British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 20, 2004

h0420pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 20, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 23, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 20, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 10227 Ivy Granstrom Hon. L.

Reid Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 10227 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 10227 Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19) Hon. G.

Bruce Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 10228 Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 10228 Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 32) Hon. G. Collins Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31) Hon. M.

Coell Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 10229 Hydrogen highway proposal for 2010 Olympic Winter Games R. Sultan B.C. Youth Parliament V. Anderson Volunteerism in Burnaby P. Sahota Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 10230 Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail J. Kwan Hon. K. Falcon J. MacPhail Audit involving Doug Walls E.

Brenzinger Hon. G. Collins Hydrogen highway proposal for 2010 Olympic Winter Games J. Bray Hon. R. Neufeld Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail J. MacPhail Hon. K. Falcon Eligibility for farm status K. Stewart Hon. G. Abbott Reports from Committees........................................................................................................ ............................................. 10232 Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills B.

Lekstrom Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 10233 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2003

Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10233 Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10233 Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12) Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 10233 Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 17) Hon.

G. Abbott Wildfire Act (Bill 25) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail K. Krueger Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10238 Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued) J. MacPhail Hon.

M. de Jong Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10251 Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development (continued) J. Kwan Hon. J. Les D. Hayer P. Wong

10227 TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Tributes IVY GRANSTROM Hon. L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to one of the province's great female pioneers. Ivy Granstrom, known as the queen of the polar bears, peacefully passed away on April 14, 2004, at the age of 92 years. [1405] Many of you remember Ivy as the leader of the polar bear swim each January. Having participated in 75 swims since 1928, this woman has made her mark. She was a disabled athlete. She has done many, many wondrous things, left some glorious tributes and leaves behind 12 unchallenged world records.

She was named British Columbia's Disabled Athlete of the Year for 1982, was made a Member of the Order of Canada in 1989 and received a lifetime achievement award from B.C. Athletics in 1997. I would ask that we pay tribute on her behalf. I know she will be missed. Mr. Speaker: So ordered. Introductions by Members G. Cheema: On behalf of my colleague from Surrey– White Rock, I am pleased to introduce 24 grade 5 stu- dents, five parents and one teacher from White Rock Christian Academy. Will the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature. R.

Sultan: I n t h e H o u s e w i t h u s t h i s a f t e r n o o n i s Deborah Spicer, a director of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, a president of the North Shore real estate board — including the Sunshine Coast, I should say — and a former award-winning television journal- ist. Would the House please make her welcome. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Rayster Lanjit, who is a film and documentary maker from Philippines TV, along with his cameraman Julius Amar.

They're here making a documentary about the differences be- tween political life in British Columbia and political life in the Philippines and also to investigate the tourism opportunities for Philippine people in British Colum- bia. With them in the gallery is Joanna Bernardo, who is a Philippines student attending UBC on a scholar- ship, along with David Soberpiña, who is a resident of Abbotsford and has sponsored their visit here, and one of my constituents, Dan Haughian, who is chauffeur- ing them around our beauti ful city. Could the House please make them welcome. P.

Wong: In the gallery today there are 38 young and hard-working students from Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary School in Vancouver- Kensington. They are led by three of their teachers: Ms. Lorraine Baker, Ms. Tracy Janze and Ms. Jean Redpath. There are also parents who are volunteering their time in assisting the students: Fred Howie, Helen Pan, Julian Luk and Julie Hicks. Would the House please make them most welcome. K.

Krueger: The government caucus received an e- mail today from the Minister of State for Intergovern- mental Relations, the member for Kelowna-Mission, advising that the medical tests indicate that her bone marrow transplant has been a success, and I wanted to share that great news with the House. Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House we are joined by Len and Laura Koski. Len and Laura Koski are the proud parents of two young daughters, Lisa and Jennifer, who used to work for me back in my private sector days. They were wonderful employees, and they've got wonderful parents.

They're also joined by Laura' s parents, Charlie and Jean Clayton. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today in the legislative dining room, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome. G. Trumper: Yesterday Mrs. Muriel McLean cele- brated her 104th birthday in Port Alberni. She is known as the grande dame of the Alberni Valley. Her son was a mayor of Port Alberni before my time, as a matter of fact. Their family owned the McLean Sawmill for many, many years, and the McLean Mill is now a fed- eral heritage site for forestry industry in British Co- lumbia. She is a great lady.

She still plays the piano, and up until the age of 97 or 98, she was still driving her younger friends around the community. I would ask the House to please recognize this great lady on her 104th birthday yesterday. [1410] Hon. G. Bruce: I am happy to introduce a whole busload of friends from the Cowichan Valley — 45, actually. They're members of the Probus Club in the community. As an organization, it's been around for about ten years or so. They're retired professional busi- ness people, as you would kn ow, but they're actually very busy and far from being retired.

On behalf of my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca, I would ask that you make them all feel very, very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills EDUCATION SERVICES COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 19 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved.

10228 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 Hon. G. Bruce: Bill 19, the Education Services Col- lective Agreement Amendmen t Act, 2004, implements specific changes to teachers' collective agreements identified by the arbitrator, Mr. Eric Rice. In doing so, it brings consistency to the 60 local contracts and the master agreement. Mr. Rice, you would be aware, Mr. Speaker, now is a B.C.

Supreme Court judge who was appointed under the Public Education Flexibili ty and Choice Act in July of 2002 to determine which provisions in teachers' col- lective agreements needed to be changed under the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Unfortu- nately, soon after Mr. Rice began hearings, the British Columbia Teachers Federation withdrew from the process and refused to

part icipate further. However, finalizing the terms of the 2001 collective agreements between the teachers and th e B.C. Public School Em- ployers Association will allow the parties to begin bar- gaining for a new contract should they choose to do so. I will shortly be tabling a document in the House listing the specific sections of collective agreements to be removed. I move that the bill be placed on the or- ders of the day for second re ading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Tabling Documents Hon. G. Bruce: I seek leave to table a document entitled Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions , which is referred to in Bill 19. Leave granted. Introduction and First Reading of Bills SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 H o n . G . C o l l i n s p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H i s Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Society Amendment Act, 2004. Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I am pleased to introduce the So- ciety Amendment Act, 2004, which amends the Society Act to simplify and stream line registry requirements for societies and update a number of provisions in the act. The amendments will simplify and streamline the forms that societies are required to file with the corpo- rate registry. In addition, the number of filings re- quired by societies will also be reduced. The amendments also update a number of provi- sions in the act.

For exampl e, they eliminate the prohi- bition on the awarding of degrees and diplomas by societies, which is now governed by the degree- granting authority act. These amendments will reduce red tape for societies, streamline processes at the cor- porate registry and update a number of provisions of the Society Act, allowing societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the purposes of the society and less on completing and filing forms with the government. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. NANAIMO AND SOUTH WEST WATER SUPPLY ACT Hon. M. Coell presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act. Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. [1415] Hon. M. Coell: I am pleased to present the Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act. This act reflects our commitment to and the recognition of local government autonomy.

At the request of the city of Nanaimo, we are introducing legislation to convert the greater Nanaimo water district to the city of Nanaimo water supply service. Originally formed in the 1950s, the greater Nanaimo water district served the city of Nanaimo and a number of rural communities. The water district is a vehicle for establishing a shared service. Over the last 50 years there have been many changes in the area, and membership on the greater Nanaimo water district decreased to just two members as many rural areas became part of the city of Nanaimo.

In fact, today the city of Nanaimo already effectively controls the water system through its representa tion on the water district board and consumes the majority of supplied water. The legislation introduced today will see a formal transfer of operations, assets and liabilities to the city and will not affect the bulk water supply in the area. This act is a response to a local government request and recognizes the autonomy and authority of that local government in this matter.

I move that the Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act be placed on the orders of the day for sec- ond reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10229 Statements (Standing Order 25B) HYDROGEN HIGHWAY PROPOSAL FOR 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES R. Sultan: The Premier has announced that hydro- gen power will be a hallmark of the 2010 Olympic Games. British Columbia's cluster of hydrogen tech- nology businesses has attracted worldwide attention, and for good reason. Burn hy drogen in a bus, and wa- ter vapour comes out the tailpipe — not smelly, lung- damaging fumes.

