Hansard — Thursday, April 10, 2008 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11179
	E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)
	Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House		11179
	Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. W. Oppal
	G. Gentner
	L. Krog

Report and Third Reading of Bills		11184
	Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		11184
	I. Black
	J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11193
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)
	Hon. P. Bell
	M. Sather
	S. Fraser
	G. Coons
	S. Simpson
	B. Simpson

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 24, E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're moving forward in meeting our throne speech commitment to give British Columbians better electronic access to their health records and medical information so that they can engage in a more informed role in their preventative and therapeutic health care needs.

This new act will make British Columbia the first province in Canada to create a specific legislative framework governing access and privacy for electronic health information databases. We want to ensure that we have the most rigorous standards around the access and use of personal health information contained in our data banks.

Individuals will be able to mask their own health information so that the only time it may be accessed by a health care professional who needs the information for treatment is if the person is incapacitated. Strict provisions will be put in place for access to databases for research, and — I want to be clear — market researchers will not have access to these databases.

The act sets clear rules for disclosure of the personal health information contained in health databases for medical research purposes. The legislation establishes a data stewardship committee to make objective decisions on the appropriate disclosure of database information for medical research purposes.

Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, I'm sure, earlier this year the health research community raised concerns on their ability to conduct research because they were not able to contact potential participants. With this amendment, if researchers want access to data bank information in order to contact individuals to participate in health research, they will need to make their case to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in order to be granted access, in addition to submitting their proposal to the data stewardship committee.

This act will help us pursue our goal of faster, better, safer health care for patients while enhancing security and protecting the rights of individuals. But this act will also ensure that access to personal, identifiable health information is governed by the highest privacy standards across all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 24 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act. For the information of members, in the little House we'll continue with estimates debate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; S. Hammell in the chair.

M. Farnworth: I'm addressing my comments to the Attorney General. Given the nature of the bill and the sparsity of words in the bill and sections in the bill, I hope the Attorney doesn't mind if some of the comments that may be for one section are dealt with in section 1. Given there's so little in the bill in terms of the sections, the questions we ask…. It makes sense to ask them under section 1. I just want the Attorney General to know that.

There are 85 electoral districts in the bill. That includes the ones that were in appendix P as opposed to the initial recommendation from the commission, which was the 83. We know in terms of protecting rural seats…. I wonder if the Attorney General can explain — just because there has been some question in terms of a possible court challenge — if he is comfortable with the 85 from the perspective of a potential court challenge, and the reasons for or not. If he could care to elaborate on that, I would appreciate that.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have considered the possibility of a challenge. We are confident and feel comfortable that if there is a court challenge, given the authorities from the Supreme Court of Canada and particularly the Saskatchewan case, this legislation will survive it.

M. Farnworth: If the Attorney could just elaborate further on that — how he thinks that the Saskatchewan rulings and what's taking place in Saskatchewan will apply here in British Columbia and how this number and the boundaries contained in this map relate to the possibility of the challenge and, in particular, to the Saskatchewan precedents.

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue here is whether or not the bill will satisfy the condition of effective representation. Given some of the statements by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan case, it is our opinion, at least, that the bill will comply with the law.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the 85…. If there were to be — and that's not saying there would be — a challenge, the Attorney General is saying that he is satisfied that the legal homework has been done on this particular piece of legislation. He's satisfied that the precedents are in place that would ensure the legislation would survive any possible challenge and that he is confident that the province's position would be viewed as the correct position in any future or possible court challenge.

Hon. W. Oppal: The legal homework has been done, but I've been in the justice system long enough to know that I could not predict with certainty the outcome of any court challenge.

M. Farnworth: I ask those questions because I do believe it's important — given that the initial recommendation or the primary recommendation was 83 seats, but we were also presented with appendix P, which clearly set out a path that if the Legislature wanted, which it has said that it wants, to look at protecting and ensuring northern representation, we would go to 85 — to just confirm that that legal homework has been done.

I fully understand that what the Attorney General is saying is that you do make your best case, and you can't guarantee with certainty. I just want to make sure he feels satisfied that we have a strong case. If what he's saying is that the homework has been done — that they have looked at precedents in terms of what's taken place in Saskatchewan — then I'd like to thank him for that answer.

I have other questions, but my colleague from Delta North has a few questions he wants to ask.

G. Gentner: Just quickly on the number of electoral districts — and that means 85 new members — I'm asking the Attorney General a question relative to logistics. Has he considered how they're going to be seated in this place and where we're going to find offices for the new members?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's an issue that the assembly as a whole would have to consider. But I can assure the member for Delta North that he'll have a seat.

G. Gentner: I know that in a previous life on Delta council, the member was a constituent of mine and probably voted for me. But unfortunately, he cannot assure that I will be here in 2009, though I certainly would hope to be.

I'm raising the issue because there was a time when the Premier walked around the Legislative Library looking at the walls and wondering what could be punched out to accommodate future offices. You've now guaranteed us that this would be an all-party debate — whether or not the library would be jeopardized with eight or seven new MLAs.

Can you assure this House that this process will guarantee that this vestige of heritage, this wonderful institution called the library…? Can you assure me, nevertheless, that your intent here is to make sure that wonderful place — that institution — will be preserved?

Hon. W. Oppal: I, of course, can make no such guarantees. The most I can say is that the seating in this House is a matter for the assembly.

M. Farnworth: I know we'll be coming to the exact boundaries in a few moments. In terms of the number of electoral districts, does the Attorney General…?

Just coming back to the case, I want to ask him one more question on this particular issue around effective representation. That is on the issue of one person, one vote and the issue around the variance, because some of the variances that will result from the passage of this legislation will be quite significant. Is he confident that on the issue of one person, one vote and equal representation, the homework has been done in terms of that issue being addressed and us having a case that will survive or prevent a successful challenge?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I can assure the member that those issues regarding the legality of the legislation have been carefully canvassed. We are aware of the law. We're aware of the principle of voter parity and the equality of the population. But really, what we're speaking about here is that the legislation must satisfy the principle of effective representation.

M. Farnworth: To that end, has the ministry, the Attorney General, had legal opinions on these particular issues that have been raised?

Hon. W. Oppal: The legal services branch has carefully considered these issues, and it is based on their opinion that we've gone ahead with this legislation.

M. Farnworth: On the names of the electoral districts, there are 85 names. They are changed. They are different from the current ones. I want to ask the Attorney General: is he open to some suggestions in the case of two

particular ridings? I would like to offer a friendly amendment in terms of changing the names or amending the names to perhaps more accurately reflect the territory they cover.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we have to assume that the Electoral Boundaries Commission carefully considered all the alternatives and made recommendations with respect to the names after anxious reflection. We're not inclined to make any changes or make any amendments.

M. Farnworth: It's not quite the answer I was looking for. The reason I say that is that the naming of the ridings…. I mean, yes, the commission comes up with them. They are by no means set in stone, and it is very much the prerogative of the Legislature.

There are numerous precedents I can think of at the federal Parliament. In my own area, for example, the federal riding's name has been changed to more accurately reflect the geography of the communities involved. I was just going to suggest, because one of the ridings disappearing is quite a historic riding — Yale-Lillooet — adding the name Lillooet to Fraser-Nicola so that not only is it new, but it also recognizes the old riding from which it was bound.

I would like to offer up the amendment. I'll see if the Attorney General is willing first, before I move the amendment — but just to suggest that changing it from Fraser-Nicola to Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet would be an apt description of the fact that Lillooet is in the riding. It also recognizes the historic nature of what was one of the oldest seats in the province.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm not prepared to say there's no merit in that submission. However, I resile to my original position, and that is that we're not prepared to make any amendments.

M. Farnworth: I know the member says there may be no merit in the name change, but the fact is there is Merritt in the riding. I would like to move that amendment, noting the time, that….

M. Farnworth: But when the appropriate time comes — and the appropriate place would be the schedule — then I will move the amendment and give the Attorney General some time to reflect on that question. It doesn't change the intent of the bill. It wouldn't change the intent of the bill. It wouldn't change anything other than to more accurately reflect the issue around the name.

The indication from the government has been that the names are fairly straightforward in the ones they want to keep in place. I've asked the Attorney General to consider the name change in terms of Fraser-Nicola.

With that, there are not too many more questions on the names of the electoral districts, so I'm prepared to let that section go. We can move on to section 3.

M. Farnworth: This is the most substantive part of the bill, which is the exact boundaries. I'd like the Attorney General to confirm that the boundaries are exactly as those drawn by the commission and to inform the House if there are any boundaries that are not exactly what the commission drew and where they would be.

Hon. W. Oppal: The boundaries follow with exactitude the recommendations of the commission.

M. Farnworth: There were also boundaries in the appendix, so I just want to confirm, in particular, with Yale in the southern Interior…. In the Fraser-Nicola, there was some question around how that boundary went within the main body of the report and the appendix. We discussed it at second reading, and the Government House Leader discussed the issue when the bill was first tabled. That is on the exact nature of that boundary between the Boundary-Similkameen and the Fraser-Nicola ridings.

Hon. W. Oppal: I agree with the member that the boundary for that particular district is affected by appendix P. The schedule makes that clear, and the commission obviously took that into consideration in making those recommendations.

M. Farnworth: What I want to further confirm, then…. Leaving that aside for the moment, that Boundary-Similkameen boundary with Fraser-Nicola, do the other boundaries in section P follow exactly the boundary that was laid out by the commission in their report?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the commission drew all the boundaries, and it's apparent that appendix P was an alternative recommendation made by the commission.

M. Farnworth: That's why I want to make sure, because with appendix P, they do draw the boundaries, but on that one particular area it does have an impact. There's a difference between the boundary in the main report on the recommendation when it's 83, and when you apply the appendix P, there is an overlap or a reconfiguration that's required.

What I wanted to confirm is that that's the only area where that happens in this bill, and that on the issue of on which side of the line it is — I think Princeton is the community that was discussed about that, because that's the community that is impacted — that, in fact, it is in the riding of Fraser-Nicola and that it is not in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, Princeton is in Fraser-Nicola. That was not a part of the original recommendation. It was in appendix P, and that's our proposal — to enact what is in appendix P, the alternative proposal.

M. Farnworth: That's what I want to confirm, because I know that when we had the initial proposal, the 83,

and then appendix P was an alternative, that's the one area where it did create some potential for confusion. What we're confirming with the Attorney General's answers is that the understanding that, I think, both the government and the opposition had as to how that boundary would work is, in fact, what was agreed to and what the Attorney General has confirmed — our understanding that Princeton is on the Fraser-Nicola side.

I'd like to take this opportunity, on the issue of boundaries, to just ask the Attorney General's opinion. I'm not necessarily looking for a short answer of yes or no but rather his opinion in terms of boundaries. One of the fascinating things about this, and I think it's important, when we're discussing this legislation, that boundaries…. Is his view, in terms of boundaries following geographical…?

It may look smart on the map, geographically, but the fact is that the issue around communities and communities of interest comes into play and the relationship. Even though two communities may seem close, the fact that you've got a high mountain range and awkward roads in between them may not necessarily make it the right thing to combine the two.

I'm just asking the Attorney General's opinion. When it comes to drawing boundaries, which are very often very difficult and challenging, what sort of weight would he give to the issue of geography versus community in this very important exercise?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm not so sure my view or opinion is particularly relevant here. However, these are issues that the commission no doubt wrestled with when they offered the alternative proposal contained in appendix P.

There are always questions that can be raised with respect to the findings and recommendations of any commission as to what the appropriate boundaries ought to be, given the geographical and the historical considerations that are always relevant in matters of this nature.

M. Farnworth: I had expected the Attorney General to talk somewhat longer and not to be quite so brief. I give him every opportunity, and I'm disappointed. Anyway….

M. Farnworth: Shocking, actually. Shocking. I know he's even surprised his own colleagues.

I think the key thing for people who follow this closely is that the boundaries follow exactly what the commission recommended. I think one of the things that people need assurances of is that when we have an independent commission and that commission goes out and draws those boundaries, that legislators are not interfering and drawing boundaries the way that we have seen in the past. I think "Gracie's finger" is the classic one, sort of the gold standard, on boundary issues in the province of B.C.

I see the member for Comox Valley smiling. I think he was probably…. No, I don't think he was in the House at that particular time, but he remembers well that particular controversy. In fact, he was a part of the government that did bring in, I think, one of the most significant changes in electoral boundary history in this province, which was the elimination of the dual-member ridings. That's where you had some ridings in this province that had two members and other ridings having one, and it created quite an imbalance. I see the member nodding.

