2008 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)

Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)

M. Farnworth

Hon. W. Oppal

G. Gentner

L. Krog

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

I. Black

J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)

Hon. P. Bell

M. Sather

S. Fraser

G. Coons

S. Simpson

B. Simpson

[ Page 11179 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

E-HEALTH (PERSONAL HEALTH

INFORMATION ACCESS AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY) ACT

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled E-Health (Personal Health Information

Access and Protection of Privacy) Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 24, E-Health (Personal

Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, be introduced and read

for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're moving forward in meeting our throne

speech commitment to give British Columbians better electronic access to their

health records and medical information so that they can engage in a more

informed role in their preventative and therapeutic health care needs.

This new act will make British Columbia the first province in

Canada to create a specific legislative framework governing access and privacy

for electronic health information databases. We want to ensure that we have the

most rigorous standards around the access and use of personal health information

contained in our data banks.

Individuals will be able to mask their own health information so

that the only time it may be accessed by a health care professional who needs

the information for treatment is if the person is incapacitated. Strict

provisions will be put in place for access to databases for research, and — I

want to be clear — market researchers will not have access to these databases.

The act sets clear rules for disclosure of the personal health

information contained in health databases for medical research purposes. The

legislation establishes a data stewardship committee to make objective decisions

on the appropriate disclosure of database information for medical research

purposes.

Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, I'm sure, earlier this year the

health research community raised concerns on their ability to conduct research

because they were not able to contact potential participants. With this

amendment, if researchers want access to data bank information in order to

contact individuals to participate in health research, they will need to make

their case to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in order to be granted

access, in addition to submitting their proposal to the data stewardship

committee.

[1005]

This act will help us pursue our goal of faster, better, safer

health care for patients while enhancing security and protecting the rights of

individuals. But this act will also ensure that access to personal, identifiable

health information is governed by the highest privacy standards across all of

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 24 be placed on the orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and

Protection of Privacy) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 19,

Electoral Districts Act. For the information of members, in the little House

we'll continue with estimates debate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Committee of the Whole House

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

section 1.

M. Farnworth: I'm addressing my comments to the Attorney

General. Given the nature of the bill and the sparsity of words in the bill and

sections in the bill, I hope the Attorney doesn't mind if some of the comments

that may be for one

section are dealt with in

section 1. Given there's so little

in the bill in terms of the sections, the questions we ask…. It makes sense to

ask them under

section 1. I just want the Attorney General to know that.

I see him nodding, so that's great.

There are 85 electoral districts in the bill. That includes the

ones that were in appendix P as opposed to the initial recommendation from the

commission, which was the 83. We know in terms of protecting rural seats…. I

wonder if the Attorney General can explain — just because there has been some

question in terms of a possible court challenge — if he is comfortable with the

85 from the perspective of a potential court challenge, and the reasons for or

not. If he could care to elaborate on that, I would appreciate that.

[1010]

Hon. W. Oppal: We have considered the possibility of a

challenge. We are confident and feel comfortable that if there is a court

challenge, given the authorities from the Supreme Court of Canada and

particularly the Saskatchewan case, this legislation will survive it.

[ Page 11180 ]

M. Farnworth: If the Attorney could just elaborate further

on that — how he thinks that the Saskatchewan rulings and what's taking place in

Saskatchewan will apply here in British Columbia and how this number and the

boundaries contained in this map relate to the possibility of the challenge and,

in particular, to the Saskatchewan precedents.

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue here is whether or not the bill

will satisfy the condition of effective representation. Given some of the

statements by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan case, it is our

opinion, at least, that the bill will comply with the law.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the 85…. If there were to be —

and that's not saying there would be — a challenge, the Attorney General is

saying that he is satisfied that the legal homework has been done on this

particular piece of legislation. He's satisfied that the precedents are in place

that would ensure the legislation would survive any possible challenge and that

he is confident that the province's position would be viewed as the correct

position in any future or possible court challenge.

Hon. W. Oppal: The legal homework has been done, but I've

been in the justice system long enough to know that I could not predict with

certainty the outcome of any court challenge.

I reiterate that in my view, this is valid legislation according

to law.

M. Farnworth: I ask those questions because I do believe

it's important — given that the initial recommendation or the primary

recommendation was 83 seats, but we were also presented with appendix P, which

clearly set out a path that if the Legislature wanted, which it has said that it

wants, to look at protecting and ensuring northern representation, we would go

to 85 — to just confirm that that legal homework has been done.

I fully understand that what the Attorney General is saying is

that you do make your best case, and you can't guarantee with certainty. I just

want to make sure he feels satisfied that we have a strong case. If what he's

saying is that the homework has been done — that they have looked at precedents

in terms of what's taken place in Saskatchewan — then I'd like to thank him for

that answer.

I have other questions, but my colleague from Delta North has a

few questions he wants to ask.

G. Gentner: Just quickly on the number of electoral

districts — and that means 85 new members — I'm asking the Attorney General a

question relative to logistics. Has he considered how they're going to be seated

in this place and where we're going to find offices for the new members?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's an issue that the assembly as a whole

would have to consider. But I can assure the member for Delta North that he'll

have a seat.

[1015]

G. Gentner: I know that in a previous life on Delta

council, the member was a constituent of mine and probably voted for me. But

unfortunately, he cannot assure that I will be here in 2009, though I certainly

would hope to be.

I'm raising the issue because there was a time when the Premier

walked around the Legislative Library looking at the walls and wondering what

could be punched out to accommodate future offices. You've now guaranteed us

that this would be an all-party debate — whether or not the library would be

jeopardized with eight or seven new MLAs.

Can you assure this House that this process will guarantee that

this vestige of heritage, this wonderful institution called the library…? Can

you assure me, nevertheless, that your intent here is to make sure that

wonderful place — that institution — will be preserved?

Hon. W. Oppal: I, of course, can make no such guarantees. The

most I can say is that the seating in this House is a matter for the assembly.

M. Farnworth: I know we'll be coming to the exact

boundaries in a few moments. In terms of the number of electoral districts, does

the Attorney General…?

Just coming back to the case, I want to ask him one more question

on this particular issue around effective representation. That is on the issue

of one person, one vote and the issue around the variance, because some of the

variances that will result from the passage of this legislation will be quite

significant. Is he confident that on the issue of one person, one vote and equal

representation, the homework has been done in terms of that issue being

addressed and us having a case that will survive or prevent a successful

challenge?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I can assure the member that those

issues regarding the legality of the legislation have been carefully canvassed.

We are aware of the law. We're aware of the principle of voter parity and the

equality of the population. But really, what we're speaking about here is that

the legislation must satisfy the principle of effective representation.

M. Farnworth: To that end, has the ministry, the Attorney

General, had legal opinions on these particular issues that have been raised?

[1020]

Hon. W. Oppal: The legal services branch has carefully

considered these issues, and it is based on their opinion that we've gone ahead

with this legislation.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Farnworth: On the names of the electoral districts,

there are 85 names. They are changed. They are different from the current ones.

I want to ask the Attorney General: is he open to some suggestions in the case

of two

[ Page 11181 ]

particular ridings? I would like to offer a friendly amendment in terms of

changing the names or amending the names to perhaps more accurately reflect the

territory they cover.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we have to assume that the Electoral

Boundaries Commission carefully considered all the alternatives and made

recommendations with respect to the names after anxious reflection. We're not

inclined to make any changes or make any amendments.

M. Farnworth: It's not quite the answer I was looking for.

The reason I say that is that the naming of the ridings…. I mean, yes, the

commission comes up with them. They are by no means set in stone, and it is very

much the prerogative of the Legislature.

There are numerous precedents I can think of at the federal

Parliament. In my own area, for example, the federal riding's name has been

changed to more accurately reflect the geography of the communities involved. I

was just going to suggest, because one of the ridings disappearing is quite a

historic riding — Yale-Lillooet — adding the name Lillooet to Fraser-Nicola so

that not only is it new, but it also recognizes the old riding from which it was

bound.

I would like to offer up the amendment. I'll see if the Attorney

General is willing first, before I move the amendment — but just to suggest that

changing it from Fraser-Nicola to Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet would be an apt

description of the fact that Lillooet is in the riding. It also recognizes the

historic nature of what was one of the oldest seats in the province.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm not prepared to say there's no

merit in that submission. However, I resile to my original position, and that is

that we're not prepared to make any amendments.

M. Farnworth: I know the member says there may be no merit

in the name change, but the fact is there is Merritt in the riding. I would like

to move that amendment, noting the time, that….

[1025]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: But when the appropriate time comes — and the

appropriate place would be the

schedule — then I will move the amendment and

give the Attorney General some time to reflect on that question. It doesn't

change the intent of the bill. It wouldn't change the intent of the bill. It

wouldn't change anything other than to more accurately reflect the issue around

the name.

The indication from the government has been that the names are

fairly straightforward in the ones they want to keep in place. I've asked the

Attorney General to consider the name change in terms of Fraser-Nicola.

With that, there are not too many more questions on the names of

the electoral districts, so I'm prepared to let that

section go. We can move on

section

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Farnworth: This is the most substantive part of the

bill, which is the exact boundaries. I'd like the Attorney General to confirm

that the boundaries are exactly as those drawn by the commission and to inform

the House if there are any boundaries that are not exactly what the commission

drew and where they would be.

Hon. W. Oppal: The boundaries follow with exactitude the

recommendations of the commission.

M. Farnworth: There were also boundaries in the appendix,

so I just want to confirm, in particular, with Yale in the southern Interior….

In the Fraser-Nicola, there was some question around how that boundary went

within the main body of the report and the appendix. We discussed it at second

reading, and the Government House Leader discussed the issue when the bill was

first tabled. That is on the exact nature of that boundary between the Boundary-Similkameen

and the Fraser-Nicola ridings.

Hon. W. Oppal: I agree with the member that the boundary

for that particular district is affected by appendix P. The

schedule makes that

clear, and the commission obviously took that into consideration in making those

recommendations.

M. Farnworth: What I want to further confirm, then….

Leaving that aside for the moment, that Boundary-Similkameen boundary with

Fraser-Nicola, do the other boundaries in

section P follow exactly the boundary

that was laid out by the commission in their report?

[1030]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the commission drew all the

boundaries, and it's apparent that appendix P was an alternative recommendation

made by the commission.

M. Farnworth: That's why I want to make sure, because with

appendix P, they do draw the boundaries, but on that one particular area it does

have an impact. There's a difference between the boundary in the main report on

the recommendation when it's 83, and when you apply the appendix P, there is an

overlap or a reconfiguration that's required.

What I wanted to confirm is that that's the only area where that

happens in this bill, and that on the issue of on which side of the line it is —

I think Princeton is the community that was discussed about that, because that's

the community that is impacted — that, in fact, it is in the riding of

Fraser-Nicola and that it is not in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, Princeton is in Fraser-Nicola. That

was not a part of the original recommendation. It was in appendix P, and that's

our proposal — to enact what is in appendix P, the alternative proposal.