Companies such as Ballard are de- veloping fuel cells which bu rn hydrogen to generate electricity which will power the electric motors which drive the wheels of those Ford Focus cars you will soon see on the streets of Vancouver. However, before you throw away your gasoline credit card, three roadblocks must be overcome. One, where will the hydrogen come from? Methanol, natural gas, electrolysis or whatever — take your pick. Large quantities of hydrocarbons or energy are involved. It would be nice if B.C. Hydro had lots of surplus electric- ity for this purpose, but right now it doesn't.

Two, how will we deliver hydrogen to the customers on selected routes? The U.S. and Canadian federal gov- ernments will help finance the hydrogen highway, a string of refuelling stations from San Diego to Whistler. Three, what about costs? Fuel cells have a ways to go on the learning curve. Meanwhile, due to the scope of B.C.'s technology, other combinations merit consid- eration. Westport, started by a UBC engineer, converts diesel engines to run on natu ral gas. They can also run on hydrogen. Presto — a hydrogen automobile engine.

One of my constituents is li nking up with Profile Com- posites in Sidney to build what they believe will be cost-competitive, composite-based, hybrid-powered "people movers" for the Olympic Games. They will have hydrogen internal combustion engines drive right into B.C. Place — no fumes. On the question of prod ucing hydrogen fuel using electricity, another distin guished UBC engineer, Dr. John MacDonald, founder of MacDonald Dettwiler, has made a persuasive case for large-scale electricity pro- duction from solar energy. Since Dr.

MacDonald built a large global enterprise in satellite technology, I would not dismiss his judgments lightly. One way or another, it seems clear that B.C. engi- neering, coupled with B.C. entrepreneurs and B.C.'s business-friendly government, will accelerate the arri- val of the non-polluting car of the future — yet another spinoff of our marvellous 2010 Olympic venture. B.C. YOUTH PARLIAMENT V. Anderson: It is my honour to commend the Brit- ish Columbia Youth Parliament for their contribution to the youths of British Columbia. [1420] The B.C.

Youth Parliament meets each year during the Christmas break here in this Legislature session, taking the seats of the regular legislative members for three days. They divide themselves into government and opposition. They pass legislation which is impor- tant to youth and plan projects to further fulfil their motto of "Serving youth serving youth." Each season around 100 youths aged 16 to 21 elected by local schools and youth organizations come from across the province. This continues a tradition of over 75 years.

It is part of this tradition across Canada that I myself participated in some 55 years ago in Sas- katchewan Youth Parliament. The youth also meet in regional assemblies. Re- cently I was privileged to serve as the Lieutenant- Governor for the lower mainland session of the Youth Parliament at the University of British Columbia. Fifty- four youth, plus alumni who support the program, met to implement provincial legislation from their last ses- sion and to respond to regional issues.

These young people undertake their own fundrais- ing at the silent auction, which they will hold again in June of this coming year in Vancouver. They fund their own programs and particularly the Camp Phoenix summer camp. This annual camp provides opportuni- ties for children to have a week at the lake who other- wise would not have this opportunity. The youth or- ganize the camp, plan the programs, contact the chil- dren and provide the camp leadership. This is not all. They also continue to commit them- selves to be volunteers in community service. I com- mend them for the work they do in Youth Parliament.

VOLUNTEERISM IN BURNABY P. Sahota: On April 24, Brentwood Town Centre in Burnaby will showcase dozens of the city's non-profit agencies and the volunteers who make valuable contri- butions to our society. Volunteers work tirelessly be- hind the scenes. They coach our children's sports teams, care for our seniors and deliver a multitude of valuable family services, all because they're dedicated to making our communities better. It's for this reason that my Burnaby colleagues and I are pleased to be hosting Burnaby's first Festival of Volunteers.

This year's theme is "Light up your life." We chose this message because it reflects both the posi- tive changes non-profit agencies create in our lives and the opportunities that await those who choose to vol- unteer with them. Many people volunteer because it allows them a chance to give something back to their neighbourhood or to their community. Organizations like the Byrne Creek Streamkeepers are a prime example of volun- teers who have shown dedication and determination in the face of adversity and have won the support of the community with their Stream of Dreams.

The Burnaby Festival of Volunteers will bring a wide range of organizations and community causes together under one roof. Th e residents can learn about the important services that are available to them and find out about volunteering opportunities. This year's festival is jointly organized by Volunteer Burnaby, the

10230 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 city of Burnaby's citizen support services, Burnaby Board of Trade, Burnaby Optimist Club, Norburn In- teragency council, Stoney Creek community school, Burnaby Hospital, the Brentwood Town Centre and the four Burnaby MLAs. I particularly want to thank my colleague from Burnaby North who is co-chairing this festival along with Bryony Hollick of Volunteer Burnaby. Both have shown exceptional leadership in making sure that we have a successful volunteer festival this coming Satur- day.

On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to invite all Burnaby constituents to come out and learn how volunteers can make a difference in our community. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions TERMS OF B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL J. Kwan: I have some specific questions on the B.C. Rail deal. All I'm seeking fr om the Minister of Trans- portation are honest, straightforward answers. We now know the taxpayers are on the hook for a portion of the 7 percent rate reduction for shippers — t h i s f r o m a government and a minister that claim to have banned business subsidies.

Can the minister tell us specifically how many taxpayer dollars will be spent on this sub- sidy to CN? Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member opposite should be happy to know that because of hard bargaining, actu- ally, CN offered a 5 percent tariff reduction for interline shippers. We were able to get a 7 percent reduction. That was part of the overall negotiation process we went through. I'm proud to say that we got a 7 percent re- duction for interline shippers, and that's good for Brit- ish Columbians right across the province. [1425] Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Excuse me. Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: These are not difficult questions for the minister. The minister's al ready admitted that taxpay- ers are on the hook. All we want to know is how much. We need answers to these questions now and not after the competition bureau looks at the deal, because it will be too late for meaningful debate.

According to the contract leaked to the media, the government "hereby assigns to the tenant all of the landlord's right, title and interests in and under all of the assigned agreements." This sounds like a sale to me. Can the Minister of Transportation tell the public: if it walks like a sale, talks like a sale and quacks like a sale, how is it not a sale? Hon. K. Falcon: I'll again remind the members op- posite of the distinction between the term of a lease and renewal options.

What happens — to the members opposite, because I know they're clearly not familiar with negotiating business deals — is that at the end of a 90-year term, the government of the day has the op- tion. It's our option as the government of the day, or whatever the future government of the day is, to de- termine whether they want to continue with the cur- rent CN and B.C. Rail investment partnership, or they can bring in another railway operator if they choose, or…. I'm just thinking: would that party possibly have been in power by 90 years?

I don't think so, so the gov- ernment is unlikely to probably want to get back into a government-run railway again. Let me remind the member of this, though. The benefits that she keeps ig noring, like the $135 million northern development initiative, like the $8 million that we're going to be spending on…. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take your message. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. J. Kwan: Clearly, the minister is still playing a game of hide-and-seek with the public. Let me tell…. Interjections. J. Kwan: Actually, you know what?

That's a good pointer for the Minister of Transportation. Get outside of your message box and tell the truth to British Co- lumbians. The minister likes to make it sound like after 90 years, the government can choose to cancel the lease at no cost and just walk away. Well, not true, according to the leaked contract. It states specifically that if the government wants to end the lease after 90 years, it must purchase B.C. Rail back from CN. Can the minis- ter tell British Columbians how much it will cost tax- payers to buy back B.C. Rail if the government wants to terminate the lease after 90 years? Hon. K.

Falcon: Flash to the members of the oppo- sition: when you have a company investing a billion dollars to operate the rolling stock, at the end of the term, if you want to bring in a new operator, it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that they acquire the rolling stock at fair market value. It's staggering — it's actually staggering — that they can ask these kinds of questions and have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic business transactions work.

I guess that's why we now under- stand much more clearly how we got into half a billion dollars being flushed down the fast ferries, how we saw $400 million go down a failed pulp mill and how they promised smelters that never appeared. It's now becoming very evident.

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10231 J. MacPhail: Here's Liberal math. Yesterday the minister says that CN is going to invest $3.5 billion in maintenance. Well, B.C. Rail in 2002 invested $62 mil- lion in maintenance. That works out to $5.6 billion over 90 years, so CN is only in vesting two-thirds of what B.C. Rail would have invested, and… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1430] J. MacPhail: …B.C. Rail's turning a profit of $60 million per year. That's how bad this government is.

