2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M204 — Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2010

C. James

Bill M205 — First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2010

M. Karagianis

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Cancer prevention and treatment

N. Letnick

100 th anniversary of George Jay Elementary School

R. Fleming

Rodeo and Kenny M c Lean

J. Slater

Lyme disease awareness

L. Popham

Trade Export Awards and international trade dinner in Surrey

D. Hayer

Tenth anniversary of Nisga’a treaty

R. Austin

Oral Questions

Equipment and assistive technology initiative for people with disabilities

C. James

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Simpson

B. Ralston

Conservation officer service in Bella Coola area

G. Coons

Hon. B. Penner

Marmot recovery program and species-at-risk legislation

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Penner

Silviculture activities

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

B. Simpson

Summer school spaces

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Petitions

V. Huntington

M. Sather

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2010

M. Farnworth

M. Sather

Hon. B. Penner

N. Macdonald

D. Donaldson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2010

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Hon. B. Lekstrom

J. Horgan

K. Corrigan

S. Chandra Herbert

B. Ralston

[ Page 5539 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I have some very special guests to introduce today. First of all, I would like to welcome back into the House former MLA of Saanich South, David Cubberley. I also have Nicole Bottles here with us today. She is an 18-year-old constituent of mine who is suffering with Lyme disease. Nicole is joined by her mother, Chris Powell. I also have Daya Moss, who is doing her social work practicum in my constituency office. I would like to make all of them feel very welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting in the House today is the Holy Cross Elementary School, from my riding of Burnaby North, led by two teachers, Ms. Sabina McCloskey and Ms. Lianna Ranallo, with 25 grade 5 students and 15 adults. Would the House please join me to give them the warmest welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'm very pleased today to have a number of guests here in the gallery. I would like to introduce to the House from the Tseycum Nation, Chief Jacks and Coun. Joe Bill; and from the Tsartlip, William Morris. I also know that expected shortly is Ron Sam from the Songhees Nation and from the Esquimalt Nation, Cheryl Bryce. I'm not sure if she's here in the gallery yet, but I would like to give all of these guests a very warm welcome.

R. Austin: I have two sets of introductions to make today, so if you'll bear with me. The first is a group of adult learners who have driven 20 hours in a bus from Kincolith, or Gingolx, at the mouth of the Nass River. They came here this morning. It's their first time in Victoria. They came and actually toured the chamber here. They were very thrilled to be here. But don't worry, hon. Speaker, they didn't sit in your chair.

They are Amanda Smythe, Chasity Stevens, Darcie Peters, Donna Nelson, Emerald Azak, Julia Stevens, Kayla Barton, Sam Peal, Shanna Nelson, Sylvia Stewart, Tessa Venn, Tyler Stevens and Dion Barton. They are joined by their instructors Kathy Mueller and Don Stevenson as well as Kathy's husband, Erich Mueller, as well as the education administrator for the community of Kincolith, Neal Barton. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Secondly, I have a couple of visitors visiting from the United Kingdom. They are Dr. Graham Lomas and Tova Lamb. They are here visiting some friends and family. They've been to Victoria before but never to the Legislature, so please give them a warm Victoria welcome.

E. Foster: In the House today we have a very good friend of mine visiting from Lumby, Mr. John Ringness. John is one of those people you value in your community. He's past president of the Lions Club. He led the cancer cause in Lumby over the last number of years, raising money for that worthwhile organization. John and his wife Wanda will be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary in two weeks.

John, welcome to the House.

M. Elmore: In the House visiting today are a number of students from St. Andrews School. They are grade 5 students — 60 of them with five adults. They are accompanied by their very dedicated teacher, Ms. Monica Low. I'd like to ask the Legislature and everyone here to please give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. I. Black: There are some great high schools in the Tri-Cities area, and one of them is going to be visiting the precinct later this afternoon. They are the students of Port Moody Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher-supervisor, Mr. Troy Cunningham, and five parents who were good enough to give a little time to help students experience what it is we do around here a little bit. I would ask the House to make them feel welcome.

S. Fraser: I have two introductions to make today. I don't know if they're in the audience already, but there's a group from my constituency, Alberni–Pacific Rim, called the Corcan-Meadowood Residents Association. They are here this afternoon to, hopefully, see question period and also to visit with the Minister of Transportation. I'd like the House to make them feel very welcome, please.

[1340]

I know the member for Skeena made the larger introduction, but Don Stevenson is from Port Alberni. He's a good friend of mine. Please, again, make him feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M204 — Campaign Finance

Reform Act, 2010

C. James presented a bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2010.

[ Page 5540 ]

C. James: I move that the bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2010, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: I'm pleased to introduce the Campaign Finance Reform Act, one of several bills introduced by the official opposition to renew B.C.'s democratic system. The time has come in British Columbia to review the financing of political parties, to examine the public interest in terms of how we fund elections and to move towards greater citizen involvement in our political process.

We have the opportunity to revitalize our democracy in British Columbia, to make B.C. a leader in democratic reform, to rebuild public faith in our institutions of government. While other provinces and the federal government have passed strict guidelines regarding the role of big money in politics, B.C. has moved in the opposite direction. It's time to restore balance to our political system.

This bill levels the playing field for political and campaign financing. Under this bill individual British Columbians will contribute to political parties. Institutions will not. This bill also allows a review of B.C. campaign financing by the Chief Electoral Officer, including recommendations for further reform.

The opposition has put forward similar legislation in the past. However, given recent events, it seemed timely to reintroduce it. It is my hope that government will finally take action to reform campaign financing and put citizens back at the centre of our democratic system.

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

Bill M204, Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2010, 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.

Bill M205 — First Nations

Heritage Protection and

Conservation Act, 2010

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2010.

M. Karagianis: I move introduction of the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2010, for first reading.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: I am honoured today to present the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act. This bill will better protect First Nations heritage objects, sacred areas, gravesites and burial grounds.

The bill amends the Heritage Conservation Act to include a process by which First Nations can trigger real protective measures when heritage sites, burial areas, objects or remains are discovered. I believe that the bill amends the heritage act to provide a better set of guidelines and tools for First Nations, local government, the public and the province in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of First Nations heritage and culturally significant areas, their artifacts and their sacred history.

I am particularly honoured today to do this with my guests in the House who have all worked very hard to protect their own sacred sites and burial grounds. I would ask that all members please review the bill, and I hope that they will support it.

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

Bill M205, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2010, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CANCER PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

N. Letnick: With approximately one in three British Columbians developing some form of cancer in their lifetime, it is very likely that everyone in this chamber and across our province knows the devastating impact that those three words, "You've got cancer," can have on individuals and families.

When my wife Helene and I first heard those words a few years back — "You've got uterine cancer" — we took comfort in the knowledge that we lived in a province with outstanding cancer health outcomes made possible by health professionals who care and a health system that is one of the best in the world, even with its challenges.

The support received from health care providers in the southern Interior was phenomenal. Having gone through that experience, it is easy to see why B.C. women have the lowest overall mortality rate for cancer and the lowest incidence of mortality rates of any province for breast and colorectal cancer.

B.C. men also have the lowest overall mortality rate for all cancer. We are tied with Quebec for the lowest rates of any province for lung, colorectal and prostate cancer. Incidence rates for all cancers combined are lower in B.C. than in any other province.

[1345]

[ Page 5541 ]

According to the cancer advocacy council, B.C. has the best-funded and most timely access to cancer drugs in Canada. We are investing in the fight against cancer by providing a comprehensive screening mammography program, free for all B.C. women aged 40 to 79. We have cancer centres throughout the province, with construction underway for a new B.C. Cancer Agency centre for the north in Prince George, as part of a strategy to ensure that northern British Columbians receive the best possible cancer care.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society's 2010 cancer statistics report released today, B.C. continues to lead Canada in having the lowest rates of cancer. This is a record that British Columbians can be proud of, and you can be certain we will continue to lead the country in cancer prevention and treatment.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

GEORGE JAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

R. Fleming: Earlier this month a significant anniversary in Victoria was celebrated that thousands of people here felt personally connected to. It was an anniversary celebrating a century of excellence in teaching and learning in my community. George Jay turned 100 years old this year, and on May 1 students and former students of all ages turned out to mark the occasion. I even met a woman who was there from the class of 1925.

George Jay officially opened on December 9, 1910, built on the rural fields of a dairy farm. Today school district 61 refers to this fine building as an inner-city school in the heart of the Fernwood neighbourhood. Changes to the School Act expanding compulsory education for children between seven and 14 necessitated the building of George Jay. In the late 1960s George Jay was actually British Columbia's largest elementary school, with over 1,200 students.

As working-class and immigrant children gained greater access to education, the growing student population required several additions to the school, beginning with a two-room annex added in 1919 and a wing of two floors of classrooms added in 1972, which was the same year that the school, for its first time, had a gymnasium.

Historian and Times Colonist writer Dave Obee noted in a recent

article that George Jay kids had two things to celebrate in the early 1970s: their new gym and the Barrett government and Minister Eileen Dailly outlawing the strap in B.C. schools.

The school was named after an ardent supporter of public education, a magistrate, George Jay, who served on the school board for 35 years, serving as board chair for 28 years. The first principal of the school was Mr. H.B. MacLean, who later became the infamous, and quite wealthy, proprietor and promoter of the MacLean method of handwriting and penmanship.

As a school, George Jay has changed with the times. It continues to be a bright light in my community, providing children with a nurturing, uniquely diverse and respectful learning environment. I've had the pleasure to visit the school on a number of occasions, and I've seen firsthand the creative and interactive ways the teachers engage their students. May the House join me in celebrating a hundred years for George Jay.

RODEO AND KENNY M c LEAN

J. Slater: May is the time when cowboys polish their spurs, brush the dust off their chaps, load up their horse and head for their first, favourite rodeo. In the Boundary-Similkameen and surrounding areas, where there are several longtime, traditional rodeos — such as the Princeton Rodeo, which was held this past weekend, and the upcoming Keremeos Rodeo, being held on the May long weekend — rodeos traditionally give the cowboy and his horse the opportunity to compete against their neighbour for the coveted blue ribbon.

On Saturday, May 8, I had the honour, along with my colleague the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, of attending the unveiling of a life-sized bronze sculpture of the late Kenny McLean. This sculpture will grace Centennial Park in Okanagan Falls for the rest of time to honour this local legend.

Kenny McLean was well known for his life as a rodeo rider who went from Rookie of the Year in 1961 to Canadian all-round champion and the PRCA Saddle Bronc World Champion. He also won 14 Canadian championships. He was inducted into the Canadian Rodeo Cowboy Hall of Fame. He's the only cowboy to ever receive the Order of Canada and the only cowboy to be inducted into the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame.