M. Farnworth: That's what I want to confirm, because I know

that when we had the initial proposal, the 83,

[ Page 11182 ]

and then appendix P was an alternative, that's the one area where it did

create some potential for confusion. What we're confirming with the Attorney

General's answers is that the understanding that, I think, both the government

and the opposition had as to how that boundary would work is, in fact, what was

agreed to and what the Attorney General has confirmed — our understanding that

Princeton is on the Fraser-Nicola side.

I'd like to take this opportunity, on the issue of boundaries, to

just ask the Attorney General's opinion. I'm not necessarily looking for a short

answer of yes or no but rather his opinion in terms of boundaries. One of the

fascinating things about this, and I think it's important, when we're discussing

this legislation, that boundaries…. Is his view, in terms of boundaries

following geographical…?

[1035]

It may look smart on the map, geographically, but the fact is that

the issue around communities and communities of interest comes into play and the

relationship. Even though two communities may seem close, the fact that you've

got a high mountain range and awkward roads in between them may not necessarily

make it the right thing to combine the two.

I'm just asking the Attorney General's opinion. When it comes to

drawing boundaries, which are very often very difficult and challenging, what

sort of weight would he give to the issue of geography versus community in this

very important exercise?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm not so sure my view or opinion is

particularly relevant here. However, these are issues that the commission no

doubt wrestled with when they offered the alternative proposal contained in

appendix P.

There are always questions that can be raised with respect to the

findings and recommendations of any commission as to what the appropriate

boundaries ought to be, given the geographical and the historical considerations

that are always relevant in matters of this nature.

M. Farnworth: I had expected the Attorney General to talk

somewhat longer and not to be quite so brief. I give him every opportunity, and

I'm disappointed. Anyway….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Shocking, actually. Shocking. I know he's

even surprised his own colleagues.

I think the key thing for people who follow this closely is that

the boundaries follow exactly what the commission recommended. I think one of

the things that people need assurances of is that when we have an independent

commission and that commission goes out and draws those boundaries, that

legislators are not interfering and drawing boundaries the way that we have seen

in the past. I think "Gracie's finger" is the classic one, sort of the gold

standard, on boundary issues in the province of B.C.

I see the member for Comox Valley smiling. I think he was

probably…. No, I don't think he was in the House at that particular time, but he

remembers well that particular controversy. In fact, he was a part of the

government that did bring in, I think, one of the most significant changes in

electoral boundary history in this province, which was the elimination of the

dual-member ridings. That's where you had some ridings in this province that had

two members and other ridings having one, and it created quite an imbalance. I

see the member nodding.

I just want to actually put that question out for the Attorney

General to answer. Could he see a situation, or would he ever envisage a

situation in British Columbia, where we could go back to dual-member ridings in

the province of B.C.?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to speculate as to

what may happen in the future, given the population patterns and our

demographics, which are continually changing. It would be speculative of me to

engage in that kind of exercise at this time. Perhaps it would be unfair of me

to do the same. I recognize that the member opposite is inviting me to do that,

but I'll decline the invitation.

[1040]

M. Farnworth: Well, I understand the Attorney's answer. I

myself hope that we don't have a return to that situation.

Having said that and having received assurance that the boundaries

follow exactly what the commission laid out, we've confirmed the issue around

Fraser-Nicola and Boundary-Similkameen, which as has already been pointed out,

was dealt with to the understanding that both government and opposition had on

that particular issue.

I think we can move through sections 3 and 4 and then go to

section 5.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Farnworth: Just a few questions here. With

section 5 of

the current act, the Electoral Districts Act of 1999 would be repealed, and the

electoral districts under that act are disestablished. Just for people who are

interested — I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but just so the Attorney General

can confirm: if between now and the next election, a by-election were to be

held, for example, which boundaries would be enforced? Would a by-election be

fought on new boundaries or on the current existing boundaries?

Hon. W. Oppal: If there's a by-election between now and the

next general election, the current legislation would apply. This legislation is

applicable for the May 2009 election.

M. Farnworth: That is as expected — any by-elections that

come up. That's fine. So the new act, then, would come in, even though it's

passed today, and would actually take effect for the election. I see the

Attorney General nodding.

[ Page 11183 ]

L. Krog: My friend the Opposition House Leader has raised a

very interesting question. It's not that I wish to discredit the wise advice the

Attorney General may be receiving, but on a plain reading of the bill, it says:

"the electoral districts under that Act are disestablished."

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can refer back either to the

Electoral Boundaries Commission or the Electoral Districts Act to confirm what

the authority is, if you will, for giving that answer to the member's question,

because the plain reading of

section 5 says that they're disestablished.

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 6 of this act states: "This Act

comes into force on the day the 38th Parliament is dissolved."

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On

schedule 1.

M. Farnworth: I move the amendment that Bill 19, intituled

the Electoral Districts Act, be amended as follows.

[Schedule 1 is amended by adding the following text,

highlighted by underline:

Fraser-Nicola- Lillooet ]

[1045]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: The reason for moving the amendment is very

simple. It changes nothing in terms of the intent of the legislation. It changes

nothing in how the legislation is implemented. It has no impact in terms of the

government's abilities or the electoral commission's abilities on anything,

other than to change the name of a riding from Fraser-Nicola to

Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet.

I know that this is something that the member for Yale-Lillooet

feels strongly about, that it would be appropriate to recognize what is and has

been a historic region of the province and for it to receive the prominence that

it should get as part of the riding name. There is plenty of precedent, both at

the provincial level and at the federal level, to make a change like this.

These are names that are recommended by the commission, but

they're not definitive. It is up to this House to decide on those names. You

know, there's no real reason why we can't recognize, I think, what accurately

reflects the geographical nature of that riding and include the name of Lillooet

in the name of that riding.

I would ask the government to support what is very much a friendly

amendment and is something that I believe the citizens, the people who live in

what will be the new riding, would heartily endorse.

Hon. W. Oppal: I recognize that these are recommendations,

but they are the recommendations of an independent commission, and they ought

not to be disturbed lightly.

There's a real, practical reason why this amendment ought not to

proceed, and that's the confusion that would be caused by virtue of the fact

that all of the materials are on disc. It's all prepared, and it would cause

massive confusion at this stage to start amending those names that are contained

in

schedule 1.

L. Krog: I don't think I need to remind the government that

this is the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Crown Colony of British

Columbia — no need to remind any members of the House of that. It's another

milestone in this province's great history.

Surely, the preservation of the name of a community of such

historical significance to the history of this province is a very small request.

It recognizes the pioneering spirit of this province. In accordance with that

wonderful

article in Orders of the Day , the magazine of the retired MLAs

association of British Columbia, it also, I think, would show respect for the

views taken in that article, respect for the former members of this House,

respect for the many members of this Legislative Assembly that have historically

sat representing the community of Lillooet.

I appreciate that the Attorney General finds himself in a position

this morning where cabinet hasn't had a chance to consider this. But of all the

things that come before this Legislature, I would think that there is no good

reason to oppose this amendment. It is simply a fair and reasonable recognition

of this province's history, of the contribution of the historic community of

Lillooet, the geographic reality. The name of Lillooet has been recognized in

the naming of the electoral constituency and many times previously in British

Columbia history.

I would think, notwithstanding what the Attorney General says

about the problems around a disc, etc., that the government can change all kinds

of things just so easily. It doesn't seem to me that this is a remarkable

request. This, I would think, would show that token of respect to our history,

particularly in this year that is so important. No harm comes by recognizing

Lillooet and its existence.

So I speak in support of the motion of the Opposition House

Leader. It is a profoundly appropriate thing. That name as proposed,

Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet, has a wonderful historical resonance to it that the term

Fraser-Nicola doesn't have. It gives, I think, a sense of geographic wholeness

to that constituency.

[1050]

I would hope that the members opposite and the Attorney General

will concede that for once in this chamber, something the opposition suggests,

which every thinking British Columbian would support, should, in fact, receive

support from the government side.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I respect the views and the advice

given by the member opposite, and I'm grateful for that advice. However, there

are many historic names that have evolved over the years, and they've undergone

change to reflect changes in population. There are a lot of historical anomalies

that take place in these names.

The member opposite should know that this riding at one time was

simply called Yale. So I don't think there's any prejudice or any of the

population will be

[ Page 11184 ]

misled if we now call it Fraser-Nicola. Surely nobody that lives there will

be confused as to what the name of the electoral district is.

M. Farnworth: Just one more final attempt, and that is….

The Attorney General just made the case in my mind as to why we should change.

He said it used to be known as Yale, and it was Yale-Lillooet. In fact, Yale has

now been moved into another riding. It is not recognized. It's not in another

riding. Lillooet has an opportunity to continue that historic recognition.

The other point I'd like to make is that it's not an

inconvenience, and it doesn't cause confusion — in terms of making a name

change. You type in the words on a computer, and it can change every reference

to it very, very simply. Just because it's on a disc, it's just as easy to…. All

of those materials will have to be prepared. All of those materials are not all

manufactured. They're not all there. They're not all drawn. They're not all

done. That work still needs to take place. So I don't think that to say that it

will…. I don't think that that is reason enough.

Anyway, I have belaboured my point. We have made our case to the

Attorney General, and we ask the Attorney General to support the opposition's

request to change the name to add Lillooet — so it's from Fraser-Nicola to

Fraser-Nicola-Lillooet.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I've carefully considered the

well-thought-out and well-founded reasons well articulated by the members of the

opposition. However, when I consider the whole of the evidence, I'm not

persuaded that it ought to change.

The Chair: Members, on the amendment to add the word

"Lillooet" to the constituency of Fraser-Nicola.

Amendment negatived on division.

G. Gentner: I move an amendment to the bill entitled

Electoral Districts Act to amend as follows:

[Schedule 1 is amended by adding the following text,

highlighted by underline, and deleting the following text, highlighted by

strikethrough:

Delta North Delta ]

The Chair: Members, you've heard the amendment.

On the amendment.

G. Gentner: We've heard briefly some of the comments made

by the Attorney General relative to another amendment, but I have to urge the

Attorney to consider this and not take it lightly. With all due respect, for my

community to be referred to as Delta North is seen as somewhat political

dyslexia. And all due respect to dyslexia — I have a slight problem myself.

[1055]

Traditionally, this is a community that has always been known as

North Delta, and the recommendations that have come forward…. This is one of the

only constituencies where the boundaries have not been moved. There is no change

at all relative to the movement of even one vote. We are intact.

My community has existed and been known as North Delta since the

late 1890s. It has been a very historical fishing area with Annieville and

Sunbury, and we are very much distinguished from the rest of Delta. The rest of

Delta has two different communities. One is Ladner, and one is Tsawwassen.

Therefore, they can cumulatively be seen as a unit as Delta South.

Traditionally, we are a community unto our own — North Delta. We

are a population of 52,000 people. People go to work. They come home and play.