But yesterday the Minister of Transportation insisted that anyone who disagreed with him didn't understand basic business principles. So yesterday a Dr. Paul Kedrosky got on air — a highly educated B.C. business professor, years of experience in his field, someone who is consulted widely for his advice. Here's what he called the Transportation minister's explanation. "Magnificently bizarre" is how he… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. J. MacPhail: …labelled what the Minister of Trans- portation said. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. member, it's time for the question now. J. MacPhail: Right. He said the whole deal was just a sale in disguise. He said it was semantics to say otherwise. Can the minister tell Dr. Paul Kedrosky, a respected business professor, why he — Dr. Kedrosky — doesn't understand business principles? And can he point to any contract in the west- ern world…? Can he google to see whether there's any contract in the western world that lasts for 990 years? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. It is question period, not time to make speeches.

The Leader of the Opposition has gone double the time allowed for questions. Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the gentleman that you're quoting to actually have a look at what the deal says. As I pointed out, it's got a 90-year term. We have the option in determining whether or not to re- new the arrangement. You know, I fail to understand the challenge that member has with that.

And as far as the memb er's google comment, I would actually encourage the member to do a Google search, because if the member undertook a Google search, she would find that , actually, in rail transac- tions where there are massive capital investments, there are many other examples very similar to this. AUDIT INVOLVING DOUG WALLS E. Brenzinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, so that we may hear the question. E.

Brenzinger: For several months now, a secret audit into the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars at the hands of the Premier's f r i e n d a n d r e l a t i v e D o u g W a l l s h a s b e e n i n p r o g r e s s . That audit has now been delivered to the government. Will the Premier release the full contents of the report today, before the Premier's spin doctors have an oppor- tunity to do to the audit what they have tried to do to the B.C. Rail deal? Hon. G. Collins: The audit has been delivered to the comptroller general from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

They're doing a fact check, which is a normal process. No ministers have been brie fed on the matter, and the comptroller general is handling the audit. HYDROGEN HIGHWAY PROPOSAL FOR 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES J. Bray: Actually, I am pleased that so far today we've been talking about the hydrogen highway. My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. A couple of weeks ago, the David Suzuki Foundation…. Interjections. J. Bray: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano actually gave an excellent speech on the hydrogen highway, so if the members want to listen, they would have heard that.

But a couple weeks ago, friends of the opposition, the Suzuki Foundation, came out and actually were opposed to the hydrogen highway. Certainly, my re- search into the topic has suggested that large-scale production of hydrogen fuel cells can reduce green- house emissions, and, in fact… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Bray: …fuel-cell powered cars have zero emis- sions. I'm wondering: given both the economic benefits — because we have high-tech industry here — as well as environmental benefits to large-scale hydrogen fuel

10232 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 plants, can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell me why anybody, including the Suzuki Foundation, would be against the hydrogen highway project? Hon. R. Neufeld: Our Premier has a vision for the province, and part of that vision is developing and moving forward with our hydrogen in British Colum- bia. B.C. is world-renowned for hydrogen.

Around the world, we're world leaders in hydrogen with the Bal- lard and those kinds of hydr ogen developments in the province. [1435] We want to actually see that developed in a hydro- gen highway by 2010, so people can start to see the benefits of hydrogen in the province. We're actually looking forward to the future of a time in British Co- lumbia where we put less into the atmosphere but can still power this great province, and hydrogen will be a great part of it. It does, though, baffle me why the Su- zuki Foundation would be against something that they've talked about for many years.

We are moving forward on that. We will continue to move forward, through the Premier's office and through my ministry, on hydrogen as it develops in British Columbia and worldwide. TERMS OF B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL J. MacPhail: Well, apparently the new-era, 990-year leases are the new standard, according to the minister. It doesn't matter that anyone with any expertise would say otherwise, although I do remember the last time a professor challenged a minister on his expertise with a conflict. We got a tax cut that hasn't been paid for yet, even though the professor sa id exactly that.

Perhaps it will have to be by 2994 that we actually get that tax cut. The minister refuses to come clean on the terms of the contract. Today he says, "Read the deal," claiming that it must remain a secret until the last minute, and yet he says to everybody: "Read the contract." Will the Premier deliver what his Minister of Transportation just told us all to do — to read the deal? Will the Pre- mier actually stand up now, take charge, release the deal and then allow for a full debate on the entire con- tents of the deal, just as th e Minister of Transportation directed us to do? Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, we have been very clear. There is a process involved where the federal competi- tion bureau is analyzing this deal. We've been very clear that all the information we can release that doesn't have commercial sensitivities will be fully dis- closed. At that time, and even now, I look forward to debating it with this member.

What this member and Carole James and the NDP refuse to talk about are the $17 million investment in the Prince Rupert port con- tainerization, the $4 million to expand the airport in Prince George, the $135 million northern development initiative fund and the $5 billion being invested in rail to ensure that British Columbians and communities right up and down that corridor see the benefit of pri- vate sector investment at no risk to the taxpayers of British Columbia. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM STATUS K. Stewart: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f S u s - tainable Resource Management.

As many of you in this House know, farming has come upon hard times in many areas of British Columbia due to the crises of BSE, avian flu and forest fires which have damaged many forage areas. As a result of this, many farmers in my community and in British Columbia are unable to make the economic quotas necessary for them to gain their farm tax status. Can the minister explain to us today some of the consequences that may occur to these members as a result of this economic loss and the fact that they may not be able to meet their quotas for farm status? Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for raising this important question. There are always a lot of chal- lenges for farmers, notably weather frequently. But recently they have been subject to two very new prob- lems: BSE, or mad cow disease, and of course, most recently, the avian flu, something which no one could ever have reasonably contemplated here.

I have dis- cussed the issue which the member raises — farm status — with the Assessment Authority, and I'm working with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to ensure that we come through for the farmers of British Columbia in a very difficult time. In

summary, no farmer will lose their farm status as a consequence of failing to meet the income threshold or revenue threshold for a single production year. As well, I'm glad to add that payments received under a compensation plan will qualify as farm income for the purposes of protecting farm status. We're well aware of the devastation that has been brought upon the farm- ing industry, first by BSE and now by the avian flu, and all ministries will want to work with producers to ensure they get through a ve ry difficult time in their lives. [End of question period.] Reports from Committees B.

Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received. [1440] Motion approved. Law Clerk: "April 20, 2004: "Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Re- form, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10233 begs leave to report as follows: that the

preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled B. J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Resto- ration) Act, 2004, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; that the

preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to sec- ond reading; that the

preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004, has been proved, and the commit- tee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading. "All of which is respectfully submitted. B. Lekstrom, Chairman" B. Lekstrom: B y l e a v e I m o v e t h a t t h e r e p o r t b e adopted. Leave granted. Motion approved. Bills Pr401, Pr402 and Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sit- ting of the House after today. Tabling Documents Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2003 for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Orders of the Day Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Small Busi- ness and Economic Development. In this House I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 12. [1445] Committee of the Whole House EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:49 p.m. Sections 1 to 28 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. T. Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:50 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 12, Education Stat utes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. P. Bell: I call second reading of Bill 17. Second Reading of Bills LAND SURVEY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill now be read a second time. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to a number of statutes related to the practice of land surv eying in B.C., including the Land Surveyors Act and the La nd Survey Act. This bill is consistent with the go vernment's commitment to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to operate more efficiently and effectively.

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to transfer the authority and responsi- bility for setting and enforcing land survey standards from the province to the Co rporation of Land Survey- ors of the Province of Brit ish Columbia. These authori- ties are currently with the surveyor general. Standards for the practice of land surveying are now set out in the general survey instruction regula- tion. This regulation will be repealed as a consequence of transferring this authority. The corporation will thereafter be responsible for making changes to those standards.

These amendments allow government re- sources to be redirected toward other priorities and put responsibility for survey standards in the hands of the professional body with the most expertise in this area. In order to ensure that adequate standards are in place at all times, the surveyor general will be able to review and approve any new standards adopted by the corporation.