I just want to actually put that question out for the Attorney General to answer. Could he see a situation, or would he ever envisage a situation in British Columbia, where we could go back to dual-member ridings in the province of B.C.?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to speculate as to what may happen in the future, given the population patterns and our demographics, which are continually changing. It would be speculative of me to engage in that kind of exercise at this time. Perhaps it would be unfair of me to do the same. I recognize that the member opposite is inviting me to do that, but I'll decline the invitation.

M. Farnworth: Well, I understand the Attorney's answer. I myself hope that we don't have a return to that situation.

Having said that and having received assurance that the boundaries follow exactly what the commission laid out, we've confirmed the issue around Fraser-Nicola and Boundary-Similkameen, which as has already been pointed out, was dealt with to the understanding that both government and opposition had on that particular issue.

M. Farnworth: Just a few questions here. With section 5 of the current act, the Electoral Districts Act of 1999 would be repealed, and the electoral districts under that act are disestablished. Just for people who are interested — I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but just so the Attorney General can confirm: if between now and the next election, a by-election were to be held, for example, which boundaries would be enforced? Would a by-election be fought on new boundaries or on the current existing boundaries?

Hon. W. Oppal: If there's a by-election between now and the next general election, the current legislation would apply. This legislation is applicable for the May 2009 election.

M. Farnworth: That is as expected — any by-elections that come up. That's fine. So the new act, then, would come in, even though it's passed today, and would actually take effect for the election. I see the Attorney General nodding.

L. Krog: My friend the Opposition House Leader has raised a very interesting question. It's not that I wish to discredit the wise advice the Attorney General may be receiving, but on a plain reading of the bill, it says: "the electoral districts under that Act are disestablished."

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can refer back either to the Electoral Boundaries Commission or the Electoral Districts Act to confirm what the authority is, if you will, for giving that answer to the member's question, because the plain reading of section 5 says that they're disestablished.

Hon. W. Oppal: Section 6 of this act states: "This Act comes into force on the day the 38th Parliament is dissolved."

M. Farnworth: I move the amendment that Bill 19, intituled the Electoral Districts Act, be amended as follows.

M. Farnworth: The reason for moving the amendment is very simple. It changes nothing in terms of the intent of the legislation. It changes nothing in how the legislation is implemented. It has no impact in terms of the government's abilities or the electoral commission's abilities on anything, other than to change the name of a riding from Fraser-Nicola to Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet.

I know that this is something that the member for Yale-Lillooet feels strongly about, that it would be appropriate to recognize what is and has been a historic region of the province and for it to receive the prominence that it should get as part of the riding name. There is plenty of precedent, both at the provincial level and at the federal level, to make a change like this.

These are names that are recommended by the commission, but they're not definitive. It is up to this House to decide on those names. You know, there's no real reason why we can't recognize, I think, what accurately reflects the geographical nature of that riding and include the name of Lillooet in the name of that riding.

I would ask the government to support what is very much a friendly amendment and is something that I believe the citizens, the people who live in what will be the new riding, would heartily endorse.

Hon. W. Oppal: I recognize that these are recommendations, but they are the recommendations of an independent commission, and they ought not to be disturbed lightly.

There's a real, practical reason why this amendment ought not to proceed, and that's the confusion that would be caused by virtue of the fact that all of the materials are on disc. It's all prepared, and it would cause massive confusion at this stage to start amending those names that are contained in schedule 1.

L. Krog: I don't think I need to remind the government that this is the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Crown Colony of British Columbia — no need to remind any members of the House of that. It's another milestone in this province's great history.

Surely, the preservation of the name of a community of such historical significance to the history of this province is a very small request. It recognizes the pioneering spirit of this province. In accordance with that wonderful article in Orders of the Day, the magazine of the retired MLAs association of British Columbia, it also, I think, would show respect for the views taken in that article, respect for the former members of this House, respect for the many members of this Legislative Assembly that have historically sat representing the community of Lillooet.

I appreciate that the Attorney General finds himself in a position this morning where cabinet hasn't had a chance to consider this. But of all the things that come before this Legislature, I would think that there is no good reason to oppose this amendment. It is simply a fair and reasonable recognition of this province's history, of the contribution of the historic community of Lillooet, the geographic reality. The name of Lillooet has been recognized in the naming of the electoral constituency and many times previously in British Columbia history.

I would think, notwithstanding what the Attorney General says about the problems around a disc, etc., that the government can change all kinds of things just so easily. It doesn't seem to me that this is a remarkable request. This, I would think, would show that token of respect to our history, particularly in this year that is so important. No harm comes by recognizing Lillooet and its existence.

So I speak in support of the motion of the Opposition House Leader. It is a profoundly appropriate thing. That name as proposed, Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet, has a wonderful historical resonance to it that the term Fraser-Nicola doesn't have. It gives, I think, a sense of geographic wholeness to that constituency.

I would hope that the members opposite and the Attorney General will concede that for once in this chamber, something the opposition suggests, which every thinking British Columbian would support, should, in fact, receive support from the government side.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I respect the views and the advice given by the member opposite, and I'm grateful for that advice. However, there are many historic names that have evolved over the years, and they've undergone change to reflect changes in population. There are a lot of historical anomalies that take place in these names.

The member opposite should know that this riding at one time was simply called Yale. So I don't think there's any prejudice or any of the population will be

misled if we now call it Fraser-Nicola. Surely nobody that lives there will be confused as to what the name of the electoral district is.

M. Farnworth: Just one more final attempt, and that is…. The Attorney General just made the case in my mind as to why we should change. He said it used to be known as Yale, and it was Yale-Lillooet. In fact, Yale has now been moved into another riding. It is not recognized. It's not in another riding. Lillooet has an opportunity to continue that historic recognition.

The other point I'd like to make is that it's not an inconvenience, and it doesn't cause confusion — in terms of making a name change. You type in the words on a computer, and it can change every reference to it very, very simply. Just because it's on a disc, it's just as easy to…. All of those materials will have to be prepared. All of those materials are not all manufactured. They're not all there. They're not all drawn. They're not all done. That work still needs to take place. So I don't think that to say that it will…. I don't think that that is reason enough.

Anyway, I have belaboured my point. We have made our case to the Attorney General, and we ask the Attorney General to support the opposition's request to change the name to add Lillooet — so it's from Fraser-Nicola to Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I've carefully considered the well-thought-out and well-founded reasons well articulated by the members of the opposition. However, when I consider the whole of the evidence, I'm not persuaded that it ought to change.

The Chair: Members, on the amendment to add the word "Lillooet" to the constituency of Fraser-Nicola.

G. Gentner: I move an amendment to the bill entitled Electoral Districts Act to amend as follows:

G. Gentner: We've heard briefly some of the comments made by the Attorney General relative to another amendment, but I have to urge the Attorney to consider this and not take it lightly. With all due respect, for my community to be referred to as Delta North is seen as somewhat political dyslexia. And all due respect to dyslexia — I have a slight problem myself.

Traditionally, this is a community that has always been known as North Delta, and the recommendations that have come forward…. This is one of the only constituencies where the boundaries have not been moved. There is no change at all relative to the movement of even one vote. We are intact.

My community has existed and been known as North Delta since the late 1890s. It has been a very historical fishing area with Annieville and Sunbury, and we are very much distinguished from the rest of Delta. The rest of Delta has two different communities. One is Ladner, and one is Tsawwassen. Therefore, they can cumulatively be seen as a unit as Delta South.

Traditionally, we are a community unto our own — North Delta. We are a population of 52,000 people. People go to work. They come home and play. It's a bedroom community and a suburban community. But we're very proud of the fact that we have always been North Delta. So I ask that the Attorney General consider this and not take it lightly and not assume that there's this huge expense that's going to be accounted to the view that people in North Delta have always seen themselves as being North Deltans.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would point out that the old name of that riding was Delta North, and there's no change in the recommendations made by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The name proposed now is Delta North, so there has been no change there at all.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: It's been a while, but I call continued debate on the throne speech.

I rise this morning to speak in favour of one of the most visionary throne speeches that has been produced

by a government in decades. It has been some weeks since the throne speech was first read in this House — one of the most all-encompassing and comprehensive views on the future of our province that has been produced in an awfully long time.

It's probably worth just reviewing a little bit of the throne speech, because it has been a long time for members in this House and for those viewing at home. There's been so much activity and so much spirited debate around the subsequent legislation and the budget that followed from the throne speech itself that it's worth reviewing a little bit about the throne speech as it was so eloquently presented by His Honour a few short weeks ago.

The throne speech opened by noting notable British Columbians — leaders of all types — and celebrating their legacies. Individuals included philanthropists, first nations chiefs and, indeed, soldiers of the Canadian military who are responding to our nation's greatest calling.

The throne speech went on at length discussing the anticipation of the excitement and the growing excitement with respect to Vancouver 2010, the Paralympic and Olympic Games, which will be celebrated by all the peoples of this province. It celebrated the unifying force that those games represent.

The throne speech also spoke of BC150, the upcoming celebration of the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Crown Colony of British Columbia. Even in the mere weeks since the reading of the throne speech, we've seen that excitement building. The awareness is there in our communities — certainly in my riding of Port Moody–Westwood. The school children are beginning to understand what's coming.

The excitement is growing beyond that — in sports venues, in the arts and culture community, as they begin looking forward in terms of how they can participate in this exciting anniversary. Indeed, I think it will be a summer to remember and yet another unifying force that will bring us together as a people.

The throne speech spoke of our first nations and celebrated the new relationship and looked at the work that lies yet ahead. It spoke of building on the success of the treaty process that we have enjoyed in the last two to three years, particularly very recently as we announced treaties.

It spoke to the bravery, the courage and the leadership of the first nations people, who were able to put the barriers of the past behind, and of a government that was also able to look forward to what we could do together and that put these historic agreements together — to mark some new ground, take some brave steps together. We've celebrated the success of all the people involved in that throne speech.

The throne speech also spoke of putting Jordan's principle into place, putting the interests of first nations children absolutely paramount and, in doing so, putting behind any issue of jurisdictional dispute that has heretofore got in the way of looking out for the interests of children in first nations communities.

There was a great deal of attention, yet again in this throne speech, spent on sustainable growth — in particular, on the environment and issues of climate warming and climate change. There was a celebration within this throne speech of the environmental policies of the government to date — how we've got 13 million hectares of this magnificent province that are now protected, 14 percent of the land mass of British Columbia. We're a pretty big piece of land, and 14 percent of our province is now protected by law.

It also spoke of upcoming amendments to the Wildlife Act. It spoke to recovery plans and projects for some of the most crucial species at risk, including our caribou. It spoke of the creation of a spirit bear conservancy, an event that was so significant, because of the size of land involved, that it actually rated mention in American publications, including, of all things, the Wall Street Journal. What we are doing in British Columbia in the area of the environment, of protection of species and land, is being noticed truly on a global level.

It also spent some time speaking of and reaffirming the requirement of this government and the people of our province to show leadership together to reduce greenhouse gases. We spent an enormous amount of time — and have since, as well — talking about the importance of giving British Columbians choice.

We spoke about changing the way we sell power with respect to the rate structure from B.C. Hydro so that it is in blocks. As British Columbians use more power in their homes, the incremental cost per unit will go up a little bit, which will give all of us, in our homes, with our families, pause to do things like turning off televisions and unplugging VCRs and cell phone chargers when they're not in use.

We're trying to give British Columbians the tools to help them manage their energy requirements — things like the Power Smart meters, which we're going to have distributed throughout the province.

It also spoke about the government doing its part. First, it spoke about the government itself putting the objective in place to become carbon-neutral by 2010 — the government, the hundreds of thousands of people that we employ, all the buildings that we occupy, all the vehicles that we have on the road and all the ways that we conduct the business of the people across this great province. We have a responsibility. We have the opportunity to embrace and show some leadership and set some examples with respect to becoming carbon-neutral, and the throne speech speaks of the commitment to do precisely that thing.

The throne speech also speaks of the government's involvement not just within the boundaries of our great province but also outside the boundaries of our province, talking about how we participate in the western climate initiative, the climate registry and the International Carbon Action Partnership.

It spoke about how we are going to introduce legislation, which has since been done, with respect to facilitating British Columbia's participation in a regional cap-and-trade system that has been developed under this western climate initiative. We are scheduling the framework of that system for completion within this year. The focus of that is to help emitters meet their obligations to live within legally mandated and declining emission caps at the lowest possible cost.

