British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, March 23, 2004

h0323am-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Morning Sitting Volume 22, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling).......................................................................................... ........................................... 9551 Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 9553 Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Bill 2) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 9553 Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4) (continued) Hon.

R. Coleman J.

Kwan Reporting of Bills ............................................................................................................. ........................................................ 9553 Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 9553 Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4) Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9554 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) J.

Kwan Hon. C. Clark P. Wong Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9564 Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued) Hon. J. van Dongen M. Hunter B. Belsey D. MacKay J. MacPhail

9551 TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 The House met at 10:04 a.m. Prayers. [1005] Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling) Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on February 10, open- ing day, the Leader of the Opposition gave notice that she would raise three matters of privilege. The next day she raised a matter of privilege — namely, that the Minister of Finance had been in contempt of the House by announcing and implementing a change to the rate of tobacco tax prior to the introduction of enabling leg- islation. I have considered her submission and also the re- sponse of the minister, given March 3, with great care.

I have examined the cases referred to in both submis- sions together with all supporting documentation. The Minister of Finance raised a procedural objec- tion that the matter had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. He argued that as the announcement had been made in December 2003 while the House was adjourned, the earliest opportunity would have been the morning of February 10 when the House was re- called by the Lieutenant-Governor for prorogation.

A review of the Journals of the House will indicate that notice of matters of privilege has been given on prorogation day and also on opening day, even though the House met in the morning for prorogation and the afternoon for opening. On April 5, 1990, notice was given on prorogation day, and Speaker Rogers advised as follows: "Mr.

Speaker stated that while matters of privilege are brought forward on the first available occasion, all that is permitted on a day of formalities is that the matter of privilege be brought to his attention to preserve the member's right and thereafter, on the first available day, the matter of privilege may be fully stated. "Mr. Speaker referred hon. members to a decision of Mr.

Speaker Dowding and further informed the member that the first available opportunity under normal pro- ceedings would be when the House meets the following day." One high-profile privilege case in this House on March 3, 1980, the Nielsen case, involved the raising of the matter the day after opening day.

These cases are not in conflict with the decision of Speaker Schroeder given November 25 and 26, 1982, and cited by the Min- ister of Finance but, rather, constitute an exception to the application of the rule du e to the fact that proroga- tion and opening day are pro forma sittings which re- sult from the exercise of the royal prerogative to sum- mon the House. Speaker Rogers's decision of April 10, 1990, makes it clear that the announcement outside the House of pending legislation does not amount to a breach of privilege but may, according to the nature of the an- nouncement, involve a contempt of the House.

In that decision the Speaker stated in part as follows: "It is apparent, however, that Mr. Speaker Fraser, in the course of his ruling of October 10 last, did deliver a stern warning that the general public must not be given any impression that proposed changes to the taxation system were a fait accompli and that parliament, in fact, had no role to play in examining and approving any proposed changes. To give such an impression, Mr. Speaker Fraser said, may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.

With that warning, I am in complete agreement and would deprecate any ac- tion that fairly could be seen to derogate from the role of parliament." I commend this decision to all members of the House. See the B.C. Journals , fourth session, 1990-91, page 16. I have reviewed the press release and tax circular No. 049 which were tabled by the Minister of Finance. Both documents make it clear that the legislative measures required to implem ent the tax rate increase are proposed. For example, they will be presented at the next session of the House and be retrospective to the extent necessary.

A review of finance and taxation bills presented to and passed by the House over many years indicates that a large number of them have retro- spective application either to the date of introduction or an earlier date where required. The Minister of Finance has advised the House that the questioned tax will be debated by the Legislature, and in fact it appears that the necessary amendments received first reading on Fe bruary 17 in keeping with the undertaking given as part of the announcement of the tax in December 2003.

The House has not been de- nied the opportunity to debate this tax measure, not- withstanding the legislation will be retrospective to the dates mentioned in the prop osed amendment. Absent the undertaking to introduce legislation to support this change at the earliest opportunity, the situation would be quite different. [1010] The device of retrospective legislation is not un- common in Commonwealth parliaments.

After a care- ful examination of the authorities and Speakers' deci- sions in this House and elsewhere, I am persuaded that the transaction relating to the Tobacco Tax Act does not constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. I do, however, agree with the observation of Speaker Fraser that proposed changes to the taxation system, absent statutory authority or an opportunity to debate the matter in this House, would be unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy. Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition raised a matter of privilege on February 16.

This was the sec- ond of three matters of which notice was given on the afternoon of February 10, opening day. This particular matter involves statements attributed to the member for Surrey–White Rock while he was serving as Minis- ter of Children and Family Development. During esti- mates debate on March 24, 2003, the Leader of the Op- position questioned the mi nister about the appoint- ments of interim chief executive officers of the regional

9552 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 authorities, aboriginal inte rim authorities and, finally, the interim authority for community living B.C. The Leader of the Opposition contends that when the former minister responded with respect to the in- terim community living authority B.C., he misled the House by stating: "Currently, the senior government r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s E l a i n e M u r r a y .

T h e y w i l l b e g o i n g through a selection process sometime in the next num- ber of months." The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the member misled the House by not addressing the role played by Mr. Doug Walls in the interim au- thority and thereby hindered the effective functioning of the House and the opposition.

In support of her claim, the Leader of the Opposi- tion read from and submi tted the following documen- tation: (1) correspondence from the chair of the interim authority for community living B.C., (2) the signature page from the financial statement of the interim au- thority for community living B.C. and (3) a videotape of the debate proceedings. On March 11 the member for Surrey–White Rock responded to the matter of privilege.

In his submission he reiterated the Government House Leader's objec- tions of March 3 that the Leader of the Opposition erred in not reserving her ri ght to raise the matters at the earliest opportunity — namely, the morning of Feb- ruary 10. With respect to the matter of privilege, the member for Surrey–White Rock argued that his statement with respect to the duties of Ms. Murray was in fact accurate. He noted that at the time Mr.

Walls had the official title of senior consultant, planning and development, al- though he had taken on additional responsibilities as acting chief executive officer of the interim authority. In his submission the member for Surrey–White Rock acknowledged: "…during the formational period of community living B.C., there was occasionally a lack of clarity concerning the position of interim CEO." Nevertheless, the member submitted that he acted with the best information available to him and that his statements were accurate and certainly not deliberately misleading.

In support of his presentation the member also submitted documentation, including related corre- spondence, an interim auth ority transitional organiza- tion chart and minutes of the interim authority board meetings. I also note that in the event that his words were misinterpreted or led to confusion, the member for Surrey–White Rock offered an apology to all mem- bers of this House. I have carefully reviewed the arguments of both hon. members, and I wish to thank them both for their detailed submissions, which were of considerable assis- tance to me.

First, I will address the objection by the member for Surrey–White Rock that the Leader of the Opposition did not raise the matter at the earliest op- portunity. As noted in my earlier decision on the first matter of privilege raised on February 10, the Leader of the Opposition was within the rules of the House when she reserved her right to raise the matters of privilege on the afternoon of February 10 due to the fact that both the morning and afternoon proceedings that day resulted from the exercise of the royal prerogative of the Crown to summon the House.

Secondly, I will address the matter of privilege put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The role of the Chair is to determine, prima facie, not whether the House was misled in some way but whether or not it was deliberately misled by statements made in the House.

Upon reviewing the presentations and submis- sions of both members, the Chair finds that the Leader of the Opposition's complaint is founded on an allegation of a misleading answer and, to some degree, a dispute as to allegations of facts between hon. members. [1015] It has been well documented in the Journals of this House of June 8, 1982; May 5, 1988; and April 19, 1999; and in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 224 that an allegation of a misleading answer does not constitute a valid question of privilege unless there is clear evidence a member has deliberately done so.

Similarly, a dispute as to allegations of fact such as contradictory documentary evidence with respect to the role of Mr. Walls does not amount to a matter of privilege. Disputes as to allegations of facts are clearly described in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , third edition, page 295. In closing, the two submissions regarding the de- bate of March 24, 2003, cannot and do not lead to a conclusion that the member for Surrey–White Rock deliberately misled the House, and therefore I do not find a prima facie case of privilege.

Hon. members, last February 18, 2004, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege stating that a newspaper report in the Powell River Peak of De- cember 23, 2003, quoted th e Solicitor General as mak- ing statements that contradicted earlier statements he made in the House that the government had no in- volvement in operational decisions on lottery facilities. Specifically, the Leader of the Opposition stated that the Powell River Peak identified the Solicitor Gen- eral as seeking out venues fo r the installation of slot machines.