It's a bedroom community and a suburban community. But we're very proud of the

fact that we have always been North Delta. So I ask that the Attorney General

consider this and not take it lightly and not assume that there's this huge

expense that's going to be accounted to the view that people in North Delta have

always seen themselves as being North Deltans.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would point out that the old name of that

riding was Delta North, and there's no change in the recommendations made by the

Electoral Boundaries Commission. The name proposed now is Delta North, so there

has been no change there at all.

Amendment negatived on division.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: It's been a while, but I call continued

debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

I. Black: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It has indeed been a

while.

I rise this morning to speak in favour of one of the most

visionary throne speeches that has been produced

[ Page 11185 ]

by a government in decades. It has been some weeks since the throne speech

was first read in this House — one of the most all-encompassing and

comprehensive views on the future of our province that has been produced in an

awfully long time.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It's probably worth just reviewing a little bit of the throne

speech, because it has been a long time for members in this House and for those

viewing at home. There's been so much activity and so much spirited debate

around the subsequent legislation and the budget that followed from the throne

speech itself that it's worth reviewing a little bit about the throne speech as

it was so eloquently presented by His Honour a few short weeks ago.

[1100]

The throne speech opened by noting notable British Columbians —

leaders of all types — and celebrating their legacies. Individuals included

philanthropists, first nations chiefs and, indeed, soldiers of the Canadian

military who are responding to our nation's greatest calling.

The throne speech went on at length discussing the anticipation of

the excitement and the growing excitement with respect to Vancouver 2010, the

Paralympic and Olympic Games, which will be celebrated by all the peoples of

this province. It celebrated the unifying force that those games represent.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The throne speech also spoke of BC150, the upcoming celebration of

the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Crown Colony of British Columbia.

Even in the mere weeks since the reading of the throne speech, we've seen that

excitement building. The awareness is there in our communities — certainly in my

riding of Port Moody–Westwood. The school children are beginning to understand

what's coming.

The excitement is growing beyond that — in sports venues, in the

arts and culture community, as they begin looking forward in terms of how they

can participate in this exciting anniversary. Indeed, I think it will be a

summer to remember and yet another unifying force that will bring us together as

a people.

The throne speech spoke of our first nations and celebrated the

new relationship and looked at the work that lies yet ahead. It spoke of

building on the success of the treaty process that we have enjoyed in the last

two to three years, particularly very recently as we announced treaties.

It spoke to the bravery, the courage and the leadership of the

first nations people, who were able to put the barriers of the past behind, and

of a government that was also able to look forward to what we could do together

and that put these historic agreements together — to mark some new ground, take

some brave steps together. We've celebrated the success of all the people

involved in that throne speech.

The throne speech also spoke of putting Jordan's principle into

place, putting the interests of first nations children absolutely paramount and,

in doing so, putting behind any issue of jurisdictional dispute that has

heretofore got in the way of looking out for the interests of children in first

nations communities.

There was a great deal of attention, yet again in this throne

speech, spent on sustainable growth — in particular, on the environment and

issues of climate warming and climate change. There was a celebration within

this throne speech of the environmental policies of the government to date — how

we've got 13 million hectares of this magnificent province that are now

protected, 14 percent of the land mass of British Columbia. We're a pretty big

piece of land, and 14 percent of our province is now protected by law.

It also spoke of upcoming amendments to the Wildlife Act. It spoke

to recovery plans and projects for some of the most crucial species at risk,

including our caribou. It spoke of the creation of a spirit bear conservancy, an

event that was so significant, because of the size of land involved, that it

actually rated mention in American publications, including, of all things, the

Wall Street Journal . What we are doing in British Columbia in the area of

the environment, of protection of species and land, is being noticed truly on a

global level.

It also spent some time speaking of and reaffirming the

requirement of this government and the people of our province to show leadership

together to reduce greenhouse gases. We spent an enormous amount of time — and

have since, as well — talking about the importance of giving British Columbians

choice.

We spoke about changing the way we sell power with respect to the

rate structure from B.C. Hydro so that it is in blocks. As British Columbians

use more power in their homes, the incremental cost per unit will go up a little

bit, which will give all of us, in our homes, with our families, pause to do

things like turning off televisions and unplugging VCRs and cell phone chargers

when they're not in use.

We're trying to give British Columbians the tools to help them

manage their energy requirements — things like the Power Smart meters, which

we're going to have distributed throughout the province.

It also spoke about the government doing its part. First, it spoke

about the government itself putting the objective in place to become

carbon-neutral by 2010 — the government, the hundreds of thousands of people

that we employ, all the buildings that we occupy, all the vehicles that we have

on the road and all the ways that we conduct the business of the people across

this great province. We have a responsibility. We have the opportunity to

embrace and show some leadership and set some examples with respect to becoming

carbon-neutral, and the throne speech speaks of the commitment to do precisely

that thing.

[1105]

The throne speech also speaks of the government's involvement not

just within the boundaries of our great province but also outside the boundaries

of our province, talking about how we participate in the western climate

initiative, the climate registry and the International Carbon Action

Partnership.

[ Page 11186 ]

It spoke about how we are going to introduce legislation, which

has since been done, with respect to facilitating British Columbia's

participation in a regional cap-and-trade system that has been developed under

this western climate initiative. We are scheduling the framework of that system

for completion within this year. The focus of that is to help emitters meet

their obligations to live within legally mandated and declining emission caps at

the lowest possible cost.

I mentioned that B.C. Hydro has been instructed to install Power

Smart meters in every home in British Columbia by 2012, but there's more as

well. Government will also encourage activity. One of the things government can

do with the various pulleys and levers that it has at its disposal is encourage

behaviour on the part of people, businesses, industry and other groups. It will

encourage smart developments that will minimize waste and increase affordability

by encouraging the better use of land, energy, water and building design.

The elements of it have been grouped under an initiative called

LiveSmart B.C. The idea behind LiveSmart B.C. is to contain urban sprawl and to

reward development that creates more affordable housing and new green spaces and

that makes more people-friendly neighbourhoods.

In addition to that, the throne speech spoke of the requirement

and the commitment to roll out the new green building code, saying that it will

be finalized and implemented to save energy and to save water. From this point,

all provincial public buildings will be constructed to what's called LEED gold

or to equivalent standards. Existing buildings will be retrofitted to make them

more energy-efficient, climate-friendly and healthy for our valuable public

servants.

One of the benefits of taking a stand on issues like climate

change is that it creates an awful lot of conversation within our communities. I

know that all members of this House have been engaged, probably since the throne

speech of last year and again of this year and since the budget this year….

Significant and meaningful items have been identified to try to make a

difference in this area.

We've been engaged in conversations in our own communities at

different events — sporting events, arts and cultural events — and the community

members that I've run into have certainly got varying opinions. I think that's

one of the really interesting and very valuable things to fall out of the

initiatives of this particular throne speech and the subsequent budget that has

since come down.

When people start debating the issue of climate change, and "Is it

real?" and "Is it really happening?" and recognizing that this is a growing body

of science…. No one's claiming perfection on it at this stage, but there are

some indisputable signs, even within British Columbia, that we cannot ignore.

We're all very aware in our homes, even those of us in the Lower

Mainland and in the riding of Port Moody–Westwood that I so proudly represent,

of the difficulty with respect to the pine beetle dilemma. We're aware that

we're going to lose up to 80 percent of our pine forests. Even in the suburb

that I represent, there is awareness that this has implications for the entire

province, not just for our northern communities who are struggling through this

particular challenge.

The pine beetle challenge very arguably is born of climate change

implications. When the pine beetle was first discovered to be a potential threat

to our forests, there was a consensus that a really cold winter, such as we've

been accustomed to having, would kill off most of the problem. Indeed, history

had said that we would get such a cold winter. They did come along fairly

frequently, and the extended period of really, really cold weather needed to

kill off the pine beetle — two to three weeks, I believe, at minus 35 or

something like that — would do the job.

The problem is that it didn't happen, and it hasn't happened

since. It hasn't happened for 12 or 13 years now, and we're still waiting. So in

the absence of Mother Nature, if you will, taking care of one of these problems,

the problem has now grown, and the pine beetle has moved into climates that,

frankly, never will see those types of temperatures, because it's moving further

south, etc.

We find ourselves in a position where we've got a phenomenon that

is now well outside what we're used to expecting and the challenge of which is

outside what we're used to expecting in terms of climate and weather that would

normally right itself the way Mother Nature has so often done.

But it gets an additional layer added on top of that. You see, for

all these trees that are dying, it means that the amount of water consumed by

these trees is not being consumed. I was informed recently that a full-grown

living tree can consume up to 50 litres of water a day. That's the size of a

good-sized gasoline tank in a car — 50 litres a day for a single tree. Never

mind the millions of trees that are out there at the moment.

[1110]

If all those trees are dying, of course, as so many of them now

have, that water is not being used by these trees. The result of this is that

water remains in the water table, flows down into the streams. Of course, we are

all aware of a lot of the flooding that we've seen in our northern tributaries,

streams and rivers as it moves further south and of the great scare we had last

spring when we thought we would see a great amount of our farmland completely

flooded over, as the flooding situation up north was working its way down

towards the Pacific Ocean.

We're beginning to see that this is not just the figment of

somebody's imagination. This is turning into some very real things that we're

seeing as British Columbians. We have to take note of this. We have to take

whatever action we can. This throne speech calls upon all of us to start

thinking about what can be done and to identify things that will be done.

Keys to seeing this happen, of course, involve two or three

different areas. There are issues of government policy, for example. What can we

do? Government policy is one. We can talk about fuel standards with respect to

how the fuel is manufactured and engineered to go into our vehicles. We can talk

about emission standards.

[ Page 11187 ]

Once that fuel has been burned in a given vehicle, what is appropriate to be

emitted into the environment?

We can talk about encouraging the use of hybrid vehicles. We can

speak to the requirement for electric buses as part of our transit programs

around the province. We can introduce, as we did in our budget, a

revenue-neutral carbon tax to make people start thinking about how they spend

their money.

Now, I think these two points of government policy, in particular

the revenue-neutral carbon tax, are going to contribute a great deal more in

this area than the simple numerical analysis will reveal. What it has done in my

community is create awareness. You cannot walk into your grocery store, your

local school ground or your local rec centre on a Saturday morning and not be

able to start up a conversation with anybody and talk about the revenue-neutral

carbon tax. Why? Because people are aware of it.

This is leading to a broader conversation about climate change.

People are asking the question: what is this about? "Is this really real? I

don't understand this. I need to learn more about it." If that benefit alone has

resulted from the efforts of all members of this House over the last two years,

then that is a very, very important and crucial first step, as a society, to

beginning to get our heads around: what is this issue? What can we as

individuals do about it, and what can we expect of our leaders to do about it as

well?

