2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Tobacco Statutes (Prohibiting

Tobacco Sales From Pharmacies) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill M203)

Cubberley

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Highway of tears

Austin

North Vancouver Kiwanis

Whittred

On-line observatory in Tatla Lake

C. Wyse

2009 World Police and Fire Games

H. Bloy

B.C. Sierra Club environmental

education program

Karagianis

Agriculture and health education

Roddick

Oral Questions

Access to B.C. Ferries

information

C. James

Hon. K.

Falcon

Chudnovsky

L. Krog

Farnworth

Bridge and highway projects in

lower mainland

Simpson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Conflict of interest and Forests

Minister communications

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Copeman clinic investigation

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Review of health care services in

interior B.C.

Macdonald

Hon. G.

Abbott

Conroy

Petitions

S. Hawkins

K. Conroy

A. Horning

Point of Privilege

B. Simpson

Motions without Notice

Withdrawal of private member's

bill

Mayencourt

Tabling Documents

Memo from Hon. R. Coleman

to Deputy Minister of Forests regarding conflict of interest, dated

November 14, 2005

Letter from

Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner

Committee of the Whole House

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 9) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

C. Evans

Royal Assent to Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2006 (Bill 2)

Public Agency Accommodation Act

(Bill 3)

Agriculture and Lands Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 4)

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2005-2006 (Bill 6)

Employment Standards

(Compassionate Care Leave) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 8)

Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 10)

New Relationship Trust Act (Bill

11)

Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth

Access to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 12)

Supply Act, 2005-2006

(Supplementary Estimates No. 1) (Bill 5)

Supply Act (No. 1), 2006 (Bill 7)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Hon. S. Bond

J. Horgan

D. Thorne

D. Chudnovsky

C. Trevena

[ Page 3385 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce a constituent from Okanagan-Westside, Mr. Cliff Schwartz. Cliff is a teacher at Glenrosa Middle School. I enjoyed a meeting with him today, and I look forward to visiting the school with Cliff in the near future. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm delighted to introduce two constituents who are visiting with us today in the Legislature. Gordon and Dorothy Inglis are longtime workers and supporters and the heart of our movement, the NDP and the CCF. We're pleased to have them here. Would the members please make them welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: The World Police and Fire Games are a spectacular international sporting event held biannually, which British Columbia has the good fortune to host in 2009. It's one of the largest sporting events in the world. It's open to active and retired members of the public safety community, which includes police officers, firefighters, customs officers and corrections officers from around the world.

Today in the gallery are two people who have been key in organizing this event: Jeff Clark, a firefighter from Burnaby, and Mike Gillmore, a retired Vancouver firefighter. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

K. Conroy: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce in the House Taylor Lewis, who is a former resident of West Kootenay–Boundary. He's now a student at UVic. He's studying fine arts theatre, and he's very interested in politics. I've watched him grow up since he was a young man as I worked with his mom for 20-some years. I'm just really excited to have Taylor in the House today. Please join me in making him welcome.

[1405]

Hon. P. Bell: Yesterday the member for Shuswap, the Minister of Health, and the member for Peace River North, the Minister of Energy and Mines, both commented on how rare it is that they have an opportunity to stand and introduce people in the House. I too, coming from Prince George North, find it only on occasion that I get to do an introduction. But today I get to do not one, not two, not three, not four, but five introductions from my riding of Prince George North. So I would ask that the House make Terry Kuzma, Bill Kordoban, Bill Stuart, Keith Anderson and Blair Mays very welcome.

N. Macdonald: This, too, is going to be a week for introductions for me, and I have the pleasure of introducing three very special people from the riding. The first person I would introduce on the precinct is His Worship Mayor Mark Shmigelsky. He is the mayor of the district of Invermere. I would also like to introduce His Worship Jim Ogilvie, the mayor of the city of Kimberley with over 30 years of service as mayor in Kimberley, which is exceptional.

I would also like to introduce my constituent assistant, who is here. Her name is Joy Orr, and there she is. So please join me in making all of these people feel welcome.

V. Roddick: Delta South constituency members of the Financial Advisors Association of Canada are in the gallery today — Melody Harris, Neil Murphy, Vincent Olford and with a tagalong from the Minister of Transportation's riding, Vince McKay. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Natasha Tattersall, a constituent and a math teacher from Burnaby North. Please join me to make her welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House my good friend Russ Burtnick, a prominent member of our community. He has done a terrific job of building a strong business and community sense in Surrey. He is an independent insurance broker, and he is a member of the Financial Advisors Association of Canada, who are here today talking to MLAs about their issues and concerns and who are also celebrating their 100-year anniversary. Would the House please make him very welcome.

A. Dix: I just want to recognize three members of the legislative press gallery today who have been nominated nationally for the prestigious Michener Award. They are Lindsay Kines and Jeff Rud of the Victoria Times Colonist and Miro Cernetig of the Vancouver Sun, who joins his colleague Lori Culbert. I wanted the House to recognize them for their outstanding work and for the recognition they're receiving nationally for that work.

S. Hawkins: I would like to make two introductions. The first one is to introduce two visitors from Alberta who are in the members' gallery. Mr. Denis Herard and his wife Rose are visiting us here this afternoon. Mr. Herard is serving his fourth term as the MLA for Calgary-Egmont, and I'm sure that he and his wife Rose will be interested in our proceedings this afternoon. A special note is that today is Denis's birthday, so I hope members will join me in extending him a very warm British Columbia welcome and birthday wishes to a fellow parliamentarian.

Secondly, I do have some visitors in the gallery from my riding in Kelowna. Mr. Ron Russell and his wife Priscilla are visiting here in Victoria, as well as Mr. Rusty Bracken. They are here with Advocis, and they're presenting their issues to MLAs. We had a very nice

[ Page 3386 ]

lunch with them. I'd like to thank them for that, and I'd like to ask members to give them a warm welcome.

D. Thorne: I, too, have a constituent here today — Frank Bonvino, who is a fourth-year science teacher from Burnaby North Secondary School. Frank is an advocate for lab and shop safety. He's an active member of his bargaining committee and staff rep. For all of his hard work, I'd like the House to give him a round of applause.

Hon. B. Penner: In the House today are 21 grade 12 students from Mount Cheam Christian School in Chilliwack. I'm pleased to see that they're joined by at least a couple of adults, including Bill Kirkhoff and, I think, a former teacher of mine, their principal Adrian Stoutjesdyk. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

C. Evans: Joining us in the galleries and also watching in the estimates debate is a constituent of mine, Rebecca Blair. Rebecca has been teaching for 31 years, and at one time or another in constituencies of Williams Lake, Quesnel and Burns Lake. Now she is teaching the alternate class in Creston. She is the vice-president of the Creston Valley Teachers, which is a part of the BCTF. She's come here to watch estimates and educate us all. Will the House please make her welcome.

I. Black: I would like the House to make welcome Mike McClenahan, who's visiting from the tri-city area. He's a businessman involved in the Advocis Association that's here to meet with us today.

More importantly, Mike is one of my co-coaches for six-year-old soccer on a Saturday morning. He has braved many cold and wet Saturday mornings, so for that I think he deserves an extra round of applause and a warm welcome.

L. Krog: In the precincts today is a member of one of British Columbia's most distinguished political and legal families: a former member of this House, well known to the Clerk, the hon. Alex Macdonald. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Yap: Following up on the introduction by my colleague from Port Moody–Westwood, we have in the precincts today a large group of financial advisers representing Advocis. A number of members from both sides of the House met with them over the lunch hour. In particular, I would like to welcome Gary McLeod, who came all the way from Toronto to be here for the day of advocacy, as well as the chair of the Advocis B.C. political advocacy committee, Mr. Ed Jackson, for hosting those of us who were able to attend this function. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to introduce couple of guests who are with us today, also with the Advocis organization. They are both constituents of mine, and they travelled all the way from Victoria-Hillside to be here with their colleagues from other parts of the province and the country. Tony Leuwen, who's a chartered financial consultant, is with us in the gallery today, as is Derek Delves, who is with Assante Wealth Management. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined today in this House by a former colleague of mine, Terri Cunningham. She, indeed, has served this caucus with distinction, and I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

TOBACCO STATUTES (PROHIBITING

TOBACCO SALES FROM PHARMACIES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

D. Cubberley presented a bill intituled Tobacco Statutes (Prohibiting Tobacco Sales From Pharmacies) Amendment Act, 2006.

D. Cubberley: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

D. Cubberley: British Columbia once led the country in promoting tough anti-tobacco measures, especially for teens. These measures deglamorized smoking and made it much more difficult for teens to get cigarettes. The result of these measures is that B.C. now has the lowest smoking rates of any province in Canada. I think that's something that all members of this House can be very proud of.

However, the success we've had in reducing smoking rates should not lead us to complacency. We can and should do more to ensure that cigarettes never get into the hands of our youth. Members of this assembly have heard from pharmacists who have told us that selling tobacco in a health care setting is an ethical concern to them. It makes no sense to place products that cause great harm to human health right next to products that promote healthier living. This bill prohibits the sale of tobacco products in licensed pharmacies and in retail outlets which have licensed pharmacies within them.

Similar legislation already exists in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. It's time for British Columbia to catch up. This is an important step and one that I hope will be part of an ongoing comprehensive effort to improve the health of British Columbians. I ask that all members review and support this bill.

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

[1415]

Bill M203, Tobacco Statutes (Prohibiting Tobacco Sales From Pharmacies) Amendment Act, 2006, intro-

[ Page 3387 ]

duced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) HIGHWAY OF TEARS

R. Austin: Today I have the honour of acknowledging a courageous woman, Florence Naziel, who has embarked on an amazing walk to bring awareness of the atrocities that have occurred along Highway 16 between Prince Rupert and Prince George, the highway of tears. Florence Naziel is a 56-year-old grandmother who has two daughters and six sons. She left Prince Rupert on March 11. She is a member of the Frog clan from the Wet'suwet'en Nation and lives in Moricetown.

One of Florence's cousins has a daughter who is missing from Highway 16. Florence was planning to walk from Rupert to Terrace in honour of the families of the missing women, those missing from the highway of tears, and to keep awareness and concern at the forefront. Despite howling wind and snow, she then decided to walk right through to Smithers. Last Friday she passed on the banner to Matilda Wilson, who will carry on through to Prince George. Mattie is the grandmother of Ramona, whose body was found along Highway 16 in 1999.

One of my constituents, Tamara Chipman, has been missing for months, and they continue to search for her. Both Mattie and Florence will be at the community symposium about the highway of tears on March 30 and 31 in Prince George. The highway of tears symposium, initiated by the Lheidli T'enneh Nation is a grass-roots, community-driven initiative.