The ceremony followed the cowboy tradition of having bales of hay to sit on, along with country music and a roping demonstration. The only things missing were the cattle. Organizers of this great event were Bill Schwarz and his dedicated committee, and they should be congratulated for initiating this and raising thousands of dollars to honour one of their own, Kenny McLean.

[1350]

LYME DISEASE AWARENESS

L. Popham: May is Lyme Disease Awareness Month. Lyme disease is North America's fastest-rising infectious disease. It's utterly debilitating if not detected and treated quickly with antibiotics, which rarely happens in British Columbia.

People get Lyme disease from ticks. Ticks are sneaky. They anaesthetize their bites so they can feed in peace. Western black-legged ticks abound here, and up to 10 percent now carry Lyme in endemic areas like the Lower Mainland, Fraser Valley and southern Vancouver Island.

[ Page 5542 ]

May is awareness month because it starts a fresh tick season, the time when nymphal ticks, no larger than a speck of pepper, lurk on the tips of long spring grasses, waiting for a blood meal to pass by. Risk of infection can be greatly reduced if we know what precautions to take and what places and actions to avoid, like playing in tall grass while wearing shorts.

Being Lyme-aware is vital for children in suburban schools next to wooded areas frequented by deer. There are many such schools in B.C.

Today our public health officials are silent on the rising risk of Lyme disease. However, there are signs that our local schools are taking the risks to children more seriously. At Rogers Elementary in Saanich South, the May newsletter has a tick alert that's informative, non-alarmist and tells parents what to avoid, what to look for and what to do if a tick is discovered. That's prevention as it should be practised.

It inspires me today, in Lyme Disease Awareness Month, to urge our public health agencies to get serious about reducing public exposure to this preventable, debilitating and largely untreated illness.

TRADE EXPORT AWARDS AND

INTERNATIONAL TRADE DINNER IN SURREY

D. Hayer: International trade and the powerful export market will drive the future economy of this province. Today I'd like to talk about recognition of this vibrant part of our province's business.

Last Thursday I attended, with the members for Surrey-Panorama and Surrey-Whalley, the fourth annual International Trade and Surrey Export Awards dinner, presented by the Surrey Board of Trade and sponsored by Export Development Canada, Meyers Norris Penny and RBC Financial Group.

Held at the Sheraton Guilford Hotel in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, this awards ceremony recognized six leading companies who specialize in international trade and exports. Garaventa Canada Ltd. was the award winner. Other nominees were: 4 Refuel Ltd., SOFTAC Systems Ltd., Labtest Certification Inc., ROE Logistics Inc. and Stantech.

This evening began with an international trade show, followed by formal ceremonies emceed by Dawn Chubai of Citytv.

In addition to the presentation by the event sponsor, the packed ballroom also heard from Tatyana Domilovskaya, representing Russia and regional director of the Canada-Eurasia Russian Business Association; Andre Nudelman, representing Brazil, chairman of the Canadian Council of the Americas; and the consul general of Brazil, Ambassador Fernando Jacques.

We also heard from Mukesh Gupta, representing India and director of strategic relations for the Tata Group, one of the world's largest companies — he noted that the company's founder, Jamsetji Tata, visited Vancouver in 1903 from India — and the keynote speaker, our own Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development.

I ask all the members of the House to congratulate the Surrey Board of Trade for the fourth annual recognition of international trade leaders, businesses — all those outstanding speakers, volunteers, sponsors, staff members who made the evening such a success.

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF NISGA’A TREATY

R. Austin: Simgigat , Sigidimhaanak , K'uba Wilksihlkw — these words, when translated from Nisga'a, mean chiefs, matriarchs, community members and are the usual respectful way in which the Nisga'a address people on ceremonial occasions.

Last week on May 11 these words were used many times as dignitaries from all over B.C. joined the Nisga'a nation in their capital, New Aiyansh, to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Nisga'a treaty. I was privileged to witness that celebration along with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and my colleagues from the North Coast and Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

The starring guest was the Lieutenant-Governor of B.C., His Honour Steven Point, who congratulated the Nisga'a nation for the success of the last ten years since the treaty was signed.

[1355]

So much has changed in the last ten years, from the public deliberations of this, the first modern-day treaty in over a hundred years that brought settlement to over 300 years of subjugation under a colonial regime, to a time when we now have a First Nations person as the Queen's representative, the highest office in the province.

The irony was not lost on all those who were in attendance. Instead of fearing the inclusion of First Nations as equal citizens of this province, instead of thinking that self-determination for aboriginal people meant another level of government that was not constitutional, the Nisga'a treaty has demonstrated that reconciliation is possible.

We can all live together in this province and share resources and decision-making in a way that encourages inclusion and that finally permits First Nations to improve their social and economic conditions while celebrating the diversity of their cultures in the same way that all new immigrants from all over the world have done once arriving in this great province.

The new president of the Nisga'a Nation, Mitchell Stevens, did not gloss over the challenges that the Nisga'a still face. It is early days, and there is much catching up to do for the Nisga'a. But the treaty has given a sense of hope for his people and a sense of pride in being Nisga'a. When people feel pride and regain their confidence, all things are possible.

[ Page 5543 ]

As the Nisga'a have a very young population, let us all hope that the future is bright as increased education and economic opportunities renew their communities. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the many Nisga'a leaders for pursuing their dream for 113 years.

Oral Questions

EQUIPMENT AND ASSISTIVE

TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

C. James: Two months ago the B.C. Liberals made a $25 million cut to nutrition supplements, medical supplies and shelter allowances for people with disabilities and on income assistance. Now we've learned that they've cut funding for employment programs for the disabled. The equipment and assistive technology initiative gives people with disabilities the opportunity to work and to volunteer in their communities. It provides wheelchairs, hearing and vision aids, computer access, enhancements and other equipment.

The government committed to providing $16 million over four years, and now they've broken their word. They've slashed the funding by 60 percent without notice and without any consultation. My question is to the Minister of Housing and Social Development. How can he and his government possibly justify these cuts?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Housing.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you, Madam…. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure I will pay for that for some time to come.

Mr. Speaker: You will. [Laughter.]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member should do a little bit more research. What we've done this year is we are funding to the level that was last year's uptake with regards to the program. The money is also located within government should there be an increase in uptake this year. The funds would be available to fund additional services if required.

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

C. James: When I listen to the minister, I have to say I'll trust the organization before I trust this minister and this government on any funding cuts that have come. This community worked with the government to create this opportunity for people with disabilities to assist people who wanted to work, who wanted to volunteer and who needed some equipment to be able to do so.

The government promised them the funding. They committed to that funding, and now seven months after that promise, they broke their word. This organization is losing $10 million over four years. My question again is to the minister. Why is he breaking trust with the community groups and people with disabilities?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I stated is correct. There was $4 million in the program annually that is notionally allocated. But as we allocate our budget this year for the actual delivery of the program, we based it on last year's usage. That's where we're at. We are in a position, if our usage goes up, to be able to accommodate it within our budget for additional services for disabled people within this program.

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

C. James: It's no wonder the community groups are frustrated when they get that kind of answer from this minister and this government. It's no surprise.

[1400]

The groups weren't told that the money was notionally allocated. The group was given the money by the government. The group received the money. The B.C. personal supports network, the organization that coordinates this initiative, is facing a $2.5 million cut this year. This isn't a notional cut. This is a cut the organization is facing.

The funding will run out in less than two months. That means…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …people with disabilities who want to work, who want to go out to the community, who need assistance to be able to do that will go without.

Again my question is to the minister. Will he admit today that his cuts are creating barriers to employment for people with disabilities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll repeat it for the member. There's $1.5 million for equipment and assisted technologies in the 2010-11 budget, because that was basically what was used last year. There still remains another $21 million in the budget to be available for people in programs for people with disabilities.

As we've always done with people with disabilities, we work with them. We've been in contact with this community. They understand what we're trying to accomplish. If there is a need for more, there'll be more.

Sorry, Member. If you don't like it, it's too bad.

What you guys never had was a plan for people with disabilities at all in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 5544 ]

We are the ones that invested. We're the ones that have invested more money in job creation for people with disabilities, technology for people with disabilities. Communication devices are still funded for people with disabilities.

All you ever do is look at the sky and pretend it's falling and refuse to understand. We fund the usage rather than just putting money in a pot. We actually have a business plan with regards to people with disabilities, and we're delivering on it, hon. Members.

S. Simpson: This funding goes directly to individuals. It allows them to purchase the equipment and the aids that will improve their lives. It goes for wheelchairs, visual and hearing aids, computer enhancements and more. Yet less than two months after British Columbians cheered on the Paralympics, this government and this minister are prepared to hurt the ability of people to move, to speak, to see and hear and access information. That's what this minister's doing.

These organizations. The network has said they will run out of money in July 2010. Will this minister commit the $4 million a year to that equipment today?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's, of course, regardless of how much the usage would be. You just want to spend the $4 million. So $1.5 million is what the usage was last year. We're seeing a slight uptick in the usage this year. We have the funds to take care of it this year. That's how we're going to do it. We're going to pay for the services to 135 clients and any more that come on, if needed, because that's how this program should be run.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The way this program should be run is to meet the needs of the disabled, not to make excuses for an incompetent minister.

This group was told in May, six months after the money, after they thought they had a deal, that they didn't have a deal. So $4 million is gone. A million and a half is on the table. That's what they were told by this minister's officials — no consultation, no discussion, just a 60 percent cut.

My question to the minister again: how does this minister justify turning his back on the disabled, turning his back on vulnerable British Columbians, when he claims to care? What a sham.

Hon. R. Coleman: You wouldn't know. You've never seen somebody in iron lung at G.F. Strong. When I worked with the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation….

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite — through you, Mr. Speaker: for you to even think for one second that I don't have the interests of disabled people at risk…. You're wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The only thing phony over there is the member opposite asking the question.

Interjections.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I was actually personally involved in projects for quadriplegics and ventilated quadriplegics long before I entered politics. For the member opposite to take a shot like that at me I found somewhat offensive, and I apologize for going back at him that way.

I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker. We will deliver the services as are needed for the individuals on the basis that they're needed. That's all we're doing here. We're funding according to the previous usage, and if there's an increase in requirements for more usage, we will fund that.

B. Ralston: It might be helpful to hear what Christine Gordon, who is the chair of the B.C. personal supports network, had to say in a letter to the assistant deputy minister of the minister's employment and labour market services division.