Through authorit ies that she quoted, the Leader of the Opposition in directly alleged that the minister "knowingly misled parliament" and further alleged that the minister's statements in the House amounted to "a prima facie case of contempt." Subsequently, the Solicitor General responded in the House to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair has reviewed the material ten- dered by the Leader of the Opposition and the minis- ter's statement.

In his response, the Solicitor General said in the House that he "was not seeking specific venues for slot machines," bu t, in explaining the appli- cation process for slot machines to the local member, the minister inquired if the local community had ex- pressed an interest in slot machines. He added: "At no time did I offer to direct the B.C. Lottery Corporation to place slot machines in a particular community." Breaches of privilege involve the protection of members from impediments to their functioning as members of the House,

whereas contempts of the House are, broadly speaking , offences against the dig-

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9553 nity and authority of the Hous e itself. The strict defini- tion of privilege or contempt cannot be expanded to include controversies as to facts, opinions, conclusions on the

interpretation of newspaper articles or reports. The point raised by the Le ader of the Opposition is much more a matter of debate than it is one of privilege or contempt. Members will know that it has been a longstanding practice in th is House that an hon. mem- ber's statement is accepted by the House in the absence of indisputable evidence to the contrary. This practice is well illustrated in the decision of Speaker Schroeder, April 13, 1982, which may be found in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia at pages 296 and 297.

Indeed, there must be some prima facie evidence that the Solicitor General deliberately misled the House. This requirement of evidence that the House has been deliber- ately misled is articulated with Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-second edition, at page 111, and Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 224. In this case, there is no such evidence in possession of the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition has not established a sufficient foundation upon which to make a prima facie finding that the House was, in fact, deliberately misled.

Accordingly, the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition falls in the category of a case where there is a dispute of facts, and such dispute ought not to form the basis of a complaint of breach of privilege or con- tempt. The application, accordingly, fails. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Plant: In this House, I call third reading of Bill 2. I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, and for the information of members, the debate there will con- cern the estimates of the Mini stry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. [1020] Mr. Speaker: In Committee A, it's Committee of Supply, Mr. Chairman, and in this House, third reading of Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The question is third reading of Bill 2. Third Reading of Bills BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate, Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 10:22 a.m. The Chair: We stood down

section 33. Solicitor General on

section 33. On

section 33. Hon. R. Coleman: I move an amendment to

section 33 by deleting the proposed

section 33(3). [SECTION 33, by deleting the proposed

section 33 (3).] On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: This is the

section that exempted the interim board from appo inting an audit committee. In debates with Leader of the Opposition yesterday we concluded, as did she, that that should not be there, that there should be an au dit committee and that that interim board shouldn't be exempted. That's why we're making the amendment. J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of the amend- ment. As the Solicitor General identified yesterday, my colleague, who was debating this bill with the minister, identified the flaw in

section 33(3), which exempts the application of an audit committee to be applied to this interim authority. With the withdrawal of that exemption, the opposition is in support of this amendment. Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved. Title approved. Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 10:24 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, reported complete with amendments. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? Hon. G. Plant: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker. Leave granted. Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, read a third time and passed.

9554 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the esti- mates of the Ministry of Children and Family Devel- opment. [1025] Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 10:28 a.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (continued) On vote 16: ministry operations, $1,381,568,000 (continued). J.

Kwan: I'd like to canvass with the minister, first of all, some questions, ge nerally, around cuts within the ministry, the restructuring process and the govern- ance issue. Budget 2004 calls for $70 million in cuts for the ministry. Would the minister please break down where these cuts are being made? [1030] Hon. C.

Clark: Some examples are voluntary agency reductions to community living services con- tracts, savings achieved through the recovery of excess payments made to agencies related to wage and bene- fits costs, savings achieved through collective bargain- i n g , r e d u c t i o n s o f t h e n u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n i n c a r e a n d reductions in community ju stice programming that are consistent with the caseload decline. J. Kwan: Would the minister please provide the actual dollars in reduction as sociated with each of the areas so that I could see where the $70 million have actually gone? Hon. C.

Clark: These numbers are not exact to the dollar, because we're still getting to year-end and we'll still…. But this is where the savings will come. It's $15 million in voluntary savings. About $35 million will come out of the collective bargaining savings and out of the overpayments on Munroe. About $5 million we're saving because of the reduction of numbers of children in care.

There is about $4 million to $4.5 million we'll be saving from the closure of Lakeview Youth Custody Centre, and we also expect to be annualizing savings in the neighbourhood of about $15 million in cutbacks on full-time-equivalents at headquarters. J. Kwan: Could the minister repeat the number for children in care and also the last category? Hon. C. Clark: About $5 million savings on the number of children in care, which has been reduced thanks to the hard work of thousands of social workers out there.

About $15 million we'll be annualizing in savings from full-time-equiv alent positions at head- quarters that we'll be downsizing. [1035] J. Kwan: First, around the voluntary savings, could the minister elaborate on that? That's $15 million worth of savings. What are voluntary savings? Hon. C. Clark: Agencies were asked to submit plans for how they would find administrative savings. Those plans, it's important to point out, had to include the agreement of the families and individuals that they would be affecting. Those plans were submitted and were on target. J.

Kwan: If agencies were not able to meet the tar- gets, what happens to them? Hon. C. Clark: An entirely theoretical question. We are very close to achieving our target. J. Kwan: Well, I think this is an important question, to this end. The minister says they were able to find $15 million worth of savings that she calls voluntary sav- ings, in which agencies were asked to find administra- tive savings. The question I have for the minister is: for these agencies, do they have to comply? If it's volun- tary, could agencies come back and say: "I'm sorry. I can't find the savings"? Is that an alternative for them?

Hon. C. Clark: It is voluntary, and they did come back and find the savings. J. Kwan: What exactly did the minister tell these agencies that they have to do? Hon. C. Clark: We met with the sector in the fall. They had an understanding of the targets that we'd hoped to achieve. They came back to us with their pro- posal, and that proposal included a $15 million saving, which they are very, very close to meeting. J. Kwan: How did they come to this understand- ing? What language, exactly, did the minister use to arrive at this understanding with the agency? Were letters sent out?

Was it in writing, or was it just verbal? I would like to know exactly the language that was used. Hon. C. Clark: The member will appreciate that I wasn't at any of the meetings; I wasn't the minister at the time. I'm advised by staff that they sat down, a g r e e d t o c o m e u p w i t h a cooperative approach, worked together to try and find these savings, and they did that. J. Kwan: Does the minister have the list of agencies where savings were volunt arily found by them and how much applied to each of the agencies?

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9555 Hon. C. Clark: I can make that information avail- able to the member. There are about 170 agencies that are affected, so we'll take some time to make sure we get it right and put it together for her. J. Kwan: When can I expect that information? What's a reasonable time? Hon. C. Clark: Over the next couple of weeks we'll be able to put that together for her. J. Kwan: All right. So that's what the minister calls voluntary savings — $15 million worth of it. I would like to ask the minister questions around the Munroe savings.

She advises that there were $35 million of savings from collective bargaining. Is that as a result of the ending of the Munroe agreement with the child care agencies? Is that where the $35 million savings came from? [1040] Hon. C. Clark: Two things were contained in that explanation of $35 million. The first is collective bar- gaining. If the member has been following the news, she'll know that employers concluded a collective agreement with their employees in the community sector.

We haven't got an exact number because we haven't quite completed the analysis of it, but we ex- pect that will yield in the neighbourhood of $25 mil- lion. There were excess payments made under the Munroe agreement because of an error in calculation in the ministry, so those excess payments are coming back to the ministry. It is not related to the ending of the Munroe agreement, though. J. Kwan: Excess payment in what areas? Hon. C. Clark: Primarily in the area of benefits costs. It is important to note that the formula was put together by CSSEA, and they found the error, so we're addressing that. J.

Kwan: Errors in benefits costs. MSP premiums — what? What benefits? What errors? I would just like to get the facts from the minister. Hon. C. Clark: It was an error in the calculation. It could be, for example, an overcalculation for the num- ber of sick leave days — those kinds of thing. J. Kwan: The number of FTE savings in terms of reduction in FTEs — $15 million worth of savings. How many FTEs is that? Hon. C. Clark: I think I actually said it was $15 million; it is $10 million. I want to be clear about that.

It is a 40 percent reduction in FTEs over the three-year period, and we're annualizin g that for this coming year. If the member is looking for an exact number of FTEs, I can get that for her. J. Kwan: Yes, I am looking for that exact informa- tion, but the minister advises that she doesn't have that exact number right now. I will wait for the exact num- ber, but the ballpark number…. Perhaps she could give that to me now. Hon. C. Clark: I will get that for her this afternoon. It is 40 percent of our total FTEs at headquarters. I sus- pect she wants an exact number.

