2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Human Rights Code (Mandatory

Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 31)

Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 33)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Pacific Coast University for

Workplace Health Sciences Act (Bill Pr401)

Cantelon

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Komagata Maru mural

H. Bains

Rights of persons with

disabilities

Cantelon

Vimy Ridge poem

Puchmayr

Cancer Society Daffodil Month

Hawkins

Bioheat

Karagianis

Retail business people

Bennett

Oral Questions

Allegations of partisan media

activities by Liberal staff

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

L. Krog

Ralston

Chudnovsky

Hon. W.

Oppal

Farnworth

Conflict-of-interest concerns

regarding lobbying activities of Ken Dobell

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Campbell

Karagianis

Government contracts to lobbyists

H. Lali

Hon. G.

Campbell

Points of Privilege

J. Kwan

N. Simons

Petitions

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

D. Routley

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Austin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Robertson

Simpson

[ Page 7121 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. van Dongen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a special group of visitors to the House today. In the gallery are the members of the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. They have gathered in Victoria today to review this year's nominations, which have been made by members of both sides of the House. I understand there were 174 nominations.

The Order of British Columbia Advisory Council is chaired by the Hon. Lance Finch, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for B.C. Joining the Chief Justice and yourself, Mr. Speaker, on the advisory council are Brenda Binnie, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities; Dr. Michael Stevenson, president of Simon Fraser University; Virginia Greene, deputy minister of the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat; and two members of the order, Dr. Wallace Bakfu Chung of Vancouver and Janet Nita Connolly of Atlin. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce someone who is a very special friend of mine, one of the persons who works hard so that I'm here in this House — the national director of the Steelworkers, Ken Neumann. Please join me, the entire House here, to give him a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased today to be able to introduce 74 visitors from Our Lady of Perpetual Help School in my constituency, Vancouver–Point Grey. They are grade 5 students travelling with some parents and their teachers Mr. Venegas, Ms. Stefanon and Ms. Schmidt. They're here today to experience the history of these buildings, to learn more about the business of government and parliamentary tradition and, evidently, to take pictures and notes and report back. So everyone is properly warned. I hope we'll make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Today in the gallery are two of my oldest and dearest friends, Bob Rosen and Eva Sherell. I had a wonderful lunch with them today, and I hope that you'll join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Hon. W. Oppal: In the House this afternoon is a man who's done a tremendous amount of work in the field of human rights. He's now a member of the multicultural advisory committee council. He's a resident of Richmond — Randy Sandhu. I ask that the House make him feel welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I have four guests in the gallery today. I have the mayor of New Westminster, Wayne Wright, with us today. He'll be meeting with the Solicitor General and me later today. I also have Evelyn Benson and Bonnie Peterson, and I have Don Benson, who is the Poet Laureate emeritus for New Westminster. He is also getting an award today for community achievement. Please make them all extremely welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: Today it is also my pleasure to introduce somebody else who is getting a community achievement award. Her name is Lois Carson Boyce. She has been a volunteer in my community of Richmond — and also from the other member from Richmond's community — for more than 40 years. She's joined today by Carol Boyce Nelson, Mary Carson Ford, Rose Ella Johnson, Joyce Johnston and James, Arlene, Sylvia and David Sinclair. Would the House please welcome them.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce Stephanie Wiebe, a journalism student at Ryerson. She's the sister of Sarah Wiebe, an intern researcher for the NDP caucus. She's also with her roommate, Melissa Musso. Please welcome them.

[1340]

D. MacKay: We've been here since February, and I notice in the gallery today that I actually have two visitors from my riding. I have one from Dease Lake that I will let the Minister of Community Services introduce. I would like at this time to introduce a school teacher from school district 54 who taught both my children when they went through school. I suspect he's probably teaching my granddaughter. Ian Malcomson is in the House today, and I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: It's my pleasure to introduce several people who are joining us in the House this afternoon. Firstly, Dr. Patricia Baird is with us. She's an internationally recognized geneticist who, for more than a year, served as chair of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. Along with 17 other members of the council, Dr. Baird consulted with hundreds of British Columbians, ultimately producing the Aging Well in B.C. report — a report that will be very useful as we plan and prepare for an aging population, when we will see one in four British Columbians being over the age of 65.

Joining Dr. Baird in the gallery is Silas Brownsey from the Ministry of Community Services, who helped provide support to the council and who continues to coordinate government's response to those recommendations.

As well, a very special constituent of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine is here, Ms. Margery Loverin from Dease Lake, an employee with the Ministry of Children and Family Development who decided to continue working in the B.C. public service despite reaching the age of retirement. She is joined by two of her relatives from Victoria, Pat and Gary Elander.

I would ask all members of the House to please make them all very welcome.

[ Page 7122 ]

S. Fraser: It's a great pleasure today to introduce two friends and constituents, Henry Nedergard and Wolfgang Zimmerman. Henry is a strong advocate for the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, and Wolfgang is the executive director of the same. They're here, hopefully, for an important hurdle that's to be overcome today in a step in the creation of the Pacific Coast University of Workplace Health Sciences. Would you please help me make them feel very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to introduce Steve Tuck, a constituent who is a recipient of the British Columbia Community Achievement Award, which will be awarded later today at Government House. Accompanying Steve today is his wife Teresa and their very good friends, Valerie and George Solomonides. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

G. Coons: I also would like to acknowledge a recipient of the Community Achievement Awards, Edna Mason, for outstanding achievement in education in her community of Klemtu. Please make her welcome.

R. Cantelon: Also with us in the House today, I'd like you to welcome Ken Neumann, the national director of the United Steelworkers union and board member of NIDMAR; Lee Coonfer, the director of public relations for Canfor; Brian Payne, who is co-chair of NIDMAR and former president of the CEP union of Canada; Valerie Royle, president and CEO of the Yukon Workers Compensation Health and Safety Board and board member of NIDMAR; Tricia Janzen, national director of human rights practices; Bonita Thompson, legal counsel with Singleton Urquhart; Roger Stanyer, member of the B.C.

Competition Council; Gillian Trumper, former MLA for Alberni-Qualicum; Jim Chutka, the executive assistant to MP for Nanaimo-Alberni James Lunney; and Gerard Janssen, former MLA for Alberni-Qualicum. Please give them a warm welcome.

D. Cubberley: Joining us in the gallery today are 24 grades 4 and 6 students along with their parents from Pacific Christian School, and they're in the company of Ms. Houston, who is their teacher. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to welcome and introduce 18 teachers from across British Columbia who are participating in the Legislative Assembly's fourth B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of the week, expanding their knowledge of both our parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by three of their peers who are acting as facilitators. I trust many of you will have the opportunity to meet them during their time here at the institute.

[1345]

Accompanying them is Becca Kenna-Schenk, Senate civic education program from the Washington State Legislature. She's here to learn from her neighbours from the north how to offer an educational opportunity to their teachers. I'd ask the members to make them very welcome.

Also, this afternoon we have three guests from the Alberta Legislative Assembly. We are joined by Dr. David McNeil, who is the Clerk of the Alberta Legislature; as well as Miss Rhonda Sorensen, who is the manager of communication services; and Miss Val Rutherford, manager of planning and development. They will be joined tomorrow by another colleague, Corrine Dacyshyn, who is a Committee Clerk. The group is here in Victoria to examine British Columbia's parliamentary committee system. I would ask the House make them feel very welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome some constituents who have travelled all the way from West Kootenay–Boundary. I don't get many of them, so it's a great pleasure to welcome Ian and Margaret Davidson.

J. McIntyre: I'm pleased to say that my former business partner, my very good friend and a Canucks fan extraordinaire, Evi Mustel, who is the president of Mustel Group, is in the gallery today. I'd like the House make her feel very welcome.

J. Nuraney: It's a real privilege today to introduce to the House George McLean, a veteran of the war, freeman of the city of Burnaby, with 50 years of community service to our communities in Burnaby. He continues to serve and is a very active Rotarian and a member of the Crime Stoppers right now. He's here to receive his Community Achievement Award and is accompanied by his family — his two daughters and his sons — and a friend, Allen. May the House please make him feel very welcome.

J. Yap: I'm delighted today to introduce two visitors in the public gallery. These two gentlemen are members of the executive of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia. Frits Verhoeven is the president this year. He's also a constituent of mine from the riding of Richmond-Steveston. With him is the vice-president, Ken Walton. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Routley: A constituent of mine, Brian Payne, retired president of the CEP, is with us. I'd ask the House to help me make him welcome.

B. Bennett: It's my great pleasure to introduce a fellow from Cranbrook who is in the gallery somewhere. His name is Garry Anderson. Garry started the Canadian Museum of Railway Travel. Cranbrook is a railway town. The railway came in there in 1898. Garry started the museum in 1977 with one car. It's now an internationally acclaimed museum.

Garry is being honoured tonight with the B.C. Achievement Award. I found out today, actually, that Garry Anderson has also been awarded, as of today, the National Achievement Award from Heritage Can-

[ Page 7123 ]

ada for the restoration at Royal Alexandria Hall, which is a wonderful meeting place as part of his museum. Please help me welcome to the House one of B.C.'s real heritage stars, Garry Anderson.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today are Jim and Terry Taylor. Jim is a school teacher in Mission and very much an environmentalist, here to receive a well-deserved Community Achievement Award, particularly for his work in introducing kids to how we should be looking after our environment.

With Jim and Terry is His Worship Mayor James Atebe of Mission, who has come to watch and accompany Jim getting his award and to honour Jim's great achievement in our community. Could the House make them all feel very welcome.

S. Hawkins: Also in the gallery today is someone who is a tireless advocate in the fight against cancer. Barbara Kaminsky, who has been the CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon division, for the last 12 years, is visiting the House. On behalf of the House, I would like to welcome her and thank her for her efforts.

[1350]

Hon. G. Abbott: I also would like to welcome Barbara Kaminsky to the House and to note that joining Barbara today is her mother Mary Mysko; her sister Phyllis Lewis; Clair Buckley, a former board chair of the Canadian Cancer Society — B.C. and Yukon Division; and Catherine Richardson, director of human resources at the Canadian Cancer Society — B.C. and Yukon Division.

I'd like to join with the member and all members of the House in welcoming these guests and saluting the wonderful work that's done for us each and every day by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

(MANDATORY RETIREMENT ELIMINATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007. Bill 31 will eliminate the ability to impose mandatory retirement in British Columbia as of January 1, 2008, in all sectors and in all workplaces.