"This fiscal year is our startup year for the networked approach, and like any startup, it has posed a number of implementational challenges to everyone involved. We have successfully met all of these challenges, and the program became fully operational in November 2009.

"This has meant that the expected 12 months of disbursements for equipment and assistive technology have been shrunk to five months, and consequently, the yearly budget is in surplus. It has been our expectation, given the agreement-in-principle, that this surplus would be carried over into the next fiscal year."

Clearly, the minister is not exactly expressing the full picture here. This organization had some understandable startup challenges. The numbers that the minister speaks of are confidently expected to expand in the next year, yet the budget has been shrunk. Can the minister explain why he's doing that, contrary to what Christine Gordon's expectation reasonably was?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm familiar with the letter, and my staff are working with this organization to explain what the member has asked. I can tell the member opposite

[ Page 5545 ]

right now on this particular thing that there are about 135 people that receive technical assistance for disabilities that allows them to get back into the workforce.

We've said to the organization and I've said to my staff, because we've looked at our budget, that if there's an increase this year in the uptake of that, we will fund that. But we've based — prudently, I think — our fiscal expectations on what the uptake is to date. We will work through that with the organization. We've already indicated that. I'm indicating that to the members opposite, and we know that we have the ability to do that if there are more people requiring the assistance in the future.

CONSERVATION OFFICER SERVICE

IN BELLA COOLA AREA

G. Coons: For the last two years the Bella Coola Valley has been without a conservation officer. The nearest conservation officer is posted in Williams Lake more than 450 kilometres away along Highway 20, along the infamous hill.

My question is to the Environment Minister. The community of Hope is in his constituency. It's closer to Williams Lake than Bella Coola is. Does he really think it's reasonable for a conservation officer to offer reasonable services across that wide of an area?

Hon. B. Penner: We've had a chance to discuss this matter during my ministry's budget estimates. We covered this at some length.

It is a challenge across the province of British Columbia to manage our wildlife, but we have good news to report when it comes to managing human-bear conflicts. Over the last number of years we've seen a decreasing trend of human-bear conflicts across the province, and that's a tribute not just to the work of the conservation officer service but to communities that are working with us through a program known as Bear Aware and Bear Smart. It takes a collaborative approach to reduce the incidence of human-bear conflicts, and we're seeing success.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

G. Coons: Besides the minister decimating the conservation service, he quoted in estimates: "…a conservation officer assigned to patrol the area but based in Williams Lake, so regular patrols will be scheduled." Some 450 kilometres apart — regular patrols.

All the people want in Bella Coola is for this minister to do his job. The frequency of controlled kills in the Bella Coola valley is an embarrassment. This threatens their burgeoning bear-viewing industry. Here's a quote from a wildlife photographer: "I have no intention of visiting the Bella Coola Valley again, and neither do any of my photographer friends, until this is resolved."

Again, my question is to the Environment minister. Will he help protect grizzly bears and the tourism industry that depends on them at least by posting a conservation officer position in the Bella Coola Valley?

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted, we are seeing significant progress in reducing the number of human-bear conflicts. We're doing that in partnership with local communities by educating the public about how they can reduce the number of attractants that they leave outside their property that unfortunately bring bears into town and near the residences. Ultimately, we all know that a fed bear becomes a dead bear.

In the last three years of our government, the number of problem bears that have had to be put down has dropped by half compared to the last three years of the NDP government.

MARMOT RECOVERY PROGRAM

AND SPECIES-AT-RISK LEGISLATION

R. Fleming: The Minister of Environment personally intervened in the fate of a yellow-bellied marmot at the Empress Hotel this week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: He said in quite strong terms that this individual marmot from the Interior could put local Vancouver Island marmots at risk, but his government has not confirmed funding for the marmot recovery program for Vancouver Island marmots, which are still among Canada's most endangered mammals.

My question to the minister is this. If he's truly concerned about the precarious state of Vancouver Island marmots, why won't he commit to fully fund the breeding program and Marmot Recovery Foundation?

Hon. B. Penner: One of my colleagues wondered if the member wrote the question himself or cut and pasted it from a website. But I think what's important to note is that we are seeing significant progress in the recovery of the Vancouver Island marmot. Shortly after our government took office, the population of Vancouver Island marmots in the wild was less than 30. Today that number exceeds 250. To help the member with his math, that represents an 800 percent increase in about the last eight years.

[ Page 5546 ]

There's more work to be done. We are partnering with that foundation and will continue to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I think it's very fortunate that the marmot in question was not between the minister and the camera when he went to the Empress on the weekend. By all accounts, he's in good shape. But the minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

[1415]

R. Fleming: The minister knows that part of what will help Vancouver Island marmots to have a sustainable future over the long term is the protection of their habitat. British Columbia remains one of the only provinces in Canada without species-at-risk legislation. This government promised to convene a task force to examine the issue. They promised to report back to the House by the end of June, but the task force hasn't even been named yet and has therefore been unable to meet.

My question is to the minister. Why doesn't he get to work introducing species-at-risk legislation that protects critical habitat of endangered species in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Penner: Just yesterday, the House passed second reading of a bill that expands B.C.'s protected areas network even more — to be the largest in Canada — so that by the time this bill is passed, which I expect it to be shortly, more than 14.25 percent of B.C.'s total land base will be protected. That's called habitat protection, and I think it's one reason why you're seeing recovery for the Vancouver Island marmot.

We are working with that foundation. There are many good people contributing in voluntary donations and time and effort, but the province of British Columbia has also invested hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last few years, and we're going to continue to work with that organization to do the good work of recovering the Vancouver Island marmot.

SILVICULTURE ACTIVITIES

N. Macdonald: The B.C. Liberals claim that one of their four forestry priorities is advanced silviculture, yet this week, the Western Silviculture Contractors Association started an on-line petition to try and force this government to do even the bare minimum silviculture.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. How does he reconcile B.C. Liberal claims with the reality that next year we will see the fewest number of trees planted in the province in the last 40 years?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is incorrect. In fact, silviculture follows harvesting. As the member well knows, a few years ago we were harvesting 70 million cubic metres of timber per year in the province. Last year we were down to 41 million cubic metres, and we would expect silviculture to drop in relation to that.

That said, we have our Forests for Tomorrow program this year that will be planting over 20 million trees across this province as a result of this government's funding.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: B.C. Liberal forest policies have devastated harvesting as they have the forest industry as a whole, with 30,000 jobs lost and 72 mills shut down. That's a fact. But there are — listen to the number — 14 million hectares of public forest that have been devastated by the pine beetle. There have been over a million hectares that have been damaged by fire. There is a massive replanting shortfall.

We are back to the crisis situation that we last saw in the 1980s, and B.C. Liberals are replanting less than ever. B.C. Liberals have destroyed the B.C. forest industry, and they are abandoning their responsibility to replant. So the question is: will the minister commit today to listen to silviculture professionals and increase the government's investment in our public lands?

Hon. P. Bell: The opposition seems to struggle with positions on a variety of initiatives. The member opposite, the critic, actually was quite complimentary of another one of the initiatives that this government has gone forward with recently, which is our efforts into China, and in fact, is on record in a number of different areas.

What I find interesting is that the previous critic just earlier this week was saying that our efforts in China are a waste of time. So now I know that the member for Cariboo North really would still like to be the critic for Forests. I'm sorry that he had a bit of a hiccup during the election and was displaced from that role. But it would be nice if the members opposite would get on the same page on their policy positions on things like China.

[1420]

B. Simpson: Without healthy public forests, there is no forest industry — period. This minister knows that there's a difference between legal obligations for

[ Page 5547 ]

replanting after harvesting and this government's obligation for areas of the forest that have been disturbed and that this government is responsible for tree planting and for forest health. This minister knows that.

The Western Silvicultural Contractors on their webpage and webpage petition have pointed out that 15 million hectares have been hit by the mountain pine beetle. Of that, between three million and six million hectares need planting to regrow those forests. That's between three billion and six billion trees, not a few million trees.

When is the minister going to stop talking about advanced silviculture and tree planting and start doing it and fund an accelerated program?

Hon. P. Bell: Obviously, the member opposite isn't listening. During the period from 2002 to 2008 this government planted one billion trees.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm still having trouble reconciling the member for Cariboo North's comments against the critic's comments around China. I'm just confused. I'd like for the member for Cariboo North to either support the comments that he made on the Meisner show late last week, when he said that what we were doing in China was a complete waste of time and that I shouldn't go over and market into the Chinese marketplace, or the critic's perspective from just a few weeks before that, when he said that we were doing exactly the right thing.

I would appreciate it if the member would reconcile those differences.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Here's what the Western Silvicultural Contractors have to say about the government's response just to the mountain pine beetle. This is right off their webpage: the B.C. government's plan to address the mountain pine beetle problem "will only deal with an insignificant fraction of the area which requires tree planting, and it will take 20 years to complete." This minister knows that every year this government does not do an accelerated program delays forest health from coming back for a forest-healthy industry for 30 years. Every year delayed is 30 years.

This minister is deflecting because he doesn't have an answer to the question. That's what he's doing. Not only is the minister putting the forest at risk; he's putting an entire industry at risk. The planting capacity, the seedling capacity is 350 million seedlings, and 150 trees planted puts a $700 million industry at risk.

Stick to the question. Will the minister commit today to do an advanced silviculture response to the mountain pine beetle?

Hon. P. Bell: The reason why I'm deflecting is I'm having far too much fun pointing out the fact that the member for Cariboo North really wishes that he was the Forest critic still and seems to be making policy on behalf of the NDP.

In 2009-10 there was over $250 million spent on silviculture in this province and 330,000 hectares treated. That's a record this government is proud of.

SUMMER SCHOOL SPACES

R. Austin: Recently, at 5 a.m. in the morning, hundreds of parents began lining up outside the Vancouver school board building, hoping to enrol their children in summer classes. Obviously, parents are worried that there is more demand for spaces than the district can accommodate.

[1425]

My question to the Education Minister is this: what is this government doing to help districts manage the increased demand for summer school spaces?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly understand that summer school is one of the valuable programs, and that's why our government is supporting it. We continue to invest in public education. We continue to increase our investigation of public education. This is at a time when districts are expecting fewer students, but these are popular programs. We provided $15 million for summer school programs last year in the province. This year we are committing another $15 million, and that allowed last year 44,000 students to take summer learning courses.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Well, cash-strapped school districts are slashing the number of summer school spaces they offer to students needing extra help or looking to improve their averages for entrance into university. The Richmond school district cut the number of summer school spaces by almost 20 percent at a time when demand for summer school spaces has never been higher. Again to the Education Minister: why can't districts afford to meet the demand for summer school spaces?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As the member is well aware, our government is absolutely committed to education. At a time when jurisdictions around North America are reducing their investment, this government has continued to increase our investments in education.