Additional amendments to the Land Sur- veyors Act modernize the governance system for the corporation by updating its disciplinary powers, allow- ing land surveyors from out of province to become members, and revising examination and admission authorities. Other amendments relate to corporation member- ship, meetings, voting and structure of annual general meetings. It also repeals a requirement for the secretary of the corporation to provide a performance bond. These amendments also allow the corporation to change its name to the Association of B.C. Land Sur- veyors.

These changes will come into effect to coincide with the corporation's 100th anniversary on June 21, 2005. As a consequence of the amendments to the Land Surveyors Act, a number of other acts will be affected. One of these is the Land Survey Act, which is amended to reflect the transfer of authority for the land survey standards from the province to the corporation. Vari- ous other amendments to this act relate to

definitions,

10234 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 electronic filing of plans an d changing references from regulations to orders. There are eight other acts amended as a conse- quence of the amendments to the Land Surveyors Act. These are the Coal Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act and the Strata Prop- erty Act. The amendments to these acts delete refer- ences to the surveyor general, who currently makes regulations for land survey s under those acts.

These references are replaced with "the corporation," which will now be responsible for making rules under the Land Surveyors Act. The proposed amendments to each of these acts will also require that land surveys be prepared by a land surveyor who is a memb er in good standing with the corporation. I am pleased to note that this bill has the full support of the Corp oration of Land Surveyors of B.C. and other affected professional associations.

This bill also follows through on the government's commitment to reduce regulation and improve effi- ciency by seeking out appropriate alternative service delivery mechanisms. It gives me great pleasure to move second reading. Motion approved. Bill 17, Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [1455] Hon. P. Bell: I call second reading of Bill 25. WILDFIRE ACT Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 25 be read a sec- ond time now.

This bill, the Wildfire Act, provides government with a comprehensive range of measures to address this serious threat, and we all know how serious a threat forest fires pose in our province. This act brings together the relevant existing provisions from the old Forest Practices Code and incorporates them and com- pliance and enforcement and general administrative provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act as it relates specifically to the issue and threat posed by wildfire in B.C.

The key objectives of the act are to ensure that all users of our forests — not just forestry licensees but all users of our forests — are aware of and understand their responsibilities with respect to fire use, preven- tion, control and rehabilitation. I'll repeat that: not just those licensees that are engage d in forestry activity but recreational users, hikers, campers, hunters — anyone on the land base and frequenting our beautiful forests. The act also seeks to guaran tee the safety of British Columbians and that that consideration remains para- mount.

Thirdly, the objective is to aid in the establish- ment of policies and priorities to ensure the most effi- cient use of firefighting resources. Additionally, the act clarifies the prescribed circumstances under which open fires may be permitted. The act also takes into account the recommenda- tions of the Filmon report. I might just take a moment to remind members of the House that the bill was ini- tially tabled in the last session, the fall session, and the decision was made to have it remain on the order pa- per through the fall during the time that Mr.

Filmon was conducting his review of Firestorm 2003, for the purpose of providing us with the option of incorporat- ing any changes that might be necessitated by the recommendations that flowed from that report. The old bill died on the order paper. Th is bill, Bill 25, is reintro- duced, taking into account the recommendations of the Filmon report, including enhancing the government's ability to manage and respond to the threat of wildfire.

The act maintains government's right to carry out fire control operations to protect public safety and to act in the public interest, including the continued sup- port and assistance to local governments and residents. Under the provisions of Bill 25 the government will retain the right to enter onto any land, public or pri- vate, to carry out fire control operations. If government determines that it is necessary to enter onto lands to control a fire, this act ensures and enables government to recover costs associated with that intervention.

Fire preparedness, fire hazard assessment and abatement issues are also ad dressed in the act, and we will, I'm sure, address some of those in the committee stage of this debate. Under the terms of Bill 25, the Wildfire Act, gov- ernment retains the authority to restrict or prohibit open fires, declare areas as restricted and limit activi- ties within them.

When we di scuss that in more detail, I will refer to how I believe these sections of the act as it relates to the declaration of areas as restricted are an improvement over the old pr ovisions administratively, functionally and operationally, particularly when it relates to emergency situations.

The act provides the jurisdiction to government to order people to leave specified areas, to hire temporary employees for fire control operations and to requisition facilities, equipment and personnel. [1500] The only other remarks I want to make — and they are ancillary to the bill — speak to the issue of overall fire preparedness or preparedness for the coming fire season and relate to some of the additional action that government has taken in the aftermath of fire season '03 and the Filmon report.

I should ensure that mem- bers of the chamber are reminded of the fact that gov- ernment — the forest protection branch, Forest Service — conducted its own internal review of the situation that occurred and Forest Service's response to that ca- tastrophe last summer, and that was comprehensive. I attended a portion of that review in Penticton myself and can advise members of the House that those who participated — and there were a good number of them from the various teams — took the process very seri-

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10235 ously and identified some key issues that they wish to address moving forward. Likewise, when the Premier announced the ap- pointment of Mr. Filmon, he was provided with an opportunity, which he took ample advantage of, not only to consult with British Columbians generally around the circumstances of last year but also to inter- act with the Forest Service protection branch and other divisions within the government in settling upon a series of recommendations — 42 recommendations in all — that form the basis of his report.

On the weekend, in Kaml oops, the Premier and the government made clear our inte ntion to act on all 42 of those recommendations. I won't speak to all of them, but I will tell you I am — as one who has responsibili- ties for one department within government — pleased, proud but not surprised, actu ally, that the government has devoted almost $14 million in additional resources to ensure we've got the people, the equipment and the p l a n n i n g w o r k i n p l a c e t o m a k e s u r e w e ' r e f u l l y p r e - pared or as prepared as one can be for something as unpredictable as fire.

Part of that involves providing upwards of $3 mil- lion to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This is a novel exercise insofar as we're saying to the UBCM as that agency which represents local government in British Columbia…. Insofar as planning for fire, particularly in the urban-rural interface area and the fire interface areas, communities have the most to gain or lose and are best equipped to make decisions about where that work, as it relates to fuel management, should begin. There is a heck of a lot of work to be done, and we're not going to get it all done in one year, but the process can begin.

It can begin in earnest, weather and climate permitting. Local communities will have access to those moneys via the funds that were provided to the UBCM. In addition, the fact that unit crews will be restored to the levels they once were in the 1990s — five addi- tional unit crews…. These ar e highly trained individu- als — teams of 20. There will be five additional crews, and that will provide us with an enhanced ability around the province and an ability to move the crews around the province — t h a t c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e f a c t that we have two additional air tankers in our fleet now.

That provides us with a level of comfort. We are n o t a s r e l i a n t a s w e h a v e b e e n i n t h e p a s t o n f l e e t o r aircraft from other parts of the country, though the protocols which provide for the exchange of that in- formation remain in place. The dilemma we all potentially face is a situation in which there is a fire catastrophe in one part of the country at the same time that we are having one else- where in the country, and there just simply isn't enough equipment available on a casual basis to meet the needs.

So that provides us with some additional assurances. [1505] I would like to end, however, by saying this. The legislation we are debating today provides, I think, a framework within which we can effectively deal with preparation and issues arou nd wildfire and the com- batting of wildfire. Similarly, the additional personnel, equipment and planning tools that were announced assist. It is impossible to predict with certainty what one is going to be met with in a fire season. We certainly learned that in spades last year. It's as dry at this time this year as it was last year, based on the reports I am getting.

I have seen a variety of reports around the weather prognostications — everything from predic- tions about a drier summer than we had last year…. I think one of the almanacs predicted a wet summer or vice versa. I'm not sure how much stock one can put in those kinds of prognostications, but I do know this for a fact: we've already had over a hund red fires in B.C.

Sadly, notwithstanding what happened last year and the fact that I think public awareness of this i ssu e i s at an all- time high, 80 percent of those fires were human-caused in the last three weeks — not because anyone pur- posely set out to start a fire but just through careless- ness. I hope people will take seriously the threat that is posed. All of us read the reports last year about how fires started or allegedly started. It was a matter of sec- onds, certainly minutes, that it took for a fire to burn out of control and consume literally millions of dollars in property and in timber resources.