I want to make sure we get it right, so I can get it for her this afternoon. J. Kwan: We will get that exact number, then, this afternoon. According to my information, my number is 458 FTEs, so I'm looking for confirmation — or the cor- rect number, if that's not the right number with respect to that. That's 40 percent of the reduction of FTEs in the ministry. Does the minister have the breakdown of what de- partments the loss in FTEs comes out of in the minis- try? Which areas within the ministry, that is to say, resulted in the loss?

If the minister doesn't have that information, I would appreciate that this afternoon as well. Hon. C. Clark: That will be part of the information I get for her this afternoon. J. Kwan: Once I get the information, I may have some further questions related to that, and we can come back to that this afternoon. [1045] According to the budget book, the information I have is not broken down in the details that the minister provided, which is why I asked the questions.

Just so I know what category falls in where in correspondence with the budget book, in th e area of children and fam- ily development, according to the budget book, the budget is down by $62.3 million. Could the minister advise…? Out of the numbers, the areas that she has given me, what falls into that category of $62.3 million entitled children and family development? Hon. C. Clark: A portion of the collective bargaining will fall in there. Obviously, a lot of these are contracted agencies, so they'll be affected by….

They'll find savings as a result of the collective agreement that's been con- cluded — or being concluded. A portion of the excess payments that were made as a result of the calculation error at CSSEA, the employers' organization…. Obvi- ously, the fact that the number of children in care is fal- ling will also impact — as a savings — the CFD sector and of course a portion of the FTE savings as well. J. Kwan: So the closure of Lakeview does not fall into this category? Hon. C. Clark: It falls under the provincial services category. J. Kwan: Okay. What else fall s into the provincial services category?

Is $7.7 million in terms of cuts in the

9556 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 provincial services? The closure of Lakeview is $4.5 million. Where is the rest? Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that it's the two youth custody centres that have been closed as a result of the fact that there are so many fewer children who are in custody in British Columbia. In addition to that, there will be some FTE savings as a result of the fact that some of the alternative measures and those justice- related activities…. The need for those is also dropping as the youth crime rate drops. J. Kwan: The closure of the two youth centres. Which ones? Hon. C.

Clark: High Valley and Lakeview. J. Kwan: I'm just recording this information down s o I h a v e i t a s I r e f e r b a c k t o t h a t . T h e r e a r e n o o t h e r services that fall under the provincial services cuts? Is that it, or is there something else that the minister would like to add on to that list? Hon. C. Clark: There are lots of services that fall under the provincial services category. I would refer the member to the budget book if she would like to have a complete list of what those provincial services are. They include, as I said, youth justice, child and youth mental health.

British Columbia is the only prov- ince in the country to have a child and youth mental health plan — something we're very proud of. Com- munity LINK comes under there, and youth custody centres. Those types of issues are all under the rubric of provincial services. [1050] J. Kwan: The purpose of estimates is to actually get this information in an easily digestible form not just for the opposition but also for members of the public. In fact, I do have the budget books before me, but it does not provide for the breakdown in the detailed catego- ries I would like to have.

That's why I'm canvassing these questions with the minister, so I would like her to answer the question specifica lly in each of the catego- ries — where the cuts have gone and how much. Hon. C. Clark: Youth custody costs go down from $33.7 million to $29.1 million. Mental health, child and youth mental health, goes up from $11.3 million to $11.4 million. Youth forensic s, which is treatment for young people, goes from $11.3 million up to $13.7 mil- lion. Community LINK goes down from $37.1 million to $35.1 million. The services for the deaf and hard of hearing go up from $2.4 million to $2.5 million.

Provin- cial administration costs go down from $4.7 million to $2.2 million. J. Kwan: I've got three areas where the dollars have actually gone down. Those are the youth custody area, the Community LINK program — which is the equiva- lent of what is known as the hot meals program — and then the provincial administra tion area. In terms of the reduction and then with the two closures…. Am I right to assume the two closures of the youth centres fall under what the minister calls youth custody and that together the two closures of those centres are in that category and all of that adds up to $7.7 million?

Could I get a confirmation on that? Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member could explain her reference to the $7.7 million. J. Kwan: Looking at the budget book under provin- cial services, what we've been able to decipher is that I calculated that provincial services is a reduction of $7.7 million from the budget book. Hon. C. Clark: That's correct. J. Kwan: I will do the calculation in a minute. I'll subtract these numbers and s ee if I arrive at $7.7 mil- lion. I w a n t t o g o b a c k t h e n t o c h i l d a n d f a m i l y d e v e l - opment in that area.

The calculations I came up with are a $62.3 million reduction. Accordingly, the minister advises that collective bargaining and the error in the formula for benefits yielded $35 million worth of sav- ings for the ministry, a reduction of $5 million for chil- dren in care and $10 million for FTEs. She had advised that a portion of the collective agreement dollars falls within the category under child and family develop- ment, and a portion of the FTE reductions falls into that category as well.

Even if I use the whole numbers of $35 million for collective bargaining and an error in benefits calcula- tion and the entire $10 million for FTEs, I still cannot come up with $62.3 million. So if it is only a portion, then I'm short a number of programs that are being eliminated under the children and family development area. I would like a complete list from the minister and the dollars attached to them. Hon. C. Clark: A s I s a i d , w e h aven't finished the complete analysis of how dollar for dollar the savings are exactly going to be, so I just want to preface my comments with that.

We expect that about 30 to 40 per- cent of the savings from th e collective agreement that was just concluded will come out of the CFD sector. J. Kwan: I understand it is not exactly to the cent or dollar. Even if you look at the ballpark figure, I'm far short. The collective bargai ning and the error in bene- fits calculation. The minister advised that for the entire ministry it is $35 million approximately, a portion of which goes into the child and family development area.

I'm just even using the entire $35 million for the purposes of this set of calculations. [1055] The children-in-care area yielded a $5 million sav- ings or reduction, if you will, in the ministry. That's $40 million. Then in the FTE area, the entire ministry's re- duction in FTEs — that 40 percent reduction — yielded

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9557 the ministry $10 million in savi ngs. The total of that is only $55 million, even though the minister said that only a portion of the FTE savings would fall under the category of child and family development. I'm still short quite a number of million dollars in this calcula- tion — $7.3 million, to be exact. The numbers are not adding up accordingly. I would like to have a full list and the numbers attached to them of where the cuts were made for child and family development. Hon. C.

Clark: First, I just want to point out for the member that the actual forecast, as opposed to the original budget, for childr en and family development in '03-04 was $689.8 million, and the budget for this year, '04-05, is $661.7 million. That's a difference of $27 million. Probably, we're better to work from the same set of numbers here.

If she works from the actual forecast for '03-04 — which, of course, better reflects the actual spending that was made — that number for '03-04 is $689.8 million, and the budget for '04-05, which is the gap between this year's spending and last year's spend- ing, is $661.7 million. So if she can work from those numbers. The other thing I'd just point out for her is that the 40 percent cut in FTEs, annualized, is at headquarters. Those FTE reductions in th e field were a much, much smaller number than that. J.

Kwan: I'm still looking for the answer for pro- gram cuts that occurred in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and specifically in the area of child and family development. If the minister, then, can give me the exact breakdown of what programs had a reduction in funding and what the name is of the pro- gram area under that catego ry of child and family de- velopment, that would be appreciated. Hon. C. Clark: Two specific things. The first one is that we've achieved our children-in-care target. We've outperformed our expectatio ns. We're ahead of sched- ule by $34 million for '04-05.

That's just simply because there are fewer children being taken away from their families and coming into government care, because we are finding better ways to support those families and make families more loving, caring, stable places than perhaps they were before they came into contact with the ministry in those specific cases. That's a very good piece of news. The remaining reduction is going to be achieved through the annualization of savings from '03-04 from the reduction of children in care, as I said, and the workforce adjustment savings that I talked about.

That's where the savings ar e coming from in the chil- dren and family development side of the ministry. J. Kwan: Children-in-care savings yield $5 million in savings. That's what the minister advised. Then the collective bargaining dollar savings and the error-in- MSP savings, for the entire ministry, yield $35 million. Then the savings in reduction in staffing, reduction in FTEs — which is about a 40 percent reduction in head- quarters, as the minister calls it — yield $10 million in savings. Again, I add all that together. The numbers don't seem to match. Maybe we can start with this.

The minister can tell me, then, what the dollar redu ction is in the child and family development area that she's working with. What is the amount of reduction there? Let's start with that. Hon. C. Clark: It's $28.1 million — $5 million for the children-in-care budget, which is, I think, a piece of good news; $16.8 million in FTE reductions; bargaining and Munroe overpayments, as we defined a little bit earlier, approximately $10 million; and then about $500,000 in community justice contracts. [1100] J. Kwan: It's $5 million in children in care. So far that's the only consistent number that we've had.