It's interesting to hear the member opposite be critical. What we know is that the NDP's platform contained 60 percent less investment in public education than we have put in terms of increases over the last two years. So again, these are valuable programs. We invested $15 million last year, and we put that amount in again this year for students across B.C.

[ Page 5548 ]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

V. Huntington: I have the honour to present a petition from constituents in Delta South in opposition to the HST.

M. Sather: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Sather: Joining us today in the precincts is Alexandra Morton. She's here to discuss the issue of sea lice and fish farms with the minister's office, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome my CA from the Ladysmith office. Patty McNamara has joined us. Patty is a great assistant to me, and I owe her such a debt of gratitude for her many hours of service.

S. Hammell: It looks like I may have just missed her, but my daughter, Sage Aaron, was in the gallery, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 13.

[1430-1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 13 — Forests and Range

(First Nations Woodland Licence)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, with your indulgence, I'd like to ask you to join me in recognizing 43 students visiting from Richmond Christian School in my riding. Their teachers are Christy Simpson and Sigfried Ong. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

section 4 (continued) .

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Cariboo South — Cariboo North, rather.

B. Simpson: Correct. I miss the representative from Cariboo South. Charlie is missed in here.

Anyway, having said that, let's get on with the job. We were in the middle of this

section 4. The

section has to do with the minister specifying a portion of the annual allowable cut, and it has to do with the fact that this will now be an area-based tenure, so there are some adjustments there.

I had asked the minister the question about whether or not the work had been done in the various timber supply areas to make sure that these areas could be designated quickly and that the volume was actually going to be there. It's not just lines on a map. You can put lines on a map around a dead mountain pine beetle stand, and there's no volume to commercialize or turn into a commercial enterprise. The minister had indicated a quick answer, and then we recessed.

I'd like the minister to give me a more fulsome answer. Has the work actually been done? If so, does that work exist in some form with respect to all of the TSAs? Some of the TSAs? What's the status of the preparatory work to make sure these licences can actually be realized?

Hon. P. Bell: Just in quickly reviewing my response from yesterday, I confirmed that while this work is ongoing, some areas are further along than others. There were some First Nations that expressed interest in early adoption, and we have been working specifically with those First Nations to try and identify land bases that are available to them.

I've also been very clear in my public comments, and I'm happy to put on the record here as well, that I expect that in some circumstances this will take quite some time. I'm not expecting we'll be able to move all 168 or so forest and range opportunities and agreements to area-based tenures quickly. I have expressed that, as well, in any of the meetings I've had with First Nations.

I've also said that in areas where there is greater availability of resource, the land is not as constrained — I often use Fort Nelson as the example for no particular reason other than it is an area that there is some flexibility — and that it would be easier for us to move quickly. In some areas, like portions of Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland, it will be far more challenging where the timber is constrained.

So the work has been ongoing — early days in some cases and more advanced in other cases. I do not want to create an expectation that we will be able to fully accommodate all 168 forest and range opportunities or agreements within the next year or two. That would not be realistic.

[1440]

[ Page 5549 ]

B. Simpson: Well, this is against a backdrop of a government that has been chastised for the state of the forest inventory by the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, against a backdrop of a government that is in the process of effectively gutting the Ministry of Forests and taking bodies out of the Ministry of Forests, and against a backdrop of a government that had attempted to double the woodlot program and expand the community forest program, announced in 2003 and just barely begun to be realized now that we're into 2010.

There's a good reason for some cynicism out there that this would happen quickly at all. So it's heartening to hear the minister indicate that there are some issues here, but it's more than just volume constraints or licence constraints on the land base. There are a whole bunch of other issues there.

The minister mentioned that there are 168 forest and range agreements. I wonder if the minister could, for the public record, indicate how many of those have already expired and how many will expire within the next year.

Hon. P. Bell: There are 45 agreements that have expired in the last short period of time this year. There are 22 more that are due to expire this year. We've contacted the 45 that have expired and advised them that we will be entering into discussions with them in the coming weeks about renewing those agreements on an interim basis until we're able to move forward on the area-based tenures. That will be the case with all of the agreements as we go forward.

B. Simpson: For once, I have to say that the minister's presumption of where I was going with this was bang on, and I appreciate the answer that he gave.

The question that's being asked, of course, is: what happens in the interim? The forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities were difficult enough to get going. There were only five years, so they were a short duration. They were volume-based. Now you have a whole bunch of First Nations that are looking at an unknown time period before they can again get access to the land base to create economic activity from forests.

I would hope, again, that the minister has the resources to accelerate that, because that's certainly what I'm hearing, especially given that we're in whatever the nature of this market bump is. Nobody really knows how long it is. It's unfortunate that many of those First Nations are losing their ability to get to the land base at a time when there are actually some prices there that they could make some money off of. Hopefully, that goes on.

A second question related to this section, because the

section has to do with the fact that the minister has to make arrangements for an area-based tenure and apportionment of the annual allowable cut. In speaking with some of the First Nations, they have indicated to me that they're concerned that their only opportunity might be an area-based tenure, simply because they may not be able to find an area in their traditional territories that actually has a viable, healthy forest that they can extract resources from, especially timber resources.

One of the questions that's being asked is: with this tenure coming into existence, with it being area-based, will it be the only vehicle? With forest and range agreements going, with this tenure coming into existence, the question is: will it be the only vehicle that First Nations will be able to get access to, or will volume-based tenures still be available to First Nations?

Hon. P. Bell: Both forms of tenure will be available.

B. Simpson: The final line of questioning around this is that part of the difficulty in the woodlot program and expansion of the woodlot program, expansion of the community forest program, and the forest and range agreements, etc., is the role that B.C. Timber Sales plays both as a licensee with their lines on the map and as an agent of the Crown. That is often confusing for First Nations, as to how they're talking to B.C. Timber Sales. Are they talking to them as an agent of the Crown, or are they talking to them as another licensee, in which they're trying to get some volume or an area on the land?

One of the questions around the defining of the area is the role that B.C. Timber Sales will play in either constraining that or enabling that. That's a fair comment from First Nations, because the woodlots experienced it, and community forests experienced it.

[1445]

I guess the question is: what role will B.C. Timber Sales play in this? Will they be treated just as another licensee? The work will be done, the line on the map will be done, and then B.C. Timber Sales will simply have to take their lumps like every other licensee. Or will they be a player as an agent of the Crown in determining what the First Nations get?

Hon. P. Bell: B.C. Timber Sales has a number of functions. Probably the most important one from our perspective is to help us create a market pricing system, which requires the auctioning of 20 percent of the timber across the province.

That said, we believe there are innovative partnerships that we can create with First Nations to advance both this type of tenure, this tenure opportunity, and the need to have sufficient data in the market pricing system to fulfil our responsibilities to the United States and the softwood lumber agreement.

We have entered into discussions with First Nations — the Haida is a good example of one of the ones that is a bit more advanced at this point in time — to consider our options of how we can achieve those dual mandates

[ Page 5550 ]

with the timber resource that's currently allocated to B.C. Timber Sales.

I think the member also asked the question: what role will B.C. Timber Sales play? Certainly, they are a licensee and will continue to be a licensee. But finding ways of creating partnerships, we think, will advance this agenda and help us move more quickly in creating area-based tenures for First Nations.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer. I know my question was a bit convoluted, so let me try and fine-tune it a little bit.

In the case of trying to determine woodlot expansion, for example, there's a different relationship between Ministry of Forests and B.C. Timber Sales when it comes to trying to draw the lines on the map as to where you would put a woodlot. There's an intimate relationship there because B.C. Timber Sales is still part of the Crown. It's much easier, as some people would argue, for B.C. Timber Sales to say, "Uh-uh, I don't think so," than it is, necessarily, for other licensees to say that because of that relationship.

The second issue is that often First Nations are sitting with B.C. Timber Sales as an agent of the Crown. The question that I'm merely trying to get at here is: in the drawing of the lines on the map, will that be clearly Ministry of Forests line staff or agents of the minister's office and First Nations? The lines then get drawn. Everybody agrees that that's where it is, and then B.C. Timber Sales is simply told, like the other licences, where those lines are. Otherwise, as the First Nations indicate, B.C. Timber Sales has a special place at the table, which often means they don't get access to their areas.

Hon. P. Bell: The member's incorrect. The only role that B.C. Timber Sales has in working with First Nations, other than as a licensee, would be on a consultation basis when they're advancing their forest development plans and cutting permits. Other than that, they don't play any role that any normal licensee would not play.

The model that the member asks about in terms of how these areas will be determined. We will treat B.C. Timber Sales like we would any other licensee. They won't be engaged initially, but once the early discussions with the First Nations take place, B.C. Timber Sales, as well as any of the other operating licensees in the area, would be brought into the discussion to determine the appropriate lines on the map to be drawn and how this new tenure might be put into place.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

B. Simpson: Again, the minister's clarity in his answer was what I was after, but I just want to correct the record. I was saying that there was confusion on part of First Nations woodlots — others — about the role that B.C. Timber Sales plays, because they see them as an agent of the Crown. That's where the confusion comes from, not the delineation of functions or the legislation or whatever but the relationship that occurs because B.C. Timber Sales is an agent of the Crown as well as a licensee.

section 6. I need some clarification here, because it's one of those changes that seems to be changing, potentially, the content of a licence. I wonder if the minister can just give an explanatory note.

[1450]

For folks who do pay attention to this stuff, as opposition we just get these little

section notes, and all it says is that

section 6 provides consistency with the addition of another section. But often I find that sometimes changing a little word here and a little word there is actually making a broader change. So what's the nature of this

section change?

Hon. P. Bell: In

section 14(g.1) the existing language allows for…. When a First Nation enters into an interim measures agreement that results in a forest licence, if the First Nation does not comply with some of the elements of the agreement, then the licence can be cancelled. That exists currently in 14(g.1). The amendment simply harmonizes the language with the award of the First Nations woodland licence. So it just allows for that same provision to exist with a First Nations woodland licence.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

B. Simpson: I don't want to get into the debate on delegated authority, because that's what I understand that we're actually doing here — the continuation of some changes in

section 8 to be consistent with what we saw in Bill 7. But the (

c) portion of this does say "by striking out 'the person who evaluated the applications'" and substituting that with "the minister may."

In this case, one of the questions — and it's similar to community forests and woodlots — is the whole application process. I wonder if the minister could just give an indication of what the process is that he foresees will occur in the application for these new licences. How does he see the application process unfolding?