There's also the importance in this area of making personal

decisions. I think the obvious one for many of us is our electricity

consumption, because in many ways that's one of the easiest. Last year, as part

of recognizing and celebrating Turn It Off Day in British Columbia, which was on

May 16 last year, I had the opportunity to rise in this House and make a very

short two-minute statement on the topic. We had a little bit of humour involved,

where we talked about how there's got to be 50 lights on in this House, which

was one of my grandfather's favourite expressions.

It spoke to the requirement of turning off electricity, but there

was some really interesting information included in the information distributed

by B.C. Hydro with respect to Turn It Off Day. It starts with the flat fact that

we produce only 80 percent of our own electricity requirements in British

Columbia. We just don't produce enough electricity for our own needs — full

stop.

Then it talks about what we can do about it. I'm going to repeat

what I said at that time. I said: "If all families in British Columbia that

usually leave their computers and monitors running 24 hours a day" — and I have

to admit that I've done that myself on occasion — "turned them off when they're

not in use, the province would save 330 gigawatt hours per year in electricity."

Now, I have to tell you that I'm not really familiar with what a

gigawatt means, so thankfully, it translates that for all of us into some terms

that we can all understand a bit better. "That's almost" — listen to this — "two

and a half days of our province's annual power consumption." So if everybody who

had a personal computer just shut it off and didn't leave it running when they

didn't need it, we could actually, throughout the province, provide enough

electricity for two and a half days for every citizen in the province.

You can go on from there and talk about replacing incandescent

bulbs. Then you talk about using your cell phone, camera and other battery

chargers once the charge is complete.

[1115]

One of the things I've learned in my own growing understanding of

this area is that when you charge a cell battery or charge a cell phone, if you

leave it plugged in once it's reached the point of being fully charged, it still

draws about 80 percent of the power that it was drawing during the charging

process itself. There are all kinds of little things that we can do, and these

are all very, very important things to fall out of this conversation.

The wonderful thing is that as we continue to show leadership, I

would like to think on both sides of the House, in the debate in this particular

area, it is trickling down into our communities, into the coffee shop

conversations and into the schools.

I had my son come into my room several months ago, and he was

chastising me. As I was finished brushing my teeth, he said: "What were you

doing?" I said: "I was brushing my teeth." He said: "Well, I didn't hear you

turn the water off." I looked at him and said: "What do you mean?" He said:

"Well, we learned in school that if you shut the water off from the point when

you start brushing your teeth to the point when you're finished, you can

actually save ten litres of water during the two to three minutes it takes you

to brush your teeth properly."

If you now take the four-and-a-half-odd million people that live

in this province, who I'd like to think brush their teeth at least once a day,

and you extrapolate that amount of water consumption — ten litres per incident

once a day, 365 days a year — it's an awful lot of water. There are these little

things and moments and gems that we can learn through this journey together that

can really make a difference.

But there's another thing at perhaps a broader policy level that

we can do as government in the area of climate change, and that has to do with

transit investments. That is something where this government has not backed

down. This is something that this government has embraced in a manner that

hasn't been seen for probably 35 years.

The plan that has been in place for transit development,

particularly across the Lower Mainland but also in other regions of our fine

province, is absolutely historic. Some $14 billion — that's just for public

transit and expanding public transit. It will actually double the transit

ridership and renew existing fleets with cleaner technologies. It's going to

increase the number of buses by 60 percent in areas outside of Metro Vancouver,

and it will actually double TransLink's bus fleet by 2020.

By having more buses running, more people, of course, will be able

to use it. If the transportation is there, people will take advantage of it.

What this plan will result in is more transit routes as well as a bus

[ Page 11188 ]

every 15 minutes, 15 hours per day, seven days a week. This is giving people

choices, and this is the role that a government has to play in trying to address

this problem. It's to facilitate smart and intelligent and environmentally

friendly choices on behalf of its citizens.

There will also be a new RapidBus B.C. line on nine major routes

in Kelowna, Victoria and Metro Vancouver. Of course, near and dear to my heart

and to the hearts and minds and anxieties of the community that I represent is

the creation — finally, after decades of not seeing it happen — of the Evergreen

rapid transit line. It will end at one of the institutions that we're so proud

of in my area, Douglas College, which is in my riding, connecting us through to

rapid transit networks throughout the rest of the Lower Mainland.

Of course, another part of this plan is fairly contentious. There

are differing views in this House — and in the case of our opposition, different

views within the party — with respect to the Port Mann Bridge twinning.

This is a big project. This has huge implications. Right now the

transit congestion on that bridge is so bad that you can't actually run a bus on

it, and we haven't been able to do that for an awfully long time. The objective,

of course, in twinning the Port Mann Bridge is that we'll be able to restore

public transit across that corridor for the first time in 20 years, while at the

same time making new investments in cycling and pedestrian paths across British

Columbia.

We've seen a lot of those in our area in Coquitlam, on Guilford

Avenue, and in the Como Lake area in Coquitlam as well. We've seen some

phenomenal investments that we've done, in conjunction with the city of

Coquitlam, on cycling paths. We're seeing a lot of that stuff come to fruition

as we speak.

The throne speech also spent a great deal of time talking about

the state of health care in our province and recognizing the importance of

identifying a path forward for what is truly our most cherished of all public

institutions. The legislative vehicles to bring this vision to life are now

being presented here in this House, and they involve changing the way we think

about our health care system while keeping the sanctity of the public funding of

that system at its centre.

[1120]

The throne speech went on to speak about our communities and the

type of communities that we would like to live in going forward. It spoke about

the crucial elements of a social safety net that have to be in place to look out

for our most vulnerable, but it also spent a considerable amount of time talking

about the fabric of our communities that is represented by and contributed to,

if not owned, by our arts and culture communities throughout the province.

I very proudly represent one of the most artistically focused

communities in the province. Port Moody in particular within the Tri-Cities is

known as the City of the Arts. It is celebrated every year. It was celebrated

just this week, actually, as the Port Moody Festival of the Arts. I have the

privilege of standing in this House next week and sharing some specific thoughts

on that particular festival. I was proud to open the festival on Friday night,

and indeed, I'm participating in it this Saturday night as it closes down for

yet another successful year.

The throne speech spoke of the importance of the arts in our

community, and it spoke of the value and the priority that our government places

on the arts and culture in our community. It made specific reference to the

Vancouver Art Gallery, which is in desperate need of some renovations and

change, and the fact that some funding would be put in place. As our budget

subsequently identified, funding was put in place for that magnificent

institution, recognized worldwide for what it brings to our citizens and the

types of exhibits it can put together.

It also spoke of an arts endowment that we'd put in place. Since

that throne speech has happened, we've seen the specifics of that. We've seen

$150 million put aside to celebrate, with the arts and culture community of this

province, B.C.'s 150th anniversary. That's a phenomenal amount of money, a

phenomenal investment being given to a group of people who can help us identify

and celebrate who we are, probably better than any other.

More urgently, and more excitingly for me personally, was the

establishment of the $150 million that was put aside for the arts endowment

fund. This is just phenomenal. I have a personal connection to this, because I

have the honour of sitting on the B.C. Select Standing Committee of Finance,

which gets an extraordinary opportunity every fall to tour this great province

and to meet with the people in a very intimate fashion. Fifteen or 20 cities we

do.

We've gone to the furthest corners of the province. We've met with

artisans, people from the various industries, parents, ordinary citizens and

business representatives. You get a great flavour of the different communities

and the fabric that makes up our province. One thing we've seen for the past two

years has been this extraordinary amount of representation from our arts and

culture community. They've been organized. They've been articulate. They have

been very focused on wanting to see arts funding increased.

The arts funding we do normally in British Columbia goes through,

beyond the variety of specific things we do — like the art gallery, for

example…. That's a specific, targeted funding. The majority of our arts funding

goes through the B.C. Arts Council. The B.C. Arts Council distributes that

money. It's a community of artists who decide how to best spend the money in the

area — once again, an example of how our government puts that decision-making

into the hands of the people who know best.

The B.C. Arts Council has a budget every year from our government

of about $20 million. With the establishment of the BC150 endowment fund, $150

million has been put aside. That should draw between $8½ million and $10 million

a year. But even if you say $8 million, to be conservative, the $8 million per

year in addition to the $20 million they're currently getting means that the

arts community in British Columbia just got a 40 percent increase in their

baseline funding from this government, because we recognize the value the arts

community bring to our communities. They make us better as a people.

[ Page 11189 ]

I want to read for you something, because one of the four e-mails

I've received on this topic, which have come from the different arts groups

around the province who so passionately and articulately presented…. I've had

thank-you letters. It's a rarity in this business to get thank-you letters, but

I happened to get about three or four thank-you letters from some of the arts

communities around the province who participated in the hearings, who knew of my

personal passion for the arts and culture community and who followed up and said

thank you.

None articulate it better than a woman who presented to us in

Nelson. By happy coincidence, she also happens to be featured in the Port Moody

Festival of the Arts this week. It's just wonderful to see the small-world

element of this come together.

This woman's name is Aspen Switzer, and she's a phenomenal young

entertainer. She's got a haunting voice. She's a gifted guitar player. Her

father apparently works about 75 hours a week managing her career.

[1125]

When Aspen learned of this, she wrote back to me. It's quite a

long e-mail. I'll just read the two short paragraphs towards the end:

"I was so pleased to hear of such an increase,

because I think it not only contributes to the very obvious tangible support

needed for artists, but it also sends a much-needed message to artists that

what they do is valued and encouraged.

"Thank you from the bottom of my heart for

leaning and leading on this issue. I understood the importance of what we were

asking for when I made the presentation, and my understanding of the

importance grows every day that I am engaged in this career."

These are the types of things that a government can do to help their citizens

define who they are and what they want to be.

As we as government deliver throne speeches and budgets to

represent our vision for where we want to go forward and as those visions and as

those budgets lead to a spirited and appropriate debate that takes place in this

House, we are able to more clearly and articulately define who we are as a

government and what we stand for. Indeed, as this 38th parliament draws to its

close and as we start looking towards putting a choice in front of the people 14

short months from now, we begin to see very clearly — and it becomes very, very

apparent to anyone watching — what we are for as a government.

What we are for is lowering taxes. What we are for, which we have

done, is putting dollars in people's pockets. Over the last seven years this

government has put over $11 billion back into the pockets of small business and

other British Columbians. In 2001 we put a 25 percent tax increase in place. In

2007 we put a further 10 percent personal reduction in income taxes in place.

And we announced additional income tax cuts in the budget that we just announced

recently. In each of those, our opposition voted against it.

Interjection.

I. Black: I'm hearing the charming voice of one of my

colleagues, my respected and friendly colleague opposite from down the road

here.

We know what we stand for. We stand for lowering taxes. We stand

for giving families choice. We stand for giving patients choice. We stand for

the Gateway program, which includes the Evergreen line, which includes the

twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. We know what we stand for. We're willing to

declare what we stand for, and this throne speech articulates that yet again.

