advanced Education and Attorney General?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Ministry of Economic Development, with whom we work — particularly for various programs that people who come here need, to be trained. Their English language skills may not be sufficient in order to become marketable. So we work with Economic Development as well.

N. Simons: Does any of the federal funding go towards Children and Families or MEIA?

N. Simons: Can the Attorney General remind me what that 17 percent is equivalent to in actual dollars?

N. Simons: Just for clarification: $2.7 million for advanced language training in the Ministry of Economic Development. Can the Attorney General describe how that's dispersed within that ministry?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can't answer that except to say that it's a part of the B.C. Skills Connect program. I'm not really in a position to say what they are doing in the other ministry on that. That's a question that perhaps ought to be asked of the Minister of Economic Development.

N. Simons: I figured that since it was money earmarked for the responsibility of the Attorney General, that maybe the Attorney General would be able to say what he was giving it to them for.

I know that it wasn't just because they asked nicely. I know they're mostly friendly people in that ministry, and they might have used their guile and persuasion to just get a little extra money for that, which is fine. That could be the explanation. I'd be happy to hear it.

I'm wondering: in terms of people settling in the province, what extra language skills or financial resources go to the public school system for that assistance in helping immigrant families in their adjustment to Canada?

Hon. W. Oppal: To go back to the previous question of the member, the money goes to enhanced language training. It's used for that purpose by the Ministry of Economic Development. As far as public school education is concerned, they have their own programs, and this money is not designated for the Ministry of Education.

N. Simons: The service plan for 2007-2008 indicates that there is one particular goal for the multiculturalism and immigration branch, and that is to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent and to create the most jobs. I'm noticing that the performance measure used by this ministry for assessing as to whether or not immigrants are adapting and settling into British Columbia is whether or not they report their ability to use English is better.

Can the minister enlighten the House as to whether or not he feels this is an appropriate measure of the immigrants' abilities to adapt to British Columbia communities? If it's not just that performance measure, maybe the minister can let us know if there are others.

Hon. W. Oppal: The rationale for it is that the ability to speak, read and write the language assists in settlement of new immigrants who make British Columbia their destination. As well, the money is there to assist them in accessing amenities.

One has to appreciate that we have immigrants who come here and don't know about our services, don't know about employment income, don't know about places where they can seek employment. Some of them don't know about transportation or schools. Money is used to assist them in making the transformation and making the adjustment to residency here.

N. Simons: If we're measuring how successful people feel after they go through a language-training program, maybe we need to assess the appropriateness of the language-training programs. Perhaps that should be another measure that the government's considering.

Can the Attorney General let us know how many people are waiting for settlement services, including ESL training? What are the waits like for immigrants coming to British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are now rolling out the money. Our objective is to have a wait-list of no longer than two weeks. We're doing that now, and hopefully that will continue. We're playing catch-up in some ways, because we just got the money. That's where we are.

N. Simons: So to bring the wait-list from its current average wait time of months or weeks to two weeks is the goal. I actually think that the wait-list should be down to one week. I would recommend that the minister consider making it a one-week wait.

I'm asking more specifically about what the wait is now. Should that maybe be a performance measure, if in fact the goal is to bring the wait time for immigrants to access language training from whatever it is now — and we don't know, apparently — to two weeks? Two weeks sounds like an appropriate waiting time to get babysitters in order, which brings me to another question that I'll follow up later.

Hon. W. Oppal: The wait-list varies throughout the province, depending on where you are. It can be as

long as six weeks. In other places it is one week. Obviously our objective is to minimize wait-lists, because we know there is a need there.

It doesn't do us any good to have lengthy wait-lists. Our job is to assist immigrants who come here so that they can become viable and productive citizens.

N. Simons: I believe it is in all our interests to bring wait-lists down and to promote settlement and inclusion and cohesiveness as quickly as possible, which is partly why I think that the focus should probably be on these settlement services in a way that maybe the minister is about to enlighten me as to how they may roll out.

We know that the greater the degree of inclusion a person or their family feels in society, the less likely they'll engage in acts that are what we consider antisocial. That goes for every group in society, whether they be parts of hate groups or join criminal gangs, or what have you. Many of those problems that arise in communities can be identified early and at quite a young age. We can anticipate that children who don't feel they can learn in kindergarten or don't feel they are part of their school or community won't feel as attached to their community, and they'll be less likely to adhere to the rules set out by society.