Hon. P. Bell: The process will mirror the application process for a community forest where the minister will invite the community to apply. The community will then go through that process, apply, and then the final decision would be made by the minister.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear, because the invitation to apply is actually often as a result of the community

[ Page 5551 ]

doing some work and kind of putting a case together, making sure that other people — in the case of community forests, often making sure that other entities — are supportive of the initiative.

My understanding of how that process works, then, is there's a bit of a lobby done to the minister saying: "We've got some of our ducks in a row. We kind of know what we want to do here. We've got people signed off on it." Then they get a formal letter, which is the formal letter of an invitation to apply. Does the minister see that same kind of preliminary process having to unfold first before the formal invitation to apply occurs?

Hon. P. Bell: The member's correct.

B. Simpson: But in this case, I guess, you have, as the minister indicated, a number of First Nations that are in forest and range agreements already, and the minister has indicated that the intent is over time to get as many of these licences out to First Nations as possible.

[1455]

The minister indicated that 45 of the forest and range agreements have already expired, and 22 are about to expire. Of course, for all of them, the clock is ticking down.

Is the intent for the minister to just simply initiate invitations to some of these to apply right away? Especially for ones — as we had a dialogue yesterday — that have been successful with forest and range agreements and want to continue, would there not be some kind of automatic: "Let's get on with it, send out an invitation to apply, and let's get the ball rolling"?

Or is there going to be some kind of requirement on First Nations…? It's more a question of clarity for people as to how this will unfold. Would there be some expectation that "no, some additional work is going to have to be done before you get the invitation to actually start the process"?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the answer to the member's question is probably yes. Communities that clearly have demonstrated some success and want to move quickly and will have demonstrated their ability are ones that we would invite very quickly.

One of the additional elements that I think is important to keep in mind here is that we don't want to create unrealistic expectations. Prior to the invitation we would at least be looking to determine if there is an available land base to put this tenure on in the area that had been identified by the First Nation. That would be one of the early things, rather than issuing an invitation not knowing whether or not there is land base available to put this tenure on.

B. Simpson: Which in many cases is the rub — whether or not that can be achieved.

My question to the minister on this, then, is: given the backdrop of the ministry losing bodies…. We're expecting another round of announcements for job losses within the Ministry of Forests and Range. How is the minister going to staff — actually getting the work done to make the determinations on the ground, given that he's got a diminishing workforce?

Hon. P. Bell: The majority of the reductions that are being made in the Forest Service right now are administrative in nature. We certainly have a group of qualified individuals in our tenures branch that are more than capable of dealing with this work.

But again, I just want to step back and make sure that I don't create unrealistic expectations. This will be a very complex project. If all 168 First Nations that currently have some form of tenure or forest and range opportunities or agreements wanted to move to the new First Nations woodland licence, it would be a very complex project, and it would take quite some time.

I know that the member opposite follows along the interests of the woodlot associations, community forests. These tenures will be equally as complex as the tenures that we issue under woodlots and community forests. So I don't want to create unrealistic expectations. It will be complex, but we certainly have qualified staff ready to take on this role.

B. Simpson: The minister has said a number of times that he doesn't want to set unrealistic expectations. But the minister also indicated in the line of questioning before that one of the bottlenecks will be the identification of the possible areas on the land base.

That bottleneck is only a bottleneck because of a lack of resources from the Ministry of Forests assigned to go and get that work done. That work could be accelerated if a sufficient number of bodies and resources were put to it. It's the only bottleneck that the minister has articulated so far.

My question to the minister is: is it possible, if the minister assigned additional staff, to address that very issue and shorten the time frame that it's going to take to get the first one or half-dozen of these done?

[1500]

Hon. P. Bell: I know we're creating lots of leeway in this debate, and I'm not sure that discussing the staffing levels of the Ministry of Forests and Range fits within this particular bill. However, I will endeavour to answer the question at this point anyway.

The holdup frequently in issuing some form of tenure.... I'll use the Ucluelet example. The Ucluelet community forest is really not a function of the number of staff that are available. It's finding an agreement amongst the licensees and the community, in the case of Ucluelet, on what that tenure might look like and how you put it on

[ Page 5552 ]

the land base. That is a very constrained timber supply area, a very challenged timber supply area. Eventually we were able to come to an agreement that did not reflect what Ucluelet originally was looking for but did present a reasonable outcome.

I'm not concerned about staffing levels. I think we will have sufficient staff to implement this particular program. But again, I just need to be cautious in not creating undue expectations — not a function of staffing, a function of how complex the challenge will be.

The member actually, I know, is aware of it. I've often heard him speak in the House on the number of different types of tenures, the number of different users on the land base. He well knows how challenging it is to manage this province that we live in. So I think I'll just leave it at that at this point.

B. Simpson: I don't think it's latitude we're getting; I think we're getting to the heart of the issue. This is a new licence. In order to realize that licence, there have to be appropriate resources put to realizing a licence. One of those resources is the human resources.

Given the minister's comments…. I take the complexity on the ground; I take that it takes time. But it also takes people-hours to walk through the process. It takes people-hours on the part of the ministry to mediate the process, to take it through all of the hoops that have to be done. I guess we'll agree to disagree with respect to whether the minister has sufficient resources to do that or not.

My final question on this point. The minister again has said that he doesn't want to set unrealistic expectations. But what are his expectations of the duration for maybe the first one of these or first couple of these to actually be realized?

Hon. P. Bell: We're hopeful that we would get four or five invitations out this year and have those licences in place next year.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

B. Simpson: This

section is where the bill seems to set out the requirements for getting one of these licences. Before I get into it in more detail, I note that subsection (1) that's going to be inserted into 43.51 of the Forest Act states: "The minister may enter into a community forest agreement (

a) with a first nation or its representative…." Why is the term "community forest agreement" used there and not the new term, which is the "First Nations woodland licence"?

Hon. P. Bell: We used the opportunity, as we were in this particular piece of legislation, to perform a housekeeping amendment to the community forest regulation. This doesn't impact the new First Nations woodland licence.

B. Simpson: Does this suggest, then, that by tidying up the language and retaining it, a First Nation can get a community forest licence? I know there's other language in here so the First Nations can get a woodlot licence. Would one preclude getting the other? Is there a relationship between the two?

[1505]

Hon. P. Bell: This amendment allows First Nations to hold either a community forest licence, a woodlot licence, a new First Nations woodland licence or any combination of those.

B. Simpson: I guess I'm not clear, then, if a community forest…. Let me ask this question. Can they hold more than one of these licences?

All three are area-based licences. I guess the confusion is if you've got this new First Nations licence but they can access a community forest licence or access a woodlot licence, both area-based. What's the point of going through the whole rigmarole of establishing a new licence? Why not stop this? As the minister has indicated, the difficulties, etc…. Why not start flipping over some of these forest and range agreements to community forest licences as quickly as possible? That already exists.

Hon. P. Bell: While First Nations could hold any individual one of those three forms of tenure or a combination of those tenures or more than one — two woodlots, as an example — the First Nations woodland licences are exclusively for First Nations and not available to communities or non–First Nations communities.

There are First Nations that currently hold community forests in partnerships with communities. An example of that would be the McLeod Lake Indian band in the district of Mackenzie. It's necessary to have this wording in here in order to allow any combination or any individual of those tenures to be held.

In addition, we heard clearly from First Nations that they were looking for a stand-alone form of tenure in the new First Nations woodland licence. We did our best to reflect the different options that they were considering or that were important in this piece of legislation. So that's the importance of actually having this here as opposed to simply asking First Nations to adopt existing forms of tenure.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the clarification. The other thing, of course, is that the woodland licence has other commercial — the botanical, etc…. They've got the unique aspects to it.

We'll get into the stumpage question later on in here, because one of the things, of course, is that community

[ Page 5553 ]

forest stumpage is different than what's being assigned to these licences. That's become a bit of a bone of contention, as the minister is well aware. So I take the minister's point on community forest agreements, etc.

There are other sections in here about converting community forest agreements or woodlot agreements. We're going to get into the private land component. But am I correct that if a community forest is held by a First Nations…? Would that First Nations then be able to just convert that into one of these new licences?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

B. Simpson: We'll get into substance of stumpage shortly. But in the conversion of that licence, since we're dealing with it under this clause, would they then convert it to all of the stumpage, the rent, the constraints on this licence and lose the community forest stumpage in that conversion?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should understand that there are three different forms of tenure here. The First Nation could choose any one of those three forms of tenure depending on what's offered.

Certainly, it's our intent to move forward with the new First Nations woodland licence. We've tried to craft that in a way that meets the spirit of what we heard in the process of discussing this with First Nations. But you wouldn't be able to pick an element of the community forest licence, an element of a woodlot and an element of a First Nations woodland licence and create a new form of tenure that would combine the three. It would be choosing one of those three forms of tenure.

B. Simpson: Again, for clarity, why wouldn't First Nations then just simply apply for community forest licences and not go for these because of the stumpage question and the tabular rate stumpage for community forests?

[1510]

Would the minister take that? If First Nations say, "Okay, on balance, we like some aspects of this new licence, but the reality is that the economics of a community forest licence are a lot better," and you get a whole bunch of applications for community forests…. Will the minister just settle and go with First Nations on their desire for a community forest in lieu of one of these?

Hon. P. Bell: I believe I've already answered that question. This type of tenure is a stand-alone tenure. There are three forms of tenure here that may be eligible. There are many other forms of tenure that would be available to First Nations as well. But this particular tenure doesn't allow you — nor do any of the others — to pick and choose what elements of other tenures you might be able to incorporate in this.

This tenure was built on the principle of the discussions that we had with the 23 First Nations and also the hundred or more First Nations that I visited with and talked to during both the round-table work and the other community meetings that I do on a regular basis.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

B. Simpson: This is a very large

section with a number of components to it. What I'll do in the interests of time is try and do some general questions to get to the heart of some of this.

A concern that's been raised with me about getting access to one of these new licences is the issue of having to be involved in an interim agreement or the treaty process or some kind of agreement with the government of which this new licence forms a part of that agreement. Some First Nations have indicated to me that they just want to be able to apply for the licence. They don't want to be involved in any other business with the government.

I wonder if the minister can clarify: if you've got a First Nation that is not in the treaty process, isn't involved in interim agreements with the government, isn't involved in broader partnership agreements with the government and just wants one of these, will they be able to get one?

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I would like to make welcome a group of students from Ecole Pauline Haarer School in Nanaimo. They are accompanied by Ms. Virginia Lofeudo. They are 25 grade 6 students with ten adults accompanying them, who have come to take a look at how our parliament works.

