2005 Legislative Session: First 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, OCTOBER 26, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

First nations footsala team

D. Routley

MacMillan family philanthropy

V. Roddick

Vesta Douglas

R. Austin

On-line service for mineral exploration

D. MacKay

New civility in Legislature

C. Evans

Pandemic preparedness

L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Government policy for child death

reviews

L. Krog

Hon. S. Hagen

M. Farnworth

D. Thorne

J. Kwan

Compliance of Copeman clinic with

federal and provincial legislation

D. Cubberley

Hon. G. Abbott

K. Conroy

S. Simpson

Provincial health care legislation

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

Services for gang-involved youth

J. Brar

Hon. W. Oppal

Petitions

D. Thorne

C. Puchmayr

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report,

Point of Privilege (Speaker's

Ruling)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

N. Simons

D. Routley

D. Thorne

C. Wyse

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

(continued)

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Thorne

G. Coons

G. Robertson

R. Fleming

M. Karagianis

J. Horgan

N. Simons

[ Page 1225 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I'd like to introduce some very special guests with us in the Legislature today. As everyone on both sides of this House knows, when we're busy as MLAs working in the Legislature, there are people back in our communities who take care of things in our communities for us. Those are our constituency assistants. I'm pleased to say that our side of the Legislature has our constituency assistants here in the gallery today. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: Today I would like to introduce to the House three gentlemen from the World Trade University, which has recently located a campus in British Columbia. The World Trade University was established under the auspices of the United Nations in response to the 1999 World Trade Organization trade talks, at which the growing gap in knowledge and communication affecting economic progress globally was identified.

[1405]

The university now has campuses in Asia, Africa and, most recently, here in British Columbia — more specifically, in the city of Chilliwack, which will be its Canadian campus. It is an applied learning agency that focuses on providing opportunities for growth and shared prosperity among all nations, especially in developing countries and those with emerging economies.

I would like the House to please make welcome three of its key members: its president and chief executive officer, Mr. Sujit Chowdhury; the chief operating officer, Mr. Craig Young; and a member of the board, Mr. Richard Gold. Would the House please make these gentlemen welcome.

R. Fleming: I rise in the House to introduce three guests who are with us today. Betty Turko resides in my constituency, and she was also an employee of the Legislature dining room for 22 years. She's joined today by two friends from Scotland, Jock and Sarah Gillie. Could the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the pleasure of introducing two friends of learned Clerk MacMinn, QC. They are from Vancouver: Audrey and Ron

Castner. Please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased to welcome my partner Cate Jones, who is with us today. As all members in this House will know, it's our spouses who actually have some of the toughest jobs to do in terms of the work that we do. I'm really pleased to say that I have a great partner and friend in Cate, who does a fantastic job. I hope the House will make her welcome.

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure today to recognize our former colleague and MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, Wendy McMahon, who is here to check on the behaviour of the current member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and to look over his shoulder to make sure he's doing his job. Could the House please make Wendy welcome.

N. Simons: I would just like to draw attention of the House to three young New Democrats who are visiting today: Mark Woons, Erin Sikora and Ben Johnson. Will the House make them welcome.

V. Roddick: In the House today are two people whose school many of the women MLAs in this House have attended. Charlene Brisson and Audrey Paterson are co-founders of the Women Campaign School of Canada. Charlene, who lives in Vancouver, runs a public relations business called Dream Team. Audrey Paterson is an active Delta constituent and volunteer whose five sons are the great-grandsons of A.D. Patterson, the longest-serving reeve of Delta. Would the members of the House please make them feel very welcome.

H. Bloy: It is a privilege for me to introduce a group called MADD — Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They were in the precinct this morning and made a presentation to us. They're strong advocates. They had four very strong points that we'll be passing along to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It's a privilege to introduce Bob Rorison, president; Helen Hoeflicker, past president; Catherine Doré;

and Phillipe Doré. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: For some time now Derek Rolstone has served the government and the people of B.C. with distinction in his capacity as a ministerial assistant. Today is his last day. I hope he knows that.

[Laughter.]

Suddenly I suspect the value of this piece of Hansard for future job prospects has been reduced.

[1410]

But he is actually, with his wife and young daughter, going to pursue other opportunities. We have been privileged to have his services as a government — and the people of British Columbia to have his services as a ministerial assistant. I hope all members will thank him and wish him well.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) FIRST NATIONS FOOTSALA TEAM

D. Routley: I rise today with pleasure to speak about a group of young athletes from my community, Duncan, in my constituency of Cowichan-Ladysmith. This is a group of young first nations athletes who recently undertook a trek across this globe to play their

[ Page 1226 ]

favourite sport, being footsala. Footsala is a contraction of the words "foot" for football and "sala" for indoor. This is indoor soccer played in a North American style. The people who play this sport are incredibly talented and have incredible ball skills. I'm sure that any soccer player would see that and admire them for it.

During this trip they took on teams from Poland, Germany, England, France and the Netherlands, and they came out champions of that tournament. We're all very proud of them in Cowichan-Ladysmith.

The members of this fine team are coach Bill Seymour, manager Fred George and players Chris Alphonse, Blake Baker, Craig George, Dwayne George, Howie George, Alec Johnnie, Chuck Seymour — a dear personal friend of mine — Keith Seymour, George Thomas, Brad Thorne and Francis Wilson. We're all very proud of their accomplishments in Cowichan-Ladysmith.

MacMILLAN FAMILY PHILANTHROPY

V. Roddick: British Columbia's growth and development is due not just to the hard work of early pioneers but to the vision and investment of certain pioneer families, such as the MacMillan family which, under H.R., built MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. into one of the world's largest and most powerful forestry corporations.

But there is another and often overlooked side to our pioneers, and that is their philanthropic legacy. H.R. MacMillan had two extremely talented daughters, one of whom is Jean Southam. Together with her father's estate, she and her family have contributed to and been involved with, to name a few, the Vancouver Planetarium, Vancouver Aquarium and Vancouver Opera; Salvation Army; UBC with its scholarship funds, academic programs and collections; the Museum of Anthropology; the Vancouver Foundation, which was a creation of H.R.'s partner, VanDusen, and which over the last 50 years has become Canada's largest community foundation.

The family's choices and decisions have had an enormous influence on the cultural and social development of B.C. in general and Vancouver in particular. H.R. MacMillan was one of the first in his position to recognize that local business should contribute to the civil society in B.C. His family is continuing that philanthropic principle.

I would ask that the House join with me today in recognizing the wonderful pioneering spirit of British Columbia and in wishing Mrs. Gordon Jean Southam a healthy, happy 90th birthday.

VESTA DOUGLAS

R. Austin: I rise today to recognize the many accomplishments of an extraordinary woman who resides in my riding of Skeena, someone whose values and actions are a shining example for all of us. Vesta Douglas is a 95-year-old Terrace woman who has been very generous with her time and money and has devoted her life to making a difference in the community of Terrace.

She has given thousands of dollars to more than 30 community groups, including the Heritage Park Museum, the beautification society, the child development centre, the public library, the fire department and the Dare to Dream foundation.

[1415]

Mrs. Douglas moved to Terrace in 1950 and taught at Uplands Elementary School and was principal there as well. She and her late husband Doug did not have children, and they decided to spend their life savings while they were still around to see the benefits. Mrs. Douglas sat down, made a list of groups to which she would like to donate and then very quietly set about handing out cheques. "Money is only worth something when it is an action," she says.

The Terrace Child Development Centre has been one of the beneficiaries of Mrs. Douglas's generosity. The CDC helps children with special needs to reach their potential through therapy, education and family support. They've been using Mrs. Douglas's donations to purchase equipment to assist children with mobility problems. Without the Douglas's generosity, they simply would not have had the money to purchase this specialized equipment. Her money has also been used to subsidize the child development centre's preschool fees so that low-income families could access their services.

The Heritage Park Museum in Terrace was the recipient of several thousands of dollars. They plan to use that money to finance an archaeology excavation centre. This centre will be an educational tool for school children in grades four to seven, as it will simulate an archaeological dig.

Two years ago Vesta Douglas moved into Terrace View Lodge, now an intermediate and extended bed care facility in Terrace. Her generosity and community spirit should be an inspiration to us all. I ask that all members of this House join me in acknowledging Vesta Douglas's wonderful contributions to her community.

ON-LINE SERVICE

FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION

D. MacKay: Early in our mandate in 2001 we made a commitment to reduce red tape to make it easier for businesses to invest in B.C. It has paid off, particularly in the mining industry. In the northwest part of our province, exploration continues to climb. In 2003 they spent $21.2 million. A year later in 2004, that more than doubled to just under $60 million. As a matter of fact, without the numbers for 2005, it's expected that they will spend more money on exploration in the northwest part of our province than they spent throughout the entire province in 2001.

One of the key elements has been the introduction of Mineral Titles Online , a system that has been embraced by the mining sector. I'm pleased to say it's been honoured for its innovation. Mineral Titles Online has just won three awards for the state-of-the-art mapping software. With their software they have brought claim acquisition and maintenance into the digital world as

[ Page 1227 ]

of January 12, 2005, after more than three years of intense development . MTO was awarded the Gold Distinction award at the GTEC Awards. The Environmental Systems Research Institute gave MTO the 2005 Award of Excellence for Innovation, and they shared the Innovative Collaboration Award for Public Service Delivery.

The software developed by Mineral Titles Online helps make the mining industry in British Columbia more efficient. It brings the claim acquisition and title maintenance system into the digital world, which can only help organizations and individuals affiliated with the industry. Our government is committed to help rebuild an industry that struggled through the '90s. We are working hard to put the industry back on track, and innovative modernizing systems like the one developed by Mineral Titles Online will help bring us to a more prosperous future in the mining industry and British Columbia.

NEW CIVILITY IN LEGISLATURE

C. Evans: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago you took pains to remind hon. members not to use these two-minute statements for partisan opportunism. So mindful of your instruction, I've decided to speak today on the tone of the new civility that we are attempting to impose on this Legislature and, more latterly, on the estimates process.

My first example of a happy outcome for my constituents at estimates took place in the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, as we canvassed the problems that surround the proposed changes to the processing and sale of meat. The minister kindly offered to have his staff and officials travel, with the Ministry of Health, to smaller producers to try to make the new regulations work for people. I thank the minister for his commitment, and my constituents await the visit of his officials.

My second happy experience came with the Minister of Forests. The citizens of Nakusp and Slocan City have long awaited a decision on a community forest licence, and this minister committed to provide the communities with a definitive answer in two weeks. I thank that minister too. My constituents await his decision.