Not only do we need a forum in Prince George, we need community forums up and down the highway to ensure full participation to address the main issues. In order to put an end to these horrendous crimes, we need to work together to strategize solutions, implement changes in policy and educate people on the many social issues that result in the abuse against our women, our youth and our children, especially young aboriginal women in our rural areas.

I would like to take this opportunity for the House to recognize Florence and Mattie as well as the families of the 34 women murdered or missing along Highway 16.

NORTH VANCOUVER KIWANIS

K. Whittred: I rise today to bring congratulations from this House to the Kiwanis Club of North Vancouver, who are celebrating their 85th anniversary. It was in 1921 that the North Vancouver Kiwanis Club was founded.

Kiwanis first became involved in their good work in my community by assisting with the construction of changing-room facilities at St. Patrick's beach. It was during the 1930s that they donated the very first ambulance in North Vancouver, and they helped to establish what is now unheard of — a dental clinic in public schools. They helped the young suffering from polio with braces and the elderly with eyeglasses.

It was in the 1940s, however, that they acquired their first housing property, Kiwanis Village, in the Pemberton area of North Van. In the 1970s the North Vancouver Kiwanis Foundation was formed. Kiwanis Towers and Kiwanis Lynn Manor were constructed, both of which are fully utilized today, providing affordable housing to seniors.

More recently, additional homes were added by the addition of Kiwanis Carnaby Place. They have recently finalized plans for yet a fourth Kiwanis senior citizens property, this one called St. Andrew's Place.

For nearly all of their 85 years, the Kiwanians have played an important and vital role in providing seniors housing to the community. As well as housing initiatives, however, the group offers annual bursaries for North Vancouver high schools. They have contributed to the North Van Lookout Emergency shelter, and just last year they donated over $80,000 to projects in the community, including the Lions Gate Hospital emergency project, the John Braithwaite Community Centre and the Zajac Ranch.

Congratulations to the North Van Kiwanis — 85 years of serving their community and going strong.

[1420]

ON-LINE OBSERVATORY IN TATLA LAKE

C. Wyse: I wish to bring a major achievement of the Tatla Lake community to the attention of the House. Tatla Lake is a small community in the Chilcotin, west of Williams Lake. The partnership of the Tatlayoko Think Tank, school district 27, Telus, CITS, PLNet, Industry Canada, North Island College and the Tatla Lake school has established an on-line observatory at the Tatla Lake school. This project is a wonderful combination of science, education and community.

The concept of the project is that a student will be able to

schedule access to the on-line telescope. At the appointed time the student will connect to the telescope server via the Internet, take control of the telescope, slew it to the object of interest, image that part of the sky with a CD camera attached to the telescope, download the image to the student's home computer, study it and incorporate it into his or her lab report to be handed in for electronic mark grading.

Ron Evans of North Island College read a report about supernova 2006 that had been discovered on February 4 in the galaxy M100. Realizing the Tatla Lake On-line Observatory had images of this galaxy taken on February 11, Ron had Albert Dalbour, of North Island College, process them. Ron had captured the supernova about one week after it had been discovered.

I ask the House to recognize everyone's efforts that have provided the students of the Chilcotin with this wonderful opportunity to study the cosmos, as well as recognizing this group for being part of this astronomical discovery.

[ Page 3388 ]

2009 WORLD POLICE AND FIRE GAMES

H. Bloy: Before we have the pleasure of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2010, British Columbia will be home to another important athletic event with competitors arriving in our province from around the world. From July 31 to August 9, 2009, the British Columbia World Police and Fire Games will be held throughout the lower mainland. I would like to thank my colleagues for wearing the pin today in starting the advertising program on this.

Based in Burnaby with over 14,000 athletes from 70 countries, these biennial games are the second largest in the world, second only to the Summer Olympics. Just like the Olympics that'll be coming here, the economic impact will be immense. Over the ten days it is expected that the World Police and Fire Games will leave over $75 million in the province.

Already preparations are well underway in anticipation of the thousands of active firefighters, police, customs and corrections officers who will be guests in our province in that time. In fact, one member from this House, Surrey–White Rock, has competed in the games in the past. These athletes will compete in more than 60 different competitions. Many, such as stair-climbing while wearing full protection equipment and events with police dogs, are unique to the Police and Fire Games.

My colleague has already introduced the members in the gallery, but I would like you to join with me in thanking them for their vision in bringing the games to British Columbia and to give a warm welcome for three years from now to the World Police and Fire Games.

B.C. SIERRA CLUB

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

M. Karagianis: The Sierra Club of B.C. believes environmental education should be a lifelong experience, and so they offer elementary and secondary education programs that meet both the teachers and the students at every level and inspire students to take an active role in caring about their community. All of the Sierra Club education programs are curriculum-linked, interactive, both indoors and outdoors, focused on local ecology processes, comprehensive, and include teacher support materials.

The education team delivers 13 different programs, including climate change education, which focuses on having youth take action in their own communities about climate change; the tree team programs, temperate rainforest environmental educators that investigate temperate rainforests of Canada; interior ecosystems programs, which explore B.C.'s central and southern interior ecosystems; the Green Star, a hands-on environmental stewardship, skills and strategies program so that students can make the leap from ideas to action; and green scene, a unique program that brings together one of B.C.'s most interesting animals, the coastal grey wolf, with a critical examination of how human actions can have an impact on both the local and global environment.

[1425]

Through classroom visits, Sierra Club staff share with students key ecological concepts and information, identify stewardship actions and ideas, and lead students through a combination of games, slide shows, stories, mapping activities and hands-on exercises. Younger grades participate in station-centred, sensory-based activities, and the older grades are challenged to think critically about ideas and issues and to identify ways that they can lessen their impact on the planet. An outdoor component allows students to see their school grounds from a different perspective.

The 2004-2005 school year was a great success for the Sierra Club's programs. Over 10,000 students from all across British Columbia participated in these programs. They are wonderful initiatives for all of our constituencies.

AGRICULTURE AND HEALTH EDUCATION

V. Roddick: The Naked Chef, Jamie Oliver, implemented a successful public campaign to change the way British school children eat by focusing on fresh, tasty, nutritious ingredients. Bringing this food philosophy into schools did away with hideous, unhealthy options.

In my riding of Delta South we have our own Jamie Oliver — Gerald Worobetz, a chef instructor at a Tsawwassen high school. Gerald increases his students' awareness about where their food comes from and teaches them the importance of buying local. He takes his students to our farms to show them how most food actually comes from the soil, not packages in a supermarket.

Recognizing the importance of food is essential. That is why we have a parliamentary secretary for agriculture planning, accompanied by a government MLA task force. Education is the key, starting with ActNow and the fruit and veggie pilot project in elementary schools. Knowledge will help these young people to make healthy, informed food choices that will carry through to adulthood. Even as adults it's too easy to forget the process — the people who ensure fresh and nutritious food that reaches our dinner tables every night.

I would like to thank Mr. Worobetz for his contribution to the health and education of our children and our local farming community. Next Monday, April 3, is B.C. Agriculture Day. Please, do come to the Legislature steps and the rotunda to celebrate B.C.'s best. Remember, you all have to eat to live.

Mr. Speaker: I was just wondering whether the Minister of Health would like to respond.

[Laughter.]

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO B.C. FERRIES INFORMATION

C. James: Yesterday the Transportation Minister told British Columbians to go to the federal government if they had questions on the ferries — extraordi-

[ Page 3389 ]

nary, Mr. Speaker. I thought the British Columbia ferries belonged to British Columbians. My question is to the minister. Why should British Columbians be forced to jump through federal hoops when this government spends $127 million of their taxpayer dollars on B.C. Ferries every year?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, we know what the member's position is because in the election campaign, that member and that member's party campaigned on restoring B.C. Ferries as a Crown corporation and firing the president. That was the position of that member.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker? They bang their desks, thinking that this is a wonderful idea.

[1430]

Well, what it tells me is they did not learn a single thing from the three independent reports that came out following the fast ferries fiasco, where there was a common theme. The common theme was very clear. You must separate and have independence between political interference and the ability of the Ferry Corp. to operate without political interference. That's exactly what we did. That's exactly what we'll maintain.

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

C. James: Well, the Transportation Minister is correct. There is a common theme, and the common theme is: no information for the public from this government.

Let's look at this government's record. The province's top polluters — no access to information. Medical Services Commission briefs — no access to information. Privatization contracts — no access to information. A ferry sinks — no access to information. Today the director of health and safety at B.C. Ferries resigned — no access to information.

So I'll ask the minister again: what possible justification could he provide for keeping British Columbians in the dark about ferries that they own?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, actually, the ferries are no different than our airlines or railways. Maintenance reports, compliance reports, safety reports — all of that can be accessed through freedom of information.

But they want to harken back to another era, and the era was when they could control B.C. Ferries as a Crown corporation and interfere. What happened as a result of that was appalling. As a result of the over a billion dollars that was written off, of taxpayer dollars…. The $463 million that just went right down the drain as a result of fast ferries deprived the corporation of the dollars they needed to invest in their fleet.

Today we've got new investment underway, the largest investment in the history of the B.C. Ferries fleet, and they're doing it with accountability, annual general meetings, audited financial statements, an independent board of directors and an independent ferry commissioner to look after the interests of the public.

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

C. James: The minister says he wants to harken back to another era. Let's harken back to another era. Someone once said in this House, in another era: "Open government is the hallmark of a free and democratic society." This individual also said: "Accountability enhances democracy."

The Premier made those comments when he was Leader of the Opposition. He also said that when a government does its business behind closed doors, people will invariably believe that government has something to hide. The Premier promised the most open and accountable government in Canada. Instead, he's delivered a government that appears to have a lot to hide.

Will the Transportation Minister not just admit that removing B.C. Ferries from freedom of information was a mistake, and will he today commit to restoring B.C. Ferries to the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well now, here we have a Leader of the Opposition that apparently has absolutely no memory of the 1990s. They conveniently forget that in the 1990s, when the ferries board at the time started asking some uncomfortable questions about the fast ferries…. For example: "Shouldn't we have a business plan? Should you be expanding the scope of the project without an additional expansion in the budget?" And when asked for those plans, what ringing endorsement of credibility and accountability came into place? I'll tell you.

They fired the board, and they put Jack Munro, a labour hack who is an ally of those members opposite, as the chair of the board. We and the public saw $463 million go right down the toilet.