We are for small businesses, who are enjoying unprecedented

prosperity under this government. And we're for creating a strong economy and

then leveraging the government revenues that a strong economy creates back into

historical spending in health care and education. We know what we stand for. We

know what we voted for. We know what our opposition has not voted for: all of

the elements I just identified.

This throne speech, in identifying where we want to go as a

government, is yet another articulate example of the leadership and vision of

this government. I am proud to be a part of it. I am proud to support this

throne speech.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to share my

thoughts on that today.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure today to rise and participate in

the 2008 throne speech debate. This is my third opportunity, as you will know,

Madam Speaker, to speak a bit about my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, the

home of the Malahatians and the Juan de Fucans, as I like to romantically say.

Malahat–Juan de Fuca is a romantic constituency. It's the home of

deeply rural communities like Metchosin, East Sooke, Shirley, Cobble Hill,

Glenora. It's also the home of very fast-growing urban, dynamic centres like

Langford; the evolution of Sooke, as it's evolving; and Mill Bay, as well, in

the Cowichan Valley. It's a diverse constituency that I am very proud to

represent. I'm proud to represent and promote the rural aspects of my

constituency but also very mindful of the importance of the development that's

taking place, particularly in the city of Langford, where I have my home.

For those who are in the gallery today and for those who are

watching at home, each year the government issues a Speech from the Throne,

which outlines for the province and for us in this Legislature what the vision

and aspirations are for the government in the coming year. I used to watch

throne speeches in a previous decade, and I know that those who have licence to

write the speeches get the opportunity to talk about a world that we would like

to see, a place that we would like to live.

[1130]

But once the speech is concluded and the echo of the idealistic

tones disperses from this place, we as legislators have to go back to our

communities and face our peers, the people who sent us here, and ask them if the

vision, aspirations and goals laid out in the throne speech are being deployed

on the ground in our communities. I would have to say, as a representative of

Vancouver Island, that there are very few areas where my constituents report a

passing grade.

Today in my remarks — and I know that we are short for time this

morning as we get close to the lunch

[ Page 11190 ]

break — I want to talk about four primary areas. I want to talk about

education, of course. I want to talk about transportation.

I want to talk about governance, because in my constituency we

have, as I've said, the city of Langford. We have unincorporated areas on the

west coast of Vancouver Island. How we govern ourselves in unincorporated areas

is very important. The capital regional district, the Cowichan Valley regional

district — two areas which I have the privilege of representing — approach the

world in very different ways, but the people that live there are very much the

same.

The fourth area that I would like to talk about is agriculture and

the importance of agriculture in the Cowichan Valley and also in Metchosin,

Langford and in towards Sooke and East Sooke.

I'll start, I think, hon. Chair — if it's okay with you, and I'm

sure it is — with agriculture because there's a proud history in my

constituency, particularly in the Cowichan Valley. It was the breadbasket of

Vancouver Island. We used to grow wheat here in the Cowichan Valley. I'm not

sure if everyone in the building knows that, but certainly, they're aware of it

now that I've put it on the record.

With a long, hundred-odd-year tradition of agriculture, the seat

of that in the Cowichan Valley is Cobble Hill. The Cobble Hill Fall Fair each

year is perhaps the highlight of my summer. At the end of August I get the

opportunity to ride up on the train, if I'm so inclined — the Esquimalt and

Nanaimo dayliner — and get off at the Cobble Hill station where there is a small

procession of children, farmers and the odd antique car. We take the short walk

up from the train station to the Cobble Hill hall and open the ceremony.

Last year it was a delight because we had one of the oldest farm

families in the valley there to cut the ribbon as we started. I was joined by my

colleague the Member of Parliament for the area, Jean Crowder, and by other

local area representatives from the Cowichan Valley. The Cobble Hill Fair is

generally a highlight for me.

Moving down my constituency into the Langford area, the Luxton

Fall Fair comes later in the year, in September, as does the Sooke Fall Fair and

Metchosin Days. So it's a very vibrant agricultural community, a very vibrant

agricultural heritage, which I'm very delighted to participate in.

But I want to pay particular attention to the blackberry festival,

because that takes place in East Sooke. I will never miss the blackberry

festival, primarily because they allowed me to be a judge for the blackberry pie

component. There's nothing in the world better than blackberry pie. So if there

are any other committees out there organizing for this year's fairs and if you

want perfect attendance from me, just ask me to be the blackberry pie judge, and

I'll guarantee my participation.

Just as an aside, when I moved back to Victoria with my family in

the early '90s, my children were young at the time. We moved into my mom's

basement at the family home here in Victoria. My kids referred to my mom as

Granny Pie because that was what she did. She made pies. We picked the

blackberries. They would pile up in the freezer.

We're still eating them to this day, and I'm very pleased and

delighted to be able to say that Granny Pie has made me the expert on

blackberries that I am today. I've got a few thorns in my fingers as a result of

that, but that's the essence of living on Vancouver Island with the access to

wild blackberries in the fall in an agricultural area like Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

The other area which is of a primary interest in my constituency,

which was touched upon in the throne speech for other areas of British Columbia,

particularly the Lower Mainland and those areas that are going to be impacted by

the Olympics, is transportation.

[1135]

A fast-growing region, the West Shore, where I live, is bereft of

any significant transportation beyond what's provided by B.C. Transit's bus

system — which is a significant improvement on what it was ten years ago.

There's no question. But the population growth and the densities that are

occurring in Langford, in Colwood…. Not in my constituency but in the

constituency of my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, the population is

surpassing the transit capacity to deliver transportation options to the people

in my community.

One of the issues that I've been working on since I was elected is

trying to resurrect a commuter rail service from Langford — preferably from

Nanaimo, actually. My colleague from Nanaimo is very active on this file as

well. It's getting the train moving south in the morning and north in the

afternoon so that we can move our commuters, get them out of their cars, have a

positive impact on climate change and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions here

on the Island by using the existing train line to move people back and forth in

the morning and evening commutes.

Quite often, hon. Chair, you hear that that's easier said than

done, but in this instance, it's almost easier done than said when it comes to

this government. The Island Corridor Foundation — which is a collection of

municipal representatives, elected representatives, first nations and other

proactive stakeholders up and down the Island — made an initiative at the start

of my term here, in 2005, to secure the Island corridor for the people of this

place.

It's now controlled by municipal councils and first nations up and

down the Island — a tremendous initiative brought forward from a junior level of

government and first nations, put in front of the Minister of Transportation two

years ago. I remind him of it regularly during the estimates debates.

This is a fundamental issue for me and my constituency. We have a

train line in place. We have the tracks there. We have the railbed in place. We

could institute commuter rail along that line with zero impact on the existing

commute — no disruption to traffic. In fact, at the completion of the

Communities for Commuter Rail proposal, there would be a net reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions, which is, if we're to believe the throne speech, the

fundamental direction that this government wants to proceed in.

My constituents ask me: "Why, then, if it is a stated objective of

the government, as articulated in the

[ Page 11191 ]

throne speech and outlined rudimentarily in the budget and the bills that

we've been debating here….? If climate change and greenhouse gas reduction is an

imperative for the government, why wouldn't we want to take advantage of this

golden opportunity on Vancouver Island to get people out of cars, into train

cars?" Modest capital investment, modest impact on existing travel patterns in

the community, ready to go, shelf-ready — ignored by the Minister of

Transportation.

My constituents are concerned about that. They write to him

regularly, whether it be electronically or using snail mail. The responses have

been: "Well, let's see the business plan." We send a business plan. "Well, I

don't like that business plan. Send me another business plan."

The challenge is increasing, and time goes by. Cars continue to

clog our roadways. Construction continues in Langford and other communities.

Population comes; transportation initiatives not there. So that's a challenge I

put forward to the government every year, every time I get an opportunity to

stand in this place. We need to address public transportation in the south

Island, and the way to start is with commuter rail.

The government spoke of a $14 billion transit plan in January. It

was a resurrection of a 1996 transit plan because, after all, the communities

are in place. The corridors have been in existence for some time. We know where

the patterns are. We know where the transportation is required. So the

government dusted off a 1996 plan, called it their own and said: "Sometime in

the future we may well spend $14 billion."

Then you start peeling the onion and start looking at the fine

print, and that $14 billion was, maybe, really $4½ billion, and the rest from

the federal government, not yet committed and from local authorities, not yet

discovered. So a $14 billion air balloon went up and quickly fizzled. Here on

Vancouver Island, of course, no impact at all.

I'd like to move on to the Cowichan Valley with respect to

transportation. As affordability of housing in the south Island becomes a

challenge for young families, more and more people are moving to the Cowichan

Valley and continuing to work in the capital regional district. As more and more

people move into areas like Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and Cowichan Bay in my

constituency, demands for services increase — demands for transportation

services in particular.

[1140]

Anyone who has been on Vancouver Island will know this: the

fundamental challenge for transportation from the capital region to the Cowichan

Valley is the Malahat drive. I like to call it the Jamaican bobsled run because

of its chicanes and harried downhill corners as we come from what's called

Tunnel Hill down into Goldstream Park. It's a very significant challenge in the

winter months.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Quite often when I have meetings…. I know other members who have

geographically dispersed constituencies, particularly those members from the

north. I always think of Bulkley Valley–Stikine and Columbia River–Revelstoke as

two places that are magnificent to visit, beautiful to fly over, but my

goodness, I'd hate to try and represent those areas. I have tremendous sympathy

for those members who don't have the luxury that I do of being able to go home

every night to my family and enjoy my constituency almost in a leisurely way.

But when I'm on the Malahat Drive in November and the rain is

coming down and the windshield wipers just can't keep up with the sheets of

water that we experience here in the rain forest, I often think of the Minister

of Transportation and wonder why it is that he wouldn't want to try and resolve

some of the challenges, some of the terror that my constituents experience

driving to and forth from their communities to their workplace each and every

day.

The Malahat Drive is a fundamental issue for me. It's a

fundamental issue for my constituents. The government did, just before the last

election, commit to a study. Everybody likes a study. Some $250,000 — that's

just six figures. That's thousands, not the multi-millions that are being

invested in other parts of the province but thousands of dollars to try and

address this problem.

As I hear other members, in their responses to the throne speech

and the budget, talk of the investments in their community and the

multi-millions…. I'm certainly not begrudging them. You know that. All residents

of British Columbia deserve access to the bounty that we are all blessed to

share here in British Columbia. But it just feels some days that the people in

my community aren't quite getting as much as those in other areas.

That's my job here, as their representative, to raise those

issues, to let the government know that there's never a shortage of things to

spend money on. I often hear, "There's a shortage of money," on the other side,

yet we did find $440 million in this year's budget to give a hundred dollars

back to each and every individual in the province. Markus Naslund — 25 goals, a

hundred bucks from the taxpayers. Jimmy Pattison gets a hundred bucks.