We think this legislation provides a framework upon which to move forward. When we move through the committee stage debate, I'll be more specific about some of the provisions that I think particularly lend themselves to that. I have al luded to a couple of them already in the debate. In the meantime, each day that we move closer to the summer, I would urge all British Columbians to be mindful of the unpredictable threat posed by fires and the havoc they can wreak when they rage out of control. J.

MacPhail: Of course the opposition is going to support Bill 25, the Wildfire Act, and I want to make that clear at the beginning of this debate. I also want to say that governing is about choices. I do hope there will not be any discussion in this House that with the benefit of perfect hindsight, some will look to place blame for what happened last summer. That's not a healthy debate. There is no need to rehash the devasta- tion of last year's fire season or to try and see into the future of the coming season — although as the minister has just noted, early indications are not good.

But it is early, and much can change. T h e B . C . L i b e r a l g o v e r n m e n t i s w i t h m u c h f a n f a r e acting on the Filmon recomm endations and, with this legislation, is bringing greater clarity and certainty to the prevention and control of wildfires. Good. But make no mistake; there will be fires this year. There will be fires every year. We all hope we will never again witness a fire season like last year, but we will see fire.

If you go to the Ministry of Forests website, you will find a wealth of information about the number of f i r e s , t h e s i z e o f f i r e s , t h e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e d o n e b y the fires, the number of people who fought the fires

10236 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 and the cause of the fires. Much of this data will be ten- year rolling averages. They are rolling averages be- cause there is no certainty. A s m u c h a s w e t r y a s h u - mans to predict the weather or the human behaviour of our fellow citizens, the fact remains that we are not very good at predicting either. [1510] What looks so glaringly ob vious in hindsight is often inconceivable in foresight and shrouded by distractions when we look at them in the immediate.

When it comes to government, we need to acknowledge our limita- tions, because despite so-called balanced-budget legis- lation and service plans full of performance measures, what good government is really all about is allocating public resources for the public good. Governing is about choices. This bill provides a regulatory frame- work, but it does not address or determine government action. This bill does speak to the penalties and pre- scriptions, to liability and responsibility, but it does not speak to what government does.

Last year the budget for fire protection, I believe — I'm doing this from memory — was $55 million. The government spent $375 million. I believe — and I will confirm this later in estimates debate — the budget this year for fire protection is $63 million. The government may overspend that amount lik e it did last year, or the $63 million could be too generous. We don't know. We simply can't tell at this point. As legislators, we cannot possibly know at this point in time how much real money will be needed.

The minister will have received advice on what the ten-year average is and, probably, what that average is with the extraordinary costs of last year factored out. In his budget will be a figure we all know is simply a best guess. That's all it can be. That's not partisan; that's all it can be. Government, by definition, functions in a realm of scarcity.

I have not yet, in my 52 years, experienced a government who has not said: "We must allocate re- sources properly because there is limited financial ca- pability." There will never, ever be enough money to do everything that can or should be done, and fighting forest fires is no different. Controlled burning is not something new that came out of our experience last summer. The use of this technique to reduce the fuel level in the forest is not revolutionary, nor is it simple. It most certainly will not end forest fires, and it will remain controversial. The most important resource in our province is our forests.

We've just been debating that this morning and yester- day in the Ministry of Forests estimates. We quite rightly try to protect them from environmental damage and the ravage of fire. I don't think any member is about to stand in this House and say that the fires should just be allowed to burn. We will work to put them out, to protect the jobs and communities that de- pend on our forest industry . Everyone in this Legisla- ture will commit to that. Weather and the proximity to populated urban areas increasingly on the forest interface must be con- sidered. We live in a province of steep valleys.

Weather inversions trap smoke and other pollutants, and not just in the Fraser Valley, but in the Nechako, the Simil- kameen, the Columbia and th e Okanagan. Much of the south-central interior of B.C. is semi-arid desert. Light- ning fires in this climatic zone always present a danger, and neither of those previous two statements are about to change. Government choices are made by politicians and must balance the interests of the citizenry, or at least that is the theory that we all work under in our public service. The practice is of ten much different and not always for straightforward partisan goals.

This bill, as I said in opening, is a good idea. It is a good idea to isolate and consolidate the powers, re- sponsibilities and consequences that stem from our life with wildfire.

But the real test of good government will come in the years ahead, when the memories of the forest fires of 2003 fade, and the temptation to move scarce government resources, tax dollars, away from the vigilance that the Filmon report called for — and that the auditor general has called for and that experts in the forest have called for over the years — to other equally or even more important government services will be the real question that's put before us. [1515] Members opposite in the government will talk of how governments, particularly governments on the left, are egregiously risk-ave rse. I've heard that.

I've heard that from the members of the government. Members on the government side with those who see government as an obstacle say that being risk-averse is a hindrance to economic development. But with this bill and the implementation of the recommendations of the Filmon report, the govern ment is now siding with those who have been saying that the risk we take with wildfire is too great. I applaud that. Members on the government side will be proposing more regulation of building codes and subdivisions in and around our forests and grasslands.

They will be saying that municipalities and homeowners will have to take more responsibility, and that will mean that homeowners will be paying more. They have now be- come, as a government, risk-averse in this area. Now, nobody likes to pay more. Developers will be unrelenting in their efforts to have accommodations made for their subdivisions, whether they be at the forest interface in the Okan agan or on the Cheakamus fan where floodwaters developed and resulted in two deaths last year.

Politicians of all parties will have to respond to the competing pressures of their constitu- ents and supporters and their duty as public servants to protect the public intere st. That is our obligation. That obligation is not made any easier by this legisla- tion, although it is good legislation. It is never an easy task, but it is one that has been brought to the forefront to all of us by the forest fires of last year. K. Krueger: I want to thank the Leader of the Op- position for her remarks. It is rare that we have such unanimity in the House on an issue.

We certainly experienced a trial by fire last summer — a terrifically grim experi ence for my constituents. I

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10237 don't think the memory will really ever fade for us: the shock of realizing that a forest fire could move faster than a horse can run; the way those fires ran — the Strawberry Hill fire — 12 kilometres the first night, creating their own tremendous weather systems; huge winds that whipped the flames up and threw burning material kilometres ahead of the path of the fire, start- ing other fires.

I know that my constituents will never forget, ei- ther, the courage and the expertise of the firefighters and the way they attacked su ch an incredible foe, the way they demonstrated the skills that they trained so long and hard for. I remember flying over the Strawberry Hill fire and seeing how small the people looked with their machines, and yet amazingly they had managed to build a border all the way around that fire — a huge area. They had done their back-burning and laid down the retardant, and they had the fire contained. The McLure fire, of course, took a lot longer. The fire in Kelowna was hor- rific.

These are all experiences that we hope will never be repeated, but the way the weather is shaping up this spring, there certainly is the risk of that. Like the Leader of the Opposition and I'm sure every member of the Legislature, I'm certainly support- ing Bill 25 and congratulati ng the minister and the government for bringing this legislation to us. We were very grateful in Kamloops–North Thompson at the time for the quick action of government with the declaration of a state of emergency and the way that brought resources to bear on the problem, the disaster, that was confronting us.

It was heartening for my con- stituents to see 40 fire departments from around British Columbia fighting the fire and protecting the commu- nity of Barriere. It was very encouraging for them that the Premier came up to the area. The Minister of For- ests did as well, and the Solicitor General. Everybody demonstrated with their presence and with the tangible things they did that the go vernment was very much in a position of wanting to do everything possible to pro- tect the communities. [1520] Obviously, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the problem built up over many years. We're all aware of that.

It's a very expensive problem to confront and to try and ensure that it never happens again. We cer- t a i n l y w o u l d n ' t w i s h t h a t e x p e r i e n c e o n a n y o n e e l s e . Yet Mother Nature is so tremendously powerful when she really cuts loose, as we experienced last summer. The economic harm to communities is something that I and my constituents have been grappling with ever since.

It's been very, very tough on the communi- ties of Barriere and Louis Creek to have lost their major employer, which as everyone knows has decided not to rebuild at that location — 189 jobs that existed till the last day of July 2003 and now have just disappeared. Again, we're very appreciative of the assistance the government is providing, the money that the Premier sent to set up a $2 million fund for people who suffered hardship as a result of last summer's wildfires — that money has largely been distributed now — and also money for economic redevelopment of the North Thompson Valley.