In December 2006 the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues recommended amendments to the Human Rights Code to recognize human rights and eliminate the ability to impose mandatory retirement. The council also recommended that the Human Rights Code protect against age discrimination in the provision of accommodation, in the provision of services and facilities normally available to the public. Bill 31 will make these amendments to the Human Rights Code.

In addition to the work of the Premier's council, the development of these amendments has also benefited from the views of private and public sector employers and employees and views conveyed in many letters received from individuals from all over the province. The council identified the Human Rights Code amendments as the key to its vision of British Columbia as a province where older people can remain involved and interact with others in their communities, fulfilling their roles that are respected and valued.

Mandatory retirement is a policy of the past, not of the future. The council is to be commended for its vision, and I know it's a vision that is shared by all British Columbians. Bill 31 is an important step towards its achievement.

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

Bill 31, Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: Regrettably, this bill isn't as exciting as the last one. It's Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. It's guaranteed to cure insomnia.

[1355]

This bill amends a number of statutes under the mandate of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The amendments to improve efficiency and access to justice are made to a number of statutes. They include the Administrative Tribunals Act, Court of Appeal Act, Evidence Act, Legal Profession Act, Legal Services Society Act, Offence Act, Provincial Court Act and Supreme Court Act.

In addition, changes to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act and the Family Relations Act will serve to improve efficiency and strengthen child sup-

[ Page 7124 ]

port amendments in British Columbia. These amendments will ensure that children receive financial support they're entitled to from both parents.

Finally, Bill 33 contains validations, confirmations and repeals as well as consequential and related amendments to keep the statutes up to date and to provide certainty. This includes amendments to the following acts: the

Interpretation Act, the obsolete provisions repeal act and the Statute Revision Act.

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

Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY FOR

WORKPLACE HEALTH SCIENCES ACT

R. Cantelon presented a bill intituled Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act.

R. Cantelon: I move that Bill Pr401, 2007, entitled Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: It is with pleasure that I act as sponsor of this bill to create a new private post-secondary institution, the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences, in British Columbia. This institution will be a worldwide centre of excellence specializing in research and education in occupational health and safety, disability management and rehabilitation in our province.

The proponent of this bill, the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, wishes to establish this institution to promote research and higher education, safe workplace practices, and methods and programs for disability management and rehabilitation of injured workers.

This is an important and worthy goal. In Canada approximately 24,000 permanent disabilities occur annually. The cost of the entire Canadian workers compensation system in 2005 was in excess of $7 billion. But it is first a social cause, Mr. Speaker. It's an unfortunate fact that workers who are injured on the job who fail to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the workplace within the first year…. Ninety percent of such people never re-enter the workplace.

This private bill, if passed, will continue the society incorporated as the Pacific Coast Education Society for Workplace Health Sciences as a not-for-profit society. Subject to receiving approval of the Degree Quality Assessment Board, the university will be eligible to grant degrees in its own right and name and to award certificates and diplomas.

This bill will set up the structure, authority, rights and obligations of the university and establish an international research advisory council to advise the university's board or academic council on research required to address critical issues and to facilitate international cooperation, collaboration and partnership on this issue.

This bill has been reviewed by both the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Finance. I support this bill, and I ask that all members of this House also support the worthy objectives of this new bill. I'd like to acknowledge the support and commitment from the member opposite from Alberni-Qualicum in helping this to come to pass today.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) KOMAGATA MARU MURAL

H. Bains: I want to congratulate the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society in Surrey for their contribution to our community, especially their efforts to remind us of the importance of the struggles and values of the passengers of the Komagata Maru .

[1400]

Charan Gill and PICS commissioned Jarnail Singh, a prominent artist, to paint a life-sized mural on the side of the PICS complex in Surrey. This mural was painted from a photo taken of the passengers on the Komagata Maru some 93 years ago.

I'm especially proud of this mural for the message it instils in all of us. In my view, it lets us cherish the courage of the passengers of the Komagata Maru and honours their progressive thinking, their bravery and their valour to challenge the laws of the day in the name of justice. These people put their lives on the line for their beliefs and to stand up for what was right.

This mural should serve as a reminder to all of us and to the coming generations that injustices should not be tolerated at any time. Whether they are societal or legislative injustices, we need people to understand that it is their right to oppose things that are not just.

I stand before you today with great pride that they left us with a country to live where there's established acceptance for all faiths, customs and beliefs, where we enjoy free speech and democracy. Please join me in honouring all of those people and organizations who stood up against injustices and thank them for their courage, bravery and compassion towards our humanity. It was their work and vision that laid the foundation to build a society that strives for social and economic justice for all and where we find unity in diversity.

[ Page 7125 ]

RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES

R. Cantelon: Discrimination against people with disability takes many forms. I think we're most familiar with access and public access to buildings, but there are more subtle and insidious ways that put up mental barriers for people with disabilities.

I had a conversation with a recently disabled worker, and he was putting a very brave face on things. He was an athletic young man who had been a successful manager of a retail store. But then something happened. His boss said: "Well, now you'll be co-manager of the store." So what does that say to him? Perhaps he's something less than what he used to be, less of a man than he used to be, and you could see the pain and anguish in his face.

This is a common thing right across Canada and right across the world. On March 20, 2007, the United Nations addressed this with a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The purpose of the present convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.

Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term mental, physical, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

This convention was signed, and Canada was a signatory at the introduction in March — one of 85 countries. I know this is a theme and a philosophy that everybody on both sides of this House can embrace and endorse and encourage.

VIMY RIDGE POEM

C. Puchmayr: This was written by New Westminster's Poet Laureate, Don Benson, who is receiving an award today. It's Canada's Unknown Soldier .

He was a young Canadian who died at Vimy Ridge.

Did he come from Fort St. John or Gibsons Landing?

Did he grow up in Victoria, or up near Spences Bridge?

Was he born within a mile of where we're standing?

Was he tall, or short and stocky? Was he handsome or just plain?

Did his mother call him Son or Darling Ned?

Did his features speak of Sweden or the steppes of the Ukraine?

Was he freckled? Did his buddies call him "Red"?

Did he play for Salmonbellies at the oval in the park?

Did he star at cricket on the Brockton green?

Or was the Kamloops drama club the place he made his mark?

Did he learn to swim and fish in the Stikine?

Did he dance around a maypole? Was he in the Boys' Brigade?

Did a Campbell River girl say she would wait?

Did he lie in bed and listen to the sounds the ocean made?

Was the frozen Kootenay where he learned to skate?

Did he labour on a green chain at a Prince George lumber mill?

Did he plan to log, or article, or teach?

In winter did he ride his sleigh down a North Vancouver hill?

Did he spend bright summer days at White Rock beach?

Did he hang out on Cordova near the taverns and the docks,

And take a drink, and charm the girls, and brawl?

Did he ice-fish near Kelowna? Or take solitary walks?

Was he quiet? Did he hear the poet's call?

Was the telegram delivered to a mansion on a hill,

Or a humble Lulu Island fishing shack?

Was his graduation picture sitting on the windowsill?

Did his dog sense he was never coming back?

When we wear the blood-red poppy, or say a silent prayer,

Or lay a wreath beside the silent guns,

We feel that he is present; we feel him standing there;

For he is all our wars and all our sons.

[1405]

CANCER SOCIETY DAFFODIL MONTH

S. Hawkins: April, as we all probably know, is Canadian Cancer Society's Daffodil Month all across Canada. This is the time when volunteers from coast to coast work together to give their time and effort to raise both awareness and funds in the fight against cancer.

Cancer is the leading cause of premature death in Canada. Almost all of us have been touched by cancer, either directly or through a loved one or a friend. Every seven and a half minutes, one Canadian dies of cancer.

A report recently released by the Canadian Cancer Society estimates that in this year alone, about one in 200 Canadians will be diagnosed with some kind of cancer. Here in British Columbia we have some of the best cancer statistics and some of the best cancer standards and outcomes in the world. We have been successful in lowering our incidence rates of cancer because of our major emphasis on preventative strategies, which focus on tobacco reduction, increased physical activity and healthier diets. All of these strategies help reduce the major risk factors of cancer.

Chances of surviving cancer are higher in British Columbia than in most other parts of Canada for a variety of cancers. In British Columbia we're very pleased to work with the Canadian Cancer Society, British Columbia and Yukon Division, as one of our partners in our approach to the prevention and control of cancer.

The bright yellow daffodil stands for the fight against all cancers. When the Canadian Cancer Society volunteers come to your door, please give generously, and know that your donations fund research to help those who are fighting their battles with this disease.

BIOHEAT

M. Karagianis: I've stood in this House on several occasions and talked about the advantages of biodiesel as a bridging option for vehicles until the future of personal transportation is more evident. On a recent trip to the Cranbrook area, my good friend from Nelson-Creston, knowing my passion for biodiesel, pointed out the local biodiesel provider there.

[ Page 7126 ]

Today I want to talk about the options for bioheat applications for home and business heating. We have seen the emergence of bioheat for home use right here in the CRD and even out there in Cranbrook. I think there are endless opportunities for bioheat to be used in business buildings as well.

As government we can lead the way. We can endorse bioheat for all government buildings. Anywhere that oil heat or heated boilers exist, they can switch to bioheat. That could even include this legislative building. If we are going to change the lightbulbs to be more responsive to climate change, I think we can certainly take the much larger step to heat our buildings with bioheat.

According to the U.S. National Biodiesel Board, the only difference between large commercial boilers and home use is the amount of gallons that you consume. They are all the same fundamental application as home heating through the big boilers. The clean cities initiative in the U.S. is strongly in support of the shift to bioheat. I think we can be as progressive as they are, and in fact I think we can be more progressive.

We all know that it will take a paradigm shift in each of our own lives in order to take on the challenge of slowing climate change. Collectively, I think that as government we can show that as a whole we are also prepared to make that paradigm shift and lead the way. So I hope we can take on that challenge here.

RETAIL BUSINESS PEOPLE

B. Bennett: Retail Week in B.C. starts in a few days, and this is my opportunity to honour those small business people who work so hard.

I grew up in a retail family with five kids. We all worked in the family business. My mother and father owned a furniture store in a small town in Ontario that my grandfather started in 1926. Today my brother competes successfully with the likes of The Brick and Leon's, and most days he wins, at least often enough to stay in business.

[1410]

My father told me when I was a kid working in the family business that when I was in his house, I had two choices. I could work, or I could go to school. Those were the only two choices we had.