[1420]

I think we're on a roll here. Tomorrow I'm going to get the opportunity to participate in the estimates of the Minister of Transportation. We will be canvassing the future of the Needles bridge so kindly announced by the Premier and the minister in the time of the previous government. Following those estimates, I want to give another nice two-minute statement to express my appreciation to the Minister of Transportation for the long-awaited bridge.

PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS

L. Mayencourt: It's a bit of a tough act to follow, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to talk about pandemics. I know that in British Columbia, in my lifetime, we've only faced one potential pandemic, and that was the SARS virus. We in British Columbia really consider the preparation for a pandemic to be very, very important. Our government has put $11 million into making sure that British Columbia is ready. We're doing that by making sure we stock up on the antivirals that will help us in the event that avian flu makes it from a bird over to a human being and then somehow, maybe in the course of one flight from Europe, reaches our shores.

Right now we are working as a province to build capacity for cooperation and for communication networks with our federal, provincial and international partners. As we did in the Y2K situation, where we thought the world might stop when the clock turned to 2000, we're working with businesses, Crown corporations and many others that are going to be valuable in the event of a pandemic hitting British Columbia.

In 2003 we were introduced to the SARS virus. I can remember with great pride when our life sciences community mapped the gene that contained the SARS virus, and we were able to create a vaccine against that. Today our nervous world faces the possibility of avian flu transferring to human beings. If that were to happen, we would have a pandemic.

I think we should encourage — this House should encourage — the life sciences community in British Columbia to undertake an effort, starting right now, to map the gene that allows avian flu to transfer itself from bird to human. I believe we can do that. We can show leadership, and we can do a great job of it.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR

CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

L. Krog: Yesterday the opposition asked the Attorney General a question concerning Harvey Charlie and his request that the ongoing review into his granddaughter's death also examined the decision to leave his three-year-old grandson in the very same home for five months following his sister's death. The Attorney General did not answer the question about expanding the review, but he did say: "During the course of the time the child was living there, the matter was still under investigation. The police were investigating at that time, and for that reason the child was there."

Can the Attorney General explain what possible reason there is to keep a child in the home of a suspected killer?

Hon. S. Hagen: Over the last month the members opposite have raised some relevant questions regarding this issue. Presently we have multiple processes underway to get to the bottom of what happened. One of those processes is the review by the child and youth officer, who wrote a letter yesterday to a lawyer in Victoria. I want to read a couple of sentences from the letter. She says — and she is the independent child and youth officer: "I have chosen to do a more wide-ranging special report under

section 8 of the Office for

[ Page 1228 ]

Children and Youth Act on the broader issues. All of these systemic issues relate to the brother as well. In addition, the coroner's child death review process will look at the circumstances of the brother immediately after the death of the young child."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

L. Krog: It's clear that yesterday the Attorney General implied that the investigation was somehow related to the police investigation and that that was the reason. We've had an answer today, but not an answer one would have expected.

So I wish to simply ask the Minister of Children and Family Development: under what circumstances does the minister feel it is appropriate to keep a child in the home of a man who is suspected of killing that very child's own sister?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know what? We know on this side of the House what was in the severed report. I assume that's what the members on the other side know as well.

As I said earlier, we have several processes underway — the review of the specific case by the child and youth officer. We have a review by the coroner, we have a review by the Ombudsman, and we will have a review by a blue-ribbon panel soon to be announced.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: I appreciate the gravity of this issue. I appreciate the minister responding, but I want an answer to the simple question: in general terms, does he think it appropriate that a child be kept in the same home as a suspected murderer for five months? Why would a police investigation have any bearing on that whatsoever?

Hon. S. Hagen: Indeed, this is a serious issue. That's why we are taking the steps that we are taking to get to the bottom of the issue. We're not afraid of asking the tough questions, because we want to make sure that we have the best system in place to protect children in British Columbia. That's what we want to achieve by the process that we're in. I would ask the members opposite to respect that process.

M. Farnworth: Yesterday the Attorney General admitted that the Ministry of Children and Family Development left a child in a dangerous home because of the police investigation. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does he stand by that decision to leave the brother of the victim in the home of his sister's killer for five months?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said several times now, we have processes in place. As a matter of fact, my critic, the member from the opposite side, is part of one of those reviews working with the child and youth officer. We do want to get to the bottom of this to see what happened. We will await the results of the reviews.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister has not answered the question. It's an important answer, because yesterday the Attorney General said one thing. The minister who's charged with the safety of children has not answered that question, which leaves us wondering: who is in charge there of the safety of children? Is it the Attorney General's ministry, because he was saying yesterday that there was a police investigation? Or is it the Minister of Children and Family Development, whose decision should be to ensure that the safety of the child is paramount at all times, regardless of an investigation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Indeed, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is responsible for these children. But let me remind the member opposite — because I know he's aware of this — that we now have two lawsuits involved in this particular case, which restricts me from answering any questions with regard to the specifics of the case.

D. Thorne: Mr. Speaker, the answers coming from this government are very worrisome. No one seems to know why a three-year-old boy was left in the home of a suspected killer. That is the information that Harvey Charlie is looking for. Why is the Attorney General refusing to expand the child and youth officer's investigation to include a specific examination of why the brother was left in this home for so long?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I have said repeatedly, there are now two lawsuits involved in this particular case. That prevents me from speaking to these particular cases, and I'm sure the members know that.

[1430]

I also want to read the statements in the letter from the independent child and youth officer who has, on her own, decided to choose to do a more wide-ranging special report under

section 8 of the Office for Children and Youth Act. Together with that, the coroner's child death review process will look at the circumstances involving the brother immediately after the death of the young child.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General and the minister should know that the systemic review will not examine the specific experience of Harvey Charlie's grandson.

Mr. Charlie has a specific concern. He wants to know why the government left his grandson in the home of a suspected killer for five months. To date, he has not received any specific answer, any specific confirmation that that will happen.

There are several overlapping reviews going on right now. Are any of them specifically tasked with

[ Page 1229 ]

finding out why the brother was left in the home of a suspected killer for five months?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member who just posed that question is an experienced member of this House and knows — or should know — that first of all, the coroner is reviewing the child's death and has said that he will review the circumstances involving the brother immediately after the death.

What I'm asking the members opposite for is to do what your leader has said you want to do, and that is to do the right thing. We await these reviews to be completed, and then the government will address the results of those reviews.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The coroner's office is doing a review. Jane Morley is doing a review. The Ombudsman's office is doing a review. There is a special panel that is doing a review. But none of them have said that they will specifically examine the question of why the brother was left in this home.

The question that the government needs to answer is to ensure that the family of the children involved gets satisfaction. We just received correspondence from their lawyers, saying they have no comfort from the answers from the government to date.

The family wants to know — and they deserve to have the answers — why the government is not expanding the inquiry. What possible reason can the minister or any party have for the limitation of the inquiry into these tragic events?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said previously, we have multiple processes underway to get to the bottom of this. One is carried out by the independent child and youth officer, who has asked my critic to participate in this. One is by the coroner, one is by the Ombudsman, and one is by a blue-ribbon panel.

The member knows very well that there is an ongoing custody case before the courts. The letter she refers to was written by the counsel to one of those parties. Therefore, it's totally inappropriate for me to comment.

COMPLIANCE OF COPEMAN CLINIC WITH

FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

D. Cubberley: Can the Minister of Health inform this House whether he has determined that the Copeman clinic does or does not breach the Canada Health Act or the Medicare Protection Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm really gratified to get a question from the Health critic, and I'm particularly gratified, given that so many of the architects and pioneers of private care are over there on the other side of the House with them.

We've been working with Mr. Copeman around his clinic. It's our view that as it was originally structured, it would be in contravention of both the Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act. However, Mr. Copeman has indicated to us that he wishes to operate in compliance with those acts, so our staff continues to consult with him and work with him in respect of what he proposes to do.

[1435]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Despite the compliment that the member just paid us, I think we could hardly compete with your government's efforts on behalf of private care. Just last week the minister broke his long silence, and he admitted that the Copeman clinic would appear to violate the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act. These laws exist because British Columbians and Canadians agree that equal access to health care is worth protecting. It's the job of this government to protect public health care. What specific steps is the minister taking to ensure the billing practices of the Copeman clinic do not violate provincial or federal law prior to its opening?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly didn't pay that compliment idly. In fact, it was under the NDP in the 1990s that some 30 clinics — private clinics — were created in B.C. The NDP of that decade doubled the number of private clinics that existed in B.C. They made it possible for the first time for ICBC and WCB and RCMP to actually use those clinics. I wasn't being at all facetious in offering up that particular compliment to the other side.

I can tell the member opposite…. I guess he missed the press conference on September 6, when we were talking about the Copeman clinic. I guess he maybe saw Vaughn Palmer the other night. That's good if he did, because we did talk about it there as well.

The answer is very clear. Mr. Copeman wants to work within the law. We are going to ensure as best we can that he does operate within the law. Without knowing better, I will assume that he will operate in compliance, but we will certainly be monitoring what he does. If he is out of compliance, we will take appropriate steps.

K. Conroy: This minister keeps talking about history, but what people in this province want to know about is what's happening right now in 2005. At the Copeland clinic, those who pay the $1,700 sign-up fee and the $2,300 annual fee will get to see a doctor before someone who does not pay the fee. Does the minister believe that preferential access to doctors for a fee falls within the guidelines of the Medicare Protection Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of my favourite movies of all time, and it may be one of yours as well, is Blazing Saddles — a very complex plot but, apart from that, just an exceptional movie. I understand they're going to do a remake of that based on the NDP's health policies and call it "Blazing Hypocrisy," which I think would be entirely appropriate.

Of course we don't believe that people should have to pay an access fee for service. Of course we don't be-

[ Page 1230 ]

lieve that. We will take every appropriate step to ensure that every British Columbian has full access to medicare protection plan services and Canada Health Act services.

K. Conroy: That's an interesting answer, because Mr. Copeman claims that the clinic will be open to the public but that patients who do not pay the membership fee "can't expect the same level of service." Does the minister understand that he has a responsibility to ensure that people aren't securing access to doctors for insured services based on their ability to pay a fee?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's interesting that the opposition seems to attach such nefarious motives to anyone involved in the provision of private health care when they're in opposition, yet are completely unconcerned about it when they're in government. It's really a remarkable thing that we should hear such a gap between when they were in government and now that they're in opposition. But maybe that's one of those old NDP–new NDP things that is a continuing puzzle to me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1440]

Hon. G. Abbott: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Copeman has indicated to us as recently as a couple of days ago that he still intends to operate within compliance, within the Medicare Protection Act, which is a provincial statute, and the Canada Health Act, which is a federal statute. I'm taking him at his word. He isn't open yet. We are going to follow this situation very closely, and we will ensure that if we see activities that are out of compliance, we will take appropriate steps to resolve it.