I would recommend, if it's possible to do in this process, that attention be paid to the young children of immigrants and refugees who are not in advanced education and who are not going to benefit from the Ministry of Economic Development's funding but who will actually get the benefits of those settlement services when they are young and in school or child care or day care.

I'm wondering if there is any funding for immigrant settlement services that is targeted towards people under the age of 19.

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue raised is a good one. In fact, we have what's called a youth buddy system. That has been in place for some time, where the ministry puts people in touch with other youth — just as the term implies, a youth buddy system. We are now in the process of doing something similar for young kids who may fall off the wagon. We are concerned about the issues that have been raised by the member. We want to expand the services into other areas.

N. Simons: The Attorney General will likely have an opportunity to expand on that a little bit. The question I have has to do with specific needs of communities that I think the Attorney General will recognize as having probably a more significant impact on a family's ability to settle in than, in fact, maybe even language, and that is safe and secure housing.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General has had any specific involvement in the development of plans for housing or plans for people who are who are settling in Canada and whether or not he sees that as part of the role of settlement services in ensuring that there is adequate housing for immigrants.

Hon. W. Oppal: The federal funding that we receive is not for housing. Having said that, we are working with housing to see if we can assist the adjustment period in other ways. We have, as I said at the outset, $63 million, and we want to ensure that that's productively spent. If we can assist the adjustment process in other ways, we'll do that. We have to be careful, because the conditions on which we receive federal funding don't mean that we can use that money for housing.

N. Simons: I would perhaps suggest that the funding for settlement services be earmarked specifically for services described as assisting families settling in the province.

There are obviously other interactions between immigrant and refugee families and the government of British Columbia, such as perhaps the school system, child and family services, income assistance, the criminal justice system, tenants' rights organizations. In a number of these areas accessing information from government services is difficult for the average person, let alone somebody whose skills may be hampered by it not being their first language.

I'm wondering if it's possible that the Attorney General's budget for settlement services be considered for use in some of the ministries specifically to assist, I would say, vulnerable families in their settlement in Canada. In other words, would the minister consider extra programming in schools where there is a high number of children who have immigrated? Or in the ministry is there anywhere a family can access services that might be more culturally or linguistically specific? How in fact does the Ministry of Attorney General allocate funding to programming throughout the government's purview?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are actually working with all the social ministries to see how we can best serve the immigrant community. We need to do more of that, so we're working in a cross-ministerial way so that if there is something that may properly be in another ministry and if we can use those funds within the mandate, we will.

Our objective at the end of the day is to assist in settlement of immigrants, because it's in our best interest to do that. We need more immigrants. We have an economy that needs more people. So we want to do the best we can in order to assist them in their adjustment.

N. Simons: The assisting of immigrants is obviously important. There are obviously different stages when a person arrives as well.

I will turn our attention to qualified professionals when they emigrate and the need to support those who have credentials to work in the area of their chosen profession in Canada. It's a perennial question about how we are going to assist those who have credentials from institutions not recognized here by the association that makes that determination. What will the Ministry

of Attorney General be doing with respect to speeding up the process and promoting the best use of the skills that the immigrant community has brought to British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of foreign credentials is an interesting and topical one. Rarely a week goes by when we don't read something about it in the media. That's an issue that's more properly in the Ministry of Economic Development, and they are working very aggressively in order to ensure that foreign credentials are recognized where possible.

We don't directly get involved in foreign credentials. However, having said that, where the credential process will be assisted by enhanced English-language training for adults, then that becomes an issue for the Attorney General's ministry. We are involved there.

It's a very complex issue — the whole issue of foreign credentials, self-regulating professions, standards and all of those issues that get battered around. I can tell you that the government is very much concerned about that. We discuss those issues.

We know how important it is to fully utilize our resources. We know that from time to time problems arise with various professions. It's something of major concern, because the last thing we need to do is bring people here who are qualified and then have them rejected by standards that may not be entirely fair.

I was going to say it's the short answer, but it's not a short answer anymore. The long answer is that it's really an issue that the Ministry of Economic Development is dealing with, and it's an important issue for the government.

N. Simons: If I may turn to the refugee situation and the number of refugees coming to British Columbia, I believe a third of refugees in Canada are arriving in this province. I wonder what the agreement is between the federal government and the provincial government with respect to the settlement and promotion of the quality of life of refugees when they arrive in Canada.

Hon. W. Oppal: The federal government is responsible initially for refugees who come here. In fact, they provide income assistance for the first year.

Thereafter, the province provides language and settlement training for them. They're treated like any other immigrant after that. Initially it's a federal issue and the federal government is financially responsible, but it then becomes an endeavour for the province after that.