[1435]

I'll tell you this. Under this government, what we did was that we followed three independent reports, and they all said the same thing. I feel bad that that member has not read them or chooses to ignore them, because the recommendations were all consistent: get the ferries away from political interference. We did that; we maintain that. It was the right thing to do, and we'll continue that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: Yesterday in the House the Minister of Transportation complained that extending freedom-of-information legislation to include B.C. Ferries would be political interference. Does the minister stand by his position that putting B.C. Ferries back under FOI legislation would constitute political interference?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I've been very clear. The member is talking about freedom of information, and

[ Page 3390 ]

he's trying to tie that to accountability. What I'm saying to this House, and what I'll say to that member, is that there is an enormous amount of accountability in place, with an independent board with community representatives, including labour representatives. There is an independent ferry commissioner that is allowed to investigate any complaints coming forward from the public. And of course, the safety reports that the member opposite always talks about…. All of those reports are available under freedom of information through Transport Canada or the Transportation Safety Board.

I stand by the decision we made. It was the right decision then to ensure that there would not be political interference with B.C. Ferries, and there will not be with this government.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kensington has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: I think the minister does confirm his position that he thinks freedom-of-information legislation is political interference. I think that's something that the people of British Columbia will want to think about for a while.

Questions of accountability are vital to British Columbians. They pay for B.C. Ferries, and they want to be confident about their safety when it comes to B.C. Ferries. Today there's a report that the person who's responsible for health and safety at B.C. Ferries has resigned. Given the important issues and questions which are arising every day, what advice does the minister have for British Columbians who want their questions about B.C. Ferries answered in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member is referring to an employee personnel matter. That's an internal personnel matter to B.C. Ferries. Naturally, if someone has a question about that, they can ask B.C. Ferries. They're the appropriate people to talk to.

I would warn the member…. The members opposite are always leaping to conclusions. This has been common in so many issues that have come before this House. Rather than allow investigations to take place where we might get some informed information that can actually inform public discussion and public opinion, the members opposite — including the critic, the Leader of the Opposition — like to make suppositions and jump to conclusions. They like to assume that maybe someone didn't just leave because there's another opportunity or he was planning to leave.

We don't know that in this House, but the right person to ask would be B.C. Ferries. I'm sure the members of the media and other interested folks will have that opportunity.

L. Krog: Since the Minister of Transportation doesn't appreciate the subtleties of the questions that are being asked on this side of the House, my question is to the Attorney General. It's a very simple proposition. Is access to freedom of information now, in this province, political interference?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's almost painful to listen to these questions. It's almost painful because we have an opposition that has oh-such-a-short memory. Their nirvana of accountability was when they had control over B.C. Ferries. Apparently, that is the height of accountability — when the public hasn't got a clue what's going on with a massive overspending project at B.C. Ferries; hasn't got a clue about the terrible path they're going on, ignoring their own board, firing the board, shutting down the Public Accounts Committee when they dare to ask some questions. That's the opposition NDP's nirvana of accountability.

[1440]

But I'll tell you this much. We listened to the independent reports that actually looked at the fiasco you created and made recommendations. We actually followed those recommendations, and those recommendations were very clear and simple to understand. One of them was: make B.C. Ferries independent from political interference. We did that. We also built in accountability measures, including that independent Ferries Commissioner, including an independent board. That is where we have accountabilities.

M. Farnworth: All we've heard from this minister over the last few days is independence, independence, independence, and that the answers lie in Ottawa. Well, generations of political leaders in this province know that the answers don't lie in Ottawa. They lie right here at home in this province.

Freedom of information doesn't compromise independence, hon. Speaker. Freedom of information confirms political independence. So my question to the minister is this. Where in any of those recommendations does it say that freedom of information should not be implemented so that the taxpayers of British Columbia know what's going on in British Columbia in regards to B.C. Ferries?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member opposite — who in fact, I believe, sat in cabinet during all the decisions made around fast ferries and who should be privy to the idea that maybe there's a better way of doing things…. I would encourage that member and the others to actually take time to read those three independent reports — Hugh Gordon, the Auditor General and Fred Wright — all of them making similar recommendations.

You know, we have airlines that fly every day, flying tens of millions of people every day in this country; railways that transport hundreds and thousands of tons of goods across this country each and every day. There are freedom-of-information abilities for the public or members of the opposition or media, if they wish, to get access to any safety reports, compliance reports, any of that information — maintenance records. They can do so.

But you know, they're no less safe. This is not something that is putting the public in any way in any jeopardy. The airlines fly and operate safely every day in this country. For that member to try and imply that there are any shortcomings whatsoever, I think, does a disservice to him and this House.

[ Page 3391 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What's clear is that those reports never said that freedom of information should not apply to the ferries of British Columbia.

The minister says he wanted to do things differently. Well, in 2001 he had all the answers. Now he says all the answers are in Ottawa. So if he really wants to do something different, why doesn't he commit today — again I will repeat the question — and place the Freedom of Information Act over B.C. Ferries?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as I've answered on numerous occasions, that's why there is an independent Ferries Commissioner. That's why there is the ability under Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board and the federal freedom-of-information act to acquire whatever information the member is talking about. I mean, the reason why we want to make sure that Ferries is arm's length from politicians is so that politicians don't have the ability to interfere. That was the lesson…. The member opposite shakes his head.

You know, it's rather remarkable to me. Surely they learned some lesson — at least a lesson — from the fast ferries situation. The biggest lesson was that you've got to get the corporation away from political interference. That's exactly what we did. It was the right thing then, and it's the right thing today.

BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS

IN LOWER MAINLAND

S. Simpson: The Minister of Transportation likes to talk about accountability, so let's talk about that a little bit more. There's a public forum being held in Vancouver this evening on the issue of the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and expansion of Highway 1. Participants will include mayors, councillors, academics and representatives from industry, including the trucking association and the Gateway council, as well as community interests. I understand the Minister of Transportation has been invited to participate. Will he tell us whether he'll be attending this meeting?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, I won't be attending, and the member should know why. I'm actually in this House, and we have a Whip who does a very good job of ensuring that we're in this House doing our duties.

[1445]

But I do know — as does the member opposite, because he was there — that we actually just held one of our community consultations in East Vancouver. It was very well attended. I understand there was a small group of protesters, who are also holding their own forum, and that's good for them. That's what a democracy is all about.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister should check his schedule. Last time I checked, we aren't sitting in the House this evening.

Last February…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has the floor.

S. Simpson: …the minister told this House that he would "not run roughshod over public consultation." Well, there are a lot of constituents in my area who believe that's exactly what he's doing.

There is no opportunity for a meaningful discussion of the fundamentals of this plan, including whether it will work. Instead we've had these small by-invitation-only meetings and a number of open houses but no discussion on key aspects of the project itself.

Further, the minister has not fulfilled his commitment, which he made in last year's estimates, to produce a series of critical and substantive reports on congestion, environmental impact alternatives and impacts, and other initiatives related to this.

My question is: if the minister is not able to attend this meeting tonight — he's not prepared to discuss this with British Columbians directly — will he at least send a deputy or a senior official to participate in this meeting?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, the member should know that the government has been hosting meetings right across the lower mainland — very publicly advertised, trying to encourage people to get out. One was held in East Vancouver just recently, as the member well knows. He took part, as did, I believe, over a hundred members of his own community and neighbourhoods who found the information to be very useful.

But you know, I think what really underlies this question is this, and I really think the members opposite should just get it off their chest. You oppose the Gateway program. We're for the Gateway program. We're building the Gateway program. Why don't you just come out and acknowledge that?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND

FORESTS MINISTER COMMUNICATIONS

B. Simpson: Last week the Minister of Forests and Range admitted in this House that he declared a conflict with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner H.A.D. Oliver. The minister stated in this House that that conflict pertained only to a very small area, where a person related to him works for a company. That company is Cascadia, and the area, tree farm licence 44 in the Port Alberni region.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. If that is indeed the case in this conflict that he has declared, why then are Cascadia contractors in Powell River and in Campbell River being told by ministry staff that the minister cannot speak to them because of his declared conflict?

[ Page 3392 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know that they're not, because I have met with some of those contractors.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, it seems that there is some confusion, with regard to this conflict, in the ministry staff. The minister indicated that there were letters of correspondence between himself and Mr. Oliver, between himself and the deputy minister. In one case he quoted from the letter to Mr. Oliver, and in another he stated that the second letter to his deputy minister, when Western Forest Products announced it was going to purchase Cascadia, contained more specific instructions to his deputy minister.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Will the minister table the correspondence between himself and Mr. Oliver and the correspondence between himself and his deputy minister in this House for us to see?

Hon. R. Coleman: The letter clarified some information with regards to it and actually didn't go into a whole lot more detail. This matter has been dealt with. It has been dealt with properly under the conflict-of-interest guidelines of this House. I have told the member that.

[1450]

I'm more than happy to share the letter with the member, frankly, because I have nothing to hide, and I am not afraid of my reputation. But when you go out and you write a letter to the Premier questioning my reputation, and when you people interfere in the possible future employment of an independent citizen of this province because a minister of this province is doing their job, that's where you're wrong, hon. member.

COPEMAN CLINIC INVESTIGATION

D. Cubberley: Concerns regarding the Copeman clinic have been raised since June 2005, concerns about selling preferential access to a family doctor; $3,500 a year in fees gets you guaranteed unhurried access to your family doctor. The Minister of Health has said that for the past ten months he's been reviewing the clinic's operation. Fact-finding, I think, is what he called it. Eventually he interpreted the facts and drew the conclusion that Mr. Copeman was not in compliance.

Now he's referred the matter to the Medical Services Commission. All we know for sure is that now they are fact-finding. Surely after ten months, all the facts can be found in the minister's office. Why would he not share his facts, his expert advice and his

interpretation with the commission, especially when Mr. Copeman is so eager to share his?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to share whatever facts the member wishes from me. I've never been reluctant to answer any question in this House. I've seen lots of questions over the past eight or nine months in respect of that in this House. If the member has a question, he should ask it, and I'd be glad to answer it. This is answer period as well as question period. I'm happy to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: I'm sure it will not be lost on you, Mr. Speaker, that I did ask the minister a specific question, and he did not answer it.

You know, we get the impression that the minister would rather that all of this just went away. But as the chief steward of public health care, this is no time to hide your light under a bushel. The outcome of the commission's review will be precedent-setting, potentially a how-to guide for charging user fees and getting away with it. Yet no one is clear exactly what the commission has been asked to do, how they're going to be doing it or when.

It's essential that this process be open and transparent. Will the minister tell the public today whether he believes it should be an open process where people other than Mr. Copeman can interpret the facts to the commissioners?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we take the issue of the Copeman clinic very, very seriously. That is why we have spent a great deal of time around deliberations with respect to that. That is why we have referred this important matter to the Medical Services Commission for their consideration.

If the member has some implicit or other criticism with respect to the Medicare Protection Act, wherein it is found that one should refer this sort of issue to the Medical Services Commission, he should take it up with some of his former colleagues in the former NDP government, because it is the Medicare Protection Act that was passed by the former NDP government in the 1990s that guides us here.