Small business people have the work ethic, or they don't survive. Many of them have no pension or health care plan, and their business plan is jeopardized every day by a million uncontrollable, unexpected things like SARS, BSE, 9/11, floods and forest fires.

I ended up owning my own small business at the age of 27. My wife and I went through the complete entrepreneurial experience, from the startup when you have no money to the good day when you finally get to sell your successful business. I've had to go to suppliers with my cap in hand to ask them for a little more time to pay, and I've been kicked out the door by a chartered bank for the simple reason that their studies showed them that resort businesses are likely to fail.

Small business people are resilient. They are particularly busy right now, with such a strong, expanding and confident economy, which some people would have us believe is 100 percent due to strong commodity prices but which I know is largely due to the smarter regulations, lower taxes and support of free enterprise.

With retail, money stays in the community. Retail business people volunteer for the local service clubs, and they donate a portion of their often meagre profits to churches, sporting and youth groups, food banks and all the other positive community ventures that we are all familiar with.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Small Business and Revenue for the work he's done to streamline regulations and to reduce the tax burden on our job creators in small business. I look forward to celebrating Retail Week with all of the hard-working retailers in the East Kootenays.

Oral Questions

ALLEGATIONS OF PARTISAN MEDIA

ACTIVITIES BY LIBERAL STAFF

C. James: "I believe that the Premier and the Office of the Premier are the fundamental arbiters of accountability…. They are the fundamental referees of accountability within the government…the Premier must always lead by example. His office must lead by example."

Those words came from this Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. Will he now live up to those words and tell the people of British Columbia if staff in his office are still engaged in blatant partisan media manipulation?

Hon. G. Campbell: We canvassed this yesterday in this House. I said yesterday and I will say today that there are matters before the courts. I will not be answering questions that arise from those matters before the courts. That, in fact, is a reflection of the responsibility we have to protect the integrity of the courts and the legal process in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Well, the Premier has refused to answer simple questions about what the taxpayers pay his staff to do. British Columbians know that the Liberal staff have been caught playing dirty tricks before. Taxpayers want to make sure that the Premier has put a stop to it.

"The Premier must always lead by example." Those are the Premier's own words. So once again I ask the Premier: will he in fact do that today — lead by example and make sure that he's accountable to the taxpayers by investigating his staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I intend to continue leading British Columbia by example. Part of that example is to be….

Interjections.

[ Page 7127 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: Part of that example is to be forthright with regard to what I believe are my responsibilities. I understand the responsibilities of the opposition to ask questions. They certainly have to carry those responsibilities out.

[1415]

I have a responsibility, as I have said, to protect the issues that are currently before the court. I do not intend to comment on issues that are before the court or arise from that court proceeding until it is complete.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, I can tell you what kind of an example we have. It's a sad example of a Premier who's hiding behind a court case to avoid accountability. That's the example we have in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Last week we learned that Jessica McDonald launched an investigation into the conduct of Pilothouse lobbyists and former Deputy Minister Paul Taylor. That investigation was launched after an e-mail from Pilothouse surfaced — the very same people who are involved in the current court case. We all know that information is part of the trial.

Again, to the Premier: if Jessica McDonald can investigate Paul Taylor and Pilothouse, why can't the Premier investigate his own staff now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: If we know anything, we know the position that the Leader of the Opposition would take with regard to the integrity of the courts here in the province of British Columbia. I can tell you this, and I will tell the members of the opposition this. I understand the role that opposition plays, and everyone in British Columbia welcomes that role.

None of us would like anything better than for that court case to run its full gamut and to have a conclusion of that court case. However, as I have said, I do not intend to respond to questions that arise from that court case. I believe that would be wrong. Therefore, that will remain my position.

It is our responsibility in this House to reflect on and respect that. That's exactly what this side of the House, at least, will always do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: Well, both yesterday and now again today, despite every opportunity to do so, for the Premier to tell this House whether government staff in his office are currently — and I ask the Premier to listen — engaged in dirty tricks like calling in to talk show radio hosts and lobbing softball questions to the Premier….

Government appointees like Prem Vinning and Steve Vander Wal have been caught before. One would think the Premier would want answers. But now the Premier is caught in a double standard. His own deputy is investigating Pilothouse and Paul Taylor but won't touch allegations of media manipulation in his own office.

Why is the Premier protecting his dirty tricks operations but investigating the activities of Paul Taylor?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let's at least get the facts straight. My deputy received an e-mail from a third party through ICBC. She felt it was important that she fully investigate that. She did. She found no substance behind the e-mail. However, out of an excess of caution, she decided to have a third party fully review all aspects of that e-mail. That third party will be reporting out. That report will be made available to the public, subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The Premier has now had two days to denounce political dirty tricks. He's had every opportunity in this House, through numerous questions, to denounce political dirty tricks, but instead he's continuing to stonewall. Sadly, the Premier's silence on this issue is starting to sound a lot like he's prepared to condone political and partisan trickery.

[1420]

My question to the Premier is very simple. Does he condone blatant partisan political manipulation occurring in his office? Is he going to be prepared in this House today to stand up and condemn it?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this.

Let me be clear. I encourage people to be involved in public life. I encourage people to have ideas about how we can make this province better. I encourage people to serve. I encourage them to serve in elected office. I encourage them to serve in public service. It's a rewarding occupation. It's something, frankly, all members of this House should be encouraging people to do. I intend to continue doing that, and I intend to continue serving the people of British Columbia.

B. Ralston: The Premier leans on legal advice to remain silent about a case that is currently before the courts. My question concerns current Liberal staffers who are working in this building here today.

The Premier has a broader public duty to lift the cloud over his office and reassure taxpayers that we aren't footing the bill for partisan activities. Will the

[ Page 7128 ]

Premier please advise the House what steps he has taken to assure the public that he isn't condoning political tricks by his current political staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let's be clear. There is not a cloud in British Columbia with regard to the public service or people who are actively involved in the public service.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that, again, the opposition has every opportunity to ask questions, and they're welcome to do so. However, the fact that they ask them on a regular basis does not mean that the answer changes. I intend to act according to what I believe is right, which is to protect the integrity of the court proceedings that are currently underway.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Let's be clear. I'm not referring to the broad public service; I'm referring to the political staff hired as appointments in the Premier's office. The people of the province deserve to know this.

Are they still paying for the Premier's political staff to call in, faking their voices as ordinary citizens, to political radio shows?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do not intend to answer any questions which arise from the case that is currently before the courts.

D. Chudnovsky: This is not so complicated. There are questions as to whether staff in the Premier's office are carrying on activities which all of us would see as inappropriate. There are questions as to whether people in the Premier's office are making fake phone calls, pretending to be someone who they're not. There are questions as to who might be paying those people to carry on those inappropriate activities.

You'd think that in that context, the Premier would want to at least have a meeting with the people on his staff and say: "It's my point of view that that's not what the people on my staff should be doing." My question is: has he had that meeting?

Hon. W. Oppal: Let's not kid ourselves. All of this arises….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: All of this arises….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: All of this arises out of the allegations that are being made presently in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It would be totally improper for us to comment on anything that takes place in that trial or anything that arises out of the evidence or the allegations that have come to light in that trial.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: My question to the Premier: has he called a meeting? Has he sent a message? Has he issued a memo? Has he issued a directive? Has he done anything — anything — to send a message to the people on his staff that these questions need to be answered and that this kind of activity is inappropriate? Has he done anything to send that message to his staff?

Hon. W. Oppal: The questions are the same. They're merely being asked by different persons. The fact is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: We will not comment on anything that arises out of allegations that are being made in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: What's clear is that it doesn't matter who is answering from the other side; whether it's the Premier or the Attorney General, the stonewalling is the same. The people of this province want more than stonewalling. They want answers.

My question is to the Premier. He says he wishes to lead by example. He says he wishes to bring and encourage new people into politics in this province. So will he do that, and will he tell people who are interested in running for public office in this province that it is unacceptable for members of his staff or, in fact, any minister's staff to engage in dirty tricks in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: This is all about respect for the integrity of the criminal justice system. It is obvious that that side of the House don't understand the independence and the workings of the criminal justice system. They run with baseless allegations. They base their questions on that, and they expect us to answer them.

There's no basis for answering any of those questions. The answer remains the same. We will not comment on anything that impacts on the fairness of the trial.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What's clear is that the government doesn't want to answer for the activities of members in the Premier's office staff. I'd like to ask a question to the minister who's responsible for paying those staff. Does she believe that it's appropriate for people who are being paid by taxpayers' funds to be engaged in partisan activities?

[ Page 7129 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: This is a classic case of taking an allegation and making a finding of fact. The basic premise of the question is so faulty…. There's no factual basis for that question at all — none.

[1430]

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS

REGARDING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

OF KEN DOBELL

J. Kwan: Well, that's why there's a call from this side of the House for an investigation, which this government refuses to look into. To date, the Premier has refused to answer questions about his staff manipulating the media. He has yet to answer any questions about his top adviser, Ken Dobell, who is under investigation for violating the Lobbyists Registration Act.

But the investigation won't look into potential conflict of interest and the many hats that he wears. Mr. Dobell even sent a letter outlining his conflict concerns to the Premier's deputy, Jessica McDonald, and Vancouver city manager Judy Rogers.

My question to the Premier is this. Who cleared Mr. Dobell of conflict of interest regarding his duelling contracts and responsibilities with the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver, and did the Premier personally sign off on that?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member has noted, Mr. Loukidelis, the FOI commissioner, is carrying out a fact-finding review with regard to the allegations the member opposite is making. Mr. Dobell was forthright in telling me what he was doing for the province. Obviously, I knew. That was part of his contractual obligations — softwood lumber, Gateway opportunities, etc. He also informed us of the activities he was taking on behalf of the city of Vancouver.

Let me be clear to everyone in this House. This government intends to work with the city of Vancouver, with the city of Prince George, with the city of Terrace, with the city of Victoria, and we will….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The fact that those jurisdictions have people on retainer is clearly something that they decide to do independently of this government. We will, however, continue to work with municipalities across the province to make those municipalities better places for everybody to live.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. Mr. Loukidelis is looking into the issues around violations of the lobbyists registry. My question is around conflict of interest. Mr. Dobell, with all of his many appointments and contracts, is subject to the standards established by the board resourcing and development office. Those standards state: "There must be no apprehension of bias, based on what a reasonable person might perceive."