I mentioned that B.C. Hydro has been instructed to install Power Smart meters in every home in British Columbia by 2012, but there's more as well. Government will also encourage activity. One of the things government can do with the various pulleys and levers that it has at its disposal is encourage behaviour on the part of people, businesses, industry and other groups. It will encourage smart developments that will minimize waste and increase affordability by encouraging the better use of land, energy, water and building design.

The elements of it have been grouped under an initiative called LiveSmart B.C. The idea behind LiveSmart B.C. is to contain urban sprawl and to reward development that creates more affordable housing and new green spaces and that makes more people-friendly neighbourhoods.

In addition to that, the throne speech spoke of the requirement and the commitment to roll out the new green building code, saying that it will be finalized and implemented to save energy and to save water. From this point, all provincial public buildings will be constructed to what's called LEED gold or to equivalent standards. Existing buildings will be retrofitted to make them more energy-efficient, climate-friendly and healthy for our valuable public servants.

One of the benefits of taking a stand on issues like climate change is that it creates an awful lot of conversation within our communities. I know that all members of this House have been engaged, probably since the throne speech of last year and again of this year and since the budget this year…. Significant and meaningful items have been identified to try to make a difference in this area.

We've been engaged in conversations in our own communities at different events — sporting events, arts and cultural events — and the community members that I've run into have certainly got varying opinions. I think that's one of the really interesting and very valuable things to fall out of the initiatives of this particular throne speech and the subsequent budget that has since come down.

When people start debating the issue of climate change, and "Is it real?" and "Is it really happening?" and recognizing that this is a growing body of science…. No one's claiming perfection on it at this stage, but there are some indisputable signs, even within British Columbia, that we cannot ignore.

We're all very aware in our homes, even those of us in the Lower Mainland and in the riding of Port Moody–Westwood that I so proudly represent, of the difficulty with respect to the pine beetle dilemma. We're aware that we're going to lose up to 80 percent of our pine forests. Even in the suburb that I represent, there is awareness that this has implications for the entire province, not just for our northern communities who are struggling through this particular challenge.

The pine beetle challenge very arguably is born of climate change implications. When the pine beetle was first discovered to be a potential threat to our forests, there was a consensus that a really cold winter, such as we've been accustomed to having, would kill off most of the problem. Indeed, history had said that we would get such a cold winter. They did come along fairly frequently, and the extended period of really, really cold weather needed to kill off the pine beetle — two to three weeks, I believe, at minus 35 or something like that — would do the job.

The problem is that it didn't happen, and it hasn't happened since. It hasn't happened for 12 or 13 years now, and we're still waiting. So in the absence of Mother Nature, if you will, taking care of one of these problems, the problem has now grown, and the pine beetle has moved into climates that, frankly, never will see those types of temperatures, because it's moving further south, etc.

We find ourselves in a position where we've got a phenomenon that is now well outside what we're used to expecting and the challenge of which is outside what we're used to expecting in terms of climate and weather that would normally right itself the way Mother Nature has so often done.

But it gets an additional layer added on top of that. You see, for all these trees that are dying, it means that the amount of water consumed by these trees is not being consumed. I was informed recently that a full-grown living tree can consume up to 50 litres of water a day. That's the size of a good-sized gasoline tank in a car — 50 litres a day for a single tree. Never mind the millions of trees that are out there at the moment.

If all those trees are dying, of course, as so many of them now have, that water is not being used by these trees. The result of this is that water remains in the water table, flows down into the streams. Of course, we are all aware of a lot of the flooding that we've seen in our northern tributaries, streams and rivers as it moves further south and of the great scare we had last spring when we thought we would see a great amount of our farmland completely flooded over, as the flooding situation up north was working its way down towards the Pacific Ocean.

We're beginning to see that this is not just the figment of somebody's imagination. This is turning into some very real things that we're seeing as British Columbians. We have to take note of this. We have to take whatever action we can. This throne speech calls upon all of us to start thinking about what can be done and to identify things that will be done.

Keys to seeing this happen, of course, involve two or three different areas. There are issues of government policy, for example. What can we do? Government policy is one. We can talk about fuel standards with respect to how the fuel is manufactured and engineered to go into our vehicles. We can talk about emission standards.

Once that fuel has been burned in a given vehicle, what is appropriate to be emitted into the environment?

We can talk about encouraging the use of hybrid vehicles. We can speak to the requirement for electric buses as part of our transit programs around the province. We can introduce, as we did in our budget, a revenue-neutral carbon tax to make people start thinking about how they spend their money.

Now, I think these two points of government policy, in particular the revenue-neutral carbon tax, are going to contribute a great deal more in this area than the simple numerical analysis will reveal. What it has done in my community is create awareness. You cannot walk into your grocery store, your local school ground or your local rec centre on a Saturday morning and not be able to start up a conversation with anybody and talk about the revenue-neutral carbon tax. Why? Because people are aware of it.

This is leading to a broader conversation about climate change. People are asking the question: what is this about? "Is this really real? I don't understand this. I need to learn more about it." If that benefit alone has resulted from the efforts of all members of this House over the last two years, then that is a very, very important and crucial first step, as a society, to beginning to get our heads around: what is this issue? What can we as individuals do about it, and what can we expect of our leaders to do about it as well?

There's also the importance in this area of making personal decisions. I think the obvious one for many of us is our electricity consumption, because in many ways that's one of the easiest. Last year, as part of recognizing and celebrating Turn It Off Day in British Columbia, which was on May 16 last year, I had the opportunity to rise in this House and make a very short two-minute statement on the topic. We had a little bit of humour involved, where we talked about how there's got to be 50 lights on in this House, which was one of my grandfather's favourite expressions.

It spoke to the requirement of turning off electricity, but there was some really interesting information included in the information distributed by B.C. Hydro with respect to Turn It Off Day. It starts with the flat fact that we produce only 80 percent of our own electricity requirements in British Columbia. We just don't produce enough electricity for our own needs — full stop.

Then it talks about what we can do about it. I'm going to repeat what I said at that time. I said: "If all families in British Columbia that usually leave their computers and monitors running 24 hours a day" — and I have to admit that I've done that myself on occasion — "turned them off when they're not in use, the province would save 330 gigawatt hours per year in electricity."

Now, I have to tell you that I'm not really familiar with what a gigawatt means, so thankfully, it translates that for all of us into some terms that we can all understand a bit better. "That's almost" — listen to this — "two and a half days of our province's annual power consumption." So if everybody who had a personal computer just shut it off and didn't leave it running when they didn't need it, we could actually, throughout the province, provide enough electricity for two and a half days for every citizen in the province.

You can go on from there and talk about replacing incandescent bulbs. Then you talk about using your cell phone, camera and other battery chargers once the charge is complete.

One of the things I've learned in my own growing understanding of this area is that when you charge a cell battery or charge a cell phone, if you leave it plugged in once it's reached the point of being fully charged, it still draws about 80 percent of the power that it was drawing during the charging process itself. There are all kinds of little things that we can do, and these are all very, very important things to fall out of this conversation.

The wonderful thing is that as we continue to show leadership, I would like to think on both sides of the House, in the debate in this particular area, it is trickling down into our communities, into the coffee shop conversations and into the schools.

I had my son come into my room several months ago, and he was chastising me. As I was finished brushing my teeth, he said: "What were you doing?" I said: "I was brushing my teeth." He said: "Well, I didn't hear you turn the water off." I looked at him and said: "What do you mean?" He said: "Well, we learned in school that if you shut the water off from the point when you start brushing your teeth to the point when you're finished, you can actually save ten litres of water during the two to three minutes it takes you to brush your teeth properly."

If you now take the four-and-a-half-odd million people that live in this province, who I'd like to think brush their teeth at least once a day, and you extrapolate that amount of water consumption — ten litres per incident once a day, 365 days a year — it's an awful lot of water. There are these little things and moments and gems that we can learn through this journey together that can really make a difference.

But there's another thing at perhaps a broader policy level that we can do as government in the area of climate change, and that has to do with transit investments. That is something where this government has not backed down. This is something that this government has embraced in a manner that hasn't been seen for probably 35 years.

The plan that has been in place for transit development, particularly across the Lower Mainland but also in other regions of our fine province, is absolutely historic. Some $14 billion — that's just for public transit and expanding public transit. It will actually double the transit ridership and renew existing fleets with cleaner technologies. It's going to increase the number of buses by 60 percent in areas outside of Metro Vancouver, and it will actually double TransLink's bus fleet by 2020.

By having more buses running, more people, of course, will be able to use it. If the transportation is there, people will take advantage of it. What this plan will result in is more transit routes as well as a bus

every 15 minutes, 15 hours per day, seven days a week. This is giving people choices, and this is the role that a government has to play in trying to address this problem. It's to facilitate smart and intelligent and environmentally friendly choices on behalf of its citizens.

There will also be a new RapidBus B.C. line on nine major routes in Kelowna, Victoria and Metro Vancouver. Of course, near and dear to my heart and to the hearts and minds and anxieties of the community that I represent is the creation — finally, after decades of not seeing it happen — of the Evergreen rapid transit line. It will end at one of the institutions that we're so proud of in my area, Douglas College, which is in my riding, connecting us through to rapid transit networks throughout the rest of the Lower Mainland.

Of course, another part of this plan is fairly contentious. There are differing views in this House — and in the case of our opposition, different views within the party — with respect to the Port Mann Bridge twinning.

This is a big project. This has huge implications. Right now the transit congestion on that bridge is so bad that you can't actually run a bus on it, and we haven't been able to do that for an awfully long time. The objective, of course, in twinning the Port Mann Bridge is that we'll be able to restore public transit across that corridor for the first time in 20 years, while at the same time making new investments in cycling and pedestrian paths across British Columbia.

We've seen a lot of those in our area in Coquitlam, on Guilford Avenue, and in the Como Lake area in Coquitlam as well. We've seen some phenomenal investments that we've done, in conjunction with the city of Coquitlam, on cycling paths. We're seeing a lot of that stuff come to fruition as we speak.

The throne speech also spent a great deal of time talking about the state of health care in our province and recognizing the importance of identifying a path forward for what is truly our most cherished of all public institutions. The legislative vehicles to bring this vision to life are now being presented here in this House, and they involve changing the way we think about our health care system while keeping the sanctity of the public funding of that system at its centre.

The throne speech went on to speak about our communities and the type of communities that we would like to live in going forward. It spoke about the crucial elements of a social safety net that have to be in place to look out for our most vulnerable, but it also spent a considerable amount of time talking about the fabric of our communities that is represented by and contributed to, if not owned, by our arts and culture communities throughout the province.

I very proudly represent one of the most artistically focused communities in the province. Port Moody in particular within the Tri-Cities is known as the City of the Arts. It is celebrated every year. It was celebrated just this week, actually, as the Port Moody Festival of the Arts. I have the privilege of standing in this House next week and sharing some specific thoughts on that particular festival. I was proud to open the festival on Friday night, and indeed, I'm participating in it this Saturday night as it closes down for yet another successful year.

The throne speech spoke of the importance of the arts in our community, and it spoke of the value and the priority that our government places on the arts and culture in our community. It made specific reference to the Vancouver Art Gallery, which is in desperate need of some renovations and change, and the fact that some funding would be put in place. As our budget subsequently identified, funding was put in place for that magnificent institution, recognized worldwide for what it brings to our citizens and the types of exhibits it can put together.

It also spoke of an arts endowment that we'd put in place. Since that throne speech has happened, we've seen the specifics of that. We've seen $150 million put aside to celebrate, with the arts and culture community of this province, B.C.'s 150th anniversary. That's a phenomenal amount of money, a phenomenal investment being given to a group of people who can help us identify and celebrate who we are, probably better than any other.

More urgently, and more excitingly for me personally, was the establishment of the $150 million that was put aside for the arts endowment fund. This is just phenomenal. I have a personal connection to this, because I have the honour of sitting on the B.C. Select Standing Committee of Finance, which gets an extraordinary opportunity every fall to tour this great province and to meet with the people in a very intimate fashion. Fifteen or 20 cities we do.

We've gone to the furthest corners of the province. We've met with artisans, people from the various industries, parents, ordinary citizens and business representatives. You get a great flavour of the different communities and the fabric that makes up our province. One thing we've seen for the past two years has been this extraordinary amount of representation from our arts and culture community. They've been organized. They've been articulate. They have been very focused on wanting to see arts funding increased.

The arts funding we do normally in British Columbia goes through, beyond the variety of specific things we do — like the art gallery, for example…. That's a specific, targeted funding. The majority of our arts funding goes through the B.C. Arts Council. The B.C. Arts Council distributes that money. It's a community of artists who decide how to best spend the money in the area — once again, an example of how our government puts that decision-making into the hands of the people who know best.

