2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th 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)

Monday, July 8, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Funtastic Sports Society in Vernon

E. Foster

Stories of Air India victims' families

H. Bains

Soccer activities on North Shore

J. Thornthwaite

Diversity Health Fair

C. James

Websters Corners heritage and Finnish community in Maple Ridge

M. Dalton

Korean War

J. Shin

Oral Questions

Electricity rates

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Bennett

Government action on child poverty

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

Core review and status of programs for children

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Cadieux

Funding for health authorities

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Health outreach program in New Westminster

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Funding for community mental health services

S. Hammell

Hon. T. Lake

Health care funding and services

S. Hammell

Hon. T. Lake

The Art Studios therapy program in east Vancouver

M. Elmore

Hon. T. Lake

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia, investigation report on lobbying activities of Joe Fieder

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia, report on request for reconsideration of penalty imposed on Joe Fieder

Motions Without Notice

Powers and role of Finance and Government Services Committee

Powers and role of Public Accounts Committee

Powers and role of Children and Youth Committee

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in two sections

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation

Hon. D. McRae

M. Mungall

[ Page 205 ]

MONDAY, JULY 8, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today from an extraordinary organization in Victoria that I'll have a little more to say about later. The first person is Jean McRae, who is the executive director from the Inter-Cultural Association. The second individual is the chair of the board of the Inter-Cultural Association but also someone who is very well known to me — my best support, my mentor, my role model — my mother, Mavis DeGirolamo. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It's my pleasure to have three guests in the House today. If I may introduce my three daughters. First, a few words about them. They're up at the top here.

My oldest is Jusleen. They all manage volunteering, sport, education at the same time. She's on Team Canada in karate, Canadian champion, Pan Am champion and gives back to the community — Jusleen Virk. If the House would welcome her, please.

My daughter Anisha volunteers at Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation and goes to university, teaches karate and is on Team Canada as well. If the House would welcome Anisha Virk, please.

My youngest daughter keeps me very busy by asking a lot of questions. I would ask the House to welcome my youngest daughter, Maansi Virk.

[1335]

Hon. D. McRae: My daughter is not in the House today, but today she is celebrating her tenth birthday. So would the House please give Gracie McRae a happy birthday and a good, warm welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FUNTASTIC SPORTS SOCIETY

IN VERNON

E. Foster: I rise today to thank a dedicated group of volunteers in my riding. The Funtastic Sports Society hosts Canada's biggest and best sports music festival. The group of 500 volunteers, led by executive director Jim McEwan and society president Brett Kirkpatrick, along with the dedicated executive, held the 29th annual Funtastic ball tournament this past July long weekend, with 298 teams from Alberta, B.C., and even a team that was registered and took part from Iqaluit.

The tournament each year brings about $4.5 million in economic benefit into our community, which is the largest such event, certainly in our area and probably in the province. Fundraised by partners, agencies, volunteers, we got $32,000 this year. They got just a shade under $30,000 last year. They include sports organizations, the Lions Club, junior chamber of commerce and so on.

The Funtastic community grant was established a few years ago, and they've given out $129,000, supporting organizations such as the Schubert Centre, Kindale Developmental Association, Vernon and district riding association, PacificSport. Forty-three local non-profit organizations have received funding over the last few years.

This was another successful year for the agency. I'd like to thank the partners for Funtastic: the Department of National Defence, the RCMP, the city of Vernon workers and the more than 500 local volunteers. But for me, the highlight this year was Sunday evening, when the Funtastic Sports Society along with Julian Austin, internationally known Canadian country artist, paid tribute to our veterans and members of the military. Lt. Col. Lyle Johnson and 20 members of the military, many of them decorated soldiers from Afghanistan, joined the country music artist on stage, and a tribute was given to those soldiers.

I would like to thank all of the members of the Funtastic Sports Society and the great work they do in our community.

STORIES OF

AIR INDIA VICTIMS' FAMILIES

H. Bains: Last week I had the opportunity to attend a book release ceremony by Gurpreet Singh. The Punjabi version of the book called Fighting Hatred with Love: Voices of the Air India Victims' Families was released by the Khalsa Diwan Society vice-president Major Singh Sidhu, who lost his sister, a niece and a nephew in this tragedy.

This book is not about the Air India investigation or its outcome or the political background of the tragedy but is a simple collection of interviews with 12 of the victims' families. The idea is to let people understand why it is important to hear their stories and discover their beautiful minds and kind hearts. Translated by Pawan Gulati and published by India-based Chetna Parkashan, Nafrat Sang Piyar Di Jang is about testimonies from Air India victims' families who are now engaged in philanthropy and have turned their grief into kindness.

Among them are Dr. Chandrasekhar Sankurathri and Dr. A.V. Anantaraman, who have migrated back to India and are currently running free schools and hospitals for the poor and destitute. Both these men lost their wives and children in the Air India bombing that left 331

[ Page 206 ]

people dead.

Fabian Dawson, deputy editor-in-chief of the Province newspaper summed it up. "In this book Gurpreet tells a story of a tragedy through the lives of the families who lost their loved ones to a terrorist attack that killed 329 people aboard Air India flight 182 and two at the Narita airport in Japan."

He points out with his stories that it is those who live with their loss that triumphed over evil. They have won; the terrorists have lost. The beautiful stories of each of these families inspire hope and optimism for everyone in this dangerous world, because they arm you to fight hatred with love.

[1340]

SOCCER ACTIVITIES ON NORTH SHORE

J. Thornthwaite: Last Saturday I attended the 2013 Girls Provincial B Cup Championships at Inter River Park in North Van. There I was able to fumble the celebratory kickoff for the local Special Olympians as they gear up for the 2013 B.C. Special Olympics Games, coming up in Langley.

What a soccer weekend it was, as the Vancouver Whitecaps Football Club beat the Seattle Sounders 2 to 1 at B.C. Place that evening. In just two years' time Vancouver will be hosting the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup.

The North Shore Girls Soccer Club and the North Shore Youth Soccer Association were the hosts of the provincial cup this weekend. The North Shore Girls Soccer Club has over 3,500 players registered, from the age of five and up. In fact, my first foray into politics was as an age group coordinator for the club when my youngest daughter started her illustrious soccer career in 2003. But I, like thousands of other moms and dads, have been volunteering for this and the boys club for several years as a soccer mom.

Last month I attended a retirement party for an amazing volunteer who demonstrates leadership, wisdom and guidance. Shauna Tucker is retiring after six years as president. Shauna, along with many partners in government and the private sector, helped bring to fruition the Windsor Bubble, a neat practice facility at Windsor Secondary, and helped secure the contract for the Windsor Soccer Academy for our students, coaches, club and the entire North Shore community.

My daughter is fortunate to be one of those soccer players who continues to benefit from the dedicated volunteers like Shauna, who instil confidence, skills, fitness and a sense of team for mutual success.

Thank you to all of the soccer volunteers, who put in countless hours, days, weeks, months and years to help our young people grow into successful and passionate adults with a lifelong love for the world's most popular game — soccer.

DIVERSITY HEALTH FAIR

Hosted by the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, this free event on June 15 presented ways to prevent chronic diseases through health, wellness, recreation, nutrition and healthy living. Participants included 40 of greater Victoria's local health and wellness practitioners, service agencies and organizations that came together to exchange information and promote healthy living.

Nearly 700 people attended, with the opportunity to experience a variety of activities, including health workshops, four fitness classes and demonstrations, an international food café and an interactive children's activity centre. About half of those who attended were families with young children. Nearly a third were seniors and the rest a mix of middle-aged and young adults.

It was my pleasure to speak at the opening ceremony, and I can tell you that it was fun, interactive and inspiring. Local businesses and organizations stepped up, too, with donations and in-kind support. It was a real community effort, made possible by the hard work of the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria.

This association provides information, support and tools to help immigrants reach their goals and to help individuals and organizations connect across cultures. The diversity fair is one more in a long list of contributions that the intercultural association makes to our community. I ask the members of the House to join with me in thanking all of those who came together to deliver another successful Diversity Health Fair.

WEBSTERS CORNERS HERITAGE

AND FINNISH COMMUNITY IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Dalton: I recently attended the 14th annual Webster's Corners Day, hosted by the Webster's Corners Association. Maple Ridge has a rich history that springs from a number of pioneer communities, including Ruskin, Albion, Haney, Hammond and Websters Corners.

Websters Corners was established in 1882 by a Scottish man named James Murray Webster from Aberdeen, Scotland. Hence, Websters Corners. He settled with his family on a 160-acre homestead east of Martin's Road, now 256 Street, and south of Dewdney Trunk Road.

In 1905 Finnish settlers arrived at Websters Corners to take over a shingle boat operation that had been abandoned by a Chinese crew because of the dismal camp

[ Page 207 ]

conditions and poor wages. It's hard to see why the grim job attracted this Finnish group to Websters Corners, but they were desperate.

[1345]

They had just come from a failed logging and farming venture on Malcolm Island, off of B.C.'s north coast. Started by a charismatic socialist, Matti Kurikka, this was now to be an ideal commune based on the founding ethic of the Finnish people, the Kalevala . They rented several fishing boats and purchased a farm, which they called Sampola after the legendary magical mill that grinds out corn, salt and coins.

After seven years of communal living the magic wore off, and internal disputes led to its disbanding. The land was subdivided among its members, and Sampo Hall was built. Rather than discouraging the Finnish community, the dissolution of the commune restored everybody's spirit, and they actually got along better by living separately. Surprise.

The Sampo Hall still stands today, demonstrating its own version of the sisu , or stubbornness of the Finnish people. Websters Corners adds to the vibrant, historic multiculturalism of Maple Ridge.

