2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 29)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Preparation by B.C. athletes for

2010 Olympic Winter Games

W. McMahon

Volunteerism in Burnaby

R. Lee

Lillooet land and resource

management plan

D. Chutter

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail

and first nations consultation

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Plant

Hon. K.

Falcon

Disciplinary action against Bob

Virk and David Basi

MacPhail

Hon. K.

Falcon

B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail

and first nations consultation

Nettleton

Hon. K.

Falcon

Tugboat and barge operators labour

dispute

M. Hunter

Hon. G.

Campbell

Independence of Citizens' Assembly

on Electoral Reform

Brenzinger

Hon. G.

Campbell

Employment transition services for

sex trade workers

P. Wong

Hon. S.

Hagen

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual

report, 2002

Committee of the Whole House

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 17)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Reporting of Bills

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 17)

Third Reading of Bills

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 17)

Second Reading of Bills

B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401)

Suffredine

Committee of the Whole House

B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills

Education Services Collective

Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19)

Hon. G.

Bruce

MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Wildfire Act (Bill 25)

MacPhail

Hon. M. de

Jong

J. Wilson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Wildfire Act (Bill 25)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. M. de

Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)

Anderson

Committee of the Whole House

Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)

Second Reading of Bills

Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402)

M. Hunter

Committee of the Whole House

Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. M. de

Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small

Business and Economic Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. J.

Les

Estimates: Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Estimates: Ministry of Management

Services

Hon. J.

Murray

B. Belsey

J. Bray

[ Page 10273 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, in the House today I am pleased to welcome 15

teachers from across British Columbia who are participating in the Legislative

Assembly's inaugural B.C. Teachers' Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. The

teachers will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their

knowledge of both parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by five

of their peers who are acting as facilitators.

[1405]

I trust

many of you will have the opportunity to meet with the Teachers' Institute

participants this evening in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. They are seated in the east

gallery, and I would ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Hon. M.

Coell: Visiting us in the gallery today are prominent Victoria lawyer Gerry

Sauder and Victoria businessman Ed Kisling. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: Today we are delighted to have in the gallery with us a number of

eminent scientists. They are all here today as part of an interactive science

fair at the Royal British Columbia Museum, which is being hosted by Genome B.C.

and their research partners. Our guests today include Dr. Victor Ling from the

B.C. Cancer Agency; Dr. Ben Koop and Dr. Harold Coward from the University of

Victoria; Dr. Bob Sindelar; Dr. Jorge Bowen and Dr. Steven Lund from UBC; and

Tanya Bennett from Science World. I know the House will join me in making them

feel very welcome today.

J. Bray:

It's with great pleasure that I rise today to inform the House of the arrival of

a new constituent in my riding, as well as another addition to the Legislative

Assembly family here in Victoria. Wynne MacAlpine, who is a researcher at the

office of the Clerk of Committees, gave birth to a baby girl, Gabriella

Christine Campbell, on Wednesday, March 31. I would ask that we send

congratulations to Wynne and her husband, Steve, on this very happy occasion and

wish them the best of luck.

Krueger: Today in the members gallery I'd like to acknowledge 23 third- and

fourth-year students from Western Washington University in Bellingham,

Washington. A unique feature of the school is the Center for Canadian-American

Studies, one of the oldest and most established programs of its kind in the

United States and one of the few that offers a major and minor in Canadian

studies.

The

students are here with their professor, the director of the centre, Don Alper. I

am very pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with them this morning as

they further their study on British Columbia's political system. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to welcome the region 1 pastors conference of the

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. They're having a conference across the

street, and I had a chance to meet with many of them this morning. Several are

here today in the House. We have Rev. Sandra Kries from Washington, and we have

Rev. Carol Kyllingstad, Rev. Vicki Maly, Ethel May Nelson, Rev. John O'Neal and

Mrs. Debbie M. O'Neal. The association represents the states of Washington,

Idaho, Alaska, Montana and Oregon. Would the House please join me in welcoming

this conference to Victoria and these representatives to this assembly.

As well,

this morning I met a delegation of Rotarians from Mexico on a group study

exchange at the meeting of the Victoria-Harbourside Rotary Club. With us are

Octavio Hernandez, Jorge David Ibarria, Monica Tiznado, Luz Elena Perez Preciado

and Jacinto G. Olivera Orozco. Would the House please welcome them to our city

and our country.

Mayencourt: It's my pleasure to introduce a couple of young gentlemen who

are very much involved in provincial and federal politics. Sameer Ismail and

David Burnie from Vancouver are here. I hope the House will make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today in the gallery we have some visiting Rotarians from South

Africa who are here on an exchange program. Joining them from the host Rotary

Club in Aldergrove are Brian Thomison and Angie MacDougall. They are joined by

our friends from South Africa Rotary. Team leader is Brian "Bugs"

Wilmont. Brian is the director of the South African National Festival of

Science, Engineering and Technology. Brian is joined by Robert Dorrington, a

farmer and mineral water plant owner; Mauritz Bester, the police superintendent

in the South African police service; Anthony Mpisi, a deputy school principal

and Anglican church lay minister; and finally, Bettina Wyngaard. Bettina is a

lawyer and teacher at the local justice institute. I would ask the House to

please make them all welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we have two special guests from Reynolds Secondary

School in Victoria as well. This is the school that provides us with our

wonderful Pages for the chamber and the precincts. I'd like you to welcome

principal John Harrison and a teacher, Mr. Harry Lewis.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R.

Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

[ Page 10274 ]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I am pleased to introduce Bill 29, the Mineral Tenure Amendment

Act, 2004. The Mineral Tenure Act is a legislative authority for mineral title

acquisition and title maintenance. The amendments introduced in this bill

represent a significant change to the province's system for mineral subsurface

title acquisition and management since it was first established in the

mid-1800s.

The changes

I am announcing today will establish a new Internet-based map selection system

for claim acquisition in B.C. and will authorize an electronic mineral tenure

administration system called Mineral Titles Online . Implementation of the

new acquisition and tenure administration system is tentatively scheduled for

January 2005.

Establishing

a new Internet-based map selection system will increase efficiency and certainty

of mineral claim acquisition in this province. Map selection is currently used

in Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Alberta. The move to on-line title

acquisition and maintenance through mineral titles on line will help to increase

B.C.'s mineral exploration through convenient and up-to-date access to the land

resource data. It will use the government e-portal and e-payment process and is

fully compatible with the integrated land and resource registry being developed

by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. All clients will be able to

access the new system via personal computer and computer terminals in public

libraries and other public facilities at 58 government agent's offices located

throughout B.C. and at two provincial title offices.

These

legislative amendments will also streamline regulations while ensuring certainty

of mineral claims acquired in British Columbia. Amendments to the act also

eliminate 56 regulatory requirements, resulting in a more streamlined regulatory

environment to support the growing mining industry. A more efficient and

streamlined regulatory environment will support growth in the B.C. mining

industry. I look forward to passing this legislation and demonstrating our

government's firm commitment to continued regulatory streamlining and

deregulation and to building a strong and prosperous economy for all British

Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Bill 29

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) PREPARATION BY B.C. ATHLETES

FOR 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

McMahon: We're six years away from hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

Excitement for all British Columbians continues to grow as the time gets closer,

especially for our young athletes. Their dreams of standing on an Olympic podium

and hearing our national anthem playing in their honour became more vivid when,

last July, they realized it could happen in their home province.

Training

for the Olympics takes years and is filled with incredible wins and bittersweet

losses. It takes a toll on the body and the mind. Three young people from my

constituency are experiencing that now, setting their sights on the 2010

Olympics. One of our local Olympic hopefuls is 19-year-old Christina

Lustenberger. She is an accomplished alpine skier from Invermere and is one of

five Olympic-level athletes from across the province to take

part in a ceremony

in Vancouver to mark the six-year countdown to the 2010 Olympics.

Winning the

super G gold medal at the Canadian junior championships and two top ten finishes

at the 2003 Pontiac GMC Cup Canadian championships are among the honours that

Christina has received so far in her young career. She has faced the ups and

downs of her sport. As we speak, she's getting herself back in shape after an

injury that ended her season abruptly in December. But Christina certainly has

the ambition to succeed, and she's aiming to compete in the 2006 Winter Olympic

Games in Torino.

Brendan

Hopman and Aaron Christiansen from Kimberley are ranked first and second in

their sport — luge. Competing in the 16-and-under age group, these two are

among only 30 active athletes of their kind in Canada. In February they took

part in the Canadian national development team trip to Lake Placid for training.

The experience on this trip has encouraged Brendan and Aaron to pursue their

dream of becoming members of the Canadian junior national team next season.

There are

other stories of young athletes across the province. I have always said the 2010

story is theirs. Commitment, focus and determination will help them accomplish

their goals. Join me in wishing these three athletes and all young British

Columbians the best of luck as they move forward in achieving their dreams. I am

looking forward to celebrating with them.

VOLUNTEERISM IN BURNABY

R. Lee:

Yesterday my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds made an excellent introduction to

the House of the Burnaby Festival of Volunteers. Today I would like to provide

more information about the festival.

Over 40

non-profit organizations will participate in this festival, including Volunteer

Burnaby, Volunteer Grandparents, Race Event Volunteers of Vancouver, Burnaby

Meals on Wheels, Burnaby Information and Community Services Society, Burnaby

Family Life Institute, Adoptive Families Association of B.C., Big Brothers of

Greater Vancouver, Elizabeth Fry Society, Sunshine Dreams for Kids, Girl Guides

of Canada, Burnaby Hospital auxiliary, Burnaby Coalition to Prevent Falls,

Canadian Blood Services, Canadian Red Cross RespectED, Down Syndrome Research

Founda-

[ Page 10275 ]

tion, Neil Squire Foundation, Western Society for Children with Birth

Disorders, Seniors Well Aware Program, Airspace Action on Smoking and Health,

YouthCo AIDS Society, Burnaby Optimist Club, Burnaby North Lions Club, Royal Air

Cadets, Scouts Canada, SUCCESS, Chinese Culture Centre of greater Vancouver,

Burnaby Chinese Parents Association, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House,

Community of Artists Helping Artists Cooperative, Burnaby Mountain Mantas Swim

Club, Greater Vancouver Table Tennis Association, Vancouver Area Cycling

Coalition and the B.C. Special Olympic Society.

All these

organizations depend on the generosity of volunteers to continue their

extraordinary work in our community. The Light Up Your Life Burnaby festival

volunteers will give the public a firsthand look at the vast array of services

available close to home, and it will allow these organizations the opportunity

to attract and recruit new volunteers.

colleague in Burnaby and I are extremely delighted to be part of the organizing

committee to bring together the first Burnaby Festival of Volunteers. I must

also acknowledge the contribution of the member for New Westminster, whose

experience in starting a similar volunteer fair last year in her constituency is

invaluable to us.