S. Simpson: The difference here with the minister is that we weren't being facetious when we said the architects of privatization were on that side — unlike the minister, who is being glib. The minister might remember one of his past colleagues…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …who looked forward to being here, Dr. Gur Singh. I remember when he, a past Liberal candidate, held up and said that people are going to have to pay for health care with their credit cards in this province. That's what his side believes.

If this minister believes that an annual facility fee and sign-up fee that clearly confers privileged access to a doctor doesn't violate provincial and federal laws, can he tell us what stops any primary care physician from charging patients an annual fee?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the member wasn't listening to my earlier responses. In fact, we have advised Mr. Copeman on a couple of occasions now, and by letter, that we believe the way that he originally proposed the Copeman clinic, the structure of it — based on the advertisements in the Vancouver Sun among other places, on the website and some correspondence in respect of what he proposed to do — suggested that at least a portion of what Mr. Copeman was proposing to do would be out of compliance with the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act. We advised him of that very clearly. In response, Mr.

Copeman has written back and said: "No, I wish to operate within compliance of those statutes."

So again, I intend, and my ministry intends, to continue to work with Mr. Copeman to see if we can develop something innovative but yet within the scope of the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, the minister will know that his government — and he voted for this — brought in Bill 92, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, which was passed by this Legislature. The purpose of that bill, as we will all know, was to clarify the government's ability to review and audit private clinic billing practices. Of course, the bill was never proclaimed. Is the reason the minister hasn't proclaimed this act because he's happy to make it easier to ignore the creeping privatization of primary care in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm somewhat disappointed by the opposition attitude in respect of that matter. At the federal-provincial-territorial meeting that we had in Toronto on the weekend, the NDP government in Manitoba — their Health Minister — and the Saskatchewan NDP Health Minister both indicated that we should not have such a narrow view as is articulated by the NDP folks in British Columbia. I think they're genuinely troubled by the kinds of attitudes that are taken here, quite at odds with the way in which these things were managed when you were in government. I mean, that's the astonishing thing.

I know sometimes people refer to the gap between what they actually did in government and what they say in opposition as hypocrisy, but I don't like to think of it that way. I think you just haven't thought these things through yet, and I look forward to the time when you do.

[1445]

PROVINCIAL HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION

C. James: Well, we've heard anything but answers from the Health Minister. He stated that he in fact thought that the Copeman clinic was in compliance. Well, I'm sorry, but paying $4,000 for preferred access to a doctor certainly sounds like for-profit medicine to this side of the House.

Health care is worth protecting. Public health care is worth protecting, and it is the job of government to protect public health care. But instead of bringing in

[ Page 1231 ]

the tools necessary to do the job, this government has turned a blind eye.

So I would like to ask the minister again: can he explain why cabinet has rejected changes to the B.C. Medicare Protection Act and why they haven't proclaimed Bill 92?

Hon. G. Abbott: I truly am grateful for the amount of attention I'm getting today. It is gratifying, because one of the things I kept hearing in the summer months was that the health system was in chaos and that this opposition was going to be holding the government to account.

The fact of the matter is that this is a great health system that we have in the province of British Columbia, and every day that system gets better. But it doesn't get better because we try to keep everything exactly the same as it was the day before. What we have tried to do as a government, I think with great success, is build some innovation, some energy, some commitment into making it a stronger health system based on continuous improvement.

The opposition, led by the opposition leader, have a kind of traditional hidebound attitude that simply is not in accord with making progress within our health care system.

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

C. James: I'd like to tell the Health Minister what else he heard this summer. He heard the opposition asking him to proclaim the act, and he didn't respond. He heard our Health critic writing him a letter, in fact, asking him to look at the clinic and investigate it. He didn't respond. He was asked by the media in July whether he was going to deal with this issue, and he said: "The time is not right."

But I've asked the minister to listen, perhaps, to his former colleague, the former minister, when he introduced Bill 92 and talked in support of that bill and stated: "I am pleased to introduce Bill 92, which amends the Medicare Protection Act…. These amendments will bring greater clarity to both patients and private clinic operators about billing practices." Without Bill 92, government essentially has to take the word of private operators that their practices fall within the guidelines of the Medicare Protection Act.

I would like to again ask the minister: if he won't listen to the public, will he listen to his former colleague and actually bring in protections for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always good to hear the views of those who are opposed to virtually everything in this province, and we hear that view again here today.

We make appropriate decisions at appropriate times with respect to legislation. I've already said on a number of occasions to the member that, in fact, we have been all over the Copeman clinic issue. Mr. Copeman has had some discussions with the ministry. He has indicated that he wishes to operate within compliance of the Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act.

I think that, again, the members can bounce up and down and pound their chests and say this is a terrible thing, but it is completely at odds with the attitude they took when they were in government — a doubling of the number of private clinics; 30 clinics or more created under the NDP; access for WCB and ICBC and other organizations to the private clinics. Again…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …I don't understand where they're going here.

SERVICES FOR GANG-INVOLVED YOUTH

J. Brar: I hear from people outside sometimes about what question period is. People say question period is only for questions, not for the answers. Every day when I come here, this House kind of confirms that.

But let's try a new question. This is a serious question, and I hope to get the right answer for this one. Over 70 young people, mainly from the South Asian community, have been murdered during the last ten years due to gang-related activities. Young people who get involved in gang activities have a very hard time getting out, even if they want to.

[1450]

So my question is to the Solicitor General. Is he aware of the challenges faced by young people trying to get out of gang activities, and what specific support is available to help them?

Hon. W. Oppal: This issue first arose a number of years ago. As the member knows, during the last ten to 12 years, some 95 young men of the Indo-Canadian community have been victims of murder. Approximately three years ago a number of us got together and established some proactive committees in order to determine what the root causes of this aberrant conduct are.

We know there are a number of people we can't save, unfortunately, because they're so firmly entrenched in the underworld. But there are many, many other dysfunctional kids, many other kids who need help, many kids who are wanting assistance.

There are a number of committees that have been formed, fundraisers…. I would invite the hon. member to give his time and come and join some of the committees and take

part in the community so that we can accommodate the children and we can assist those children in the schools who need our help. We need the help; we need all the help that we can get. I would invite you to come forward and help.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Actually, I'm pleased to see that the Attorney General stood up for this one and to respond to the question. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have

[ Page 1232 ]

met with the chief of the task force. I have been to those committees not one time but more than one time. I know there are a number of committees. I know there are committees in the community working with this government, and I know there are committees in the process of being established by the federal government.

But my question is different. My question is simple. That's what I want to ask the minister responsible for this one. You know, the gang war has a unique culture. When you are into it, it's very hard for someone to come out of it, even if somebody wants to do that. So my question is pretty simple. Those committees are working on the awareness side, and I appreciate that work. But my question is very simple.

Again, to the Attorney General: what specific strategy can he point to, to give young people the help they need to get out of those gang wars or those gangs if they wish to do that? At this point in time, there is nothing. I want to specifically ask the Attorney General.

Hon. W. Oppal: This government has addressed those issues on two fronts. On the enforcement front, there has been an integrated gang task force. That's resulted in a number of arrests that have taken place — some trials and some convictions.

The area where I think we need the greatest assistance and the greatest resources is the area of prevention — the proactive work. There, a number of us have done an immense amount of work. I don't take credit for it. I've been a part of some of the committees. But there are a number of volunteers who are doing mentoring programs involving young children. The RCMP in Richmond and Surrey have been involved in basketball leagues, setting up youth camps and matters of that nature. That's what we need the community to do.

I would invite the member, who is a member of the Indo-Canadian community, to give some of his time to come forward and assist those people who are helping the kids and volunteering their own time.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Thorne: I have a petition to submit on behalf of Karin E. Williams, a senior citizen and grandmother from school district 43, Coquitlam, and 305 B.C. residents from the lower mainland indicating that they support the efforts of B.C. teachers to fight for improvements to our public education system. The petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House repeal Bill 12.

[1455]

C. Puchmayr: I also have a petition to submit, and the petition is to all levels of Canadian government. It's for immediate intervention into the Telus dispute.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the honour to present the 2003 annual report for the Labour Relations Board.

Point of Privilege

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, following question period on Monday, October 24, 2005, the hon. member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca rose and reserved his right to raise a matter of privilege relating to statements made in the House by the Minister of Labour. On Tuesday morning, prior to entering on orders of the day, the member raised his matter of privilege and presented the statement of matter together with supporting documentation and a motion that the member would propose to move if the Chair found that he had established a prima facie case of privilege.

The member has complied with the technical requirements upon raising the matter of privilege and also provided the Chair with a notice of his intention in this regard. On Tuesday afternoon, following question period, the hon. Minister of Labour and Government House Leader responded to the matter of privilege and tabled with the House his statement and supporting documentation.

Both members ably argued their position, and I have had an opportunity to examine the material filed, the Hansard report and the relevant authorities. I wish first to deal with the "earliest opportunity" rule, which was raised by the Minister of Labour and is canvassed in some detail at pages 48 and 49 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , third edition. In the decision, Speaker Schroeder, after canvassing the facts in the case, observes as follows:

The Chair must, however, consider the rules relating to the matters of privilege. It is necessary that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity and the proposed motion be tendered at the same time. The motion was properly tendered in accordance with the rule, so it remains for the Chair to consider whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity.

In that case, the alleged offence occurred on Monday the 23rd, and the matter was raised in the House on Wednesday the 25th. By way of explanation for the delay, the member observed that it was not until the 25th that he learned the identity of the person complained of, and therefore the matter had not been raised earlier.

The Chair observed as follows:

It seems to the Chair that the member should have brought the incident to the attention of the House immediately to preserve his rights and then pursued his investigation as to the identity of the party. The procedure would have conformed with the authority in this House, which states the proposition that the matter of privilege may be raised to satisfy the "earliest opportunity" rule, even though complete detail upon which the matter is based is not available at the time.

Hon. members will well be aware that the standing order of the House states clearly that whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

A reading of the statement submitted by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca clearly identified October 19 as the date on which the alleged offence occurred.