The FTE number the minister just gave me is $16.8 million, yet earlier she said the entire ministry savings in FTEs is $10 million. We now have $16.8 million just in the child and family developmen t area, so we're out $6.8 million approximately — just on that alone. Maybe the minister can clarify the FTE situation. Hon. C. Clark: The $10 million savings was in the headquarters. FTEs had a 40 percent cut in the head- quarters staff, so we can try and preserve the field staff as much as we possibly can. There is a $16.8 million savings, we estimate, in the child and family develop- ment sector. J.

Kwan: That's in addition to the headquarters reduction, so we're looking, really, at FTE reductions of $26.8 million — $10 million in headquarters and $16.8 million with respect to workers out in the field. Then the minister said there wa s $10 million in the collective bargaining savings. Then the last area was $5 million in savings in which area? Hon. C. Clark: It was $500,000 in community justice projects. J. Kwan: Sorry. It's $500,000 in community justice programs. Okay. When I add that up, I have $36.8 mil- lion reduction in child and family development.

The minister just said that the total reduction in that area is $20.1 million. I'm now out $16.7 million more reduction than the minister has said in her total. How did that come about? Hon. C. Clark: The member included some things in that list that I didn't include. Just to be clear with her: children-in-care budgets, down by $5 million; FTEs, $16.8 million; bargaining in Monroe, approxi- mately $10 million; and community justice contracts, about $500,000. That adds up to a little bit more than $28.1 million, which is the difference between what we spent last year and what we budget for next year. We

9558 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 are trying to make sure we meet our targets, so there is a little bit of give there, as I said, because we haven't completed all of the analysis for some of the savings. But the two numbers are very close. J. Kwan: I'm sorry. The minister just said $28.1 mil- lion. I actually don't have that number. What the minis- ter said was $5 million in savings in children in care and $16.8 million in the FTE area. That gives us $21.8 million, then $10 million in collective bargaining. That gives us $31.8 million and then $500,000 in the com- munity justice area.

That gives us $32.3 million. She said $28.1 million was the total. I'm sorry. The numbers don't add up. Where did I go wrong? Or where did the minister go wrong? Hon. C. Clark: I'll give another stab at explaining that to her again. The total of the savings that we've identified is $32.3 million. As I said, though, those numbers are not absolutely firm. I've said this a num- ber of times, partly because we haven't completed the analysis of what the savings will be in the collective agreement. That's the savi ngs we're looking at right now — $32.3 million.

The gap between what we actually spent last year and the budget we've set for this coming year is $28.1 million. There's a few-million-dollar gap in there, but that's because we want to be absolutely prudent and make sure we meet our targets. Because we haven't quite finished the analysis on how much savings will accrue as a result of the collective agreement, we've made sure there is a little bit of cushion in there if in- deed our analysis turns out that we don't get the kinds of savings we'd expected from the collective agreement that's just been concluded. [1105] J.

Kwan: What I understand the minister is saying is that the cuts are now d eeper than what the projec- tions are, just in case, so that she has that cushion to ensure that, I guess, she gets her…. Interjection. The Chair: Member, through the Chair, please. J. Kwan: It's to ensure she has that cushion so she will come in on or under budget and not over budget so she will earn her salary, because her salary is tied to the budget she brings in at the end of the year. So there is a cushion there? All right. The minister says the numbers that are in the budget books come to $28.1 million worth of reduc- tions.

Where in the budget book does she have that information? What page is it on, and which budget book? Hon. C. Clark: We're talking about our forecast. Of course, that's not included in the budget. That's what the estimates process is for. I want to be clear, though, about some comments the member just made. The savings that would be achieved as a result of the collective agreement are a net reduction in costs. If that goes up or goes down, it won't have an impact on service delivery, because that's just a reduction in costs. J.

Kwan: Then just to be clear, the numbers we are working with are the numbers that the minister is using on what her projections are in terms of how much the ministry will come in on with these different programs, and that's for the year 2003-04 compared to the budget book. The budget book — all we have — is not the pro- jections the minister is coming in on, but rather what the projected estimates for the budgets are for the ministry. For the year 2003-04, according to the budget book, the child and family development area has a budget of $724.029 million; for the '04-05 year it is $661.722 mil- lion.

That's a reduction of $62.3 million. That's where I came up with the numbers, because that is all I have to go with. There is a huge discrep ancy in these projected numbers from what the minister is saying. Is the minis- ter then saying that the estimates for…? Which set of the numbers, then, are wrong? I presume it's the '03-04 numbers, because the actuals are not coming in as $724.029 million. The projected actual numbers coming in for '03-04 are what? Hon. C. Clark: It's $689.8 million.

Again, that is a result of the fact that we are so far ahead of the projec- tions we had for the number of children in care and the FTE reductions that have been annualized. We're well ahead of our target that we had set for ourselves. I think the whole purpose of estimates is to discuss where we've spent our money and where we plan to spend it, so what I'm trying to do with the member is give her a sense of where the money was actually spent over this last year, and that number is $689.8 million. J. Kwan: What happens to the unspent dollars, then, in the budget? Hon. C. Clark: We manage to our bottom line.

We make sure that where we have savings, we reinvest that in areas such as co mmunity living where there have been big pressures on costs. [1110] J. Kwan: According to my calculations, there is a projection of some $34 million — $34.229 million — worth of savings if these numbers actually come in as the minister is projecting. Could she break down where these savings would have gone to — the $34.229 mil- lion? Where are they going? She said community liv- ing. How much to community living, and where else? Hon. C. Clark: About $30.1 million, which is almost all of it, has gone into the community living budget. J.

Kwan: And the rest of the $4.1 million?

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9559 Hon. C. Clark: The rest of what? J. Kwan: The $4.1 million. According to my calcula- tions, I calculated $34.229 million worth of savings. The minister says community living has absorbed $30.1 million, so that still leaves us about $4.1 million. I'm just wondering where the rest of the $4 million-plus went. Hon. C. Clark: The rest of it will be used for con- tingencies to deal with pressures that come up, but I can assure her it will be spent. J. Kwan: Within the '03-04 budget cycle? Hon. C. Clark: That's correct. J. Kwan: The minister says contingencies.

Where are the other pressures comi ng from, then, that might require this contingency? Hon. C. Clark: There is tremendous pressure in the community living sector, where there is a growing population — a growing aging population of people with developmental disabilities who require, in many cases, increasing support. It is also true that people who are entering the system for the first time requiring community support often have a higher acuity of needs, so those pressures ar e very, very large.

Those are issues across government that we're facing not just in this ministry but in th e health system and across ministries. So those are very , very big pressures, and we want to make sure we have the money there to make sure we can deal with them as they arise. J. Kwan: Well, I will be very interested to know exactly where those dollars have gone. It's no kidding, when the minister says there are pressures everywhere. The fact is that within this min- istry, there are significant reductions in program dol- lars out in the community. It is no wonder there are huge pressures coming from everywhere.

So I would be looking very closely to see where exactly the dollars have gone. In a way, one could actual ly also say this. In the area of child and family development, if the number comes in at the projected number the minister has put on record — $689.8 million compared to $724.029 mil- lion — then what we're looking at is really a reduction twice over in the area of child and family development. [1115] It is not only the budget numbers that have been re- duced from year to year. The actuals have gone in under budget.

Therefore, the cuts in child and family develop- ment are actually deeper than what meets the eye. By the way, Mr. Chair, that was the same thing that happened in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services when we debated the child care sector. In the budget for the child care area, the actuals came in under the budgeted number, so really the child care funding from that ministry got a reduction twice over. I think that is what we're seeing in terms of a re- peat here. I will be looking with interest to see where the rest of those dollars have gone.

Once the numbers come in, it may be — it may not be; I don't know — that the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family De- velopment may be completed. If they are completed, would the minister commit, then, to providing the op- position in writing with where the rest of the dollars have gone — the actual numbers versus the budgeted numbers — and how they were reallocated within the ministry? Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, sure we will.

I want to clarify for the member, though, about the issue of service delivery in the Ministry of Children and Family Development on the children and family development side of the ministry. Those are services the ministry provides to support children who come into care because their families can no longer support them or because their families aren't safe places for them to be. The majority of those children end up go- ing back into their homes.

But families sometimes go through crises, and children n e e d t o b e r e m o v e d , a n d that's a necessary thing for government to do to protect kids and make sure they're safe. It's also a necessary thing for government, though, to try and support families and see if we can intervene before crises arise — to build those supports around families, to try and make families safe, loving, caring p l a c e s f o r c h i l d r e n s o t h a t t h e y d o n ' t h a v e t o b e r e - moved. That's been very much our focus.