If the member has some problem with that, then I'm glad to hear about that concern. But again, we are guided by the legislation that that former government put in place. If it's not good enough for him, then he should think about changing his colleagues.

REVIEW OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN INTERIOR B.C.

N. Macdonald: The mayor of the district of Sparwood has sent a letter to the Minister of Health asking for — and these are his words — "a thorough and independent review on how Interior Health is carrying out its mandate." Can the Minister of Health report to the House today on whether he will be pursuing a thorough and independent review of the Interior Health Authority?

[1455]

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't believe that I have received that letter yet. At least as recently as today I don't recall it, but I'll check. I may find the letter from the mayor of Sparwood remarkably persuasive, or I may not.

[ Page 3393 ]

I will review the letter and consider the submission that the mayor makes, but I do want to say this. I think the Interior Health Authority does a great job in delivering health services to the people of the Interior Health region. I think they work hard each and every day to deliver the best services in what is very frequently a geographically challenging area. The members from the interior — I'm from the interior — all appreciate, I think, the challenges of delivering health care there. I think the Interior Health Authority works very hard to deliver that service, but I'm glad to consider the submission of the mayor and give it all the weight it deserves.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The letter is persuasive, and the letter talks about the same things that we have talked about here in the House and reinforces them.

I will give you an example. His Worship Mayor David Wilks states, "Sparwood's experience has been anything but positive over the past several years," referring to the health provision in that community. "Council believes it is indeed time to look at current practice." The mayor further points out that there have been incidents similar to the tragic death of Ms. Albo that have taken place in the East Kootenays. They just haven't been as public. He further states that seniors continue to be the ones suffering when it comes to cutbacks in services.

So again to the minister: does he agree with the residents of Sparwood that cutbacks have resulted in seniors suffering, and will he do something about it, starting with the review of the Interior Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased that a copy of a letter of March 22, 2006, from the district of Sparwood and the mayor of Sparwood, David Wilks, has just been provided to me. The letter notes, among other things, for example: "There are many positive things happening in the region with the expansion of the Cranbrook hospital and the introduction of a busing service between the Elk Valley and Cranbrook to assist residents in doctor and hospital visits."

But that's so…. I mean, the mayor is recognizing….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I can continue, the mayor is recognizing that there are also positive things happening in the region. I appreciate that the mayor would like to see more, and I'm sure he would like to see it sooner. I know each and every day, I'm sure, the member opposite would support more than 45 percent of the provincial budget being devoted to health. But again, one has to work within that. I think the IHA is doing a great job, and I thank the member for his question.

K. Conroy: Yes, letters are coming, and in spite of things that are happening, people still have concerns in the Interior Health Authority region. I'm sure you've heard that last week hundreds of residents from the Trail area and throughout the West Kootenay region rallied to demand action from this government. Speaker after speaker rose to tell stories depicting a health care system in crisis and to call for an independent review of the deplorable state in which seniors care is conducted throughout the West Kootenays.

Again, will the minister respect the requests of the people from the West Kootenays and commit today in this House to an independent review of the Interior Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think what is unfortunate is how the members opposite go on day after day complaining about a health care system that we should be enormously proud of in this province. It's remarkable that the Health Minister from Ireland, who's also the Deputy Prime Minister from Ireland, recently spent three days in Vancouver looking at how we deliver cancer care in British Columbia, because we're a model for the world in the delivery of cancer care. We lead the world in identification of cancers, diagnosis of cancer, treatment of cancer and research of cancer.

[1500]

We have so much to be proud of, yet the members opposite every day just want to deplore the very few things that occasionally go wrong in the health care system. It's time to be proud. British Columbia's health care system is number one for a reason in Canada. It's because it's the best.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Hawkins: I table a petition from 1,200 students from Okanagan College regarding their tuition fees.

K. Conroy: I am presenting a petition from 3,932 residents of the West Kootenay–Boundary area requesting an independent inquiry as to the concerns of the health team at Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital in continuing care. They also request an inquiry as to the state of communications between staff and management in the entire Interior Health association region, and wish the public to be included.

A. Horning: I present a petition on behalf of 600 students from UBC Okanagan regarding tuition fees.

Point of Privilege

B. Simpson: I stand to exercise my right to reserve a point of privilege.

Motions without Notice

WITHDRAWAL OF

PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL

L. Mayencourt: By leave, I move that Bill M202, intituled Apology Act, be withdrawn from the order paper.

[ Page 3394 ]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to table a memo dated November 14, 2005, to Doug Konkin, Deputy Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing, from myself with regards to conflict of interest and, in addition, to table a letter received from the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner with regards to the same matter.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Education — and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 9.

[1505]

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

B. Simpson: Just a recap, so that my question is in context. Prior to us taking a recess, the minister mentioned that in general terms, master licences to cut do not come with constraints — the normal constraints under a forest licence. They don't come with the constraints of silviculture. They don't come with the constraints with respect to fuel management. The timber can be left on the ground; therefore the normal stewardship constraints are not on there.

When we left that, the minister also then made a statement to the effect that the Ministry of Forests and Range can set conditions for the master licence to cut. So before I get into my next level of questions, I want to understand if I'm correct on that. Can the Ministry of Forests and Range set conditions upon the issuance of a master licence to cut — yes or no?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. Through cutting permits we have the right to be able to set some standards. Obviously, taking into account other things with regards to hazards and stuff, the reforestation requirements are not the same, simply because what we're trying to do is stop the trees from growing in places where they might be a hazard to power lines.

B. Simpson: I'm not talking about just B.C. Hydro in this case, with respect to hazards to power. I'm talking about master licences to cut in general.

The minister keeps wanting to go to B.C. Hydro. Let's go to B.C. Hydro for pure clarification. The minister indicated that he's sure that I want my constituents to have access to power. That's a given. That's not the question on the table. The question on the table is in the case of B.C. Hydro. If they're issued a master licence to cut, are they issued a master licence to cut — in one licence — for all of the areas that B.C. Hydro has power lines throughout the province, or is the master licence to cut issued to B.C. Hydro on a district-by-district basis?

Hon. R. Coleman: District by district.

[1510]

B. Simpson: Post being issued the master licence to cut, when B.C. Hydro then wants to actually operationalize that master licence to cut, do they then have to come back to the Ministry of Forests and Range in that district and give notification of where they intend to cut and for what purposes they intend to cut? Or is the master licence a given that they can just go and cut wherever they wish to?

Hon. R. Coleman: They have to come back and get a cutting permit in each case.

B. Simpson: If that's the case, where is the operational efficiency of giving them a master licence to cut if in each case they have to come in for a cut permit, when the minister had stated earlier that one of the reasons for doing this, as opposed to under the Land Act and an occupant licence to cut, was operational efficiency? I need to understand where the operational efficiencies are if I must come in, in each forest district, to get a cut permit each time I want to do something near a utility line.

Hon. R. Coleman: Notionally, all the work is done on the master licence to cut, and so the permit process is much more streamlined. It's much simpler, and that's the reason.

B. Simpson: Again, I want to use an example for illustrative purposes. So that the minister does not misunderstand why I'm using the example, it is for illustrative purposes only. It gets to the issue that I have with issuing master licences to cut to a utility.

In the Quesnel timber supply area, B.C. Hydro has various forms of lines throughout the area. Can the Ministry of Forests and Range set constraints on either the master licence to cut or the cut permit — for example, for width of clearing? Who stipulates the width of clearing that would be allowable in the cut permit under the master licence to cut?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the applicant who has a master licence to cut comes in with

[ Page 3395 ]

a permit application and the district manager puts his mind to it and approves it.

B. Simpson: I would imagine that in the cut permit, they would then also include such things as impacts on understorey — whether they're going to leave the understorey or take the understorey out — impacts on viewscape and impacts on the higher-level plans, LRMPs, etc., if they exist in the area. Is it a fair assumption that the district manager would have an expectation those things would be taken into consideration in the submitted cut plan?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is about clearing the trees that are dangerous to the lines. The viewscape, and those applications that would be under a normal forest application, don't apply here. This is about a right-of-way that has to be cleared for safety purposes, and it's there. This is just facilitating the ability to do it under the master licence to cut.

B. Simpson: That's the minister's

interpretation of what this is just all about. In practice, in the Quesnel forest district we have seen a practice in which B.C. Hydro has chosen to clear a swath to the soil of 1.5 tree lengths from power lines. Anybody that can do basic physics knows that when a tree falls, it doesn't necessarily take out its full length. There's a question as to whether or not the 1.5 tree lengths are required.

There's a question about whether or not the entire understorey needs to be taken away when it's along a viewscape corridor that, under the land and resource management plan, was designated as an area of visual sensitivities and should be managed for visual quality. There's also a question of whether or not the LRMP was taken into consideration in this.

It's not as simple as saying that all it is, is clearing danger trees. So my question to the minister is: what right does the public have to be engaged in consultation with respect to either the master licence to cut or the cutting permit issued under it?

Hon. R. Coleman: What the member describes, Hydro can do under the legislation today. This master licence to cut actually gives us a bit more control. Maybe the member would like us to leave it alone and have them cut the way they're doing now.

B. Simpson: If that's the case — if we do have more control — then that's very good for the public. My question wasn't about whether we had control or not. My question was very explicit. What right does the public have to be engaged in consultation around master licences to cut and around cut plans under this new amended legislation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is none.

B. Simpson: Maybe, since this was an amendment, one could have protected that right. In special circumstances where the LRMP stipulates that the area in which B.C. Hydro is going to operate has special requirements or has visual quality issues or whatever the case may be, the minister could have retained that right — if, indeed, this is all about B.C. Hydro.

I'll move on, Madam Chair. Next question: who realizes the financial benefit for timber harvested in the case of explicitly B.C. Hydro…? Who realizes the financial benefit of timber harvested when B.C. Hydro goes and cuts this swath of all the standing timber along the utility lines?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad the member wants to describe this as a swath. He's decided there's going to be a certain type of forestry on the ground. That's entirely up to him.

Stumpage is paid. Government gets paid. If there's a contractor involved and they happen to take the fibre and sell it to a mill or they do a contract with B.C. Hydro, then they take the lumber, and after the stumpage is paid, they get the benefit, frankly. But that's forestry.

[1520]

B. Simpson: In this case, who does the assessment on the value of the timber, if the cut permit is predicated on the removal of danger trees, for example — as it is in the case of the one situation? Again, I understand that the situation today is under the old licence. I'm trying to understand the new licence and what other abilities it gives the Crown in that respect.

My question is: under this new arrangement, who will do an assessment of value? In the case, for example, where the rationale for giving the cut permit is danger-tree removal, is the assessment on the danger trees or on all of the timber? I'm being told by people on the ground that all of the timber is being removed, not just the danger trees, so how is it assessed?