[ Page 1233 ]

Yet it was not till the afternoon of Monday, October 24 that the same member rose to reserve his right to raise the matter of privilege. Notwithstanding that the member may not have all the facts in his hand on October 19, it seems to the Chair that this was the date upon which he should have reserved his right to raise the matter of privilege to be in conformity with the standing orders and the decision of this House quoted above.

Finally, on this particular point, let me quote again from the final paragraph of the decision referred to:

Because a motion based on privilege is given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, strict compliance with the rules has invariably been required. I'm unable to find any authority which would permit the Chair to allow this matter to proceed when it has been raised in the House on the second sitting day after the event complained of. Even had the matter been raised in the House at 2 p.m. on Tuesday the 24th, it seems to the Chair, based on existing authorities, the matter would have failed to satisfy the "earliest opportunity" rule.

There is no doubt that the onus on the member raising the matter of privilege is a heavy one, but the Chair has no authority to relax the rules, even though the Chair may well be satisfied that a prima facie case exists.

[1500]

On this ground, the member's application cannot succeed.

Having made that finding, I also wish to touch on the substantive portion of this matter. I not only have examined with great care the written submissions of the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca but have examined the Hansard reports of both members' submissions. I should mention as an aside that the speedy and accurate transcript by Hansard staff of the remarks made by members in cases like the one before me are of enormous assistance to the Chair in coming to a decision.

The member's submission alleges that the minister's replies to questions posed by the opposition on October 19 conveyed misleading information to the House. The minister says the information conveyed on that occasion was accurate in all aspects and tabled again the notice of appointment of the industrial inquiry commission appointing Vince Ready as the industrial inquiry commissioner. The document in question was dated October 6, 2005, apparently in conformity with the minister's answers given in the House on October 19.

The member then quotes from Mr. Ready's report identifying October 10, 2005, as the date of his appointment as the industrial inquiry commissioner. No explanation has been given as to the divergence of these two dates, but certainly, the appointment document would tend to confirm the minister's version of the events. In any events, these quotes failed to provide the foundation for an assertion that the minister misled the House.

I commend both members upon orderly presentations. Bearing in mind the stringent guidelines relating to such matters, I am unable to find a prima facie case has been established, and the member will not be permitted to move the tendered motion.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued estimates debate, Committee of Supply, of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister of Housing, and in Committee A, for the information of members, continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Transportation.

[1505]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:06 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $418,644,000 (continued).

B. Simpson: For the minister's benefit, particularly with relation to staff, we're going to try and wrap up the Forests estimates around five o'clock and then want to switch to Housing at that time, so the minister can arrange appropriate staff to be in here. Housing would then go through the evening session, with the hope of wrapping that up at the end of this evening. With that in mind, then, and with the minister's forbearance, I'd like to try and move rapidly through some critical items. I'll try and curtail my questions so that they're specific.

There are some things that are very definitively stated in the platform and in the throne speech. This government pointed to the platform as a document that needed to be referenced, so I'd like to go through the points in the platform and make sure that I understand where they are in the process.

The first, and the minister has mentioned this in question period, is: "Our government will work with the B.C. Competition Council to recommend a long-term strategy for reviving and securing B.C.'s pulp and paper industry." That's been called for by a number of agencies. If the minister could give an update on where that is, because again, it's not one that I can find explicitly in the service plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: The service plan is about the operation of the ministry. The Competition Council is about the group of people that are looking at the competition side and recommendations with regards to forestry and issues that it faces. The Competition Council is continuing to do its work. The last I heard, it's expected that they may be able to be completed and reported out by November 30. I look forward to that report.

I did, early on in the cycle of the Competition Council, have some conversation with some members

[ Page 1234 ]

to see if they could perhaps, if they were in a position to, provide an interim pulp report with regards to some of the competition issues on pulp. Because of some of the matters that were facing us, I wanted, basically, some input on them. They haven't been able to do that as yet. I don't know whether they will be able to prior to their full report, which will be up to them to do. I think they felt that there was still a body of work to do, with some of the suppliers and looking at international markets and that sort of thing, with regards to getting to that point.

B. Simpson: What entity will the B.C. Competition Council actually report out to?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the report will come to government.

B. Simpson: I want to talk about community forests in general a little bit later on, but there's an explicit statement in the platform that states that new stumpage arrangements will help existing community forests, particularly in the expansion. Would the minister please report out on where we're at with those discussions?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. I met with a number of communities that have requests in or, actually, expressions of interest with regards to community forests at the UBCM. We're finalizing a lot of the documentation to it. Like I said to the member for Nelson-Creston yesterday, we expect that a number of those we would probably be able to release to communities in the next two weeks.

The second part of the member's question, though, really deals with the crux of community forests. I met with the community forest groups in Prince George in September. I met with some others again at UBCM later in September and some others more recently. I have given the commitment that we will try and find a better formula and a more streamlined operation for community forests to make them actually sustainable for communities.

That work is ongoing now. I don't have a definitive time line when it will be completed, because we've certainly asked our folks to think outside the box with regards to how we do it with community forests. They have a number of options in front of them that they will bring back to me for recommendation.

B. Simpson: Again, to the minister: is there a time line associated with that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we were hoping that they can have it done and back and a decision made by the end of November. If it's possible to do it earlier, we're going to do it earlier, because we would like to get some certainty on those issues.

B. Simpson: As I said, I'd like to come back a little bit on community forests when I look at some issues under small tenures. The expansion of the small-scale salvage program is also pointed to in the platform. Could the minister report out on where that is at?

Hon. R. Coleman: In '03-04 there were about 500,000 cubic metres that went out in small-scale salvaging. It went up to 2.1 million cubic metres in '04-05, and it's expected to be higher this year.

B. Simpson: I'd like to explore small-scale salvage a little bit further. As the minister may or may not know, the southern part of my riding has a very active small-scale salvage operation that has put a number of proposals in front of the district manager.

I was made aware today that there are now some issues with small-scale salvage in the Kamloops region, where permits are not being issued and there's a delay. In both cases, the small-scale salvage operators have put proposals to the district managers, and in those proposals their business cases for increasing the number of FTEs who are managing small-scale salvage programs…. Both organizations, and I've heard this from other districts, are pointing to the lack of FTEs within the Ministry of Forests and Range offices for getting permits out the door, for getting permits in a timely fashion, and it's quite a hindrance.

I think it's important to note that the operators themselves have put a business case together showing that if they can do their work, not only are they employing significant numbers of people and contributing to the local economy, but they're also supplying sufficient stumpage such that the FTEs are more than covered by the government's revenue stream. Is the minister aware of those concerns, and if so, what does he expect the districts will do to address those concerns around FTEs and permitting process?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: The small-scale salvage program is experiencing some growing pains, particularly in the southern area of the Cariboo and to a lesser degree in Kamloops. There are also some other concerns that have come out of the increase in small-scale salvage. We've asked for and there is some work being done to do a review of all the programs with regard to small-scale salvage to report out no later than December 31.

The reason for that is that we're finding a number of the patches are starting to join together, because people are actually forming what I guess you would call consortiums, and that was never the intent of the small-scale salvage. Obviously, in addition to that, it brings along other pressures on silviculture programs. We will continue to process as best we can and do the review to make sure that this program meets the long-term goals and objectives that it was originally set out to do.

B. Simpson: I think that will be helpful. It's a helpful review and a necessary review. Will that review encompass some of the things that the small-scale salvage operators are asking for? They have limitations on

[ Page 1235 ]

the amount of NSR. They have limitations on the size that they can open up, etc. The small-scale salvage operators themselves have some workarounds in those areas. Will they be engaged in that? Will it be a comprehensive review that also looks at some of their requests for both policy changes and additional staffing?

Hon. R. Coleman: The short answer to that is yes, but at the same time I think the small-scale salvagers have to recognize a couple of things. One is that this is a small-scale salvage program. It's called "small-scale salvage" for a reason, and the reason it worked initially was because it was kept at that level.

Secondly, because of some of the sort of consortiums that are coming together, we don't want people who are unqualified working in the bush with the wrong safety equipment and the wrong equipment. We have made a commitment that where our tenures are involved — licences like B.C. Timber Sales and small-scale salvaging — we're going to raise the bar where the qualification to work in the bush…. One of the things will be the safety requirements.

As we go through this, some of the operators are going to have to probably raise their safety standards for the protection of worker safety, and I think that's very critical to the aspect as we go through this. We will consult with them, but the folks out there must understand that the ministry is going to be giving direction on the whole safety issue, which we think is a critical part of this package and the other packages of small tenures.

B. Simpson: I don't think you would have any resistance on the part of the small-scale salvage operators that I've spoken with. They recognize that they need to do some work around standards, etc. I don't think anybody would push back around the safety.

Since the minister has raised safety, I do have one follow-up on last night's discussion that got truncated. The minister's response around applying a safety lens to the operations of B.C. Timber Sales and the Ministry of Forests operations, etc., was heartening. However, the question I asked was quite explicit, and it comes from a number of sources, including the TLA and others, who are asking if the ministry will also do a policy review — the policy changes, the legislative changes.

It's not just the operations of BCTS and Ministry of Forests and Range but where, for example, policy allows different utilization standards, where policy allows different road standards and where policy in terms of changing cut control has exacerbated stumpage bingo — or cuts to the ministry staff, which have exacerbated the permitting cycle.

[1520]

Will the ministry undertake to review those with a safety lens on? Not the operational side — that's not what I had meant to do yesterday, because I understand that those discussions are going on. The call is for a review of the policy side for implications on safe working conditions for people who are working in our forests.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working with the B.C. Forest Safety Council. If they identify that as one of their top priorities, then we would do that with them. The B.C. Forest Safety Council is a cross-sectoral council. It's made up of a number of the major companies, independent loggers, fallers, major labour organizations that are involved in the forest sector, B.C. Timber Sales, the Ministry of Forests and WCB.

On one side of the equation, the companies that are operating within that are more sophisticated and are dealing with the WCB-type standards. They're inspected and monitored, as well, by WCB. They have an organized labour structure that basically flows into safety councils on work sites and that sort of thing. So there's that relationship that takes place.

To date, the B.C. Forest Safety Council has basically identified four major initiatives. One is TruckSafe, which is roads standards and maintenance. The second is silvi-safe, which is safety and employment standards for people in the silviculture side. Faller certification — they want training and registering of fallers. All fallers need to be accredited by July 31, 2005. Then there's qualified companies, which means companies will need to demonstrate a safety program for all their workers. That is going to flow from the B.C. Safety Council through to the smaller companies that do small tenures with the government, because we're going to put that in as a standard.