The minister and the Minister for Forestry Opera- tions have entertained dele gations from my constitu- ency, have spent a lot of time with me and, I believe, are favourably disposed to an allocation of timber from the pine beetle uplift to the communities themselves so that we can use the money that will flow from that to continue to rebuild that economy. We're looking for- ward to good news there.

The economic development advisory commission, which I chair, has hired an economic development offi- cer with the funds that the Premier gave us in trust to the Thompson-Nicola regional district, and we're working hard on rebuilding the economy that was shattered up there. Everyone is anxious to make sure that it doesn't happen again there, that it doesn't hap- pen again anywhere. We were grateful for the Premier's decision to ap- point Mr. Filmon to do hi s inquiry, and Mr. Filmon distinguished himself.

We had very positive comments from my constituents about the way he dealt with them, the way he listened to them, the way he re- sponded to them, and everyone is very impressed with his report. We were delighted when the Premier came up last Saturday to Kamloops and announced the funding for all of Mr. Filmon's recommendations. I am really proud of a government that responded so well to the emergency itself and has responded so thoughtfully to th e issue of prevention of another ca- tastrophe. This legislation, of course, brings all of that together.

My thanks to the minister and to the government and, obviously, my full support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 25, the Min- ister of Forests closes debate. Hon. M. de Jong: I ' v e b e e n a r o u n d t h i s p l a c e l o n g enough to know that when something as rare as splen- did consensus breaks out, one is wise to grab it and run.

So I will thank the member for his comments and his reminder to us of the very human face of wildfire and the impact it has and thank the Leader of the Opposition for her thoughtful comments and support for the bill and also for reminding us that it is actually in partial response to recommendations that have emerged from various auditor general reports. But I also point out that the success of the regime we are developing by virtue of this legislation will be determined by the extent to which governments and ultimately the public are prepared to devote the resources necessary.

We can talk about preventative action. We can talk about planning. We can talk about fuel management. It takes (1) money and (2) a recognition of the impact that something like controlled burn has in terms of the en- vironmental consequences and things like smoke and all of the ancillary effects of burning in the forest. [1525] As difficult as it is to believe today, in the immedi- ate aftermath of what took place last year, memories

10238 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 will recede. Our job, or the job of those who sit in this chamber, will be to constantly remind people of the extent of the damage, dislocation and anxiety that the firestorm in 2003 caused. The statute that I believe Bill 25 will give birth to — with, I think, unanimous support in this House — will be a tremendously helpful tool. But like all tools, its success will be determined by the manner in which it is used and the resources that are brought to bear to give it effect. With that, I will move second reading of Bill 25. Motion approved. Hon.

M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 25, Wildfire Act, read a second time and re- ferred to a Committee of the Whole House for consid- eration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. S. Bond: I call estimates debate for the Minis- try of Forests. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:27 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS (continued) On vote 24: ministry operations, $393,292,000 (con- tinued). J.

MacPhail: We left off discussion this morning about the requirement for site-level plans. The minister assured the House that forest licensees must produce a site-level plan. Must they produce it, or do they have to have it available if asked? Hon. M. de Jong: It was my poor choice of termi- nology. They must prepare on e. It is not submitted for approval by the Crown, but they must have it available if asked to produce it. J.

MacPhail: Where I was going on this discussion was that the site-level plan that used to be mandatory was what demonstrated the indicators of logging plans and how those logging plans would affect environ- mental, recreational and social values, I thought — at least environmental and recr eational values. The rea- son I was making that clarification — that they must have them available and produce them if asked — is that if the compliance and enforcement staff don't ask for them, then there's no violation of the law.

What I want to know is: how will government staff continue to identify and insist on protection for impor- tant values such as wildlife habitat if they don't have any precise information provided on site-level plans? [1530] Hon.

M. de Jong: There might be disagreement on the wisdom of this, but I' m not sure there's disagree- ment on the process when I say that the distinction between the former regime an d the one that is in place under the Forest and Range Practices Act relates not to the requirement to prepare the site plan — there is in both instances a requiremen t to prepare a site plan — but to the fact that in the former regime there was sign- off by the Forest Service or an approval mechanism.

Under the provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act, the site plan is neithe r approved nor signed off, though if requested it must be produced by the particu- lar licensee. As there were under the former forest development plans, now to be replaced by the forest stewardship plans, there are differing le vels of requirements. Under the forest stewardship plan, a ll of the values that must be managed for must be reflected in that large-scale document that relates to the overall area.

The site plan focuses down on a much more local- ized area, and the site plan must be consistent with the overall objectives set out in the Forest and Range Prac- tices Act but also with the sp ecific provisions included within the forest stewardship plans. The site plan which needs to be produced must demonstrate and be consistent with both. That must be apparent in terms of on-the-ground activities, wh ich must be consistent with all three — site plan, forest stewardship plan and the act itself — and it must be apparent on the face of the site plan. J.

MacPhail: I also understand from previous de- bate I've had with the minister that the site-level plans have to be available to the public on request. What does the public have to go through to request a site- level plan, and is there a fee associated with the re- quest? Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, the site-level plan must be available for the public to request and obtain. They would generally do so directly from the licensee.

What we are checking to confirm is whether or not, within the regulatory package that was enacted several months ago, there was anything more specific than that about the requirements that bind the licensees in terms of where they must make the site plan available. J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying there's no fee that would be associated with that? Hon. M. de Jong: My understanding is that there is no fee. What I want to confirm, as well, for the member is whether the regulation spoke in any way, shape or form to the question of fees , either allowing them or disallowing them. J. MacPhail: Okay. Thank you.

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10239 The other thing I would ask the minister, if he's had time to get it, is the percentage of GDP that's forest activity–related. Interjection. J. MacPhail: No. Sorry. What percentage of our GDP is as a result of forest activity? That's forest- related industry. Hon. M. de Jong: We've made the request. I haven't yet received it. Hopefully, we will this afternoon. [1535] J.

MacPhail: I understand that under this new re- gime of approval of logging plans, the discretion that the district manager had under the previous regime to reject proposed plans — if the district manager was not satisfied that resource values will be adequately man- aged or conserved — is now gone. Now the plans must be approved unless the minister or his delegate deter- mines that the industry's results and strategies are not consistent with the government's objectives in the act. Of course, we've already had a discussion about how the objectives are further defined by regulation, but they're not in the act.

How is the minister or his delegate going to get the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding whether a plan sh ould be rejected? That's number one. Well, let me ask that question. Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay. The language here is quite specific, and if I say it incor- rectly, we'll head down a path that will be of no help to anyone. If I correctly understood the essence of the mem- ber's question, it is, broadly speaking, an explanation of the difference in approval processes between the Forest Practices Code and the Forest and Range Practices Act. I will do this in reverse.

The last point I think the member made spoke to the issue of where the auth ority derived from. Under the Forest Practices Code it was statutorily enshrined in the hands of the district manager. Under the new Forest and Range Practices Act it is statutorily en- shrined, as the member pointed out, in the hands of the minister or his or her delegate. For all practical pur- poses that won't affect much. The minister of the day isn't going to be involved in those decisions.

What it does mean, however, is that the minister of the day can appoint individuals to be a delegate beyond simply the district manager, as was the case in the Forest Practices Code. The other issue, and perhaps the more significant issue, relates to the test. In both instances there is dis- cretionary authority to be exercised. The member, broadly speaking, summarized the tests that are ap- plied. They are still subjective .

In the case of the Forest and Range Practices Act it relates to measuring the forest stewardship plan against the objectives that have been set by government, by the act and the regulations. [1540] What we have stopped short of….

Although I know the member has many things that she has to deal with, she may be aware that there were those within indus- try who sought to advocate that there should be a deemed approval process whereby once the content of a forest stewardship plan was confirmed — i.e., that it addressed all the required issues and there was sign-off from a registered professional forester — that should in and of itself lead to approval. We have not accepted that approach.

We have said there is still a role for the exercise of discretionary au- thority in a subjective way to ensure that the forest stewardship plan, as can best be determined, will in fact realize and be consistent with the values and objec- tives set out in the statute. It's a sufficiently important distinction that I'm going to ask for confirmation that I have articulated that in a reasonably accurate way. J. MacPhail: Okay. Thank you. I accept that. But now can I know how many staff people in the ministry there are to determine this as the minister has suggested? Who are they? What's their classification?