KOREAN WAR

J. Shin: Hon. Members, I would like to share with you an excerpt from the memoir by Mr. Young-Gil Park, a Korean War veteran I'm privileged to have as my very good friend.

"It soon turned dark, and with anxiety kicked in sudden thirst. In the thick, black forest I crawled towards the sound of water and drank my fill out of the pool of it. It wasn't until the morning that I witnessed the dead soldiers floating atop of the small body of water that I drank out of. It was their blood that had quenched my thirst the night before and gave the life I live today."

The Korean war that started in June 1950, just a few months after my mother's birth, and ran its bloody course through July 1953, killed and devastated 2.5 million lives, including our own 516 Canadian soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice. I remember the stories of this war I heard on the laps of my grandparents — so horrifying that they are all too surreal for me to believe. So when a Port Moody resident by the name of Guy Black contacted me last month to join him on his two-day, 82-kilometer trekking through Burnaby, I jumped on that chance to make the four-hour midnight journey down to Mount Seymour with him to remember what has come to be known as Canada's forgotten war.

This year Canada celebrates 60 years of armistice and peace by designating year 2013 as the Year of Korea. It also marks 50 years of Canadian-Korean diplomatic relations. Sen. Yonah Martin also tabled a private member's bill, S-213, which will make July 27 as Korean War Veterans Day. Over 6 percent of people in my riding, Burnaby-Lougheed, are of Korean heritage, and I'm grateful to represent them as the first Korean-Canadian MLA in B.C.

Hon. Members, I ask for applause today for our war heroes and those who work in their honour. [Applause.]

Oral Questions

ELECTRICITY RATES

J. Horgan: Well, what a difference an election makes — one message before the election, another message after the election. Of course, what are we talking about? B.C. Hydro rates. Before the election the Deputy Premier said the following: "This isn't about politics. It's really about meeting a commitment we made which is we would take a look at hydro rates, find its costs, find its savings and do a better job." And then he said, "These rates make sense. They're going to be better for the consumer. We don't need higher rates" — before the election. After the election, new minister, and he says: "No one in government thinks that we can get by without rate increases."

Of course, we're not all finished with the election, hon. Speaker, as you know. There's still an election going on in Kelowna. No rate increases there, but 84 of us will have to go back to our constituencies. So my question to the minister is: when are the rates going to go up and by how much?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, my critic all last week was complaining and talking about how we should raise rates for B.C. Hydro so that B.C. Hydro can become.... I think he used the word solvent. It's not a word that I would use or agree with, but he did spend a considerable amount of energy last week talking about how rates should be higher.

[1350]

This is a new week. The tactics, obviously, have changed, and now the hon. member is talking about rates not going up. In fact, I didn't get the opportunity to actually listen to him on the radio this morning. I'm sorry that I didn't. But I did read the transcript. Clearly, what he's trying to do is trying to frighten ratepayers in the province.

In terms of what my job as Energy Minister is with respect to rates, let me just read what my mandate letter says: "Minimize rate increases to consumers and industry at B.C. Hydro while continuing to replace and build hydroelectric and transmission infrastructure." That's my job.

Madame Speaker: The official opposition House Leader on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: This is a quote from the minister. "We should have allowed hydro rates to go up on a more gradual basis." Completely contrary to what the Deputy

[ Page 208 ]

Premier said before the election and, again, contrary to what the current Premier is campaigning on in Kelowna. There, ratepayers don't have to pay for anything. It's all B.C. Hydro debt. It's not real debt. It's Monopoly money, as I've said before to the minister.

I'm delighted that the Premier has written a letter to the minister saying: "Keep rates down." I know that the Deputy Premier interfered in a rate hearing, cancelled it and arbitrarily lowered rates. Now we have a minister saying something else.

Could the minister responsible inform the 84 of us who have constituents who are going to see significant rate increases — not just residential but commercial and industrial, which will have a profound impact on job creation? You're not doing too well on that front as it is. When will we know what the rate is, and when will we know it?

Hon. B. Bennett: The fact of the matter is that the previous Energy Minister and the current Premier — who I can name currently, for a few more days — Christy Clark actually presided over a 17½ percent rate increase. So when the Energy critic actually stands in this House and suggests that somehow or other they lowered rates…. They didn't lower rates. They were actually there at a time when we increased B.C. Hydro rates.

Now, it sounds like the Energy critic wishes that we had increased rates more. Apparently, that's an NDP position — that we should have increased hydro rates before the election more than we did. But they were increased by 17½ percent.

As my mandate letter states, it is a balance between trying to keep a lid on the increase in rates…. And rates will have to go up. I've said that in the media, and I've certainly said it here before. I'll say it again. It's a reality. But only let those rates go up to the smallest rate of growth possible, while at the same time investing in the infrastructure that B.C. Hydro needs to invest in and that wasn't invested in, in the 1990s, so that we can maintain these 50-, 60-year-old assets that, clearly, the hon. member is not familiar with.

The John Hart dam right here on Vancouver Island is going to cost about $1 billion dollars, for that project. We have to do that work. B.C. Hydro has to do that work, and that will have some impact on rates. But we will keep them down as much as we possibly can.

Madame Speaker: The official opposition House Leader on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Perhaps the minister should pay more attention to the briefings. The John Hart project hasn't started yet. That debt has not yet been incurred. We are not going to be paying rate increases for something that hasn't happened yet, but we will be paying rate increases on smart meters. We will be paying rate increases on the northwest transmission line. We will be paying rate increases on a host of other misguided projects under this government's watch.

In 2010 the Clean Energy Act exempted almost everything — everything — from the B.C. Utilities Commission, except rates. And what did the Deputy Premier do? He intervened in that rate hearing and cancelled it and increased rates by 1.44 percent, which means over the past ten years a 41 percent increase in total by this government. And it gets worse.

[1355]

Again, to the minister: I know you've got new talking points. I know they're trying to bring you around to the Premier's point of view. But apparently, last week all of us in government knew there were going to be rate increases. We just don't know how big and when. So perhaps start with that simple question.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, B.C. Hydro has a three-year capital plan. There are a number of projects that are on the drawing board, like the John Hart project. There are a number of projects that are just very, very recently completed. And there are a number of projects that are being built today.

I think it's, first of all, important for the public to understand that B.C. Hydro's three-year capital plan target will be met. They will not be over budget. They have at least one project that is over, which we all know about — a project that we think is very important, on this side of the House, and a project that the opposition loves to talk about.

But there are other projects. There's a project from the Kootenays, called the Columbia Valley transmission line, which actually was under budget. There is also the Stave Falls spillway project, which was recently completed and, again, under budget. There are a number of projects that are ongoing today. There are probably, I would think, at least half a dozen projects that are part of the three-year capital plan for B.C. Hydro and that are trending under budget.

Overall, even with the northwest transmission line being over budget, they will meet their three-year capital plan.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY

C. James: As we've just heard, this government has a record of saying one thing and doing just the opposite. Here is another example. The Premier promised to share the economic benefits of this province with everyone, and just days ago the Speech from the Throne promised to secure a bright future for B.C.'s children, yet the latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that these B.C. Liberal promises mean nothing to families in British Columbia.

The numbers show that B.C. is tied for the worst child

[ Page 209 ]

poverty rate in this country. That's after coming dead last on child poverty in nine of the last ten years. Children don't live alone in poverty; families live in poverty. So much for families first.

Can the Minister of Children and Families explain why this government has no comprehensive plan to address these shameful statistics?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one on either side of this House wants to see a child or a family living in poverty, but what the opposition continues to neglect to say is that the child poverty rate in British Columbia has declined by 41 percent since 2003. It remains at one of its lowest rates in over three decades, and clearly, there is still a lot more to do.

The B.C. jobs plan is building a foundation for the economy of British Columbia to create an atmosphere for investment which will create jobs for families in every region of B.C. In fact, the jobs plan, since it was created, has seen more than 50,000 new jobs created in British Columbia. Under the jobs plan, we're making significant investments in skills training to make sure that families across British Columbia have the skills they need to take advantage of those jobs.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I'd just remind the minister that since the Premier's jobs plan was introduced, the province has actually lost private sector jobs. How is that a plan for families living in poverty?

Children need action today. The numbers show an increase of 6,000 children living in poverty in B.C. in just one year alone — 6,000 children. And those aren't numbers; these are children — children who are struggling, who face unstable housing, uncertain health. Every year we wait is a year lost to those children.

[1400]

Families are struggling today, and instead of helping them, this government is increasing MSP premiums. They're hiking hydro bills. Does this minister think that children should have to wait any longer to get action from this government?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I know that the member opposite and all of the members in the House understand that children aren't poor alone. They're poor because their families don't have good jobs.

There are two ways to tackle the issue of poverty. The first is to create jobs and grow our economy. The second is to create government programs. This is clearly where we differ from the opposition, in that we know that the only real way out of poverty is a job. In fact, since the jobs plan was introduced, not only are there 50,000 more jobs in the province, but there are 41,000 fewer children living in poverty than at any time under the NDP government.

CORE REVIEW AND

STATUS OF PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN

S. Simpson: What we know is that there are 6,000 more children today than there were a year ago living in poverty, and that's 6,000 children and their families. B.C. has had the worst record on child poverty in this country for the last decade.

While this government has refused to take any meaningful action for those families, they have pledged to move forward with a core review, a review that will look for programs in every ministry that can be cut. The last core review dismantled agencies like the Children's Commission and left 700 unfinished child death review cases to languish in a warehouse. Will the Minister for Core Review commit today to this House that not a penny will be taken from

programs for B.C.'s most vulnerable children as a result of his review?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The health and safety of children in this province is my top priority as minister. As with all ministries, it's important that we ensure that we are continuing to use all of our resources in the most efficient and effective way possible and improve on the services we continue to provide, in an ongoing way.