We're going to work together with this council, because that's the commitment we made: to make these things a priority and to follow through on them both in the ministry…. We also had the expectation — and the agreement, frankly — with the majors, organized labour, the loggers and the fallers that they will also follow through on these initiatives and support them so that they can be cross-industry, because obviously, we're not necessarily on every work site. We need that cooperation building safe work sites.

That's why I think that this safety council…. They're a pretty focused bunch, actually. I met with them, and they're pretty focused on doing these things, and they're pretty committed to working with us. We've made the commitment to implement the initiatives that they think they need to have to improve safety in the forests.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that update. I look forward to tracking what those changes are. I will say again that the reason for raising this one more time is that in my little three-wishes exercise of what questions they would ask, that was a primary question, and it was explicitly the issue of reviewing the policy changes.

To finish off on the platform, there's one other one that I'm interested in an update on, and that is a statement: "Work with independent power producers and forest companies to produces clean, reliable, competitively priced electricity supply…for B.C.'s lumber and pulp mills." As we all know, energy costs are becoming an increasing factor in competitiveness. What is the nature of that? Is it underway? How will that proceed?

[ Page 1236 ]

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, a number of companies actually do very good jobs with biomass — how they produce heat and what have you, particularly in plants. I think one of the impressive ones is probably Ainsworth's operation at 100 Mile House at their OSB plant. We also recognize that there may be an opportunity on the land base with regards to this resource — particularly the massive amount of wood we're going to have coming out of beetle — for other biodiversity with regards to power and energy.

I've already had conversations with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and asked that they start to do some work with us on energy opportunities and producing from biomass for government. Basically, that would go back to discussions with Hydro and capital costs and opportunities and what we see.

I found the presentation that I received from CH Anderson and its partners from Scandinavia to be very instructive on what may be opportunities on the land base, considering that they're going to build pellet plants — four of them in the interior of British Columbia — to make pellets that they're going to ship to Scandinavia, which are going to be burnt with coal to reduce the amount of coal being used in coal-burning power plants over there. They'll get Kyoto credits. They figured all this business plan out, and they have a patented process that they do with these pellets.

At the same time, we participate and do work with an organization called BIOCAP, which is out of Queen's University. It's a research body on energy, basically to do research on bioenergy and that sort of thing. That work's ongoing.

I've actually spoken to a number of my colleagues in conversation to let them know that we're going to be looking at these options with the Minister of Energy and Mines. A member of our staff went to Finland recently to see their 260-megawatt power plant and is going to be part of that process, coming back to me with what we think might be options in biomass.

B. Simpson: As the minister knows, the perfect-storm group, when they went to Ottawa, was asking Ottawa to assist them in looking at the tax regime — looking at possible different write-down strategies, etc. — to accelerate capital investment in these kinds of ventures. As the minister's rightly pointed out, we do have a potential for a large amount of biomass there, but it's one of those things that will degenerate over time if we're not dealing with it quickly.

To the minister: which agency on the part of the provincial government will be working with the Kyoto group, with the federal government, to get us on a faster track in this province to get on the leading edge of biomass conversion, biofuel conversion? It strikes me that the Kyoto group there has a lot of money. I don't think they know quite what to do with it, and it would be nice if we were on the front end of that.

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, in the provincial government, Kyoto is with the Ministry of Environment, and energy is with Energy and Mines. We're working with both of those groups, but particularly with Energy and Mines, to push an initiative to look at this thing a bit aggressively.

The reason for that is because it really hasn't been, in fairness to our Ministry of Environment more than anything else…. I don't think the federal government has nailed down their end of what's going to happen with Kyoto and the credits and what have you. I don't think that we should wait for that process to drag us along slowly if there are opportunities we can see in British Columbia today.

[1530]

My conversations with the minister are that we are going to put some…. He's actually already, as I understand it, put some people on it. We are going to be much more proactive than waiting for the Kyoto side to actually drive the agenda.

B. Simpson: The minister actually makes my point, and I couldn't agree with him more on this. I don't think the federal government knows what they're doing. I've been in touch with some of the NDP MPs who have been tracking this — in particular, Nathan Cullen from Skeena, who seems to be quite on top of it. He's indicated — and it could be just part of the province's strategy — that they're looking for how to deal with this.

If we are going to them with, "Here's a way of dealing with it," I guess I would make a pitch for communities that are on the leading edge of the mountain pine beetle, like Quesnel. We are very good pilot communities, where we have the opportunity to play around with some of these things on both a micro and macro scale. My sense is that if the province takes the lead and goes with a comprehensive suggestion…. What I'm being told is that the federal government is kind of looking for that.

In rolling up what the province is already doing with some innovative strategies at a local level, working with the communities that are trying to restructure themselves, it seems like it's a real win, but it's a matter of us putting some horsepower to it and getting on the front end before Ontario and some of the others start getting their hands up.

Hon. R. Coleman: We do anticipate that happening. That's why, as part of the movement in the last number of months, I've met with C.H. Innes and others. We're saying: "Start setting some resources to this thing. Let's set some priorities around it. Let's see what's available to British Columbia."

I don't have a concern about Ontario waking up to biomass and figuring this thing out tomorrow. They're talking about expanding their nuclear energy these days. I think that if we have a resource in British Columbia that's clean, that makes sense environmentally and we can make it work for the people we supply power to, who are citizens short-term and long-term, we have a responsibility to get on that and see if it's possible. That's what we've asked our people to do.

[ Page 1237 ]

B. Simpson: Lots of money is a big alarm clock. So while Ontario may be looking at other things, if they start to recognize there's a lot of money there…. If they shift away, it's possible that we get caught behind the eight ball, but I'll take the minister at his word.

One of the things, and I'm not sure the minister is aware of it…. Prince George, for example, is looking at an independent power corporation. They're trying to get started on that. I've also had discussions with people on the coast around hemlock pulp because, as the minister is aware — and we've raised that in the House during question period — we have a chip oversupply situation and a hemlock pulp problem. Getting really moving on this rapidly, I think, deals with a lot of issues that are out there. I look forward to what the province does and the leadership role it will play in that area.

I'd like to move off the platform, then, and into some other substantive matters. One of the things I do want to look at under small tenures is…. It seems as if the staffing levels within district offices are not sufficient for a lot of the smaller programs. It is a constant refrain wherever I have gone. In the service plan…. This has been sent to me by someone else. I can't find it in the update, but apparently, it's in the previous service plan. There was a bullet reference that stated that there will be a client service strategy within the Ministry of Forests. If the minister or his staff isn't aware of that, my question is still pertinent.

Does the ministry track that sort of sense of client complaints — the frustrations, submissions around staffing issues? How does the ministry in the district office level or at the provincial level look at all of that with respect to how it resources various programs and how it addresses, as one would say, client-centred concerns about service level delivery?

[1535]

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, we're trying to…. That's the work that's going on, on things like community forests and particularly woodlots, which I've met on extensively and which I find have as many and as varied issues by region and by community almost as some other groups that I've dealt with in the past. I've gone into meetings with these groups and said, "Okay, now maybe we can look at this or that as a solution," had some sort of agreement and received e-mails back through my ministry within hours, saying: "Well, actually, not me too." So there are really….

The small licensees are very high administration to the ministry. Probably at least 10 percent of our time is spent for a very minuscule part of the revenue. We give them a lot of attention and a lot of service, and in so doing, there's always someone, because there are so many, I think, that you're going to get…. And sometimes the level of sophistication is different.

You're going to get complaints. We're aware of those complaints, but we do attend their AGMs. We have staff at their AGMs. We meet with their executives. We meet with their regional groups. This is all "we." I'm talking collectively about the staff of the ministry. That feeds back. We have one person who's completely dedicated to the woodlot file to look at opportunities to streamline that so it works better for them and for community forests.

One experience I've had as a minister is that this group is not necessarily always on the same page. At the same time, they do want some…. There are some basic, simple principles they'd like. They'd like to have a better way to understand their stumpage and fibre so it's not so complex for them, because they are small operators, and it costs them time and money.

They would like to be able to know what the process would be going for and any additional discussions on future tenures, and we've put that in place with them. I met with them recently, as did my staff. I received a report back from my staff on the most recent meeting, where we put a number of things on the table and received back that this group is very positive with the direction we're going in and the work we're doing with them. I believe that's correct, because in the most recent discussion I had with one of their executive, it was that exactly.

We'll get there for them. There is some more work to be done, but I think we've got some pretty good direction going that's going to reach a lot of their goals they've asked us to reach.

B. Simpson: I'm glad the minister brought up woodlots and community forests. It seems like we're in a flow here, because each time you finish something off, it leads into my next question, so that's great. It makes it very efficient.

Interjection.

B. Simpson: Yes, must be. It's the years of being a police officer and reading people's minds — which is a scary thought, by the way.

Anyway, coming to the small tenures. Again, I know that the minister doesn't mean to use words that could be perceived as a putdown, but when these groups are referred to as a miniscule part of our revenue stream, it immediately, I know, gets their back up, because they don't look at it as their job to be revenue stream to the province. What they have is a very high percentage of return to communities, and that's how they look at things.

When you look at small-scale salvage operators, if…. I was told that in the Williams Lake area, there's a substantial number. If you just multiply by a factor of three, it's equivalent, if that program goes down, to two fully functional mills. Then you look at the capital they put into their equipment, which is predominantly purchased locally — gas, etc. Same with woodlot and so on.

[1540]

They don't look at themselves with respect to revenue stream to the Crown. They look at themselves with respect to percentage that stays in the local community and in the local economy — okay?

[ Page 1238 ]

One of the aspects of that, with the small-tenure program the minister's fully apprised of, is the woodlot program, the promised doubling. I was at the woodlot federation annual general meeting. It's still an issue and concern. For the record, what is the status of that, and when might we see some new woodlots under the revitalization strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was actually the woodlot folks that told me that there's a small amount of our revenue and a large amount of administration. They told me that because they were making the case that they needed to have their system streamlined so that the amount of work they had to go through and our staff had to go through in order to service them should be streamlined and made more flexible. So it wasn't questioning whether they were a revenue source or not or where they bought their capital; it was really about that particular aspect.

They actually identified that to me in one of the early meetings I had with them, and I said: "Well, you're right." Now, let's see if we can find a way to work through some of the discussion papers we've had with them. Their concern when I talked to them was: "Okay, we've been through these discussions before with ministries" — in their case I think it's probably for 20 years or so — "and somebody's always working on something." I said: "Look, I'm going to set a tight time frame on this. We're going to make some decisions. You will find out not too long from now what those decisions are that you've put before us that we think we can accommodate you on so you can move on with your business."