Hon. R. Coleman: As per the appraisal manual, on decked wood we do require them to deck it if they're not going to use it. Our compliance and enforcement people are out there with regard to that. If it gets to the scales, it gets scaled.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that answer. Then let's move on — it's actually backwards — to prescribed purposes and prescribed circumstances. Other than B.C. Hydro, what does the government believe might be other prescribed purposes or prescribed circumstances under which a master licence to cut would be issued?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's basically something that is linear, across a long tract of land. It could be someone like Telus. At this point in time we don't have anybody that we anticipate would require a master licence to cut — other than Hydro and, obviously, the people who are responsible for the transmission lines, along with oil and gas.

However, in the future there may be such a case. At that time a regulation would have to be brought for-

[ Page 3396 ]

ward through the normal processes to cabinet for a decision to approve it.

B. Simpson: Again, I'll admit my ignorance here. Where does it stipulate that prescribed purposes and prescribed circumstances only apply to linear circumstances?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's the only use that we can think of that would be prescribed for at this point in time. That's why we would change the regulation, but it's not in the legislation: linear. I suppose it could be something else on the land base that would require a master licence to cut. But we have no examples of that today. That's why the legislation allows for it to be prescribed by regulation for purposes. That's why regulation is there that it would have to go through a process to cabinet before it was ever approved.

[1525]

B. Simpson: When government takes something out of the act and switches it to regulation, you can say that gives you greater flexibility, if you're in government. If you're out of government, you say that it scares the living daylights out of you because it gives the other side greater flexibility.

If I understand correctly here, what is going on is that the government has said there may be other circumstances in which the government needs to use this tool called a "master licence to cut." Past practice has been that it's been a linear arrangement of some kind. Future practice, if I understand the minister correctly, doesn't necessarily mean linear, and I think that's what the minister was saying.

Let me ask a specific question. Is it possible that in the future a master licence to cut could be used to give someone who wants a lodge in a park a master licence to cut in the areas that they want trails, roads, parking lots or cabins put out from their main lodge? Could a lodge, for example, apply at some future date for a non-linear use of a master licence to cut?

Hon. R. Coleman: A master licence to cut is intended to be for long and linear operations that go through a number of districts and areas. If you had a park issue, it would be dealt with…. First of all, they'd have to get their park permit. Then they would have to go through a normal forest permit to be able to do what they want to do. It wouldn't even be applicable here, because we have other forms of tenure and licences for those uses on the land base.

The member may hypothetically want to build a case for something that isn't going to happen. I know that all of a sudden he's opposed to the fact that maybe government could do something by regulation, but it isn't very efficient for government to always draft legislation to add things to anything that's going to be accomplished in government. As we've drafted legislation — and as legislators on both sides of this House know — sometimes it's better to have the ability to do certain things in regulation, for efficiencies to operate on the land base or within another department of government. That's all this does; it allows for that to take place.

It's certainly pretty clear to me what this amendment talks about, and it doesn't talk about a lodge in a park.

Hon. S. Hagen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: It's just a real pleasure and delight for me this afternoon to introduce to the House Sheila and Bill Durnford, who are visiting from Langley. Sheila is the president of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and does a fabulous job. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: A couple of points of clarification. First, I never said that I was opposed to the fact that government can use regulation. I simply said that when government wishes to use regulation, it causes the shivers to go down people's spines. Therefore we have to put it under significant scrutiny — hence the scrutiny today — so that the public can have comfort in that shift from

an act to regulation and the flexibility that that gives to cabinet.

Secondly, we are dealing with hypothetical situations. When you use language like "prescribed purposes" and "prescribed circumstances," you have to go to hypotheticals, because you have to try and understand what possible prescribed circumstances might be. So I am dealing with the hypothetical.

[1530]

From what I heard from what the minister said, hypothetically this could be used for lodges. What the minister indicated is that there are other things that apply, but I did not hear him say that it precludes this from applying in that circumstance.

I would like to raise another hypothetical circumstance, one in which we do need to have some clarity fairly shortly here. That is: a wildland-urban interface around communities and whether or not a master licence to cut could potentially be used to resolve the issues that we have there with a tenure system that allows us to manage an area for fire, as opposed to having to go in and regrow a forest there and recreate the problem we had in the first place.

Could a prescribed purpose or a prescribed circumstance be…? If a community wished to manage its wildland-urban interface, could it ask for a master licence to cut?

Hon. R. Coleman: This member's actually pretty good at using hearsay and innuendo to his advantage or disadvantage, then having to have a reflection of

[ Page 3397 ]

memory later on. The master licence to cut is for the linear-type application. For the application the member was describing, which was interface, it would be a forestry licence to cut.

The Chair: Minister, you have used unparliamentary language. Would you like to withdraw it? You have used unparliamentary language. Would you like to withdraw?

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, if I've used unparliamentary language, I do withdraw it. I don't know what you are referring to.

The Chair: Minister, you need to have an unqualified withdrawal.

Interjection.

The Chair: Using innuendo.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you, Madam Chair. I unqualifiedly withdraw.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm happy to do that, Madam Chair, but…. Well, we'll leave it at that, because we'll deal with this later on.

B. Simpson: I don't understand, actually, what the minister's answer was on this. I would like the minister, if he could, to direct the answer explicitly. Could rural communities apply for a master licence to cut, in the event of Prince George, Williams Lake, other communities who are trying to find a way to manage that wildland-urban interface without the normal constraints of a forest licence that has free-to-grow requirements and various other things?

In my belief, the minister does understand that communities are struggling to figure out what it looks like to manage in that. My question is simply: yes or no? Could a master licence to cut, at some point, define a prescribed purpose and a prescribed circumstance as managing a wildland-urban interface?

Hon. R. Coleman: The ministry is working with communities now to come up with, frankly, an appropriate licence and tenure as to what the member describes. This isn't the appropriate one.

[1535]

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for that clarity of response.

We're still at a loss, then, to understand what prescribed purposes and prescribed circumstances are. If this was purely for B.C. Hydro or other utilities, then one would expect they would make it explicit because, as they've indicated in subsection (i)(A) "geophysical exploration," it is explicitly stated; "(

B) development activities with well sites or pipelines" is explicitly stated; and then "roads associated with (

A) and (B)" are explicitly stated. Then all of a sudden, they go to (ii) to give this general case of prescribed purposes or prescribed circumstances. Our preference would have been anything to do with clearing under utility lines or telephone lines or whatever.

With that in mind, I have one last question on this section, and that is: all of the cutting that's done under these master licences to cut — which, it's my understanding, are not done on a comprehensive, forward-looking planning phase, a five-year or ten-year plan; they're done on a cut-permit basis — how is that rolled up into the overall allowable cut determination for the province? Is it lined up that way? Is it taken into account in the AAC determination for the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: It goes against the unallocated volume or supply. The main reason this is actually needed for B.C. Hydro, as much as anything, is the mountain pine beetle, because the mature trees are going to die. There's obviously a huge issue around pine beetle — as the member is aware — in his area. Basically, this goes against the unallocated cut, which we still have plenty of.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

B. Simpson:

Section 3(a)(i): what would constitute a written authority from government?

Hon. R. Coleman: The

section currently allows the cutting permit to be issued to the holder of a master licence to cut that has a written authority to occupy the area to which the master licence cut applies. The amendment expands the provision to allow cutting permits to be issued to the holder of the master licence cut for the purposes or under the circumstances set up in regulation.

Now having said that, the written authority is that they have a right-of-way that's been given to them by government — i.e., a pipeline or a power line. We're not just going to give it to somebody who doesn't have a right-of-way for the power lines. We give it to the people…. They have to prove to us that they have the written authority to be on the land.

B. Simpson: What's the difference, then, between a written authority from government and the enactment to occupy — just so that I'm clear on the differentiation between those two rights?

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it's something that's issued under the enactment of legislation or a regulation or a permit that's actually issued under the provisions of legislation or the enactment of a reg.

B. Simpson: So if I understand this

section correctly, what it does is it constrains the district manager from issuing master licences unless those circumstances apply. Just so that I understand, again, the full

[ Page 3398 ]

ramifications of this: for the district manager, how are they notified of these enactments? If I come in and say I want a master licence to cut or a cut permit, is it just something that is communicated to them, or is there a place you can go and find out where anybody who has authorization for a master licence to cut is registered somewhere?

Hon. R. Coleman: The information is with Agriculture and Lands. Whoever is making the application would be required to give us the proof, and we would be able to check it against the records of government.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

B. Simpson: This is a one-word substitution. The explanatory note states it's removal of timber only, not harvesting and then removal of the harvested timber. What is the circumstance under which this change has been driven? If the minister could explain a circumstance that has caused the word "only" to be inserted here, so that we can understand this substitution.

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: It is amazing how a one-word change that's supposed to clarify something can actually confuse something. Basically, what this does is clarify that the forest licence to cut issued under subsection (2.1) authorizes only the removal of timber and not harvesting and then removal of the harvested timber.

That's a fairly interesting piece of language. What it means is that if somebody's building a road, for instance, and they drop timber and they deck it, and they don't actually…. It gives us the right, if they don't remove the timber, to get somebody to go in and get it and pay the stumpage and take it. It's the same thing with Hydro when they deck the timber. The forest licence to cut issued under this subsection would be used to authorize removal of timber that has been cut under another licence, for example to establish road access.

It's confusing in its own little way, but what it basically says is that if somebody is going to build a road and all they have is the authorization to build the road and drop the lumber and then deck it, they don't have the right to necessarily take it and sell it. This clarifies that we could go in and allow that timber to actually be sold, and we'd get the stumpage for it.

B. Simpson: Will this, then, have significant implications for, say, roadbuilders who…. Have they had the right in the past to deck and sell that timber? Is that why you're now putting the "only" in there?

I'll leave it at that. If the minister could clarify the operational implications of this before this amendment comes in and after the amendment is enforced, that would be helpful.

Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn't change a thing, I'm told. What it does is, is it just clarifies — from 95 percent clarification of the right to go in and sell the decked timber to 100 percent clarification of the right to go in and sell the decked timber.

C. Evans: I just wanted to intervene here to say from a point of observing, I think the minister is being very honest in suggesting that he finds it very difficult to understand. I think the critic finds it very difficult to understand. Listening from the sidelines, I find it very difficult to understand.

It sounds like there were situations previously in which the Forest Service gave people permission to log but not to haul logs. So now they're going to pass a law that says they can only give permission to haul logs to rectify or to allow them to sell wood from those situations in which they previously didn't allow them to sell wood that they cut down.

[1550]

Whether or not what I just said is true, I'm telling you that's what people in the world are going to think, and I would like to suggest… I have no question. I would like to make a suggestion to the minister: if that's what we think it means and if the minister is unable to make it make more sense than that, then it is not this rule that needs to be changed. It's whatever rule exists that previously would allow loggers to log and restricted their ability to sell. Then you would not have to make this change.