I encourage

everyone to come to the Burnaby Brentwood Town Centre this Saturday. I encourage

everyone to enjoy the exciting and colourful entertainment, as well as to

promote volunteerism at the conclusion of the National Volunteer Week.

LILLOOET LAND AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Chutter: The Wilderness Committee is hosting an event tonight in Vancouver

to raise awareness about the South Chilcotin Mountains protected area, which is

in my riding of Yale-Lillooet.

[1420]

The

committee likes to claim this part of my riding is being threatened by the

mining industry, but that is not true. It is very important that the people of

British Columbia understand how this protected area came to be under the

previous government and also how my constituents have asked me to ensure there

is real consensus that balances environmental stewardship with opportunities for

working families.

After years

of negotiations, the LRMP table presented two land use management

recommendations to the previous government and asked them to choose one. The

Premier of the day ignored both options and arbitrarily created a protected area

— not a park, as the Wilderness Committee claims — just before calling an

election. There was no consensus. In fact, people in the region felt betrayed

that their input had not been considered. Even the MLA for Yale-Lillooet at the

time, a cabinet member in the previous government, condemned this decision,

admitting there was no consensus.

The current

Premier and I were asked right after the election to review the plan, and that

is exactly what we're doing now. We're taking the time to do it right,

consulting with all stakeholders, and I am hopeful we will see a decision on the

LRMP very soon.

The

challenge is to find a balance. It is extremely important that we protect

wildlife and our pristine wilderness. However, it is also important that we keep

options open for resource industries such as mining, forestry and tourism. The

people of the Lillooet region want opportunities, and they want jobs. Those

opportunities can only come from utilizing the land base and our natural

resources. Urban environmentalists often forget this.

Opposition

leader Carole James has falsely suggested that a consensus on the LRMP has been

reached and wants this House to endorse her plan. That is not what the people of

my region want, and in light of tonight's event, the rest of British Columbia

should know the full facts about the LRMP, where it stands and what the desired

outcome is for the people in my region.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

AND FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

J. Kwan:

On Monday of this week the Minister of Transportation told first nations that

there's absolutely no threat whatsoever to aboriginal rights and title as a

result of the sale of B.C. Rail to CN, but we now know from a leaked contract

that publicly owned land can be converted to private land owned for CN for only

$1. As we know, a first principle of land claims negotiations is that private

property is not on the table.

To the

Attorney General: how can first nations in this province have faith in treaty

negotiations when the B.C. Rail deal explicitly contemplates the conversion of

public land to private land?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I am very proud of the fact that in the referendum campaign two

years ago, the people of British Columbia said they wanted the province at the

table negotiating on a basis that private property would not be expropriated,

and we have kept to that principle. We will keep to that principle. We will have

treaty success in British Columbia consistent with that principle. We will build

certainty. We will create economic opportunities for British Columbians, because

we're doing what the people of British Columbia want us to achieve at the treaty

tables.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The Attorney General completely misses the point. That is exactly what this

government is doing — converting public land to private land through the B.C.

Rail deal by selling B.C. Rail for $1. The Attorney General said on the radio

this morning that there is no need for the government to consult with first na-

[ Page 10276 ]

tions about B.C. Rail and its deal because it is, according to the

government, a lease and not a sale. But according to a legal opinion provided to

the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the proposed transfers of land from the Crown

to a private company could cause serious problems for treaty negotiations.

Will the

Attorney General now admit that the government does have a legal responsibility

to conduct meaningful consultations with first nations prior to the conclusion

of the B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I always appreciate the contributions of the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs to the discussion about the treaty process — except they're not

part of the B.C. treaty process. If they would actually become part of the B.C.

treaty process, we could sit down and have the successes at the tables in those

parts of the province that we're having in other parts of the province.

[1425]

Let me be

clear. Let me be clear that B.C. Rail and the government will discharge the

obligations that arise, if such obligations exist, in respect of this

transaction. We know that we have the obligation to respect aboriginal rights

and title and not to infringe on them, and as we move forward with this

transaction, we will comply with those obligations.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan:

Court cases after court cases have established that the province has a legal

obligation to consult with the first nations community. Clearly, this government

has not done its homework on this deal. The Minister of Transportation is

running around…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

J. Kwan:

…telling people that he's got buy-in in the deal from first nations based on

their participation in the $15 million trust. We now know that that just isn't

true. Not only does participation in the trust not translate into endorsement

for the B.C. Rail deal, but the deal itself throws into doubt…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…basic questions of aboriginal title. Will the Minister of Transportation now

admit that the participation of first nations in the trust in no way indicates

their support for the sale of B.C. Rail to CN?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm happy again to…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation has the floor.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …provide some facts to the member opposite. Yes, I can confirm

that. That's never been the case. We've never asked for that. That's never been

part of the arrangement with the first nations. All we are doing is providing a

$15 million first nations benefits trust — a benefits trust that first nations

can use to create cultural awareness and educational opportunities, to create

economic opportunities. It's perfectly consistent with the tremendous track

record that the Attorney General has demonstrated with economic measure funds

that are creating opportunities for first nations right across the province of

British Columbia. This continues in that great tradition.

DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST

BOB VIRK AND DAVID BASI

MacPhail: When asked yesterday by a reporter to explain why Bob Virk

continues to be on the government payroll, this is what the Minister of

Transportation said: "He, Mr. Virk, is innocent of anything in the eyes of

everyone." The minister has correctly summed up the first principle of our

justice system. But if Mr. Virk is innocent, why is he still suspended — if he

is still suspended — while Dave Basi, who had the same presumption of

innocence — of innocence — has been fired?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I've said to this member before and I'll say to this member again:

I'm not discussing personnel issues in this House, and she knows that.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Transportation had to retract

a statement suggesting that the reason Bob Virk was suspended and Dave Basi

fired for his role in the police raids on the Legislature was because Martyn

Brown had evidence to suggest their behaviour was different. When asked about it

later, he insisted — like he's just doing now — that he won't discuss

personnel matters. That wasn't the case yesterday in the hallway. He declared

him innocent.

The

minister now says Mr. Virk is innocent. If that's the case, will the Premier put

Mr. Virk back to work…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Will the Premier, whose chief of staff is the employer — the

boss — of Mr. Virk, put Mr. Virk back to work so that taxpayers can get

something for the $63,000 a year they're spending to keep him on payroll? And

will he investigate the tens of thousands of dollars of severance pay paid to

Mr. Basi, now that we know that Mr. Basi doesn't have the same declaration of

innocence that Mr. Virk does?

[ Page 10277 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

AND FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

Nettleton: Further to my question from earlier this week regarding the

giveaway sale of B.C. Rail and the concerns raised by the CSTC chief, Harry

Pierre…. In his letter I quoted, he goes on to say: "You should be aware

that despite the recent amendments to the British Columbia Railway

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, or Bill 89, a change in control or a

transfer of rail tenures in the absence of the adequate consultation and

accommodation with CSTC members is not only vulnerable to a legal challenge but

will certainly pass a defective title which would become a liability to the

acquiring company."

My question

is: in this government's desperation to push this deal through, no matter what,

has the minister considered the consequences of defective title being passed to

CN Rail and the implications not only for CN but also for the provincial

government, and its cumulative effect on the people of B.C.? Let's face it: the

government's B.C. Rail deal stinks. From every angle it was a bad deal when the

Premier first suggested it, and it's an even worse deal now.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Nettleton: Will the minister now do the right thing and scrap the deal while

he has a chance?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm thinking about what he just said, but I will say this. This

member should understand that the benefits of this deal are particularly

enormous for northern British Columbia. You know, that member only needs to

think about the $135 million northern development initiative that will be

controlled by northerners and that will be invested in northerners' future. He

has only to think about the $17.2 million for the containerization of the port

of Prince Rupert and what enormous benefits that's going to bring. He has only

to think about the new Hythe-to-Peace River grain transfer that's going to make

enormous opportunities. He should be thinking about the regional head office in

Prince George, which is going to create enormous opportunities in Prince George.

It's time,

I think, that members like that start looking at the $5 billion being invested

over the next 90 years and think about where they would come up with the money

if they're not going to support the CN investment.

TUGBOAT AND BARGE OPERATORS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Hunter: The economic consequences of the current tugboat and barge

operators' strike are affecting British Columbia. They're getting worse by the

day. They're particularly acute on islands, including this one. I know that this

is a federal jurisdiction and that Ottawa has appointed a mediator, but my

question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell this House what the province is

doing to try and make sure this situation is resolved as quickly as possible?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The strike by 800 tug and barge operators, the Canadian Merchant

Service Guild, is already having a substantial impact on about 80 percent of the

tug and barge services along the B.C. coast. Certainly, it has an impact

immediately. People can see that in the cruise industry, in the tourism industry

and in our ports. It has been critical that we've had the Minister of

Transportation in touch with the federal minister. We have encouraged him to do

everything they can to bring the parties together to have this resolved.

Put in

context for you, Mr. Speaker, it is not just the literally tens of millions of

dollars a day that we lose economically. But in the coastal communities, the

forest community is finally up and running again. We finally have people back at

work again in the forest communities of British Columbia. In fact, there are

100,000 jobs that are at risk if we don't solve this problem right away — in

forestry, in mining, in cruises. We will continue to urge the federal government

to act on behalf of British Columbia and, indeed, on behalf of all Canadians.

INDEPENDENCE OF CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY

ON ELECTORAL REFORM

Brenzinger: On April 7, at a meeting of the Special Committee on Electoral

Reform, the government Whip, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and the

member for Vancouver-Kingsway both took very aggressive positions against the

work being conducted by the independent citizens' assembly. Can the Premier tell

us if the views of these two members are reflective of the government's position

on this issue? And, more importantly, will the Premier guarantee that the

citizens' assembly will be left to do its work in the independent fashion

promised by this Premier in the first place?

[1435]

Hon. G.

Campbell: This government and all the members of this Legislature should be

proud that we have appointed a citizens' assembly to determine how British

Columbians are going to elect their legislators.

I can tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that we remain committed to the principles of the citizens'

assembly. We remain committed to the leadership of Jack Blaney. We remain

committed to the hundreds of people that are, in fact, at work today, who are

spending hours and hours of their time to make sure that British Columbia is

leading the way in parliamentary and legislative reform.

[ Page 10278 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION SERVICES

FOR SEX TRADE WORKERS

P. Wong:

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Many prostitutes face tough

challenges when they decide to leave the streets and seek safe employment.

However, there are many issues involved — physical health, addictions,

security and training. All these make the transition from the sex trade to

employment very difficult.