I think that's the relationship they want to have with the ministry. Having said that, though, we should also remember that that's part of us giving a service to a client base that could be streamlined so that they can have a better operating network and we can better service them, which obviously puts additional resources, if we can streamline their processes, back onto other things that our staff might want to concentrate on. So it's good for both parties that we get there. I've made that commitment to them, and I've made the same commitment to the community forest folks, and we're going to get there.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification. My question, however, was: when will the first woodlot be issued under the revitalization strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: In honesty, not in the near term. In discussions with the woodlot federation, they felt that was appropriate, because they feel that the business structure and the streamlining needs to get straightened out first before we pile more woodlots onto the program. My commitment to them was that, first, we would get this piece of work done, and then we would look at what fibre supply was available for the expansion of the woodlot program.

B. Simpson: This may be one of those where we would agree to disagree on the

interpretation of what's being asked for, because when I was at the AGM, there was a high level of anxiety, where people wanted to see when there would be awards. I would agree that different districts feel different levels of readiness for it.

One of the concerns — and I'm going to spend a little bit of time around BCTS momentarily — is what B.C. Timber Sales is doing in locking up portions of the AAC and not making them available. I'd like to raise a case in point that the minister is aware of, and that's Quesnel, where B.C. Timber Sales has basically told everybody that the land base is essentially locked up and, to a certain extent, has created a bit of infighting in the community, because they've layered potential woodlots over top of the area that was targeted for community forest.

[1545]

The relationship — and I've got the documentation here; I'm sure the minister has it himself — and the discussions there are becoming a little bit animated. That is beginning to become a concern as BCTS kind of further puts its stamp over things. Then there's a feeling that the possibilities and potentials for areas for woodlots or community forests are shrinking.

So I'm hearing a different story, and I'm wondering if the minister can comment on the role that B.C. Timber Sales will play in making woodlots and community forests available in the future.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am aware of some of the conflicts. When I was in Quesnel…. The city of Quesnel wants a community forest where some woodlot operators also see an expansion opportunity for their operation to go. Of course, the member knows that not only BCTS has a competing interest on the land base. We run into forest and range agreements. We run into major licensees. When you have the issues about…. If you put it in a place where they can't economically mill it, then they say that you've made a bad choice where the woodlot goes or where whatever tenure it is goes.

I guess you can best describe it as "welcome to our world." We have some issues that we have to deal with in the next number of months with regard to all these competing interests on the land base. We're going to work through them. I don't have a pat answer for the member today, and I don't think I could find one, frankly. I think this is where the skills of our — I'm going to say this — very competent staff are going to find the solutions.

N. Simons: Thank you, minister, for being here to answer questions.

I just wanted to start off…. I'll speak specifically about Sechelt and the community forest application. Can the minister tell me the status of that application, in case there's confusion?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually had a list yesterday when one of the members, I think it was the member for Nelson-Creston, was taking us through some issues around his community forests. I said, "In two weeks," on his, because I had enough information to be able to

[ Page 1239 ]

say that in two weeks, he'll have an answer. I don't have that same information in front of me on this one. However, any community I met with at UBCM that had the expression in, and we had identified a block…. I said that we would be trying to get those done as soon as possible, as the first wave came out, and then there would be a second wave that would come out.

[1550]

The challenge as I do that is I want to make sure that however we're going to have them pay for their timber is economically viable short term, medium term and long term, because one of the biggest complaints of the community forest side has been that they get a community forest award and then it doesn't make any money because of how we calculate our stumpage or how much administration we put on it. We're trying to do that body of work and to have that ready to go at the same time as those licences come out so that they'll know the actual bottom line for their economic opportunity. I don't have it with me at the moment, but I will get that information to the member.

N. Simons: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that. It's not essential specifically. I just wondered if there were some problems with the first application — if you happen to know if there's been a resubmission of an original application.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think that's the case. I think what it probably is…. There was one call that sort of went out that some people had done a lot of work prior to. Then there was a call that said: "If you're interested, let us know by letter." One doesn't shut off the other. If they're in the system with regards to a community forest, it would be treated the same as everybody else in the same manner. It is an objective to get a number of these out the door within the next number of weeks and some others out the door by the end of the year.

I think we can get specific about yours by looking it up when I get the information to the member. It's the same as the member from south Cariboo yesterday. He had some questions about something. When he wants the information, I have that information to provide him with — to his questions. We'll get it to him — to his office is probably the easiest.

N. Simons: Thank you. I respect the fact that there's a lot to cover in the ministry, and I understand that. Specifically, my concern is…. Well, I know that there's an application before the ministry for community forests. Is there any ministry oversight in terms of assessing the degree of community consultation — oversight by the ministry itself?

Hon. R. Coleman: We traditionally check that either one or two ways. We either go to the community or ask the community to convene a public meeting, or whatever, that shows the support for the application. Just so the member knows, Sechelt was given an invitation to apply, so that means they're one of the communities that obviously had expressed some interest. The status of the application, though…. It was just an invitation to apply for a probationary community forest agreement that was made, and that's where it sits today.

N. Simons: I just wanted to ensure…. I'm certainly in favour of the concept of community forest. I would like that to be on record. I'm just concerned that there have been some divisions that have arisen in the community over the issue and whether or not certain areas have been included in that proposed area. I'm just hoping that eventually we'll get to the point where these kinds of conflicts are addressed before they arise.

[1555]

Maybe I can turn to an issue facing both the upper coast and the lower coast, and it has to do with B.C. Timber Sales. What mechanism is in place, if any, to address community concerns over B.C. Timber Sales — sale of….

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll just deal with the community forest side first, because the staff member that deals with B.C. Timber Sales is on his way. He should be here shortly, and then I can address that.

We've actually been known to turn down community forests if there's huge opposition in communities, because we do feel that if they're going to be called a community forest, it's something the community wants. There are oftentimes, when you establish an area for community forests, certain areas of it that some people have a particular concern about that might be part of the annual cut. In those cases, we often will adjust the blocks to meet the concerns of the community on those discussions.

The reason that it's sort of like, "Do you want to make an expression of interest to the community?" is that we're not going to even go out and put the call on top of people that don't want the community forests. So that's why when we do an invitation, it's strictly that. It's an invitation to communities around the province that are interested in community forests to make that expression to us.

In the member's area there are a number of competing interests. There was a meeting recently with my ministry that I, unfortunately, was out of town for — it's being rescheduled — with the Sechelt Indian band. Chief Dixon and I will be meeting, I think sometime in November, on some of these issues too. It's an ongoing process in each one of these areas.

I'll just see if I can get the answer to your Timber Sales question. Joining me is Grant Parnell, director of B.C. Timber Sales. The other people in the House have been introduced as they revolved through in the last two or three days.

Basically, what we do with B.C. Timber Sales is we have registrant meetings, which are people that are interested in bidding. They are open to the public, so any member of the public can attend any of those meetings. When we have specific issues in any area, we'll have what we refer to as an ad hoc meeting, but a better description is a public meeting. There was one at Roberts Creek — there was a public hearing recently, I

[ Page 1240 ]

think — and that's in the member's riding. There are some issues, and they're now reviewing the outcome of that meeting and looking at how it would affect what they think they can or cannot do up there. That has not been finalized.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for his response. You addressed, again, your training as a law enforcement official and anticipated the next question. I'm doing my hon. friend imitation here. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

My question is about consultation process for BCTS. Is there any way…? Can the minister commit to allowing the people of the Sunshine Coast — and Powell River area as well — a significant and actual role in the management of forests, especially in areas where there's residential interface?

[1600]

I'm talking about right now. The current situation is there's almost…. Maybe the minister even said it — that it is an ad hoc meeting. There's no involvement in the planning, no consideration of water licence holders, recreational interests. Even the type of forestry being conducted is not always to the benefit of the community and all the values that exist in those communities. So will the ministry and BCTS undertake thorough, meaningful consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are processes, but I should caution the member that we're dealing with Crown lands and forest development. We're not in the development business, which means we're not doing public hearings for subdivisions and that sort of thing. There are local processes that follow that.

But we do forest development plans. They're created sometimes long before ever issuing a tender, usually long before ever issuing a tenure to anybody. B.C. Timber Sales develops plans. So do licensees. Those plans are then advertised to the public for input, and all resources are basically put together to try to integrate the concerns and the issues of the people that are in the area and the use of the land base.

Some of the areas that we're talking about have both sides of forestry. It has the concern over where…. Some people feel they're concerned about the integration of the forestry close to their homes that they've chosen to build on the Sunshine Coast, and it doesn't take very long, further up the Sunshine Coast, to see the importance of forestry to a community like Powell River, where if they don't have timber supply, they have difficulties for their pulp mill and other jobs that may be in a community.

Our job is to try and strike the balance, and B.C. Timber Sales is acutely aware of some of the unique issues on the Sunshine Coast. That's why they did have the public hearing, for instance, in Roberts Creek — I think it was. Yeah. As they do their resources now on all of this, it's looking down the road to possible tenures, and they're integrating all those pieces of information as they move forward. I think that's the role that they have on the land base with regard to that type of public input and professional forest management.

B. Simpson: To the minister: I've suggested that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and I actually try to arrange a meeting with the minister to brief him on some of the complexities of the issues there, because it is quite a complex array of concerns.

[1605]

Since the minister has brought in the staffing for B.C. Timber Sales, I'll deal with that issue now. It strikes me that if the revitalization strategy and the clawback…. The public perception of the revitalization strategy and clawback was to get more small tenures out and to have more variety in the tenure system. The public perception now — and I'm sure this is no surprise to the minister or his staff — is that B.C. Timber Sales has made the Crown the largest licensee. It seems as though the key objective now is maximizing revenue to the Crown.

I would point out, on page 25 of the service plan, it is actually an explicit metric in the service plan: "Optimize B.C. timber sales net revenue to the province." However, there are two other metrics at play here that people are expressing concerns about that may be juxtapositioned in a way that is self-defeating.

The first is: "Provide a credible reference point for timber costs and pricing." How can you provide a credible reference point for timber costs and pricing while at the same time being driven to maximize revenue to the Crown? That's a question particularly on the coast, where the market pricing system has been put in place, and I've heard expressions of concern that those seem to be conflicting metrics. An explanation from the minister on why those aren't conflicting would be helpful.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, the service plan says "optimize," not "maximize." I don't know whether I heard the member say maximize or optimize, but optimize is, obviously, to try to get value for pricing.