N. Simons: For the first year when they're the financial responsibility of the federal government, I think that probably covers their shelter costs, perhaps. When it comes to actual language services and language training programs, employment training programs and other forms of settlement services, is the minister saying that in fact there is no funding for those services from a provincial ministry until they have been here for a year?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sorry if I misled you in my answer, and I might well have done that. No, the provincial services of language training kick in immediately. The federal government is responsible for the refugee for the first year in housing and all of those incidental expenses. The province does have a role to play as far as language training is concerned as well.

J. Brar: I have a couple of questions for the Attorney General related to the drug gangs. I'm sure the Attorney General is very well aware of the situation about the drug gangs, particularly in the South Asian community. They told me he's very well spoken on that issue.

What happened is during about the last ten years we have lost over a hundred young people, and the response of the community has been that we have seen five different reports done on that particular issue. Two of the reports were done by the federal government, and three reports have been done by the community organizations working on this particular issue.

The community also went one step further than that. They basically established a committee called the consensus building committee. The role of the committee was to look into all the existing reports and come up with common recommendations which all the stakeholders believe are very, very crucial and important when it comes to the preventative part of that issue.

They finally came out with a list of recommendations, and I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of those recommendations as well. I would like to ask the Attorney General whether those recommendations are a useful tool to deal with this issue or not.

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue is an important one, and I thank the member for raising it. It's something that I've been very much concerned with, and I note the member has been as well.

The tragedy in the Indo-Canadian community is that in the last 15 to 16 years there have been close to 100 young men who have died violent deaths as a result of drug wars or wars involving organized crime or random shootings without any apparent motive.

This issue came to the forefront approximately four years ago when a public forum was held at the Wosk Centre in Vancouver. I'm sure the member was there, and I was there with a number of people. We spoke out at that time about taking ownership of the problem.

The problem, really, was probably at its worst around '93. That was the time the so-called Dosanjh murders took place. After that there was a series of horrible crimes that took place. Fortunately, they have levelled off in recent times, but that's not to suggest that the participation in organized crime on the part of young Indo-Canadian men has levelled off.

The good thing that's come out of it, if there is a good thing, is that the community has taken ownership, and there has been quite an aggressive response

from the community. A number of fundraisers are held where they're accumulating proceeds, and they're directing young kids to universities and places of higher learning so that they don't fall into a life of crime.

As far as the various reports are concerned, there are a number of recommendations. I endorse many of those recommendations, particularly those that call for enhanced counselling and mentoring services. We encourage that. We think that's the right way to go.

We think that it's far more productive for the Indo-Canadian community, as well as the community at large, to get involved in this in a proactive manner. It's a lot better to prevent young people from becoming involved in gang activity at an early stage rather than picking up the bodies when it's too late.

The answer really is that we're quite prepared to do what we can in order to assist the various groups that are out there in order to coordinate the process. I've been to a number of those meetings, as has the member. My view is that there has to be some kind of a collaborative approach. We have to do that.

I think we're moving in the right direction. The numbers certainly show that there are fewer young men who have been victims of violence in the last three or four years than there were eight, nine, ten years ago. Hopefully, we're on the right track, and we're prepared to listen to anything of a productive nature.

We know that the Integrated Gang Task Force has been instrumental in a number of arrests that have taken place. We know that those arrests have had a deterrent effect — at least we think they have. There have been a number of young Indo-Canadian men who have been convicted of serious crimes and are now doing serious time in jails here and in Washington State.

While general deterrents are not always a relevant factor in reducing crime, I think that in this case it's worked to some extent. I think maybe the message is getting across, and hopefully we can see the day when we don't get any further major acts of violence of the type that the member has referred to.

J. Brar: Thanks to the Attorney General for the response. I tend to agree with the information as far as the violent crime is concerned. That has gone down significantly during the last two months. My understanding is, after speaking to some people who are working with the issue, that in fact those gangs are now more sophisticated and more organized; therefore, probably there is less violence. But more active recruitment is going on in the school system for the gang activities.

Even the federal government recognizes this issue, and they came with some funding. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of that as well. So why is the province of British Columbia, where actually this problem exists, not part of any funding program when it comes to the prevention programs? Particularly I'm talking about the list of recommendations made by the consensus building committee, as the AG is aware. Why is there no funding for those?

Hon. W. Oppal: Funding always seems to be sort of the phrase that people…. It's always a cry for funding. We'd be prepared to advance funding if we thought funding would cure the problem.