Can the

minister tell the House what services are available to help this group of former

sex trade workers to reintegrate into society?

Hon. S.

Hagen: This government certainly does recognize that women who have suffered

abuse or have been involved in the sex trade may have a number of barriers to

employment and to retraining. That's precisely why this government has

created…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. S.

Hagen: …the bridging employment program. That program is delivered to

former workers from the sex trade by two groups called PEERS Victoria and PEERS

Vancouver. PEERS stands for Prostitutes Empowerment Education and Resource

Society, and they provide these specialized services.

The

bridging employment program is an important first step to assist these former

sex trade workers to develop the life skills that they will need to move forward

towards employment, self-reliance and a brighter future. The bridging employment

program is part of a $300 million investment that this government has made,

which provides a continuum….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition and

the Government House Leader please save their debate for later.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The bridging employment program is part of a $300 million investment

that this government has made to provide a continuum of employment training

programs throughout the province.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Bruce: I have the pleasure to table the annual report of the Labour

Relations Board for the year 2002.

Mr.

Speaker: Government House Leader.

Hon. G.

Collins: Thank you….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Government House Leader has the floor.

Hon. G.

Collins: You wouldn't know it, though, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of

Bill 17. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and

Economic Development.

Committee of the Whole House

LAND SURVEY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[1440]

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1

and 2 approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 3 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 3, by deleting the proposed

section 3 and

substituting the following:3

Section 73 of the Land Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 245

, is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the

following:

(1) The Corporation of Land Surveyors of the Province of British

Columbia may make rules under

section 75 of the Land Surveyors Act for surveys

under this Part. , and

(

b) in subsection (2) by striking out "Without limiting

subsection (1), the" and substituting "The".]

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Abbott: For the information of members, the original

section 3 of the bill

amended

section 73 of the Land Act to enable the Corporation of Land Surveyors

of the Province of British Columbia to make rules for surveys under the Land

Act. Currently, it is the surveyor general who is responsible for making

regulations for surveys under

part 7. The new

section 3 retains this transition

in subsection 73(1) and amends subsection 73(2) to clarify that the surveyor

general will continue to have the authority to make regulations for surveys

conducted for the purposes of the Nisga'a final agreement.

Amendment

approved.

[ Page 10279 ]

Section

3 as amended approved.

Sections

4 to 64 inclusive approved.

section 65.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 65 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 65, by deleting the proposed

section 65 and

substituting the following:65

Section 373.73 is amended

(

a) by adding "and" at the end of subsection (1)

(

a) and by repealing subsection (1) (b), and

(

b) in subsection (2) by striking out "and (b)".]

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Abbott:

Section 373.73 of the Land Title Act relates to applications for

first registration of Nisga'a lands. The original amendment deleted a

requirement for a plan accompanying an application for first registration to

comply with the general survey instruction regulation, which is being repealed,

and substituted a requirement that an application be accompanied by a plan that

complied with standards set by the surveyor general.

Subsequent

to discussions with representatives of the Nisga'a, we are altering the

amendment to remove this requirement. The effect of the change is to simplify

the requirements of that

section by requiring that a survey for first

registration of Nisga'a lands will have to be accompanied by a plan done by a

practising B.C. land surveyor and signed by the surveyor general.

The

requirement in subsection 1(

a) that the survey must be by a practising B.C. land

surveyor will mean that the survey must be done in accordance with the rules of

the Corporation of Land Surveyors. The surveyor general will continue to have

authority to make any necessary regulations respecting surveys done for the

purposes of the Nisga'a final agreement under the amendments to

section 73 of

the Land Act discussed earlier. The amendment to subsection (2) simply deletes

references to subsection 1(b), which is being repealed.

Amendment

approved.

Section 65

as amended approved.

Sections 66

to 76 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:44 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill

17, Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill

17, Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a third time and passed.

[1445]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call second reading of Bill Pr401.

Second Reading of Bills

B.J. FIELD SERVICE LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004

Suffredine: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This bill

is to restore the company B.J. Field Service Ltd., which was struck from the

registry November 10, 1989, and cannot carry on business unless restored to the

registry, where it's been struck for more than ten years.

Motion

approved.

Suffredine: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr401,

B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

B.J. FIELD SERVICE LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

[ Page 10280 ]

Suffredine: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:47 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Suffredine: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill

Pr401, B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call second reading of Bill 19.

Second Reading of Bills

EDUCATION SERVICES COLLECTIVE

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Bruce: The Education Flexibility and Choice Act put in place an arbitration

process to identify which provisions of the collective agreements were no longer

applicable. Eric Rice was appointed to lead that process and, if necessary, rule

on any outstanding items. Unfortunately, soon after Mr. Rice began the hearings,

the British Columbia Teachers Federation withdrew from the process and refused

to participate further. Because of that, the process went ahead without them.

At the end

of it all, the arbitrator developed a list of all the sentences and paragraphs

in those 60 collective bargaining agreements that were in conflict with the

amended School Act. The arbitration was challenged in court. However, the court

upheld the validity of the legislation that removed class size from collective

agreements, of course, which is now in the School Act, and the arbitrator's

authority to make changes to collective agreements. That was never in question.

The court

disagreed with the arbitrator, Mr. Rice, who is now a Supreme Court judge, over

his

interpretation of the legislation in amending the collective agreements. It

said the arbitrator should have worked with the parties to try to rewrite

sections that were only partly in conflict with the School Act. It was entirely

on this basis that the court ordered the arbitration set aside.

[1450]

The court

decision left the government with a limited number of options. Government could

appeal the decision, probably at significant time and cost to the taxpayers.

However, it is unlikely that an appeal would have been heard and decided before

2005. In the meantime, it would not be possible to negotiate renewals of

collective agreements set to expire June 30 of this year. Another option would

have been restarting the arbitration process, would require the appointment of a

new arbitrator and would also be unlikely to bear fruit before June 30.

As you'll

recall, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rice was the fourth arbitrator appointed to deal with

this process. Given that one party has simply refused to participate, it's

questionable how productive the exercise of going through another arbitrator to

deal with these issues would have been. In the meantime, teacher grievances

would continue to create uncertainty in the school system for parents,

administrators, teachers and students.

The

Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act represents the best

alternative available to government. It removes those contract provisions

identified by Eric Rice as being in conflict with the School Act. At the same

time, this bill finalizes contracts so that the parties can begin working on

negotiating new agreements in 2004, if they choose to do so.

In all

these discussions, it's easy enough to lose sight of the fact that what we are

here for is to ensure that we have a stable, responsive and, above all,

accountable public educational system. Finalizing terms of collective agreements

between teachers and public school employers is one step, but a very necessary

step, toward bringing the stability that our children very much need in order to

excel in our schools.

I would

move second reading.

MacPhail: Bill 19, Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act,

2004, will be voted against in strong opposition by my colleague the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me.

It was

interesting that in question period today, one of the members of the Liberal

government caucus stood up and asked a very soft question of the Premier:

"What are you going to do about…? Can you update us on the tugboat

operators dispute?" Of course, it was easy for the Premier to get up and

express hope for a settlement, because it's a federal matter and something he

himself hasn't the ability to have any influence over.

It's true

that it's very harmful to our economy, the tugboat operators strike, but isn't

it interesting how the Premier hopes that other jurisdictions will reach a

negotiated solution? Yet this government uses every opportunity to say to

working people, "Your rights are going to be overridden, trampled upon with

our massive legislative majority," and that's exactly what Bill 19, the

Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, does.

It is just

another in a continuing line of examples of the heavy hand of this Liberal

government coming down hard and furious on hard-working British Columbians

through their use — the inappropriate, heavy-handed, draconian use — of this

Legislature. This bill was introduced yesterday, barely 24 hours ago, and here

we are debating it at second reading. I

[ Page 10281 ]

expect they'll ram it through committee stage tomorrow. Not one single person

has had the opportunity to properly examine this legislation. Certainly,

educators didn't know this piece of legislation was coming. It is just shameful.

I expect

the Minister of Labour in his usual facile manner will stand up and say:

"Relax. It's only two pages. What's to absorb?" Yes, the bill is only

two pages. It's only a few sections in length, but the consequences of this

legislation are to delete, eradicate, wipe out over 400 articles and clauses in

collective agreements for teachers across this province, to eradicate with the

stroke of a pen over 400 negotiated clauses from a collective agreement.

Why are

this government and this minister in such a rush? I'm sure it's because they're

embarrassed, and so they should be. They don't want this piece of legislation to

sit out there too long. Bill 19 is just another example of this government's

conflict-and-confrontation style of dealing with B.C.'s teachers. It makes a

mockery out of the Premier's answer this afternoon in question period about the

tugboat operators' dispute. It makes a mockery out of it.

[1455]

You know,

Mr. Speaker, I thought to myself after the cabinet shuffle, well, maybe now with

a new Minister of Education, the government is going to get over its arrogant

approach to teachers. My thoughts were reflected in all sorts of letters to the

editor expressing relief that there was a new Minister of Education. People said

in their letters to the editor that maybe now real discussions and cooperation

could break out, could occur in the interests of students.

However, we

see with this piece of legislation, Bill 19, that the new Minister of Education

can't really do anything even if he wanted to. The arrogant approach wasn't

limited to the former Minister of Education, who is now the Minister of Children

and Family Development. This entire government, including the new Minister of

Education, shares that arrogant approach, and Bill 19 proves it.

In fact,

the new Minister of Education should be ashamed of the heavy-handedness of this

legislation. What does Bill 19 do? Well, it reaches a new high of arrogance by

this Liberal government. It erases a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. There's

a whole list of people who have had wrath brought down upon their heads by this

government through their legislative hammer because the government didn't like

the way things were going. But this is a new level of arrogance. They're wiping

out our judiciary system. They're saying: "Oh, gosh. We don't want to

bother with judicial procedures when we've got 74 people inside the Legislature

that can just raise their hands and do the government's bidding." That's

what we have — Bill 19, a new height of arrogance, giving the old heave-ho to

judicial process.

Bill 19

says the government doesn't agree with the B.C. Supreme Court, so we're going to

legislate the effect of that decision out of existence. Instead of doing what

every other group in society in this province has to do, who doesn't have 74

sheep to follow and raise their hands to support a draconian measure of

government, and instead of doing what every other group has to do and go to the

Court of Appeal when they disagree with a B.C. Supreme Court decision, the

Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and all this government caucus

decided they'd just legislate the B.C. Supreme Court ruling as irrelevant. How's

that for arrogance?