Does it work? Boy, I would think the guys on the coast would say so. Market-based pricing on the coast…. Frankly, the price we're getting for stumpage today based on market-based pricing by B.C. Timber Sales is two-thirds of what we were getting two years ago. So the price of fibre is down. Now, it's still not probably down with regards to some species, because we're not getting sales on things like hemlock and what have you — and we're looking at all of that now. But if we don't have some sort of pricing system…. The coast is actually a good example because then you go back into this very complex system.

I don't want to go back to a complex stumpage system and then back into a waterbed issue. This was the whole goal — to sort of get out of that.

We do about 600 total sales a year. I walked this through with, I think, one of your colleagues yesterday on the sizes and the amount, but it was…. About a third of them are small, and the next third are medium-sized tenders, and the next one, larger tenures. The

[ Page 1241 ]

reason for that is to get an opportunity for those that wouldn't want to necessarily bid on, let's say, 100,000 cubic metres to be able to bid on 15,000 cubic metres, if that's what their needs were.

They've increased sales each year at B.C. Timber Sales since 2001, moving from nine million to over 15 million cubic metres this fiscal year. This volume is being sold in about 600 different sales ranging from 2,500 cubic metres to over 100,000 cubic metres. Of the 600 total sales, 225 are planned to be under 15,000 cubic metres, and over 100 are under 10,000 cubic metres.

[1610]

B. Simpson: I know the word is optimize. That's what I read, because I read it into the record. But if you look at the actual performance measures used, one is Crown net revenue from B.C. Timber Sales, and the other is average cost per cubic metre. Those are standard business measures. So in standard business measures, what happens, whether intended or not, is you maximize revenue, and you get costs down. While the word "optimize" might be there, you get what you measure.

The generalized concern among folks is that over time what will happen with B.C. Timber Sales — because of the control that the Crown has, independent of other licensees, over stumpage, over when they put the bids out, over what they do with zero-bid situations — is that they can float the available timber out when they want to. The Crown has a lot more control over the conditions under which they float these licences out than other operators do, and what I'm hearing on the coast is a generalized concern that this could trend away from the intent, particularly when you have two business metrics which people are measured to — one to maximize revenue, and one to reduce costs.

Again to the minister: one of the things I have heard — and I'm just conscious of time, so I'll fast-track this to get to the point…. The service plan indicates that we're going to look at carrying this into the interior, which was always the intent — to move from the coast to the interior. Prior to doing that, will the Minister of Forests commit to an independent review outside his ministry?

Bring somebody in, and go around and get some data on how this is really working and what the generalized concerns are from a wide range of people, so that the program, if it's intended to continue and to go into the interior, can be fine-tuned, the concerns can be dealt with, and it can go into the interior without these concerns then being realized there.

Hon. R. Coleman: I've got two explanations for the member on the two subjects. I'll get back to the service plan side here in a second.

We have a Timber Sales Advisory Council. The Timber Sales Advisory Council receives input from both the forest sector and its customer needs. B.C. Timber Sales struck an advisory council to provide a formal forum for key industry stakeholders to jointly consider issues and emerging opportunities as well as the efficacy of current operational policies and procedures or practices.

[1615]

The members are drawn widely from the forest sector, including independent loggers, which includes the interior loggers association; the truck loggers; the Northwest Loggers Association; the Central Interior Logging Association; log brokers, which is the independent log marketing association; independent sawmillers, which is Coastland Wood; value-adders, which is in the interior; the Value-Added Wood Association of Vancouver Island; wood processors; Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products; and major licensees, including COFI and the CFLA. So basically, they do that now.

With regards to pricing in the interior, we have met, and I have talked to the industry in the interior. We're a long ways from the next level of that market-based pricing. We're looking at some adjustments to the pricing manual. We're just consulting with industry now for April of 2006, but that's not going to the coast model because they have some concerns that they may not be ready.

With regards to the service plan, when we're talking B.C. Timber Sales, there are actually nine points. I'll just deal with the last seven, because I think it might deal with the concerns of the member. Basically, the intent of B.C. Timber Sales is to provide a credible reference point for timber costs and pricing, then to optimize BCTS's net revenue to the province and then to provide an open and competitive timber market.

Now, my understanding, as described by my folks here, is…. On point eight, that isn't about optimizing the price, because the market determines the price. The bids determine the price. When they refer to optimizing their net revenue, that's getting their costs in line, keeping them in line and making sure they're increasing their efficiencies as to how they package their product and get it out the door for bid. When they're referring to optimizing the net revenue to government, they're saying: "We've got to keep our costs in line, because when we sell it, we have to make sure we're not overcosting on our end as to what it costs government to deliver the product for sale."

B. Simpson: I take the minister's last point, but I don't agree with the appraisal of that. I think his staff do know that our upset-bid pricing system does not always reflect the true revenue generation to the Crown, the control that B.C. Timber Sales has over what it does with the zero-bid scenario and whether or not it gets entered into the system, the control they have whenever they can issue these things. If they don't like the conditions or the bids, they can retract them.

There's a lot more going on there than just simply that they're another player in the field. I think that's the generalized concern. Given that, just a very straightforward question on the review panel that the minister talks about: are those documents public? If so, where can I see minutes or whatever from that discussion?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, they take minutes, and they're more than happy to make them available to the member.

[ Page 1242 ]

The member's description of the last part. I don't necessarily disagree with all of that. That's why, frankly, when I referred the other day to there being some issues that had been brought to us by the coast forest association and companies and people that I said we were going to go to work with to do the deal with what we think might be short-term, medium-term and long-term things we could do to assist the coast in its fix…. Certainly, what he describes is going to be part of that discussion. That's the direction that's been given to see how we can deal with that.

It also goes broader than that, because it's also how we're dealing with certain types of fibre and that sort of thing. I've taken all that into account, and I've asked the ministry to take it into account as they come back to me with some recommendations.

What the member described is some of the concerns people have with how it prices out. The challenge I think the ministry will have and government may have is that at the end of the day, if you can't get anything for it, you just let it grow. Or do you actually allow the market to determine that it's worth so little that…? Then how do you cover your cost to deliver the product to the market?

Those are going to be questions we're going to have to ask as we go through that. I'm pretty confident, though, that we have collected enough input in the last three, four months from the folks at the coast to have what I think will formulate the basis of a going-forward opportunity for us in the next little while, once we get it sort of crystallized into a number of points and can sit down with the players and have a chat.

[1620]

B. Simpson: Again, just a comment on the minister's reflections. One of the struggles people have — and I have it myself — is that when we talk about what the market will…. To a certain extent, BCTS is creating the market with its ability to manipulate some things, so there's a bit of fuzziness there about what the true market is, given some of the things that BCTS has. But the minister has indicated that he already recognizes those things, is in discussion around those things, and I look forward to what's coming out there.

I still maintain that I think, though, that people outside of the ministry need to look at B.C. Timber Sales in toto throughout the province. I've heard concerns. You've heard it here from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. You heard it the other day from other members. There's the sense that B.C. Timber Sales has become the major licensee, without maybe some of the constraints and restrictions we've put on other licensees. So I think it requires that. I've heard that the minister is looking into that, and I'm satisfied with that.

I'd like to switch to FRPA. However, I note that one of the staff members who may be able to answer some range questions has stepped out, so I'll talk about a couple of other things under FRPA, but I'd like to come back to range.

The Forest and Range Practices Act. One of the things I'd like to raise again just now…. Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I really don't understand the relationship between the Forest Practices Board and the ministry when it comes to questions about ministry practices or concerns or whatever the case may be — explicitly, the Forest Practices Board's concerns about biodiversity. There have been a number of concerns expressed around biodiversity, and those concerns go directly to how the Forest and Range Practices Act does not necessarily support biodiversity values on the ground.

I'd like clarification on what the government's obligations are, if any, to hear the Forest Practices Board findings and incorporate them and, in particular, what the government is going to do around the Forest Practices Board's concerns about biodiversity.

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the chamber now, in addition to the other folks, is Ian Miller. Ian is the legislation and policy forester with the forest practices branch.

I just want everybody to understand what the Forest Practices Board is. It is an independent watchdog — independent of the government, independent of the ministry. They investigate complaints. They are not told what complaints to investigate. They make that choice. They can conduct audits, and then they can make determinations out of those audits. They're not told who to audit.

They can also conduct special investigations, which they can do from time to time. They then report out. Usually what happens is that the ministry then sits down and meets with the Forest Practices Board and discusses their findings and, wherever possible, makes changes or puts in place controls that might deal with some of the audit concerns.

[1625]

The ministry and government are not bound in any legislative way by the decisions of the Forest Practices Board. I think we should be clear about that so that people don't think that the Forest Practices Board does something that immediately means that the response has to be that we have to pass a piece of legislation or come up with a regulation. What happens is the board makes their determinations and then we sit down and work through it. We actually then, once we've done the report, sit down with them. The ministry does a public response with regards to whatever audit or investigation it is.

B. Simpson: I hear what the minister is saying. Let me couch it within the terms of what I understand the results-based code, as we move towards that, allows. First off, how many FSPs have been submitted to date — forest stewardship plans?

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been 17 submitted to date and ten approved.

B. Simpson: This is where I may show my ignorance. If the staff can help me with this. My under-

[ Page 1243 ]

standing under the results-based code is that we're going to move towards FSPs as our mechanism for understanding what's going on, on the land base, where we're going with it and what the intended outcomes are. It's my understanding that there are three ways to do the FSPs. One is that they can choose to adhere to the default guidelines which were under the Forest Practices Code. That's one.

The second is that they can specify deliberately, outside of those default guidelines, what results they intend to achieve. Effectively, if they think there are things outside the default guidelines they want to achieve, they state what they're going to do.

The third is that they can write a strategy without the results defined. So they don't reference the default results; they don't reference new results. They simply give a strategy independent of articulated results, and therefore, they just are measured against their accountability to the strategy. They actually engage and enact the strategy as they indicated they would.

I'd like to know if I understand correctly — if those are the three alternatives for filing an FSP.

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: Generally speaking, the description the member puts forward is fine.

B. Simpson: Given that, it's my understanding that the majority of the FSPs submitted fall into the third category, where they're not defining results, not going to the code. They're giving accountable strategies, and that's the preferred method. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually seeing a mix. Early on we were seeing more defaults as far as the submissions were concerned. Now we're seeing more of a mix. There's no single movement one way or the other, it seems, at this point in time.