I could tell them now that they're watching debate on a bill, committee stage of a bill, where the critic is asking the minister specific questions about that bill. If they'd been here earlier for question period, they would have seen a much more heated exchange. Mr. MacMinn, who is one of the Clerks in the House, tells students that there's anger and heat in our chamber so that there isn't blood on our streets. That's how we contain ourselves in a democracy.

I would like those of us in the House to help make them welcome to their House.

Hon. P. Bell: I, too, would like to welcome all the students and teachers and parents. I should tell you that there's a reason for the width of the desks being away from us. You may have heard this outside already, but

[ Page 5554 ]

it's actually 2½ sword lengths. Some hundred or so years ago, when I guess people used to maybe bring swords in here, it would prevent us from actually gouging — doing all that kind of stuff.

Anyway, we're having a great debate right now. We're having a great debate on First Nations woodland licences, which is a new form of tenure that we're working with First Nations in the Ministry of Forests and Range.

Debate Continued

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to the question is that interim measure agreements will be required to enter into new First Nations woodland licences, but one should not presuppose what an interim measures agreement contains. It does not require being involved in the treaty process, and it may be some other form of agreement.

Each interim measures agreement is crafted to reflect the desires, needs and wants of both the First Nation and the province of British Columbia. So I don't think First Nations will see that as an impediment going forward. It is to be crafted specific to the needs of each of the individual communities.

[1515]

B. Simpson: Welcome, to the students. One of the things I would say to the students is that this is how your laws are made, your helmet laws and all of that fun stuff. This one happens to be with respect to how First Nations in the province can get access to our forests.

With that, I would beg to politely differ with the minister's impression of First Nations sense of this. I have been told categorically — and it is one of the reasons why there will be a joint First Nations Forestry Council and energy council meeting come June — that this is problematic, that First Nations believe these licences should be unencumbered from having to be involved in any kind of interim measures, treaty or not treaty.

If I look back at the

section around community forests, for First Nations accessing a community forest in

section 11, there's a clause (

b) that says "under prescribed circumstances or with a holder that meets prescribed requirements." I'm wondering why there wasn't an additional clause put in here — where if a First Nation comes forward that can meet the test, for example, of being able to viably have one of these licences but is not involved in interim measures with the government in any way, shape or form — that would allow the minister to say: "Okay, that makes sense, and we will issue one of these licences even though you're not involved in an interim measure."

Hon. P. Bell: Again, just stepping back, the member opposite….

I should tell the folks up in the gallery that these two fine young gentlemen as well as the gentleman behind me are all government staff members to me as the Minister of Forests. They provide me with advice on the well-reasoned and thought-through questions from the member of the opposition. He unfortunately does not have that same opportunity, which puts him at a disadvantage. It's in order to ensure that we provide full answers to his questions, and it's the only time that staff members are allowed in the House. Otherwise, it's only MLAs, elected officials, that are allowed in here.

To answer the member's question, using a woodlot as an example, a woodlot to be awarded to a First Nation would require an interim measures agreement. Otherwise it would be competitively awarded. As I know, the member opposite understands woodlots are competitively awarded under normal circumstances.

If it is a community forest, although there isn't the direct competitive process, there is an application process that the community goes through that awards the tenure. So the interim measures agreement is appropriate, and we think it will provide enough flexibility to meet the needs of First Nations across the province. There may be a misunderstanding.

The member earlier pointed to a misunderstanding generally on the part of people publicly that B.C. Timber Sales has responsibilities from government's perspective other than its role as licensee and that he was aware of its official role but that others misunderstood it. I think that probably is the same for this particular issue.

[1520]

An interim measures agreement can be many different things. Our desire will be to create interim measures agreements that make sense for each individual First Nation, and we think they will likely vary depending on that First Nation's interests.

B. Simpson: Again, from the perspective of First Nations, maybe that's a communications issue from the minister's office to First Nations. The reality is that the constraint put on First Nations appears to be: "You've got to be playing in our sandbox in order to get one of these."

That's how it's been articulated to me that it feels like for First Nations: "There's a bigger sandbox here. We want to be moving on other things. Here's your sucker for the day if you come in and play in our sandbox." That's their impression. If that's not the case, then I think there is a communications issue in the minister's office, in the ministry, with First Nations.

The minister raises…. His answer to the question is an interesting one, in referencing the "may be" related to the issue of not wanting to put in language to direct-award these, because woodlots are competitive. Community forests have a consultation process in a broader process.

Yet in this same bill, later on in

section 17, there's the ability to direct-award grazing licences and various things for First Nations. I recall, when I was the Forests critic, an amendment act that gave district managers the

[ Page 5555 ]

ability to direct-award licences to First Nations as well. If the issue is direct-award, then I think that everybody understands this is a different relationship, a different legal relationship and so on.

Again, I would ask the minister: would he consider repealing this

section and coming up with language that allows First Nations, or adding a

section that allows First Nations, to access these without being involved in an interim measure? That's what I'm hearing is a real request on the part of First Nations.

Hon. P. Bell: No.

B. Simpson: That's about as clear an answer as you can get.

We're constrained, as the minister has indicated, in resources that we have to put forward reasoned amendments. But if we had the ability, we would have tried to figure out a reasoned amendment to this. I take the minister's point about the direct-award issue, but I think it is unfair to First Nations to have to have an interim agreement in place to get one of these.

Let's move on to another

section in this section. It's the whole issue of the management plan approval. I wonder if the minister could just simply clarify what the nature of the management plan is that's referenced here. Is it a forest stewardship plan, or does that come afterwards?

This management plan must be put in place prior to approval by the minister, and I would just like some clarification of what the process is. You get a letter of invitation. Does the management plan have to come in after the letter of invitation and before the approval? Where does it fit in the sequence of events?

Hon. P. Bell: We expect that this will largely mirror the type of work that goes on with community forests or tree farm licences. That said, it will be implemented by regulation, and we will consult with First Nations as we develop these forms of tenures to ensure that the management plan reflects the spirit of the objectives of the First Nations. This will be something that'll be done by regulation if this piece of legislation is approved by the House and as we enter into those agreements.

B. Simpson: I was just going to explain to the folks, if they had been here, that with a majority, it's pretty much a given that you actually get it through.

The minister has indicated that this management plan has yet to be determined. One of the questions with respect to this particular licence and communities that will get one of these licences….

[1525]

Of course, the resources required to meet the government's obligations…. In the process of trying to get one of these licences, will there be resources made available to First Nations — and in what form, if they are — to be able to actually meet whatever the regulatory requirements are to submit a management plan to get one? It becomes a chicken and an egg for First Nations to be able to do these things.

Hon. P. Bell: The resources that may be made available to a First Nation to do this sort of work quite conceivably could be included as part of an interim measures agreement, which might give a First Nation a very good reason to want to be part of an interim measures agreement. That's why I had indicated earlier to the member that I don't think we should have preconceived notions of what an interim measures agreement might look like.

B. Simpson: It is on the public record, and I will allow First Nations to respond to the minister's statement of: "You come into our sandbox, and we'll give you some resources to be able to get another incremental benefit from playing the game our way." It's on the public record, and First Nations can respond to the way that the minister has couched it.

One of the questions that's raised here with respect to putting constraints on a management plan and all of that stuff is related to that, where the Crown says to First Nations…. There's a presumption in this that the areas that are going to be defined, as much as possible, will be in the traditional territories of the First Nations. My understanding is that the minister has indicated that's going to be one of the things that the government is going to attempt to do. It's why some First Nations, as I indicated earlier, are concerned a bit about whether that volume actually exists to get operating areas in their traditional territories.

But in the Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia , the Judge Vickers case, there was a statement made in the finding of that case, and I'll quote it. The quotation is: "The present provisions of the Forest Act do not apply to those areas that meet the test for aboriginal title."

I said in some of my opening comments that what the government is doing here may be open to legal challenge. One of the questions then is: if the government is using a presumption that the area being defined is in the traditional territory of the First Nation — there's a tacit assumption by the Crown that recognizes that the area that's defined is in the traditional territory of the First Nations — is it not, according to the Vickers case, inappropriate for the Crown to then apply the provincial regulatory requirements in order to achieve economic benefit from that same area?

Just in terms of the legal advice to the minister and the ministry, are we not setting ourselves up for a legal challenge where a First Nation can say: "You've given us recognition that this is in our traditional territory, you've drawn a line on the map in our traditional territory, and now you're telling us what to do in our traditional territory"?

[ Page 5556 ]

Judge Vickers, in the Tsilhqot'in case, says that the Forest Act provisions ought not to apply. Has that been canvassed and discussed with the minister?

Hon. P. Bell: There's a couple of things about the Vickers case that the member opposite may have neglected to mention. The first is that it is currently being appealed, and the second is that the passages that I believe the member has read were an opinion by Justice Vickers and not a decision.

The legal advice that I've received is that this particular element of the legislation will meet the test of the courts here in the province of British Columbia.

[1530]

B. Simpson: Fair enough. It's one of those things, I guess, that will remain to be seen. I take it…. I mean, judges' decisions and judges' advice are not necessarily discriminated against when other judges then take those into consideration. The advice is often taken into consideration just as much as the judgment is. If the government is appealing, which is a whole question in and of itself, under the new relationship agreement, it doesn't mean that the government is going to win, and this judgment may stand — and the advice that goes with the judgment as well.

With respect to the management plan and it going into regulation, one of the questions is: what, then, is the process for determining what the nature of that management plan is going to be? How does the minister foresee sitting down with First Nations to decide what the nature of the management plan might be that would then be required in order to get one of these licences?

Hon. P. Bell: We believe that starting with a template of the community forest agreement management plans would be a good place to start. We then will sit down and discuss that, particularly with the early adopters but also other First Nations that are interested in talking about the management plan. It's possible that the First Nations Forestry Council will want to play a role in that, although I don't want to presuppose that.

The other thing that I think is important to point out, though, is that the management plan may be different from one agreement to another. So it wouldn't necessarily require exactly the same management plan for two First Nations. I think eventually what you would see is the development, as I said, of a template, and then that template may be modified to meet the individual needs of a particular First Nation. We're flexible on this, and we want to make sure that it works.

These tenures are not intended in any way of trying to be prescriptive. We want to try and meet the needs of the First Nations so that they can best reflect the values that they are trying to extract from the land base, whether they be cultural, social or economic values.

B. Simpson: I think the flexibility — because there's flexibility in community forests as well — is important.

Could the minister just clarify? In

section (

b) of that same subsection it says: "if required under the agreement between the first nation and the government referred to in subsection (2) of this" — which is the one that establishes this new licence — "…one or more agreements referred to in

section 12 are surrendered." What's the nature of that section, and what would have to be surrendered — or may?