I would make a suggestion to the minister that at some time when we're in recess, he ask his employees whether it might not be better not to pass part of a law that makes no sense to the people debating it. If there are anomalies — 5 percent, the minister said — that need to be fixed, they need to be fixed, allowing people who log to sell wood in the first place, and not by what looks like a ridiculous amendment.

B. Simpson: Since I'm not sure if there was a…?

C. Evans: There was no question.

B. Simpson: Okay, terrific. Then I'm not overstepping my bounds.

Madam Chair, the minister has indicated it's a 5-percent difference. Even though it's 5 percent — since I don't know the total volume, I don't know what 5 percent means — who then accrues the value from that? Would it be run by B.C. Timber Sales? Is that who would then take that volume and sell it, I presume, on the open market?

Hon. R. Coleman: This has nothing to do with volume. It has to do with clarity of language — to make the language 100 percent clear, from where it was before, by changing one word in the act at the recommendation of legislative counsel.

B. Simpson: I'm not sure what the minister means because, as I understand, the industry when it's talking about only the removal of timber…. Timber is measured in volume, so it is about volume. It's about giving the right to remove a volume of timber. My comment

[ Page 3399 ]

was with respect to who accrues that volume. Is it B.C. Timber Sales?

To the minister: in the case of this volume of timber that is decked and that nobody owns, is somebody sent in to remove that volume of timber? Does the value of that volume of timber accrue to B.C. Timber Sales, or would it be given to a contractor who would then be able to go in and do it, remove it and only pay stumpage?

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: The volume goes to the Forest Service reserve, or if there's a case of a small-scale salvage allotment, it goes against that. The value and the stumpage go to general revenue.

I've asked my staff to try and give me a clear example of this so that the member could understand. I'm going to try to do this. We have a fire. We hire a contractor to go build us a tow road, as we call it in the Forest Service when we've got to get in to a fire. To get the equipment in to the fire, we build the tow road. To build the road, he has to drop a bunch of trees. He decks those trees. His contract is to get the road in. He doesn't have any right to the wood. This allows us to give a forest….

We're paying him to do a job — right? Now this gives us the right to take a forest licence and say to somebody: "You have the right under this forest licence to that decked wood only. You can now take it out and pay a stumpage for it." The nuance was that although we've done this in the past, the language wasn't clarified enough to allow us to do it in the 100-percent rate. So somebody might come along and, let's say, have a discussion with us about it.

What we're doing, while we're doing this amendment, is clarifying that by making that small change. Somebody can come in and build a road like that. They don't have the right to the wood. They don't have a forest licence to cut because they're actually operating under fire and emergency, what have you. They deck the wood. They don't have the right to it. We don't want it to sit in the bush forever. We'd like to see the wood come out and get the stumpage for it for the Crown. This allows us to give a forest licence to somebody to go get that decked lumber.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

B. Simpson: As far as I understand in looking at this section, there are some language insertions, some changes — some of which reflect changes that the government has made to how tenures work in the province. I ask the minister and his staff's forbearance as I try to understand some of the implications of this again.

section 7, the definition "volume of timber harvested…." If I could get a succinct understanding of why this definition needs to be changed in this manner — in particular, the insertion of the language with respect to "cut control statements" and with respect to "downward adjustments." There are two bits of language that have been included in this, and I would like to have a better understanding of how they change the definition of volume of timber harvested.

[1600]

Hon. R. Coleman: In the definition of the volume of timber harvested, we're charging more volume to the cut control than we did in the past because we're now including grades that previously weren't charged against the cut — i.e., dry sawlogs and dry pulpwood. The download adjustment and the volume is there. For effect, we're adjusting some of the volume on these things, in consultation with the industry.

Under the one section,

section (a), "in cut control statements issued" under subsection (

a) under

section 7, it used to say, basically, that not in the statements issued on behalf of government to the holder of the licence. Then it had a bunch of lists underneath it. What we're saying is "the control statements issued on behalf of government," which is basically the same thing without being prescriptive in the legislation. Before, there was a list of things like the "volume of timber estimated to be wasted or damaged under the licence, under the road permits associated with the licence" — for instance, under one of the sub-subsections. We include that now in our licensing stuff with regards to, as I understand it, the cut control statements that are issued.

B. Simpson: The minister's last comment. I'm not sure how that that relates, then, if you look at

section (c). It has those statements: "volume of timber cut under licence under road permits; volume of timber estimated to be wasted or damaged; the volume of timber cut, damaged or destroyed by the holder of the licence without authorization." Those statements are still explicit even in the amendment.

Again, under the definition, less all downward adjustments to those volumes, if I could then just get clarity: are the downward adjustments completely constrained by 2 (

a) through (e), or are there other downward adjustments that can be made either by regulation or whatever?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes.

B. Simpson: Yes to what? Is it completely constrained by the

definitions in 2, or are there other circumstances in which a downward adjustment can be made that is not constrained by the

definitions in 2? I had asked an either-or question.

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes to the first question.

B. Simpson: The other question in here, then, has to do with cut control statements. If I may sort of deal with the whole

section 7 here…. If I understand the cut control statements correctly, this act will also allow the volume to be ascribed to different cut control periods,

[ Page 3400 ]

will allow the volume to go to different licences and so on. What are the implications of being able to shift this volume of timber harvested around both cut control periods and licences? Again, if I can get an illustration of that, an example, it would help to understand what the implications of this are.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, the one is to be able to credit the volume from a current cut control period to the previous period to correct an abnormal delay in billing. So if there's been a situation where somebody has cut wood, and through the delays in billing by the ministry they're into a different period of time for pricing, it allows us to make that correction so that we can be fair to the licensee and the person who's doing the harvest.

The second

part is to facilitate the removal and utilization of a species, a grade of timber, that would normally not be harvested or removed during primary harvesting by a licence, but if it was removed, it could be used by another licensee. One of the examples I have is a company that bases its entire business plan on alder. This allows that licensee to get the alder from the other licensees by virtue of allowing that flexibility, as I understand it. Or, for example, a small scrub of pine on the coast where there are very small volumes, or a specific deciduous species, such as birch, in the interior….

B. Simpson: If I understand the minister correctly, will this address the case, for example, of woodlot owners that have decked wood and are waiting for a stumpage adjustment or can't get the wood out and then a stumpage adjustment occurs?

[1610]

As the minister is well aware, there are a lot of people who have concerns around that whole issue of having decked wood, and a stumpage adjustment occurs. Will this allow that to occur?

Say, pre- and post-April 1 of this year when the new log grades come in, if I have decked wood that I can't get in because the bans have been lifted on the road and I can't get that wood in…? Will this allow me, then, to ascribe that volume of timber harvested to a previous cut control period and get the cheaper stumpage — if it is in fact cheaper than post-April 1?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is only about cut control periods. It's not about stumpage. So it's only if it wasn't attributed to the proper cut control period. This would not fit your woodlot example, for instance.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for that.

In numbered

section 3 of this

section it says: "For the purposes of the definition of 'volume of timber harvested' in subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations…." This whole

section is new. Is this, then, making a shift from legislation to regulations of the items ascribed underneath? Is that a definitive shift that was not there prior to this amendment being brought forward?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is just basically so that the cut control system is transparent. It allows us to facilitate the adjustment factors, which respects the changes of some of the grades now in the cut control volumes. This will allow timber that is currently not counted for in cut control purposes to be discounted by regulation, ensuring licensees are able to maintain current harvest levels.

[1615]

B. Simpson: So that I understand this again. From the perspective of the downward adjustments, if I have a mountain pine beetle salvage permit, for example, I have a certain amount of timber that I can take off of there. As the minister is well aware — because I've raised it with his deputy minister, and I'm sure he was apprised of it — we're getting lots of complaints with respect to the waste that's being left behind on the land base. Will these changes allow more of that waste to be taken as a downward adjustment to the volume harvested?

Again, in 3(a), for example, it gives the ability to make regulations with respect to grades and species. It does it with respect to the licence, whether that licence is the same or a different type or so on.

So if I'm a licensee and I have a certain volume that I'm expected to cut, I can get a certain volume of sawlogs out of that. I leave a lot more behind, again, because of mountain pine beetle and other forest health impacts. Will that downward component ultimately impact the allowable cut for the area as well? So I'm actually taking down a lot of volume, but the only part that's ascribed to the allowable cut is the volume that's assigned in this as actual timber harvested and not all of the other ones in which a downward adjustment is made.

I hope that was clear enough for an answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is allowing us to measure more, when we change the log grades on April 1. Changes on April 1 — we'll be measuring more volume. This allows us to adjust it backward to the original cut. There will still be waste surveys, and it doesn't change anything other than the fact that we will be measuring more volume.

B. Simpson: As I canvassed this bill with folks, one of the concerns expressed about this

section was that it may allow for overharvesting to occur because of the downward adjustments that can be made. As an example, if I have a licence for 18,000 cubic metres, then because of downward adjustments for grades in species and for waste, and so on, on the ground, the concern was expressed to me that I could get 18,000 cubic metres of creamed wood. The wood left on the ground would not be assigned to my licence. That is a generalized concern out there.

[1620]

If I understand the minister correctly, he is saying that that cannot happen under this. If the minister could give me that clarity and indicate that it will not

[ Page 3401 ]

happen, that this will not be an excuse for over-harvesting, then we can move on.

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't think that will happen. The things that are alluded to in the other subsection previous to this basically give us the opportunity to keep it so that the volume that the individual licensee has is not affected by us saying it's a take-or-pay type system where if you're going to leave it there, you're going to pay; if you take it, you're going to pay. But we're going to allow for adjustments based on certain grades of logs. We do the interior log grades based on that formula in the previous section.

So I hope that explanation clarifies it for the member, but the reality is that they can take volume today, and it's not charged against the cut. That's degraded certain issues, and we're saying take-or-pay. I don't know that it's so much an encouragement as much as it is an adjustment we're making so that we can adjust for the new interior log grades that come into place on April 1.

[1625]

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

B. Simpson: Just a point of clarification. Where would be a circumstance 75.11(1)(

b) where a different definition for timber harvesting would apply? If I could get an explanation of where a different definition might apply.

Hon. R. Coleman: This would be…. I'll give the member an example. In a case of what we would refer to as a super-utilization-type licence, where instead of being allowed to be taking…. You're basically being charged against a ten-centimetre top. You might be charged against an eight-centimetre top. We need to change the definition so we can make sure that we're able to handle that expectation — that above normal usage of the wood would be part of the licence.

B. Simpson: Some call it super-utilization. Some call it relaxed-utilization standards. If that's the case, then, if I have a mountain pine beetle salvage permit, for example, and I'm allowed a ten-centimetre top, then — if I understand what the minister is saying correctly — what's left on the ground and above that is not ascribed to the volume of timber harvested? If I could get a clarification on that point.