The B.C. Arts Council has a budget every year from our government of about $20 million. With the establishment of the BC150 endowment fund, $150 million has been put aside. That should draw between $8½ million and $10 million a year. But even if you say $8 million, to be conservative, the $8 million per year in addition to the $20 million they're currently getting means that the arts community in British Columbia just got a 40 percent increase in their baseline funding from this government, because we recognize the value the arts community bring to our communities. They make us better as a people.

I want to read for you something, because one of the four e-mails I've received on this topic, which have come from the different arts groups around the province who so passionately and articulately presented…. I've had thank-you letters. It's a rarity in this business to get thank-you letters, but I happened to get about three or four thank-you letters from some of the arts communities around the province who participated in the hearings, who knew of my personal passion for the arts and culture community and who followed up and said thank you.

None articulate it better than a woman who presented to us in Nelson. By happy coincidence, she also happens to be featured in the Port Moody Festival of the Arts this week. It's just wonderful to see the small-world element of this come together.

This woman's name is Aspen Switzer, and she's a phenomenal young entertainer. She's got a haunting voice. She's a gifted guitar player. Her father apparently works about 75 hours a week managing her career.

When Aspen learned of this, she wrote back to me. It's quite a long e-mail. I'll just read the two short paragraphs towards the end:

These are the types of things that a government can do to help their citizens define who they are and what they want to be.

As we as government deliver throne speeches and budgets to represent our vision for where we want to go forward and as those visions and as those budgets lead to a spirited and appropriate debate that takes place in this House, we are able to more clearly and articulately define who we are as a government and what we stand for. Indeed, as this 38th parliament draws to its close and as we start looking towards putting a choice in front of the people 14 short months from now, we begin to see very clearly — and it becomes very, very apparent to anyone watching — what we are for as a government.

What we are for is lowering taxes. What we are for, which we have done, is putting dollars in people's pockets. Over the last seven years this government has put over $11 billion back into the pockets of small business and other British Columbians. In 2001 we put a 25 percent tax increase in place. In 2007 we put a further 10 percent personal reduction in income taxes in place. And we announced additional income tax cuts in the budget that we just announced recently. In each of those, our opposition voted against it.

I. Black: I'm hearing the charming voice of one of my colleagues, my respected and friendly colleague opposite from down the road here.

We know what we stand for. We stand for lowering taxes. We stand for giving families choice. We stand for giving patients choice. We stand for the Gateway program, which includes the Evergreen line, which includes the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. We know what we stand for. We're willing to declare what we stand for, and this throne speech articulates that yet again.

We are for small businesses, who are enjoying unprecedented prosperity under this government. And we're for creating a strong economy and then leveraging the government revenues that a strong economy creates back into historical spending in health care and education. We know what we stand for. We know what we voted for. We know what our opposition has not voted for: all of the elements I just identified.

This throne speech, in identifying where we want to go as a government, is yet another articulate example of the leadership and vision of this government. I am proud to be a part of it. I am proud to support this throne speech.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to share my thoughts on that today.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure today to rise and participate in the 2008 throne speech debate. This is my third opportunity, as you will know, Madam Speaker, to speak a bit about my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, the home of the Malahatians and the Juan de Fucans, as I like to romantically say.

Malahat–Juan de Fuca is a romantic constituency. It's the home of deeply rural communities like Metchosin, East Sooke, Shirley, Cobble Hill, Glenora. It's also the home of very fast-growing urban, dynamic centres like Langford; the evolution of Sooke, as it's evolving; and Mill Bay, as well, in the Cowichan Valley. It's a diverse constituency that I am very proud to represent. I'm proud to represent and promote the rural aspects of my constituency but also very mindful of the importance of the development that's taking place, particularly in the city of Langford, where I have my home.

For those who are in the gallery today and for those who are watching at home, each year the government issues a Speech from the Throne, which outlines for the province and for us in this Legislature what the vision and aspirations are for the government in the coming year. I used to watch throne speeches in a previous decade, and I know that those who have licence to write the speeches get the opportunity to talk about a world that we would like to see, a place that we would like to live.

But once the speech is concluded and the echo of the idealistic tones disperses from this place, we as legislators have to go back to our communities and face our peers, the people who sent us here, and ask them if the vision, aspirations and goals laid out in the throne speech are being deployed on the ground in our communities. I would have to say, as a representative of Vancouver Island, that there are very few areas where my constituents report a passing grade.

Today in my remarks — and I know that we are short for time this morning as we get close to the lunch

break — I want to talk about four primary areas. I want to talk about education, of course. I want to talk about transportation.

I want to talk about governance, because in my constituency we have, as I've said, the city of Langford. We have unincorporated areas on the west coast of Vancouver Island. How we govern ourselves in unincorporated areas is very important. The capital regional district, the Cowichan Valley regional district — two areas which I have the privilege of representing — approach the world in very different ways, but the people that live there are very much the same.

The fourth area that I would like to talk about is agriculture and the importance of agriculture in the Cowichan Valley and also in Metchosin, Langford and in towards Sooke and East Sooke.

I'll start, I think, hon. Chair — if it's okay with you, and I'm sure it is — with agriculture because there's a proud history in my constituency, particularly in the Cowichan Valley. It was the breadbasket of Vancouver Island. We used to grow wheat here in the Cowichan Valley. I'm not sure if everyone in the building knows that, but certainly, they're aware of it now that I've put it on the record.

With a long, hundred-odd-year tradition of agriculture, the seat of that in the Cowichan Valley is Cobble Hill. The Cobble Hill Fall Fair each year is perhaps the highlight of my summer. At the end of August I get the opportunity to ride up on the train, if I'm so inclined — the Esquimalt and Nanaimo dayliner — and get off at the Cobble Hill station where there is a small procession of children, farmers and the odd antique car. We take the short walk up from the train station to the Cobble Hill hall and open the ceremony.

Last year it was a delight because we had one of the oldest farm families in the valley there to cut the ribbon as we started. I was joined by my colleague the Member of Parliament for the area, Jean Crowder, and by other local area representatives from the Cowichan Valley. The Cobble Hill Fair is generally a highlight for me.

Moving down my constituency into the Langford area, the Luxton Fall Fair comes later in the year, in September, as does the Sooke Fall Fair and Metchosin Days. So it's a very vibrant agricultural community, a very vibrant agricultural heritage, which I'm very delighted to participate in.

But I want to pay particular attention to the blackberry festival, because that takes place in East Sooke. I will never miss the blackberry festival, primarily because they allowed me to be a judge for the blackberry pie component. There's nothing in the world better than blackberry pie. So if there are any other committees out there organizing for this year's fairs and if you want perfect attendance from me, just ask me to be the blackberry pie judge, and I'll guarantee my participation.

Just as an aside, when I moved back to Victoria with my family in the early '90s, my children were young at the time. We moved into my mom's basement at the family home here in Victoria. My kids referred to my mom as Granny Pie because that was what she did. She made pies. We picked the blackberries. They would pile up in the freezer.

We're still eating them to this day, and I'm very pleased and delighted to be able to say that Granny Pie has made me the expert on blackberries that I am today. I've got a few thorns in my fingers as a result of that, but that's the essence of living on Vancouver Island with the access to wild blackberries in the fall in an agricultural area like Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

The other area which is of a primary interest in my constituency, which was touched upon in the throne speech for other areas of British Columbia, particularly the Lower Mainland and those areas that are going to be impacted by the Olympics, is transportation.

A fast-growing region, the West Shore, where I live, is bereft of any significant transportation beyond what's provided by B.C. Transit's bus system — which is a significant improvement on what it was ten years ago. There's no question. But the population growth and the densities that are occurring in Langford, in Colwood…. Not in my constituency but in the constituency of my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, the population is surpassing the transit capacity to deliver transportation options to the people in my community.

One of the issues that I've been working on since I was elected is trying to resurrect a commuter rail service from Langford — preferably from Nanaimo, actually. My colleague from Nanaimo is very active on this file as well. It's getting the train moving south in the morning and north in the afternoon so that we can move our commuters, get them out of their cars, have a positive impact on climate change and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions here on the Island by using the existing train line to move people back and forth in the morning and evening commutes.

Quite often, hon. Chair, you hear that that's easier said than done, but in this instance, it's almost easier done than said when it comes to this government. The Island Corridor Foundation — which is a collection of municipal representatives, elected representatives, first nations and other proactive stakeholders up and down the Island — made an initiative at the start of my term here, in 2005, to secure the Island corridor for the people of this place.

It's now controlled by municipal councils and first nations up and down the Island — a tremendous initiative brought forward from a junior level of government and first nations, put in front of the Minister of Transportation two years ago. I remind him of it regularly during the estimates debates.

This is a fundamental issue for me and my constituency. We have a train line in place. We have the tracks there. We have the railbed in place. We could institute commuter rail along that line with zero impact on the existing commute — no disruption to traffic. In fact, at the completion of the Communities for Commuter Rail proposal, there would be a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which is, if we're to believe the throne speech, the fundamental direction that this government wants to proceed in.

My constituents ask me: "Why, then, if it is a stated objective of the government, as articulated in the

throne speech and outlined rudimentarily in the budget and the bills that we've been debating here….? If climate change and greenhouse gas reduction is an imperative for the government, why wouldn't we want to take advantage of this golden opportunity on Vancouver Island to get people out of cars, into train cars?" Modest capital investment, modest impact on existing travel patterns in the community, ready to go, shelf-ready — ignored by the Minister of Transportation.

My constituents are concerned about that. They write to him regularly, whether it be electronically or using snail mail. The responses have been: "Well, let's see the business plan." We send a business plan. "Well, I don't like that business plan. Send me another business plan."

The challenge is increasing, and time goes by. Cars continue to clog our roadways. Construction continues in Langford and other communities. Population comes; transportation initiatives not there. So that's a challenge I put forward to the government every year, every time I get an opportunity to stand in this place. We need to address public transportation in the south Island, and the way to start is with commuter rail.

The government spoke of a $14 billion transit plan in January. It was a resurrection of a 1996 transit plan because, after all, the communities are in place. The corridors have been in existence for some time. We know where the patterns are. We know where the transportation is required. So the government dusted off a 1996 plan, called it their own and said: "Sometime in the future we may well spend $14 billion."

Then you start peeling the onion and start looking at the fine print, and that $14 billion was, maybe, really $4½ billion, and the rest from the federal government, not yet committed and from local authorities, not yet discovered. So a $14 billion air balloon went up and quickly fizzled. Here on Vancouver Island, of course, no impact at all.

I'd like to move on to the Cowichan Valley with respect to transportation. As affordability of housing in the south Island becomes a challenge for young families, more and more people are moving to the Cowichan Valley and continuing to work in the capital regional district. As more and more people move into areas like Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and Cowichan Bay in my constituency, demands for services increase — demands for transportation services in particular.

Anyone who has been on Vancouver Island will know this: the fundamental challenge for transportation from the capital region to the Cowichan Valley is the Malahat drive. I like to call it the Jamaican bobsled run because of its chicanes and harried downhill corners as we come from what's called Tunnel Hill down into Goldstream Park. It's a very significant challenge in the winter months.

Quite often when I have meetings…. I know other members who have geographically dispersed constituencies, particularly those members from the north. I always think of Bulkley Valley–Stikine and Columbia River–Revelstoke as two places that are magnificent to visit, beautiful to fly over, but my goodness, I'd hate to try and represent those areas. I have tremendous sympathy for those members who don't have the luxury that I do of being able to go home every night to my family and enjoy my constituency almost in a leisurely way.

But when I'm on the Malahat Drive in November and the rain is coming down and the windshield wipers just can't keep up with the sheets of water that we experience here in the rain forest, I often think of the Minister of Transportation and wonder why it is that he wouldn't want to try and resolve some of the challenges, some of the terror that my constituents experience driving to and forth from their communities to their workplace each and every day.

The Malahat Drive is a fundamental issue for me. It's a fundamental issue for my constituents. The government did, just before the last election, commit to a study. Everybody likes a study. Some $250,000 — that's just six figures. That's thousands, not the multi-millions that are being invested in other parts of the province but thousands of dollars to try and address this problem.

As I hear other members, in their responses to the throne speech and the budget, talk of the investments in their community and the multi-millions…. I'm certainly not begrudging them. You know that. All residents of British Columbia deserve access to the bounty that we are all blessed to share here in British Columbia. But it just feels some days that the people in my community aren't quite getting as much as those in other areas.