Even Mr. Dobell recognized potential perceived conflict, but nothing was done by this Premier. He ignored those concerns. Can the Premier tell this House if those rules were used to determine if Mr. Ken Dobell was in a conflict position? Or did those rules not apply to Mr. Dobell, his personal friend and adviser?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's interesting to hear the questions coming from the opposition. Mr. Dobell has over three decades of public service…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …for the city of Vancouver, for TransLink and for the province of British Columbia. In April of 2005 Mr. Dobell was contracted with the province to work on a number of issues. He worked on the softwood lumber file. I can tell you he did exceptional service on behalf of all British Columbians on the softwood lumber file. He worked on the province's…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …Gateway strategy. I can tell you on behalf of all the people of British Columbia that he did exceptional service on behalf of developing the Gateway strategy between the province and the federal government. Then Mr. Dobell was put on retainer by the city of Vancouver to help with cultural and housing issues.

Now, on this side of the House, we actually like to try and start solving the housing problem, as opposed to talking about solving the housing problem. If the city of Vancouver….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Premier.

[1435]

Hon. G. Campbell: If the city of Vancouver decided to have Mr. Dobell on retainer, that was their choice. The province is pursuing our provincial agenda, our provincial objectives through the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions, through the initiatives we've undertaken to start closing that gap, to start working with cities and to provide people who need a home with the shelter that they deserve.

M. Karagianis: Well, Mr. Ken Dobell chairs the finance committee of VANOC, which oversees venue planning. He's also a board member of Legacies Now, which is responsible for program delivery. At the same

[ Page 7130 ]

time he's registered as lobbyist and consultant to the city for the 2010 cultural precincts project. He was the chair of the convention centre board and managed to project that into cost overruns that are yet to be imagined. And he still remains a special adviser to the Premier. The Premier's office has cleared him of all conflict, yet the Premier can't explain to us why and how that was done.

So again to the Premier: on what basis was Mr. Dobell cleared of conflict? If the Premier cannot answer that question, is he prepared to launch yet another independent review?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I can only speak to Mr. Dobell's exceptional record of public service. Would that any member of the opposition had the same degree of public service and contribution to the people of British Columbia or to the people of Vancouver.

Interjections.

Some Hon. Members: Withdraw. Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Dobell was on retainer to work with us on a number of projects. I've highlighted those — the softwood lumber agreement, the Gateway project. I think that members opposite should talk with people that Mr. Dobell has worked with on behalf of the province.

Let me be very clear. I think we're lucky that Mr. Dobell has been willing to be such an exceptional public servant.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, you know, the Premier's office has maintained that there's no conflict, and the Premier evidently can't provide any kind of rationale whatsoever for why there has been no clear path here on determining the conflict of interest. All we know is that the Premier's friend and insider, Mr. Ken Dobell, wrote a letter to his protégé at the city, Judy Rogers, and to Jessica McDonald, his protégé in the Premier's office. It's this tight little circle that has decided there's no conflict.

But I'd like to know if he can explain why he has not done due diligence on this and consulted with the AG's office to protect taxpayers from this very evident conflict of interest.

[1440]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I appreciate the fact that the opposition wants to ask these and has a responsibility to ask questions. I would ask that they let Mr. Loukidelis's fact-finding review run its course, and I would ask that they simply look at the facts.

Mr. Dobell is on contract and retainer with the province of British Columbia. He was also retained with the city of Vancouver to help them with some of the challenges that they face. I believe there are many, many people in the public sector who would reflect on the work he has done and say that that's been a major contribution to the people of Vancouver and to the people of the province.

Let me just give the members opposite a little news flash here. People that live in Vancouver are also people that live in the province of British Columbia, and we're working together to solve problems.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO LOBBYISTS

H. Lali: Yesterday we heard the Premier admit that it was only after the matter became public that he investigated the activities of Mr. Paul Taylor vis-à-vis his relationship with Pilothouse. Today he admitted that after receiving an e-mail from ICBC is when he took action.

However, on November 1, 2006, I wrote to the Premier asking questions about senior Liberal government officials who were directing business to lobbyists — specifically Mr. Paul Taylor directing work to Brian Kieran — and if someone in the Premier's office had done any inquiries about Mr. Taylor directing business to Mr. Kieran.

My question is to the Premier: did the Premier at any time following my letter of November 1, 2006, ask his Attorney General to investigate or refer the matter to the Attorney General for an investigation? If not, why not?

Hon. G. Campbell: I did receive the letter from the member opposite. I saw no substance behind the letter. I didn't feel it was important for us to act. Frankly, the member opposite sent a letter, and that was the last we heard of it. What we did was…. When we got an e-mail from a third party through ICBC, my staff reviewed it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: My staff reviewed it. My deputy found no substance behind that. Out of an excess of caution, she decided to engage an independent third party to do a full review of the issues arising out of that e-mail, to write a report and to make that report public upon its completion. It will be made public. It will be made available to all the people of British Columbia. That is an appropriate way to deal with those kinds of allegations. They are allegations, and they…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …are only allegations. The opposition is incorrect to suggest they're anything else until we've got the results of that review.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 7131 ]

Point of Order

M. Farnworth: I rise…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: …on a point of order. I rise, asking the Premier of the province of British Columbia to withdraw the remarks he made concerning the records of public service of members of this House. It was offensive, and it was not something that is in the tradition of the spirit of this chamber.

Hon. M. de Jong: I was listening very….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: With the greatest respect to my friend the Opposition House Leader, I was listening carefully during question period and heard no such comments. If he wishes to be more specific, I'll certainly entertain that. But I heard no comment that would fall into the category as described by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: I will review the record.

Points of Privilege

J. Kwan: I reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege in this House.

N. Simons: I reserve the right to raise a matter of personal privilege in this House.

S. Fraser: I seek leave to submit a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1445]

Petitions

S. Fraser: I submit a petition containing several thousand signatures from citizens of B.C. all over the province urging the government to move forward with the Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act.

C. Trevena: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

C. Trevena: I have a petition with several hundred names calling for restoration of the child care operating funds, child care resource and referral program, and a commitment from this government to build a strong, affordable and accessible quality child care system.

D. Routley: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Routley: This is a petition card signed by 94 members of the Cowichan, Lyackson and other tribes seeking the establishment of a joint chief negotiators table which could work to solve six areas identified as causing problems for treaty talks.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and in Committee A the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

[1450-1455]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP

AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $186,557,000 .

Hon. B. Penner: If I may, I'd like to start with a few opening remarks to introduce the 2007-2008 budget estimates for the Ministry of Environment and the Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge and thank all the staff at the Ministry of Environment for their outstanding work and for their dedication to environmental stewardship day in and day out. Every day, in every region of British Columbia, over 1,400 staff…. In fact, if you look at the budget documents, it indicates that there are 1,493 FTEs for the Ministry of Environment. These staff experts work on the effective delivery of legislation, programs, compliance information and enforcement, and other shared stewardship activities.

It is because of their expertise and their commitment to the betterment of our environment that we are able to achieve our number one priority: to ensure sound and efficient environmental management while protecting air and water quality, and effective stewardship and protection for fish, wildlife and their habitat.

Through partnerships across government and with first nations, communities and the private sector, we are working on enhanced water and air stewardship and protection, and to maintain responsible, sustainable use of our environmental resources.

[ Page 7132 ]

Climate change solutions will foster innovation and new technologies, which will translate into more jobs, new investments and, ultimately, greater prosperity for British Columbia.

As we all heard in the throne speech, we will continue to build on a reputation for environmental stewardship by establishing targets and actions that will reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gases by at least one-third by 2020. The Ministry of Environment has several closely related strategies in place, such as the air action plan and the climate change plan, to achieve this goal in a realistic, economically viable way.

[1500]

As indicated in the throne speech, the threat of climate change is very real. Just this past year we suffered from some extreme weather right here in B.C. — from a summer drought severe enough to raise concerns about fish, water supply and agriculture to a series of intense winter storms that left behind a near-record snowpack. Before we had last summer's drought, I do recall that last January and February in the lower mainland, news outlets were commenting on a near-record number of consecutive days of rainfall. We've really gone from pillar to post and back again in terms of weather extremes in British Columbia.

While these weather events have affected the lives of many British Columbians and kept ministry staff very busy, they have also heightened our awareness about climate change. It is imperative that we find ways to forestall global warming and minimize the impacts it has already unleashed.

The B.C. climate change plan will set a clear course for a greener future and a healthier planet. This fiscal year alone we're investing an additional $4 million on climate change actions in addition to an initial $3.5 million in clean air partnerships, which will increase to $5 million in the next fiscal year.

As part of our climate change strategy, we will require that by 2016 all electricity produced in British Columbia have net zero greenhouse gas emissions and that the emissions from the oil and gas industry are reduced to levels that we had in the year 2000. We will also establish tailpipe emission standards for all new vehicles sold in British Columbia, aiming to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016.

Most importantly, the B.C. government will lead by example, aiming to be carbon-neutral by 2010. As of this past February all new cars leased or purchased by the B.C. government will be hybrids. Let's not forget that earlier this year B.C. became the first jurisdiction in North America to require 100-percent carbon sequestration for any coal-fired electricity project.

While we may have been the first, let me predict that we won't be the last. In fact, I think we're the first in the world, but it's my understanding that the European Union is currently considering a similar policy proposal.

We believe that encouraging and educating all British Columbians to actively care for their environment is key to an ongoing environmental stewardship legacy. That is why we have several initiatives in place to encourage people to make better, environmentally healthier choices. We will continue to offer a $2,000 provincial sales tax exemption on the purchase of hybrid passenger vehicles, and we will put in place incentives to reduce the use of conventional wood stoves and will instead encourage the use of cleaner-burning stoves and encourage industry to adopt better emission technologies.

We will continue to explore new ways to promote environmentally responsible personal choices that will reduce carbon consumption.

We are assisted in protecting the environment by the environmental assessment office, which reports in through the Ministry of Environment while retaining its role as a neutral agency with its own legislation. As you know, it coordinates the assessment of proposed major projects in British Columbia as required under the Environmental Assessment Act. It examines major projects for potentially adverse environmental, economic, social, health and heritage effects that may occur during the life cycle of said projects, including construction, operation and decommissioning.

This fiscal year we will be investing, in addition to last year's increase of $1 million, an additional $1.15 million for the environmental assessment office to manage the increase of mining, energy and infrastructure projects entering the environmental assessment process, for a total of $6.95 million.