I should just tell the member, though, that senior people from the ministry are meeting with the professional foresters and groups today — on this very subject, actually — and going through their recommendations and concerns, like I mentioned yesterday. They're doing that because this is sort of a work-in-progress. They want to be able to make sure that we have the

interpretations down, the industry standards down and how we group these so that we all get more efficient as we come through.

That also helps, I think, the RPFs build their professional capacity into something new that they…. I think, down the line, they really want to be able to have that higher level of professional approval process, from an RPF standpoint, as far as making submissions.

Just on that note, I did have my office contact the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals and the author of the letter that he brought up in the House yesterday. They did acknowledge they received the letter and did not acknowledge that they said they didn't.

B. Simpson: You can only go on what you're told.

Given that under the FSPs…. Again, my understanding is that professional reliance is the main oversight mechanism. We're depending on professional foresters and their stamp on these FSPs — that they are going to act as good stewards, effectively removing the responsibility of the Crown to act as good stewards and putting it onto this professional reliance model. Is that a fair statement?

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: Not entirely. We provide the context. We control the framework. We have 50 years of excellent performance on the land base that comes into the whole management of forest stewardship plans. We set the objectives. We then approve the plan before it's done. We monitor the results. Then we have the independent audit body, which is the Forest Practices Board, which also plays a role in this package.

I'll never forget…. I think it was the first time when I was deputy Forests critic — just for editorial sort of thinking here about how we can improve our operation on the land base for our companies and for professional foresters and what have you. I was the deputy Forests critic back in about 1997. I went on a tour. I went to an operation in the interior of B.C.

They had registered professional foresters on staff who wrote forest plans that would then go to the ministry and be edited and sent back. They would then make changes and send them back, and then they would make changes and send them back.

[L. Mayencourt in the chair.]

They walked me through one that had taken 29 months, I think. The last three months, it had been delayed because of inconsistent language. The inconsistent language, they pointed out to me in the response, was that one area of the report had said it could be logged spring, summer, winter and fall, and the other area said it could be logged year-round.

When I looked at that way back then, I thought that there must be a more efficient way to do this and rely on some professional reliance. Knowing a number of registered professional foresters, they've always said to me: "We can take the next step in a cooperative relationship with government. We can be held accountable, and we want to get there." I think this is actually a good evolution in forest management for the professional…. It's not just the RPFs, by the way. It's also all kinds of professionals who would be on the land base that would be sign-offs, whether it be hydrologists or whatever the case may be.

I think that the work we're doing with those organizations — like today, sitting down with them to build through to see how we're going to see these evolve — is important work, because at the end of the day, I think we all have one objective. We want professional reliance on the land base. We want to know that we have standards that are defendable worldwide, and I think we have the best forest practices, probably, of any jurisdiction in the world today. We need to allow

[ Page 1244 ]

the people that are in the profession the capacity to be able to do their work — in conjunction with, obviously, having the monitoring of the results, somebody setting the framework and control, and the audit so that we can make sure they're performing on the land base.

I think you'll find that as this evolves, RPFs and those types of professionals will get their professional reliance to a level where they will be, as they always have been, very proud of the forest plans they write and very diligent to make sure they're meeting the standards in the context and the control of the framework and the results being looked for under the act by government.

B. Simpson: As the minister well knows from the discussion we had around the amendment to FRPA, I don't share the minister's optimism. There are a number of people who don't share that optimism. There's a generalized concern that FRPA, if not given sufficient oversight, becomes a minimum-standards code and that we'll lose our place in the global market as good stewards of the forest. We don't have the luxury of time to debate that. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, and my role as opposition critic will be monitoring that.

There are two points I want to make here before I get into the Range thing. One example of that, which I've experienced myself by getting out on the land base and which seems to be a conflicting set of objectives, is the relaxation of utilization standards. What we're seeing in cut-to-length programs is contractors penalized for bringing in any substandard logs, which means significant debris being left behind on the land base, to the point…. I'm working with one of my own constituents on this, in which his range is no longer available to his cattle. They have to graze the roads.

That strikes me as a significant problem, because you've undermined multiple use, and you have also gone counter to what we're spending a lot of money on, and that's fuel management strategy. I can show the minister pictures of this if he's not had the ability to go out and experience it himself. It is mind-boggling, what is going on. I've been told by the Ministry of Forests and Range staff that that is perfectly acceptable practice under FRPA and that there's nothing they can do about it.

[1640]

I think there is the potential here for minimum standards, and I wonder if the minister, with the assistance of his staff, can let me know if they are tracking the relaxation of utilization standards, both in terms of multiple use and in terms of potential fuel management issues.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, FRPA was designed to be government's published objectives for forest practices per the May 2002 discussion paper. That included maintaining the highest environmental standards. On the slash issue, there are obviously more logs coming out and more reforestation allowed to take place, as the member knows. Research shows that some residual coarse debris is actually good when we're reforesting. The member also knows that.

On the particular issue the member brought up, we've actually had the district manager look into those practices. They are being adjusted. Issues like this will exist from time to time, but we like to hear about them from the MLAs, because if we hear from them on the ground, we can usually get out there and adjust. There has been some understanding on the adjustment of those practices, as I understand it, with the rancher also involved. I think that's important, because as the member knows, this is a big province.

So there are times when we need to adjust practices and remind people about adjusting practices. It happened in this situation and would continue to happen if we became aware of that situation.

B. Simpson: I'm glad that the minister didn't stop at "some debris," because there's coarse, woody debris, and then there's a whole chunk of the forest left on the ground, and that's what that individual was experiencing. It's not restricted to that area, and I understand from what the minister's saying that it's on the ministry's watch list. It is associated with the overwhelming amount of logging that's going on and the cut-to-length program. I'm glad to hear that's being looked at.

Let me close off this section. I want to go to a little bit of Range. The forest and range evaluation program, or FRPA — has it started? How much funding is it getting? What are the terms of reference or workplan, and will those things be public? Will the proceedings of FRPA be public?

[1645]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so I can clarify what it is, it's the forest resource evaluation program. It includes range, but it's not exclusive to range. It also includes other forest resources. It has a public website that gives updates on its information. In addition to that, it started out with a certain number of protocols and goals. It is now setting up more protocols, and they're also doing some field testing to deal with the protocols so they can advance the work.

It started out with a fairly modest budget, which has been increased around tenfold for this year. It's enough resources for what they want to do this year. Obviously, I'm not in a position to comment on what we may be doing with the budget next year, because we're in a budget process.

B. Simpson: I look forward to that.

Given some of our discussion around oversight and so on and the role of the Forest Practices Board, will the Forest Practices Board also be considered for a budget increase and more resources to it, as it may end up having a greater role in this?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because that board is independent and it's not part of an entity, it actually makes its own budgetary submissions as well. I'm not in a position to comment on what they may or may not be ask-

[ Page 1245 ]

ing about because, again, we're in the budget process. I wouldn't want to either foreshadow anything that somebody might be asking for or pass opinion on what they should or should not get. That would be inappropriate in the budget process.

B. Simpson: On Range. We started off this process a few days ago. It feels like months or weeks ago, whatever it was. I had asked the minister if there were any structural changes to the ministry as a result of the cabinet change. It's come to my attention that there is something in the works that I need some clarity on.

On page 5 of the service plan it does indicate that "changes include the responsibility for grazing leases coming to the Ministry of Forests and Range and the range stewardship and grazing function being established as a stand-alone core business area." It's been brought to my attention that that may require legislative change — a change to

an act to allow that to be administered — and that it has staffing and budget implications.

[1650]

I know that some federal dollars are going into range issues, but is that correct? If so, what is the process by which these changes will come? I know the BCCA and others are expecting the changes to come this fall, and there's been an expression to me of some concern that it's not happening fast enough. Is there a legislative change requirement? If so, what is it? Secondly, are there staffing and budgetary considerations here? If so, what are those? Thirdly, when will those occur?

Hon. R. Coleman: The ministry is proposing some changes that will place an increased emphasis on accountability for a healthy and efficient livestock industry, some legislation that will go through that process. I explained to the member that it goes through to requests for legislation. Then it goes to legislation drafting, and then it goes to the leg. review council. Being that time, it probably goes back and forth through a number of legal lenses and eventually ends up here. But we are, yes. We think there are some things we can do legislatively that will increase the emphasis and focus, frankly, for livestock, which we think is a big part of Range.

We're also working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to consolidate grazing administration functions, including grazing leases, to the Ministry of Forests and Range. Range functions in the ministry are being consolidated within the ministry under the direction of the assistant deputy minister of operations and led by a newly created range director and range branch. So we have somebody we're actually putting on the file who will have the focus, which wasn't necessarily the case in the past.

This will also allow the ministry to focus its efforts and resources to address range and cattle industry issues. We have worked with the B.C. cattle association with regards to that as we've walked through it. They are familiar with the people we are bringing on board because, I think, one of them actually worked for them or with them at one time. At a recent meeting in Kamloops we also agreed to structure a committee of the B.C. cattle association and senior government officials — between my ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands — to address key issues to the industry.

Also, we're going to work with the industry — government is — to develop a B.C. cattle industry strategy, which will guide policy.

So all of those are on the table. All of those things are being worked on. My understanding, the last time I had the discussion within the ministry, was that our stakeholders are pretty happy about the direction we're going.

B. Simpson: I think that categorization is correct. It's maybe a matter of timing, because they've been waiting for a while. They've felt like they have fallen through the cracks for a while. So to have to wait again until the spring cycle, or whatever…. It's not an expression of concern around the direction; it's an expression of concern around the timing.

[1655]

With that in mind, I did ask an explicit question: did this have budget implications? This update is midstream. The ministry's budget was effectively set before. So will this portion and will this additional responsibility be resourced with additional dollars, because I'm hearing the minister say there will be more FTEs added into this particular core business area. Are there more dollars in there from an operational perspective as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: Resources did come with the transfer. Some financial resources came from the transfer for us to manage the file. We're in the budget process now, as I said earlier to the member. That's all part of a process, and I can't say what I'm asking for or what we may not be asking for. We do recognize that there are additional resources required. That's why we brought on the individual and are starting to build a team around that particular part of our ministry.

There are some synergies within, though, that we may be able to share some operational issues to, that will give us synergies within the management of the ministry. It's not always necessarily adding FTEs. Sometimes it's how you structure the operation in and around the file. We'll be looking at all of that as we come through the budget process into the next fiscal year.

B. Simpson: I have a few more minutes, so it will be about quarter after. I'm getting the rest of the crew teed up. Again, for the sake of brevity so that we can get through these, I'll make my comm