We have had a great deal of success in that largely because of the very hard work of social wo rkers out there in the field, who have used the range of training they have to really try and build supports around families instead of tak- ing a child out of the home and asking questions later. That's better for the children; it's better for the families; it's better for communities. It is also, though, a lower cost to government.

I want to make sure she has a fundamental under- standing of how this budget works, and that's by point- ing out that the reason the costs in this budget or the amount of money spent in this part of the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development has dropped is because demand for those services has dropped. In other words, fewer kids are coming into government care because social workers in particular are doing a really terrific job at supporting families and keep- ing children in their homes as much as they can, as long as they know that they're safe and loved and cared for.

It's very much the same dynamic we saw in the budget for youth custody. In the budget the amount of money we've spent on children in custody has gone down, because the number of kids who are going into custody has gone down and the crime rate has dropped amongst youth. Demand has dropped in youth custody, so our budget has dropped in youth custody. The same thing in this budget — demand for children to go into government care has dropped, so the amount of money we've spent on that has dropped.

9560 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 On a per-child basis I want to make sure she under- stands that the number hasn't dropped. In fact, what we've seen is that social workers in some offices have their time freed up, because they are working with fewer children in their caseload who are actually in care, which is a very labour-intensive and time- intensive process. It means there are more social work- ers dealing with fewer children, and that's a very, very good-news story not just for this ministry and for the government, but it's a very, very good-news story for communities out there. J.

Kwan: I will be getting into the details of the cuts in each of the regions an d the program cuts in the community. The reality is — and certainly the commu- nications I have with the community groups indicate this — that the picture is not as rosy as the minister would like to paint it. I know she is putting out this spin that the government can yield all these savings because the number of children in care has reduced. [1120] However, the reductions in programs to support families and children in the community….

The pro- gram funding has also significantly gone down and is creating extreme pressures in the community, particu- larly for those who are working with children and families at risk and children and families who are in stress. I think that it's not I who would dispute the minis- ter's point of view that th e savings are there because there are fewer children and fa milies in crisis. Rather, I think it comes from somewhere else, and we'll get into the details of where the reductions have come from and what programs later on today.

These are just global figures that we're looking at right now, and I will get into further details around this kind of stuff later on in the debate. Let me then focus on th e area of FTE losses. The minister is going to provide me with the exact number later on today in terms of the FTE loss and where it c a m e f r o m i n e a c h o f t h e d i f f e r e n t a r e a s w i t h i n t h e ministry. Does she also have the information on what region the FTE breakdown comes in from — the reduc- tion in FTE, I should say? Hon. C. Clark: I'll make sure she has that informa- tion when I provide it this afternoon. J.

Kwan: Thank you very much. I would appreciate that. Let's go beyond the '03-04, '04-05 budget numbers. Could the minister please advise: what are the total ministry cuts between 2001-02, which is the baseline, and the 2004-05 fiscal year? I would ask the minister to please provide the breakdown of cuts over the various ministry program areas, starting with '01-02 to the cur- rent year. Hon. C. Clark: The budget for community living services in '01-02 was $655.5 million. In '04-05 it's $609.6 million. That's a total reduction of 7 percent from '01- 02.

Child and family develo pment is $745.5 million in '01-02 and $661.7 million in '04-05. That is a total reduc- tion of 11 percent. Provincial services is $112 million in '01-02 and $94 million in '04-05. That's 16 percent. In executive and support services it's $39.7 million in '01- 02, down to $16.2 million in '04-05, and that's a 59 per- cent reduction. That's an 11 percent reduction overall from '01-02. J. Kwan: I would also like to get the numbers for the years in between — so '01-02, '02-03, '03-04, '04-05 for each of the categories. [1125] Hon. C.

Clark: The actuals for '02-03 for community living were $632.8 million; same year — '02-03 — for child and family developm ent, $715.3 million; for pro- vincial services, $96.9 million; and executive support, $14.8 million. In '03-04 — again, this is the forecast — $637.3 million for community living, $689.9 million for child and family development, $95.9 million for pro- vincial services, and $19.1 million for executive and support services. J. Kwan: And the number for the year '02-03 — the budget number? The minister gave me the actuals. What was the budget number? Hon. C.

Clark: Community living, $686.2 million; family development, $767.5 million; provincial ser- vices, $110.8 million; and executive support services, $23.1 million. J. Kwan: And the '01-02 number? Maybe the minis- ter could give me the numbers for both the budget and the actuals. I wasn't clear if the first set were budgeted numbers or actuals. Hon. C. Clark: Those are actuals that I gave her for '01-02. J. Kwan: Could the minister give me the budget numbers and the actuals again for the '01-02 year? Hon. C. Clark: I just have the restated actuals here. J.

Kwan: Well, I have the budget book for the year 2001 here, so I can look that up, which will take me a few minutes, Mr. Chair. So could I just take a few mo- ments to do that? Then I'll resume questions with the minister when I get the information, seeing as the min- ister doesn't have it. Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps she could look it up, and we can talk about that this afternoon. If she would like to move on to another subjec t before lunch, that would be great. J. Kwan: There is a line of questions that I have for the minister around the budg ets.

If the minister could actually provide me with the information, then we can

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9561 move on. I would like to work out the differences year over year in terms of what the budget number was, what the actual numbers were and then ask my ques- tions accordingly — flowing from that. I would actu- ally like to be able to work out the numbers, seeing as the minister doesn't have the information. In other estimates, for example, we just did part of the estimates with the Ministry of Community, Abo- riginal and Women's Servic es.

We went through the child care budget for the years previous to the current year — both the actual and the budgeted numbers. The minister was able to give me both sets of numbers and the differences as well, and that was most helpful and effective. Seeing as that's not the case here, I will look up the numbers, work it out and ask the minister ques- tions accordingly. If I could take a few moments to do that, Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it. The Chair: Member, I'd just maybe suggest that we could move on to another subject.

This time in the House should not be set aside for research, but rather b e s e t a s i d e f o r a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s . S o u n l e s s w e h a v e another member asking some questions, I'd ask you to move on to another subject. Members, we would like to have a recess for…. Does the committee agree? No? Proceed, member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: Well, that's in the spirit of cooperation from the minister, I'm sure, in making sure that the opposition has the information so they can canvass the questions accordingly.

Seeing as we're not going to have that, as I can see the minister is eager to get the estimates process fin- ished and on the way…. While I work out the numbers that she could not give and provide me, which she should be able to provide to the opposition, seeing as it is her ministry and she is the minister responsible…. Given that that's not the case, and we can't even pause for a moment so the opposition can get those numbers and ask the questions accordingly, fine.

We'll come back to it this afternoon in fuller detail about every bit of these differences in terms of the budget numbers and the actuals and where the savings have gone. [1130] In the meantime, as I work out the numbers, let me ask the minister the question. For the year '02-03, there is a difference — significant differences between the budgeted numbers and the actual spending. The dif- ference for the year '02-03 for all the categories — where did the moneys go? The savings that were not spent in the budget numbers — where did the moneys go? Hon. C.

Clark: In the year the member is referring to, the ministry invested $60 million in 27 separate stra- tegic investment funds. These are guided by community- based organizations that pr ovide grants to community organizations and individuals. That's part of our com- mitment to build capacity in communities, and those are being disbursed based on community needs. J.

Kwan: Well, that's actually not very helpful in terms of the information that the minister has given, so I'm going to have to work out the details in terms of the difference in the actuals an d the budget numbers for '02-03 and then get into each of the areas where the moneys have gone in detail. In the meantime, I understand that the member for Vancouver-Kensington has some questions for the minister. I will yield the floor to the member for Vancouver-Kensington to ask questions of the minister while I work out the numbers which the minister would not give. P.

Wong: Regarding the vote, in the category of children and family development, would the minister tell me what the overall net operating expenses are for this year? Hon. C. Clark: For the ministry overall the budget is $1.451 billion, and we expe ct to come in on budget. In the children and family development side of the ministry we are forecasting $689.8 million for '03-04. P. Wong: I understand that the net is $661 million instead of $669 million. Is that correct? Hon. C. Clark: For '04-05 the number is $661.7 mil- lion. P. Wong: Compared to last year, 2003-04, the amount was $724 million.