Where do they work, and how many FTEs are assigned to this? Hon. M. de Jong: The decision, for all practical rea- sons operationally, will remain with the district man- ager. I'm advised that in a typical district office setting, the district manager, in coming to the decision to ap- prove or disapprove of the proposed forest steward- ship plan, would rely on advice from a staff comple- ment dedicated to this job of between three and five individuals. J. MacPhail: How many district managers are there? How many people in the province are doing this? Hon. M. de Jong: Twenty-nine district offices in the province.

As I say, the district manager in each office would be the designated individual for reaching the final decision. Depending on the size of the office, I'm advised there would be between three and five indi- viduals assisting with the task of analyzing the forest stewardship plan. J. MacPhail: Are those staff, including the district manager, being trained and given the resources re- quired to ensure that thes e legally binding agreements — they're legally binding ag reements with the forest companies — can be realistically enforced in the courts? That's where they have to be enforced. [1545] Hon.

M. de Jong: Short answer: yes. The training is taking place at a number of different levels. I think it's fair to say at this point that what we're trying to de- velop is a sense, both on the part of the licensees and the Forest Service personnel, of what a standardized forest stewardship plan would look like.

10240 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 The member's question is actually a good one. Part of that training for both pa rties, but particularly from the perspective of the Forest Service, is to ensure that the language contained within the document is en- forceable. I am reminded that within the act and/or the regulations, there is a requ irement that the objectives set out in the forest stewar dship plan are quantifiable and measurable. That training is taking place. There are some early examples of the work that is being done.

I presume that as this evolve s, there will be an attempt on the part of both the Forest Service personnel in- volved, the district managers and the licensees to stan- dardize to the greatest extent possible both the format and the ingredients of the forest stewardship plan be- yond what is in the regulations. J. MacPhail: Now, I noted when I was looking at the Forest and Range Practices Act regulations around old-growth management….

There is basically a regula- tion that says the status quo for old-growth areas under the Forest Practices Code remains, but I note there is no provision for the establishment of new areas. Is the government not anticipating any new areas designated as old-growth forests? There are organizations there right now that the government funds for…. Their re- sponsibility is to identify old-growth management ar- eas. What's the future of this? [1550] Hon. M. de Jong: There is — and the chief forester has direct involvement in this — a process by which old-growth areas are identified, designated.

The legal mechanism for doing that remains. I think the provi- sions that the member was re ferring to are those which provide for the carrying forward of those designations, and I think she said that, in fairness. What I have been doing is canvassing whether or not, given that the mechanism for creating old-growth designated areas remains, there are any impediments to doing so. I am not aware of any; I am not advised of any. The mechanism by which old-growth areas can be designated continues to exist. It is tied in part to the land use planning process, I believe. I'll stop there. J.

MacPhail: In the past, and I don't know whether this still exists, agencies were designated and funded by government to identify old-growth management areas. Does that still exist under this government? Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not aware, and some of the officials here today are not aware, of what the member might have been referring to and have no recollection of that kind of funding flowing through the Forest Ser- vice, though there is some speculation that there may have been funding made available to groups involved in the land use planning tables for that purpose.

I posed the question whether there might have been funding flowing through an agency like FRBC, and the response I'm getting is that that is not the case. If there w e r e s u c h f u n d i n g , t h e o n l y a d v i c e I h a v e a t t h e m o - ment is that it did not flow through the Forest Service budget. [1555] J. MacPhail: To summarize the minister's com- ments then, old-growth designation will continue to be available, and the designation will largely be done through land use planning tables. Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry again for the delay. Here is how the process by…. Well, I'll back up.

I think the question I'm trying to provide an answer to is: how, if at all, is it possible to have an area set aside as an old-growth retention area in the future, moving forward? I've got the righ t question; hopefully, I can answer it in a comprehensible way. Under the legislative regime that is the Forest and Range Practices Act, it is, as the member knows, the Min- istry of Sustainable Resource Management that has re- sponsibility for setting objectives. Some of the examples would relate to old-growth retention, habitat preservation and some of these other values.

That having been done, the licensee's objective is to prepare a forest stewardship plan that reflects those values and those objectives. The member correctly identified the tie-in between the land use planning proces s and the establishment of those objectives and the forest stewardship plan which would lead to the designation of an area under the forest stewardship plan. Now, the member is astute enough, and she is going to, I suspect, quickly point out that there is land use pl anning process that hasn't been completed across the pr ovince, so there are some default standards in place.

There are some default standards in place that can be relied upon. I am further advised that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is to introduce an objective shortly to establish old-growth forest retention targets to be met in all forest stewardship plan s, so there will, in the in- terim, be a standardized objective pending the comple- tion of that process. J. MacPhail: I understand that the minister has now referred me to the Sustainable Resource Management minister, which is fine. I accept that.

I want to have a location where a group of people, a company, an or- ganization or a person can say to a minister, a branch or an agency: "You are re sponsible for old-growth management." If the plans are that they're going to set a policy for retention of old growth, then I will be look- ing there, to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Man- agement, to see what the plans are — how they're go- ing to implement that retention rate of old growth on a more specific level. Mr. Chair, the next report I'm going to deal with is by the Forest and Range Practices Act Practices Advi- sory Council, the PAC.

They issued a report in January of this year. I'm sure it was January. The minister is- sued a reply or response in February to that Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council report. I am going to ask some questions based on those two, both the report and then the reply.

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10241 [1600] The PAC, the advisory council, noted that one of the goals of the Forest and Range Practices Act is in- creased reliance on professi ons, increased professional reliance. However, the advisory council also noted that the draft FRPA regulations do not require that forest operational and site plans be signed by a professional. So does this mean that any employee of a licensee can sign an operational or site plan? K. Johnston: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members K.

Johnston: Joining us today in the precinct are 30 grade 11 social studies students from David Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver-Fraserview. They're here having a tour of the capital city and, of course, the legislative area. They are accompanied today by in- structors Chris Ascher, Deider Bylsma and Joan McDermid. Would the House please make them very welcome. Debate Continued Hon. M. de Jong: The member does identify an issue raised by the public advisory committee.

If she'll permit me, I'll take advantage of this opportunity to put on the record my thanks for the work that has been done to date and the continued consultative work that the members of that committee — all of whom are ex- tremely busy but also extr emely dedicated individuals — has put into providing feedback on what was a pretty hefty document in te rms of the regulatory pack- age accompanying the Forest and Range Practices Act. Their comment, and the one relayed here today by the member, is correct.

The statute and the regulations require the forest stewardship plan to be signed off by a representative of the licensee. It does not require the plan to be signed off by a registered professional for- ester. I'll say two things. First of all, that legislative provi- sion reflects the fact that the relationship that is regu- lated here is between the Crown and the licensee, not between the Crown and any pa rticular individual em- ployed or contracted by the licensee. We wanted to be clear where the liability rested in that relationship, and it is with the licensee.

Beyond that — and the member may recall — a few moments ago I referred back to a submission we had received in the formative days of creating the statute, which suggested we should have a deemed approval process whereby by virtue of having obtained the sig- nature of an RFP on the forest stewardship plan, the Crown should accept that, the Forest Service should accept that, and there would be deemed approval of the entire plan.

We didn't go along with that either, so I suppose you could say that we ended up somewhere in the middle. [1605] There is still a discretionary authority that rests with the minister and his or her designate, generally the district manager. At the same time, there is a re- quirement that the plan be signed off by a corporate representative — but not necessarily a registered pro- fessional forester — either employed or contracted by that licensee. J.

MacPhail: It's interesting that the minister says the new legislation regulates the relationship between the government and licensees , not the relationship be- tween employers and profe ssionals, and that's why there's no requirement for a pr ofessional to sign off on the plan.

I guess what I'm looking for here is some con- fidence that can be instilled in the system where the public can say that even though this is a results-based system we're going to now, a default system where the government deems everything to be okay unless proven otherwise rather than the previous system that was monitoring and enforcement and compliance…. Isn't there a logical step to be taken here that says a company should have an expert sign off on this? I mean, what's to prevent the company from having their CFO sign off on it be cause the CFO likes the busi- ness aspect of it? Hon.