That's my job here, as their representative, to raise those issues, to let the government know that there's never a shortage of things to spend money on. I often hear, "There's a shortage of money," on the other side, yet we did find $440 million in this year's budget to give a hundred dollars back to each and every individual in the province. Markus Naslund — 25 goals, a hundred bucks from the taxpayers. Jimmy Pattison gets a hundred bucks.

Markus is probably going back to Sweden. I don't know what he'll do…. What's that in krónas? I don't know what that is in krónas, but the taxpayers are going to send him a cheque. I hope the exchange rate doesn't negatively impact his carbon credit, but I know the Swedes will be very happy to take that money back to Sweden. The taxpayers will thank them for their good efforts here with the Vancouver Canucks

J. Horgan: And the Lottery Corporation. Don't get me started on the Lottery Corporation.

The other issue I'd like to talk about is education. I know that the Minister of Education and I have had numerous debates on these issues, and we have a fundamental divide on the question. I think I'm being generous when I say that, but I do like to be generous with

the minister. She's often very generous with me. I want to touch on education because I have to.

School closures have become a seasonal occupation for many parents in my community. The minister knows this, and she has had school closures in her community as well. The declining enrolment issue across the province is an obvious one. I've heard her make that case, and I accept that judgment from her in certain parts of the province.

But in my communities, in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, we have, in district 62, an increasing enrolment. We have more students coming in than we had in the past. The challenge in a growing community — like Langford, like Highlands, like Colwood, like Sooke — is that the expectation of people moving to those communities is that services will be provided to them as they're provided to other British Columbians.

Just this week — in fact, two days ago — we had the district 62 trustees moved to close Glenlake Elementary, which is just around the corner from my home. It's a 47-year-old school. Many would argue that it does need a little bit of a polish and a cleanup, and I wouldn't dispute that. But the importance of Glenlake Elementary to the community that it has served for almost 50 years is almost incalculable.

It was a very difficult decision for trustees. They were put in that position, I believe, because of a funding formula put in place by the current government that doesn't adequately take into account the disparities and the differences from region to region. A funding formula that focuses exclusively on per-pupil counts does not necessarily reflect the diversity of the communities that we all represent here.

As I move up the hill into the communities in the Cowichan Valley, we have two schools in particular this year — four overall, but two that are in my community south of the river — Ecole Mill Bay and Koksilah Elementary. Those two schools are slated for closure.

The minister has, at the request of the board and in discussion with the board, put in place an adviser to help them get through this in district 79 — Dr. Lee Southern, who is an outstanding individual. I have tremendous faith in him and his capacity to find the problem. I'm just hopeful that when he does, the government will accept the solution that may well keep these schools open for another year as they grapple with enrolment issues that the minister knows full well.

These are issues that are forefront in the community. They're brought to my attention. There's an expectation that I'll speak out for those individuals, those families, those students. I'm doing that today, and I do that each and every day, and I'm proud to do it.

With respect to Koksilah Elementary, I've spoken about Koksilah in this House before, and it brings us to two issues that I wanted to close on. I know that we're short for time. Although the Government House Leader often likes to hear me go on to the full extent of my time in this place, I will, in the interest of the lunch hour, try and shorten my remarks and conclude in a few moments.

I want to speak to Koksilah Elementary because of its importance to the Cowichan tribes in my community. Koksilah Elementary is 99 percent first nations, and it is the only school that I'm aware of on Vancouver Island that has daily instruction in aboriginal language, culture and tradition.

This is an enormous step for the people in the Cowichan Valley and for first nations in general. The spectre of residential schools is still very much alive in communities in my area, whether it be on the T'sou-ke First Nation, the Beecher Bay nation, the Pacheedaht people or certainly the Cowichan tribes.

For elders to come back to a school — not a particular building in this instance, but the school system in general — conjures up for them very, very difficult memories, very, very harsh reflections on their youth. To see their grandchildren and their children participating in their own language and their own culture is truly a wonderful thing.

I know that when Dr. Southern has completed his assessment of the situation in district 79, we will indeed have a solution that will see Koksilah remain open as well as Ecole Mill Bay, the only single-track French immersion program south of the Cowichan River — two programs that I know the minister, all things being equal, would want to see continue. I'm hopeful that when Dr. Southern reports back to her, she will see the wisdom of keeping those places open.

Just in conclusion, there is the question of parks in my community. I represent an area that includes Goldstream Park, French Beach, China Beach, Sooke Potholes, Witty's Lagoon. It goes on and on. It's one of the most beautiful places in British Columbia, and I'm very, very proud to represent it. But the one thing I would like to leave with the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment in this debate is the existence — and they're aware of it — of very, very significant old-growth Douglas fir in and around the Koksilah River in my constituency on land currently owned by TimberWest.

I'm aware, as the ministers would be, that TimberWest has committed to a moratorium and has agreed to leave these trees standing. They're magnificent examples of Douglas fir forest, massive in size, absolutely overwhelming, just 35, 40 minutes away from us in this Legislature. They're still standing, and with the cooperation of the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Environment and TimberWest, I'm fairly confident that we can keep these trees standing and preserve this natural splendour for future generations.

Just across the river from these magnificent trees is a structure called the Kinsol Trestle. I've spoken about the Kinsol Trestle in this place before, and I won't take up too much time. Suffice it to say that it is the largest structure of its kind in the Commonwealth. It is deteriorating. We've had a commitment from government for somewhere in the area of $3 million to keep it

The cost of preserving and maintaining that structure is significantly higher than that, and my constituents certainly would encourage the government, in the next 12 months, to find some way to squeeze a few more bucks out of the multibillion dollars in surplus revenues that the Minister of Finance tells us about and ensure that some of that money goes into the issues in my community that I've been speaking about today and will continue to speak about until May of next year.

With that, I'll thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this year's Speech from the Throne and encourage the government to think of Malahat–Juan de Fuca when they've got a couple of bucks in their envelopes.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, hon. Members, the question is the motion on Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

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

Hon. P. Bell: I am joined this morning by my Deputy Minister Larry Pedersen, the associate deputy minister for the integrated land management bureau, Mike Lambert, and the director of the species-at-risk coordination office — I hope I got all that right — Dr. Mark Zacharias.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about species at risk — namely, some questions about the spotted owl and then the mountain caribou.

Starting with the spotted owl, how many spotted owls do we have remaining in the province?

Hon. P. Bell: Although it is always awkward to know the exact number, the last census that we had for spotted owls was a total of 19 birds.

M. Sather: Yeah, the numbers aren't precise, but they're obviously very low. That's a great cause for concern that we could lose this beautiful species.

I had the opportunity last fall to go up to S&M Creek near Pemberton to look at some habitat there and where there was a spotted owl. Unfortunately, apparently I arrived one night too late. Apparently, the owl was captured the night before I was there, and I believe that owl is in the captive-breeding program. I wanted to ask the minister how the owl is doing.

Hon. P. Bell: She is doing very well. We actually have a total of four owls currently in the captive-breeding program, and we have all of our fingers and toes crossed. We think we may have some eggs in the near future, so we're quite hopeful. She is doing very well. We have not named her yet, but there is an auction out for naming rights currently.

M. Sather: I wanted to read to the minister some comments by André Germain, the operations manager for the Squamish forest district. This is the area where I was. I mentioned that I was up in Pemberton, which includes what he's talking about here.

He said: "Selective logging, some 61 hectares in total, has taken place periodically in the area over the past eight years with no obvious detrimental impact on the owl that's known to live in the area." Of course, that's the owl that is no longer there.

I want to ask the minister if he feels that logging in the owl habitat has no effect on the owls, as suggested by Mr. Germain.

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of pieces of the equation that I think we should talk a little bit about here. In this particular instance, with this particular owl…. She was spatially removed from all other owls, and it was very unlikely that she would have found a mate.

That was part of the attributes we were looking for when we were making decisions on which owls to bring into the captive-breeding program. She would have likely lived her life on her own. Conversely, there would have perhaps been the risk of a mating with a barred owl, which does occur as well — as I think the member opposite knows. He is aware that that's one of the risks associated with the longevity of the spotted owl.

In terms of the question the member asked as it relates to log harvesting techniques, there are specific attributes of the habitat that have to be taken under consideration by the district managers when they make log harvesting decisions or when they make decisions with regards to cutting plans. It is canopy cover, and it is the nature of the habitat that is required for the spotted owl.

Because these areas fall into specific habitat identified for spotted owls, the district manager is legally obligated — as they consider the plans that are brought forward — to maintain the integrity of that habitat. As statutory decision–makers, I'm confident that they would fulfil that responsibility.

It's certainly not appropriate to have all forms of logging in spotted owl areas. In fact, the legal objectives in place ensure that that is not allowed. But where there is an opportunity for individual tree removal and maintenance of the overall canopy, there are occasions when that can take place.

M. Sather: I did have a chance, as I said, to look at the logging in that owl's habitat there at S&M Creek, and licensees are required to protect 40 trees per hectare logging in owl habitat. Can the minister explain: what is the benefit of leaving 40 trees per hectare?

Hon. P. Bell: I feel very fortunate to have the ex–chief forester at my side, who has tremendous expertise in this area, along with Dr. Mark and Mike Lambert, who helped with this, because it is very technical in nature — what the member is asking. They're all good questions as well, I might add.

First of all, I should inform the member that the nesting site is located three kilometres from any of the harvesting that was going on in the region. That was one of the specific criteria established to ensure the protection of the mandate. Normally, spotted owls have a relatively small range, so it was considered that that was appropriate — the three-kilometre distance.

The other attribute that is important for the owl is to open up the canopy a bit for the owls, for hunting, so that they are able to acquire the necessary feed. So there are situations where it is in fact appropriate to harvest some of the trees in the region to allow for a better quality of habitat to be in place.

Again, I would remind the member that this was an unusual situation. It was an owl that appeared to be separated spatially from other owls, very unlikely to have found a mate — not necessarily the best habitat as a result of that. That was one of the reasons why this particular owl was chosen for the captive breeding program.

M. Sather: Did I understand the minister right? Did he say that the nest of this owl was three kilometres from the logging area?

M. Sather: Can the minister clarify for me, then? He said that the owl was removed because there didn't appear to be any chance for it breeding, but it had a nest site, which would indicate to me that it had bred in the area. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. But it was many, many years ago when the owl had bred in the area, and there was no sign of any opportunity for that to take place at this point.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for his answer. As I said, I looked at the habitat where they were logging, the owl habitat there at S&M Creek. There's just a tree here and a tree there. I can't see any possible benefit to the owl of leaving the odd tree here and there. It isn't a matter of opening the canopy. It's pretty much a clearcut with one or two trees standing, or maybe three or four in a little clump here and there, which are likely to be blown down anyway. But I want to move on.

As the minister knows, there's a lot of concern and controversy around spotted owl protection in British Columbia. There have been concerns expressed by government staff, such as Mr. Myke Chutter — maybe he's Dr. Chutter; I'm not sure — who is the bird specialist for British Columbia. His quote, one of them, was: "This isn't a population augmentation issue. It's a critical habitat protection issue."

He later summed up his feelings about a spotted owl planning meeting this way. "Disappointing to say the least. My take is that this is a recipe that pretty well

guarantees extirpation over time." He also worries that discussions over owl recovery have "centred on what timber licensees may or may not be willing to do rather than what the owl needed."

Those are pretty strong comments from a very knowledgable member of the government. Could the minister comment on his comments?

Hon. P. Bell: Context is always a wonderful thing, and I think it's important to know that Mr. Chutter, or Dr. Chutter…. Some of his comments pertained actually to the 1997 spotted owl recovery strategy, not the 2006 recovery strategy. It's always good, I think, to have context on some of these comments. Some of the other pieces are important for the member to know.

Of course, British Columbia is on the northernmost extreme of the spotted owl range. There are about 10,000 owls in the United States just across the border, and that is the more natural habitat for spotted owl. We are a habitat that has certainly increased in quality as a result of global warming. The owls have continued to push into British Columbia, but British Columbia traditionally has not been the origin of many birds.

Some of the actions and substantive areas we have identified. Of about 450,000 hectares of spotted owl habitat, we believe that — in the province that have been identified — half of that is now fully protected, so it has full and complete protection. About 360,000 hectares is either managed or protected. Well over 75 percent or 80 percent of the total spotted owl habitat is either currently being managed…. Half of the total spotted owl habitat is under full protection.

The plan that we have in place now, including all the augmentation, the captive breeding programs, the protection of habitat — all of the different work that's going on — amounts to a budget of $3.4 million over five years. We think we have a credible plan that will recover the species, and we're going to continue to execute on that plan.

M. Sather: Is the minister suggesting, though, in his comments that Dr. Chutter does not have serious concerns about the current spotted owl recovery program?