Markus is probably going back to Sweden. I don't know what he'll

do…. What's that in krónas? I don't know what that is in krónas, but the

taxpayers are going to send him a cheque. I hope the exchange rate doesn't

negatively impact his carbon credit, but I know the Swedes will be very happy to

take that money back to Sweden. The taxpayers will thank them for their good

efforts here with the Vancouver Canucks

An Hon. Member: And the Lottery Corporation.

J. Horgan: And the Lottery Corporation. Don't get me

started on the Lottery Corporation.

The other issue I'd like to talk about is education. I know that

the Minister of Education and I have had numerous debates on these issues, and

we have a fundamental divide on the question. I think I'm being generous when I

say that, but I do like to be generous with

[ Page 11192 ]

the minister. She's often very generous with me. I want to touch on education

because I have to.

School closures have become a seasonal occupation for many parents

in my community. The minister knows this, and she has had school closures in her

community as well. The declining enrolment issue across the province is an

obvious one. I've heard her make that case, and I accept that judgment from her

in certain parts of the province.

But in my communities, in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, we have, in

district 62, an increasing enrolment. We have more students coming in than we

had in the past. The challenge in a growing community — like Langford, like

Highlands, like Colwood, like Sooke — is that the expectation of people moving

to those communities is that services will be provided to them as they're

provided to other British Columbians.

Just this week — in fact, two days ago — we had the district 62

trustees moved to close Glenlake Elementary, which is just around the corner

from my home. It's a 47-year-old school. Many would argue that it does need a

little bit of a polish and a cleanup, and I wouldn't dispute that. But the

importance of Glenlake Elementary to the community that it has served for almost

50 years is almost incalculable.

It was a very difficult decision for trustees. They were put in

that position, I believe, because of a funding formula put in place by the

current government that doesn't adequately take into account the disparities and

the differences from region to region. A funding formula that focuses

exclusively on per-pupil counts does not necessarily reflect the diversity of

the communities that we all represent here.

[1145]

As I move up the hill into the communities in the Cowichan Valley,

we have two schools in particular this year — four overall, but two that are in

my community south of the river — Ecole Mill Bay and Koksilah Elementary. Those

two schools are slated for closure.

The minister has, at the request of the board and in discussion

with the board, put in place an adviser to help them get through this in

district 79 — Dr. Lee Southern, who is an outstanding individual. I have

tremendous faith in him and his capacity to find the problem. I'm just hopeful

that when he does, the government will accept the solution that may well keep

these schools open for another year as they grapple with enrolment issues that

the minister knows full well.

These are issues that are forefront in the community. They're

brought to my attention. There's an expectation that I'll speak out for those

individuals, those families, those students. I'm doing that today, and I do that

each and every day, and I'm proud to do it.

With respect to Koksilah Elementary, I've spoken about Koksilah in

this House before, and it brings us to two issues that I wanted to close on. I

know that we're short for time. Although the Government House Leader often likes

to hear me go on to the full extent of my time in this place, I will, in the

interest of the lunch hour, try and shorten my remarks and conclude in a few

moments.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I think I'm concluding when I'm done, hon. House

Leader.

I want to speak to Koksilah Elementary because of its importance

to the Cowichan tribes in my community. Koksilah Elementary is 99 percent first

nations, and it is the only school that I'm aware of on Vancouver Island that

has daily instruction in aboriginal language, culture and tradition.

This is an enormous step for the people in the Cowichan Valley and

for first nations in general. The spectre of residential schools is still very

much alive in communities in my area, whether it be on the T'sou-ke First

Nation, the Beecher Bay nation, the Pacheedaht people or certainly the Cowichan

tribes.

For elders to come back to a school — not a particular building in

this instance, but the school system in general — conjures up for them very,

very difficult memories, very, very harsh reflections on their youth. To see

their grandchildren and their children participating in their own language and

their own culture is truly a wonderful thing.

I know that when Dr. Southern has completed his assessment of the

situation in district 79, we will indeed have a solution that will see Koksilah

remain open as well as Ecole Mill Bay, the only single-track French immersion

program south of the Cowichan River — two programs that I know the minister, all

things being equal, would want to see continue. I'm hopeful that when Dr.

Southern reports back to her, she will see the wisdom of keeping those places

open.

Just in conclusion, there is the question of parks in my

community. I represent an area that includes Goldstream Park, French Beach,

China Beach, Sooke Potholes, Witty's Lagoon. It goes on and on. It's one of the

most beautiful places in British Columbia, and I'm very, very proud to represent

it. But the one thing I would like to leave with the Minister of Forests and the

Minister of Environment in this debate is the existence — and they're aware of

it — of very, very significant old-growth Douglas fir in and around the Koksilah

River in my constituency on land currently owned by TimberWest.

I'm aware, as the ministers would be, that TimberWest has

committed to a moratorium and has agreed to leave these trees standing. They're

magnificent examples of Douglas fir forest, massive in size, absolutely

overwhelming, just 35, 40 minutes away from us in this Legislature. They're

still standing, and with the cooperation of the Minister of Forests, the

Minister of Environment and TimberWest, I'm fairly confident that we can keep

these trees standing and preserve this natural splendour for future generations.

Just across the river from these magnificent trees is a structure

called the Kinsol Trestle. I've spoken about the Kinsol Trestle in this place

before, and I won't take up too much time. Suffice it to say that it is the

largest structure of its kind in the Commonwealth. It is deteriorating. We've

had a commitment from government for somewhere in the area of $3 million to keep

[ Page 11193 ]

standing and to refurbish it, but it doesn't quite meet the test.

[1150]

The cost of preserving and maintaining that structure is

significantly higher than that, and my constituents certainly would encourage

the government, in the next 12 months, to find some way to squeeze a few more

bucks out of the multibillion dollars in surplus revenues that the Minister of

Finance tells us about and ensure that some of that money goes into the issues

in my community that I've been speaking about today and will continue to speak

about until May of next year.

With that, I'll thank you very much for the opportunity to speak

to this year's Speech from the Throne and encourage the government to think of

Malahat–Juan de Fuca when they've got a couple of bucks in their envelopes.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, hon. Members, the

question is the motion on Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

[1155]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 38

Falcon

Coell

Ilich

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 27

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND LANDS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $125,499,000 (continued).

Hon. P. Bell: I am joined this morning by my Deputy

Minister Larry Pedersen, the associate deputy minister for the integrated land

management bureau, Mike Lambert, and the director of the species-at-risk

coordination office — I hope I got all that right — Dr. Mark Zacharias.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister some questions

about species at risk — namely, some questions about the spotted owl and then

the mountain caribou.

Starting with the spotted owl, how many spotted owls do we have

remaining in the province?

Hon. P. Bell: Although it is always awkward to know the

exact number, the last census that we had for spotted owls was a total of 19

birds.

M. Sather: Yeah, the numbers aren't precise, but they're

obviously very low. That's a great cause for concern that we could lose this

beautiful species.

I had the opportunity last fall to go up to S&M Creek near

Pemberton to look at some habitat there and where there was a spotted owl.

Unfortunately, apparently I arrived one night too late. Apparently, the owl was

captured the night before I was there, and I believe that owl is in the

captive-breeding program. I wanted to ask the minister how the owl is doing.

Hon. P. Bell: She is doing very well. We actually have a

total of four owls currently in the captive-breeding program, and we have all of

our fingers and toes crossed. We think we may have some eggs in the near future,

so we're quite hopeful. She is doing very well. We have not named her yet, but

there is an auction out for naming rights currently.

[ Page 11194 ]

M. Sather: I wanted to read to the minister some comments

by André Germain, the operations manager for the Squamish forest district. This

is the area where I was. I mentioned that I was up in Pemberton, which includes

what he's talking about here.

He said: "Selective logging, some 61 hectares in total, has taken

place periodically in the area over the past eight years with no obvious

detrimental impact on the owl that's known to live in the area." Of course,

that's the owl that is no longer there.

I want to ask the minister if he feels that logging in the owl

habitat has no effect on the owls, as suggested by Mr. Germain.

[1015]

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of pieces of the equation that I

think we should talk a little bit about here. In this particular instance, with

this particular owl…. She was spatially removed from all other owls, and it was

very unlikely that she would have found a mate.

That was part of the attributes we were looking for when we were

making decisions on which owls to bring into the captive-breeding program. She

would have likely lived her life on her own. Conversely, there would have

perhaps been the risk of a mating with a barred owl, which does occur as well —

as I think the member opposite knows. He is aware that that's one of the risks

associated with the longevity of the spotted owl.

In terms of the question the member asked as it relates to log

harvesting techniques, there are specific attributes of the habitat that have to

be taken under consideration by the district managers when they make log

harvesting decisions or when they make decisions with regards to cutting plans.

It is canopy cover, and it is the nature of the habitat that is required for the

spotted owl.

Because these areas fall into specific habitat identified for

spotted owls, the district manager is legally obligated — as they consider the

plans that are brought forward — to maintain the integrity of that habitat. As

statutory decision–makers, I'm confident that they would fulfil that

responsibility.

It's certainly not appropriate to have all forms of logging in

spotted owl areas. In fact, the legal objectives in place ensure that that is

not allowed. But where there is an opportunity for individual tree removal and

maintenance of the overall canopy, there are occasions when that can take place.

M. Sather: I did have a chance, as I said, to look at the

logging in that owl's habitat there at S&M Creek, and licensees are required to

protect 40 trees per hectare logging in owl habitat. Can the minister explain:

what is the benefit of leaving 40 trees per hectare?

Hon. P. Bell: I feel very fortunate to have the

ex–chief forester at my side, who has tremendous expertise in this area, along

with Dr. Mark and Mike Lambert, who helped with this, because it is very

technical in nature — what the member is asking. They're all good questions as

well, I might add.

First of all, I should inform the member that the nesting site is

located three kilometres from any of the harvesting that was going on in the

region. That was one of the specific criteria established to ensure the

protection of the mandate. Normally, spotted owls have a relatively small range,

so it was considered that that was appropriate — the three-kilometre distance.

The other attribute that is important for the owl is to open up

the canopy a bit for the owls, for hunting, so that they are able to acquire the

necessary feed. So there are situations where it is in fact appropriate to

harvest some of the trees in the region to allow for a better quality of habitat

to be in place.

[1020]

Again, I would remind the member that this was an unusual

situation. It was an owl that appeared to be separated spatially from other

owls, very unlikely to have found a mate — not necessarily the best habitat as a

result of that. That was one of the reasons why this particular owl was chosen

for the captive breeding program.

M. Sather: Did I understand the minister right? Did he say

that the nest of this owl was three kilometres from the logging area?

Hon. P. Bell: That's the best information we have here.