But fighting climate change and protecting the environment are only two of the Ministry of Environment's many areas of responsibility. In 2003 we established the living rivers trust fund, committing $7 million to protect and restore B.C.'s rivers and waterways, including valuable fish habitat. Last May our Premier tripled the fund to $21 million.

[1505]

In terms of compliance and enforcement we're delivering on a full range of activities. These include educating citizens to be better environmental stewards, promoting the understanding of and compliance with regulatory requirements, conducting investigations and working with ministry programs on a variety of enforcement options.

We aim to assist our enforcement actions by informing and educating British Columbians on how to become more responsible environmental citizens. This includes encouraging changes in attitude and habits, and supporting initiatives and programs like the bear smart and Bear Aware programs, which focus on minimizing human-wildlife conflict.

By educating and informing the public, we can prevent damage before it happens. In circumstances in

[ Page 7133 ]

which enforcement is necessary, our conservation officers are working in the field every day to ensure compliance. We also, of course, have the new commercial environmental investigations unit, a specialized unit dedicated to the investigation of large-scale corporate and commercial violators of ministry legislation. In addition to the field staff, the compliance division employs 21 office staff members who support the ministry's integrated compliance approach and ensure effective management of the conservation officer service.

Since 2005 we've hired 25 part-time and full-time park rangers, and this year we'll be further increasing the number of positions. Last year we had about 131 park rangers working in the field, and this year we will be adding five new FTEs in terms of park ranger positions.

As I mentioned earlier, we are also proud of our commercial environmental investigations unit, an undercover team dedicated to the investigation of corporate and commercial polluters.

In addition to all of that, we have committed $9 million over three years to establish and operate the B.C. Conservation Corps, a student and graduate mentoring program designed to nurture a new generation of conservationists for the 21st century. This year alone the B.C. Conservation Corps will employ 150 students and new graduates on a variety of conservation projects across the province. These projects will range from species-at-risk inventories to habitat and park restoration initiatives to the student conservation officer service project.

The Corps is not only a great way to give students a chance to get hands-on experience, it also helps to address the growing concern of succession, ensuring that there will be qualified staff to fill in the gaps when our field professionals, and the people seated next to me, start to retire.

In terms of parks and protected areas, I am proud to say that across this province, B.C. Parks currently offers more than 11,000 campsites in more than 800 parks and protected areas. Just last Tuesday I had the honour of introducing Bill 24, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. This legislation establishes 41 new conservancies and three new class-A parks while making additions to 16 existing parks and three conservancies.

We're building on last year's historic central coast and north coast land use decisions to protect some of the most spectacular and ecologically diverse landscapes and coastal areas in the world. Including these new parks and conservancies, since 2001 we have established a total of 46 new parks, 65 conservancies, one ecological reserve and eight protected areas. We've expanded more than 50 parks, three conservancies and six ecological reserves, protecting more than 800,000 hectares. Today 13.8 percent, or more than 13 million hectares, of British Columbia land is protected, which is more than any other province in Canada.

This fiscal year we are investing $4.75 million on B.C. Parks to ensure that British Columbians get the best services at our parks, which number more than 600. I should just clarify that. We're investing an additional $4.75 million on B.C. Parks.

We also continue to negotiate parks collaborative management agreements with a number of first nations right across this province. These agreements will help identify economic opportunities for the first nations involved, increasing economic activity in parks and conservancies and providing opportunities for first nations in rural areas. There are more than 20 such agreements already in place, and the ministry is currently in negotiations for 15 more.

Our approach to environmental stewardship includes developing, promoting and measuring achievements in the conservation of living resources, management of protected areas, and provision of freshwater fish and wildlife recreation opportunities. In the last four years we have established 286 wildlife habitat areas comprising more than 650,000 hectares, and 26 ungulate winter ranges totalling more than 2.2 million hectares.

We continue to use science-based information to develop policy, legislation and regulations that set clear environmental standards and performance expectations. Most importantly, by working closely together with stakeholders, partners and the public, we are fostering shared stewardship and facilitating community initiatives to protect and restore local environments.

[1510]

It is also the ministry's mandate to provide leadership in water stewardship. This means making sure that water resources and ecosystems are safe, sustainable and valued by all British Columbians. It's our responsibility to support sustainable water allocation and source-water protection and to build public awareness about the importance of this invaluable and finite resource.

It's only natural that thinking of water resources inevitably leads to thinking of our oceans, but oceans are more than simply water. They are extremely valuable ecosystems teeming with life, and they're tightly linked to the economy of our province. It's the responsibility of the oceans and marine fisheries division within the Ministry of Environment to ensure sustainable and integrated management of B.C.'s ocean resources. This includes fostering stable and diverse marine fisheries for social and economic benefits for all British Columbians. Obviously, this involves engaging our federal counterparts in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

By supporting the growth and diversification of a verifiably sustainable seafood industry, we will ensure a stronger presence of B.C. sea products in an increasingly competitive global market in which sustainability is becoming a top market requirement.

In terms of sustainable communities, our government has a strategy in place which will not only develop policy but will encourage British Columbians to embrace more sustainable approaches to land and resource development and a healthier lifestyle.

The Ministry of Environment is coordinating a variety of cross-government programs that reflect our collaborative approach to community sustainability in the areas of energy efficiency, green infrastructure planning, air quality, water security, transportation and waste management.

[ Page 7134 ]

In conclusion, these are pivotal times for the environment in B.C. and Canada and, indeed, in the world — times in which even our smallest actions as individuals can have an impact of global consequence. Through the Ministry of Environment, the government of British Columbia will support a series of initiatives to help each one of us reduce this impact, which will in turn result in a stronger, more sustainable economy for our province.

Budget 2007 will continue to support our mandate to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, while furthering our efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and to fight climate change.

That said, hon. Chair, I look forward to taking a number of questions from the opposition.

S. Simpson: I do look forward to having the opportunity to raise a number of issues with the minister around estimates and doing that over the next number of days.

Just for the information of the minister, we're going to do some general questions around budget, staffing and administration, and then we'll be moving on to questions related to climate change. We'll see how we do on those over the next two days.

I'd like to start by asking the minister to tell me about…. In the ministry estimates we have about an additional $25 million in Vote 29. Could the minister tell us what that additional $25 million is going to get spent on?

Hon. B. Penner: Before I proceed, I should just introduce some of the capable staff that are seated in close proximity to me. Maybe I'll do that when the opposition member returns.

To answer the question, the breakdown of the additional $25 million that the member refers to, there is a $9.6 million increase to water rental remissions to B.C. Hydro. That's related to water use plan implementation. As I already stated in my opening remarks, there's $4.75 million for parks, $4 million additional funding for climate change, $3.5 million for clean air partnerships, $2.317 million related to negotiated salary increases in the Ministry of Environment. There's $59,000 in money earned on trees cut in provincial parks. Pursuant to government policy, the revenue from that goes back to the park system.

[1515]

R. Austin: Can the minister tell us how the public sector pay increases were budgeted in this ministry?

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I was remiss in not introducing the capable staff sitting around me. Seated on my immediate right, the viewers' left, is Chris Trumpy, the deputy minister for the Ministry of Environment. Seated on my immediate left, or the viewers' right, is Lynn Bailey, assistant deputy minister for environmental protection. Behind me is Kathy Brereton, manager of financial planning. She'll stay close behind me, because she's got all the financial details with her.

I believe the member's question related to salary increases for the Ministry of Environment. That is budgeted at $2.317 million.

R. Austin: Have any program areas been moved to another ministry?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't believe so. No.

R. Austin: Have there been any salary increases for political staff this year?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not aware of anything that's budgeted for 2007-2008 in that regard.

S. Simpson: In regard to that, could the minister tell us who his political staff are in his office and give us a bit of an idea of what their responsibilities are?

Hon. B. Penner: Jerry Muir is my ministerial assistant, and my executive assistant is Sarah Reeves.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what was spent in the previous year on travel for the minister or his political staff?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I don't have the details for last year, but I'm advised by the manager of financial planning that the good news is that we finished the year within budget for the office as a whole, and travel gets paid for out of the office budget. The details of those travel expenses will be made available in public accounts, I believe, in the third week of June.

S. Simpson: Possibly the minister could tell us: is there any plan for increased travel budgets for this upcoming year?

Hon. B. Penner: The total…. On page 43 of the Supplement to the Estimates , you'll find for the Ministry of Environment, under "Minister's Office," projected operating expenses for 2007-2008 of $499,000. All expenses related to the operation of the minister's office come from that amount. Last year the office was budgeted, according to page 42, at $490,000.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I did look in the estimates book, and I saw those two numbers that the minister has just quoted. I'm still curious as to whether we know or have an idea of what portion of that budget is spent on travel for the minister and his staff.

Hon. B. Penner: Referring back to the same document, the member will see — if he turns to page 42, in one of the columns — that an amount of $46,000 is projected for travel expenses for the office.

S. Simpson: For this coming year?

Hon. B. Penner: For fiscal 2007-2008.

[ Page 7135 ]

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us…? I'll just preface this question a little bit. I'm sure that there's a whole range of people who come to visit the minister's office on a regular basis to talk about environmental issues and to raise and put concerns forward. What I'm looking for, hon. Chair, is to get an idea of how much of the minister's time or the minister's staff's time — Mr. Muir or others in the minister's office — have to pay to that time.

I'd be interested in knowing: does his staff meet with lobbyists — and we'll deem them lobbyists, those people who are in the business of lobbying — and what kind of time commitment does that take?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's correct. There's a pretty steady traffic flow in and out of my office on any given day. The ministerial assistant, Jerry Muir, certainly handles a lot of traffic as well. Various members of the Legislature, including members of the opposition, drop by on a regular basis.

[1525]

I wouldn't have the ability at this moment to give you an estimate of what percentage of his time goes to meeting with various people. I know the phone rings pretty steadily and the doors swing open and shut on a regular basis, but I don't have a complete breakdown of how many people come and go.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell us: would that record be available as to around who…? Mr. Muir, I presume, would be the primary point person for the minister, though he could correct me if I'm wrong. Would that information be available — about who those people are that he's spending time meeting?

S. Simpson: I'm sure that we'll get your calendar. I'm pretty sure that we'd probably get your calendar, but that does raise the next question.

I very much understand that Mr. Muir or others would be lobbied on a pretty regular basis by people who wanted to talk to the minister or wanted to talk about issues that come under the purview of the minister. Does the minister himself meet with lobbyists?