Hon. P. Bell: What I said was that context was important and that some of Dr. Chutter's comments pertain to the 1997 plan. I said "some. I didn't say "all." The member can go back and check Hansard if he cares to. We value Dr. Chutter's views and opinions. We incorporate those into the plan and continue to work with him.

M. Sather: Well, the minister mentioned the amount of spotted owl habitat that is supposedly protected when he announced the recovery strategy for the spotted owl in 2006, the aforementioned 363,000 hectares. That has been criticized, and others have concerns about it, not just Dr. Chutter.

David Cunnington is the senior species-at-risk biologist for Environment Canada, and he said: "This kind of approach" — i.e., the one being used now — "can be characterized as halfway technology, putting a band-aid on a heart attack or treating the symptom instead of the disease, and is a great example of fiscal inefficiency."

He also notes that of 363,000 hectares designated for spotted owls, only 48 percent is suitable habitat and even then contains large parts in which owls have never been located. Harvesting has occurred in valley bottoms leaving "disconnected sub-optimal habitat for owls on valley sides."

So there's another damning indictment of the program. I don't know if the minister wants to add any further comments in defence of the spotted owl recovery program today.

Hon. P. Bell: I actually stand corrected. Mr. Chutter doesn't have a PhD, so he's not a doctor. I think there are three points the member should be aware of or that are important to this discussion….

First is that the preferred habitat for the spotted owl actually disappeared somewhere between the late 1800s and about 1930. That's the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley was actually the optimal habitat for the spotted owl. Of course, it now resides as the predominant agricultural region and the region with the largest population centres in the province, and it's not likely to be recovered as ideal habitat for the spotted owl. So that was the very limited traditional range that was available.

We are working — and I think what the member points out is that we're having to work — with parts of the province that have not been the optimal habitat for spotted owl, but the primary area was the lower Fraser Valley.

The second key piece is that the comments that the member referred to were actually made prior to the spotted owl habitat enhancement team's report, plans around protection, enhancement and augmentation and captive breeding programs. They were made in an arbitrary e-mail exchange, I think, so those comments were all prior to a lot of actions that we're currently taking.

The third thing that I think is important for the member to be aware of is that there is currently a habitat revision project underway. We are looking at incremental habitat and where there could be additional habitat brought in that would provide continuity for spotted owls so that they have a better chance of finding mates and are able to fly spatially in different parts of their normal range. So there is actually another piece of work that is ongoing right now that would potentially result in revisions to the protections that are in place today.

I wanted to move on to the mountain caribou. Last fall, last October, of course, the minister had a big announcement about the protection of habitat for mountain caribou — some 2.2 million hectares. I wanted to know: is there a map or some other description on the integrated land management bureau website or elsewhere in government that shows where this 2.2 million hectares is?

Hon. P. Bell: The work is being done with each of the individual science teams across the landscape in the different habitat units right now. The work is anticipated to be completed by the end of April, at which point those maps will be posted.

M. Sather: Of those 2.2 million hectares, how much of it is in parks and protected areas or in previous land use plans that had modified forest harvest zones?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to kind of jump ahead because I suspect I know where the line of questioning is going, but I'll answer the first question and then go on.

Currently, 64 percent of the 2.2 million hectares is under some form of protection. That would include provincial parks, federal parks, wildlife habitat areas or areas defined in land use management plans that exclude any sort of industrial activity.

Of the remainder, there are approximately 380,000 hectares identified for incremental protection. Of those, 77,000 fall within the timber harvesting land base, and 300,000 fall in the non–timber harvesting land base. The overall objective of the plan is to protect 95 percent of the high winter suitability habitat for the caribou.

M. Sather: The minister mentioned that maps are being drawn up. As I understand, local habitat teams are doing that now and are circulating some of these. When do they become final, and will they be by regulation? How do they become official, if you will?

Hon. P. Bell: There are preliminary maps, I should advise the member, on the website now, of course, but those are subject to finalization by the teams. I think he knows that. The legalization of the objectives will be met through several different tools. Government action regulations would be one of those — GAR orders — but also legalized objectives could be used. So there are a couple of possibilities. There are other management tools we can utilize to ensure that the objectives are legally defined and required to be met.

M. Sather: If I understand the minister right, there's about 380,000 hectares of new land — new protected areas — and 77,000 hectares in the timber-harvesting land base. Is the government pursuing what's called the non-spatial protection of caribou habitat? Is that the route that we're going?

Hon. P. Bell: There are, all together, 11 different planning units. It's anticipated that the vast majority of those will be spatialized. There are a couple of habitat units. The two in particular that are under consideration right now are North Thompson and central Selkirk, where they may not be identified spatially, but they may use an adaptive management model over time to provide that incremental protection because of the nature of the regions — harder to spatialize those two particular landscape units.

M. Sather: The non-spatial protection, for example, is going to be — or is being used — in central Selkirk. That's where you don't exactly determine a geographical area for protection of the caribou but, rather, a percent of habitat types. Is that right? Is that what it is?

Hon. P. Bell: What I said is slightly different than what the member repeated and suggested that I said. What I said was: "It is under consideration." The decision's not been made on that in the central Selkirks, and I think the member suggested that I said the decision had been made on that.

I'm advised that in the central Selkirks we think that at this point about 75 percent of the area would be spatially identified and that 25 percent would not be. But whatever final decision is made here will be done collaboratively with full support of the science team and the herd experts in the area. It is not a decision that would be unilaterally made and implemented by government. It's one that is done utilizing best science.

M. Sather: So if the non-spatial is being used…. In that model, then, do the companies decide where to log, as long as they stick to the approved percentages of habitat types?

Hon. P. Bell: It's important for the member to know that this aspatial area is actually still identified spatially on the landscape. So it's not just a broad-ranging, unidentifiable area. It is specifically identified.

The member asked if it's industry — if the companies are the ones that make the logging decisions. That is incorrect. The decisions in terms of what logging would be done within the aspatial areas would be made by a combination of the herd experts and the Ministry of Environment biologists.

M. Sather: I'm going to speed it up a bit here because some of my colleagues want to ask some questions.

So for the central Kootenays, then, what I understand is…. The concern is that a lot of this logging…. Well, two concerns: first of all, that a lot of it's going to be in areas that are only up to 60 years old, which is too young for caribou habitat — the protection, I mean — and also, that the low- and mid-range-elevation habitat, which is crucial for caribou in the fall and early spring, is not going to be getting adequate protection. That's a concern I've heard expressed.

But I think I'll move on. The minister certainly can address that if he wishes. I want to move on to the question of the 1 percent cap of timber-harvesting land

base that was announced after the celebratory announcement in October. Groups like ForestEthics have expressed concern that that 1 percent cap on the effect on the forestry land base was announced afterwards.

Could the minister tell us why it was announced after the celebratory event that happened here in October?

Hon. P. Bell: I want to touch on the first question, if I may, just for a moment. I think it really speaks to the integrity of the mountain caribou recovery plan. One of the key themes is, I think, that you need to be held accountable, and I think that you need to have a very transparent, open process for the activities.

The member well knows that this was a very collaborative process, with ForestEthics and Wildsight representing ten different environmental organizations that have an interest in this area. Although there are some other environmental organizations that disagree with the decisions that have been made, I would suggest that when you bring ten environmental organizations on board in a collaborative process, you've done very well.

I certainly have a lot of respect for ForestEthics in the work that they've done, and Wildsight — Candace Batycki and John Bergenske — deserve a lot of credit for being willing to be open and work with government. Part of openness and transparency falls to the progress board that's being established.

I have every confidence in the world in Candace's ability and John's ability to speak up and say if they don't believe the government is meeting their objective. It would be foolish to think that we would appoint individuals from the environmental community to a progress board if we didn't want to be held to account.

Although this will have ongoing effort that will be required in order to have effective implementation, I fully believe that the process we have undertaken to date, in terms of collaboration with the environmental community, is the right approach. I have every confidence that the targets and objectives of a growing population will be met.

To the second question that the member asked, about the 1 percent cap on habitat of the THLB, 1 percent of the THLB in the region works out to 115,000 hectares, and the commitment was to 77,000 hectares. So the ability for us to deliver on the commitment of 95 percent high suitability winter habitat can be met easily within the 1 percent cap. There was no, to the best of my knowledge, formal announcement around that, but the 1 percent cap certainly gives us the ability to deliver on the criteria that were established.

S. Fraser: Hello again to the minister and staff. I'm switching gears here, so I hope you can bear with me on this. It's on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Bob Doyle. He had come up with an innovative new idea for the west coast — as far as I know, it's done on the east coast — to deal with seaweed harvesting on the beach. The product is…. Japonica is the Latin name, I believe, and Irish moss is kind of the colloquial term for it. I don't know if that's scientifically correct.

He brought forward the issue with the ministry, with your staff locally — this was several years ago — that this wasn't being done on the coast, and this particular substance is becoming quite valuable for, I think, medical research. So there is a market for it for that, and there's a sustainable way of dealing with it.

He made some proposals. He did achieve, I think, four licences from Qualicum to Deep Bay area, on the east side of the central island. This year, in the last letter he got from the ministry, it's being let for sort of a tendering process. There are a number of applicants now interested in harvesting this product.

I guess I just need some clarification. Is there a process whereby someone can bring forward a new proposal for, in this case, harvesting this substance off the beach, and then, when that gets known, it gets brought into an open public tendering process, which I think might be a bit of a breach of trust?

I'm not saying this with any malice. He did this in good faith. He brought forward a new idea, and now it's being let for multiple tenured applicants. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. P. Bell: The specific file I'm not aware of. I'd be happy to work with the member on it and have a good look at it. I think that would be the appropriate approach.

What the member describes is one of the issues that government is always faced with, which is when there is a new idea or a new approach brought into government, or a new product that has some value to it, and someone comes in with a specific idea around that and presents that idea. Should government provide direct awards on products like that or new opportunities like that, or do they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to have an open, kind of transparent bidding process? I don't know that there's actually any right answer to that question. It's a very challenging one, one that we're faced with all the time within government.

So the specific file — hard for me to comment on it not knowing it, but I would be pleased to work with the member to take a look at it and see how it could be effectively managed. There is no right answer, in my view, in terms of how you deal, particularly, with some of the new products that are coming on stream all the time that no one ever imagined had value in the past, but yet today may have huge value.

S. Fraser: I will prepare something on this with Mr. Doyle to provide to the minister and his staff.

Just in finishing off on this subject, I know the proponent with a new idea…. I understand there are two ways that tenures can be let. If it's an existing idea like a gravel pit or something — which, again, Lands is responsible for — that's already been used previously, generally speaking it's hard to award just to a single applicant because there's a history of use there. But when somebody comes forward with a new idea…. In

this case, Mr. Doyle apparently sought some backing from various individuals or companies, and those individuals and companies have then gone forward and applied for the same thing. It makes it difficult for somebody to be entrepreneurial. I appreciate the minister being willing to look at this.

I'll finish off with a…. I'm mindful of time. There's recently been an award of the Bowser scallop farm proposal for Island Scallops — arguably a large site, 125 hectares in the Strait of Georgia. The minister knows it has been a controversial one, and I'm not going to judge. I've been to the site. I've had a tour of the facility. Island Scallops is a real company that seems to do very good work and a nice product.

But the public and the sectors involved, other uses of the area — and there are many — have raised a lot of concerns. The one that struck me the most is that there wasn't a formal public process through the ministry to deal with those concerns. I know the proponent had a public meeting or maybe several, but that was the proponent. The ministry never brought in a public process that allowed the public to feel that they were being listened to by the ministry.

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member's question on this issue. As he may know, I am also the statutory decision-maker on the file, a very complex file. The binders stretched into probably a foot and a half or so by the time the file was completed. I think, as the member knows, the original application was for about three times the size.

In terms of public process, extensive advertising, lots of opportunity for public comment…. I myself actually met with many of the individuals that opposed this particular project, and all of the issues that were brought up were certainly taken under consideration during the decision-making process.

Again, this isn't one of those ones that you were able to find resolution to every single issue. There were conflicting values that came up in the process. In the end, I am asked, as the decision-maker, to make a judgment on a proposal of this nature. I'd be happy to provide the member with an outline of all of the various meetings, all the various time lines, all the various processes that take place.

I do think there was adequate opportunity for input into the process, and I don't think that any new information would have come out as a result of any other processes that would have taken place. The project did fall underneath the scope required for an environmental assessment review, which is a far more in-depth process, certainly, but it falls underneath that requirement. There is a threshold under which that process takes place.