I can work out a percentage that there was a reduction of about 8 percent. Is that correct? Hon. C. Clark: From budget to budget as opposed to actual to actual, that's correct. [1135] P. Wong: What's the total amount reduced in re- spect to the Community LINK program throughout British Columbia? Hon. C. Clark: Some $37.1 million in '03-04 is our actual for Community LINK. It's what we actually spent, and $35.1 million is what we budget to spend for '04-05. P. Wong: Can you work out a percentage, please? Hon. C. Clark: It's just over 5 percent. P.

Wong: In respect to Vancouver school district 39, what's the actual amount reduced from the Commu- nity LINK program? Hon. C. Clark: The difference for Vancouver school board between '03-04 and '04-05 in the Community LINK program is $1.68 million. P. Wong: Can the minister calculate what the per- centage in reduction is, please?

9562 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 Hon. C. Clark: We don't have a calculator, so we are doing this in ballpark fi gures at the moment. I sus- pect that the member is an accountant and may have a closer figure than I do, but it's a little over 17 percent. P. Wong: If you compare the percentage of reduc- tion of the Community LINK program, is it fair to say that Vancouver has the higher percentage of reduction — obviously, comparing other areas in the total pro- gram? Hon. C. Clark: Yes, and I'm advised that the math…. It might be closer to 20 percent.

I want to make sure that I'm correct about that. In Vancouver — yes, that's true. The reason for that is because the ministry made a decision the year before last to distribute the money based on need so that the Com- munity LINK funding would be focused on where kids were the neediest as opposed to focused on districts. [1140] What the ministry has done — and the ministry has been innovative in doing this, setting an example worldwide — is an analysis of where the neediest kids are, and the funding is flowing based on where the need is. That's meant a redistribution of funds across the dis- trict.

In changing to Community LINK, that's meant that some districts have seen a de crease in funding, but it's also meant that other districts — many, many other dis- tricts — have seen an increase in funding because they've been historically underfunded. Although they had, in some cases, just as many needy kids, they were getting far less money to be able to support those kids. We've tried to build some equitability into the system based on the needs of the kids that are there. P. Wong: Based on the guidelin e of the ministry, it refers to the neediest; that means the vulnerable stu- dents.

I understand that th e definition of vulnerable children is…. "The success of society depends on the outcome of our most vulner able children." Would the minister be able to find out the definition of vulnerable students? Also, what are the risk factors in respect of the vulnerability of the students at risk? Hon. C. Clark: For the purposes of this program, we've looked at the total population of kids in the zero- to-18 age group, really, that experience difficult socio- economic circumstances.

We have put together an in- dex where the prevalence of socioeconomic depriva- tion in the province equals 100; that's the baseline we've used to measure it against. We've looked at the number of kids falling below the socioeconomic base- line that we've set and then looked at the total volume of each of those kids in a school. The research, all of the evidence, tells us it's not just the fact that a child comes fr om a family that struggles with poverty that's an indicator of the fact that they're at risk.

It's also the size of the community they go to school with, of other kids who also struggle with those same issues, that creates a greater risk. The larger the population is at a school of children who are struggling with poverty, the greater the risk for each of those in- dividual children. The smaller the population of chil- dren who are struggling with poverty at home, the less likely they are to experience those kinds of risks. We've combined those two measures as part of the index to determine where the neediest kids are. We've been applauded for this model worldwide.

We've been really leading in making sure the money we spend on these programs is based on evidence of where the highest need is. As a result , that meant the redistribu- tion of some funds across the province in recognition of the fact there were some very, very needy schools that weren't getting nearly the same kind of resources to support those kids as other schools that were perhaps still needy but not quite as high on the needs index. P. Wong: According to the risk factor index, the minister talked about poverty, neighbourhood, family background and also the group of students.

Among these four categories, which did the minister put more weight on than others? Hon. C. Clark: It is my understanding that all of those were equally weighted. The staff member who actually helped put together that program with the former minister isn't here, but it is my understanding, based on the corporate knowledge that we have in the chamber today, that all of those were equally weighted in making a determination of need. P. Wong: In respect to the meal program, I believe that poverty can carry more weight because you talk about family income.

I understand that there is a re- duction of the meal program in the current-year fund- ing. Would the minister look at why we have to cut the meal program expenses? [1145] Hon. C. Clark: It's up to school boards to decide how they want to use the money and find a way to use it that they think is most appropriate. The Community LINK program doesn't fund school meals exclusively. It's in- tended to support vulnerable children, and there are a whole variety of ways that school districts might use that money to support vulnerable children.

Some school districts have chosen to fo cus less on meal programs, and some have chosen to focus more on meal programs. Vancouver school district an d almost all of the urban districts of British Columbia have seen big increases in their budgets overall. It's up to school districts to make sure they are continuing to support the vulnerable stu- dents in their communities in the way that they recog- nize best meets the needs of their communities.

One of the things we've been very clear about as a government is recognizing that school districts are lo- cally elected bodies who are elected to reflect the needs of their local communities. They're the people that should be determining what those needs are and allo- cating their resources accordingly. Vancouver is no different from Surrey or other districts, particularly in the lower mainland, in that respect. We continue to

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9563 hope that they'll make those decisions in the best inter- ests of children. P. Wong: I heard a number of constituents in my riding say that some students have difficulties in learn- ing because they are hungry. I would also like to find out how much it costs per meal in the Vancouver dis- trict. Do you have any number available? Hon. C. Clark: No. We don't provide the school meals program. School districts provide that. Different school districts have different costs for the program.

Some school districts have a very, very cheap, low cost per meal that they provide, and some school districts have a more expensive program. That really depends on the priority that the school district puts on it and on how they see that they want to manage their funds as well as they can. In Vancouver the school di strict staff is making a proposal. The finance committee is making a proposal to the school board — and I understand that the school board hasn't yet considered it — that they will maintain the school meals program at its current funding levels. They found ways within their budget, within their….

You know, it's about a half-billion dollars if you include capital for the Vancouver school district. It's a very large budget — a little smaller than that. They found ways to b e a b l e t o m a k e u p t h a t m o n e y t o m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e school meals program continues and is intact for kids.

They're going to change the way they do it a little bit to make sure that it's as efficient as possible and that it's serving as many kids as possible, but it looks as though staff have come up with a proposal to try and manage the funding shortfall in a way that doesn't affect the ser- vices for kids who rely on school meals to make sure they can learn during the day. P. Wong: Does the vote include school supplies and textbooks for the students in school? Does your vote include textbooks and school supplies for students? Hon. C. Clark: No. That money would be allocated under the Ministry of Education budget.

I know, though, that this member has been a real tireless advo- cate on behalf of kids in his constituency, particularly vulnerable kids who need help and support through their public schools. I know he'll make sure that all of the points he wants to raise on the Ministry of Educa- tion side are also raised with the Minister of Education when he is up debating his estimates.

I do want to really thank the member for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the kids that live in his community and that go to the schools in his local community, because I know he has been deeply, deeply involved in making sure that the public schools in his community have what they need to support the kids that are there. [1150] J. Kwan: I can't let the comments pass — the minis- ter's comments about the fund ing, the shortfall in the school Community LINK program or what used to be called inner-city programs or the social equity enve- lope funds.

I just met with the school board last week when we had spring break. In fact, they are not going to be able to provide for the programs that the school board is responsible for under the Community LINK program with the funding cu ts from the provincial government. They're faced wi th budget shortfalls al- ready to the tune of some $11 million, in addition to the Community LINK cuts of $3 million. There will be hungry kids in the school system as a result of this budget cut; make no mistake about that. It is not the only thing it funds in terms of the Community LINK funds.

It cuts funding for counsel- ling for children, to help children to stay in schools, and particularly those child ren who are at risk of dropping out. Those are fund ing cuts that are effective as a result of the government and this minister's cut to the Community LINK program. The cuts also impact parents getting involved with their children's education and maximizing children's education success. Those cuts are particularly impact- ing ESL parents, and those are the facts as a result of these cuts. This is just some of the information. I don't have all of the documentations before me.

I have it downstairs in my office, which we will canvass on the Community LINK programs under this ministry and the net effect of it. If the member for Vancouver-Kensington wants to advocate for children who are faced with these cuts in his community, then he would be wise to say no to these cuts publicly and in this chamber and to this min- ister. Platitudes don't help, and the words the minister actually said, to say, "Education actually receives higher funding, so therefor e school boards have noth- ing to complain about," are completely false.

This gov- ernment, under this minister — when she was the Min- ister of Education — increased the pressures in the classrooms exorbitantly in th e area of salaries for the teachers and the supportive staff; in the areas of in- creased MSP premium costs; in the area of increased fuel costs as a result of this government's increase in the taxes for fuel and gas for every British Columbian, and that includes the education area; and inflation costs — just to name a few of the increased pressures.