The core review process has not yet been fully developed, but as Minister of Children and Family Development, it is my job to ensure that any decisions made will not have a significant impact on the vulnerable children that we serve. We're absolutely committed to serving vulnerable people in this province and ensuring that we continue to deliver the critical front-line services that we all depend on.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, what we know is that what this government has on the table today for poor kids and poor families is woefully inadequate. It doesn't meet their needs today. This minister made no commitment with that answer that there wouldn't be more cuts.

The other thing we know is that a core review needs to be thoughtful to have value. It needs to look not just at expenditures but also at service levels. Ending a decade of neglect on child poverty requires a long-term strategy. The core review offers nothing. We've had a Minister for Core Review here, and there's been a little bit of vague rhetoric from this minister in the press — nothing substantive, no commitments, no promises — about protecting vulnerable people.

If the minister is serious, if he's truthful that this is what he's going to do, commit today that the terms of reference will ensure that not a penny will be taken from [ Page 210 ]

vulnerable citizens in this province because of your review.

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated and will continue to do, the health and safety of children is my top priority.

The core review process is about making sure government is structured for success. We made a promise to British Columbians that we would manage every penny and that we would balance the budget on their behalf. They asked us to make sure we would get to yes on economic development projects without needless delays. We were elected, in part, on that promise, and we intend to keep it.

Part of the process of a core review is to look at all government programs, all services and expenditures, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we do a good job of this process.

FUNDING FOR HEALTH AUTHORITIES

J. Darcy: Before and during the recent election the Liberals repeatedly claimed that health services for British Columbians would be maintained. The Finance Minister knows, as a former Health Minister, that health budgets will rise to match inflationary increases and a growing aging population.

In order to maintain the fiction that their budget is balanced, the Liberals have cut planned spending in health authorities by $165 million. The CEO of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has already said that his health authority is facing a $27 million shortfall.

Can the Health Minister tell this House how it's possible for health authorities to be short tens of millions of dollars in their budgets and yet still maintain services for patients? How is that possible?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the first question in this ministry, which I'm very proud to lead.

British Columbia has among the best health outcomes in all of Canada. On this side of the House it is outcomes that matter. On the other side of the House it apparently is how much money you can spend on a particular program.

British Columbia has a tremendous health care plan. We have a plan, going forward, to bend down the increasing costs of health care, which is the only way that we can have a sustainable health care system to look after the needs of each and every British Columbian. We are, over the next three years, spending $2.4 billion more in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

HEALTH OUTREACH PROGRAM

IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: This is not some theoretical argument about numbers. What we're talking about affects real people in profound ways.

In my community of New Westminster, Fraser Health has cut $80,000 from the Lookout Society's outreach program, a program that supports the homeless and people with mental illnesses, addictions and other medical conditions. It's a program that saves money by keeping patients out of costly acute care beds and out of the criminal justice system.

To cover the empty promises in the Liberals' bogus budget, patients in my community are having services cut. Will the minister ensure that resources to this program, which are going to be cut on July 15, are in fact protected, or will he then admit to British Columbians that the Liberals had no intention whatsoever of protecting health services for British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: This government is committed to ensuring we have one of the best health care systems in all of Canada. We spend $16.5 billion on health care; 42 percent of total government spending is on health care. But we know there are challenges, moving forward, to make sure that our health care system is sustainable.

[1410]

We are working with the health authorities to make sure that front-line services are maintained, and we will ensure that that happens. We also are looking for ways of finding efficiencies in the system through lab redesign, working with doctors, working with nurses to ensure that British Columbia continues to have the best health care system in all of Canada.

FUNDING FOR

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

S. Hammell: Last month, due to the Liberal government's budget cuts, there have been drastic reductions to mental health services. Funding to organizations such as the B.C. Schizophrenia Society and Mood Disorders Association were cut. In some cases community-based mental health programs were eliminated.

This will put more people on wait-lists, into emergency wards and into hospital beds. This will eliminate much-needed community support and preventive care. It will cost more. How can this government justify eliminating community-based resources when all evidence suggests they should be improving them?

Hon. T. Lake: Let's look at the facts. In 2011-12 the Health Ministry spent about $1.3 billion on mental health and substance abuse, which is an increase of 58 percent since 2000-2001.

[ Page 211 ]

We invested $57 million in the new Joseph and Rosalie Segal Centre in Vancouver, which is a total cost of $82 million. We invested $38 million in the HOpe Centre for Psychiatry and Education in North Vancouver. And we built — this government built — the Hillside Psychiatric Centre in Kamloops, which serves the needs of the Interior and does an exceptional job of looking after the concerns in mental health in the interior of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING AND SERVICES

S. Hammell: Hon. Minister, when you cut current services to vulnerable British Columbians, it's a cut. In the 2013-14 fiscal year the Liberal government cut the spending increase to the health authorities by $165 million, resulting in reduced funding to programs and service providers.

Despite claims from the other side of the House, this government is attempting to balance its budget by cutting vital services to some of the most fragile British Columbians. My question to the minister is: what other cuts to services are hidden in this bogus budget?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm not quite sure what part of "$2.4 billion increase" the member opposite doesn't understand. B.C. has one of the best systems in Canada.

We're the only province to receive an A grade for health status in a report from the Conference Board of Canada. We have the overall best cancer survival rates in this country, the longest life expectancy in Canada and a 58 percent increase in spending to address mental health and substance abuse issues in this province.

We will continue to invest in health care, but we will do it through a lens of health outcomes, not to see if we can spend the most in all of Canada, like the opposition would do.

THE ART STUDIOS THERAPY PROGRAM

IN EAST VANCOUVER

M. Elmore: The Art Studios in East Vancouver has been providing an innovative therapy and recovery program to people with mental illnesses for 21 years. The program is nationally recognized, has over 600 clients and serves everyone from youth to seniors.

[1415]

Not only has the program provided a network of support and a sense of family for people faced with unimaginable challenges; in many cases it's saved lives. So will the minister explain why, just a few weeks ago, the B.C. Liberal government cancelled this program?

Hon. T. Lake: We are continuing to invest in mental health — as I mentioned, a 58 percent increase since 2000-2001. Our ten-year plan to address mental health and substance use in British Columbia — Healthy Minds, Healthy People — is a road map to further improving mental health, reducing problematic substance use and addressing mental illness for all British Columbians.

Let's compare to the NDP of the 1990s. They had a $125 million, seven-year mental health plan that was announced and, lo and behold, never appeared in the budget. So while the NDP had a phantom mental health plan, we have a real ten-year mental health plan. On this side of the House we are proud of our accomplishments in health care in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Well, I can tell the minister that today 600 members who access the Art Studios in Vancouver-Kensington are faced with a loss of services, and it's due to broken promises of the election by this government to balance a budget. It's a bogus budget, and people with mental illness are paying the price for that.

Clients will tell you and staff will tell you that this is a successful program. But after 21 years of service to the community this government has decided that clients at the Art Studios, some of our most vulnerable citizens, are too expensive to care for. Will the minister explain how this government can afford to give pay raises to party loyalists but can't afford to fund therapies for people with mental illnesses?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, we are spending $1.3 billion every year on mental health and substance use. We've had significant improvements. Let me list a few of them for you.

The number of adult community mental health beds in B.C. increased 95 percent, with 4,714 new beds since 2001. The number of community substance use beds has increased by 196 percent, with 1,715 new beds since 2003. The number of general practitioners providing mental health and substance abuse services increased 1,764. We are training more psychiatrists, up 527.

We are proud of the health care system we have in British Columbia. Again, it is outcomes that make a difference in people's lives, not shovelling money off the back of a truck, which is what the NDP opposition would do.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present two reports from the Office of the Registrar

[ Page 212 ]

of Lobbyists related to the lobbying activities of Mr. Joe Fieder. The first report is the initial investigation findings by acting deputy registrar Jay Fedorak. The second report is the registrar's findings in respect of Mr. Fieder's request for reconsideration of the administrative penalty imposed by the acting deputy registrar.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF FINANCE AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, by leave, the following motions. These motions have been provided to the hon. Opposition House Leader, and, I believe, independent members of the House as well.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2013 on the results of those consultations; and

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

(

i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

(

v) Merit Commissioner

(vi) Ombudsperson

(vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

(viii) Representative for Children and Youth; and

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2 (

a) above.

3. The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services shall be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2), and that the performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

By leave, I so move.

[1420]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the reports of the Auditor General of B.C. deposited with the Speaker of the assembly during the first session of the 40th parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Those reports are enumerated in the motion that has been provided to members of the House.

By leave, I so move:

[1. That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2), which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

•

Summary Report: Results of Completed Projects (December 2011)

• Development Initiative Trusts: An Audit of Legislative Compliance and Public Accountability Practices in the Three Statutory Trusts (April 2012)

• Audits of Two P3 Projects in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor (July 2012)

• The Status of IT Controls in British Columbia's Public Sector: an analysis of audit findings (July 2012)

• Follow-up Report: Updates on the implementation of recommendations from recent reports (October 2012)

•

Summary Report: Results of Completed Projects and Other Matters (December 2012)

• Observations on Financial Reporting:

Summary Financial Statements 2011/12 (December 2012)

• Securing the Justin System: Access and Security Audit at the Ministry of Justice (January 2013)

• An Audit of Biodiversity in B.C.: Assessing the Effectiveness of Key Tools (February 2013)

• Striving for Quality, Timely and Safe Patient Care: An Audit of Air Ambulance Services in B.C. (March 2013)

• An Audit of Carbon Neutral Government (March 2013)

• Audit of the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project (March 2013)

• Public Sector Board Use of Information in British Columbia 2012: Progress Update Since 2009 (April 2013)

• School District Board Governance Examinations (April 2013)

• Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports (April 2013)

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee

[ Page 213 ]

be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I also move that the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the B.C. child welfare system and, in particular, to conduct the liaison work that is enumerated in the motion with the Representative for Children and Youth, thereafter referred to as the representative.