M. Sather: Can the minister clarify for me, then? He said

that the owl was removed because there didn't appear to be any chance for it

breeding, but it had a nest site, which would indicate to me that it had bred in

the area. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. But it was many, many years

ago when the owl had bred in the area, and there was no sign of any opportunity

for that to take place at this point.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for his answer. As I

said, I looked at the habitat where they were logging, the owl habitat there at

S&M Creek. There's just a tree here and a tree there. I can't see any possible

benefit to the owl of leaving the odd tree here and there. It isn't a matter of

opening the canopy. It's pretty much a clearcut with one or two trees standing,

or maybe three or four in a little clump here and there, which are likely to be

blown down anyway. But I want to move on.

As the minister knows, there's a lot of concern and controversy

around spotted owl protection in British Columbia. There have been concerns

expressed by government staff, such as Mr. Myke Chutter — maybe he's Dr. Chutter;

I'm not sure — who is the bird specialist for British Columbia. His quote, one

of them, was: "This isn't a population augmentation issue. It's a critical

habitat protection issue."

He later summed up his feelings about a spotted owl planning

meeting this way. "Disappointing to say the least. My take is that this is a

recipe that pretty well

[ Page 11195 ]

guarantees extirpation over time." He also worries that discussions over owl

recovery have "centred on what timber licensees may or may not be willing to do

rather than what the owl needed."

Those are pretty strong comments from a very knowledgable member

of the government. Could the minister comment on his comments?

[1025]

Hon. P. Bell: Context is always a wonderful thing, and I

think it's important to know that Mr. Chutter, or Dr. Chutter…. Some of his

comments pertained actually to the 1997 spotted owl recovery strategy, not the

2006 recovery strategy. It's always good, I think, to have context on some of

these comments. Some of the other pieces are important for the member to know.

Of course, British Columbia is on the northernmost extreme of the

spotted owl range. There are about 10,000 owls in the United States just across

the border, and that is the more natural habitat for spotted owl. We are a

habitat that has certainly increased in quality as a result of global warming.

The owls have continued to push into British Columbia, but British Columbia

traditionally has not been the origin of many birds.

Some of the actions and substantive areas we have identified. Of

about 450,000 hectares of spotted owl habitat, we believe that — in the province

that have been identified — half of that is now fully protected, so it has full

and complete protection. About 360,000 hectares is either managed or protected.

Well over 75 percent or 80 percent of the total spotted owl habitat is either

currently being managed…. Half of the total spotted owl habitat is under full

protection.

The plan that we have in place now, including all the

augmentation, the captive breeding programs, the protection of habitat — all of

the different work that's going on — amounts to a budget of $3.4 million over

five years. We think we have a credible plan that will recover the species, and

we're going to continue to execute on that plan.

M. Sather: Is the minister suggesting, though, in his

comments that Dr. Chutter does not have serious concerns about the current

spotted owl recovery program?

Hon. P. Bell: What I said was that context was important

and that some of Dr. Chutter's comments pertain to the 1997 plan. I said "some.

I didn't say "all." The member can go back and check Hansard if he cares

to. We value Dr. Chutter's views and opinions. We incorporate those into the

plan and continue to work with him.

M. Sather: Well, the minister mentioned the amount of

spotted owl habitat that is supposedly protected when he announced the recovery

strategy for the spotted owl in 2006, the aforementioned 363,000 hectares. That

has been criticized, and others have concerns about it, not just Dr. Chutter.

David Cunnington is the senior species-at-risk biologist for

Environment Canada, and he said: "This kind of approach" — i.e., the one being

used now — "can be characterized as halfway technology, putting a band-aid on a

heart attack or treating the symptom instead of the disease, and is a great

example of fiscal inefficiency."

He also notes that of 363,000 hectares designated for spotted

owls, only 48 percent is suitable habitat and even then contains large parts in

which owls have never been located. Harvesting has occurred in valley bottoms

leaving "disconnected sub-optimal habitat for owls on valley sides."

So there's another damning indictment of the program. I don't know

if the minister wants to add any further comments in defence of the spotted owl

recovery program today.

[1030]

Hon. P. Bell: I actually stand corrected. Mr. Chutter

doesn't have a PhD, so he's not a doctor. I think there are three points the

member should be aware of or that are important to this discussion….

First is that the preferred habitat for the spotted owl actually

disappeared somewhere between the late 1800s and about 1930. That's the Fraser

Valley. The Fraser Valley was actually the optimal habitat for the spotted owl.

Of course, it now resides as the predominant agricultural region and the region

with the largest population centres in the province, and it's not likely to be

recovered as ideal habitat for the spotted owl. So that was the very limited

traditional range that was available.

We are working — and I think what the member points out is that

we're having to work — with parts of the province that have not been the optimal

habitat for spotted owl, but the primary area was the lower Fraser Valley.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

The second key piece is that the comments that the member referred

to were actually made prior to the spotted owl habitat enhancement team's

report, plans around protection, enhancement and augmentation and captive

breeding programs. They were made in an arbitrary e-mail exchange, I think, so

those comments were all prior to a lot of actions that we're currently taking.

The third thing that I think is important for the member to be

aware of is that there is currently a habitat revision project underway. We are

looking at incremental habitat and where there could be additional habitat

brought in that would provide continuity for spotted owls so that they have a

better chance of finding mates and are able to fly spatially in different parts

of their normal range. So there is actually another piece of work that is

ongoing right now that would potentially result in revisions to the protections

that are in place today.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for his responses on the

spotted owl.

[ Page 11196 ]

I wanted to move on to the mountain caribou. Last fall, last

October, of course, the minister had a big announcement about the protection of

habitat for mountain caribou — some 2.2 million hectares. I wanted to know: is

there a map or some other description on the integrated land management bureau

website or elsewhere in government that shows where this 2.2 million hectares

is?

Hon. P. Bell: The work is being done with each of the

individual science teams across the landscape in the different habitat units

right now. The work is anticipated to be completed by the end of April, at which

point those maps will be posted.

M. Sather: Of those 2.2 million hectares, how much of it is

in parks and protected areas or in previous land use plans that had modified

forest harvest zones?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to kind of jump ahead because I

suspect I know where the line of questioning is going, but I'll answer the first

question and then go on.

[1035]

Currently, 64 percent of the 2.2 million hectares is under some

form of protection. That would include provincial parks, federal parks, wildlife

habitat areas or areas defined in land use management plans that exclude any

sort of industrial activity.

Of the remainder, there are approximately 380,000 hectares

identified for incremental protection. Of those, 77,000 fall within the timber

harvesting land base, and 300,000 fall in the non–timber harvesting land base.

The overall objective of the plan is to protect 95 percent of the high winter

suitability habitat for the caribou.

M. Sather: The minister mentioned that maps are being drawn

up. As I understand, local habitat teams are doing that now and are circulating

some of these. When do they become final, and will they be by regulation? How do

they become official, if you will?

Hon. P. Bell: There are preliminary maps, I should advise

the member, on the website now, of course, but those are subject to finalization

by the teams. I think he knows that. The legalization of the objectives will be

met through several different tools. Government action regulations would be one

of those — GAR orders — but also legalized objectives could be used. So there

are a couple of possibilities. There are other management tools we can utilize

to ensure that the objectives are legally defined and required to be met.

M. Sather: If I understand the minister right, there's

about 380,000 hectares of new land — new protected areas — and 77,000 hectares

in the timber-harvesting land base. Is the government pursuing what's called the

non-spatial protection of caribou habitat? Is that the route that we're going?

Hon. P. Bell: There are, all together, 11 different

planning units. It's anticipated that the vast majority of those will be

spatialized. There are a couple of habitat units. The two in particular that are

under consideration right now are North Thompson and central Selkirk, where they

may not be identified spatially, but they may use an adaptive management model

over time to provide that incremental protection because of the nature of the

regions — harder to spatialize those two particular landscape units.

[1040]

M. Sather: The non-spatial protection, for example, is

going to be — or is being used — in central Selkirk. That's where you don't

exactly determine a geographical area for protection of the caribou but, rather,

a percent of habitat types. Is that right? Is that what it is?

Hon. P. Bell: What I said is slightly different than what

the member repeated and suggested that I said. What I said was: "It is under

consideration." The decision's not been made on that in the central Selkirks,

and I think the member suggested that I said the decision had been made on that.

I'm advised that in the central Selkirks we think that at this

point about 75 percent of the area would be spatially identified and that 25

percent would not be. But whatever final decision is made here will be done

collaboratively with full support of the science team and the herd experts in

the area. It is not a decision that would be unilaterally made and implemented

by government. It's one that is done utilizing best science.

M. Sather: So if the non-spatial is being used…. In that

model, then, do the companies decide where to log, as long as they stick to the

approved percentages of habitat types?

Hon. P. Bell: It's important for the member to know that

this aspatial area is actually still identified spatially on the landscape. So

it's not just a broad-ranging, unidentifiable area. It is specifically

identified.

The member asked if it's industry — if the companies are the ones

that make the logging decisions. That is incorrect. The decisions in terms of

what logging would be done within the aspatial areas would be made by a

combination of the herd experts and the Ministry of Environment biologists.

M. Sather: I'm going to speed it up a bit here because some

of my colleagues want to ask some questions.

So for the central Kootenays, then, what I understand is…. The

concern is that a lot of this logging…. Well, two concerns: first of all, that a

lot of it's going to be in areas that are only up to 60 years old, which is too

young for caribou habitat — the protection, I mean — and also, that the low- and

mid-range-elevation habitat, which is crucial for caribou in the fall and early

spring, is not going to be getting adequate protection. That's a concern I've

heard expressed.

But I think I'll move on. The minister certainly can address that

if he wishes. I want to move on to the question of the 1 percent cap of

timber-harvesting land

[ Page 11197 ]

base that was announced after the celebratory announcement in October. Groups

like ForestEthics have expressed concern that that 1 percent cap on the effect

on the forestry land base was announced afterwards.

Could the minister tell us why it was announced after the

celebratory event that happened here in October?

[1045]

Hon. P. Bell: I want to touch on the first question, if I

may, just for a moment. I think it really speaks to the integrity of the

mountain caribou recovery plan. One of the key themes is, I think, that you need

to be held accountable, and I think that you need to have a very transparent,

open process for the activities.

The member well knows that this was a very collaborative process,

with ForestEthics and Wildsight representing ten different environmental

organizations that have an interest in this area. Although there are some other

environmental organizations that disagree with the decisions that have been

made, I would suggest that when you bring ten environmental organizations on

board in a collaborative process, you've done very well.

I certainly have a lot of respect for ForestEthics in the work

that they've done, and Wildsight — Candace Batycki and John Bergenske — deserve

a lot of credit for being willing to be open and work with government. Part of

openness and transparency falls to the progress board that's being established.

I have every confidence in the world in Candace's ability and

John's ability to speak up and say if they don't believe the government is

meeting their objective. It would be foolish to think that we would appoint

individuals from the environmental community to a progress board if we didn't

want to be held to account.

Although this will have ongoing effort that will be required in

order to have effective implementation, I fully believe that the process we have

undertaken to date, in terms of collaboration with the environmental community,

is the right approach. I have every confidence that the targets and objectives

of a growing population will be met.