Bill 19

removes from teacher collective agreements critical negotiated protections for

students and teachers related to class size, services for special needs students

and specialty services of counsellors, librarians and ESL teachers. Those

deletions will be retroactive to January 2002. Thank God the retroactivity can't

take away the benefit that students have had from all of those educator services

of smaller class sizes, of services for special needs students. Thank God this

government doesn't have the ability to eradicate the success that our students

have benefited and achieved under those clauses in the collective agreement.

I just want

to look at a little bit of history here. This contract-stripping exercise began

when the government appointed arbitrator Eric Rice, and Mr. Rice made several

deletions from the collective agreement of teachers in August 2002. The B.C.

Teachers Federation then took the ruling for judicial review and asked the court

to rule on several points. The Minister of Labour in his opening remarks said

that one party refused to participate. The court took that into account when the

Supreme Court looked at Mr. Eric Rice's arbitration decision.

[1500]

The B.C.

Supreme Court did rule against the B.C. Teachers Federation on some points, but

the court ultimately quashed arbitrator Rice's decision. Justice Shaw ruled that

Mr. Rice should have used the principle of harmonization to try and reconcile

the differences between what the government wanted and what the collective

agreements said. Mr. Justice Shaw took into account the procedure that occurred

during Mr. Rice's arbitration hearings and still ruled on that very important

principle, the principle of harmonization.

Because of

that failed application of the principle of harmonization, Justice Shaw stated

that Mr. Rice's work was fundamentally flawed. He stated that there were

fundamental errors on "points of law that are of importance to the

education system of British Columbia, including the teachers, the school boards

and the students." However, fundamental errors in law don't seem to matter

to this government so long as they can get what they want — so long as they

can count on 74 votes from their government caucus Liberal MLAs, who just march

in lockstep to this draconian measure.

Bill 19

will implement in its entirety the arbitrator's fundamentally flawed work. It's

right there in

section 5 of this legislation: "

(1) Despite any decision of

a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this

section, (

a) the deletion under

section 1…is deemed to have taken effect on

July 1, 2002." Wow. How's that?

[ Page 10282 ]

You know,

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, the judicial system is a cornerstone. Now this

government, by fiat, is wiping out a cornerstone of democracy by saying not only

that the judiciary will be taken into account in previous decisions but that if

someone has the arrogance to take this government to court after this

legislation, that ruling won't apply either. So much for judicial review.

I wonder if

this government is willing to give British Columbians that right — to disallow

this government the opportunity for judicial review. I wonder what the families

of autistic children would say. Would they like the right to take away the

opportunity of judicial review from this government? Is this government going to

allow the families of autistic children that right so that the court decision

upholding their right to services and benefits stands? No. This government isn't

going to do that, because maybe that would take away their protection to ignore

the promises they made to the families of autistic children. Maybe then they'd

actually have to deliver the services that they promised to autistic children

during the last election, if this government's right to judicial review were

wiped out through legislation.

Oh no, I

don't expect this government's going to do that. I don't think they're going to

say: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." No, no.

They're going to use their heavy hand to take away rights from tens of thousands

of teachers so that they can get on with having their way in undermining the

education system.

Maybe the

Minister of Education can take this bill to all social studies 11 classes in the

province and explain to them how the executive, legislative and judicial

branches of government in Canada work. Maybe the Minister of Labour would like

to do that. Maybe the Premier would like to do that. I dare him to go to a

social studies 11 course and explain, with this legislation, how those three

branches of government now work under this B.C. Liberal regime.

[1505]

The

Minister of Education surely should do that, because with the help of the

Minister of Labour, he has just said that the B.C. Liberal government does not

care for or respect decisions of the court or the judicial process. It's very

interesting that on a day we have teachers here promoting parliamentary

democracy — the very day they are here — this government is undermining a

basic tenet of democracy like we've never seen before.

I know what

the Liberals will do. They'll just rewrite the social studies 11 curriculum,

bring it into legislation and pass it according to the Liberal view of the

tenets of democracy in this province. "Arrogance over good

governance." That's the motto of this B.C. Liberal government.

Bill 19

ensures that there can be no contractual guarantees of class size limits, no

contractual guarantees of services to students with special needs. There can be

no support from specialist teachers in B.C. schools. Isn't that a nice

contribution to education? They're legislating what can't happen to support our

children. Teachers will no longer have the right to bargain for such issues. The

government will merely dictate. How's that for a halcyon day in education in

this province?

These

contractual guarantees were put in place to protect learning conditions for

children. It's not just about class sizes. Here are some examples of contractual

provisions that will be stripped, made illegal, under Bill 19. From the

Kamloops-Thompson collective agreement: "Clear administrative procedures

shall be established for the carrying out of fire and earthquake drills that

expedite the evacuation and care of students with special needs." That's

gone. That's illegal now. I can hardly wait to have the government explain why

that's illegal. No provisions are now allowed for students with special needs

who may have to do a fire drill. Gee, I can hardly wait for the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson to stand up and explain why these provisions aren't

important.

Fire

drills. This from the member whose community was hit so hard by forest fires

last year, where I saw forest fire devastation come right up to the doors of

schools…. I was there. I saw it — right up to the doors of schools. Thank

God the schools weren't in session. Thank God. We don't have that guarantee this

year.

Here's one

from the Cariboo-Chilcotin collective agreement: "The placement of a

student with special needs shall be determined by the student's intellectual,

emotional and physical needs." That's gone. That's illegal now — illegal.

I can't wait for the member for Cariboo South to stand up and explain why

students with special needs should have special consideration for placement.

Here's a

good one from the Qualicum collective agreement. This is now illegal:

"Where safety is a factor, the number of students in a laboratory, shop or

other specialized class shall not exceed the number for which the facility is

designed." That's illegal now. I'm not even sure if the member for

Alberni-Qualicum could explain why that is not important, even if she tried.

Safety standards are now illegal.

I bet you

the Liberal caucus is just bursting with pride over this legislation, just

bursting with pride — not.

[1510]

Teachers

have worked hard at the bargaining table to ensure services for students are

available and adequate. However, this government is determined to make it

illegal for teachers to include provisions that protect the education and safety

of our students in the bargaining process.

It does not

make any sense for a government that claims students are their number one

priority. There is not one aspect of this legislation that makes sense or gives

any sustenance to that claim by this government. Not only is this government

increasing class sizes, but they are making it harder for teachers to offer an

adequate, let alone improved, learning environment in our schools.

Let's just

see what a few teachers have to say. Let's start with a teacher from Surrey.

This is directly from a teacher in Surrey:

"As

a resource teacher I had a caseload of ten learning-disabled students. Without

caseload limits that

[ Page 10283 ]

number ballooned to 60 students last year, without

recognition of differing learning styles and needs.

"Learning-disabled,

were 'lumped together' in groups for support instruction. The groups were so

big, instruction had little more individual focus than the classroom. The

variety of needs and learning styles in each group also impacted heavily on

the delivery of service to my students.

"Stripping

the contract really messed up instruction for the students I work with."

From a

teacher in Vancouver:

"Five

of my seven classes currently have over 30 students. I have severely

learning-disabled students mixed into these large classes with only one

special education assistant and a district resource teacher in a school of

over 2,000 students. That's one half-time teacher providing support to over 50

identified designated students.

"That

means each student can expect approximately 15 minutes a week of

individualized attention from a qualified special education teacher. I still

provide an adequate education to the students who are average students, but

any exceptional student is not getting the level of education they have a

right to as set out by the Charter of Rights."

Another one

from a teacher in Nanaimo. The teacher is addressing the issue of larger class

size. He says that he has 31 children in a room built for a maximum of 30.

Mr.

Speaker, I met with some teachers at a school in my riding last week, and the

grade 7 teacher said that his classroom is so full he gave up his desk. He had

to move his desk out. He wasn't complaining about that. There is no teacher desk

anymore because there was no room for it, but the space he had taken over to lay

out his materials on a ledge also now had to be taken over by a student, because

of his class size.

The next

quote comes from a teacher in Chilliwack: "Quality teaching has been

replaced with quantity teaching. There is less time to focus on the needs of

children."

Finally,

from a teacher on the Sunshine Coast: "There has been a decimation of

services to special education students. Our teacher assistance time has been

halved. More than half of the academic classes in my school are now over 31

students, with some as high as 35."

[1515]

Not only is

the government bypassing the judicial process and ignoring a decision of the

B.C. Supreme Court, but they are making it more difficult for teachers to

negotiate better and safer learning conditions in our schools. This government

does not respect the courts, and it does not respect what the teachers do in our

province. One can only come to the conclusion, then, that this government does

not respect or care for students.

Mr.

Speaker: On second reading of Bill 19, the minister closes debate.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Several things, as I listen to the Leader of the Opposition, in

respect to tugboat strike issues and labour relations in this province.

It really

shouldn't go unnoticed that during the past few years, we've actually had a fair

modicum of labour peace. In the year 2000 there were 88 strikes in British

Columbia. In 2002 there were 18, and in 2003 there were eight. You can go to the

other side of that, and you can take a look at what has been negotiated. There

have been 35 negotiated public sector collective agreements in this province.

Actually, when you go through the whole aspect of things, you find that

historically speaking, these past three years have probably been some of the

quietest, most peaceful in respect to labour relations.

However,

there are times when things occur that you have to deal with. This piece of

legislation deals with a situation where you had an appointment of an arbitrator

that stemmed from the initial piece of legislation in 2002 to take a look at

what was in the legislation that was passed, and then the 60 other collective

agreements through the province — I think it was 62, specifically — and to

make sure there was consistency in the language.

At any

rate, the first arbitrator I appointed was one who was actually on the list that

the parties in the past had agreed to. As they started, it became fairly obvious

that the British Columbia Teachers Federation was not going to accept the first

arbitrator. But they did accept his suggestion of the second arbitrator. So I

accepted the resignation of the first arbitrator and then appointed the second

individual, who both parties had agreed to.

Shortly

thereafter, the British Columbia Teachers Federation objected to that

individual. Being a man of patience, I said: "That's fine." I

appointed a third arbitrator. It was found that the third arbitrator

actually…. There was a concern expressed of conflict because his wife had been

a teacher. The British Columbia Teachers Federation objected to that individual

to be the arbitrator. So over time, I finally found a fourth individual who

would accept the job, and that was Mr. Rice. Now, Mr. Rice isn't just any

come-by gentleman along the street. He actually now is on the bench; he is a

B.C. Supreme Court justice.

In working

the process through, I thought that I'd demonstrated a fair amount of patience

in a process which really was, from the perspective of the B.C. Teachers

Federation, being quite obstructive. But at any rate, we then had a gentleman

that was there to hear the case, and the B.C. Teachers Federation refused to

take

part in the process. I think they attended the first meeting and then left.