I'm not so sure that funding is the real answer. I think that community participation, I think those things that are taking place on the soccer fields by the people in the Indo-Canadian community…. All of those things that deter crime activity are really the approaches to take. If it can be shown that funding will decrease crime activity, then that's something we would have to look at.

The easy answer seems to be: well, let's get more funding. That might help a lot of consultants and various other people who get involved in these things. I'd like to see where the funding will go, what the funding will do and if it will in fact assist.

J. Brar: On the funding, my understanding and knowledge of this particular issue, as I said before, is that there have been five different reports done. Two of the reports have been done by the federal government after full consultation with the community. Three of the reports were done by the community organizations, again with full consultation with the community.

After those five reports, the stakeholders, who are working in different agencies…. Probably 20 of them came together. They looked into all the existing reports, including further consultation with the community.

They came up with certain selected recommendations of different programs, which are: parenting programs, also a mentorship program for youth, and more activities. It's more a kind of looking into all the reports and taking the best recommendations.

I think that's what came out after all this work done by various groups and all that. That's where I think the funding will go, and that's what these groups are talking about where the funding should go.

At this point in time, what I see is that if the Attorney General is not convinced that those recommendations are good, then it may be so. But then we need to provide some leadership as to how we can find those programs which are actually useful to curb this problem.

Hon. W. Oppal: There is a lot that is being done. Right now you have basketball and soccer programs in Surrey, with the guidance of the Surrey RCMP and the school system there.

There is a basketball league taking place. They play every Saturday afternoon. The RCMP are actively involved, along with other community workers. There are soccer tournaments and soccer leagues. There is a lot that's taking place now.

If there are specific programs of that sort that the member is aware of and the member thinks will be productive in this area, we'd be prepared to listen to those concerns.

Like the member, we want to ensure that the violence and the criminal activity in the Indo-Canadian

community — indeed, the community at large — be eliminated or at the very least reduced. We're all committed to doing that, but we need some specific plans and specific objectives as to how we can do that.

J. Brar: Once again, thanks for the positive response from the Attorney General. One of the issues when the new integrated task force was established about three years ago….

There was one concern, an outstanding issue mentioned at that time by the government, which was that there are some outstanding issues between the task force and VPD that need to be taken care of.

My question to the Attorney General is: is the Attorney General aware of those issues? If yes, have those issues been taken care of or not?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not really in a position to comment on the operational issues that took place or were said to have taken place between the Vancouver police department and the RCMP, except to say that I am told they have been resolved.

These issues often arise — jurisdictional issues. They are policing issues, and as the Attorney General I don't get involved in the policing issues. It's not under my ministry. But obviously, we want to see a concerted effort, and we hope that whatever operational differences there were between the police forces are set aside in the public interest.

N. Simons: I'm going to take the minister's offer and make some suggestions as to how funding can be used. I think that's a fair question and that it probably takes 79 people to figure out what's best for the province and what's best for the services.

I can tell the Attorney General, without having to look at statistics, that families that are well supported, have shelter and food, ways to go to school and access to employment and education programs are probably the ones that are going to settle best in this country.

I think that it's clear that when you look at crime statistics, you find certain trends and patterns. You'll find that those who have the least likelihood of achieving certain goals that we set as a society are most likely to end up either in the criminal justice system, in the child welfare system or in any other of the systems that we have — when people don't succeed as they should.

My question to the Attorney General is: is he aware of the fact that many immigrant-serving groups and agencies are finding the funding…. It's not just the word "funding." It's because funding allows people to go and provide outreach to families that have arrived here as refugees. The funding allows people to go and provide counselling to those children who have arrived as refugees from war-torn countries.

Right now we've got kids in schools. It's the first time they have ever attended school. It's sometimes the first time they have ever worn shoes. Some of them have been in refugee camps for years and years. Some of them have witnessed violence. Some of them have had family members murdered.

These are kids who we know, without having to read in a book or in a newspaper article somewhere, are the most likely to be in a traumatic state and unable to cope with their new reality. When that happens, when someone is looking for a friend, it's unfortunate that they find gangs.

It's the same situation. We know very well what programs will promote the successful integration of immigrants and refugees. It's not simply a question of saying that we're just asking for funding. We asking for funding so that there can be outreach in the schools, when we know that if a child comes to school hungry in grade 1, we need to pay attention. We know in grade 4 when they're not doing well in school. We know when they find them in the street.