To the second question that the member asked, about the 1 percent

cap on habitat of the THLB, 1 percent of the THLB in the region works out to

115,000 hectares, and the commitment was to 77,000 hectares. So the ability for

us to deliver on the commitment of 95 percent high suitability winter habitat

can be met easily within the 1 percent cap. There was no, to the best of my

knowledge, formal announcement around that, but the 1 percent cap certainly

gives us the ability to deliver on the criteria that were established.

S. Fraser: Hello again to the minister and staff. I'm

switching gears here, so I hope you can bear with me on this. It's on behalf of

a constituent, Mr. Bob Doyle. He had come up with an innovative new idea for the

west coast — as far as I know, it's done on the east coast — to deal with

seaweed harvesting on the beach. The product is…. Japonica is the Latin

name, I believe, and Irish moss is kind of the colloquial term for it. I don't

know if that's scientifically correct.

He brought forward the issue with the ministry, with your staff

locally — this was several years ago — that this wasn't being done on the coast,

and this particular substance is becoming quite valuable for, I think, medical

research. So there is a market for it for that, and there's a sustainable way of

dealing with it.

He made some proposals. He did achieve, I think, four licences

from Qualicum to Deep Bay area, on the east side of the central island. This

year, in the last letter he got from the ministry, it's being let for sort of a

tendering process. There are a number of applicants now interested in harvesting

this product.

I guess I just need some clarification. Is there a process whereby

someone can bring forward a new proposal for, in this case, harvesting this

substance off the beach, and then, when that gets known, it gets brought into an

open public tendering process, which I think might be a bit of a breach of

trust?

I'm not saying this with any malice. He did this in good faith. He

brought forward a new idea, and now it's being let for multiple tenured

applicants. Can the minister comment on that?

[1050]

Hon. P. Bell: The specific file I'm not aware of. I'd be

happy to work with the member on it and have a good look at it. I think that

would be the appropriate approach.

What the member describes is one of the issues that government is

always faced with, which is when there is a new idea or a new approach brought

into government, or a new product that has some value to it, and someone comes

in with a specific idea around that and presents that idea. Should government

provide direct awards on products like that or new opportunities like that, or

do they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to have an open, kind of

transparent bidding process? I don't know that there's actually any right answer

to that question. It's a very challenging one, one that we're faced with all the

time within government.

So the specific file — hard for me to comment on it not knowing

it, but I would be pleased to work with the member to take a look at it and see

how it could be effectively managed. There is no right answer, in my view, in

terms of how you deal, particularly, with some of the new products that are

coming on stream all the time that no one ever imagined had value in the past,

but yet today may have huge value.

S. Fraser: I will prepare something on this with Mr. Doyle

to provide to the minister and his staff.

Just in finishing off on this subject, I know the proponent with a

new idea…. I understand there are two ways that tenures can be let. If it's an

existing idea like a gravel pit or something — which, again, Lands is

responsible for — that's already been used previously, generally speaking it's

hard to award just to a single applicant because there's a history of use there.

But when somebody comes forward with a new idea…. In

[ Page 11198 ]

this case, Mr. Doyle apparently sought some backing from various individuals

or companies, and those individuals and companies have then gone forward and

applied for the same thing. It makes it difficult for somebody to be

entrepreneurial. I appreciate the minister being willing to look at this.

I'll finish off with a…. I'm mindful of time. There's recently

been an award of the Bowser scallop farm proposal for Island Scallops — arguably

a large site, 125 hectares in the Strait of Georgia. The minister knows it has

been a controversial one, and I'm not going to judge. I've been to the site.

I've had a tour of the facility. Island Scallops is a real company that seems to

do very good work and a nice product.

But the public and the sectors involved, other uses of the area —

and there are many — have raised a lot of concerns. The one that struck me the

most is that there wasn't a formal public process through the ministry to deal

with those concerns. I know the proponent had a public meeting or maybe several,

but that was the proponent. The ministry never brought in a public process that

allowed the public to feel that they were being listened to by the ministry.

Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member's question on this

issue. As he may know, I am also the statutory decision-maker on the file, a

very complex file. The binders stretched into probably a foot and a half or so

by the time the file was completed. I think, as the member knows, the original

application was for about three times the size.

[1055]

In terms of public process, extensive advertising, lots of

opportunity for public comment…. I myself actually met with many of the

individuals that opposed this particular project, and all of the issues that

were brought up were certainly taken under consideration during the

decision-making process.

Again, this isn't one of those ones that you were able to find

resolution to every single issue. There were conflicting values that came up in

the process. In the end, I am asked, as the decision-maker, to make a judgment

on a proposal of this nature. I'd be happy to provide the member with an outline

of all of the various meetings, all the various time lines, all the various

processes that take place.

I do think there was adequate opportunity for input into the

process, and I don't think that any new information would have come out as a

result of any other processes that would have taken place. The project did fall

underneath the scope required for an environmental assessment review, which is a

far more in-depth process, certainly, but it falls underneath that requirement.

There is a threshold under which that process takes place.

I think that really what it came down to is that there is a group

of folks who didn't like the decision, and they are suggesting that there was

not adequate opportunity for input into the system. I would reject that there

was not adequate opportunity. I think there was lots of opportunity for input.

The body of documentation that I received clearly identified that there was

adequate opportunity.

At the same time, I very much respect and understand that some of

those people didn't like the decision and the outcome. Fourteen different first

nations directly involved in the process all either supported or did not oppose

one of those two outcomes on the project. In fact, some partnering, some good

job opportunities…. Some other first nations are looking at what Island Scallops

is doing on that particular project as a potential economic proposal for their

particular communities as well.

So I think the key thing that the member may or may not know….

This may be new information, but the licence that I offered to Island Scallops

was a one-year licence. I understood the nature of the controversy here and the

mood in the area. I thought it was appropriate to issue a one-year licence and

to reassess the project at the end of a year and make sure that the results are

what they are expected to be.

Difficult decision — not an easy one. The member points out that

he's been to Island Scallops and looked at their facilities and looked at their

products and their real company, and they have a potential for economic benefit

to the region. But he also represents much of the area and hears from

constituents. So he is as conflicted as I am in this area in that it's one of

those things that you're simply not going to be able to keep everyone happy.

In the end, I have the responsibility to consider very specific

criteria around that application, and I made the decision on the basis of the

criteria and the information that was put in front of me.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I would take

the minister up on his offer to provide me with the sequence of events that led

to this decision. I understand it is somewhat subjective, and I understand the

minister's role. That being said, the Special Committee on Sustainable

Aquaculture made some specific recommendations around shellfish. As you know,

the committee recognized the importance of the industry, that it was a

relatively new industry and that it had potential for the province.

However, specifically around larger operations the committee

recommended being very mindful of public process and siting criteria in

particular, especially with the potential for conflicting use. That was in the

interests of not just the public who might be opposing it or other sectors that

might be opposing it but also in the interests of the industry — that having

that public buy-in and that public process and the feeling that the public were

listened to was essential as a win-win.

This being, I think, the largest…. Despite the fact that it's a

smaller footprint than originally anticipated — the minister is right; it's

quite a bit smaller — it still would make it the largest scallop farm of its

kind in the province, if not in the country, if not in the world. I haven't been

able to find another jurisdiction that has a 125-hectare scallop farm.

[1100]

[ Page 11199 ]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The small group of individuals that the minister was referring to

…. My take on it was that every sector I heard from, whether it was the

commercial fishing industry, the herring advisory board, the native fisheries

board, the tourism people, the sport fishing, tug operators…. I mean, I had, as

the minister must have also, a lot of correspondence raising concerns about

this. Most of those groups did not feel that they had adequate public process. I

look forward to the minister providing me with that information.

With that, I will cede my position here to my colleague

geographically to the right of me.

G. Coons: Thank you for being here, staff and Minister. I

just have a few questions about some of the LRMPs that are happening on the

north coast, Haida Gwaii and the central coast.

One thing I'm sure the minister has heard a lot about is the coast

sustainability trust fund. As he knows, it was initiated with the mitigation

fund in place to help mitigate impacts of the LRMPs that were going on.

Basically, during the life of that fund close to $3 million was paid to

redundant workers, severance packages were close to $16,000, and payments were

made out to contractors eliminated because of the provincial government

decisions and agreements with the LRMPs. That mitigation fund was rolled over

into the community fund at a certain time when the north coast and Haida Gwaii

LRMPs were not finalized.

I'm sure the minister has heard a lot of concern about mitigation

to workers and whether or not there is a push towards the coast sustainability

trust fund working for the workers and some of the contractors on the islands

that need it for compensation for job loss or pension bridging or early

retirement or retraining.

I realize that the trust fund wound up in March 2007 and that Eric

van Soren has two years to work out what to do with the money. But there was

close to $12 million transferred over from the mitigation fund in March 2005, I

believe, that was not available to the workers on the north coast and the Haida

Gwaii–Queen Charlotte LRMPs. I was wondering if there was any suggestion or

movement or legislation or amendments coming to help the workers in those

regions.

Hon. P. Bell: It's actually Eric van Soren who is the

administrator of the coast sustainability trust fund. The coast sustainability

trust was rolled over into the coast sustainability trust II, so CST II.

I am joined now by John Bones, who is the assistant deputy

minister of the integrated land management bureau, along with Larry Pedersen and

Mike Lambert.

John actually sits on the CST II board, the coast sustainability

trust board, and works with Eric van Soren on the project. There are still funds

available for worker transition and that is available through until March 31,

'09, which is the full implementation of ecosystem-based management, at which

point the board members will review the availability of funds and make decisions

on the direction of any funds that may continue to rest with the board.

[1105]

G. Coons: How much is available to the workers?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have the exact number here. We think

it's $5 million. If the member would like the exact number, we'd be happy to

provide that to him.

G. Coons: Is that the eco-based management matching funds

that you're talking about?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that level of information here

with us right now. I'd be happy to provide it to the member. We don't think that

the fund that he's identified is the one that's available, but we don't have

that level of information. We'd be happy to provide a detailed briefing to the

member on that issue.

G. Coons: I just mentioned that because about $5 million is

in that fund. That's why I asked that question.

Just a final comment on this. On the central coast close to $10

million was given in the mitigation fund, and in March '05, $12 million was

rolled over into the community matching funds. I find that that money is now not

available, and people in the regions were hoping that there would be some sort

of legislation or amendments to help out in that situation and roll that back,

so just on that note.

I have one question dealing with the Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte

Islands land use plan and one of the recommendations about the trophy hunt. I'm

sure the minister has been getting lots of feedback on that recently. There's

been a seven-day protest, and there was a major concern from the Haida on there

that they have a resolution calling for the trophy hunt to be halted on Haida

Gwaii.

During the land use plan, out of the 19 people that were there, 18

recommended that they put a halt to the trophy hunt. I'm just wondering the

status of that and when a decision will be made