Again, with leave, I so move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR GENERAL

Hon. M. de Jong: I with leave move that a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an Auditor General, pursuant to

section 2 of the Auditor General Act and point out that the committee of selection, as with all of the committees referred to thus far today, indicated which members will participate in that process. This motion, if the House endorses it, will charge the committee with that task.

With leave, I so move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an Auditor General, pursuant to

section 2 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2). The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should say at the outset that I…. My regards to all of the members, and thanks to those who have thus far participated in the budget deliberations, most particularly members who have joined the

[ Page 214 ]

House for the first time and have provided their contribution to the discussions around that very important function, that being the collection of revenues by the Crown from British Columbians and the redistribution of that through various expenditure programs.

I should say as well — and I will assure the House my remarks will be very brief — that I am also grateful, as I think that the official opposition critic would point out, for the opportunity to have injected, procedurally, something new in the initial stages of debate. Members, I hope, will feel free to provide commentary or thoughts on the introduction of a more visual component to the discussion, either directly or through their caucus representatives.

Perhaps it is something that a committee like LAMC, or some other agency of the House, may wish to consider in the future in terms of the reaction to what took place and whether it has a place in future deliberations, or at all, in the chamber.

Beyond that, let me say this, substantively. I listened, as I always do, with interest and care to the commentary, particularly that from the opposition, in the aftermath of the electoral process and the reintroduction of a budget that, I have to say, candidly, was met with very little surprise. That doesn't upset either me or the government, because it was meant to be a reflection of what the government had introduced back in February. It was intended to contain the same provisions, because that's what the pledge was.

[1425]

The commentary from most quarters in the opposition benches, I have to say, was predictable. Maybe it was asking a lot to think that perhaps in the aftermath of the electoral process, the election, that some of that commentary would change. It is, after all, the opposition's duty to critique and not endorse. But to persist, in the face of all reasonable evidence, in the kinds of categorizations that I heard repeatedly, I think adds little to the discussion.

I understand in making the difficult choices that governments are obliged to make to balance a budget that there will be disagreements. But to simply dismiss the effort as not being legitimate, I think adds little to the public discourse.

I suppose that having at no point over the last three or four months indicated even for a moment that it appreciates the importance of balancing the budget, having ignored and refused to even for a moment acknowledge that there is an important objective being served to do so, it would fall automatically that the official opposition would seek to denigrate the efforts of a government that does place great importance in balancing the budget.

We said in February that's what lay at the heart of a budget that was remarkable by pre-election standards for not containing a plethora of spending promises. Though I'm sure the opposition hoped and thought the government would never have an opportunity to follow through on that promise, here we are debating that document, that budget, which is balanced.

So in the days ahead — and there are not many days ahead, which is why I will bring my remarks to a close so we can get on with the task there….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: There was a day when I would have taken that bait.

There is important work ahead, and now we will move to the part of the process where members — particularly members of the official opposition, independent members — will have an opportunity to consider the budget with respect to individual departmental allocations. We will begin that this afternoon.

I hope even in the course of that exercise that members will accept that the government, members of the government caucus, were very, very clear and sought a mandate from the people of British Columbia to administer their budget, their revenues, on the basis of a certain set of principles. At the heart of that: the fundamental principle that said we would not spend more of their money than people send to us. That lies at the heart of the budget.

If it were easy, B.C. wouldn't be one of the only provinces able to boast a balanced budget. If it were easy, British Columbia wouldn't be one of the only jurisdictions in North America able to boast a triple-A credit rating.

[1430]

It is actually possible to quantify the benefits that accrue to British Columbians as a result of that triple-A credit rating: the lower borrowing costs, the debt-servicing costs — the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that are saved in debt-servicing costs that are now available to apply to programming and other worthwhile public endeavours. These are real, tangible benefits.

I hope, as the deliberations occur over the course of the next three weeks…. We heard again today about concerns around the health care budget, a health care budget that is growing by $2.4 billion. I listened and read carefully, because I understand the opposition's position — I think I understand it — that $2.4 billion is not enough. I think that's what they're saying. I listened in vain for any indication from the opposition as to how much was enough and never heard it — didn't hear it three months ago, didn't hear it two months ago, didn't hear it in the last two weeks.

I would suggest that the opposition at this point in time, in addition to the criticism that it is charged with bringing, has another obligation, and that is to provide, in ways that I guess they chose not to two and three months ago, British Columbians with more specific information about how much more of the public's tax dollars they intend to devote to these services or how much more of the public tax dollars they intend to take from other public services.

[ Page 215 ]

Those are the tough choices. Those are the tough choices that we are obliged to make to set our economy on a firm foundation and allow for the job creation that we believe lies at the heart of a prosperous British Columbia going forward.

It will be interesting to hear during the give-and-take of the estimates debate that will follow whether or not any of that information or views emerge from the opposition. The executive branch, for its part, will do its best, I can assure members, to provide answers to the questions that undoubtedly will follow in the days ahead.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. Deputy Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[1435]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, is there agreement to waive the time?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Horne

Sturdy

Bing

Hogg

Pimm

McRae

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Yamamoto

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

Dalton

Plecas

Lee

Kyllo

Tegart

Martin

Michelle Stilwell

Huntington

Throness

Larson

Foster

Gibson

Bernier

Weaver

NAYS — 30

Corrigan

Simpson

James

Horgan

Farnworth

Ralston

Fleming

Austin

Hammell

Donaldson

Chandra Herbert

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Heyman

Darcy

Krog

Robinson

Trevena

B. Routley

D. Routley

Simons

Fraser

Chouhan

Rice

Shin

Holman

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I've provided the following motion, which I move with leave now, to the hon. Opposition House Leader and independent members.

I'll summarize it: "Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes of the Committee of Supply for this session to sit in two sections, designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such committee room as may be appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the chamber of the assembly, subject to the following rules."

The rules are enumerated, and I am assured that they are the same rules as have been customary in this House, governing the conducting of the two committee rooms.

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 10 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 6 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the first session of the Fortieth Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and, Messrs. Letnick , Morris , Throness , Ashton , Hamilton , Sultan , Kyllo , Yap and Mme. Tegart , and Messrs. Horgan, Simpson, Farnworth , and Mmes. Karagianis, Hammell and Corrigan , and Ms. Huntington .

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

[ Page 216 ]

Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in

Section A, and for all purposes

Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

By leave, I move that motion.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call estimates debate in Committee B, this chamber, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources; and, in

Section A, Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Hon. M. de Jong: With permission, with the leave of all members, I'm going to suggest that the member for Cowichan Valley be authorized to participate in the committee proceedings in this Committee B from a chair other than his own, the chair being the one for Vancouver–Point Grey. I think it'll facilitate a smoother proceeding if he has that opportunity, and I seek leave of the committee for that purpose.

[1445]

Leave granted.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $340,367,000.

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to the beginning of the estimates debate for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I want to introduce the staff that are with me here, to start. I expect, given the nature of the issues that I expect want to be canvassed, that we'll be moving staff in and out of the chairs as required — a bit of a revolving door there. I appreciate the cooperation of the members opposite as that process happens.

I appreciate the advance advice that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke provided us on the nature of the issues he'd like to cover. I hope we've got the staff organized appropriately for it, but it may take us a little bit of shuffling and adjustment as we move through it, so I appreciate that cooperation.

With me is Dave Peterson, acting deputy minister for the ministry; Tom Ethier, who is the assistant deputy minister of resource stewardship; and Tom Jensen, who is the assistant deputy minister of timber pricing. That's the way we'll start, and if we need to adjust, we'll change as the questions and discussion come forward.

I appreciate…. As I said, I'm looking forward to the debate on the estimates. As you know, British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and naturally resourceful people who are committed to building a strong economy, building a secure tomorrow for British Columbia.

Our ministry is a critical part of the government's mandate to build that strong economy, because economic health is the only way that British Columbians can continue to afford strong public services — health care, education, skills training, social programs. They are only possible if we have a strong economy that can sustain them, so we need to continue to grow our economy and create the high-paying jobs for the people of British Columbia. That's the bottom line, and that's why this ministry will maintain its focus on the steps laid out in the B.C. jobs plan.

As Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I'm proud to be working with a group of professionals who are dedicated to achieving this objective and creating jobs, along with providing the environmental stewardship that ensures our children and our grandchildren will enjoy B.C.'s natural benefits. During this process you'll meet a number of those dedicated professional staff who provide that service to our ministry.

It's a diverse ministry, a wide range of responsibilities that include managing our forests, Crown land and water resources and overseeing provincial fish, wildlife, heritage and archaeology. As the single land manager for B.C.'s resource sector, we play a critical role in economic development of the province, leading a streamlined approach that integrates policy with operational resource management.

We've already made great strides within the ministry under the jobs plan. One of our key commitments was for the ministry to reduce the backlog in mining notice-of-work applications by 80 percent by August 2012 and to reduce the backlog in land and water authorizations, each by 50 percent, by December 2012. We achieved those reduction targets and went beyond them. We reduced notice-of-work applications almost 92 percent by August 2012, and we continue to focus on streamlining

[ Page 217 ]

the permitting processes for those authorizations.

[1450]

We've also achieved the targets on Land Act and Water Act authorizations. Our mandate is to continue to work on solidifying the operations of the ministry, making sure that we continue to address those authorizations, improving our permitting processes and strengthening the core operations of the ministry.