I think that really what it came down to is that there is a group of folks who didn't like the decision, and they are suggesting that there was not adequate opportunity for input into the system. I would reject that there was not adequate opportunity. I think there was lots of opportunity for input. The body of documentation that I received clearly identified that there was adequate opportunity.

At the same time, I very much respect and understand that some of those people didn't like the decision and the outcome. Fourteen different first nations directly involved in the process all either supported or did not oppose one of those two outcomes on the project. In fact, some partnering, some good job opportunities…. Some other first nations are looking at what Island Scallops is doing on that particular project as a potential economic proposal for their particular communities as well.

So I think the key thing that the member may or may not know…. This may be new information, but the licence that I offered to Island Scallops was a one-year licence. I understood the nature of the controversy here and the mood in the area. I thought it was appropriate to issue a one-year licence and to reassess the project at the end of a year and make sure that the results are what they are expected to be.

Difficult decision — not an easy one. The member points out that he's been to Island Scallops and looked at their facilities and looked at their products and their real company, and they have a potential for economic benefit to the region. But he also represents much of the area and hears from constituents. So he is as conflicted as I am in this area in that it's one of those things that you're simply not going to be able to keep everyone happy.

In the end, I have the responsibility to consider very specific criteria around that application, and I made the decision on the basis of the criteria and the information that was put in front of me.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I would take the minister up on his offer to provide me with the sequence of events that led to this decision. I understand it is somewhat subjective, and I understand the minister's role. That being said, the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture made some specific recommendations around shellfish. As you know, the committee recognized the importance of the industry, that it was a relatively new industry and that it had potential for the province.

However, specifically around larger operations the committee recommended being very mindful of public process and siting criteria in particular, especially with the potential for conflicting use. That was in the interests of not just the public who might be opposing it or other sectors that might be opposing it but also in the interests of the industry — that having that public buy-in and that public process and the feeling that the public were listened to was essential as a win-win.

This being, I think, the largest…. Despite the fact that it's a smaller footprint than originally anticipated — the minister is right; it's quite a bit smaller — it still would make it the largest scallop farm of its kind in the province, if not in the country, if not in the world. I haven't been able to find another jurisdiction that has a 125-hectare scallop farm.

The small group of individuals that the minister was referring to …. My take on it was that every sector I heard from, whether it was the commercial fishing industry, the herring advisory board, the native fisheries board, the tourism people, the sport fishing, tug operators…. I mean, I had, as the minister must have also, a lot of correspondence raising concerns about this. Most of those groups did not feel that they had adequate public process. I look forward to the minister providing me with that information.

With that, I will cede my position here to my colleague geographically to the right of me.

G. Coons: Thank you for being here, staff and Minister. I just have a few questions about some of the LRMPs that are happening on the north coast, Haida Gwaii and the central coast.

One thing I'm sure the minister has heard a lot about is the coast sustainability trust fund. As he knows, it was initiated with the mitigation fund in place to help mitigate impacts of the LRMPs that were going on. Basically, during the life of that fund close to $3 million was paid to redundant workers, severance packages were close to $16,000, and payments were made out to contractors eliminated because of the provincial government decisions and agreements with the LRMPs. That mitigation fund was rolled over into the community fund at a certain time when the north coast and Haida Gwaii LRMPs were not finalized.

I'm sure the minister has heard a lot of concern about mitigation to workers and whether or not there is a push towards the coast sustainability trust fund working for the workers and some of the contractors on the islands that need it for compensation for job loss or pension bridging or early retirement or retraining.

I realize that the trust fund wound up in March 2007 and that Eric van Soren has two years to work out what to do with the money. But there was close to $12 million transferred over from the mitigation fund in March 2005, I believe, that was not available to the workers on the north coast and the Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte LRMPs. I was wondering if there was any suggestion or movement or legislation or amendments coming to help the workers in those regions.

Hon. P. Bell: It's actually Eric van Soren who is the administrator of the coast sustainability trust fund. The coast sustainability trust was rolled over into the coast sustainability trust II, so CST II.

I am joined now by John Bones, who is the assistant deputy minister of the integrated land management bureau, along with Larry Pedersen and Mike Lambert.

John actually sits on the CST II board, the coast sustainability trust board, and works with Eric van Soren on the project. There are still funds available for worker transition and that is available through until March 31, '09, which is the full implementation of ecosystem-based management, at which point the board members will review the availability of funds and make decisions on the direction of any funds that may continue to rest with the board.

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have the exact number here. We think it's $5 million. If the member would like the exact number, we'd be happy to provide that to him.

G. Coons: Is that the eco-based management matching funds that you're talking about?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that level of information here with us right now. I'd be happy to provide it to the member. We don't think that the fund that he's identified is the one that's available, but we don't have that level of information. We'd be happy to provide a detailed briefing to the member on that issue.

G. Coons: I just mentioned that because about $5 million is in that fund. That's why I asked that question.

Just a final comment on this. On the central coast close to $10 million was given in the mitigation fund, and in March '05, $12 million was rolled over into the community matching funds. I find that that money is now not available, and people in the regions were hoping that there would be some sort of legislation or amendments to help out in that situation and roll that back, so just on that note.

I have one question dealing with the Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte Islands land use plan and one of the recommendations about the trophy hunt. I'm sure the minister has been getting lots of feedback on that recently. There's been a seven-day protest, and there was a major concern from the Haida on there that they have a resolution calling for the trophy hunt to be halted on Haida Gwaii.

During the land use plan, out of the 19 people that were there, 18 recommended that they put a halt to the trophy hunt. I'm just wondering the status of that and when a decision will be made by the table and by the government.

Hon. P. Bell: So a couple of pieces around this, I suppose. There was an MOU signed with the Haida in 2005, and it was agreed that this would be one of the issues that would be taken under consideration.

The land use plan that was recently signed by the Council of the Haida Nation and the province of British Columbia was outside of the scope of the bear hunt. That continues to be one of the issues that will be under discussion with the Council of the Haida Nation. That does fall to the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, not the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

As far as the Great Bear rain forest and the central coast LRMP, there's been lots of talk, and over two

years ago it was announced by the government and the Premier and a lot of people that this is a huge initiative and a huge step forward. I'm just wondering. Half of the protected areas are not protected yet. What's the timing for legislation for the rest of the areas within the Great Bear?

Hon. P. Bell: The significant areas have been protected. Over half of the areas that were originally identified are under protection. There are more coming forward for protection a little bit later on in this session. That work is ongoing.

It's very complex work because of the nature of it. You don't just kind of simply draw a line on a map and say that that's the area that is identified for protection. There's a fair bit of detail work. That's ongoing.

We're confident that we will meet all the time frames and specifically as they relate to the conservation incentive investments initiative, which had some benchmarks put in place in terms of when those funds would be released to the CIII initiative and be available to first nations. So we are confident we'll meet those objectives.

There are more areas coming forward for protection in this spring session, and we will continue to execute on that work until it's complete.

G. Coons: Two years ago the Premier said: "In short order legislation will be introduced around these land use decisions to establish new protected areas." Here it is two years later. Two years ago, you know, a lot of people were duly impressed. Some were a bit skeptical about whether or not it was just a photo op for the Premier.

Hon. P. Bell: That is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. Also, of course, I would be breaching confidentiality, and I could also, I suppose, be breaching the confidence of the House if I were to release that level of information here.

G. Coons: In addition to the protected areas, there were some proposed biodiversity areas that would not allow forestry or major hydro projects among them, and there's been no action on those areas to date. I'm just sort of wondering whether or not action is proposed in the near future on those areas.

Hon. P. Bell: We're still continuing to work with first nations to complete that work, but certainly, it's work that's ongoing. The member is aware of the general areas that were spatially identified on the maps. It is somewhat of a new designation and one that we think is appropriate. So that work continues with our first nations partners.

G. Coons: Recently the minister received some documentation from William Gladstone. What about the Cascade-Sutslem conservancy in Heiltsuk traditional territory? Is there legislation coming forward on that? There's a letter from William Gladstone saying: "We fully expect you to live up to the spirit and intent of these agreements, keeping with the duty of the Crown." They're looking for timely completion of legislation.

Hon. P. Bell: The question that the member is asking would require me to breach the confidence of cabinet. I'm not in a position to do that.

G. Coons: As far as the completion of the protected areas, will this be completed by the March 2009 deadline?

Hon. P. Bell: All of the obligations that we made two years ago in the announcement will be fully met by the March 31, 2009 deadline.

G. Coons: As far as funding, the agreed-upon funding for the Great Bear had $60 million from environmental organizations, $30 million from the federal government and a $30 million commitment from the province. Has this been allocated, and what budget has that been allocated in?

Hon. P. Bell: Both the federal and provincial funds flowed last year into the fund and are available. There's a board that has been established to operate it. The foundation funds, the $60 million from foundations, currently sit in escrow and are available subject to the completion of the full implementation of EBM by March 31, '09.

G. Coons: One region in the Heiltsuk territory has an IPP project in there. I was just wondering how many of the left-to-be-designated areas have interests or applications from private power projects.

Hon. P. Bell: We believe that there are four proposals right now in some of these areas. All of the proponents for all four of those proposals have been contacted and advised of government's intent on the land use decisions in the area. They are fully informed and should make their decisions very cautiously as they move forward with their proposals, knowing the objectives and the legalization of the protection in each of those areas.

G. Coons: Before I pass it on to my colleague, I just had a concern with the Nascall River project, where the Ministry of Environment representatives indicated that the conservancy designation would not be going ahead until there was an agreement with first nations and the independent power producers in the area. I'm just wondering whether or not those contradictions to protecting the regions — with the agreement with the Ministry of Environment representatives — are conflicting, in the minister's mind.

Hon. P. Bell: The specific proponent that the member refers to along with the other three proponents who have identified projects inside areas to be protected have all been spoken to individually by integrated land management bureau staff and advised that government's intent is to apply the various forms of protection as were originally identified in the maps of just over two years ago.

S. Simpson: I just have a couple of quick questions related to the Great Bear area. It's my understanding that the multi-stakeholder EBM working group had put forward a budget request of about $2.7 million and that the response is funding to the tune of about $1.7 million.

Could the minister confirm that that is accurate, in terms of the funding? What concerns are there about whether, with essentially 40 percent less than the amount that's been asked for by that group, they will in fact be able to do the work? We know that the nature of that particular working group is integral to the success and the integrity of this project. Are they going to be able to do that with the reduced funding?

Hon. P. Bell: This particular EBM working group had a significant amount of unspent money at the end of their fiscal year — in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars, or perhaps a bit more. We, at this point, have full confidence in their ability to execute with the carryover surplus that they have and the $1.7 million. But that said, this is a very important process that we're currently undertaking, one that I think is a tremendous model for the development of land use decisions over time.

I'm watching this one very, very closely — personally. I want to see a successful program in place. We will continue to monitor. Certainly, we think that with a combination of the carry-forward funds and the incremental $1.7 million, they should be able to complete their work.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for his answer. As he says, this is an important process, and hopefully, should there be requirement for supplemental funds to ensure the work of that group, that the ministry would look favourably on that, if they deemed that appropriate.

I have one last question. The minister said that the government would complete all of its obligations by March 2009 that were committed to when this was originally announced. One of those pieces that was committed to was a regional planning process that many suggest would be required to protect the ecological integrity of this process. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what the status of that regional planning process is at this time, and will that regional plan be completed before March 2009 to fulfil the obligations that the minister said would be fulfilled?

Hon. P. Bell: It's important for the member to know, first of all, that regional plans were not part of the announcement. It was something that was discussed during the process. We think it's an important part of the completion of the work that needs to be done on the coast.

To put some context around that, there are 30 different first nations in the region that we are referring to here. We're working with each of the first nations across the region to develop strategic plans for their traditional territories. At the completion of that work you would then roll up all of that work into the regional plans and analysis for ecosystem-based management.

So we're actively working with all first nations across the region right now in developing strategic plans. I should add that I think there are three that are not actively engaged in that process right now for their own various reasons.

As that work is completed, our intent is to roll that up into our regional plans. But the regional plans were not part of the original announcement. It was discussed. It is something that we need to do. We are going to execute on that, but that was not part of the February '06 announcement.

We're conscious of time here. We are wrapping up before noon, and I do want to do a little bit of work around the integrated land management bureau and some questions around mountain pine beetle, land conversion from forest, and then some issues around converting farmland back to forests.

With respect to the integrated land management bureau, there are rumblings out there that we're restructuring that organization. I wonder if the minister could let us know what the nature of that restructuring is.