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: I think what the member should know is that under the Lobbyists Registration Act, there is no obligation, legally, for a minister or an elected person to know whether or not the person they're meeting with has registered. The legal obligation rests with the person who is employed in the pursuit of lobbying to register under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

S. Simpson: I accept that that's the law, and I accept that the minister doesn't necessarily have to know who he's meeting with. I know the minister's a pretty astute fellow, and I suspect that he would know when he's being lobbied and when he's not.

I'd ask the question again. Does the minister spend his time meeting directly with lobbyists?

Hon. B. Penner: I can't walk down the street without somebody stopping me to ask me about something, whether it's about why it's raining so much or why it's not raining more. In fact, I get lobbied on a regular basis by the member's colleagues on a variety of issues pertaining to their constituencies, as I do by all members of this House. I see the member for West Vancouver–Capilano looking at me, who's got a keen interest in steelhead. If you want to portray that as lobbying, you're free to do so.

People stop me wherever I go to ask me about various questions pertaining to the Ministry of Environment and, frankly, all matters pertaining to government generally. That's their right to do so. If a person's doing it in a professional capacity and getting paid to do so, then there are certain provisions of the Lobbyists Registration Act that may well apply.

S. Simpson: I'm sure every member in this House at some time or other talks to this minister, as they talk to many ministers, about issues that affect their constituents or their particular areas of concern. I would expect them to do no different, as I would expect that citizens of British Columbia, who might be afforded the opportunity to run into the minister and bend his ear about an environmental issue, should do that.

As the minister pointed out, I'm more interested in the people who collect a paycheque to do this — not elected representatives, because they have a different responsibility, but people who collect the paycheque to advance positions. I'm interested in knowing whether the minister meets with those folks.

I would assume, and maybe this is an assumption…. I know Mr. Muir a little bit just from his professional work here, and I know he's very skilled and capable at his job. I can't imagine for a minute that he allows people to come in and visit the minister without the minister having a pretty good idea of who he's talking to before they sit down in his office or wherever they meet.

[1530]

I'll ask again. Of those paid lobbyists…. We'll call them that if that classification will get us to the question. Does the minister meet with those folks?

Hon. B. Penner: The member may be surprised at how little notice I sometimes get about who is walking through my door, because we pretty much have an open-door policy. People come in on a regular basis. Members of the Legislature did that yesterday. I had a few people drop in unannounced — late into the evening, in fact.

If the member is driving at what's in my

schedule and who I'm meeting with, he's more than welcome to make an application for my calendar. I suspect his staff have already done so. I know they did last year.

[ Page 7136 ]

S. Simpson: I hope they have. I suspect so, and I hope they have.

We'll move back a little bit here to estimates in the estimates book. When I look in the estimates book…. I'm looking on page 99, the operating expenses by core businesses — "Environmental stewardship." It shows there a slight reduction in appropriations for conservation management, down from $28.004 million or whatever to $27.5 million or so.

Could the minister tell us how that will affect that particular area, allowing for inflation and presumably allowing for some allocation for salary increases and such that the recent public sector pay increases would have affected that way?

Hon. B. Penner: What looks like a 1.4-percent reduction really isn't. In fact, it's incorporated under a new title called "Parks management." You'll find that column in the documents. In fact, there is simply an internal transfer in terms of reporting where that money is being spent.

S. Simpson: Maybe just to clarify that, are there specific activities that would have previously been under conservation management that have now been moved to parks management? And if so, what are they?

[1535]

Hon. B. Penner: The member will recall from our debate last year that he was asking lots of questions about what the total amount of money spent on parks was, because there was not a separate heading on that. That was inclusively under the topic of, I think, conservation management. So this year we've broken that out separately, and that accounts for the change.

S. Simpson: Then the environmental stewardship category, which has a total increase…. I think it's $5.6 million — roughly $5.5 million, something like that — for that total category of environmental stewardship. It goes from $73.2 million to $78.8 million. That's the number I see under the Vote 29.

Could the minister then tell us…? I'm assuming that parts of that $5 million…. That's the $4 million for park upgrades that get talked about in the budget and fiscal plan. Then the other million and a half — is that just inflation increases, or what would that be?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to clarify the comment made by the member, you suggested or assumed that maybe this was the money for park upgrades or fix-ups. I think that was the terminology. In fact, this is money on the operating side. It is different than the capital side, although it does include, I think, a certain amount of money for increased amortization costs because of the extra capital dollars that have been invested in B.C. Parks.

There's $750,000 for negotiated salary increases. That's part of the contract settlement last year as a result of discussions between the government and the B.C. Government Employees Union, and then there are a variety of other items. Also, we've established a new executive director position for B.C. Parks, so that's a new position that has to be funded.

S. Simpson: Then if we look at the parks management number, the $31 million up to the $36.9 million number under that category, what is that increase? If that's not the dollars for park upgrades, what is that money being spent on?

Hon. B. Penner: They're really the same numbers. Two questions ago the member was asking about the change between totals — $73.2 million to $78.87 million. The majority of that change, as I think that the member was referring to, is from the changes in the parks budget and the increases there — which, as I mentioned, are related to a number of items: salary increases as a result of the collective agreement and a new executive director position.

We will be adding, I believe, five new FTEs for park ranger positions. There are additional costs coming from inflation related to the park facility operator contracts, and then there are a number of other items.

[1540]

I think that the member was just out of the House when I was mentioning this, but $59,000 is from revenue generated from trees cut in provincial parks, which gets reinvested in parks as pursuant to government policy, but that has to show up here as an allocation that we're permitted to spend.

S. Simpson: Maybe if I get these figured out in this one category, I'll have them figured out for the other categories.

The wage package increase from the public sector agreement is absorbed, presumably, in all of these categories down here. For example, under "Fish and wildlife management," that category shows $14 million and change. It roughly is staying very close to the same number. It's about $150,000 difference in terms of spending last year and for this upcoming year in fish and wildlife management.

Maybe, then, the minister could tell us: does that mean there are some things, if we allow for inflation and the pay raise, that aren't going to occur in fish and wildlife management now? Because that would be a reduction in many ways in terms of dollars for service delivery. Or have activities there been moved off to somewhere else, like parks management, as well?

Hon. B. Penner: In absolute terms, the impact of the wage increases that were negotiated with the BCGEU appear bigger as they apply to the parks division because the parks division is bigger in terms of the total number of people. But there would be a similar percentage increase in wages for the people working in the fish and wildlife division.

S. Simpson: My question is this, then: not knowing what that does to the number, are there changes in terms of resources available or services delivered in the fish and wildlife management category? It would appear to me that if we allow a number for that pay

[ Page 7137 ]

raise — we allow for inflation — probably in real dollars there's less spending going into that category in the coming year than in the last year.

I certainly stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it would appear that way to me, because the increase is pretty nominal there. Is that the case? If so, what might those services be that are going to be reduced or streamlined or changed in some way?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't have all the information here. It's just been requested. We're seeking the exact number of FTEs, for example, in the fish and wildlife division. I'm told there's nothing untoward. This is an amount of money that was deemed appropriate to cover the wage increases, and perhaps other things as well.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe we'll come back to those numbers after staff are able to get them.

Moving to the water stewardship category in the vote appropriation. I know the water rental remissions, and if I remember this from previous times, this is somewhat of a bookkeeping exercise for money going back to Hydro, I believe. Maybe the minister could just clarify the $10 million in that category and where it goes.

[1545]

Interjection.

S. Simpson: I'm looking forward to you doing it.

Hon. B. Penner: Let me make a brave initial effort before somebody who's more knowledgable about this enters the chamber to assist.

The member is correct. There's a $9.6 million budget increase for water rental remissions. These are associated with the completion of a number of water use plans that were undertaken by B.C. Hydro, British Columbia's premier electrical utility.

The member is undoubtedly familiar with the water use planning process. It involves a number of stakeholders, from communities to people representing a variety of interests, including B.C. Hydro itself, that look at how they can change the operation of B.C. Hydro's 27 or so hydroelectric facilities to try to maximize social as well as economic benefits, and to strike that balance.

As a result of the completion of a number of water use plans, the water rental remissions are ramping up over the next number of years. That accounts for the $9.6 million increase that's in the budget for water rental remissions.

S. Simpson: We'll pursue this a little bit because I understand that there are some staff coming who can help us with this.

The water rental remissions. Where do those dollars come from, and where do those dollars go?

Hon. B. Penner: Water rental remissions represent the reduction in the value of energy that will be produced as a result of the completion of the water use plans.

[1550]

I've just counted on my little cheat sheet that I carry around with me from time to time. If you don't have one, I recommend it. It's courtesy of B.C. Hydro. All members of the House should carry one of these with them at all times. It's got some important facts and figures, including how to convert megawatts to gigawatt hours, something I was doing yesterday.

For today's purpose, it's interesting to look at. They list about 30 hydroelectric projects that are owned and operated by B.C. Hydro. Some of those are small ones. There are a total of 23 water use plans either completed or underway. The difference between the total number of B.C. Hydro hydroelectric facilities and the 23 plans is that some of the plans incorporate more than one particular facility. For example, I believe that the Columbia water use plan includes, if I'm not mistaken, Mica, Revelstoke and the Keenleyside Dam. That one is a three-for-one effort.

The water use planning process was initiated in 1998. It's been ongoing for a significant period of time, but we made quite a bit of progress over the last year with the completion of a number of the significant plans coming into effect. In most cases the result of the implementation of the plan is a reduced amount of electricity being produced because of an agreement that more water will be spilled at certain times of the year. But in certain situations for some of the facilities, the completion of the plans has actually resulted in agreement that more energy can be produced overall on a net basis in a given year for a particular facility.

Overall, the plans are resulting in some additional constraints being placed on B.C. Hydro, and the water rental remission amount that's in the budget reflects the value of that decreased output of electricity.

S. Simpson: This is an adjustment, then. This means that we're adjusting the return on the water licences because of the reduction in power that is being produced in the case of energy. So there is a return from water licences. Five, ten, however many dollars a megawatt — and we can talk about that — comes back through the water licences. So this is an adjustment on that because there's been a reduction in the amount of energy. Would that be correct?

Hon. B. Penner: I think I understood the member's question. My understanding is that B.C. Hydro pays water rentals to the province for water that is either stored or water, in addition to that…. There's a storage fee, plus they pay for water that they use to spin a turbine.

[1555]

If the water is spilled, that does not attract the same water rentals as if the water is first placed through a turbine. So as B.C. Hydro's operations are constrained by the completion of water use plans — if that's the net effect, and I believe it is overall, with some exceptions — then on that front, they're paying slightly less in terms of water rental remissions to the province, because they're putting less through their turbines instead of putting more over the top through the spillways.