In fall 2012 the ministry also released Beyond the Beetle: A Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan as part of our government's ongoing response to the mountain pine beetle infestation and the response to the work of the mid-term timber supply committee recommendations. This action plan focused on forest inventory, fuel management, reforestation, intensive and innovative silviculture and a strategic inventory plan that will increase the area for re-inventory from 18 million hectares to 35 million hectares, with the highest priority being those areas impacted by the pine beetle.

Key priorities for the year ahead that have been set out in our mandate are to continue to work in partnership to diversify and grow important markets for the forest industry; to grow and diversify those key markets in China, Japan, India and Korea, building on the successes that we've achieved to date; to work and consult with communities about the mid-term timber supply committee report and a process to address recommendations around area-based tenures; to streamline mining application processes to ensure that they can be done on line and as quickly and as efficiently as possible; to review provincial permitting processes to eliminate red tape wherever possible without compromising safety and environmental standards; to examine the rules and the effectiveness of B.C.

Timber Sales and develop recommendations for improvement; to work with the forest industry to develop the cellulose filament research opportunity in British Columbia; to work with guide-outfitters in the province to ensure certainty and continuity for this important sector; and to support economic opportunities throughout the province.

The allocations for the ministry's 2013-14 budget reflect those priorities.

I'm very pleased to be leading this ministry, because we've had, as I said, those successes to date. We've noted some very significant successes in the forest sector: increasing jobs — in 2011-2012, 3,000 new jobs; a 6 percent increase — and building the lumber export market. Particularly, exports to the U.S. were up 11.3 percent from 2011, and the value was up by 25 percent.

Softwood lumber exports to China in 2003 were $69 million. We've grown those by 1,500 percent to almost $1.1 billion in 2011, and that has held steady in 2012.

Production of wood pellets has increased almost two million tonnes, almost double the volume produced in 2010. Since 2002 we've signed forestry agreements with 175 First Nations, providing them more than $324 million in revenue-sharing and access to over 63 million cubic metres of timber, making significant strides in building capacity for First Nations involvement in the forest sector.

A great deal of progress has been made. Certainly, there is more to be done as we build on the improved returns and the opportunities ahead of us.

I look forward to the questions from the members opposite. We will endeavour to answer them to the best of our ability. Where we don't have the specific information, as we have done through the process before with the members opposite, we will undertake to provide the information requested as a follow-up. I found that that's a process that has worked well in previous estimate debates with the members opposite.

Again, I look forward to the questions.

[1455]

N. Macdonald: In a

preamble to the 2012 estimates debate we made some important points, we felt, which the government chose to completely ignore. From what I can glean from the letter outlining her expectations that the Premier sent to the minister, this government's plans are to go against the people's will on some specified initiatives in the letter and to completely ignore those pressing challenges that we must confront if we are to leave something of our natural renewable resource heritage for our children to work with.

Accordingly, some of the points made in the

preamble to the 2012 estimates bear repeating — that the sound management of B.C.'s forests is a matter of utmost public importance. Its management, moving forward, will be even more so, given known challenges around forest inventory, biodiversity decline, climate change, our vitally important water resources and escalating competing demands on our forest land base, most notably in the energy and mining sectors.

The Forest Practices Board has sounded the alarm on cumulative impacts on the landscape. More recently, last month the CEO of the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, in a report to members…. I'm sure the minister has seen the B.C. Forest Professional Magazine . I'll quote from that.

This is from Sharon Glover in the magazine's June 2013 edition. It goes:

"It's time for us to restart the conversation about cumulative impacts. Results to date of current processes for planning are of concern. It's time for a more holistic view of our forested land base and all that we can achieve on it. As the stewards of our resources, the government needs to optimize the use of its land, water and resources for the economic, social and environmental benefit of the people of B.C."

That's in the most recent edition of B.C. Forest Professional , by Sharon Glover.

When one considers the central purpose of bringing natural resources, planning and management under one ministry, this is a condemning indictment of the B.C.

[ Page 218 ]

Liberal government's performance — a failure, I think, that has been only too predictable, given the emptiness of substance in ministry service plans for, I think it's fair to say, well over a decade.

It has been said that the annual ministry service plan report has never been so slim and empty of content since our men and women went to the front during the last world war. The primary reason for this failure is that the ministry, given its stunningly broad mandate, is grossly under-resourced in staffing and operational funding.

Historically and for understandable reasons, much of the focus during sessions such as this has been on the financial side of the equation. How much revenue is coming in? How great are the expenditures?

Often the focus on the financial side tends to be coarse and misses the key points. For instance, in which regions are the revenues generated? In which regions are funds spent related to the ministry expenditures? Which programs receive funding increases, and which do not? Finally, are projected revenues and expenditures up to providing what the public considers essential services?

I made similar points during the 2012 estimates debate, but since then I have seen little progress in dealing with the enormous challenges posed by the mountain pine beetle and climate change.

Now, we hear routinely about the number of trees killed over the 17-million-plus hectares of land and about the tremendous reforestation challenges that such tree mortality poses. What we rarely hear talk of is the implications that such tree mortality pose for our province's vitally important shared public water resources.

Yet it is this ministry that bears stewardship responsibilities for both our publicly owned forests and freshwater resources — a responsibility given added weight and public concern by this government just this April, when it transferred those responsibilities for allocating public water resources to energy company applicants from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to the Oil and Gas Commission, effectively putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

It strikes me as key, then, that we have a full understanding of both revenue streams moving forward and how investments in forests will benefit both the land and water.

I want to emphasize, in my approach to the estimates before us — in fact, the approach that my colleague from Cowichan Valley and I will take — that it's important we realize that British Columbia's Crown land base is immense and is a public asset of the first order. British Columbians, of course, own 94 percent of the land and all of the province's freshwater resources.

[1500]

The challenges ahead are enormous, given the rate of climate change, but while today's management challenges may differ from those a century ago, the key responsibilities to protect the public interest remain. What Minister of Lands William Ross said nearly 100 years ago, to the day, remains so today. The government, on behalf of the people, has a responsibility to hand down to future generations their "vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

Here we are talking primarily about the province's renewable resources, for which this government has progressively cut funding by up to 52 percent over the last 12 years while having increased the total provincial budget by 56 percent and while the provincial debt has climbed from $33 billion or so up to upwards of $63 billion.

When viewed from this perspective, the health and well-being of our community is tied very closely to the health of our forests. If our forests are healthy, then the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean and safe, and the communities we live in are safer and more resilient because the lands surrounding them are resilient as well.

Realizing this vision is not easy, however, and it is made far more difficult if the government persists in old and, frankly, dangerous ways of thinking within very short electoral cycles. If our forest-dependent rural communities, in particular, are to have a future, the province needs to embrace longer-term visions, goals and strategies in keeping with the healthy rotation cycle of our forests. These visions, goals and strategies should be embodied in a clear and transparent provincial plan that sets out how key objectives relating to our forest, land and water resources will be met.

My concern with the estimates document before us is that, as our Auditor General recently pointed out, there is no long-term plan and no long-term objectives against which to assess government's planned expenditures in the key areas of our timber and water resources.

Beyond that, there is no coherent long-term plan that lays out a framework for where we, as a province, obviously need to go, which is to a future where we extract far fewer raw resources but ensure that the fewer resources we do extract provide optimum benefits to the people of British Columbia and that the resources we conserve provide optimal ecological services to sustain our society.

Without this long-term vision or plan and supporting goals, this government has no incentive to find innovative revenue sources to fund the work necessary to maintain our renewable natural resource and to leave our children something to work with.

Having framed that, let's get to the questions. The way this will work, Minister, is that my colleague and I will go back and forth, but the stream that we have prepared will be consistent. So you won't have to move staff around. The first question deals, of course, with revenue.

Let's look first at what we have in the documents here. Can the minister confirm that the revenue projection from Forests for this fiscal year is $593 million and that the updated actual revenue from Forests for 2012-2013 is $562 million?

[ Page 219 ]

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the revenue for 2012-13 was $537 million. The projected revenue in the plan for 2014-15 is $657 million.

I've just had that corrected. Sorry. The budget estimate, '13-14, is $593 million.

B. Routley: Just before I get into my questioning, I wanted to say that it is really something for me to be in this Legislature and to think back now some 42 years that I first started in the forest industry, back in the days when the Youbou sawmill that I worked in had 650 employees working in it. When it closed in 2001, that mill was down to about 200 employees.

We've seen that movie played out all over British Columbia. Literally thousands of forest workers, whether it be in all of the various kinds of mills, but also in logging, have lost their jobs. Forest and resource communities all over British Columbia have suffered the impacts of this tremendous change.

So we have some important questions about the revenue in this document. We're going to go through some of the baseline material, look at where we are today and then, we think, ask some thoughtful questions about where we need to go in the future.

But I do want to mention that since our last estimates, I actually requested some information which you provided, and that was about the number of mill closures. You sent a letter May 29, shortly after estimates in May. I think it's worth reading into the record the dramatic impact just on the coast alone.

From 2001 to 2011 — that's the period of time that you had numbers for — we've gone from 179 mills on the coast of British Columbia down to 111. That's a loss of 68 mills, with all of the thousands of workers and their families that were impacted by that.

The total loss of mills in all regions, and that includes the northern Interior, southern Interior and the coast, is 151 total mills closed since 2001 till 2011. It's dramatic and certainly something that is good to know — that there's a supercycle coming. We've heard those good-news stories since I started in this House four years ago. We heard speakers talking about the potential of a supercycle in the forest industry, which has yet to fully materialize, but hopefully, we will see some improvements.

With that, I would like to start the questioning, from my point of view, with: can the minister further confirm — by the way, this should be an easy one; you answered it already — that in the 2012 estimates the projected revenues from forest in 2013-14 were $557 million, and in 2014-15 they were $606 million.

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: For '12-13 the revised estimates were $517 million. The actual was $537 million. For '13-14, as I stated, the estimate is $593 million.