Hon. R. Coleman: This wouldn't apply to a small-scale salvager that had a ten-centimetre top. It would be somebody that we're saying…. Part of this licence is you'd go to an eight-centimetre top, and we would measure that level of harvest. The normal ten-centimetre top and other small-scale salvage is just as it is. This allows us to change a licence to take the next step up for the volume.

B. Simpson: Just for clarification, subsection (2) of this

section has

definitions in it that are replicates of subsection (3) in

section 7. All these numbers. But it doesn't include….

[1630]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

If you go to

section 7; subsection (3) goes (a), (

b) and (c).

Section 8(2) does not prescribe grades and species under this definition. I'm wondering why that clause isn't ascribed. Is there a reason that what is effectively (3)(

b) and (3)(

c) are used here and not (3)(

a) from the previous section?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason for that is that in the previous

section that we've already discussed, it's basically an overall operational position on the description, and this is a description on a case-by-case basis, which allows us to deal with the case-by-case issue.

B. Simpson: On a case-by-case basis, if I understand correctly, then, no downward adjustments will take into account grades and species of lumber. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: If you go to subsection (1)(a), it provides the definition of "volume of timber harvested." This is so we can write that right into the definition of the individual licence. It's an individual situation whereby we're requiring that licence holder to use timber that is not normally required to be used. Therefore, we would put that into the volume description of this particular licence individually.

Sections 8 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

B. Simpson: On this inspection audit and assessment program, it's my understanding that staff from the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue may be required. If we want to take a few minutes of a break, that's fine by me.

The Chair: We'll recess for two minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

section 17 (continued) .

B. Simpson: This whole

part is to deal with inspections, audits and assessments. I'd like to deal with some general matters with respect to the whole section.

What is driving the inclusion of what I see as 64 clauses of regulation to be put into the Forest Act when the government has been deregulating and removing clauses? What is the driver? What is it that this entire

section is trying to redress?

[ Page 3402 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before I get started, to my left is Harry de Vries, the manager, forest revenue operations. To my right is Joel Fairbairn, an analyst, policy and legislation branch with the Small Business and Revenue Ministry, and I neglected earlier to introduce Richard Grieve, who is with the legislative side and some other aspects of my ministry.

Basically, as we've gone through, I think, working with the Minister of Small Business and Revenue and looking at how government operates, there's one resource that does not have audit provisions. In oil and gas we have the ability, even though they're self-assessing for their revenues, to go in and do an audit of a company where we feel it might be worthwhile.

We don't have that ability in forestry. So that became something that was brought to my attention. I thought that we should, first of all — for lack of a better description — level the playing field, allow government to be able to confirm any and all revenues that are due to government if we choose to go in and audit, but we needed the powers to do so.

Although the reduction of regulatory burden is a goal of government, that reduction of regulatory burden does not mean that government may not add some obligations to meet public policy objectives. In this case government wishes to ensure that the forest industry fulfils its existing obligations to pay government.

Although we don't say that there's a big problem out there, I do believe that outside the revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests and even outside our compliance and enforcement branch — which, the member is well aware, is mainly on compliance and enforcement in the field — that we do need to have the tool, if necessary, to allow some incremental regulation that might allow us to deal with the audit issue.

It's really about the ability to do in the forest sector what we're already able to do in all other resource sectors.

[1645]

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Now, the minister has indicated that this was brought to his attention and, as a consequence, it is being addressed now. I'm wondering whether or not part of this was also a revenue branch task force working with the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals that raised some issues with respect to professional reliance. Was that task force part of what we're seeing here with respect to assessments?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

B. Simpson: Is that task force of the ABCFP and the revenue branch still extant, and will it therefore influence the application of this program?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, hon. Chair.

As the member knows, tax applications and audits in revenue branches, whether it be CCRA or the ministry branch of the revenue, aren't influenced by those types of outside influences with regards to doing audits and doing its business. On the tax side, it has to stay pretty independent.

B. Simpson: With respect to the minister's answer, then, on the Forest and Range Practices Act Q and A, 2005, on the ministry's own website, a question is asked from someone who writes into the website: "What happens in the situation where an appraisal is submitted, but when the logging is complete, you are at a financial loss and suspect manipulation of the appraisal data?" In this event, can the individual who's involved in this engage individuals who are defined as forest revenue officials under this act or the commissioner under this act in assisting with those circumstances as well? Again, what I want to explore is just the general case.

Hon. R. Coleman: Small Business and Revenue doesn't get involved in a problem with appraisal or the appraisal audits. That's Forests and Range's responsibility through the revenue branch. Their focus is on volumetric dollars with regards to whether government has received the revenues it's entitled to.

B. Simpson: If I understand correctly, this program has to deal with stumpage that the ministry should have derived from the volume that was assigned to a particular licence or harvested under a particular licence. The minister's response raises the question, then, of the articulation between compliance and enforcement in his ministry and the activities of, for example, a forest revenue official as defined in 142.1. So what is that?

[1650]

All the volume generated is subject to an appraisal. Based on the appraisal value, I'm understanding that this program is then going to make sure that the government got the appropriate stumpage.

But if the appraisal process itself is questionable, is that still dealt with solely within the Ministry of Forests and Range and then articulated or communicated to whatever group is going to be doing the inspections and audits? Do I understand the minister clearly on that point?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think so. But I'll read this to the member, and then I'll pose a question and pose an answer. Hasn't the Ministry of Forests and Range performed stumpage audits in the past? The answer is no. Stumpage audit authorities never existed. However, there was a variety of other inspections and related powers under the Forest Practices Code to support activities such as determining the amount of stumpage owed to the government.

However, these provisions did not provide for determining if the correct amount of stumpage was paid or put in place — an audit system to determine if the correct amount of stumpage was paid. There's always been, as the member knows, a fluid relationship with regard to calculation of stumpage and what have you. But there's never been an audit provision, and we felt

[ Page 3403 ]

that Small Business and Revenue has the capacity to do the audit side. We felt that the powers had to be put in there so that they could do what they would normally do under a normal audit program for other resource-based industries. So it's not about getting into an argument about stumpage. It's basically giving the authority for the audit, which hasn't existed in the past.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for that response. Again, stumpage is predicated on the original appraisal. If I understand, then, this program would assume that the appraisal was, in fact, correct and is auditing against the appraisal. If that's the case, then what I'm curious about is that, again, on the FRPA Q and A of 2005, a question was asked: "In a recent audit of appraisals recently approved by registered professional foresters, 60 percent passed and the rest failed. What is the ABCFP doing about this issue?" That's where the task force was mentioned as an answer.

Within the Ministry of Forests and Range, is there going to be an explicit program to make sure the appraisals are, in fact, 100 percent accurate so that this program here is operating on 100-percent accuracy other than…?

I can just see that if 40 percent of the appraisals aren't accurate and this program is going to go out and audit against inaccurate appraisals, we're setting ourselves up for a fall. We're setting ourselves up for litigation. We're setting ourselves up for all kinds of problems. If the minister could explain to me how his ministry is tidying up the appraisal system so that this program actually is operating on a significantly higher degree of accuracy.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to get off topic. We are working on the aspect that the member describes. Maybe in estimates we can have some more discussions with regard to that part of it, simply because I don't have the staff here to answer the technical side of that question. We're dealing with this

section of this act, and I think it would be more appropriate.

Obviously, we want to be as accurate as possible. The member knows that on a resource base, it's always difficult to be 100 percent accurate. That's why you would have appeal procedures within anything that you would deal with. But it is a fair statement to say that the information on what's calculated in the ministry is what the audit would be based on. They would not be deciding to go and do something against what was already in what the stumpage was calculated on, on the cut control or whatever the case may be. So they would use the evidence from revenue branch to do their audit back to see whether we were appropriately paid.

[1655]

Now, in some cases the appropriate payment may not necessarily be on volume, but mix or whether we've got somebody sending us too many 25-cent logs and not enough $5 logs, which is the whole aspect of why we're looking at the interior log grades and the pricing now.

I think as we come through this together, we'll make sure that the checks and balances are in place as we go through it. We wouldn't do an audit, though, without having some opportunity for appeal if there was a miscalculation in the ministry.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's advice that we can look at some more of that appraisal system in estimates.

Again, on

section 17, this new program…. Are there FTE implications with putting this program on the ground?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member knew my colleague from Small Business and Revenue, he would know that he is sort of the champion of being able to find efficiencies in his existing resources. There are no new FTEs to be added with regards to this.

B. Simpson: I had the privilege of doing estimates with the minister and saw that influence at work.

section 142.1(2), it states that: "This Part applies with respect to Crown timber harvested on or after the date this

section comes into force."

So my understanding, then, is that there's no retroactivity on the application of this. However, within the program, there is a six-year retroactivity inside the program.

Section 142.3(1) and 142.6(1) both involve that.

If I could get an explanation of why there wasn't some degree of retroactivity given here, given all of the harvesting activity and so on that we've had on the go…. Since there's a six-year allocation here, why wouldn't we have allowed this program to just take a look-see back as well as doing the work going forward?

Hon. R. Coleman: Mainly because retroactivity and tax law can sometimes be a bit difficult. You pass a piece of legislation, and then you show up at the door, I guess. But the retroactivity is built into the legislation so that if somebody was to…. Basically, after the legislation is passed and five years from now we chose to audit, we'd be able to go back the five years.

It was our choice, as we went through this, to try and start from a beginning point rather than trying to think that we could go retroactively with regards to this. We thought that would be somewhat problematic with our relationship with companies, industry and communities, whether it be a community forest licence, woodlot or whatever the case may be.

We think that people should adjust going forward. But to adjust going backward…. We just felt there was a sense of fairness that should be applied here — that we would take this legislation, since we're doing it, forward rather than go backward.

B. Simpson: On the "Officials" designation,

section 142.11, the first statement is: "The revenue minister may designate a person by name or title as the commissioner." Will such a designation allow EDS to be designated as the commissioner for this program?

[ Page 3404 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: No. It's a person, not an organization.

B. Simpson: Section (2) states that "The commissioner may designate a person by name or title as a forest revenue official," but in (3), it stipulates that "The commissioner may delegate, with or without conditions, any of the commissioner's powers, functions or duties under this Part to a person or a class of persons."

So it's my understanding that a class of persons can be a corporate entity, not an individual. Therefore, could the commissioner designate all of his responsibilities to a company like EDS?

[1700]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is to be consistent with all other tax statutes. This designation does allow, theoretically, what the member describes as possible. It is not the intent of the legislation to do that. But tax law — all the sections in tax law, as I understand it — have this descriptor in it in British Columbia, or something similar to that.