[ Page 7138 ]

However, the economic loss to B.C. Hydro is much more significant than the little bit of money they're saving in the water rentals because of the economic value that that water would have otherwise generated by spinning a turbine and generating electricity. So the water rental remissions are geared towards compensating B.C. Hydro for that forgone revenue that is resulting from the completion of the water use plans.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. Maybe just to speculate a little bit forward…. Maybe the minister could clarify for me whether there would be impacts around some of the private power projects now, the run-of-the-river projects, where there are water licences and fees being paid.

Is there the potential around those run-of-the-river projects that there will be land use or water use plans in communities where run of the river may be private operators? Should that happen, are we going to see a program of remissions back to private operators when the public wants to make use of its rivers that may have been used for run of the river?

Hon. B. Penner: I certainly don't envision that. What you need to remember is that most of the water licences held by B.C. Hydro are very old and did not, at the time when they were first granted, take into account some of the things that we think about today in terms of multiple use or impact on fisheries.

That's what prompted the previous government in the late 1990s to embark on the water use planning process to see if there was another lens they should put on these water licences that had been granted, in effect, in perpetuity to B.C. Hydro.

The member should be aware that in about 2003 our government amended the Water Act so that water licences are no longer offered in perpetuity but, rather, have a maximum 40-year term when they're granted for power production purposes. So that's a significant change. Therefore, there is a sunset provision in water licences.

In addition, the water licensing process today does take into account all of the things that are currently being considered by B.C. Hydro and the water use planning process — that is to say, demand for multiple uses on watercourses.

S. Simpson: In terms, though, of the water licences…. I know that this may fall under Energy, but I'm not sure of that. In terms of the run-of-the-river projects, the dollars that come off of that or responsibility related to that for other multiple uses, is there in these agreements…? We don't know what the agreements say. Is there something where there would need to be compensation back for environmental or recreational use of some of those waterways — multiple use, as the minister spoke about?

The potential around areas that are run of the river today, where the minister's folks come in and look at other uses or there are land use decisions… Are we going to be looking at some compensation from that related to Environment Ministry activity?

[1600]

Hon. B. Penner: The first water licences for IPPs were granted in the early 1990s. At that time those licences tended to be in perpetuity because of the way the Water Act was written. We've changed that so now there's a maximum 40-year term for water licences granted for power production purposes.

In addition, we have become more stringent about what kinds of conditions are attached to those water licences, and I will give you a specific example. I'm advised that when a water licence was granted for one of the earlier independent power projects in the early '90s, there was no minimum flow requirement.

Today that is an obligation, I believe — and the comptroller of water rights will correct me here in a moment and pull on my sleeve if I'm wrong — and my understanding is that there is always now a requirement for some minimum flow in the stream when water licences are granted for power production purposes, particularly if there is a biological need for that, which is demonstrated by the science.

We believe that the water licences do have provisions in them that are akin to what B.C. Hydro is now working towards through their water use planning process.

S. Simpson: Who governs that? My understanding is — and certainly I can be corrected here — that I have an IPP. I want to get a water licence. I go through the B.C. Utilities Commission. I make my application. There's an environmental assessment — all of those happen — and I get my water licence to do this. Who then governs the licence at that point to make sure those kinds of things we're talking about — that environmental issues are dealt with, changes in land use issues and those kinds of things…? Who governs all of that? Is it this ministry or somebody else?

Hon. B. Penner: The water licence is granted by the Ministry of Environment, if in fact it is granted.

I should introduce the person who is assisting me now. Seated to my left and your right, none other than Jim Mattison, the comptroller of water rights and assistant deputy minister for the water stewardship division.

S. Simpson: Just one last question in relation to this. The water licence agreements that are provided by the Ministry of Environment. Are those public documents? Are those documents available, and can we get copies of the terms and agreements of those water licences?

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that if the member points his browser towards the Ministry of Environment website, water stewardship division, he should be able to access the actual water licences that have been granted.

Speaking of websites, I know the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates debate is taking place right now, so I don't want to tread on his turf too much…. But I think that if the member were to continue his Internet browsing, he would find that if he went to the B.C. Hydro website, he would be

[ Page 7139 ]

able to find the standard form contract that was offered to independent power producers last year.

[1605]

A brief perusal of that standard contract will show that bidders bear the risk, the requirement and the legal obligation to comply with any current and future regulatory requirements in the province.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the water stewardship division does their very best to keep the website up to date in terms of water licences, and that information is available then through the ministry website. In addition, there may be times — especially for the older licences that were granted, particularly to B.C. Hydro — when the comptroller of water rights needs to make a specific order allowing certain work to take place or inspections to happen with some of the facilities, and those orders would also be posted on the ministry website.

In terms of documentation or reports that were prepared prior to the issuance of any given website that has actually been granted, those documents would be available subject to the freedom-of-information and privacy legislation.

N. Simons: Madam Chair, I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that we have…. Oh, may I seek leave to make an introduction, first of all?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I like the formalities — yet another example of how parliamentary procedure works. I had to ask permission to introduce you, up there in the balcony.

The classes from Chatelech high school in Sechelt, the grade 9s, are here — well, it's just half the class; I think it's just the boys from the class — to learn a bit about parliamentary procedures. I want to ask if the House could please give them a warm welcome.

S. Simpson: If it's just the boys up there, it must mean that the girls were smarter than the boys and found some place else to spend their time.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I think that qualifies, certainly for the moment, around this, my last question on water stewardship, though I do have a couple of questions related to oceans and marine fisheries. I don't know whether that changes the folks. This might be an easy question. We'll find out.

In the budget and the resources under "Oceans and marine fisheries," do any of those resources or dollars go to the work of the provincial government related to offshore oil and gas?

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just waiting for my assistant deputy minister responsible for ocean stewardship to join us. I'm sure he'll be here shortly to assist in answering the questions.

If I understand the member's question correctly, it had to do with offshore oil and gas research. The ministry and that division of the ministry are responsible for sustainable and integrated management and use of B.C.'s marine fisheries and ocean resources; creating collaborative provincial-federal resource management strategies; supporting seafood traceability and certification programs; and marketing the sustainability and quality of B.C.'s seafood industry in a global marketplace.

Just anticipating a future question from the member around the impact of the negotiated salary increases on the budget for this particular division, I see in the notes here that there's $20,000 projected for negotiated salary increases, offset by adjustments to overhead charges for one new FTE, systems and building occupancy. Maybe I'll say a bit more in just a moment.

Let me first of all introduce to you none other than Bud Graham, Assistant Deputy Minister for the oceans and marine fisheries division of the Ministry of Environment.

S. Simpson: We'll come back, and I'll just kind of re-ask the question. The minister will have an opportunity to consult with his staff, and we'll go at this again.

My question is: is it under oceans and marine fisheries? Does the Ministry of Environment allocate any of those resources to work of the government related to offshore oil and gas?

Hon. B. Penner: No.

S. Simpson: So just to clarify then: that's not just in this category, but the Ministry of Environment has no resources allocated to environmental impacts of offshore oil and gas?

Hon. B. Penner: I think, as the member knows, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has lead responsibility for the file that the member is alluding to. However, if a specific project or proposal were to come forward, I assume that it would be subject to a review by the environmental assessment office, which does report in through the Ministry of Environment.

S. Simpson: I asked the question because I had the opportunity to sit in on the Minister of Energy's estimates yesterday when there was some back-and-forth on the question of offshore. The discussion was around — and the Minister of Energy was talking about — the

[ Page 7140 ]

importance of the economic opportunity of offshore and his particular enthusiasm for opening the door to be able to look at that, lift the moratorium and consider offshore.

To be fair to the minister, he didn't talk about running off and developing, but he certainly talked about lifting the moratorium and beginning to look earnestly at that. In the back-and-forth in that discussion, there was talk about Alaska, because we know that there's significant offshore activity related to Alaska and to challenges that Alaska has faced — environmental challenges.

[1615]

We know that the government certainly has given every indication of its interest in being able to explore offshore. Is the ministry then not doing any research to look at what those impacts might be — what they've been in Alaska, what they've been elsewhere, what kinds of challenges we might face here — even just as a preliminary piece of work for the ongoing discussions around the moratorium?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my understanding that a considerable amount of work has been done over the years, including by the previous government, looking at the potential benefits and challenges associated with offshore oil and gas exploration, and some of that work certainly had an environmental component to it.

The bill may or may not have been picked up by the Ministry of Environment of the day. I don't know that. I can't speak to what happened when previous ministers were around, but I can tell you that for this ministry budget that we're debating today, we're not anticipating picking up the bill for any of that work. The Ministry of Energy and Mines, if they want to pursue that work, will be paying for the research that's being done for this fiscal year, in any event.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer, and maybe the minister could clarify. I accept that the Ministry of Energy would have the line item responsibility if they were to decide to pay that bill or to do that exploration. The question I'd have for the minister is: is it possible, or would it be a practice that the budget item might be picked up by the Ministry of Energy but the work might be done by Environment and paid for by Energy because you have the expertise?

Hon. B. Penner: In theory, that kind of an accounting practice is possible, I'm told. We have not received any request for that kind of funding at this time, but I do note that reports have been done in the past that are available at the library here just out the doorway. Just what the funding mechanism was for that work, I don't know. I can't speak to that, but there are a number of individuals and experts, I'm sure, that have contributed to that work that's been done already.

S. Simpson: The last question, just to finalize this: so it is not the intention of the Ministry of Environment to do any work or invest any resources in matters related to offshore oil and gas in the coming year?

Hon. B. Penner: A significant amount of research and study has been done already, as I've alluded to, and the results of that are available just down the hall in the Legislative Library. We will, in the upcoming year, work on issues pertaining to, for example, marine protected areas. Might that conceivably have some interrelationship to proposals for exploration? The answer is yes, but at this point we're not anticipating any direct request or ask for funding for additional research specifically towards particular proposals for offshore oil and gas exploration.

[1620]

S. Simpson: Part of the reason I ask these questions is because I go to the government's energy plan released earlier this year, and when I look at the energy plan, it talks about policy action and about offshore oil and gas development. It talks very clearly about participating in marine and environmental planning to effectively manage marine areas and offshore oil and gas basins. It talks about: "Government will work with coastal communities, first nations, the federal government, environmental organizations and others to ascertain the benefits and address the concerns associated with offshore oil and gas development."