The other

thing that I think is important to note at this time in the pieces of

legislation that were brought in 2002 is that this minister was given the

responsibility to try and work with the parties to develop a new structure for

negotiating in this province between teachers and the province. As the Leader of

the Opposition knows, even with her time in the House in government, they, too,

had difficulty reaching settlements with the teachers.

[1520]

It actually

crosses all governments — the difficulty of reaching negotiated settlements

with teachers. In fact, you can see it across Canada. You can see it as a

[ Page 10284 ]

worldwide trend. Regardless of political consideration of the government of

the day, there has been a challenge to find a way to reach negotiated

settlements.

I embarked

upon a course with the BCTF, the school trustees and the Principals and

Vice-Principals Association to see whether there was an appetite to develop a

new negotiating structure. The parties told me there was, so I embarked on

finding an individual who would best be able to bring the parties together and

try and develop a new process. He was a former Deputy Minister of Education the

parties agreed to, Mr. Don Wright, and he is doing his work.

At that

time and in subsequent meetings, the British Columbia Teachers Federation said

to me that they hoped my instituting this process of developing a new

negotiating structure wouldn't delay or restrict them from being able to move

ahead with negotiating for their new contract, which normally starts about this

period of time in the year, because their contract expires on June 30, 2004. The

Teachers Federation, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated and as I have

mentioned earlier on, took this particular

section — this legislation — to

court and challenged it.

What you

are actually talking about is the

interpretation between the justice of the day

that heard this case, Justice Shaw, and the arbitrator, Mr. Rice, who is now a

Supreme Court justice but wasn't then, in how one ought to go about hearings and

the harmonization process. It was Mr. Rice's

interpretation that he had to

delete everything that had anything to do with those issues that were in

contravention of or not consistent with the legislation. Justice Shaw said that

no, he should have spent more time and found ways to harmonize, because as the

Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there are certain words and things in

there that would be deleted and that didn't reflect on the actual legislation.

I would

point out, though, since the Leader of the Opposition said it was illegal to do

so in those situations, that it's not illegal to do so. The schools can still

conduct those types of exercises that are necessary for safety and protection.

It hardly needs to be construed or spun out or spelled out in a contract. At the

same time, it also can be renegotiated into a contract. It was the determination

of this government that class size, as important as it is, ought to be in the

School Act as opposed to being an item that was negotiated each and every time

at the negotiating table. When we brought in the legislation of Bills 27 and 28,

we put the class size in the School Act, so there is protection in that respect.

The options

that government and I as minister in charge had to deal with the situation as it

is today, I mentioned earlier on. I would just like to repeat. I could have gone

to appeal. I could have recommended to government that we go to an appeal of the

judge's decision. That would have been costly and timely. Fair enough. It would

then also have put us in a situation where, when I had the specific request by

the BCTF to be able to embark upon negotiations in this upcoming year, they

would not have been able to do that because the past contract was not in place.

So I took that….

MacPhail: Why didn't you tell them that?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I did. I took that into consideration. I even….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes. I even wrote the people at the bargaining table, all of them —

the British Columbia Teachers Federation, BCPC and the B.C. School Trustees

Association — to make them aware that they could go ahead and start

negotiations if they chose to. In respect to the upcoming end of the collective

agreement on June 30 of this year, I took that into consideration. The other

thing I could have done was appoint a fifth arbitrator. I don't….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: That's right.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, we do. In fact….

Interjection.

[1525]

Hon. G.

Bruce: You have to make choices. You have to make difficult choices. I think

this is an important point. The difference between the Leader of the

Opposition's time in government and our time in government is that you never

made any difficult choices. You actually just gave away the farm. You took this

province and actually drove it into the ground. In fact, what this government is

doing is making difficult choices. This is a difficult choice. I'm not….

MacPhail: You're not making a choice.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's absolutely making a choice. We could have done one, two or three

different things, and we chose, at the end of the day, because of the fact that

we would have then had to go through an appointment process of a fifth

arbitrator. I have no confidence that I would have had any greater success in

appointing the fifth arbitrator in respect to a relationship with the BCTF…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …than I did in getting to the fourth arbitrator. That would have

taken time to go through that whole process one more time — of working through

all 60 contracts when I know of the eagerness of the B.C. Teachers Federation to

get on with negotiating this next contract. Or I could have made the decision,

as I did, to bring in a piece of legislation, which is really past history, to

put into effect that which the

[ Page 10285 ]

arbitrator, through his deliberations, had come to undertake. He had gone

through the contracts and eliminated what he found to have been inconsistent

with the legislation and, by doing that, brought some resolution to this — not

allowing for extended grievances to take place on past legislation but being

able to now deal with the legislation that's in effect today.

That is all

this bill does. It's not an attack on democracy. It's not disrespectful to the

courts. It is, in effect, actually dealing with reality where you finally get to

a point when you have to look at a situation where there really hasn't been the

spirit to come through the processes that were made available through this

legislation — through an arbitrator, through Bill 28, through this arbitrator

— to be able to have the parties come together and deal with the issue in a

responsible manner.

I took a

look at what was done here and have accepted the arbitrator's rulings on these

things. In having read the decision by Justice Shaw, I understand very clearly

the effect and what, in respect, he was saying. With that, we brought in this

particular piece of legislation so that we can move ahead and get on with the

parties being able to negotiate a new contract.

With that,

I move second reading of Bill 19.

[1530-1535]

Second

reading of Bill 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Coell

Les

L. Reid

Brice

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

Bray

Wilson

Lee

Murray

Plant

Bond

de Jong

Harris

Neufeld

Cobb

Jarvis

Anderson

Hogg

Nuraney

Nebbeling

Hunter

Chutter

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

Krueger

McMahon

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Halsey-Brandt

Bloy

Suffredine

Sultan

Sahota

Kerr

NAYS — 4

MacPhail

Kwan

Brenzinger

Lekstrom

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 19,

Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call committee stage on Bill 25.

Committee of the Whole House

WILDFIRE ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:39 p.m.

Johnston: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Johnston: Joining us behind and just leaving now in the gallery are 75 grade

10 students from Killarney Secondary School in the riding of

Vancouver-Fraserview. I'm delighted to welcome them here today. They're being

accompanied by Ms. Janet Nichol, Mr. Glyn Howell, Mr. Cox and Mr. Truman. Would

the House please make them very welcome.

[1540]

Debate Continued

On

section

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me the opportunity on this

debate. We have actually examined the legislation, and as I said in my opening

remarks, we support it.

I have

operational questions resulting from budget that the minister and I are dealing

with in estimates, not the legislation stuff. The debate around the operational

requirements will take place in estimates, and therefore I support this

legislation.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there are questions from the member for Cariboo North that

might best be dealt with under

section 6, so I wonder if we might go there.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

On

section

Wilson: On

section 5, the non-industrial use of fires. I'm wondering if the

minister would maybe expound on this a little bit. The non-industrial use of

fire, I assume, would include campfires. In here it says that unless in

prescribed circumstances, you cannot have a fire within one kilometre of

combustible material. Could the minister enlighten me on that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member has seized on a pretty fundamentally important component

of this

[ Page 10286 ]

legislation.

Whereas under the previous statutory provisions governing fire

and fire-related matters under the Forest Practices Code…. Those provisions

essentially covered industrial forest activity, licensees. This act has a far

broader application to anyone in the forest.

The first

issue that arises from the member's question is the fact that it does relate to

campfires. It does relate to people involved in recreational use of our back

country, of our forest resource. That's a key distinction, and it's not just

forest companies that need to be aware of these provisions and whose behaviour

is governed by this act. It's all of us who are in the forest.

[1545]

Wilson: Okay, we have the definition sorted out. How will this affect people

who go out, say, to recreate for a weekend, and they go into a campsite and wish

to have a campfire in the evening? How will this legislation impact those

recreational users?

Hon. M.

de Jong: This is also an important point. At a practical operational level,

there should be no difference whatsoever. People will still go out into the

woods. They need to familiarize themselves with any burning restrictions that

are in place. They need to conduct themselves responsibly, not be stupid

about…. They need to be aware that if they are careless insofar as putting

their campfire out, there are rules that will be prescribed in the regulations.

There are potential liability issues.

All of

those are largely commonsense issues that exist now. What this act does is bring

them all together under one roof, as it were. The idea is still to provide

people with every opportunity to go out, sit around the campfire and have a cup

of cocoa, as I know the member does occasionally — and nothing stronger than

that. All of those enjoyable opportunities will remain.

Section 5

approved.

The

Chair: Member, do you have any further questions to any part of the bill?

What section, member?

Wilson:

Section 6.

On

section

Wilson: In

section 6 it says "except in prescribed circumstances"

and goes on to define where you can light a fire for industrial activity, which

includes slash burning, I believe, and agricultural burning. It says:

"…within 1 km of forest land or grass land." Now, in the Cariboo

it's very difficult to be in an area where you are more than one kilometre away

from forested land. Could the minister maybe enlighten me as to what is meant by

"prescribed circumstances"?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The first thing I will emphasize is that the capability to engage

in the activity contemplated by

section 6 still remains, so there's no

difference there. What it says, however, and confirms is that in order to engage

in that slash-burn type of activity, you'll have to abide by the regulations

that will be in place. They will, by and large, be similar to what they have

been, although in a couple of cases we have tried to simplify those regulations.

They will be available for review. You'll need to get a permit, similar to what

you must do today.

There will

be an ability to get an exemption in unique circumstances where there might be a

burning ban in effect. There are exceptional circumstances. You'll be able to

get an exemption. The

section creates the authority by which the regulations

associated with this activity will be created, but the regulations won't be

appreciably different, albeit marginally less complicated to read.

[1550]

Wilson: At another point in my life I spent the better part of a year

working with the agricultural industry, streamlining the burning process. We had

some measurable results there. We went from having to have an on-site inspection

to…. Actually, over the last four or five years, it has come down now to where

there is a set of regulations in place that describe what you need on hand and

how far away you should be from combustible material — this kind of thing. In

order to enact this, you simply pick up the phone and dial a number. Now, I am

wondering…. The minister has indicated that we maybe have simplified it a

little more.

In February

and the better part of March in my riding, there has been an ad on the radio

every day or two stating that anyone burning agricultural debris, wood material

or even slash must submit a burning plan for what they want to do, effective in

March. As well, when the burning is to take place, they must phone the number

they were required to before. These burning plans include all slash burning for

small business sales or the timber sale program, and I assume the majors do the

same thing. Anyone doing agricultural burning must also now submit a burning

plan to get it approved.