We know what programs support families. We know that families need to have child care if they want to go to English-as-a-second-language school.

It's a holistic problem, and it needs a holistic response, and that response includes funding for a variety of necessary programming. I'm wondering if the minister, the Attorney General or the ministry have any plans in the near future to ensure that settlement services, programs and funding are accessible for families with children — that they have access to the programs, that they have the ability to participate in them and that their children will be looked after while they participate in them.

My concern, fundamentally, is that British Columbia is going to get a bad reputation if we invite people here and then, as we've seen in major media recently, we expect them to live in squalor.

I know that it's not the same situation for every single person arriving here. Everyone comes in different circumstances. But the public face of the people who are arriving in this province is one of continued desperation, continued poor living conditions and continued inadequate access to proper nutrition and medical health.

I'm wondering if, perhaps, the Ministry of Attorney General has it within its mandate to ensure that everyone arriving in British Columbia has their basic needs met.

Hon. W. Oppal: The concerns raised by the member are good ones, and I thank him for raising those concerns. I can probably answer that question by saying yes, we are doing all of those things that the member has asked.

We are involved aggressively in a youth buddy system. We've got settlement funds and multicultural health fairs so as to assist multicultural communities in healthy living. We have language training for immigrants.

We have orientation, information, referral counselling services that are available to immigrants regardless of their age. We match immigrants and refugees with volunteers to assist them in understanding more about the community and in accessing support services.

We are providing support in English-language services for adults that filter down to the youngsters. We have, as well, sectoral support service coordination

We recognize what the member has said. That is that if we're going to prevent the young people who come here with disadvantaged backgrounds from engaging in criminal activity, then the obvious solution is to get into prevention and to provide a possible learning environment for people who come here.

The member has raised a very valid issue and a factual issue, which is that there are students who come here and go to our schools who don't wear shoes, don't know how to access information.

All of that is an adjustment process, and that's the purpose of settlement funding. As I said at the outset of our remarks, we now have $63 million from the federal government. It's our objective to use that in a productive, constructive way.

N. Simons: If it's possible, may I turn to the issue of Bountiful and the fundamentalist FLDS? My question simply relates to the Attorney General's file, which includes issues that in some way or another are covered by the issue of FLDS. I'm just wondering if the minister can enlighten us on what any developments may be in that.

Hon. W. Oppal: The Bountiful issue has been with us since the early '90s, late '80s. We all appear to be of the understanding that there may be acts of sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, taking place there. We're told that.

The difficulty that we've had historically here — and I'm told it's been the bane of every Attorney General in the last 15 or 20 years — is that we've had difficulty in getting witnesses who will cooperate and come into a courtroom and testify.

When I was appointed in '05, the issue was resurrected because the concern was raised once more. We got in touch with the RCMP, and they reactivated the investigation. Or maybe it's safe to say the investigation was ongoing all the time. In any event, we met with senior members of the RCMP, and they agreed to go out and further interview witnesses and prospective witnesses.

The result was that after a long period of time, we received a lengthy police report. The lawyers in the criminal justice branch, which is independent of me and which determines whether or not any given set of circumstances will result in charges…. The branch is examining all of that. I would expect that in the next few weeks we will have some kind of firm decision as to what we'll do in that case.

As I said, it's a very complex issue. There's a volume of material. We want to ensure that whatever decision we make is the correct one.

I don't know if the member knows, but we have certain standards. The criminal justice branch has certain evidentiary standards in order to determine whether or not criminal charges are warranted in any particular case.

There are two conditions precedent before we lay charges. One is: does the evidence that the branch has meet such a standard that there's a substantial likelihood for conviction? The second is: is it in the public interest to prosecute any given case?

On the first issue, which is substantial likelihood of conviction, the standard admittedly is high. But we do that for particular reasons.

One is that we do not want to wrongfully charge people against whom there is not a substantial likelihood of a conviction. In other words, you don't want to put people through the criminal justice system by virtue of laying criminal charges against them if at the end of the day it's going to result in an acquittal. It would not be in the public interest to do that.

We know of persons against whom charges are laid and an acquittal may be registered at the end of the day, and the reputations of those persons are then permanently jeopardized and ruined. So we have to be careful.

The branch is extremely careful. They decide these cases carefully and in an objective way. What I'm saying is that there has been a volume of material, a volume of evidence here, and it's being examined in the ministry. We expect that there will be an answer as to whether or not criminal charges are preferred in the very near future.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, it gives me great pleasure to move that this committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and some progress on the Ministry of Attorney General 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.