I fully appreciate the role of the Ministry of Energy as the promoter of offshore oil and gas and as an advocate for opening the doors to allow that to occur. My perspective, I think, had been that the Ministry of Environment would be a bit of a counter to that to make sure it was the steward of the environment there. This plan suggests that it was an important enough issue that it got a

section of its own, almost, in the energy plan and was going forward.

The question I have is: is it not the plan that the Ministry of Environment will be an active player in the work that's identified in the energy plan?

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps I was somewhat confused by the member's less than precise question. I thought he was asking me whether we have plans to fund specific research or studies into offshore oil and gas out of the Ministry of Environment's budget for this fiscal year. The answer to that question is no.

Do we have Ministry of Environment personnel who occasionally receive phone calls or make phone calls to people working in other ministries? The answer is yes. If we receive requests for information from people working in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I expect we will speak to these people throughout the course of this year and ongoing years. As the member will be aware, this is an energy plan not just for this year, but it presumably will be in place for years to come.

S. Simpson: We're there now, so I'll just follow this up a little bit, and maybe we'll get it out of the way. Is there a senior staff at a cross-government senior staff committee — deputies, ADMs, whoever that would be — dealing with this issue? And does the Ministry of Environment have representatives on a committee like that? Does one exist? Do you have people on that committee?

[ Page 7141 ]

Hon. B. Penner: If the member has specific questions around the energy plan, he can pursue those with the Minister of Energy, who is currently debating his budget estimates just down the hallway. There is an oceans committee that is cross-ministry, and it is chaired by none other than my assistant deputy minister seated on my left and your right.

S. Simpson: I'm not so much interested in questions specific to this. What I am interested in is what the role of the Ministry of Environment is in any of those cross-ministerial committees. As the minister says, Mr. Graham chairs a cross-ministerial committee related to oceans issues. Does that committee deal with offshore oil and gas issues?

[1625]

Hon. B. Penner: The oceans committee is certainly aware that there is the potential for offshore oil and gas exploration and perhaps development at some date in the future for British Columbia. The ministry would obviously participate in any specific proposals and provide advice and perspective from an environmental perspective. As well, as I've already mentioned, any proposal would have to, first of all, go through an environmental assessment office review. At least, that would be my expectation.

S. Simpson: Because I don't totally understand the committee process here, maybe the minister can help me with this. Considering that it is a senior official from Environment who chairs that committee, does that then suggest that…?

There must be ministries that have particular lead responsibilities when these interministerial committees are set up. Does that then mean that it does fall under this ministry to be the lead ministry on this issue, and that that's why Mr. Graham would chair? Other ministries would bring their officials to the table, but it would be driven by this ministry. Would that be accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: It won't be the Ministry of Environment, I wouldn't expect, that would be leading proposals for oil and gas development, whether it's onshore or offshore. But the oceans committee is there to provide a cross-government perspective on a range of activities or proposals related to the ocean environment. Of key concern to us at the moment, and something that's a very active file, is the work we're doing on marine protected areas.

S. Simpson: I understand that there will be many other committees that will deal with these issues. We'll talk about those in the appropriate place at the appropriate time, but it appears to me from what the minister said that the oceans committee certainly does have a significant interest or a responsibility related to the environmental aspects of these considerations.

Maybe the minister could tell me: has the oceans committee produced any reports or provided for documents or contracted for documents that deal with questions related to the environment or to the work of the oceans committee and offshore oil and gas?

[1630]

Hon. B. Penner: I think a number of studies have been funded by the previous government as well as, I think, the current government related to offshore oil and gas potential and challenges. As I've indicated, those reports are available through the Legislative Library just down the hall.

The Ministry of Environment is not funding in this fiscal year — or at least we certainly don't expect to — any studies related to offshore oil and gas development. That said, if a specific proposal comes forward, it would be subject to an environmental assessment office review.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll just deal with a couple of questions here. I don't want to go very far into this, but I have a couple of questions that also relate to oceans and marine fisheries. We know that the whole question of aquaculture rests with the Minister of Ag and Lands, and he's over there, proud to make sure I don't forget that. Believe me, I don't forget that. The wild fishery or issues related to the wild fishery rest with the Ministry of Environment, I believe.

Could the minister tell us what role the Ministry of Environment — just for the purposes of these estimates — plays in situations like the recent situation that happened with Creative fish, the death of a number of sea lions — 50-odd sea lions? Clearly, the Ministry of Ag and Lands has responsibility for the salmon farm. What's the role of the Ministry of Environment in terms of dealing with that and the impact on wildlife?

Hon. B. Penner: Considering that the species that died was a marine animal, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans asserts jurisdiction with respect to that. If DFO were to request us to provide assistance or support, we'd be more than willing to do that.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

S. Simpson: Well, we'll talk more about fish farms soon. I want to thank the minister for those questions.

I'm going to now move, just in terms of some of the budget line items, to the issues related to the environmental protection vote. On page 100 of the estimates you see that the appropriation for environmental protection has gone from about $6 million to almost $14 million. Could the minister explain what that extra money is all about?

[1635]

Hon. B. Penner: The increase is comprised primarily of a $4 million lift to provide for funding for climate change, to support our provincial initiative around reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as $3.5 million for the clean air partnerships program.

Anticipating the member's upcoming question, about $405,000 of the increase, on top of the other numbers I've already mentioned, is for negotiated sal-

[ Page 7142 ]

ary increases. So we've got $4 million for climate change, $3.5 million for clean air partnerships, plus $405,000 for negotiated salary increases as a result of the collective agreement hammered out last year.

S. Simpson: I actually hadn't planned to ask about that salary increase, but thanks anyways. Could the minister explain what the sustainable environment fund special account…? What is that account, and what's it for?

Hon. B. Penner: I think, in essence, this fund is best known as the repository of revenues generated from the battery levy and what was formerly the tire levy that was imposed at point-of-sale. It was established by the Sustainable Environment Fund Act of 1990 and subsequent amendments to that legislation. Revenues are derived from environmental levies, fees, licences and contributions, and they go into that fund.

[1640]

S. Simpson: What does the fund get spent on?

Hon. B. Penner: The money in the fund is spent on ministry programs relevant to the environmental protection division.

S. Simpson: The estimate here says, then, that we will have expended $35.7 million in '06-07. We'll expend $29.3 million in '07-08. So in terms of that, could the minister explain why we're seeing what is a pretty significant reduction in the spending there and maybe a little bit of a flavour of the kinds of programs that actually get paid for by that $30-odd million?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct to identify that decrease in the amount of money going into the fund. That is attributable to the $6.4 million reduction that is occurring as a result of the tire recycling program being moved out to an industry-led stewardship program that went into effect, I believe, on January 1, 2007.

In terms of what kind of initiatives the revenue that's in the fund helps pay for, it helps pay for programs and operations of the environmental protection division, which includes, but is not limited to, monitoring and understanding the receiving environment, education, encouragement of activities to prevent pollution, waste reduction, laboratory services, air and water quality, cleanup of contaminated sites, special waste, transfers to local governments, soil and water remediation projects and a number of other things.

S. Simpson: The dollars that are collected in this fund…. I guess they are collected in the environment fund, and then they are transferred over to this special account and expended on services within that subvote, if I read this correctly. Are all the dollars transferred over, or is there a portion of the money that's collected from these fees and things that goes just straight to general revenue rather than being directly allocated into Ministry of Environment for these services?

[1645]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that all the waste permitting fees, including the battery recycling fee, go into this fund. It does not get hived off or certain portions going into some other fund.

S. Simpson: One more financial question related to these expenses here. This relates simply to the increase in the EAO office of $1 million and change. They are $1.1 million, I believe, or something slightly more than that. Maybe the minister could just quickly say what that increase is. I mean, I'm assuming it's just some increase in demand on the office. Or what is it?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes. But since I'm prone to give more than just short answers, I'll continue to elaborate by saying that the budget lift is to help deal with the continuing pressure from an increased number of mining, energy and infrastructure projects entering the environmental assessment process.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was something in the order of 15 or so — maybe 18 — projects in the environmental assessment review process in 2001. Today I think there is something in the order of 50 or more projects that are large enough and significant enough that they require an environmental assessment. So the office has become much busier over the last number of years.

S. Simpson: We're going to get an opportunity a little bit later to talk some more about the environmental assessment office, but we'll do that a little bit later on in the estimates process and deal with that.

The one question I would have then is: in terms of the $1.1 million, maybe the minister could tell us what that does in terms of increased staffing, particularly in terms of officials within who do the assessments or the people who actually are doing environmental assessments. What do we expect to see there in terms of staffing?

Hon. B. Penner: Another introduction is in order. Seated behind me on my right, but your left, is Joan Hesketh, the executive director of the environmental assessment office, who informs me that the budget allows her to increase her FTE count by 11. So it would be 11 additional FTEs for the environmental assessment office for fiscal 2007-2008.

[1650]

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell us what the duties of those people will be in terms of…. I'm sure some of them are administrative support, but I'm particularly interested in those people who will be doing direct work on assessments and what those positions might be.

Hon. B. Penner: Of the 11 positions, eight will be directly involved in managing or overseeing project reviews. Three are more on the administrative or technical side. Of those three positions, two are technical-administrative in nature — dealing with recordkeeping and information technology — while the third is an administrative assistant position.

[ Page 7143 ]

S. Simpson: Again, I don't want to get too far into this because we'll talk about it more in relation to environmental assessment and climate change when we get to that area. But I will ask about the positions in one sense. As we have this increased concern about emissions issues…. I'm assuming that as the increased interest of the government in this issue and the increased activity by the government, the environmental assessment office, which I know certainly in some projects pays attention to these matters…. Is it reasonable to assume that issues related to greenhouse gas emissions are going to become a bigger part of environmental assessments?

Hon. B. Penner: Greenhouse gas emissions are and have already been a matter of review by the environmental assessment office. It is one of the things that they look at.

[1655]

S. Simpson: Part of the reason I'm asking is that I'm looking for whether — in that new complement of staff that the $1.1 million is going to allow the office to hire — in fact we're going to see staff with the particular expertise to be able to deal with those issues.

I'm not sure whether the environmental assessment office is the appropriate place, but I do believe the last time the minister and I had an opportunity to talk about this, I think it might have been in question period…. At that point I don't believe the government actually had a climatologist on staff in the ministry.

I was wondering whether, in those positions that might occur…. I would expect we're going to see that in the staff that were advertised for the other day — for the climate action team staff,