Hon. P. Bell: Subsection (4)(

b) allows First Nations to convert other forms of tenure to a new First Nations woodland licence. That might be, as an example, taking a forest and range opportunity or agreement, a non-replaceable forest licence, a woodlot, perhaps a community forest — there are a few of those out there as well — and converting them to the new First Nations woodland licence. This just simply allows that.

[1535]

Up until now the challenge has actually been that you need to surrender the tenure prior to another tenure being issued, so there isn't that seamless transition. We've tried to make it that way by issuing the new tenure at the same time that the previous tenure is surrendered, but this is a much cleaner, simpler process. It will be administratively more efficient and allow us to move the new tenures into First Nations woodland licences in a much more efficient manner.

B. Simpson: Moving on, then, into changes. The

section in the bill is 43.55: "A first nations woodland licence (

a) must be for a term of not less than 25 years and not more than 99 years." What's the thinking, I wonder if the minister could tell us, behind this 25 to 99, because my understanding…. For example, tree farm licences are 25-years renewable. You've got 15-year renewable. You have five-year non-renewable. So this 25 to 99 years, as I understand it, would be unique to these. Why use that term "25 to 99"?

Hon. P. Bell: This language replicates the language in the community forest licence. The plan is to start out with licences that are 25 years and then review it from there. But these licences are renewable licences as well, so similar to a tree farm licence in that sense. The language in terms of 25 to 99 years simply replicates the community forest language.

B. Simpson: See, it shows my lack of a staff member sitting beside me to let me know that it exists somewhere else.

In clarification, then, to the minister. One of the questions I had is a bit later on, right at the end of this

section where there is an explicit clause. It's on page 6 of the bill. The numbering is a bit confusing in this

section —

[ Page 5557 ]

page 6 of the bill that I have in front of me. It's under "Replacement of first nations woodland licences" — because I think the minister may have different kinds of bills — and a subsection (6) at the top above "Change in area or boundary." It says: "A first nations woodland licence is not renewable."

Hon. P. Bell: This is one of those idiosyncrasies of the Forest Act. The term actually is "replaceable," not "renewable." That's why this term is in here. It is a replaceable tenure, as opposed to renewable. I'm not sure who made that decision or when it was made, but it has been around for some time, and that's why that term exists.

B. Simpson: Yeah, I've always called them replaceable licences. Okay, fair enough.

Next, back on page 4,

section (

b) under 43.55, in the description of the content of a First Nations woodland licence, it says that the woodland licence "must describe a woodland licence area."

The fundamental question that's being raised to me is: what will be the determining factors for determining the licence area, the actual area that's ascribed? As the minister must be well aware, the formula-driven process for forest range agreements, forest range opportunities, was a major concern among First Nations. It was actually challenged in the court system, and the First Nations that challenged it won a ruling that that formula approach was inappropriate.

What is the thinking about how the government is going to address that formula-based approach in the issuance of these new licences? What would be the process? What would be the metrics? What would be the criteria for determining how large an area would be circumscribed for one of these licences?

[1540]

Hon. P. Bell: As I was listening to the member's comments, I thought to myself…. He asked the question…. He first stated that First Nations are generally opposed to a formula-driven model or a model that relates a specific amount of timber on a per-capita basis. Then he asked how we are going to develop the metrics around how much timber is issued.

I thought it was kind of ironic because it suggests a formula when you use the term "metrics." I don't think the member intended necessarily to do that, but it just shows that oftentimes in this place, in government generally, we try and come up with a standard answer that articulates kind of how you allocate timber or other resources that are public resources.

I think what I would like the member to be aware of is that we do not have a specific formula based on population or anything of the sort. What we will be looking at is the availability of the land base, the volume of timber available, the age class distribution, the species mix, all of those sorts of issues.

I think, also, what I'm finding is there are some First Nations that are very keen on being part of a forest industry. There are others that have very limited interest in the forest industry and largely ended up in a forest and range opportunity agreement for the revenue-share portion of the agreement as opposed to the tenure.

I see this as probably being a variety of answers. I think some First Nations who have a keen interest in being a dominant player in the forest industry will likely end up with larger tenures. Others that have other interests may have a smaller tenure or other forms of agreement. So I don't think there's a preconceived notion, and I'm unable to answer the question: what would the metrics be in terms of determining the amount of volume?

Simply, I'd respond with the notion that there in fact will not be a formula, that we'll try and meet the needs of individual First Nations and that the decisions will be made based on the availability of land base and timber, age classifications, species mix and the like.

B. Simpson: See, there is the math teacher coming out in the minister again, where metrics are associated with numbers. As someone who is trained in biology and history, I look at the system, and metrics in the system are more to do with the health of the system.

So the minister's comments about other kinds of criteria — community-based criteria, community needs, commercial viability, the intent of the community for job creation or whatever the case may be — seems to me to be…. What I'm certainly hearing is that if you look on balance at a whole bunch of things that the community is desirous of achieving and then go to the land base and say how best to achieve that, it would satisfy certainly the concerns that I'm hearing. So that's good that that possibility exists.

In that same

section it goes on to say: "…woodland licence area, determined by the minister, comprising Crown land…." We've talked about the Crown land. Then there's the statement: "…and, if the area so determined includes land that is (

i) in a reserve…or (ii) private land."

First off, I want to make sure that the "if" there means only if the First Nations are initiating bringing private land or, potentially, reserve land in because, as the minister knows, private land component is a requirement in woodlots, etc., and has been historically.

So is this just if the First Nations want to somehow incorporate either private or reserve land into it, then it becomes part of the licence?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is correct.

[1545]

B. Simpson: One question, and I do have…. There are some substantive questions in here, just so the minister knows. The other aspect of that, then — so it's voluntary — that questions have been raised about, again, is the

[ Page 5558 ]

constitutionality or the legality of Indian Act lands or federal lands coming under the auspices of the Crown, whether voluntary or not. Is there a legal constraint? Has this been done before? Is it possible to actually have Indian Act lands come under provincial regulation, Ministry of Forests regulation?

Hon. P. Bell: Both woodlots and tree farm licences allow for the inclusion of

schedule C lands, which are reserve lands.

B. Simpson: Continuing on in this section, there is the exclusive right given to harvest timber on Crown land, and then the botanical forest products is a separate section. I just want the minister to clarify for the record. The language around the botanical products is "(ii) may give its holder the right to harvest, manage and charge fees for botanical forest products and other prescribed products."

Would the First Nations, then, accrue the full value of whatever fees they charge, or would there be an accounting to the province of what it is they're deriving off Crown land and in a chargeback of some kind? On the timber side, we're going to get into the stumpage question. There already exists annualized rent, stumpage, various other things. There are ways of figuring that out.

The question is that the government's now giving the right to get financial benefit from other products in that area. Would there be a chargeback from the Crown for whatever economic value they get from it?

Hon. P. Bell: This is one of the unique features of the First Nations woodland licence and doesn't appear in any other form of licence that I'm aware of. The intent of this is to allow the First Nations to capture the full value of whatever they choose to charge for botanical products, but I need to be careful that I can't predict what a future government or future minister might consider.

I'm not contemplating taking a share of the revenue stream that the First Nation would acquire as a result of this, but I suppose that that may be the case sometime in the future. Another minister, another government, I suppose, could choose that, but certainly that isn't our intent.

B. Simpson: I'll do two questions here. One is: would that then be just simply done by regulation — that a future minister could then do by regulation — or would it have to come back into the Legislature? So that's one.

The second, on the same clause. The word "exclusive" is used with respect to harvesting timber, but the word "exclusive" is not used with respect to these other values that are being used. Is it a deliberate choice on the part of the government to not make it exclusive rights over these other values?

Hon. P. Bell: To answer the first question, this act does not allow for regulatory-making power to take a portion of the fees that the First Nation may charge for those botanical products.

[1550]

That said, a government could acquire the right to a portion of that fee outside the Forest Act. It wouldn't necessarily have to be inside the Forest Act, either by regulation or legislation. As I said, I am not contemplating taking any portion of that. I just need to point out for the purposes of full disclosure that another government may choose to do that at some point in time.

The answer to the second question is that while our interest is in providing the full opportunity for First Nations to take advantage of botanical products, they are not well-defined by law or in this legislation. It's really unclear what all of those products might be. So we thought it appropriate to leave the words "exclusive use" out of the botanical products component of this opportunity.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification. So with respect to this clause in terms of rights to harvest, manage, charge fees for botanical forest products, it also states "and other prescribed products." Now, in the two most recent reconciliation agreements, carbon was put in as an innovative potential economic activity, and First Nations rights over carbon were recognized in those reconciliation agreements. I noted as I was reading through this that carbon isn't explicitly stated as a potential activity. I know the minister is working on looking at carbon, carbon exchanges, etc., for potential silviculture activity, etc.

Was it deliberate that carbon was not named in here, and is it possible that carbon, which I presume prescribed, would end up in regulation, or whatever, using that term "prescribed"? Could it be possible that carbon ends up in there, and why not just name it?

Hon. P. Bell: It's unlikely that carbon would be included under this

section of the bill. We are looking at how those carbon rights might be awarded. The two reconciliation agreements that the member referred to both speak to the notion of a future potential carbon market and what that might look like.

One of the reasons why you might not want to include carbon specifically in this act is that it is unclear at this point whether carbon is a revenue stream or a cost. It could conceivably be a cost. The member lives in the mountain pine beetle region and well knows that many of those forests are net emitters, not net sequesterers, at this point.

That would likely end up in either another piece of legislation or perhaps an amendment, but I suspect another piece of legislation, once that becomes clear.

What the member does point out, which I think has real value, is the fact that we would not have considered carbon. Certainly, ten years ago we weren't thinking about carbon, I don't think, at all. Perhaps a few people

[ Page 5559 ]

were, but very few. Even four or five years ago people were not viewing carbon as a key opportunity, yet we are today.

What I don't know is what the next carbon will be, and we want to have the flexibility here to prescribe other products to allow the First Nations to take advantage of those, because I don't think we clearly understand what all those values will be in the coming decades. So that flexibility makes sense.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarity.

Let's move on to the stumpage issue, which is the next

section here, and for the record, if the minister could clarify two things: (1) that this is normative stumpage, that it's the market pricing stumpage; and (2) since these are modelled somewhat on community forests, why the tabular rate stumpage that community forests enjoy was not the stumpage assigned to these licences.