It is a completely false statement to say that school boards have the tools they have to work with to meet these increasing pressures. In fact, the per-student funding has actually gone down when you include inflation costs and increased cost pressures. The Minis- ter of Children and Family Development sits and scoffs at these comments. She would be wise to know — and she should know, as the form er Minister of Education — what she has done to the school system in British Columbia, where those pr essures are and how the children's needs are in fact not being met. And yes, Mr.

Chair, I will be canvassing these issues with the Minis- ter of Education — make no mistake about that — but I will certainly be canvassing specifically in the area of education that relates to this minister's responsibility. That would be the cuts in the Community LINK pro- gram for the Vancouver school board.

9564 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 I have many questions for the minister, and I have worked out some of the numbers relating to the budget numbers that I was canvassing earlier. But noting the time, I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:54 a.m. The House resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair. Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. G. Plant moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply A; K. Stewart in the chair. The committee met at 10:22 a.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES (continued) On vote 10: ministry operations, $44,682,000 ( con- tinued). Hon. J. van Dongen: I'd like to take a minute, Mr.

Chairman, to introduce my deputy minister, Rory McAlpine; Bud Graham, assistant deputy minister for environmental sustainability and resource manage- ment; and behind me, Karen Wilk, our acting director of finance and administration. M. Hunter: I've got a couple of areas of questioning that won't take me very long this morning. I wanted to ask the minister about some elements of federal- provincial fisheries cooperat ion, both in terms of the wild-capture fishery and in terms of aquaculture. Maybe I can start with that area of questioning.

Can the minister tell me what the current percentage of fish production is of total B.C. agriculture production? [1025] Hon. J. van Dongen: If I understand the member's question correctly, he asked what the percentage is of total agricultural sales and what seafood represents as a percentage of that. Agriculture itself is $2.2 billion at the farm gate. If we look at the equivalent figure for seafood — this is landed value for both the commercial sector and aquaculture — it's $668 million.

If we take the com- mercial and aquaculture sector and look at the wholesale value, that's about a billion dollars, and a big percentage of that will be export dollars. I hope that answers the member's question. If not, he can ask for more clarifica- tion. M. Hunter: I don't want to get into a debate about landed and wholesale values, but it seems to me it's within the realm of reason that we can argue that the seafood industry of British Columbia is somewhere close to half of the total value of food produced in the province.

That makes this ministry, in my opinion, particularly important at least to coastal British Co- lumbia, if not the entire province. The other question I would like to ask on the statis- tics is that in my years in the seafood industry, we used to argue with Nova Scotia about whether British Co- lumbia or Nova Scotia was the leading seafood prov- ince in Canada. Can the minister tell me where we are in that league table today? Hon. J. van Dongen: We can't be certain about the numbers, but certainly, on aquaculture itself, British Columbia is the largest producer in Canada. There is no doubt about those numbers.

That's about $300 mil- lion in farm-gate production, if you will. We can check the numbers for the member in terms of total B.C. fish- eries activity versus Nova Scotia's. The other thing I would say, which I think is rele- vant here and relevant to the member's concern and motivation for asking these questions, is that the sea- food sector is a major employment creator in coastal communities. I would also say that the potential for further growth and utilization in British Columbia is greater than any other province in Canada.

Our government has pursued a policy of good en- vironmental management, good resource management, conservation of the resource and a sustainable ap- proach to harvesting and processing. We have also pursued, as a part of that, a policy of economic utiliza- tion and maximizing value of a quality product. Cer- tainly, it's my view and our government's view that we still have great potential to improve in all of those areas — to improve our impact in the marketplace by focus- ing on quality and differentiation and improve em- ployment prospects. We have the most untapped po- tential of any province in Canada. M.

Hunter: I'd like to explore a couple of aspects of the remarks the minister just made — a couple of areas

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9565 that have proven, I guess, a bit problematic in terms of federal-provincial relationships and, in my opinion, the impact those relationships in the fisheries field have had on the maximization of the value of seafood in this province. One has been the ol d federal aboriginal fish- eries strategy and its impact on salmon harvesting in B.C. I'd like to ask the minister about that. [1030] The Provincial Court found, I think, late last year or in the summer of last year, th at the aboriginal fisheries strategy was without a legal basis.

I understand there have been some changes in federal management. As a result of that, is the prospect for the British Columbia wild salmon fishery picking up in terms of allocations that the federal government may now be able to con- template, given that the AFS is no more? Hon. J. van Dongen: I think the member has identi- fied an issue that has been a longstanding concern in this province. We have always tried to follow an ap- proach of trying to foster with the federal government a good-policy approach to the issue of the commercial fishery.

We don't know at this point exactly how the federal government, in its management decisions and its policies, will deal with the court decisions the mem- ber refers to. Certainly, the comments I made about having good utilization of the resource, subject to good conservation management, apply in this case. We continue to foster the notion of an effectively managed, integrated com- mercial fishery where, on the basis of a strictly com- mercial fishery, native and non-native alike would be treated fairly and equally.

We see some looming issues on the horizon in terms of things like the species at risk policy that are being pursued by the federal government and that are affecting management decisions. We are trying to ap- proach that on a scientific basis. We are putting for- ward our assessments of those situations to the De- partment of Fisheries and Oceans, but it's one that can, as the member knows, very significantly impact man- agement decisions and the ec onomic utilization of that resource for native and non-native fishermen alike.

You have a combination of the aboriginal fishing policy, the lack of an integrated management system in the commercial fishery and the looming issue of spe- c i e s a t r i s k . I t ' s a p r e t t y c r i t i c a l m i x o f i s s u e s t o b e working with to maintain a viable commercial fishery. That's certainly our objective provincially. M.

Hunter: In that context, and in the context of other activities going on around treaty-making and fisheries — I know there is a treaty advisory committee that has been advising the minister — I w a n t t o p o s e my question on that in the context of the earlier discus- sion of the last item.

Given the minister's concern, certainly one that I share, that there are issues out there — whether they be the Species at Risk Act or the propensity of the De- partment of Fisheries and Oceans to avoid risk rather than manage it, at least in my opinion — can the minis- ter explain what mechanisms are in place for the prov- ince to influence and discuss management approaches and solutions with Ottawa? It was a one-way street in the late 1990s, with Ottawa im posing its will on British Columbia.

I think we've certainly changed the atmos- phere in the last few years. [1035] Are there changes in the mechanics that would lead me to be able to tell my friends in the seafood industry that there is actually some hope there could be some changes in approach that would see a little more vital- ity, if you like, certainly in the commercial, in the wild fishery, and that British Columbia is going to have a voice in creating that kind of potential? I know the minister and I both share the view that the potential is there. What are we doing to make sure we actually extract that potential? Hon.

J. van Dongen: The area the member identi- fies is a big part of our ministry's work in the fisheries sector: to work with the federal government, which has the jurisdiction and authorit y on most of the decisions that impact the viability of the commercial sector. I should say as background, first of all, that our govern- ment, our Premier and myself as minister, have ap- proached this from a basis of wanting to develop a respectful working relationship as opposed to one based on confrontation and disputes and argument about jurisdiction and authority.

We certainly have taken an approach where we want to defend provincial authority. We didn't want to give up any ground there, but we didn't see the solu- tion, in terms of an approa ch, to being jurisdictional approaches. We do have a new Pacific Council of Fish- eries Ministers, which we just signed prior to Christ- mas, that involves British Columbia, the Yukon and the federal minister. That's in addition to the National Council of Fisheries Ministers.

It allows us to work directly with the federal minis- ter and his staff to foster policies and management de- cisions and approaches that are appropriate to the west coast and appropriate to British Columbia. Overlaid over that, we now have specific arrangements — for example, a monthly conference call between our dep- uty minister and assistant deputy minister and the fed- eral deputy minister within the Department of Fisher- ies and Oceans. I would say that there has been quite a significant change in approach.

I think that the federal people — both the elected people and the staff — have re- sponded positively to our approach provincially. Cer- tainly, at the senior levels, we're working very proac- tively and constructively to break through some of the historical problems and difficulties and differences of opinion we've had. These monthly conference calls and more frequent visits to British Columbia than we've seen in the past by senior deputy ministers and the associate or assistant deputy ministers are helpful. W e h a v e a l s o w o r k e d w i t h t h e i n d u s t r y — cer- tainly, all players in the industry.

We've always fos- tered an approach that we want to involve all players

9566 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 in the industry, but particularly where we can have a group that represents as broadly as possible the biggest part of the industry — namely, the B.C. Seafood Alli- ance.