Is this

part of Bill 25? Is it part of the regulations that the bill has brought in, or

is it something different that is being brought into that forest district and

not other forest districts out there? Can the minister help me there?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I appreciate the member's question because it does suggest that

there is a changed procedure. What I took from the member's question is that

something is being required this spring, this year, that wasn't required in the

past. He is nodding to indicate that is so. That is of interest to me because it

is certainly not a result of this act or the regulation, neither of which has

actually been proclaimed into effect yet. So if that is taking place, it is

taking place pursuant to the existing legislative regime. It sounds to me as if

it is something unique to that district, and if that is the case, then I hope

the member will indulge me in trying to ascertain what the specific nature of

the change is, the rationale for it and the authority for it.

Sections

6 to 104 inclusive approved.

[ Page 10287 ]

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:55 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

25, Wildfire Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates for the Ministry of

Forests, in this House.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:56 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote

24: ministry operations $393,292,000 (continued) .

MacPhail: Why is the deputy minister paid as much as he or she is? Just

kidding.

I just want

to outline for the minister where I'm going to go in my estimates. We're talking

about the fires now. I'm next going to go to bark beetles and defoliators, then

sustainability, first nations, recreation, and then some letters from various

people around the province that are sort of like a bit of casework.

My question

was on fires. We'd had a good discussion about the money, the announcement that

the Premier made on the weekend. I'm wondering whether the minister is aware

whether any other level of government has made a commitment with regard to

funding for fire season preparation or combatting it.

Hon. M.

de Jong: This will be anecdotal. While I'm answering this, perhaps the

officials will investigate whether there has been anything more formal.

I know that

I have met with communities who have invested in planning around interface

preparation. An example I would use is Logan Lake, who have developed a plan.

They are in need of some funding assistance to help execute that plan. They have

indicated a willingness to invest themselves in the implementation of the plan.

They are modest dollars — modest dollars for the overall cost of the plan, but

also modest dollars that Logan Lake would invest, obviously, if there were some

assistance. They will now, pursuant to what has taken place in the last week,

interact with the UBCM to try to access some of the $3 million that has been

made available.

That's but

one example. I know other communities have done similar things. That's an

example of another level of government that has invested. I think perhaps, as I

begin to answer this question, the member might have also been referring to

federal involvement in this matter. If that's the case, I'll carry on and talk

about that.

[1600]

It's a

timely question, because there are a number of things taking place. In fact,

officials are meeting in Edmonton this day as part of the Council of Forest

Ministers and the national forest protection service administered out of the

federal Department of Natural Resources. NRCan is, I think, the abbreviation

they now use.

The

provinces have been working, or endeavouring to work, with the federal

government to look at a number of features related to our national preparedness,

and the proposals have taken various titles. Almost the most recent one was

something called the five-point plan. It is a plan designed to address

everything from air fleet renewal to meteorological services to information

exchanges, data exchanges and scientific exchanges. It is a whole package. It

has been the subject of discussion for the three years I have attended meetings

with the other provinces and the federal government at the ministerial level.

I'll say to the member that part of the frustration at this point is that it

hasn't amounted to much.

The sums of

money are pretty significant — in its original manifestation, beyond a billion

dollars over a ten-year period. The biggest component of that relates to air

fleet renewal, and that is admittedly a very costly project — I think upwards

of $800 million or $900 million.

We're

continuing to pursue it. There's a new federal minister. We met with him. I

believe it was February. There have been subsequent meetings. Officials within

the British Columbia Forest Service are chairing a committee aimed at trying to

coordinate our efforts with the other provinces. We're working particularly with

Alberta and Ontario and Saskatchewan, and we're having another go to try to get

the kind of support we need across the provinces and with the federal

government.

Anyway,

that's a start. We may want to probe further into the specifics of the proposal.

MacPhail: Could the minister direct me to whom I should be asking questions

about compensation for the victims of the fires of 2003?

Interjection.

MacPhail: From the federal government.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Through the magic of technology, rather than guess, I'll try and

ascertain who the correct

[ Page 10288 ]

official is coordinating from the federal side. Different components of it

are dealt with differently. For example, as it relates to military involvement,

there's the Canadian Forces. I think the member is talking about compensation to

property owners or compensation to business owners within…. There's a clear

line of authority provincially. While we're having this exchange, I'll endeavour

to find out who quarterbacks that — even which department quarterbacks that

— at the federal level.

MacPhail: The corollary to that question is: who does that federal person

liaise with on the provincial side?

[1605]

Now, a

brief discussion. We left off yesterday at the end of estimates talking about

the Convair air tankers. I just want to clarify this again. The minister has

acknowledged that it's your standard lease. We're not purchasing them. Actually,

I've always thought it was better to lease. We will lease two more Convair air

tankers. Could the minister explain to me and the public: how does the protocol

work? If we have air tankers that have been leased to British Columbia, and

forest fires break out in both British Columbia and areas where we have a

protocol arrangement of reciprocal rights to equipment, how does that then

unfold in terms of access to those air tankers?

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Let me start here. In the scenario the member has described, which

is a common scenario — that's precisely why the protocol exists — where we

are the leaseholder of the aircraft, we have the first option. It's not even an

option. They are our aircraft, and if we need them, we use them. If we find in

that scenario that we are still short of aircraft — and that was the case last

year — we make a request pursuant to the protocol to the Canadian interagency

forest protection service in Winnipeg, which essentially does a search for us

— what's available, what's out there and what we can draw on. The rates are

set. The cost is known.

The

opposite is also true. If we're sitting here and it's pouring rain for three

weeks, and all hell is breaking loose in Quebec, and we've got aircraft on the

ground doing nothing, Quebec officials would make a similar request and then

have the option of utilizing the aircraft that we don't require. If, however, we

get to a situation where the situation changes, we have the right to bring those

aircraft back for the use that we need to make of them.

MacPhail: Who makes that judgment? Who makes that call in the protocol about

recalling?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That call would be made by the senior fire officer within the

protection branch, and there is a 24-hour notification. In the scenario we've

described, the province of Quebec would get 24-hour notice from B.C. that we're

needing to recall our aircraft.

MacPhail: The Filmon report states: "The provincial government should

lead the development of a strategic plan in cooperation with local government to

improve fire prevention in the interface through fuel management." That's a

recommendation.

The

minister talked about the UBCM having received $3 million from the provincial

government for various activities. How does that money get used in a way that

the Filmon report recommendation is achieved — the one I've just read out?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think it's a combination of things. Part of it is the planning

exercise. That is not just a function of going out there and burning fuel. It is

a function of coming up with a long-term plan as it relates to the interface

area for a particular community. That is one mechanism available. I was going to

talk about another one, and it escapes my mind just now. Let me stop there.

What I very

clumsily tried to do was distinguish between the strategic planning element to

this…. I want to emphasize that that's something that the province is, by

necessity, going to have to have a continued role in, certainly through

involvement by officials, because that's where a lot of the expertise rests

right now. One of the challenges here is to try and spread that expertise around

or develop it elsewhere and at the local level.

[1610]

The other

component, broadly speaking, would be the fuel treatment pilot projects, and

some of those have been undertaken. We do tend — and I'm as guilty of this as

anyone — to focus on this issue around the question of burning. It's not the

only way you deal with the fuel issue. There are other mechanisms — thinning,

cleaning and brushing. There are all kinds of things that can be done, and it

doesn't all relate to prescribed burning. Sometimes, by virtue of how much

attention we give to that one facet of it, I and others create the impression

— incorrectly — that that is the be-all and end-all, and there are obviously

risks associated with it.

The last

thing I want to say to the member and members is that this problem doesn't go

away in a year, and it doesn't go away because of a $3 million allotment. There

is a big challenge out there. This has accumulated over the better part of four

or five decades. What we need to do is ensure that we're planning on that basis.

As I think this member said yesterday or the day before, the real test for

governments today and governments in the future is their willingness to remind

themselves of what took place in 2003 and, as that memory recedes, maintain the

commitment to dealing with these issues.

MacPhail: Another recommendation from the Filmon report that I wanted to

explore…. I'm not going to explore all 42. These are ones that I am

particularly

[ Page 10289 ]

interested in. It recommends that the office of the fire commissioner should

implement a searchable database to maintain a current and accurate provincewide

inventory of private and public sector equipment available for fire response.

That's the recommendation. What's the progress on that? How's the database being

set up, and what's the estimate of cost?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I can only help a little bit. That actually is a feature of the

report and the subsequent action that relates to the Solicitor General's

ministry. To give the member some notion of what I think it speaks to, when fire

on the scale we saw in 2003 occurs, there is a huge draw on resources. A lot of

people volunteer resources — everything from the D9 cat to a sprinkler system.

Odd as it might sound, one of the things we learned and the professionals within

the protection branch told me they learned was how effective, in that kind of a

firestorm, something as simple as a portable sprinkler system can be to increase

the moisture level and wet down a fire guard or a surrounding area.

Having some

sense as to where that equipment is, where the hoses are, where the

transportation gear is, where the heavy equipment is, and having done that work

in advance is, I think, what Mr. Filmon was referring to. There wasn't too much

of this, but occasionally I certainly heard expressions of frustration from

people in communities who would say: "I have equipment that is being

brought in from 200 kilometres away. They only had to ask, and I would have

gladly made it available." Some of them would have gladly made it available

voluntarily or gratuitously — and others, because they saw a business

opportunity there. There were different circumstances.

I think

part of the objective here is to ensure that that database, that inventory, is

created. My guess is that creating the inventory is probably the easy part.

Keeping it up to date is generally the more difficult challenge.

[1615]

MacPhail: I'll ask further questions on that of the Solicitor General. We

have finished his estimates, but I'll write questions to him, Mr. Chair.

This is one

for the Ministry of Forests. The Filmon report recommends that the Ministry of

Forests should "implement a modern records management system to maintain a

current and accurate provincewide inventory of certified forest fire

fighters" and "should consider some mechanism, other than retaking the

S100, that allows past experience in the forest industry or firefighting to be

recognized…." How does the minister plan on implementing these

recommendations, which I think lead to improved access at the local level to

quick and early firefighting expertise?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm actually glad this question was asked by the member, as well,

because amongst those issues that garnered public attention during and

immediately after 2003, this was one of them. The frustration that I heard

expressed tended to go something like this. People want to help, and they all

want to help in the best way they can.

The

anecdotal story I recall was from a number of IWA individuals who had received

training, both first-aid training and training as it related to wildfire in the

woods, which is obvious, given what their profession was — as harvesters —

and there were obstacles to drawing on those individuals as a resource. That

would have been frustrating for those individuals at the best of times, made

worse by the fact that at the time this was happening, they were out of work.

That compounded the issue.

The

recommendation recognized that, I think, and that's but one example. It also

recognized the fact that there is a training requirement. For the people on the

front line within the protection branch, it was difficult at times to say to

people: "Look, we're not just sending you out into the woods. It's too

dangerous." When the military came, they were great, but they went on a

specific training course for three days in Vernon — both units that came

through — so they were trained as well.