[1555]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite will know that the stumpage rate prescribed for community forests is not in legislation. It's in the stumpage manual. This piece of legislation reflects similar language to that of the community forest legislation and does not prescribe any specific stumpage model. That's one that we will be discussing with each of the First Nations as we enter into those agreements and consider the needs of the individual First Nation.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear then, is it possible that some First Nations can get what community forests have got in terms of the tabular rate and the stumpage that they enjoy, and some will be in the market pricing system — that it will be dependent on one First Nation to another? Just so that I'm clear before I go into some other questions I have for this.

Hon. P. Bell: Again, this act does not prescribe the type of stumpage that would be charged. The type of stumpage could vary. There are, I think, about seven or eight different models that we use, from tabular rates to different market rates. The stumpage system for these new woodlands licences would have to be consistent across the Interior or across the coast, as there are two stumpage manuals — the Interior and the coastal manuals — and that holds true for community forests.

So you wouldn't have one First Nations woodland licence with one type of stumpage and another First Nations woodland licence with another type of stumpage. It would be consistent across all First Nations woodland licences in the Interior or on the coast.

B. Simpson: I'm aware of sensitivities around this with respect to the market that we work in, so I'm cautious about some of the questions around this. But I want to be clear what the minister is saying, because it's been articulated to me that a decision has already been made — that the MPS system will apply, that it is felt to disadvantage these licences right out of the gate relative to community forests and that some dialogue has been undertaken to talk about revenue-sharing back, which of course does not exist in the licence language.

So maybe let me ask the question this way. What is the process that the minister is going to engage in to lend clarity for First Nations? I get the Interior versus the coast. What's the process the minister is going to engage in to lend clarity to this issue? This is a sticking point, as far as I'm being told, for First Nations because, quite frankly, what First Nations have said is, you know: "Don't be charging."

They would prefer a stumpage-free licence of some kind. "Don't charge us a stumpage, because we end up getting it back in a revenue-sharing model, or we end up getting it back in some way. Let us go out there, realize commercial value from the land base and then use that money to get on with other things."

In order to cut through this, what process is the minister going to engage in to engage First Nations in resolving this issue of stumpage and revenue from timber on the First Nations licence?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite earlier on identified a First Nations Summit meeting on June 8 and 9. We have been invited to attend the meeting on the 8th, at which point we'll be presenting information to the First Nations Summit on some of the options that we're thinking about in this area.

[1600]

I think it is important for the member opposite to know that there are a variety of opinions in First Nations communities. Certainly, I've heard them where some First Nations describe what the member opposite describes as a stumpage-free type of regime. Others suggest that it would be more appropriate to charge full stumpage and then have some form of revenue-sharing back with that stumpage. They think that that may give them the ability to acquire a fair price for the timber resource with the licensees knowing they have to pay that stumpage.

I've had a variety of opinions in this area and will be presenting some things to the First Nations Summit on the 8th of June.

B. Simpson: That's a helpful answer, and I hope this issue does get resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

With respect to continuing on this, on page 5 of the bill — the act

section 43.56, which is "Replacement…" — it says: "Unless a first nations woodland licence provides that a replacement for the first nations woodland licence must not be offered…."

[ Page 5560 ]

I'm wondering if the minister…. Is this just legalese, where sometimes you might do one that's not going to be replaceable? Elsewhere it says that it is replaceable. I just want clarification. Is this the normative practice that on the ninth-year anniversary you then do the rollover or you assess kind of where the First Nation is and determine whether you're going to replace it or not?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is correct. This is standard language. It does, I suppose, give the ability to offer a non-replaceable licence. That's not what's anticipated here. They are anticipated to be replaceable.

Also, the model the member described with the tenures is the model that replicates the community forest model for renewals.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

B. Simpson: Again, it's just one of these clarifications so that I understand what's the intention here. This is with respect to other deletions of Crown land. I wonder if the minister could indicate what the nature of this amendment is and why it's necessary.

Hon. P. Bell: This relates to the provisions of the compensation part of the Forest Act. If it was necessary for the Crown to take back a portion of a First Nations woodland licence, it would provide for the compensation provisions that replicate the other compensation provisions for other forms of licences.

Sections 20 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

B. Simpson: Again, just a clarification from the minister. This is about annual rent payable for these licences. Is this consistent with the community forest licence that this is based on?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

Sections 37 to 43 inclusive approved.

section 44.

B. Simpson: This is the

section that I was referring to yesterday. I was confused about which model was going to be used for the licence because the bill note for

section 44 says it "specifies that first nations woodland licences are to be treated either like community forest agreements or woodlot licences, depending on the size and location of Crown land in the first nations woodland licence area."

When I canvassed this with the minister yesterday, he said that, really, that's not the case. They're going to be modelled on community forest agreements. I wonder if I can get clarification, because this

section indicates that it really is predicated on size, which of the two licences it is going to be modelled on.

[1605]

Hon. P. Bell: The difference between the functions primarily centre around a forest stewardship plan. Woodlots do a woodlot licence plan versus a forest stewardship plan, which has a different set of requirements. If the First Nations woodland licence were to be the size of a woodlot — if it was that size — then the requirement…. The licensee could choose to do a forest stewardship plan if they wanted to, or they could do a woodlot licence plan.

Sections 44 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

B. Simpson: This one is just simply what we were referring to before, with respect to direct-award abilities. Again, if the minister can just explain what the intent is here to allow direct awards of grazing or hay-cutting permits. Has this been asked for? What's the nature of the amendment?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, we have had interest specifically from First Nations in the interior part of the province to acquire direct-award tenures of this nature.

B. Simpson: This has, if I understand it correctly, the same constraint in

section 2(

a) of the interim measures. So again, it looks like it's another attractor or benefit of getting involved in an interim measure. But part (

b) of this says: "a grazing or hay cutting permit with a person to mitigate the effects on that person of (

i) a treaty, or (ii) an agreement between a first nation and the government respecting treaty-related measures…."

I wonder if the minister could clarify in that sense the legal sense of person. Is it related back to the definition in "representative," which is another First Nations person? Or is it a person as defined under the law, which is anybody who has been impacted by a treaty or whatever, and the government can direct award as a mitigation for treaty?

Hon. P. Bell: A person as described here is the broad-ranging sense of any individual. It would be used to compensate someone for being displaced from an existing tenure.

B. Simpson: Is this a new measure on the part of the government, or is it just tidying up an already existing measure? Is it a new tool that government is giving itself?

[ Page 5561 ]

Hon. P. Bell: We've had this for permits in the past. This just extends that provision to licences.

Sections 56 to 60 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move the committee rise, report completion without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:10 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Forests and Range

(First Nations Woodland Licence)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 13, Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: At this point I'd like to call committee stage debate on Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2010.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of

British Columbia

Amendment Act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 4:12 p.m.

M. Farnworth: Just for the Minister of Environment's benefit, it's my understanding that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows will be leading off the questions on this particular bill.

section 1.

M. Sather: Hon. Chair, I had to rush from another meeting, so just give me half a minute to grab my papers.

Section 1 is

schedule A, and there are amendments to two ecological reserves. Looking at this, I wasn't too clear. We could deal with them separately, I guess. The first one is Meridian Road (Vanderhoof) Ecological Reserve, and this was established by order-in-council previously. I wonder if the minister could start by telling me when that OIC took place.

[1615]

Hon. B. Penner: We've had to just peel our way through the mists of time here, and it appears that this ecological reserve was first established by order-in-council in the year 1977.

M. Sather: Well, that is some time ago. So it's now enacted in

schedule A — or will be, as a result of this legislation. Can the minister just explain what the purpose is, then, of enacting it into

schedule A?

Hon. B. Penner: We're not substantively changing the boundaries, but by moving it from

schedule B to

schedule A, it's reflective of the fact that we have a more accurate legal description of those boundaries than was the case in 1977 when the original order-in-council was passed.

Ecological reserves that are referred to in

schedule B refer back to the original order-in-council establishing those ecological reserves and rely on the legal description that was contained within the original order-in-council — in this case, again, back in 1977. We are now at the point where we have a more accurate description, and therefore, it's appropriate to move it into

schedule A of the act.

M. Sather: I think, as I read through the bill, there are some similar points, probably, that are going to come up with a number of these parks and ecological reserves — the metes and bounds and the land description. Maybe I could get, then, the minister to explain to me what…. I mean, I understand that it's more accurate, he said, but could he be a little bit more specific? Why is it more accurate? How is it more accurate? Yeah, we'll leave it at that.

[1620]

Hon. B. Penner: This is part of the ongoing process of being more precise about our description of boundaries for protected areas generally — and in this case, in particular, an ecological reserve.

The original order-in-council quite likely referred to an attached map upon which would have been drawn a red boundary, which would then become the legal boundary for the purposes of the order-in-council. As the member could appreciate, some of those lines drawn on maps may not have been 100 percent accurate as to location.

It's being replaced, as you read in

section 1, by reference to a plan which has been submitted in the Crown land registry in the "Coast District and Cariboo District," known as "Plan 12 Tube 1979." I'm not sure if the tube looks like this, but I expect it has some maps that have more detailed descriptions. I'll leave it at that.

M. Sather: I can appreciate that the lines on some of those maps back in the '70s were probably not that accurate.

[ Page 5562 ]

Could the minister just then tell me a little bit about — because I don't see it in the backgrounder — this particular ecological reserve? What's the purpose of it?

[1625]

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will be aware, ecological reserves are areas of British Columbia selected to preserve certain representative features and natural ecosystems. They're not designed to encourage recreation. In fact, the ministry doesn't in all cases extol too widely their particular attributes, lest we inadvertently encourage more people to travel to those locations and perhaps cause some ecological damage.

There are also set aside times for research purposes, and people are able to apply to the ministry for permits if they want to conduct various scientific research. They are the highest level of protection within our protected areas network because they represent some very unique attributes.

M. Sather: I imagine that's Engelmann fir, but anyway.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of ecological reserves, and I'm sure the minister is too. As he said, they do set aside some specific ecological attributes of our province. Some of them are rather small, and I think some of them are quite a bit larger. We have one in my constituency, Pine Mountain Ecological Reserve, and as he said, they're not often known by the public because recreation is not encouraged in them, which is a good thing because not everywhere that we have nature should we have a heavy footprint of humankind.

I know in our reserve there are issues with people entering into the Pine Mountain Ecological Reserve. I'm glad to say…. I think it would be the ministry that would have not long ago made some changes so that people couldn't cross the ditch and get in there. But I digress on that.

It does say Vanderhoof, so I assume, then, it is in the Vanderhoof area. Could the minister be more specific in te