It's an organization of a whole number of players in the industry that is open to all the industry. [1040] We have worked with them and the federal gov- ernment to work toward the vision for a B.C. industry that they have developed, one that is forward-looking, constructive, built on some of the characteristics I talked about earlier — about producing quality products, value-added and pursuing local consumer and export markets in a professional way. It's been a partnership effort, a joint effort.

There are always things or situa- tions or particular issues where we feel we can do bet- ter or where we may have some frustrations, but I think on the whole we have made progress, and we've actually been able to deal with some pretty difficult issues in a professional and constructive way on behalf of the industry. We still have some big hurdles to go, as the member knows, and we continue to work very ac- tively on those. M. Hunter: Thanks to the minister for drawing a picture of where federal-provincial relations, which are so important in this domain, are going. I think that's helpful.

I also know there are some roadblocks. One of them — and I won't be specific — is with respect to aquaculture siting licences. My understanding is that there are some relocation applications for salmonid aquaculture facilities in B.C. that have been held up at federal level for over 18 mont hs. Can the minister give me any indication of what's happening to those resiting applications? Again, is there a process we can look forward to that will make our industry a little more confident in where it can go and how it can go there? Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly the member is cor- rect. That has been a major issue.

I should say as background, first of all, that we as a government have reviewed all of the policy issues around aquaculture, particularly environmental sus- tainability issues, waste management issues, fish es- cape issues and policies. We've improved compliance and enforcement. We have gone over all of the ground on siting applications and requirements that are ap- propriate for that, and we feel we have a solid founda- tion for an environmentally sustainable industry that includes third-party regulation by our provincial gov- ernment. That's important background.

We have worked closely with the federal government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have established a priority list in terms of the applications. CEAA is a new process — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process — with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is rela- t i v e l y n e w , a n d s o m e o f the frustration holdup has been in the development ph ase in developing the ap- proaches and the policy. I do know that more recently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has pu t increased staff on the process.

There is a real critical need for us to continue the drive and effort to ha rmonize what we're doing and what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is doing not only in terms of the application process but also the day-to-day management after that. There is a certain amount of connection between both the initial application and the subsequent management and the overlay of duplication involving both federal and pro- vincial regulations. We have worked actively in all of those things. [1045] It is still an issue that, in my view, is a very, very significant issue.

We have ha d a lot of very, very active dialogue and effort on both sides in the last six months, but it is one where we still have — and I'm certainly prepared to say this to DFO — work to do, and we're very, very actively pushing that. We need to see some significant improvement in how we handle those ap- plications. It's not right to have them out there for 18 months or two years. When you look at the amount of investment in time and professional expertise and dol- lars that goes into a site application, then it's incumbent on governments to also proc ess those in a reasonable fashion, a reasonable time frame.

M. Hunter: I would certainly agree with that last comment of the minister. Thank you. I am sure there are others who want to pursue those issues. I want to just move to one last area of questioning that I have. It's on food safety and food quality. The estimates for this coming fiscal year sug- gest we're going to spend nearly $4 million on food safety. My question is one that I have asked before of this minister, and it's based on my past experience around the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Back in 1986 the federal government, the provinces and the territories all agreed that they would move forward with harmonization of Canada's food inspec- tion system. We're nearly 20 years later. Can the minis- ter tell me how close we are to a harmonized system that will allow British Columbia to back out of some of the areas it now has to do? My hypothesis, as the mini ster knows, is that there is duplication in food inspection. I know we're moving towards harmonization so that all governments can save some money on this very important activity.

How close are we to having a single food inspection system in Canada? Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, we will always struggle, first of all, with the split jurisdiction, where the province has authority wi thin the province and the federal government has authority on interprovincial movement and export movement. I would say, in an- swer to the member's question …. This is again an area of discussion that has gone on for many years, as he knows, but some of the recent events we've had that we're working through in the food industry generally, such as BSE and avian flu, etc….

Some of those issues, I think, are providing some impetus and some motiva- tion for a much more active dialogue, a review of the

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9567 meat inspection regulations. All of these things are, I think, going to help speed up the process. It's not really the way you'd like to see things happen, but it will have that effect. B. Belsey: I have three areas that I would like to ad- dress today: aquaculture, ocean ranching and the wild fisheries. My colleague from Nanaimo has certainly can- vassed some of the questions I have on aquaculture.

As you know, my riding is made up almost entirely of coastal communities, and there's that constant tug and to and fro with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the provincial Fisheries and first nations communities. A lot of these questions — or most of them — are questions that I've been asked as I travel around the riding, and I would just hopefully get some clarification. My first question is: wher e is the division between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the pro- vincial jurisdiction over no t only salmon but the fresh- water fish — trout, inland lakes?

Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have some jurisdiction over lakes and rivers and streams, and do we have jurisdic- tion over salmon in some of those migratory species? [1050] Hon. J. van Dongen: Any time you have mixed jurisdiction, you have issues as to where the line is. As a starting point, all of the authority for fisheries under the constitution rests with the federal government.

The federal government chose many years ago to delegate to the provincial government certain authorities deal- ing with management, mainly of freshwater fisheries, so through the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protec- tion, the freshwater management program for fisheries takes place. That's the basic delegation of authority that is essentially the federal government's. B.

Belsey: Has the province ever considered some kind of legal analysis of the authority of the Depart- ment of Fisheries and Oceans — I mean, even going back into the Charter — to understand very, very clearly what the federal government claims is their jurisdiction and what they'r e willing to share with the province in the way of their jurisdiction? Hon. J. van Dongen: We have certainly not, in the time we have been in government, pursued that type of analysis, recognizing that under the constitution, it is fundamentally a federal authority.

As I said to the pre- vious member, we have preferred to focus our ap- proach on partnership, on cooperative approaches and developing what we believe is good policy. Even though virtually all the management of the wild fishery is within the federal government's author- ity, we have certainly taken an active role in that on behalf of commercial fishermen, representing their interests and the interests of the province in what we thought were appropriate approaches to the exercise of that authority. We have not conducted a legal analysis.

We don't believe it would necessarily be a productive enterprise, although if we have situations where we believe the federal government is making decisions that start to encroach on legitimate prov incial authority in other areas, then we might consider that. We have not had any examples of that at this point. B. Belsey: Most of my other questions on aquacul- ture are very similar to th ose of my colleague from Nanaimo, so I'd like to mo ve on now to ocean ranch- ing. Has the province taken up this issue with the De- partment of Fisheries and Oceans?

Can you share, maybe, their concerns or their response with me? Hon. J. van Dongen: We have not at this point en- gaged in any policy discussion with DFO with respect to ocean ranching. Our staff have looked at the ar- rangements in Alaska an d how they conduct ocean ranching. My understanding is that those arrange- ments can be quite complex.

There are some aspects of it in Alaska that make it possible there, but it is not a simple policy to develop and implement. [1055] If the member and the indu stry feel there are some viable options here for the in dustry that should be con- sidered, certainly I myself and my ministry would be prepared to consider opening up the discussion with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on it, but it is a fairly complex policy matter to get into. As I said, I would be very open to industry submissions on the issue. B. Belsey: I thank the minister.

Ocean ranching is something that has been a topic with some groups, certainly first nations. Ocean ranch- ing and terminal fisheries ar e a couple of areas that might be interesting to look into, especially with the development of aquaculture and some of the concerns with first nations. You and I may have an opportunity to sit down and discuss this a little more and maybe look at a pilot project and see where we can go with it. The last area I have some interest in is the wild fisheries. I'm not sure whether you've been asked this question. I was out of the room for a little bit.

If you have answered this already, then I don't mind at all you telling me to read Hansard, and we can get on with my next question. I'm just wondering: what support does the province provide for the wild fisheries in the way of marketing? Hon. J. van Dongen: We as a province and as a ministry do not provide any direct marketing dollars. Under the Farming and Fishing Industries Develop- ment Act, we do provide the facility for an industry l e v y t h a t i s u s e d t o f u n d t h e B . C .

S a l m o n M a r k e t i n g Council, which is an industry effort to engage in the generic advertising and promotion of salmon. There was a change not too long ago within the federal government that makes marketing dollars available through the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada for seafood promotion and industry de- velopment, particularly tied, I think, to export market

9568 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 development. We are working with industry groups. There are certain conditions that apply to access these funds, but I am very, very interested. I've been very clear with our staff and our industry that I want to see a relevant and fair portion of those dollars come to British Columbia, and we're working actively with the industry to try and access some of those marketing dollars. B. Belsey: This is my last question to the minister. I'm wondering what kind of support there is out there for someone who is trying to look at a relatively new t y p e o f f i s h e r y . I h a v e a n e x a m p l e o f a f e l l o w i n t h e North Coast —

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0323am-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0323am 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1c74c62583fa6d7d535878f6046cb093417d543d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).