M. de Jong: There are two things that come to mind that would logically lead to the involvement of a registered professional fore ster. Though the member is correct that the act does not require a sign-off from an RPF, there are a couple of things that would suggest that will be the case in most, if not all, cases. The first, I'm reminded, is that the nature of the work that goes into preparing one of these reports is that which is contained squarely within the Foresters Act as amended by this Hous e. Because of the type of work involved, it would naturally engage a registered professional forester.

That's the first thing. [1610] In addition to that, in a world where a licensee must always be aware of the possibility that, were something to go wrong, the Crown will return and seek damages or compensation or take enforcement action, there is under the act the defence of due dili- gence available. A licensee who had not availed him- self or herself of the services of a registered profes- sional forester for the purp ose of preparing what is a fundamentally important document now would risk, I think, abdicating or losing the ability to raise a defence of due diligence in any number of circumstances. J.

MacPhail: Yes, and I recall very well our debate under the Professional Foresters Act around this very issue, because of course the change from the old Forest Practices Code to the new Forest and Range Practices Act says — and this minister has admitted this, because it's true — that the government will be relying on pro- fessional foresters in the em ploy of the licensees, the forest companies, and that it will be incumbent upon the professional forester to do the right thing to protect

10242 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 the public interest. We actu ally had a debate about the ranking of their obligations, I recall. The minister's explanation is very interesting. How does one who is in the employ of a forest company — the forester — guard the public interest when that pub- lic interest may go against the private interests of his or her employer? How does that work? Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, let us not discount the possibility that the registered professional forester in- volved here is not an employee but could be a contrac- tor.

In the case of major licensees, that is perhaps less likely, but in the case of many of the smaller licensees involved, that is a more common feature of the rela- tionship. So there is that component. The member's question arising out of that response would be…. It's the same question. They are tied contractually to some- one, and there is perhaps the same issue.

I suppose that in the same way, many other self- regulated professions must address that issue in the way that one could argue that in-house counsel or contracted counsel in the legal profession might, on occasion, be confronted by a client who seeks him or her to engage in an activity that is contrary to any one of the tenets by which they are bound as a self- regulated profession. That concern around conflicted professionals is not something that is unique to the relationship that exists here. It exists in other circum- stances as well. J.

MacPhail: Yes, I accept that, except that this is the professional who will guarantee that the public interest is being acknowledged and addressed and who, at the same time, is in the employ of a private interest whose own profitability may be affected by the public interest. I'm not sure of another example such as that. How does the privately employed — whether through contract or direct employee relationship — professional forester guarantee public accountability? How does he or she demonstrate that under this act? Hon. M. de Jong: Two responses come to mind, Mr. Chair.

The first is that in this process, that profes- sional forester is preparin g a document either as an employee or as a contracting agent for a licensee.

It is an important document that must still pass muster with the district manager generally, pass muster with that public official charged statutorily with the task of ensuring that the objectives set out in the act, which are designed for the very reason the member alluded to — to protect the public interest — are met. [1615] In addition, I am reminded that where the regis- tered professional forester does affix his or her signa- ture and attach his or her seal, they incorporate into that, or are bound by, a series of professional ethical considerations that do tie in to protection of the public interest as stipulated by that profession.

It's the combi- nation of the two. The point I would emphasize is that it doesn't begin and end with the preparation and sign-off of the forest stewardship plan. There is still an approval mechanism that is driven by public servants. J. MacPhail: Has the minister or his staff in the public service had a chance to discuss this matter directly with the Associatio n of Professional Forest- ers? Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there have been, dating back now over a year and a half, pretty extensive dis- cussions with what was the Association of Professional Foresters and is now renamed the Association of B.C.

Forest Professionals. The reason for that is they have amalgamated with another group, forest technicians, so there is a larger organization. There have certainly been those discussions, and they have touched on a number of issues. I will ac- knowledge to the member that some of those concerns relate to everything from, I think…. Well, I should be careful. I think there were some professional foresters who suggested there should be a mandatory require- ment and others who thought differently.

There were, as well, concerns expressed around what the new legis- lative provisions might mean for the cost of profes- sional insurance, because in certain circumstances it is conceivable that in a worst-case scenario, where liabil- ity is assigned against one party, they may seek redress from a contracted professional forester. Each circum- stance is different.

There have been extensive discussions around the various facets of what is proposed here and the greater role, as the member pointed out, and the greater reli- ance, though not exclusive reliance, that is being placed on the talents of the professional foresters and techni- cians that comprise their professional body. J. MacPhail: Has the new act that applies to profes- sional foresters been proclaimed? Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. [1620] J.

MacPhail: The Forest and Range Practices Advi- sory Council also recommended: "…the minister en- sure that the forest planni ng and practices regulation require sufficient content and details in forest steward- ship plans to provide for meaningful evaluation, public review and comment as well as approval or rejection by a statutory decision-maker." My question is: how is th e minister going to ensure that the forest stewardship plans are supported with what the council says is sufficient information to en- sure that the public review process is meaningful?

I mean, I'm sure the minister will say you'll be monitor- ing it to see what kind of SFPs are prepared under the new act — we've heard that there aren't that many yet — and to make sure they're adequate, or not. If the m i n i s t e r i s g o i n g t o g o i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n , w h a t i s t h e process that he's put in plac e to ensure, as these plans increase, that they are adeq uate in terms of a public review process?

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10243 Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two important periods for which the question has relevance. One is the period of time during which the forest stewardship plan is being developed. There are regulatory provisions in place that stipulate the involvement or the entitlement that the public has to make their views. Or I should ac- tually say the reverse: the requirements and the obliga- tions that accrue to the licen see developing the plan to involve the public and to no tify the public. There are pretty specific regulations.

That deals with the period leading up to the development, submission and ap- proval or disapproval of the forest stewardship plan. Following that, there is also the question of access for the public to the plan itself following approval hav- ing been granted. This touche s on an area where, actu- ally, the public advisory committee provided some recommendations and advice that gave rise to changes in the proposed regulation.

That part of the regulation providing for public review and comment of a forest stewardship plan now more closely resembles the wording and, therefore, the opportunities that were available under the former forest development plan. That's an example of where the public advisory com- mittee made some recommendations and offered some advice that led to a change in the regulation. At the end of the day, though — and I apologize for the length of the answer…. I think the member's ques- tion was: how are you going to know whether it's working? I'm not sure I have a good answer for that.

It is a case, I think, where you do have to track whether the Forest Service and the di strict offices are receiving complaints from those. The forest stewardship plan is on file with the district office. I think that's where they would logically be kept. That provides a point of entry for the public, so I can't imagine why, in the period of time after the approval of a plan, there would be diffi- culty obtaining access. My hope would be that with the technology available now, it would be simply a matter, eventually, of logging on to review the plan. I probably have more concern….

If there is a concern, it would relate more to the developmental period of the plan and whether or not we begin to hear about com- plaints from the members of the public and interested parties about notice being provided in a meaningful way. [1625] J. MacPhail: Along that theme, concerns about process around the implementa tion of this new act, I read a news

article that in mid-March a group that represented the environmental interests on the PAC withdrew from the process. They were called the For- est Caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network. At least, what the media reported was that they alleged that the environmental conc erns expressed by the PAC were not being meaningfully addressed by the gov- ernment. Has the minister or his staff had an opportu- nity to meet with representatives of the Forest Caucus to see if that concern could be resolved? Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the member correctly identi- fies an issue that arose.

My recollection is that the chief forester has had a meeting — actually, more than one meeting. I have not, and that is my responsibility. I am hopeful that those that have chosen not to par- ticipate will change their minds. I can think, as we have gone through this exercise, of a number of examples where advice from various pa rticipants in the process — whether they are from indu stry, from first nations, from the community, from the range and the Cattle- men's Association and from what we often refer to as the ENGO community — has given effect to tangible changes in the product.

I'm not in a position to enlighten the member as to what, beyond the report she read, the specific concern was. The advisory committee is there to provide a fo- rum through which people with diverse interests and diverse perspectives can provide their commentary. I will say this: the report the member is referring to has some criticisms of the regulatory package as well. It was designed to provide a forum and an avenue by which those criticisms and those ideas could be pre- sented a

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0420pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0420pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	059c2fabd737f28231b873b8e4bc89fac6b09d27

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