B. Simpson: Just for clarification, through to the minister, with respect to his previous comment about his compatriot finding operational efficiencies, I want to just clarify this point one step further.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Again, we have a change here which does not have an intent but has the ability to. That ability, if I understand it, is that a class of persons could be EDS. Is it conceivable that the delegation of this responsibility from the commissioner to a company like PricewaterhouseCoopers or EDS could be accomplished under this act? Because then what you do is you set up the ability of a de facto third-party collection agency, which again, the government has done in other circumstances. So I'm not talking about intent. I'm talking about possibility. Does that possibility exist by this definition?

Hon. R. Coleman: It is not the intention. What the member described is a theoretical possibility — right? It is not the intention of government to go there. That's all I can tell the member. In debates of legislation as we go forward, people will always try and find something that somebody might do some way down the road somewhere. We're not going to do that. That is not our intention.

If a future government chose to interpret the

section and do something, I guess that would be up to a future government. This is really just to…. This delegation exists where we can designate a person as a commissioner, designate a person to be the official, designate a group of people or a class of persons — that could be all the auditors in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue being a class of persons — to have the ability and powers to do that, like we would with a class of persons as peace officers or whatever the case. The descriptor the member uses is a theoretical possibility; it is not the intention of the legislation.

B. Simpson: I'm sure the people of British Columbia thought it was only theoretical when the government turned round and gave Accenture, EDS and Maximus functions — and various other third parties — because of a change in legislation that allowed a theoretical circumstance to exist that the government then acted on and actually made come into existence. So I think the question is valid, and it is my understanding that the minister has answered it: that yes, at some point, we could potentially see a third-party agency become the collector of record for this program within the forest sector.

Moving on to

section 142.51: "Assessment of estimated stumpage and interest." It states: "If it appears to the commissioner, from an inspection or audit of any records from other information available, that one or more of the following has occurred…." I'm curious how the commissioner would be able to determine, under part (a), whether or not some of the Crown timber was not scaled or inaccurately scaled or not reported in the scale. What is the commissioner's capacity from the records to make a determination that something didn't happen?

[1705]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I want to go back to the member's previous comments because I can't let that lie there. We can't do this now. We can't audit now. This is not a surprise to anybody. This is actually allowing us as Small Business and Revenue to do something that for one resource sector we can't do now. We're following the language that exists in tax law in British Columbia when we put the language in there.

So if we want to get into the whole comment that the member made about Accenture, etc., that's fine. Just so the member's clear that we're following the legislation; we're using that as an example to bring in legislation and to one resource

section for the purposes of audit.

The second part of it is allowing the commissioner to estimate….

Section 142.51 allows the commissioner to estimate the total amount of stumpage owing. If the commissioner believes from an inspection or audit that the Crown timber was not properly scaled and inaccurate or incomplete information was provided or an incorrect rate was applied, then they can do an assessment.

So, basically, for instance, we have somebody that says they logged or scaled 8,000 cubic metres of fibre, but their records show that they sold 10,000 cubic metres, maybe to three different places. Obviously, what was scaled and reported for the stumpage purpose wasn't exactly the amount of timber that got scaled and sold. Therefore, that would provide an opportunity for an assessment between the 8,000 and 10,000 cubic metres. This

section allows for the commissioner to estimate that.

It's a bit like an estimate sometimes on other tax laws, where you'll say that here is an assessment based on a historical perspective going back a period of time that you now owe government. It's not dissimilar to that. If the member has ever been audited by CCRA…. I've had the wonderful experience a couple of times of

[ Page 3405 ]

going through that. Some of those calculations are, I think, much more arbitrary on the federal level, frankly, than they are on the provincial level.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point that they can't audit now. I never called the audit program into question. I was just calling into question who might end up managing the audit program.

Secondly, the minister's comment that this is not a surprise to anyone would surprise some people to whom this was a surprise. In fact, under the ministry's own C and E information bulletin on the crackdown on 671 logging trucks over three days, 80 percent of the trucks inspected were fully compliant with all of the requirements. There were a few compliance notices. Over the last two years there have been minor compliance notices written, and I've had people ask me why, then, this is coming in. There are people out there who are surprised by this program appearing.

Back to the question of how the commissioner will find this out. If I'm smart enough to figure out that if I don't scale and to figure out how to bypass the scales, then I might be smart enough to figure out how to sell lumber without records. This is predicated on records. Therefore, my question to the minister is: how then does this articulate again with what's being done in C and E so that, again, we have 100-percent accuracy?

As the minister may know, when the scales are closed, sometimes logging trucks take timber to various places. You can have illegal sales of timber. If this is only going by the records, then all somebody has to do is make an adjustment and make sure they don't sell anything on the record that wasn't accurately scaled, not reported to or whatever, and you defeat the program right from the get-go.

[1710]

So what's the relationship between C and E in the Ministry of Forests and Range and this commissioner? Will there be a joint team that does this work? Or will it simply be the commissioner doing some paper audits on a system that has functional errors in it that either create an inaccurate appraisal process or allow logs to be sold that are not recorded?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to have an MOU. We're going to have an integrated approach. We're going to avoid overlap, and we're going to work together.

The descriptor the member gives is fair, I think, in any description of any audit program or management of any resource where somebody might want to cheat — whether it be on sales tax, by not recording a sales tax sale at a till in a store in British Columbia…. We know that there are always challenges on the investigative side of anybody who might want to avoid paying somebody some money, whether it be government or otherwise.

What you try and do is get the integrated approaches and try and build a system that has enough checks and balances to accomplish what your goal is — recognizing, as some of this comes along, that you may find something that requires another type of investigation. I would suggest that somebody who was taking lumber and changing and manipulating their records is starting to move into the area of commercial fraud. In commercial fraud we have applications under criminal aspects that we could go after with regards to that.

I think the important thing is to understand that this is an audit program to complement what we understand should be the revenue of the government, so we can go in and audit and make sure we're receiving the dollars we're entitled to. As we go through that, we may find adjustments as to how we do certain things to improve that system by actually putting this in place in the first place.

One of the concerns I had when I became the minister was…. Looking at this initially, I said: "We're the only resource that doesn't have an audit program with revenue in government?" I had the conversation with the minister, and I said: "Why are we treated differently? Why aren't we looking at this?" So we decided to move forward with the initiative.

I think it's going to give us some balance. I think it'll give us some checks and balances for our revenue side for government. I think it'll help us, in the long term, to maybe predict our outgoing revenue for the ministry and for the Ministry of Finance more accurately.

As we start to get a better idea of how the accounting processes that have been established, as the member knows, over the last 40 years…. As the member knows, if anybody can figure out the innuendos and the changes and the shifts and all of that stuff that exists in and around timber pricing and the revenue branch on the stumpage in my ministry…. It's pretty complex. We're trying to get to where the two will mesh and give us, frankly, some direction and assistance as the two work together.

B. Simpson: A couple of points that I want to make on this, then. If you take a look at

section 142.6, "

(2) If an assessment under section" — whatever it is — "is based on one or more events that involve wilful default or fraud by a person, the commissioner may consider" including a period, etc.

There are a number of statements in these sections about wilful acts. Again, as I indicated in FRPA's own question-and-answer, the first wilful act may have been on the part of the registered professional forester who made the initial appraisal. Will the commissioner, in the process of doing this, go right back and look at the appraisal process — if it's looking for a wilful act?

[1715]

Hon. R. Coleman: This provides that the commissioner, in making an assessment for stumpage, must not consider or include a period greater than six years before the date of the first notice of assessment issued for Crown timber. However, if the assessment is based on wilful default or fraud, the commissioner may consider and include any relevant period. However, if the person has filed a waiver within six months, the commissioner may consider and include any period covered by the waiver. A waiver continues in effect for six months after the person revokes the waiver in writing.

[ Page 3406 ]

I've got two examples here that may help the member. If company X was issued a stumpage assessment in 1999 and it was then discovered in 2006 that the assessment was less than it should have been, the commissioner may not reassess company X, because it's outside the six years. If company Y was issued a stumpage assessment in 1999 and it was then discovered in 2006 that the information was intentionally reported incorrectly — therefore, fraudulently — the commissioner may reassess company Y.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification. Part of my question, though, with respect to wilful default or fraud by a person is understanding how far back the commissioner would go in their record check — not in time, not temporally, but with respect to the types of records that will be checked.

Will, then, the commissioner or forest collections officer — for want of a better term — go and actually look at the appraisal as part of their process of looking at the documents? If they look at the appraisal, then there's a registered professional forester involved, and as the minister is well aware, then there's all the professional reliance, professional ethics and so on under the Foresters Act that comes into play.

What I'm trying to understand is…. There's a degree of professional reliance on the appraisal, because it's stamped by a professional forester. Will that professional forester, if the commissioner can actually go back and look at the appraisal, come under this act, as well, for that wilful disregard or fraud?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try now to deal with it. If it's an appraisal, with regard to the actual appraisal itself, it deals with the Ministry of Forests revenue branch and its legislation. This legislation only deals with the audit, looking at volume and dollars applied to timber — what is applied to that appraisal. This commissioner wouldn't go back to there, but this commissioner may come across a situation and then refer it back to that branch under its statute of limitations and its rules for its investigation, if it was felt that it was necessary.

B. Simpson: That's the clarification that I was looking at, understanding the division. Very quickly, on 142.51(4): "If an estimate is made under subsection (1), the commissioner may assess (

a) the person who harvested the Crown timber, and (

b) a person who acquires, has acquired, deals in or has dealt in the Crown timber harvested."

[1720]

That's going up the chain — not just to the person who harvested the timber. I'm curious. Again, why, then, if it's the person who harvested the timber who has the licence that the volume is ascribed to, would this apply to anybody who handles it post-that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because the person who's harvested isn't the only person who gets the benefit and is not always necessarily the only person responsible for the scaling, they want to make sure that those who are benefiting from something actually have to be held accountable. If there was a situation where there was a lack of knowledge, etc., with regards to the receipt of the product, then there is an appeal process and a tax law, to the minister.

B. Simpson: One other quick question on this, because I would be in a lot of trouble if I didn't ask it.

With the individuals that will be looking at this, would they also be able to look at holdback on stumpage? So if I'm a woodlot owner and I agree to a sale to a licensee based on the assessed stumpage on the appraisal…. The licensee then holds back that stumpage, and suppose that a large proportion of the stumpage wasn't $25; it was two bits. And then the woodlot licensees and other small-scale salvage and others don't get that money paid back them. The licensee actually holds and keeps that money and doesn't credit it back. Would that be looked at under this program? It's a bugbear for a lot of people in the industry, and could the program examine that issue?

[1725]

Hon. R. Coleman: This actually did come up in the consultation process — the challenges of an audit program getting in the middle of what is a commercial relationship between two parties. That's not the intention