Now, at the

local fire centres that exist around the province, that training is taking

place. In the same way, we're trying to create an inventory of equipment and an

inventory of individuals who can be drawn upon in the event of a drastic

emergency. Again, my suspicion is that this year and next year, and probably the

year after, that will go very well. The challenge will be, beyond that, keeping

those individuals current in their training and keeping the list current as to

where those individuals are located.

MacPhail: How does it operate right now? Who is the keeper of the list? Who

has access to the database, and how does one register?

[1620]

Hon. M.

de Jong: The mechanism today would be to go into the base, the fire centre,

and register. Then there would be a collection of information — the level of

training, level of training required — and those lists presently are kept at

the local centre. One of the things that is now changing and taking place is the

collation of that list centrally. Ultimately, the objective would be to have

that list web-based in a way that those who are on it can access it and provide

change-of-address and contact information.

MacPhail: Does this involve any information exchange with other provinces?

Do we ever access crews from other provinces?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes, indeed we do. Last year we were very much the recipient.

That's less problematic, because the kind of exchange that takes place is at the

level of unit 1 crews that we have talked about formerly in these debates. In

B.C.'s case, last year we had people from Quebec, Ontario and, I think, the

Yukon.

Interjection.

[ Page 10290 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Every agency in Canada, I am advised. But that operates pursuant to

the cross-jurisdictional protocol. The request goes in, and the trained crew

would arrive. They are highly trained and can go to work immediately on the

front line.

MacPhail: The next recommendation from the Filmon report that I'm interested

in is the one that states that the provincial government, in partnership with

local governments, should examine watershed restoration as soon as possible. It

doesn't say whose responsibility that is. What has the government decided — in

the minister responsible for that task?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The issue here — and the member is right; it's identified by Mr.

Filmon in his report — relates to the threat around degradation to a watershed

that can occur when the timber surrounding a lake or reservoir has been burned

off. What has been taking place — and this actually started in the immediate

aftermath of the fire, so last fall — is between the Ministries of Forests;

Water, Land and Air Protection; Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; and Sustainable

Resource Management. Those are priority areas, or we have attempted to identify

them as priority areas so that officials can get in and do some aerial reseeding

of grasslands, some immediate replanting in the forests.

The other

part to this that I think the recommendation refers to is that a lot of fences

were burnt down. You'll get a lot of cattle when the cattle are out gaining

access that they didn't have and shouldn't have to watersheds — so the

restoration of that fencing also.

I used to

have a figure in my mind about the amount of money that's already been spent.

It's a sizeable amount. A lot of that work got done fairly immediately.

Fireguards were another feature to that. That's a rough inventory of the kind of

work that has been done and that I think Mr. Filmon was referring to in his

report.

MacPhail: Am I to assume that it is the Ministry of Forests that would take

the lead on this?

[1625]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Various parts of it — some of the aerial reseeding certainly, the

replanting. Some of the other work involves WLAP and Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries. The Ministry of Forests has a pretty significant role, certainly, in

a lot of the restoration work, reseeding work.

MacPhail: I want to spend a little bit of time now on the budget for forest

health. It is part of the forest protection budget.

First of

all, could the minister just explain…? I'll read into the record what the

government documents say about forest health. "Forest health provides for

forest health activities in parks and protected areas, some viewscapes, urban

areas and other special sites." I would imagine, just to take an example of

the Kelowna area fire…. The Okanagan park, which comes right up against the

urban areas, is an interface area, and there was a substantial loss — not

loss…. That's not true. A substantial burning took place inside the park.

Where does the money for controlled burns come from in the minister's budget?

Does it come out of forest health?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Within parks?

MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. Well, yes, controlled burns…. Where does the

money come from for controlled burns generally, and then particularly in parks

or areas that are interface areas?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Insofar as prescribed burning generally, leaving the park issue

aside, that would be funded from the protection branch budget — the

preparedness side of that budget. I think that's the word that appears somewhere

in the line. That would be the area of the budget that one draws on for that

work. Insofar as prescribed burning within a park is concerned, that would be

funded through the Water, Land and Air Protection budget as a result of their

responsibility for the management of the parks.

MacPhail: Okay, because here…. I mean, until this fire season… Let me

start again, Mr. Chair. I understand that controlled burns are taking place now.

Can the minister describe the increase in controlled burns or the restarting of

controlled burns? How much money was spent out of last year's budget on

controlled burns out of fire preparedness, and how much is anticipated to be

spent this year? I understand that while you can't predict a wildfire, you can

predict controlled burns.

[1630]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Recently there has been virtually no money spent on prescribed

burning. The one qualifier — and I say it because it was just brought to my

attention…. I assume that the member, in posing these questions, is talking

about prescribed burning relating to fuel management as opposed to harvesting

activity in an industrial forest sense.

I actually

have figures that show the reduction in that over the past ten or 12 years, but

for the period I think the member is referring to through last year, it was

virtually nil. We're looking to spend between $1 million and $2 million next

year. Given the challenge ahead, that is at best a modest sum, but it is a

start.

MacPhail: Yes, I recall from my days, I think, that the last great period of

controlled burning or prescribed burning was around '94-95. Yes, I well

acknowledge the huge decline and almost stop of that.

Well, how

does it work? The fire preparedness budget, then — the minister can explain

this to me — goes from $37 million, approximately, to $35 million. Fire

preparedness — I'm sure I'm right on that. Yeah, for

[ Page 10291 ]

this year. How does that work in terms of allocation of funds for fire

preparedness? You've got a new expenditure of up to $2 million, but an overall

reduction of about $2 million from the fire preparedness budget of last year.

[1635]

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is a valid question. The amount being spent is, at the end of

the day…. Let's just deal with the numbers as they appear in the budget book,

and then we'll come to the additional moneys that were the subject of the

announcement on the weekend. The moneys actually spent, I am told, are the same.

I'm not sure "revenue" is even the correct term, but there is a

recovery taking place from utilities and other agencies. That recovery flows

back into and is registered against the vote and is being estimated at $2

million. So it replicates the reduction. What it doesn't do, however…. At the

end of the day, there's not a spending reduction, but there is a recovery of

funds that wasn't there in the previous year's budget.

MacPhail: Well, I'll be curious to see how that works, looking at the

numbers, because the numbers actually for '03-04 have recoveries in them. The

total operating expenses were $37 million, and even with the recoveries added to

the budget for '04-05, the operating expenses declined to $35 million. The

minister is quite correct to say that there are external recoveries. There are

external recoveries in both years, and there is still a net decline of $2

million in the overall budget.

Mr. Chair,

I just want to make clear that we're actually talking about a $4 million

pressure — a $2 million decline in the real budget and then a new expending

pressure of up to $2 million for the prescribed burns. That's why I'm curious to

know how we're going to manage all of this under the fire preparedness budget.

The minister should probably get some assistance from staff on that, and I'm

going to move on to questions.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

I actually

do think it's a $4 million pressure now, and I'll be very interested to see….

It's a $4 million pressure that we can predict and that we can address. It's not

like it's the statutory requirement that we have under the direct firefighting.

Now, under

forest health, which is also part of forest protection. Forest protection

funding is divided into three parts: direct fire, and that's the statutory

expenditure that last year skyrocketed up to around $340 million or $375

million. Then we have fire preparedness, which we have just been discussing, and

now I want to talk about forest health.

[1640]

Perhaps the

minister could explain how forest health, which does deal with activities in

parks and protected areas, viewscapes, urban areas and other special sites….

The forest health budget went from $7.7 million last year to $995,000 this year.

That's a reduction of almost $7 million on the books. So what's up?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize for the delay. Let me begin by providing some

indication of what the funding relates to, and it is, as the member pointed out,

forest health. Treatments as they relate to beetle infestations, surveys, single

tree treatments, fall and burn operations, aerial surveys and the bark beetle

coordinator would be captured by that. All of those activities are still taking

place. The funding, which will flow through the licensees in many instances, now

derives from the forest investment account. That's the shift, and it is

reflected, as the member had pointed out, in the decrease that exists within the

Forests ministry budget which is set out in the blue book she just referred to.

[1645]

MacPhail: I've actually been trying to find the accounting of the forest

investment account. Can the minister point out to me where I find it in the

supplement to the estimates? I can't find it anywhere.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm in the Estimates proper at page 88, if that helps the

member.

MacPhail: What vote is it? Can the minister just tell me how it's entitled?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It appears in the Ministry of Forests

section under the separate

heading "Forest Investment."

MacPhail: I'm sure I'll get a look at that soon, if I could, or if they're

listening, my staff could send it in to me.

That's a

shift. The forest investment account was the Forest Renewal B.C. fund, the FRBC

fund, and they had very specific purposes. The government then took part of the

FRBC funding when it wound down and put it into the forest investment account.

Now we're using that fund to do what used to be done under direct public

services — forest health.

Let's see

what changes we're also making in terms of shifting to other responsibilities,

separate and apart from the government. As I understand it, last summer 8,300

hectares of forest that burned were classified as restocked. The area that had

been burned was classified as restocked. "Restocked" means that it's

been replanted, that the area of land has been logged and replanted. That's

what's called restocked. But I also understand that it's still the government's

responsibility to restock areas destroyed by fire.

Now, I'm

sure that the cost of planting restocked forests will be substantial. What is

the budget for that, which the minister has set aside?

Hon. M.

de Jong: While we get the specific numbers that the member is looking for, I

thought I would provide this information, which I think is relevant be-

[ Page 10292 ]

cause we are at a stage now — certainly over the last few months, starting

just before Christmas and through the spring — where we are issuing licences

for access to burnt timber. Once those licences and cutting permits are issued,

the licensee assumes a responsibility, as well, as it relates to replanting and

silviculture work. We could, by extension — and I'm sure in a moment we're

going to talk about the beetles….

[1650]

It is the

economics associated with the cost for replanting that accrues to the licensees

that can make those harvesting activities very, very complicated or challenging

in terms of the ability for the operators or the licensees to make a few

dollars. In the case, for example, of the North Thompson Valley where the

Shuswap first nation are a licensee now to the tune of a million cubic metres,

one of the things they have to factor in is stumpage associated with what they

harvest and also silviculture costs and obligations. That accrues to the

licensees at the salvage or harvesting stage. What I need to get for the member,

then, is the amount of money — I think this was her question — the Crown

will be spending ancillary to that.

MacPhail: Yes. While the minister's getting that information, let me ask

another question, then, about the issuing of licences to log burnt-out forest.

What procedure does the ministry go through to determine that logging should

occur, and are there any avenues of appeal to determine whether a forest licence

should be issued? For instance, where no licence had been granted before and now

a burnt-out area is becoming part of the cut, who determines whether the burn is

significant enough to demand logging?

I heard,

when I was up in the Barriere area on one of my visits up there, that over the

course of several years Ministry of Forests officials have actually more closely

examined the matter of whether a burnt area should be logged or not and, on

second thought, have come to the conclusion that, no, there is no need for

logging. What procedure does the minister go through in that, and is there a

stumpage differential for burnt-out areas versus non-burnt-out areas?

[1655]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the first part of the question was who…. That would begin

with the district manager who does a survey and does an assessment. Part of that

relates to the fact that there is generally salvageable timber, but in the

epicentre of some of these fires, there are such marginal stands left that there

may be no point or no ability to get in there, nothing recoverable to get in

there. They start with that, assess the degree of damage, ascertain whether or

not there is salvageable timber there and make that determination. There is

specific provision in the Interior Appraisal Manual that provides

guidance to the assignment of the stumpage rates. It's complicated because there

are varying qualities of timber — everything from junk to marginally affected

timber that's pretty valuable stuff.

The

complicating feature that I have discovered over the last year is that they have

to move quickly, because unlike the beetle timber — which tends to hold its

value for anywhere from ten to 15 years, I'm told — the timber in the burnt

forest, burnt wood, retains value for a year to two max. Then — the

terminology, as I recall — it "checks." Basically, what I take that

to mean is that it cracks, and it's almost impossible to run it through a

sawmill without it basically exploding, and it has no value. That is, roughly

speaking, the process that is followed for putting that timber on the market.

MacPhail: So is it the district manager that determines the level of

stumpage that gets applied to the various quality of timber?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is the district manager, and what he or she does is apply the

rules that are specified in the Interior Appraisal Manual . When those

rules are applied at the end of the exercise, that results in a rate being set.

MacPhail: Okay. I'm awaiting the answer of how much the ministry contributes

to replanting, separate and apart from the licences, but now I understand that

as the minister gives licences to log burnt timber, he also demands that they

replant as part of the licence. Is the province under an obligation to replant

any stands that may have no commercial value for logging?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The figure I have — and I'm going to cross-check it for the

member, relevant to her first question — is $1 million on the replanting side.

We're still doing the inventories around the non-commercial-value areas. But I

can say this with, probably, relative certainty. In the year ahead they won't be

a priority area, and that is largely driven by the lack of funding in that area.

The attention will focus elsewhere. When that inventory is complete, I don't

expect that I will be able to report to the member that there will be

significant sums of money spent in the non-commercial-value areas.

[1700]

MacPhail: So how many hectares does $1 million plant?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I was just trying to do the math around the average costs

associated with the silviculture work and replanting. The best math we can do is

that it works out to something in the neighbourhood of 1,500 to 2,000 hectares.

That places into perspective the magnitude of the challenge, when you consider

what did burn, and is a further incentive to us getting these licences out,

because part and parcel of the licence is the creation or transfer of the

obligation around replanting. It's going to be, and is, a priority to get quick

involvement and recoup the value we can of the timber

[ Page 10293 ]

that burned, to involve the licensees and therefore complete the circle by

garnering their involvement in the replanting work.

MacPhail: I want to explore two more areas about budget before we move on

to…. What did I say the next topic was — bark beetles?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Beetles, I think.

MacPhail: Beetles. Yeah, bark beetles and defoliators.

I just

wanted to explore two more areas. One was information provided by the Ministry

of Forests, which I very much appreciated, I must say, in response to questions

I had of the Minister of Finance around supplementary estimates for the '03-04

budget. I again will say that I understood the information. It was very clear,

and I very much appreciate that.

I note

there may be a possibility that a $25 million payment to the federal government,

which provided military personnel and equipment for firefighting, may not be

collected by the federal government. Do we have an update on that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't, and I'm not the point person, so I'm as interested as the

member. If those watching these proceedings in my office can send that

information in…. I'm not aware that there has been a final determination, and

I'm not sure if it's something we are pursuing or hoping — that inaction on

the part of the federal government signals that they have made a decision not to

pursue payment.

[1705]

MacPhail: The other area that I thought was helpful — to me, anyway,

looking at it from outside as a layperson — was table 5 that the Ministry of

Forests provided in my questions about how expenditures unfolded month by month.

I asked for it in as small periods of time as possible, and the ministry

provided it month by month. I found it very, very useful.

I'm looking

at the operating costs line from table 5. It says that expenditures under

operating costs skyrocketed in August, and of course that makes sense. What

lessons has the ministry learned in terms of how…?

Let me

start again. The announcement that the minister and the Premier made last

weekend in terms of expenditures — how far will that go to alleviating a huge

spike in costs at the height of the firestorm? In July the ministry spent $22

million on operating costs, and that skyrocketed to $201 million in August. Is

there any way to alleviate overtime costs, etc., which of course was a huge

part? A huge part of the expenditures was for professional services, which

includes the contracts for fire crews and fire camp operations.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The short answer is that I'm not sure you can make that guarantee,

or I'm certainly not going to make the guarantee that in an absolute worst-case

scenario, where all hell breaks loose in an interface area or two, we wouldn't

see something similar. I think the objective — by virtue of what took place

and the response to the Filmon report — is that in a scenario where things

start to turn ugly and we're not in a position to draw on resources from

elsewhere in the country the way we were last year, we will have the capacity.

One could make the argument that if even one fire…. Of course, the member, I

know, knows this. The vast majority of the thousands of fires that break out are

contained. If one of the few that fall into the category of non-containment is

actually contained, that has a huge saving. Ensuring that the resources are

there to assist in achieving that end would presumably alleviate some of those

costs.

[1710]

appreciate the spirit of the question. You take these actions. It's an ounce of

prevention worth a pound of cure, an ounce of protection worth a pound of cure.

I'm a little leery today in this chamber to suggest that in a worst-case

scenario, we might not see a rate of increase like that reflected between June,

July and August. One hopes, of course, that the magnitude of the numbers is far

less than what is reflected in the table the member is referring to.

MacPhail: Yes, and I take that as one very probable scenario. There is a

huge portion of equipment lease, I would assume. Operating of equipment and of

vehicles cost $205 million. I see that from table 4 in the Ministry of Forests

response to my supplementary estimates questions.

I'm just

curious, given the fact that we have two more planes now, whether there is any

ability to predict fewer costs there. Is there any look at whether fire

retardant was overused or improperly used or whether heavy equipment rental was

allocated properly, geographically?

Hon. M.

de Jong: With respect to the first part…. I have actually spent some time,

because it is fascinating to watch, on the aerial side. They are in a position,

given the very impressive software and tracking technique, to assess in a very

careful way the costs associated with the deployment of resources from the air.

That's something that has been tracked.

The people

that sit in the ready room have a tough job, because they actually have to make

the decision around the issue that the member just alluded to. Do we deploy the

aircraft? Do we deploy the initial attack or rapattack helicopter crew right

now? What is the cost effectiveness? Where is the fire located? They actually

assess that through the winter, fire by fire, to see whether that was done

properly. They have brought the cost way down from where it was in the 1970s and

1980s.

When I

think more about the question the member has posed, it goes back to other

questions she was posing about the collection of inventories. As I think about

this, there were cases where, because of the immediacy of the crisis and the

need to draw equipment in, you

[ Page 10294 ]

didn't have time in many instances to think about the price or talk about

what's being paid. In many instances there may have been equipment that people

would have volunteered. In some cases — and I'm now relying on memory from

things the Solicitor General has alluded to in the past — because of protocols

that were or weren't in place, people were paid who didn't even want to be paid.

They wanted to volunteer.

So if you

can do that planning work, if you know where your people are, if you've got that

inventory, if you know where your equipment is, and you've got that inventory

and you can draw on it in as organized a manner as you can in the eye of the

storm, as it were, then I think there probably are some potential cost savings.

I'm reluctant to overstate anything, given the dynamics of an emergency

situation, but to that extent I think a proper measure for what we are trying to

initiate now would be to see how some of those costs are managed better.

MacPhail: Is the minister aware of whether there is any work by Treasury

Board in this area?

[1715]

Hon.

M. de Jong: Insofar as there was Treasury Board involvement in the request

for additional funding for the aircraft, there would have been analysis. I don't

want to overstate that there was an intensive cover-to-cover review of the

entire proceedings, although that does take place on a yearly basis within the

protection branch.

There is,

as we speak, a different kind of analysis relating to the aerial component of

this. It comes back to the pursuit that we and other provinces are making of the

federal government for involvement around the renewal of the air fleet — that

$800 million or $900 million project. As the member can appreciate, everyone

wants to examine in detail the value for money that derives.

It's as

detailed as this. We, or at least I, historically think an air tanker is an air

tanker, whether it's a Tracker or a Convair or DC-6. The reason they upgrade

these aircraft is that it makes all the difference in the world from an

efficiency point of view how much retardant they're carrying, how many times

they have to go reload and what communications equipment they're carrying,

because if they have to get up high above a mountain to communicate, that costs

time and money. They actually measure all of that. With the computer equipment

they have, they actually review each pass that an aircraft makes over a fire.

That level of analysis is certainly taking place and will continue to take place

right across the country as it relates to this much larger project that we've

been talking about.

MacPhail: It's gratuitous advice, but I thought the analysis provided by the

Ministry of Forests was very interesting, very thorough in answer to my

questions on the supplementary estimates of '03-04. It is gratuitous advice, but

I think it would be very helpful for Treasury Board to examine those

expenditures to see whether, given a similar situation, there are any ways of

allocating resources that would lead to some reduced costs.

I want to

examine one last area in terms of the actual budget of the Ministry of Forests

before moving on to bark beetle and defoliators. It's the forest investment

account. What is the status of the account? The account had $110 million in it

in '03-04. Now there's $85 million in it. Where did that $25 million get spent?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I might as well cut to the chase. It didn't get spent; it got

reduced.

MacPhail: Thank you for the honesty. It's troubling; it means it went to the

Minister of Finance. I mean, this was the Forest Renewal B.C. money, Mr. Chair.

This was the money that this government, when in opposition, objected greatly

was being misspent, misused. Well, it's not even being misspent and misused.

It's being taken — absconded with — by the Minister of Forests and put into

general revenue.

Now, let's

just remember the history of this money. It was what people in the old days used

to call superstumpage. It was an extra stumpage put in place by agreement, at

the time, between the forest companies and the government of the day — my

government — where the stumpage would be put into a Crown corporation called

Forest Renewal B.C.

Then this

government wound down Forest Renewal B.C. — I guess it must have been two

years ago — and only put a portion of the money left in the Forest Renewal

B.C. account into the forest investment account. Now we see that the Minister of

Finance has taken 25 percent of that and put it into general revenue