B. Routley: Can the minister confirm whether or not in the 2013 estimates the projected revenues from forests in 2014-15 are $657 million and in '15-16 are $693 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

B. Routley: Speeding things right along.

So based on actual revenue from the forests of $562 million in 2012-13 — at least I think that's what you said; you might have said a different number — the projected revenue for 2014-15 has increased to $657 million — a change of plus $51 million, plus or minus 8 percent. And for 2015-16 forest revenues are projected to increase by $87 million, or plus 13 percent.

My question for the minister is: how does the minister account for this upward change in projections, and what variables, precisely, have changed?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite may know, the revenue forecasting process is very, very complex in terms of lots of variables that go into determining those. It's done by professionals within the branch and worked through in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance.

The forecast is based on current economic assumptions regarding U.S. housing starts, the exchange rate — lumber, pulp and other commodity prices go into the equation — harvest levels, overall harvest, seasonality patterns, the Asia market. A whole number of factors go into those calculations. As you know, U.S. housing starts are up. Exports to the U.S. continue to slowly return to modest levels. Exports to Asian markets, particularly China, have levelled over the past few months. That's built into the equation.

There are a significant number of factors that go into building the revenue forecasts, but essentially, the increased revenue is built on improving markets, increased harvest levels and continued growth in export markets.

N. Macdonald: The minister's answer appears to confirm that over a three-year period we'll witness a 13 percent increase in forest revenues. I heard what the minister gave as an explanation. I understand that.

I guess the question I would have is: what average percentage increase in stumpage does the ministry forecast for the Interior? Then, separate from that, what average percentage increase in stumpage does the ministry forecast for the coast? Does the ministry also factor into revenue forecasts…?

I think the ministry talked about a higher rate of cut, but is it not possible in some of those areas, if we break them apart, that we're talking about a slower rate of cut and lower allowable annual cuts in the AAC? Here I'm

[ Page 220 ]

thinking about the 12 worst-affected Interior timber supply areas and response to a known timber supply shortage as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestation.

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: I am advised…. In terms of the stumpage, as you know, there are quarterly updates to stumpage, both in the Interior and the coast, and those quarterly adjustments — at least the next ones — are factored into the forecasts. In the Interior it's anticipated that it will be about a $2 increase. On the coast — probably a more modest increase than that.

In terms of the stumpage, as you know, there are updates done, both on the coast and the Interior. Those updates, as they are done…. One is scheduled for the Interior in July. Another one is scheduled to follow that on the coast. Those calculations are not built into the forecasts, which means that if the…. It shows that our forecasts are conservative in nature.

As you know, the market pricing system reflects a market. So if the updates are done and presuming that there's not a negative harvest response to those potentially increased rates as the market pricing system updates are done, then that would potentially reflect an increased revenue to the province, which, again, goes back to the point that the calculations that have been built into the plan are conservative in nature.

B. Routley: A popular perception is that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations relies wholly on revenue from forest. Yet for the last 12 years it has not generated revenue sufficient to cover needed expenditures on the land. I would like to explore the truth of this perception.

The 2013 estimates before us detail expenses by the ministry and revenues by source, not by ministry. So the revenues we have been discussing so far in this debate are from forests, largely derived from stumpage and from B.C. timber sales. Over the past six or so years expenditures for the ministry closely match forest revenues.

My question for the minister is: what is the real, all-inclusive revenue for the ministry for fiscal years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16? A hint might be that you could find some numbers that are different on the service plan of the total ministry's revenue.

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: The question was: what was the total revenue forecast for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations? For 2013-14 it's $1,245,181,000; forecast for '14-15, which I think the member opposite was looking for, $1,252,565,000; and for '15-16, $1,334,828,000.

N. Macdonald: Given the total ministry revenues that the minister just listed and quoting from the ministry service plans and the respective ministry expenses…. If we just go to 2012-2013, I think the minister said $664 million. For 2013-2014 it was $561 million.

So just comparing the numbers that the minister provided and that we've talked about before, would the minister agree that the government has chosen to reinvest in the land about 53 percent, on average, of the ministry's present annual total revenues?

[1530]

Hon. S. Thomson: The calculation that the member opposite has done, in terms of the revenues collected within the ministry at the amounts that we referenced and expenditures, and the percentage calculation that was done…. I'm not going to argue about the percentage calculation, although I haven't calculated it exactly. It's more to recognize that the revenue we collect within the ministry for a variety of purposes also goes to fund important functions of government. It goes towards funding health care, education, social services.

That's about the process of building a balanced budget — to get revenues, where they are appropriate, and making appropriate investments within the ministry to undertake our obligations and our functions and also having the resources of this province contribute towards the services of government that citizens of the province want and require.

B. Routley: On page 18 of the three-year fiscal plan in the document entitled June Budget Update 2013/14–2015/16 , under "Natural resource revenue" in table 1.8, the footnote to the entry "Other resource" lists "Columbia River treaty, other energy and minerals, water rental and other resources."

My question for the minister is: what specifically are other resources?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: There would be a number of other…. The specific question was around what might be included in other resources. Those would be items like angling permits, hunting permits and licences, Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act licences and permits, land registry fees. A number of items like that would make up what is being referred to there as other resources — the sale of maps and air photos, a number of miscellaneous fees, licences and permits. Those forms of things would be in that category of other resources.

B. Routley: Thank you for that answer. How much revenue does each of those categories that you have mentioned under "Other revenue" generate?

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to provide a breakdown of those: water resources, $482 million; Wildlife Act fees

[ Page 221 ]

and licences, $20.2 million; Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act licences and permits, $19,000; land registry fees, $25,000; and land tenure revenue and other income and interest earned in relation to those, $123 million.

B. Routley: The water rental. How much revenue is derived from water rental in the fiscal year? I think you just gave us the answer for 2012-13, but what about 2013-14, 2014-15 and in 2015-16?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the figure of $482.067 million that I provided was the estimate for '13-14. Forecast for '14-15, $464 million, and forecast for '15-16, $470.149 million.

N. Macdonald: Mr. Chair, if you would kindly direct the minister to table A9, "Revenue by source," on page 120 of the three-year fiscal plan of the document titled June Budget Update 2013/14–2015/16 . The minister will see that revenues from forests were $1.276 billion and $1.087 billion for fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 respectively.

My question is: what revenue sources have changed and by how much when one compares those revenues with the forecast revenue for fiscal year 2013-14? Is the difference confined to stumpage and B.C. Timber Sales revenues? Or are other factors at play, and if so, what are those factors?

Hon. S. Thomson: I wonder if I could, in order to make sure I provide the accurate answer, just get clarification of the numbers that the member opposite — the reference he was making. I just want to make sure I'm looking at the correct spot here.

N. Macdonald: This is from table A9 in the revenue by source on page 120, I understand. It talks about revenues from forests of $1.276 billion — hopefully, I have that correct — and $1.087 billion for the fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08.

[1545]

Then the question, of course, is just on the differences. Is that confined to stumpage and B.C. Timber Sales revenue, or are there other factors? And if there are other factors, what are they? Can the minister describe them?

Hon. S. Thomson: Without going…. I don't have all the specifics of the revenue sources in '06-07, '07-08, but I think, as the members opposite know, when we went into 2008 and '09, that was the significant downturn in the industry. So those changes would be reflective of both decreased stumpage, as a result of the stumpage reacting to the market-pricing system as we went into the downturn, and reduced harvest levels.

I'm also advised that…. That's why I say I don't have all the details. Given the restructuring in the ministry, there may have been some revenues from other ministries, in terms of some of the restructuring, that might impact it a little bit, although I don't know to what degree. I think it would be primarily related to stumpage and harvest levels.

[1550]

B. Routley: As the minister knows, there is a great deal of concern at present over the availability of sufficient volumes of timber to sustain today's sawmilling capacity, particularly in the Interior. The fire that completely destroyed the Babine Forest mill in Burns Lake exemplifies this. Subsequent to this fire, a cabinet document leaked in April 2012 confirmed timber supply shortages and outlined drastic measures to ensure that the Babine mill was rebuilt.

These measures included, among other options or proposals, (1) to log forest reserves in old-growth management areas previously off-limits, (2) to supersede the statutory powers of the chief forester and to override his independent professional oversight of timber supply and forest stewardship of publicly owned forests and (3) to roll over forest licences into tree farm licences, or TFLs, without the licensee meeting the normal criteria for conversion.

In an obvious attempt at damage control, the government convened the timber supply review committee, which I served on. The government appointed two past chief foresters as special advisers to the committee. The committee confirmed that interior British Columbia faces, indeed, critical timber supply shortages that will lead to mill closures.

Yet a full month before the minister publicly released a response to the committee's recommendations and the minister gave Hampton Affiliates a letter of intent, in September 2012, the minister was committing to a conversion of this American company's forest licences to a TFL.

In the mini-omnibus Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, the government covertly tried to pass enabling legislation that would allow cabinet to authorize conversion of forest licences to TFLs. A public outcry in early March 2013 forced the government to withdraw the offending sections of Bill 8. Yet in the Premier's mandate letter to the minister dated June 10, 2013, she outlined the expected outcomes, and we read that the government plans once again to introduce enabling legislation to permit the rollover of forest licences to TFLs under the pretext of area-based management.

I remind the minister of what Vaughn Palmer did not say in his recent column on the issue — the Vancouver Sun , June 26, 2013. What he did not say is that area-based management can happen under any form of tenure, including the present TSA system of management. I'll repeat that. Area-based management can happen under any form of tenure, including the present TSA system [ Page 222 ]

of management.

Two, the Special Committee on Timber Supply did not, in fact, recommend the conversion of volume-based licences to area-based tenures as the Premier contends in her letter to the minister. Rather, the committee gave significant and thoughtful cautionary recommendations and stated that if — and that's a big if — conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable, this is because the committee found during its public hearings that there is still no public consensus on the relative merits of area-based tenures and there is still significant concern about the potential near privatization of our largest public asset.

[1555]

This concern stems in part because of the unsavoury history of tree farm licences in this province and the immediate concerns about locking up large tracts of land for timber use when this might not be in the present best interests of British Columbians or in the future interests of our children here in British Columbia. Many view TFLs as a corporate giveaway of public assets with no, or only limited, strings attached. Others point out that the most atrocious examples of bad forest management have occurred on tree farm licences.

My question for the minister is: does he acknowledge extreme timber supply shortages in the Interior? Does he intend to table TFL-enabling language in this House, and if so, when?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. Certainly, I understand and agree and note that we have a significant issue of mid-term timber supply through that region. That was the purpose for tasking the committee to bring forward recommendations on how we might address that.

The committee and the members — both members opposite were members of that committee — did some good work over that time period and brought forward recommendations. We responded with Beyond the Beetle: A Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan, addressing those recommendations brought forward by the committee.

With respect to area-based tenures, that was a recommendation of the mid-term timber supply committee. As I committed earlier this spring and as is noted in the mandate letter, the ministry will launch and engage in a public engagement process this summer to raise awareness about the differences between the volume-based and area-based tenures and will solicit the feedback from communities, First Nations, the forest industry and the general public. The results of that public engagement will inform the future policy direction.

As the member opposite clearly pointed out, there were concerns raised — lots of misinformation, lots of perceptions about what it was and wasn't — and we need to make sure that we engage in that public process, as I committed we would do. As I said, that process will inform the policy direction.

[1600]

N. Macdonald: I think of greater concern to the House and to members of the Special Committee on Timber Supply is the need to respect the public interest on the issue of area-based tenures.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In its response, titled Beyond the Beetle , a mid-term timber supply plan that the minister references, their response to recommendation 5.1 of the committee's report to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations reaffirmed this point.

I think it's important to read the quotation from the report that the minister references. "One requirement for any proposed conversion will be ensuring that the public interest is addressed, through the support of…local community, First Nations, stakeholders and the public."

As the minister is aware, from the thousands of e-mails he and the Premier received in one day, in protest against sections of Bill 8 dealing with the conversion of forest licences to TFLs and his government's decision to withdraw the offending sections, it would be a long stretch to assert that reintroduction of legislation enabling corporations to roll over forest licences to TFLs is in the public interest, according to a broad swath of the public.

My question for the minister is: if the public outcry against Bill 8 in March of 2013 does not convince him that the forest licence rollover to TFLs for corporations is not in the public interest, then what do British Columbians need to do to convince him?

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to reference back to the recommendation that came forward from the committee, which was to increase the diversity of area-based tenures using criteria for conversion. Make sure that we…. It was quite clear in the recommendations that we needed to do it in a way that reflected public interest. I think the committee heard, through all of the submissions, that there were significant benefits to area-based management.

I know that that's the genesis and why the recommendation came forward. You know that we currently have about 20 percent of B.C.'s public land under area-based tenure, ranging from woodlots and community forests…. We have First Nations woodland licences, tree farm licences. So, clearly, there is a basis for it. There are provisions for it.

As we have committed, and I think that the members opposite know and were part of some of the concerns that were raised…. I hope what I'm not hearing from the members opposite is that they don't support the public dialogue to re-engage the public — and not just the public but others as we've committed to in the process, which includes First Nations, stakeholder groups, the industry

[ Page 223 ]

— in continued discussion on the benefits of area-based tenures. As I said, that will inform the policy direction.

[1605]

I think I've always made it clear, even in the discussion beforehand during Bill 8 and the subsequent decision to hold that at this time, that the steps that were taken clearly needed to be in the public interest.

I hope and expect that the discussion and the consultation process that we've agreed to take will clarify that and confirm it and allow us to bring forward policy direction in the area, because I think there is, as clearly recommended by the committee, a potential approach that would contribute to increasing mid-term timber supply in the future, which was the genesis of their recommendations.

B. Routley: On March 12, 2013, the minister commented in the House on the withdrawal of certain sections from Bill 8 dealing with forest licence rollover. I quote the minister from Hansard:

"As a result of the need for broader public consultation on this, as was mentioned by the Attorney General, in committee stage we'll be setting aside those sections of the legislation directed at area-based tenure change and initiating a process, a broader public consultation, this summer based on the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply special committee and this proposed legislation."

Will the minister confirm that this process of broader public discussion has not yet started or taken place?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. I think the question specifically was: can I confirm that the process hasn't started yet? And I think that's true; it hasn't. It hasn't started yet in terms of that process. While we have had some discussions with some organizations — including groups like the professional foresters and others — about how that process might best take place, we haven't determined the most appropriate process for that. We intend to do that.

I think we would have got that process started earlier, except for the current session that we're involved in. I think we also need to be cognizant…. As we go out in that process, we need to make sure that we go out in a time period where the public will be available for that engagement. I think the early parts of August and things are probably not the most appropriate time to do that. We would be criticized that we're running the process at a time when people may be more focused on other things.

We want to make sure that we do it right. We're working on the most appropriate options in order to do that. As I said, we're fully committed to ensure that we engage a process because it is a very important public policy discussion. Clearly, we need to do it in a way that makes sure people understand what it is and what it isn't that is being proposed.

N. Macdonald: I'm sure the minister will allow me to be somewhat cynical about these processes, because I did participate in a process with the Timber Supply Committee — which, in my view, wasn't one that the government took seriously. I don't see the connection, even of the unanimous recommendations, to decisions the government made, in terms of investments in the land, when in practical terms it led to cuts of between $35 million and $40 million. Process is important.

Now, in terms of the minister, in terms of the summer not being the right time, this is the time the government chose — the summer, right? It's not me who's saying we should be doing it in the summer. It's what the government suggested needed to happen. I guess the question is: if not the summer, then when? How long a process are we talking about? And what, within the budget, has been budgeted for that process?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, just to confirm again, we're working on the options and potential options about how to best undertake that process. We don't have a specific budget developed. It will be managed within program budgets.

My expectation is that the time frame we're looking at would probably be getting into September, which depending on your definition of summer, still includes the summer. I don't think summer ends until somewhere into September, if we want to get on to the fine points.

Again, I think the important point here, to the members opposite, is that we are in discussions around the options. We do need to…. I am talking to important groups about the best way to undertake that, to ensure that we get that informed consultation process. As I said, we're fully committed to do it, to make sure that we do it in a way that allows for that process and allows for an informed discussion. It is not my intention to undertake it in a way that would not provide for that opportunity.

A. Weaver: The minister has mentioned that he's engaged discussions with important groups, has mentioned the professional foresters. My question is: have you yet discussed this process development with any environmental or other NGOs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite, I think for the first question.

No, not in a formal way yet, recognizing that we are just getting back into the process here, just really getting started. The discussions even with some of the other organizations have been more on the informal basis at this point, just sort of saying…. We haven't put specific options in front of them. I've just asked them to say: what would you think would be the best way to do this?

Certainly, we will have those discussions. As I said, we want to make sure the process is undertaken in a way that everybody will be comfortable that it provides for that informed discussion. That'll be critical, because I think

[ Page 224 ]

part of the challenge on the last process was perceptions and misinformation about what was being proposed and what wasn't and how public interest would be confirmed or would be part of that process. It didn't happen in a way that might have been most productive, so we want to make sure that we do that.

[1615]

I think there is no intention on my part not to have that discussion and not to make sure that it is done in a way that has the best chance of an informed discussion. I have had some very casual conversations with representatives in that area but nothing formal yet.

B. Routley: You'll appreciate that we get asked questions that only the minister can answer, so this question falls into that category. Ahead of any public discussion, has the minister already had backdoor discussions with West Fraser about granting that corporation the opportunity to roll over some of its forest licences into a TFL — quid pro quo, if you will, for West Fraser losing volume in the Lakes TSA if cabinet grants a TFL to Hampton Affiliates, as promised in the letter of intent?

Hon. S. Thomson: The short answer is no. There has been no…. The member opposite tries to infer that there has been some kind of quid pro quo backdoor discussions. The answer is clearly no. Very clearly, the process would have been designed to ensure that any consideration was transparent and in the public interest with notification and things.

I think that the member opposite should know that from time to time over a number of years, not just since the mid-term timber supply committee report, people have talked about some of the benefits of area-based tenure, and other interests and companies have come forward and talked about that — the Sinclar Group and Dunkley, for example. Dunkley held up as a very good example of what can be done under area-based management.

From time to time in the past there has obviously been interest expressed. But no, there has been no quid pro quo, no backdoor discussions, as the member opposite infers.

N. Macdonald: Next I'd like to drill a little deeper so that the public, the owner of the biodiversity of our forests and our water, can gain a better understanding of whether or not this ministry is asserting the financial interests of the Crown, as it is required to do under law.

Let's begin with a question for the minister on licences to cut timber. How much revenue — and this excludes stumpage — will the ministry generate this fiscal year for each of the following types of licences? I'll give you a number of them here: timber licence, forest licence, woodlot licence, timber sale licence and pulpwood agreements. This is excluding stumpage.

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: I was just checking here. We don't have that specific breakdown quickly and readily available for the member opposite. We can undertake to provide that and table that information when we resume tomorrow morning or as soon as possible. But I don't have the specific breakdown with me here.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. It's possible that the same will have to happen with the next couple of questions. As has been practice in the past, it's worked well if the minister can provide the information as quickly as possible.

Continuing on that, if you're getting that information, how much revenue — again, excluding stumpage — does the ministry expect to generate from each of these major licences in fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016? On top of that, what is the total AAC of timber associated with each type of agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify, you're asking for that information for that list you just provided of the various forms of licences. Yeah, we'll undertake to provide that as well.

N. Macdonald: My next question for the minister concerns revenue generated — again, excluding stumpage — from small business agreements. How much revenue, excluding stumpage, will the ministry generate from the small business forest enterprise program — SBFEP — non-replaceable and replaceable timber sales licences and from small business forest enterprise program non-replaceable forest licences all combined in this fiscal year?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in response to the previous two questions, we'll include that information in the response.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. If you could also provide how much revenue, excluding stumpage, the ministry expects to generate from these small business agreements combined in the fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16. I'll just presume the minister will provide those as well, and then we'll move on to some other areas of revenue.

The next question for the minister concerns revenue generated — again, excluding stumpage — from various miscellaneous agreements. Here again, possibly, the minister will have to provide the information later on. How much revenue, excluding stumpage, will the ministry generate from licences to cut, free use permits, road permits and Christmas tree permits combined in the fiscal year as well as 2014-2015, 2015-2016?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, we'll add that request to the

[ Page 225 ]

list and provide that information. I thought we might have just reduced the workload a little bit with your first question, when you mentioned just the one year, and then you added in the extra years to it. So I thought…. But I fully expected that that was what was going to happen, and we'll make sure we provide, to the degree that we can, that information for all of those categories and for those respective years.

B. Routley: My next question relates to tree farm licences. I believe the ministry has some 34 tree farm licences on its books. Would the minister provide the revenue, excluding stumpage, it will generate from TFLs this fiscal year?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, we'll undertake to provide that information. This is drilling down into a level of detail, in terms of aggregating up the revenue sources, that we can provide. We just don't have it specifically with us here at this point. We're developing a list, and we'll make sure we provide that information for you.

B. Routley: I understand that it'll take some time, and I assume this question will get added to the list. How much revenue, excluding stumpage, does the ministry expect to generate, from all TFLs combined, in the fiscal years 2014 and 2015-16?

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry, I presume there was a question there. So again, we'll add that to the list of information that we've undertaken to provide.

N. Macdonald: I was presuming that the minister was going to take that on as well.

During the public outcry against sections of Bill 8, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, that dealt with enabling corporations to roll over forest licences to TFLs, the government argued that forest management on TFLs is area-based and preferable to volume-based management. But what has always been lacking in this debate is any substantiation of that claim. Now, there are many different types of area-based management, but of course, the debate on Bill 8 focused on the rollover to TFLs.

The question I have for the minister…. There are a couple here. The first is: how many hectares of the province are in TFLs? Here, I think one would expect a basic forestry statistic like this to be readily available on the ministry's website. I apologize if I couldn't find it, but I had to go back to 1994, where the ministry pegged the TFL area at 7,537,387 hectares, of which 4,221,687 were considered to be productive for growing timber.

Perhaps the minister could update the House with the comparable statistic for 2013.

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I know that the member opposite probably did look as deep as he could on the website to find that. The numbers are, as you know…. Particularly the production portion of it is a dynamic number. I'm advised that we can produce that number for you, and we'll undertake to do that as quick as we can. It's just going to take a bit of calculation, but we'll undertake to ensure that you get that information.

N. Macdonald: I guess a further question. One would hope that this would be more readily available. What is the total combined AAC for all of the TFLs?

Hon. S. Thomson: The total AAC in TFLs: 12.5 million cubic metres. I can also provide the response, because I think the question previously was around the total hectares in TFLs. The total area in hectares: 5.6 million.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister.

Would the minister please confirm that the provincial annual allowable cut for TFLs is determined on the same volume basis used to determine the AACs, or annual allowable cuts, on timber supply areas — TSAs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

N. Macdonald: We spent quite a bit of time in the Timber Supply Committee talking about area-based management. As the minister knows, that refers to a number of different tenures. Here we're more focused on TFLs, which is one type of area-based tenure.

[1635]

What we found in those lengthy discussions is that there really was no evidence to support the assertion that there is any enhanced management of forest lands under TFLs or, really, TSAs, except under innovative forest practices agreements because of incentives.

If the minister can show otherwise, could he please advise the House and the public as to where there are quantifiable examples of corporate tenure holders spending more on enhanced forestry efforts on TFLs than the same corporate interests spend on TSAs? Where is that evidence? When we were with the committee, we asked again and again, and it wasn't presented.

Hon. S. Thomson: Through the process of the mid-term timber supply committee work, I think there were many submissions that talked about the benefits of area-based management — additional investments in silviculture and forest management resulting in increased productivity. A couple of good examples. One I referenced before with the Dunkley TFL. There is specific information that shows the benefits of that approach to area-based management there. We know West Fraser, in TFL 52, plants higher densities and achieves additional productivity.

[ Page 226 ]

So I think there is good evidence in terms of the approach to area-based management, particularly in relation to the other forms of area-based management as well. Also, it's important to point out that I think that's information that needs to form part of the public consultation and dialogue process as we go out in the consultation process that we've committed to do.

N. Macdonald: Here I presume that the minister is not referencing anything that would have been done under innovative forest practices agreements, so it's separate from that. I do remember many of the discussions that we had with the committee. Certainly, many of the additional fibre that was found simply came through doing a better job with inventory and so on.

Nevertheless, even if the minister has accurately represented in an anecdotal manner some benefits, I think the minister would accept that, anecdotally, one could find examples of poor management within TFLs, right? So I think to have a debate where one simply lifts anecdotes about a particular thing that happened is hardly the due diligence one would expect from the ministry.

[1640]

Within the committee process that we had, we asked for academic research, work that would be done. It is now a year since we asked the ministry at that committee for any evidence they were aware of. We were told very clearly, and it's there in the minutes, that there was no evidence the ministry could provide of academic research that supports the assertion that is behind a rollover to the TFLs.

I guess the question is: a year on, having surely prepared packages of evidence to support what was put forward in Bill 8, can the minister provide any academic evidence to support the assertion that is part of what the Premier is instructing the minister to do?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, clearly, there is work underway, as part of the package that will be utilized in the consultation process, around empirical evidence of the benefits. We've referenced a number of examples. There are studies that indicate the benefits of that additional silviculture investment.

I think the important point, though, is to reference back to the committee's recommendation where it talked about "before considering a conversion" of the volume-based tenure, whole or in part, to area-based.

[1645]

In considering those conversions, it would have to take into account — this is where we talk about the public interest — commitment to sustainable forest management, commitment to silviculture investments, community and First Nations support for the process through a public consultation.

Clearly, in considering any applications that would have come forward in this process, before any invitations were given to consider this, there would have to be demonstrated evidence of the additional management and additional investments that would take place that would contribute to that increase in mid-term timber supply and create that additional volume. That will be part of the basis of the further consultation that needs to take place, as we've committed to do.

N. Macdonald: It has been a year since the question was asked, and the minister says there is evidence but can't produce it. So there's no academic evidence. Even what the minister referenced….

I'm not a forester, but even I know that when you're talking about planting in higher densities, you're really talking about stocking standards, right? And stocking standards…. Am I correct, Minister, that that can be done in a TSA — that you can set higher stocking standards and have all of those things happening without rolling over into a TFL? Is that correct?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, arguably, you could answer that question by saying: "Yes, you could." I think the principle, though, that we're looking for in the area-based management approach is looking at the overall management regime in any areas that you might consider.

That goes directly back to the recommendations of the committee and the reference from the committee — that by looking at past performance, commitment to sustainable forest management, commitment to investment in forest management, including but not limited to silviculture investment…. What we're looking for in this approach to area-based is a more comprehensive, overall management approach to those areas where we would clearly see those benefits.

I think that understanding of what we're looking for and those processes is, clearly, why the committee made the recommendation they did. They did, I know…. I can't see the committee making the recommendation for that if there weren't, clearly, benefits to that approach. That's why they've asked us to look at it and, also, to be able to provide the enabling legislation and regulations to be able to do that. It's developing that more comprehensive approach to area-based management.

We think it's something that's worth considering, but we also agree that it needs to have that further public consultation process. The work that is being looked at will inform part of the discussion documents and information that go out in that process — will include all of that information and will include examples and evidence of where that approach benefits and works.

N. Macdonald: Here is the question. I'm open to any of these ideas, and I was open on the committee. But there is a requirement on government to approach this with some rigour and to be able to provide some proof

[ Page 227 ]

to broad assertions.

Quite frankly, I'm troubled about what sort of process you are going to have when you cannot go to the public with any sort of independent proof of things that, I think, are going to be asserted at these processes. It reminds me of the Fraser Institute, where they have a conclusion, and then they build proof to reach that conclusion every time. It sounds like you're going to have the same sort of process.

If you cannot identify, after a year of being asked where the academic proof is, that this is a preferable system — that rolling over into TFLs is going to produce better results — you have no…. This government has produced no academic proof of that assertion.

Now, the minister has also asserted that, in certain cases, anecdotally, he can claim — within TFLs in Dunkley, West Fraser, for example — there are improvements. Can the minister provide for this House studies that the ministry has done, over the breadth of TFLs that are available, where there is conclusive proof that rolling over into TFLs has produced the results that the minister is asserting they have produced?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've indicated, as part of the process around public consultation and going out with the information, clearly, that's information that will be required. We're committed to provide that as part of the discussion paper. We have information, and the evidence will be part of the discussion paper and information. The commitment is that that will be included as we move forward with the consultation process.

N. Macdonald: Will the minister table the information they have today that the minister is citing as proof?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm again, the commitment that I made is to ensure that this information is part of the public consultation package or process as it goes out. I will undertake this evening to determine the current status of that work and to see what portion of it I may be able to table directly at this point.

But I also want to be clear that I want to make sure it is done in a way that ensures that the infor