Hon. P. Bell: The integrated land management bureau consists of a number of different entities within the organization that includes GeoB.C., the species-at-risk coordination office, FrontCounter B.C., Crown land administration, and planning.

The work that the member is talking about is a new process that is evolving at this point in time. It's a different engagement model with first nations. What we have found within the integrated land management bureau is that much of our work really involves directly engaging with first nations around the province. I often describe the ministry as…. If it's something to do with first nations and it's not treaty, it's probably us. That's not something that necessarily is broadly understood, I think, publicly — the level of work and engagement that this ministry does on an ongoing basis with first nations.

So we are looking at creating a structure that engages first nations differently, that provides a better level of consistency to first nations so that they know exactly who they are dealing with. The intent would be to have

something along the lines of a single-window approach, where first nations are dealing with one government representative cross-ministry, rather than dealing with potentially five or six different representatives from government at different levels. It is an evolving process. We hope to have it fully in place a little later on this summer, but I think it will create a more effective, better structure for government to develop those relationships with first nations.

B. Simpson: In that restructuring, will the ability for ILMB to support land use planning processes be undermined?

Hon. P. Bell: ILMB will still have 60 planners on staff within the ministry, but I think what's important for the member to understand is…. Our experience, particularly on Haida Gwaii, would be the best example right now. We are rapidly experiencing this with regards to the Atlin Taku River Tlingit, with the Tahltan First Nation…. A lot of the land use plans are really shifting from the traditional notion of land use plan into, perhaps, more of an agreement versus a land use plan. So it's an agreement with first nations that specifically targets and identifies regions throughout their traditional territories that are appropriate for various types of use within that region.

That also involves advice from the environmental community, from industry, from local community officials, but the traditional model of developing land use plans, which was to have a central table — I think the member was actually part of the Cariboo Chilcotin land use plan, if I'm not mistaken — with 20, 30, 40, 50 members around the table, developing a plan and then engaging with first nations after the fact and bringing them into the process on a government-to-government relationship basis.

We are reversing and really understanding that, ultimately, we have the fiduciary responsibility, the legal responsibility based on the court decisions of the Taku River Tlingit — Haida-Weyerhaeuser in particular, but Delgamuukw, the William decision — and all of the various court cases that have taken place over the last ten or 15 years. We have the legal obligation to go out and work directly with first nations on a government-to-government basis to develop agreements or land use plans over time.

So the model is shifting. The staff are there. The design is there. The objectives are still there to meet the same sorts of things that we accomplished on the north coast, central coast, on Haida Gwaii, in the Sea to Sky region, in the Morice region — all of those areas that are recently developed land use plans.

We think there's a better way of getting at it. I think Haida Gwaii probably is the best example. In that particular situation, we dealt on a government-to-government basis with first nations right upfront in the process, engaged with industry and the environmental community on the tail end, as opposed to what traditionally was happening, which was first nations second and the general interest groups in the first place.

It is a different model. It is, I think, being developed as a result of our experiences over the last three years or so and the need to engage with first nations and have that direct relationship with first nations. It is an ever-evolving life that we are in as a result of the decisions that courts make on an ongoing basis, but we think this model makes sense. It will give first nations predictability. They'll know exactly who it is that they're dealing with on a day-to-day basis. They'll have an opportunity to develop relationships.

One of the things that we hear consistently from first nations is the challenge with the number of referrals that they receive. Oftentimes I've had chiefs walk in with a box full of referrals and say: "We don't have the capacity to be able to deal with this." They might have three or four, five different pickup trucks arriving at their community on any given day — one from the Ministry of Forests, one from Lands, one from Environment, maybe one from Mines. There's a whole series of groups.

This new model is intended to have a single contact point with government, something that might look almost like a government agent's office, where that individual is dealing specifically with the community. We think that the relationship that would be developed over time would be far more productive.

That's a very long answer to a question, but it is an evolving process right now. We don't know exactly what that model looks like. We're developing it. It certainly will be in place, but it's going to take time to develop those relationships.

If I learned anything in the three years that I've been in this job, it's that you need to develop strong relationships with first nations prior to really asking them to make any decisions. You need to have the relationship, the trust. Once you've done that, then it allows you to move forward in a logical, thoughtful way and work with the local first nation on the development of their traditional territories.

B. Simpson: Again I am conscious of the time here, and maybe I can get a briefer answer this time with respect to the integrated land management bureau. In the service plan it indicates that regional operations are going to increase by 30 FTEs, and yet the reason for concern is that in communities people are getting pink slips. In communities when people, especially people that make good wages and are good contributors to the community, start getting pink slips, the rumours fly.

What's happening is that people are starting to get concerned as to what this shift is. The minister's calling it a strategic shift, but in the communities, it looks like we're going to move away from supporting the land use planning process with nothing to backstop that and no communications around what's happening.

If I could make a request of the minister. I think we need some communications around those who are vested in those land use plans, to communicate clearly

to them what the intent is with respect to those plans and what the intent is with this strategic direction. It looks a bit odd that we're doing an FTE bump to regional operations at the same time that there are pink slips being put out there, and the rumour mill is flying.

With that, I'll move off of this, but that's the concern I wanted to raise. There's a communications issue out there, and it is causing some grief, especially layered over top of all of the grief that happened with the forest stewardship plans and the concern that the minister and I talked about in his office about the relationship between forest stewardship plans and land use plans.

I want to move on more specifically, then…. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many parcels of land have been sold in this mountain pine beetle forest conversion to agriculture. There was an explicit goal to have some of that closed off by year's end. So how many parcels of land sold?

Hon. P. Bell: I am joined by Gary Townsend, who is ADM for the integrated land management bureau, with specific responsibility for FrontCounter B.C.

The answer to that question is zero. I met last year with not all of the members of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council but with the affected first nations in the region. We were, at the time, going through detailed consultation processes on what had been originally identified as, I believe, seven different parcels in the Vanderhoof region.

I made a conscious decision at that point in time — about six or seven months ago, maybe eight months ago now — that rather than do on a one-off basis and consult with first nations on each specific parcel, we would look at the broad-ranging Vanderhoof agricultural development area lands.

There are about 11,000 to 13,000 hectares identified as agricultural development area lands in the region. We are currently engaging with three affected first nations in the region, developing a map that would identify areas that are appropriate for sale going forward, areas that might be appropriate for sale in the event of specific conditions, and areas that would not be appropriate for further consideration for sale. So I'm expecting that work to be completed.

So it was a conscious decision that I made, rather than do an ad hoc approach to these parcels, to look at the broader-ranging interests in the region. I think we should kind of allow that approach to flow through, hopefully, to a successful outcome.

B. Simpson: Well, that's an interesting explanation, because as the minister well knows, the ranching and farming community said that the designated spots would make good forestry land, not good farmland. So there's been pushback from the ranching and agricultural community. And as the minister should know, in the exact same area we are converting prime agricultural land back to forests for a company from the U.K. that's getting carbon credits in the U.K.

So my question to the minister in this case is: why are we going to convert forest land and try and get a whole bunch of people to be stump farmers again, when we have prime agricultural land in that area that's almost on an equivalent, once it all rolls up, that's going to be converted back to forest? What's the overall plan for that? Quite frankly, it does not make sense.

Is the minister looking at it in that way, where those two things in parallel seem to be absolutely ludicrous to everybody that's up there? Are we going to prevent companies from coming in and converting agricultural lands to forest, or are we going to convert agricultural lands to forest while we convert forest land to agricultural land? Please help me understand that.

Hon. P. Bell: This is something that has been occurring in relatively recent times. I'm aware of what the member is referring to. I think it is important to note that this is a willing buyer, willing seller environment, where decisions are being made by the individual that owns that land to sell that land to a new owner. Whether or not they are aware of the decisions that are being made by the new owner — that is between the seller and the buyer.

This government supports private land rights. If a purchaser chooses to do something with that land, as long as it is within the legal constraints of what is allowed to be done, we will not interfere with those actions. I'm fairly certain the member supports the notion of private land rights, and I doubt whether the member would be suggesting that it would be appropriate for government to disallow decisions made by any private property owner on what they want to do with their land as long as it is certainly legal for them to do that.

B. Simpson: Well, the problem is that much of this so-called private land is ex–Crown land that was specifically designated as agricultural land to grow the agricultural industry in British Columbia. The minister is fully aware that we've had a recent Crown land grant for agricultural purposes.

I know the minister is aware of it. I've got the file right here of all the correspondence that went back and forth, where the Crown land grant was given for agricultural purposes, was coupled with previous Crown ag leases that had gone to the owner. The owner then sold it for $1 million to a U.K. company to take that designated agricultural land and put it back to forest.

So this isn't a private lands issue. This is an issue of the appropriate use of Crown lands. If we're going to go and allow Crown lands that are designated for agricultural purposes to be converted back to forests while we're going out and converting forest land to agricultural purposes — which, by the way, can also be sold to be converted back to forests under this regime — that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So my question to the minister is: will the minister investigate fully whether or not Crown land designated for agricultural purposes — explicitly given to

an individual British Columbian for agricultural purposes — should be flipped for millions of dollars, only to be then converted back to forestry? Doesn't that defeat the very purpose of the ministry that you're supposed to represent and champion?

Hon. P. Bell: There is a difference between intent and legal obligations on pieces of land. If the member is aware of anything that has been done that is outside of the law, I would encourage him to provide that documentation to me, and I'd be pleased to go ahead and pursue that issue.

If it is a case of the purchasers of land utilizing the land in a way that meets the legal constraints and objectives for that land base, then, certainly from the province's perspective, we support the notion of private land rights. If a person chooses to grow a crop of trees instead of a crop of hay on that land, and that's the economic benefit that they see to that particular piece of land, then I think that is certainly something we would support.

I'm sure the member isn't opposed to private land rights. I can't imagine that he would want to require his neighbour to do something or to have imposed upon his personal, private land the requirements from the Crown that are outside of normal land constraints.

So, to be clear, the province supports private land rights. If there's something the member is aware of that this particular landowner or anyone else is doing that is outside of the law, I would strongly encourage him to provide that to me, and we will pursue it aggressively to the full extent of the law.

B. Simpson: I'm conscious of time, and I know that the Chair was going to remind me of that. So I'll preface my remarks for my final question.

This is a very disturbing thing that the minister is saying. Effectively, the minister is saying that if the price is right, every piece of agricultural land in British Columbia can be converted back to forest for carbon credits. That's what he's saying — and that the minister's not going to do anything about it.

In the case of Crown lands designated for agricultural purposes, the only reason that people can get away with this is because this government changed the regulations and took away the stipulation for putting it into agricultural production before it could be flipped. This government set that up and has allowed that to happen.

I'm hoping that the minister is not saying that every piece of agricultural land in a world that's pricing carbon, in a world that's going to make carbon billionaires while everybody else gets shafted…. I hope the minister's not saying that it's okay for every piece of agricultural land in this province to be converted to forests if, in fact, it makes more financial sense for that landowner to do that.

Surely we've got a better strategy and a better plan than that. It's called supporting our agricultural community at an appropriate level so they don't have to convert their farms, because they're going bankrupt, to a forest.

Now I want to thank all the staff that have been through here. I know that estimates is an onerous process for staff, but I can tell you, as an MLA, and as MLAs who sit on this side, that the questions we get from constituents, the questions we get on some of the programs, are very important to us. I know that it's not the easiest process for staff to go through, but it is important to us and to our constituents to do that.

I thank the minister for his patience through this, but I would like an answer to the question of: can we possibly be, ten years from now, looking at the end of agriculture here because the minister's making a private-land-rights argument that it's okay to convert our agricultural land to forests willy-nilly throughout this province?

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I move the various sums here…. I'm a bit surprised that the member would want to socially engineer the products that our farmers want to grow. I'm not sure that that would be his intent, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

I don't think for a minute that you are going to see the agriculture industry disappear in B.C. In fact, there are many, many segments of the industry that are doing well right now. There are some that are certainly facing some significant challenges.

We want to make land available for agriculture across the province. As the member points out, there are some new things happening in the carbon world, in the environment, in terms of decisions that people are making. It's very early on, I think, in the agenda around the issue.

But this government does support private land rights, and that needs to be clear. If people are doing what is legal on their land base, that's appropriate. If there is a concern that needs to be expressed here, certainly, as the ministry, we will look closely at that and ensure that agriculture is viable on an ongoing basis. That's exactly what the agriculture plan is all about — to make sure that happens.

Hon. P. Bell: I move we rise, report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands…

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.


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Coell	Ilich
Christensen	Les	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 27

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Dix
Bains	Robertson	Karagianis
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy