2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 28)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 27)

Hon. J.

Les

Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007

(Bill M214)

C. James

Water Resource Protection Act,

2007 (Bill M215)

Austin

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Capital City Volunteers

C. James

Bowl for Kids Sake event in

Langley

M. Polak

Economic diversification in

Quesnel

Simpson

Bryce Schaufelberger

R. Hawes

Tangle/tooth nets and responsible

fishing practices

Austin

Agritourism and work of Bill and

Dagmar Norton

Rustad

Oral Questions

Government response to

allegations regarding former Finance Deputy Minister

H. Lali

Hon. C.

Taylor

C. James

Farnworth

Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion costs

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

H. Bains

Compliance of Ken Dobell with

Lobbyists Registration Act

J. Kwan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Karagianis

L. Krog

Tabling Documents

Response to a user information

request relating to allegations made in the chamber

L. Krog

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Fraser

Trevena

Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Simpson

Hon. S.

Bond

Ralston

J. Brar

Cubberley

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

[ Page 6835 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased today that I have some friends down from the Comox Valley. The village of Cumberland is one of the communities in the Comox Valley. It has an incredibly great future. I'm really pleased — and I will be meeting with them later today — to have Mayor Fred Bates, Councillor Leslie Baird and their CAO, Anja Nurvo. Would you please join me in making them welcome.

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Laurie Cottrell. He's a former teacher at Esquimalt High. He is a veteran of World War II. He served with the Royal Canadian Navy. He's here with his son, a colleague of mine from Golden Secondary School, who has come from Golden, bringing with him 11 grade 11 students. I'd like you to join me in making them all feel welcome.

R. Hawes: I have a few introductions today. In the gallery today is Mr. Ed Salle. He is the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. With him is Mr. Bob France, the general manager of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

With them is a man of few words, but generally speaking fairly loud or well-heard words. That would be a former colleague, former MLA, former caucus chair, Dr. John Wilson, and his wife Laura Wilson. Could the House please make them all welcome.

C. Trevena: This morning I had the pleasure of meeting 31 students from Port Hardy Secondary School, grades 10 to 12. It was a major trip for them, and they were fundraising for a year to come here. They spent the morning learning about what we do in the House as well as the history of this place. I hope the House will make them and their teachers very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery we have some visitors from the UBCM executive. They are Councillor Mary Sjostrom from Quesnel and her husband Butch Sjostrom.

We have Director Terry Raymond; he's a member from the Fraser Valley regional district. We have Councillor Janis Dahlen, UBCM executive member from Nakusp, and Director Rhona Martin, UBCM executive member for Columbia-Shuswap regional district.

I know they're here in the next number of days to meet with ministers as well as MLAs, and I believe they're hosting a breakfast for members to greet and meet the UBCM executive. For those who are here today, I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, he is an individual that we meet with once a year. We are happy to see him on that occasion. We hope we won't see him individually on other occasions, but we're always thrilled collectively when His Honour the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner joins us in this chamber. Please welcome Mr. H.A.D. Oliver, His Honour the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner.

J. Rustad: It's my pleasure today to introduce two people to the House, Craig Caruso and his sister Tamara Caruso. Craig is serving his second term as councillor in the district of Stewart as well as a director for the regional district of the Kitimat-Stikine area. Craig is also a trustee for school district 82. He spends most of his life in rural B.C. and is very concerned about rural economic development. Craig is also the current president of the North Central Municipal Association. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: Just looking up into the gallery, I see a familiar face. It's good to see him back up and around — the former executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Tony Toth.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, a former member of this chamber quietly rode into town. Mr. John Wilson represented the constituency of Cariboo North, and he has joined us in this chamber again. I hope all members will welcome him back.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 28 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the amendments to the Securities Act. This bill includes three types of amendments to the Securities Act. First, the bill makes targeted amendments to the Securities Act to continue British Columbia's commitment to harmonize and streamline securities legislation in Canada. Second, it strengthens compliance and enforcement powers to provide the British Columbia Securities Commission with powers already available in other Canadian jurisdictions. Third, it improves investor protection.

In particular, the bill establishes a new statutory civil liability framework that will hold a public company as well as those responsible for the company's disclosure accountable for making misleading statements, whether written or oral. The same liability

[ Page 6836 ]

framework is already in effect in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.

In 2004 the ministers for British Columbia and several other provinces and territories signed a memorandum of understanding regarding securities regulations. The memorandum of understanding commits the provinces and the territories to make their best efforts to implement a passport system for securities regulation and to develop and implement highly harmonized and streamlined securities laws. Bill 28 provides for amendments envisaged by the memorandum of understanding.

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

Bill 28, Securities Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

[1340]

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION (PAYDAY LOANS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to introduce amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act to regulate payday lenders and to limit fees that may be charged for cashing government cheques.

This bill follows over three years of research and analysis by the federal-provincial-territorial working group under the leadership of British Columbia to develop a framework to regulate this small short-term loan market. For the past several years British Columbia has chaired this federal-provincial-territorial working group.

Amendments to

section 347 of the federal Criminal Code, now before the Senate in Ottawa, will enable provinces and territories to establish effective protections for consumers using the services of payday lenders. As noted previously, provinces were not able to enact laws such as the one that we now propose until the federal government had made these amendments.

This bill will also enable British Columbia to set maximum fees for cashing government cheques. These cheques, obviously, pose little financial risk to the casher once the identification of the consumer and the authenticity of the cheque are established.

Prior to bringing these provisions on payday loans and cheque-cashing fees into force, the province will consult with consumer representatives and with businesses that provide these services to determine maximum charges that are reasonable for consumers but sufficient to cover administration costs.

I move that Bill 27 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT, 2007

C. James presented a bill intituled Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007.

C. James: I move introduction of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007.

Motion approved.

C. James: After a six-year freeze, it's time the government of British Columbia gave our province's lowest-paid workers a raise. The Minimum Wage Fairness Act will raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour, and it implements a system to index increases in future years so that B.C.'s lowest-paid workers never have to face a six-year freeze again.

By providing this lift and indexing future increases, B.C.'s lowest-paid workers get much-needed support and employees get the certainty they need to plan for the future. Workers have waited far too long for this lift. The cost-of-living increase in B.C. has skyrocketed in recent years, and too many British Columbians are struggling to make ends meet.

This act also reduces the small business tax rate by a full percentage point to reduce costs for the small business sector. This reduction would also be the first in six years and would benefit small businesses across this province, including more than 200,000 self-employed British Columbians.

[1345]

The Minimum Wage Fairness Act is a balanced approach to supporting our lowest-paid workers and promoting growth in B.C.'s small business sector.

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

Bill M214, Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007, 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.

[ Page 6837 ]

WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT, 2007

R. Austin presented a bill intituled Water Resource Protection Act, 2007.

R. Austin: I move introduction and first reading of the Water Resource Protection Act.

Motion approved.

R. Austin: We're blessed with a wealth of rivers and streams in this province. Past governments of varying political stripe have treated our waterways as a resource and have sought to get full value from them. Water, those governments realized, is a valuable resource that belongs to the people of this province. British Columbians should benefit from the use of that resource, and that's the spirit of this bill.

Under the Water Resource Protection Act, water use rental rates for independent power producers would be set by the B.C. Utilities Commission as fixed to a percentage of the average market price of power. It would give the commission the freedom to set different rates for commercial and general power use. In setting these rates, the commission would take into account the cost of production, infrastructure, the subsidization of existing infrastructure and the right of British Columbian taxpayers to a fair return on that investment.

This bill would allow power producers the ability to earn fair and reasonable profits while ensuring that British Columbians, as owners of the resource, benefit from the use of the water that they own. I urge all members of the House to support this bill and to show support for public resources.

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

Bill M215, Water Resource Protection Act, 2007, 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) CAPITAL CITY VOLUNTEERS

C. James: Mr. Speaker, as we continue to celebrate National Volunteer Week, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of British Columbia's many volunteers — the people who give so much of themselves to better our communities and the lives of others. The work, time, effort and dedication that these British Columbians contribute to our province must be celebrated and supported.

Here in Victoria there are many individuals, groups and organizations that work tirelessly in our community, and today I'd like to recognize one such group in my community of Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Capital City Volunteers is an organization dedicated to helping seniors and people with disabilities stay independent in their own homes. This organization began in the 1980s when Margaret Salmond, a North Park Manor Society board member, saw the need and opportunity to provide more services to the manor's residents.

Today Capital City Volunteers is a thriving and dynamic organization made up of hundreds of dedicated volunteers. They have consistently developed new programs and services, including an outreach program that's geared to finding youth volunteers.

This organization has built partnerships with many community service organizations and supported various work experience programs. The work that this valuable community group does helps many Victoria residents live better, happier and more independent lives. As one of the organization's founders, Luella Hillmer, once said: "It really is just about caring for your neighbour."

I'd like to thank the entire Capital City Volunteers organization and all of the volunteers for their amazing work.

BOWL FOR KIDS SAKE EVENT IN LANGLEY

M. Polak: On March 31 the Willowbrook Lanes in Langley were overrun by an unruly group dressed in poodle skirts, leather jackets, T-shirts and even a ducktail or two. But it wasn't a case of gang activity or teens up to no good. No, this was a group of people who, along with their 1950s-themed costumes, were wearing bowling shoes, and they were delivering pledges for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley. Teams from local business and community organizations were there to bowl for kids' sake. Our local constituency office even fielded a team that managed a respectable showing, in spite of my own participation.

Bowl for Kids Sake is part of a national initiative that has become Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley's largest and most important fundraising event. Those that come out to support Big Brothers Big Sisters know the positive impact that these programs have on our community.

[1350]

The impact of mentoring on children and youth is well known, but the impact on the mentor, the big brothers or big sisters themselves, is what keeps volunteers involved year after year. Those who volunteer as in-school mentors report all sorts of benefits to their own well-being. They have an improved attitude at work. They learn about themselves. They feel better about themselves. For those whose employers are active in the program, they feel proud to work for a company that cares.

The work of Big Brothers Big Sisters is a valuable investment in the well-being of children and youth and a huge contribution to the well-being of everyone in the community. The support of all those who bowl for kids' sake is an essential part of ensuring the ongoing success of mentoring programs throughout Langley, raising over $40,000 this year.

To Barbara Scott and the volunteers and participants who made this event possible, I want us all to say thank you for their hard work and dedication in support of the children and youth of Langley.

[ Page 6838 ]

ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

IN QUESNEL

B. Simpson: Quesnel is in the heart of the mountain pine beetle infestation. It is an understatement to say that the economic future of this community remains uncertain. One of the most forest-dependent communities in British Columbia, Quesnel has long prided itself on having the highest concentration of primary and secondary wood manufacturing and pulp manufacturing in North America, if not the world. However, questions now abound about how we will feed all these mills once the beetle-infested wood loses its value.

While some people in the community hope another big industry will come along and save the day, a growing number of people have come to realize that the future of Quesnel will be secured through a diverse array of small and medium-sized ventures by local entrepreneurs using our region's resources to grow a local economy. Groups like the North Cariboo Agricultural Association and our local farmers' market are fully engaged in maximizing every opportunity from our region's agricultural potential, including global sales of their products and the growing sector of agritourism.

The Quesnel 2020 project came up with a vision of Quesnel as an attractive, green and connected community. This project recognized that Quesnel must improve its infrastructure not only to secure investment but to help attract and retain more residents in the region. Today I'd like to recognize the contribution that Councillor Sjostrom has made to this with her heartfelt efforts in Communities in Bloom and making our city look beautiful every spring and summer.

The business, agriculture, tourism, and arts and culture sectors are also coming to the realization that they must take full advantage of the fact that the world is now coming to Quesnel three days a week, from May to September, when the Rocky Mountain Vacations train comes to town. In their inaugural year last year Rocky Mountain Vacations brought 4,500 guests to Quesnel, along with travel writers and international media. The guests' feedback was that Quesnel met or exceeded their expectations.

BRYCE SCHAUFELBERGER

R. Hawes: "Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." That's the oath of the Special Olympics, and it is one that epitomizes the life of Bryce Schaufelberger, who I'm proud to say is one of my constituents. More than a decade ago Bryce founded the Mission Self-Advocacy Group, whose members have an intellectual disability sometimes compounded by a physical disability.

Self-advocates speak up about their rights and the rights of their peers. Their goal is to educate the public about their right to be treated with respect and dignity and to be included in all facets of community. Under Bryce's leadership in Mission, they have succeeded.

Bryce has been honoured with a community service award from the district of Mission for his volunteer assistance to people with disabilities and has also been recognized for his service on the board of the interim authority for Community Living B.C.

This fall Bryce will be representing all of us as a member of Team Canada's soccer team at the Special Olympics World Summer Games in China. I know Bryce Schaufelberger, and I know that he lives up to the Special Olympics oath in every way. Win or lose, Bryce Schaufelberger will always be brave in everything he does. He's truly an Olympian in every sense of the word. Best of luck, Bryce, and bring back the gold.

[1355]

TANGLE/TOOTH NETS AND

RESPONSIBLE FISHING PRACTICES

R. Austin: I rise today to bring to members' attention the tangle/tooth net and the Skeena constituent, Fred Hawkshaw, who is putting this to good use. As we all recognize, gill-nets are a highly effective harvesting tool. Their efficiency brings some concerns because there is collateral damage, called bycatch, in the form of birds and fish that are not targeted.

In Skeena, people want to catch sockeye, but they can't help but catch steelhead, coho and other fish. After man-made spawning channels increased the sockeye runs, more boats brought more pressure on the fishery. This has led to harvesting pressure on the unenhanced stocks, leading to diminished biodiversity.

When DFO — due to pressure brought to bear by environmentalists, sportsmen and first nations — decreed that there must be a dramatic reduction in non-target species, Fred Hawkshaw realized this could never be achieved with the use of conventional gill-netting. He heard of an innovative net that had been developed by Mark Petrunia for the Fraser River dog salmon fishery, and after experimenting and modifying, he has come up with a net that catches salmon by the nose.

This tangle/tooth net is in-the-face technology that when fished correctly keeps netting out of the fish gills, thereby ensuring that it can be released alive if it's a non-target species. To further ensure the survival of the bycatch, Hawkshaw uses holding tanks that have water flowing through them. He calls this responsible fishing.

Because they are kept alive until he reaches the dock, Fred's fish are in premium condition. He has marketed his catch to restaurants that have paid a premium price for them. Consequently, Fred made $80,000 last season, when the average gill-netter made $12,000.

The industry and its managers are strongly resistant to change, and despite Fred's success financially and ecologically, he fears the collapse of the salmon stocks and the fleet. But surely responsible fishing is key to saving both.

The implementation of this technology is in the hands of DFO, and I hope that when the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands meet with their counterparts in DFO, they will encourage the use of the tangle/tooth net, as I am sure all members would agree that any fishery should be sustainable and create enhanced value for those who participate.

[ Page 6839 ]

AGRITOURISM AND WORK OF

BILL AND DAGMAR NORTON

J. Rustad: Agritourism is not a new concept. Many countries around the world offer agritourism opportunities, including Canada. Agritourism is a form of sustainable tourist development through which the visitor has an opportunity to get acquainted with the agricultural areas, agricultural occupations, local products and daily life on the farm. Agritourism has the potential to be an economic driver in the tourism industry as well as an effective tool in promoting the level of awareness of local agriculture industry and the importance of it in our society.

At a time when there seems to be a disconnect between the consumer and the grower of agricultural products, agritourism has the potential to help bridge the gap, along with things like fall fairs, farmers' markets, 4-H groups and others.

Now, you may be asking: why is this important? It's important because, as the member for Delta South says, we all need to eat to live. It's also important because connecting local products with consumers can help improve the quality of the food we eat, help reduce the pollution created from importing the food we consume and help improve the economies of the agricultural industry.

In my riding of Prince George–Omineca, Bill and Dagmar Norton have been working on developing an agritourism opportunity. They've successfully converted some of the farm buildings into top-quality lodgings. These fabulous facilities combined with the natural beauty of their farm setting make a very unique agritourism experience. Their warm and friendly personalities combined with their belief in the land, in people and in the future help to make this a fantastic experience.

I ask the House to join me in thanking Bill and Dagmar Norton for helping to promote the agricultural industry while providing a unique experience for all to enjoy. You can find out more about their four-and-a-half-star facilities by going to www.nortonranch.com.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING

FORMER FINANCE DEPUTY MINISTER

H. Lali: Last year I sent a letter to the Premier asking the following questions. I asked him: "Do you have any information regarding Mr. Paul Taylor, former Deputy Minister of Finance, having directed lobbying work to Mr. Brian Kieran?" I also asked: "Have you made any inquiries about Mr. Taylor directing business to Mr. Kieran?" The Premier answered no to both questions.

My question is to the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General consider the Premier's remarks to be appropriate and accurate?

[1400]

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, there has been some public information since the time of that particular letter. I think we're all aware of a memo that was in the newspapers, which did mention the particular individual that the member opposite has identified.

As a result of this and because there was some question about what in fact happened, although I hasten to say that this was just a memo between two lobbyists, and we have to be very careful to make any assumptions…. Nonetheless, because it was in the public domain, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, because she is in charge of the public service, has conducted and is conducting a review of the actions at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I do have a supplemental. That is obviously on my concerns regarding the conduct of the Premier's hand-picked deputy minister, a deputy minister who the Premier had personally lured away from the New Car Dealers Association.

I see that the Finance Minister has just got up and provided this information, after the story appeared in the Globe and Mail . Again, my question is to the Finance Minister: why did the Premier not provide the information when I asked him in my letter at least five or six months ago? Why did the Premier not answer the question then, and why is it that it takes this government to have itself exposed on the front pages of newspapers before they're forthcoming with information? Was the Premier in knowledge of this information at that time, and why did he not provide that information when I wrote that letter last year?

Hon. C. Taylor: As soon as the information was made available to the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier, she immediately conducted an initial review and decided to go to an outside firm who would help conduct an independent review, which is being done at this time.

C. James: Well, I hear the response from the Finance Minister, who says that an investigation has started, but I think it's important that information be clear and that we get responses back.

Brian Kieran told his colleagues at Pilothouse after a fishing trip he had with Paul Taylor: "Paul told Glen he needed government relations on the ground. He needed us." That's from an e-mail we obtained that outlines the deal. According to Brian Kieran, Paul Taylor was setting them up with a contract with the New Car Dealers of B.C., an organization that Mr. Taylor used to run.

The evidence is clear. This is a matter of public trust. My question is to the Attorney General. Apart from the investigation that's going on, are there other examples that need to be investigated of experiences where deputy ministers, senior officials are outside setting up business deals for lobbying firms?

Hon. C. Taylor: If ever information comes to government regarding the behaviour of anyone involved with government, then we do the proper review and analysis. In this particular instance, as soon as the

[ Page 6840 ]

e-mail — which I again will say was one lobbyist writing to another, and we have to be very careful what conclusions we jump to…. Whenever something like that happens, then the proper procedures are followed. In this instance the Deputy Minister to the Premier has engaged an outside firm to conduct the review.

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

C. James: My question then is: when was the information received? When we saw the letter that came to our member for Yale-Lillooet, where the Premier said nothing was going on…. My question is: when did the Finance Minister get this information, and when was the investigation started?

Hon. C. Taylor: In speaking on behalf of the Deputy Minister to the Premier and the Premier, I will simply say that as soon as the information was received by them, the review was started.

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

[1405]

C. James: Once again, what we see from this government is that we'll get no information until they figure out how they're going to spin it out there publicly. This letter was very clear. In the e-mail it says: "I could come up with this kind of great intelligence too, if I lived next door to a blabby deputy minister." Not a very flattering description of the former Deputy of Finance.

I understand that that former Deputy of Finance has now been appointed to the new convention centre board. My question to the Finance Minister: with an investigation going on, don't you think there'd be some concern with appointing this deputy minister to the convention board?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm surprised that I would have to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that she be very careful in making allegations about someone else's career and personal integrity. All we have here is a memo between lobbyists that has been unsubstantiated but raised concerns so that the Deputy Minister to the Premier immediately brought in a third party to review the situation.

I really think it is disgraceful to make the jump that all of a sudden an individual is not doing a proper job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Farnworth: If the questions were concerning a minister and there was an investigation taking place, that minister would be asked to step aside while the investigation took place. It does not cast an allegation on the individual but rather allows an investigation to take place.

Given that this memo deals with who was then a senior deputy minister in the government, the minister has recognized the seriousness and the importance of this particular issue by having it investigated. Does the minister responsible for the trade and convention centre project not consider it appropriate that Mr. Taylor step aside while this investigation is conducted?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a very serious situation when we stand in this House where we have protection with what we say, and yet individuals' careers can be affected and besmirched by the comments that are being made. If the opposition feels so strongly that they have the answers and they know what happened, I would suggest they say it outside in the hall.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: These allegations are not our allegations. They're Mr. Kieran's allegations, and they're serious enough that the Premier's deputy is investigating them. The government itself recognizes the seriousness, so the Premier's own deputy is investigating them.

So my question again is to the minister responsible, who is sitting there. Does he not believe it's appropriate that Mr. Taylor, former senior deputy minister, step aside while this investigation takes place?

Hon. C. Taylor: When this memo first hit the press and we saw the situation and the comments that were made, it was certainly taken very seriously by this side of the House. When the e-mail was first made known to the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier, action was immediately taken.

[1410]

A review is being conducted, and it is being conducted by a third party outside of government so that, in fact, we will know exactly what the situation is.

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

N. Macdonald: On Monday the Minister of Tourism told the people of B.C. that it was Ken Dobell's idea to merge the boards of the convention centre project and PavCo — not the minister's.

Given that Ken Dobell has shown himself incapable of running the convention centre project and given that B.C. taxpayers are going to be paying twice as much as they were originally promised, why is the minister still being told what to do by Mr. Ken Dobell when the only thing that the minister really needs from Ken Dobell is the final cost on the convention centre project?

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, you know, the pontificating that comes from that side of the House is absolutely phenomenal. I've got to tell you that this convention centre is a giant job-producing machine.

[ Page 6841 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: My question to them is: why are they against the 7,000 construction jobs that are working on that site? Why are they against the 6,000 new jobs that are going to be created to operate that site? Why are they against the $850 million that's going to be generated by the 50 new conventions coming to this province?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Today it's pontificating. Yesterday it was punctilious. Did you actually know what punctilious meant? I had to go and look it up. Do you know what it means? It means somebody very concerned about details. It seems to me that what this project needed from the beginning was some concern about details.

The minister has had two days to nail down the final cost overruns on the convention centre project. Surely the minister knows that "in the range of $800 million" is not going to be good enough for any British Columbian. You are spending their money. Their expectation is that they get a final cost estimate.

So my question to the minister is this. Does he honestly not know how much that project is going to cost, or is he not willing to tell the people who are paying for it what that cost is?

Hon. S. Hagen: This new trade and convention centre project is the single biggest economic driver I have ever seen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the members that it's running time.

Hon. S. Hagen: Those words are not my words. Those are the words of former NDP Premier Glen Clark back in November of 1997. He was in favour of it. As a matter of fact, he spent $73 million and didn't even get one pile in the ground.

But why are they against this project? I don't understand that. We'll have tens of thousands of tourists and conventioneers coming to Vancouver. They will be sitting out on the patio drinking good B.C. wine, and then they'll be looking out at the harbour. They'll be looking at Vancouver harbour, and what will they see? They will see three shrink-wrapped ferries parked over on the other side.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: All week we've been trying to get answers from this minister about the convention centre. All week this minister has been ducking. I will ask the minister one more time. You have responsibility to the taxpayers. You have been on the job for eight months now. You've got to know the numbers. Tell us: what is the current number on the convention centre?

Hon. S. Hagen: If I was that member, here's what I would have wanted to talk about. I would have wanted to talk about the green benefits of this building. Let's talk about that.

The living roof — 2.5 hectares. That's six acres, the size of 15 hockey rinks. More than 700,000 B.C. plants and grasses. This project is being built to the gold LEED green global certification system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just sit down.

Members.

Continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm excited about this project. Not only is the grass on the roof going to be green, but the habitat restoration that's taking place underneath this building…. The Vancouver Aquarium is so excited that they're already conducting tours underneath the building to see the habitat restoration that is taking place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: What we are talking about is a world-class cost overrun, and this minister doesn't care. Taxpayers who are watching right now deserve to know how much money they will be forced to fork out for the mismanagement of this Premier's friends.

After eight months on this job, the minister doesn't know or wouldn't say. So let me use the Premier's words: what are the Premier's final kaputski numbers for this boondoggle?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have said time and time again that I am not happy with the increased costs of the Trade and Convention Centre, but let me bring some reality into this discussion, because it's not coming from that side of the House.

We have seen since '03 a 25-percent increase in steel, a 54-percent increase in rebar and a 39-percent increase in concrete. That's what is in the ground there right now. So there have been incredible cost increases that have happened through every building project in B.C. because of — why? — our hot economy. Why do we have a hot economy? Because of the economic policies that we brought in place.

I was in government in 1991. In 1991 this province had the strongest economy in Canada. Five years later, under the NDP government, we were number 10 in

[ Page 6842 ]

this country. We had the worst economy in this country, and two years after that, under the lack of leadership over there, we were declared a have-not province.

I want to ask the question: is there anybody in this House who thinks that we are a have-not province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

COMPLIANCE OF KEN DOBELL WITH

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT

J. Kwan: Mr. Dobell is a friend and special adviser to the Premier. He is the chair of the finance committee of VANOC. He's a director of Legacies Now and a board member of the Law Society. He enjoys two untendered contracts with the city of Vancouver, and he's a registered lobbyist.

Information obtained from the lobbyists registry indicates that Mr. Dobell registered for the first time as a lobbyist for the development of the cultural precinct project for the city of Vancouver on October 28, 2006, but backdated his activities to April 5.

The Lobbyists Registration Act stipulates very clearly that a consulting lobbyist like Mr. Dobell must file with the registrar within ten days of starting to lobby for a client, and any person that contravenes this

section of the act commits an offence and is subject to a fine of up to $25,000.

My question is to the Attorney General. Is he aware of this fact, and if so, what actions have been undertaken to pursue Mr. Dobell's violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's important to note that the Lobbyists Registration Act was brought into effect here in 2002. Prior to that, there was no act. The legislation as it stands now was passed without any opposition.

If the member opposite has specific complaints regarding the conduct of a lobbyist or a would-be lobbyist, then it's incumbent upon that member to register a complaint with the commissioner. The commissioner is there to listen to complaints for any person who is in alleged violation of the lobbyist act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General should know that the act gives the Information Commissioner no legislative power to investigate or to enforce violations. It is the Attorney General who is responsible for administering the Lobbyists Registration Act. It's the Attorney General who has the legislative authority.

Why has the government not undertaken any steps to investigate Mr. Dobell? In the minimum, will the Attorney General commit today to launch an investigation into this violation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, I reiterate that if there are complaints with respect to the conduct of any person who is alleged to be a lobbyist or is engaging in lobbying activities, then that matter ought to be brought to the attention of the commissioner or other authorities.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Member for Victoria-Hillside, will you get up and apologize for what you just said. Just retract it.

R. Fleming: I apologize to the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: It does little good to make the allegations in this House. Make the allegations outside the House. Make the allegations to the commissioner, where it will do some good. You know what? I've heard from time to time, during the last six months to a year, concerns about the Lobbyists Registration Act, but the complaints are always made in this House. They're never made outside the House. We're quite prepared to listen to the workings of the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Attorney.

M. Karagianis: Well, the Attorney General…. You are the other authority.

The Attorney General is the other authority, the highest authority here in this province. There is no place else to go, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Dobell has failed in his self-professed accountability on the convention project. The solution to that was to do a structural restructuring of the board in order to cover his trail. Now we hear that Mr. Dobell has backdated lobby registry information by six months, and the government refuses to take any action on this.

I'd like to ask the Attorney General: are there two sets of laws here in British Columbia — one for Liberal friends and insiders, and another one for the rest of us?

[1425]

Hon. W. Oppal: We operate under the rules of fairness, under the rules of transparency. As I said a moment ago, it does no good to make wild allegations within this chamber. If there are allegations with respect to the conduct of any person, then those allegations ought to be made to the appropriate source.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, there's nothing wild about these allegations in any way. It's on the record. The information is right here, and it is official, open and public information.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has a very unique position in government. The independence of his office and his role is really crucial to the very integrity of government.

[ Page 6843 ]

I would like to ask the Attorney General again if he will make the commitment to fully investigate Mr. Dobell's violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the duties of the Attorney General's office. I thank the member for apprising me of them. If the member opposite has allegations with respect to the conduct of any person, I'm quite prepared to listen to them, but I only hear them within the confines of this House. If there are allegations, I'm quite prepared to hear them. The commissioner is quite prepared to hear them as well.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, the only thing weaker than the Attorney General's response is the complete lack of enforceability of the Lobbyists Registration Act. The act is clear. A lobbyist must register…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: …within ten days of undertaking to lobby on behalf of a client. If a person contravenes this

section of the act, he or she commits an offence under the act and is liable to a fine of up to $25,000. Mr. Dobell backdated his lobbyist activities by more than six months. There is no provision for enforcement in the statute. The Attorney General knows that. He has listened to the questions today.

Will he commit today to launch a full investigation? The public record is clear. The documents are out there. Will the Attorney General commit to launch that investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm well aware of the provisions of the act. All I ask is that the allegations be registered with the commissioner, who is quite prepared to hear them, and the process will take its course.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I have a document in front of me that is very clear. It confirms exactly what has been alleged in this House. I will table that document, and if I table that document, will the Attorney General then commit to finally do his job in this matter and launch an investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, I'm quite prepared to do all those matters that are incumbent upon me to do under the act.

[End of question period.]

S. Hawkins: I seek leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a very special guest, a friend of mine I've known for over 20 years, visiting from Alberta. Mr. Doug Rae is a lawyer there. We worked on many, many elections in Calgary. I think he's working here in Victoria, but he's also here to see how the Legislature runs.

[1430]

He's also a new resident of the Kootenays. He has a vacation place there. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Doug Rae.

L. Krog: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

L. Krog: I seek leave to table a document, which is a response to a user information request relating to the allegations I've just made in this chamber.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in this chamber. We will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range and, in Committee A, the estimates, firstly, of the Ministry of Education, to be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $489,876,000 (continued).

Hon. R. Coleman: Before we begin today, I want to clarify a few items from yesterday's debates.

First, the member for Cariboo North asked whether the lumber export taxes received by the province were reflected in the revenue calculations for the Ministry of Forests and Range. The answer is yes. The blue book estimates for 2007-2008 forest revenue is $1.395 billion. That item includes the softwood lumber export tax. Details of the forest revenue components can be found on page 156, table A10, "Material assumptions," in the 2007-2008 Budget and Fiscal Plan .

[1435]

Second, the member asked where the $450 million U.S. for meritorious initiatives was directed after the softwood lumber agreement was implemented. The federal government advises us that the money is being provided to three organizations in the United States: (1) $200 million U.S. to the United States Endowment for Forestry and Communities, (2) $150 million U.S. to the

[ Page 6844 ]

American Forest Foundation and (3) $100 million U.S. to Habitat for Humanity International.

Third, the member asked a series of questions about the terms of Ken Dobell's existing and future contract. My information was incorrect. We are not in the process of negotiating a contract with Mr. Dobell. His contract with the Premier's office extends to May 31, 2007, and includes any work he does on behalf of the ministry for the coastal forest industry or anything to do with softwood.

If the member has any further questions about the terms of that contract, which is the one I believe the member got through FOI, I would refer him to those appropriate estimates debates with regards to that particular contract.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the clarifications.

Just on the Dobell clarification — Mr. Dobell. I find there was quite a bit of confusion, then, yesterday, because we had quite a substantive debate about negotiations that I guess must not have been going on. Will the minister, then, engage in those negotiations — what will it be? — post-June 1? Will the minister be retaining Mr. Dobell from then on under a separate contract?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually not clear at this stage that we're even going to require his services after the end of May, so we would engage with the source of the contract, which I assume would still be the Premier's office, if we thought we had a requirement for some of this time under the contract.

B. Simpson: Anyway, I'll move on.

Yesterday in estimates we were canvassing whether or not the forest revitalization plan had achieved its intended objectives. We discovered that it has cost over half a billion dollars for the plan. We discovered that…. While I argue it was an attempt to prevent a softwood lumber agreement and British Columbia's exclusion from a future softwood lumber agreement, the minister at least admitted it was an attempt to mitigate that. I think we showed that mitigation didn't occur. B.C. never got any other special treatment than the rest of Canada did.

We also started to canvass the coastal situation, and that's how we got to Mr. Dobell. On the coastal situation, which the forestry revitalization strategy explicitly states would strengthen the coast, now we're going into iteration 2.

The minister suggested that I was looking for a magic pill. That's simply not the case. I know the industry too well. I know its complexities too well to be looking for a magic pill. What I'm trying to understand is how one failed strategy, with all the players that were engaged in that failed strategy, leads to another strategy with all the players that are involved yet again.

At the end of that discussion the minister indicated that he's been talking to a lot of people, yet at the same time indicated he wasn't at the table in the discussions with the steering group and whatever Mr. Dobell was apparently facilitating. That's raised a number of questions for me. With respect to the minister's activities, how many sawmills in British Columbia has the minister toured over the last year?

Hon. R. Coleman: I couldn't possibly, off the top of my head, give that number to the member. I've been in a lot of sawmills in the last couple of years all over the province of British Columbia, and I would have to go back and look at my

schedule to actually give you a definitive number.

I have been in sawmills in the Kootenays, the interior, the coast and the north. Actually, anytime I've basically gone through a community, if there's been a mill or something, I've tried to tie that into my other duties at the same time to have an opportunity to see how other mills operate and that sort of thing.

[1440]

B. Simpson: We've tried to get the minister's calendar, and we'd like to see that. We tried to get it under FOI, and hence I have to ask the questions.

The minister was invited to sit down with the people at the New West mill in Queensborough during that closure process. Did the minister meet with the workers group at Queensborough mill as they requested of him?

Hon. R. Coleman: I met with the head of the local union in my constituency office. I believe it was in early February that I actually met with him, when I returned from holidays. It was either that or before holidays, but I did meet with the leader of the union with regard to that mill at that time.

B. Simpson: Did the minister deliberately choose not to meet with the group? They asked the minister to meet with the employees at one point. What was the reason behind not meeting with the employees as a whole?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it wasn't anything to do with that. I was out of the country for a big chunk of January, when some of this was going on. I know some of my staff met with different groups with regards to the New Westminster closing. That would be the only reason — and then scheduling, of course, to try and do things. That was the only reason and none other.

B. Simpson: Has the minister done any tours of mountain-pine-beetle-impacted areas? Have you looked at it either flying over or on the ground?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that I have, and so the answer is yes.

B. Simpson: What about the fires up in our area, for example? Did the minister go and look at that, most recently with respect to the fire in the Nazko area, and the combination of fire and dead plantations in that area? Has the minister actually gone and seen those locations?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not specifically, no. I can't get to every fire location in the province. That's why I have

[ Page 6845 ]

staff in every region with regards to fire information officers and with regards to everything else that goes on, on the land base. I have flown over the area of the pine beetle probably more than a dozen times since I was elected in 1996, starting in about 2001 or 2002.

B. Simpson: Has the minister visited any of the dead plantations or juvenile stands and seen for himself how deep the mountain pine beetle is impacting the age class?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I've had that pointed out to me on a couple of tours that I have done, so I am aware of that nuance.

B. Simpson: In how many forest-dependent communities has the minister sat with the local councils, in the communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I would say 30 to 40 over the last two years. At UBCM I do about 60 meetings where I meet with local government. Probably 80 to 90 percent of those meetings are with forest communities with regards to issues including pine beetle, community forests and that sort of thing within their communities.

In addition to that, I've been in most of my Forest Service offices throughout the area, sat down with my staff in round-table conversations whenever the opportunity has arisen, attended meetings with my senior staff and had discussions with them on a regular basis. So I meet with local government a fair amount, actually.

B. Simpson: I wasn't actually referring to UBCM. What I was asking about was actually getting out and meeting with local governments in their communities so that the whole council has the opportunity and the minister has an opportunity to see what's happening in the communities. Has the minister had an opportunity to do much of that?

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I have done that in a number of communities that way. But just for clarification for the member, when they come to UBCM, it's not a member of council. I get entire councils that come to see me at UBCM. It's a very convenient forum for them, and it's a convenient forum for us to be able to go through. We go through their issues. We make notes of what their issues and concerns are. We respond back to them in a very timely manner. When you spend, I think it was, four days in meetings back to back to back, you meet a lot of people with regards to local government.

S. Fraser: I'd like to change gears here a little bit and move to Port Alberni, if I may, and some of the forest issues surrounding the Alberni Valley. Last year the minister committed to visiting with the workers and the community in Port Alberni, and that has not occurred. I know the minister has made an effort to. I know he's flown over the area, which I think is important. I also know the minister has met with his staff there, and I know he's talked to the press.

There are some issues. I'd like, first of all, to know if the minister is planning on meeting with the community. We could set up a community meeting, which was what we anticipated.

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually met with a number of people from SOVA, people who have issues in and around the Alberni Valley, here at the Legislature in an extensive meeting within the last month. I've had a couple of other meetings with those groups with regards to it. In addition to that, I have had a number of meetings with the mayor over a period of time, and conversations with him.

The reason, when we went to Port Alberni and went to visit my office, we couldn't visit with the Port Alberni council or mayor, who would have set it up, was that there was a scheduling problem on his part. Twice we tried to get in there and couldn't land because of weather. They accommodated my

schedule and were great about coming down here and sitting in the Hemlock Room in this building, which gave us an opportunity to spend quite an extensive period of time going over their issues.

S. Fraser: I'm aware of those meetings, although the community still has an expectation. Many people in the community have been impacted by forest policies in the Alberni Valley. I appreciate the efforts here, and I appreciate the challenges of flying in there, but I'm still hoping and the community is still hoping that they can meet with the minister and he can actually see for himself, visit some of the mills, see some of the closures and some of the challenges that we're seeing all over the valley.

Part of that challenge and one of the main things we're seeing…. If the minister hasn't received it, there will be a letter from the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. This is regarding raw log export and the issues around that and also around the private managed forest lands. Now, I understand that's private managed forest lands. But in some cases with Island Timberlands, that is land that was removed from the tree farm licence — that's TFL 44 — back in 2004.

I'm going to touch on a few things. I've got a letter that was from the then minister — that was Minister de Jong — and it was to Craig Neeser. This is regarding the transfer of the land. I know the minister must be aware; he's probably seen the documentation. The minister of the day was advised not to release those lands from TFL 44 — 70,000 hectares. One of the reasons stated was that it would be to the detriment of the community and the workers there. I think that is one of the reasons the minister needs to go and talk to the community.

[1450]

But the question is…. At this point in time, the land that was removed…. The benefits cease to go to the community, and we've seen an impact with workers, and we've seen compensation issues. I'm wondering if the minister is willing to address any of those issues, because they occurred specifically because of the actions of this government in 2004 against their own staff's advice.

[ Page 6846 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the best way to answer the member's question is that obviously I am interested, otherwise I wouldn't have commissioned the report on the Alberni forest sector review that was asked for by the community, which is a little overdue, frankly. I expected it by the end of last month.

I would expect that I will see it shortly, and that will obviously give us feedback with regards to all the activities in the Alberni Valley, including issues around where the logs are coming from that may go into mills, whether they come from places like Tahsis or the Charlottes, as well as coming from the valley, and all of those issues that will come back and forth.

I expect to have that soon. When I get that, I will obviously release the report, and then I would engage with the community at that time.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Can the minister explain why the terms of reference for that Alberni Valley industrial review did not specifically include the removal of the 70,000 hectares, which was requested by the community?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just like with the log export review, quite frankly, I don't believe in fettering the work that people are going to do — to come back and sort of put any bias into their discussion. They have the ability within that report to look at all the aspects that affect the Alberni Valley, and they'll come back with comments with regards to what they think is relevant.

There's no intention of government to go back on what happened with the private lands back in 2004. But they can obviously tell us what they feel happened and how things are working, and that's the whole idea. The whole idea, I guess, is to look going forward. I think everybody recognizes that the forest sector is shrinking, including the Leader of the Opposition, who, actually, even in today's Times Colonist has recognized that there are changes in the forest sector and on the coast — that there are a lot of difficulties.

It's probably the biggest challenge that faces this minister. I think probably over the last two decades the coast has continuously posed challenges for the ministry to see what we can do to try and get an environment out there that works. Government can't actually go run the business, cut the log, decide where the fibre is, what product is going to be cut, where it's going to be shipped, what markets want to buy it, at what price — all of those things.

Government will do what it can do, given the report and what have you. But I'm sure there will also be within the report issues in and around communities and other issues in and around the forest sector.

[1455]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, although I'm not suggesting that we turn back the clock. Decisions made in 2004, however, had dire effects on the industry and on the workers in Port Alberni, and that is the issue.

The 70,000 hectares taken out of TFL 44 still have a devastating effect today in the Alberni Valley. That is what the minister would have heard if he had travelled there and heard from the people in the valley. That's still the key issue, and it was not made part of the mandate of the industrial review.

With that glaring gap, without addressing that issue and reviewing it, there's a fundamental piece of the puzzle that will not be addressed through the industrial review. The community and the workers will be suffering for that. So will the minister commit today to visiting the community and addressing and looking at the issue of that land removal from TFL 44?

Hon. R. Coleman: When I get the report, I will release it, and then I will engage with the community. If that means I can get to the community to sit down and talk to them about what's contained in the report and what they want to talk about going forward, we'll do that.

However, we must recognize that the timing for that will be substantially past the end of May, because we're here until the end of May. I hope to get the report in the next two weeks. While we're here, the member will probably get an opportunity to see it. As soon as I get it and I've read it, I'll release it. I'll also release it to the community locally so they can start giving me input.

If in the month of June or early July we have the opportunity, we'll go to Port Alberni and sit down with local government and community groups to discuss the report and see what can happen going forward. But I can't today commit to a specific date to the member, simply because I have actually seen my

schedule going forward, and it's pretty chock-a-block at the moment.

I would anticipate that it'll be one of those things where we'll try and block it in long enough in advance so we can let people know that that date is possible and then try and get there on that particular date.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate the time difficulties in scheduling, and I appreciate the efforts he will make in June or July to visit the community and also to have that report made in a timely way to the community so that they have a chance to review it prior to his visit, if that's able to be scheduled. I appreciate that.

One last thing for this moment. The minister did have a chance to fly over the region. I'm not sure if your staff was there. Did the minister have a chance to see the devastation in the Beaufort Range that's happening on private managed forest land and its forest activities? It's a scale which I have never seen before, and it's of major concern to the entire Alberni Valley.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have flown over the area, and I don't want to go down the road of having a debate about what is devastation and what isn't. There is reforestation taking place on those particular lands. As I understand it, there are setbacks, etc., being followed.

Because it's private lands, it's under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands under the private forest lands management. I'm not involved in that side of that. Hopefully, the member will canvass some of that with the Minister of Agriculture during his

[ Page 6847 ]

estimates if he gets the opportunity to do so. Of course, the lands are actually under federal statute, not under provincial statute.

[1500]

C. Trevena: I would like to go back to the release of lands. As the minister obviously knows, there is a current release of lands from TFLs. If the minister knew, as he has indicated, that there have been problems with the previous release of lands, I wondered why he allowed the current release of Crown lands, particularly from TFL 6 to Western Forest Products.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, first nations were consulted on this decision, and I considered interests concerned and raised and other factors before making the decision. Deleting the private lands from these TFLs on the coast is one of the series of steps government is making in an effort to revitalize the coast forest sector, quite frankly. The province is working with the forest sector on the coast to identify those opportunities.

The deletion of private lands will allow Western Forest Products more flexibility in restructuring its coastal operations. Now, I don't want to get into the financial strengths and weaknesses of any individual company with regards to things, but I do know that it certainly is an important piece in that company's mind — and frankly, for their stability long term — to be able to serve the communities on the coast.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask whether the minister received any briefing notes about this transfer.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I did. I had briefings from my staff. I had briefing notes, and the briefing notes actually recommended this.

C. Trevena: Would the minister be in a position to table a copy of those briefing notes?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have it here, and I would suggest that the member might just want to file an FOI request. There are hundreds of briefing notes from the ministry, and to be specific about a specific one would be difficult. So if the member wants to make the request, we will certainly make sure it goes through the proper process. Sometimes there are confidentiality issues with regards to a note, and sometimes there is a commercial interest that has to be protected, so it has to go through a lens before it would be released.

C. Trevena: I wondered, then, on a specific in the briefing note, whether it included any reference to compensation to the Crown for the transfer of lands.

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

C. Trevena: I'd like to pick up on a statement that the minister made very categorically in talking, initially, about the transfer of the land in TFL 6, which is that first nations were consulted. The first nations themselves were trying for consultation. They were informed in August of 2005 of the possible removal of the land which is in their hereditary area — the Kwakiutl band — and received various letters back and forth. Then there was one meeting. I would like to ask the minister if this one meeting is what qualified as the consultation with the first nations.

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if I can answer the member's question with regards to the number. I mean, I don't have that here, and obviously, I don't do those meetings, but the Kwakiutl and a number of other first nations were definitely consulted.

A lot of correspondence and consultation went back and forth with regards to this particular deletion. As we came through the process, one of the things they wanted to see done was the protection of some ungulate range, which was done. In addition to that, they wanted access continuing for first nations using neighbouring Crown lands and theirs for fishing, hunting and cultural purposes. Those accommodations were met.

The ministry actually consulted with 23 first nations organizations with regards to this decision-making process.

C. Trevena: One of the issues is meaningful consultation and accommodation. While the ministry wrote a number of letters to the Kwakiutl, whose land claim this is, they did only have one meeting.

I'd again like to ask the minister: a number of times the band asked for assistance in consultation but received none and were told that there would not be assistance. In fact, Chief Councillor Verna Chartrand said, if I may just quote into the record a letter: "They'll not consider paying for our recent expenses in doing so, let alone consider sharing in the huge and consistent profit from harvesting. To expect that we would have the technical capacity to respond appropriately without adequate resources is unfair, unreasonable and disrespectful to us, whose life and livelihood are closely tied to the land and surrounding forest environment."

Again, I'd like to ask the minister: in the definition of meaningful consultation, is meaningful consultation a number of letters between officials within the Ministry of Forests and just one sit-down meeting?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: When we do consultation work with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Attorney General's department with regards to what is considered meaningful or adequate consultation…. We have been doing this for a long time. It's an evolution that takes place in what is consultation or accommodation.

I have every confidence that my folks — as we came through this, because I did ask the question about consultation — did what would have been required to meet the test of consultation with regards to this particular transaction. We were not advised in our meetings or discussions with either of the other two ministries that we were not correct in that particular matter.

[ Page 6848 ]

C. Trevena: I would like to ask whether the minister is familiar with the Supreme Court of British Columbia case of the Hupacasath First Nation against British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am familiar with the case, but I am not going to comment on it.

C. Trevena: In the case it was found that the Crown hadn't had meaningful consultation with the Hupacasath First Nation when lands were taken out of their territory. In fact, the conclusion was that the Ministry of Forests decision to remove lands from TFL 44 gave rise to a duty on the provincial Crown to consult, and the Crown failed to meet that duty — which is why I'm asking the questions. The Crown was found negligent in that case. That is why I am asking the questions about TFL 6 and the apparent lack of consultation in that case.

Do you feel that there was really enough consultation when we are talking about a series of letters and one meeting — that these lands were taken out of first nations possible treaty areas?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is an evolving body of opinion in court cases, obviously, on the land base in British Columbia, and there has been for many years. We learn from those. We adjust our processes and our practices. Quite frankly, I was advised that we had done adequate consultation on this particular removal.

C. Trevena: The concerns that the Kwakiutl First Nation have are very straightforward. No matter what the ministries feel, that they have met a certain test, the first nations feel that their rights have been extinguished by what has been happening — that by removing the lands and putting them into fee simple, they have lost their aboriginal right and title. That is why I bring this back to the fact of: is a series of letters and one meeting adequate consultation for first nations on such a vital issue for this first nation?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just a clarification, Member. These were always private lands, so the change here was the removal of the forest operations side of it from the private lands, from the TFL. They were always private lands; they were always fee simple private lands with regards to the ownership of the lands.

I should say to the member that — and I will repeat it again — when I made the decision, when the decision came across my desk, I asked the question of whether proper consultation had been done. The discussion was in and around our experience and around everything that we knew at the time. Also, we had had the Attorney General and, obviously, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in the mix with us as we came through this. The answer was that we felt we had completed what the requirement was for consultation on this file.

The member may have a letter from somebody that disputes that. There are other avenues with regards to that dispute. But we feel that we did the consultation according to the guidelines and according to what needed to be done.

As a minister I asked if we had done the consultation. I was told that we had consulted with 23 first nations with regards to this removal of the TFL and, frankly, got the answer that our consultations were complete. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made the decision.

C. Trevena: The ministry staff wrote to the chief councillor, and the ministry staff said in a letter to the chief councillor: "The law is unclear as to whether and to what extent there is a legal requirement for the Crown to consult with the Kwakiutl on private lands that are not subject to an agreement under the Forest Act. Should the minister decide to remove the WFP lands from TFL 6, there likely would no longer be an impetus for the Crown to consult on forestry operations on those lands."

If the ministry staff were unclear in a letter to the chief councillor, why did the minister not take the action to make sure himself — rather than just talking to the other ministries — that there was full consultation and talk, as a minister, to the chief councillor?

Hon. R. Coleman: There was consultation. I was advised that consultation was adequate and complete.

C. Trevena: Just one last attempt to see if we can move on beyond this. The Kwakiutl are very concerned. I'm sure the minister also knows that they have gone to the Premier about this case. They are very concerned and have written to the Premier because of the new relationship and because they actually believe that there might be some substance in the new relationship. They are hopeful that there will be some response and that this decision will be put in abeyance.

[1520]

If I might quote again from the letter that went from the chief councillor to the Premier recently, she says:

"It appears the provincial Crown is acting as though the Douglas treaty is a matter of no consequence. Our treaty rights are protected under

section 35 and should be honoured by the Crown.

"To hold one meeting and to fail to provide any further

follow-up until the decision is a complete failure of consultation. It has

been recognized by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal that the failure to

consult invalidates a decision, as the decision-maker has no jurisdiction."

While the minister may disagree with this, I would ask, while there is a controversy over this, while this has gone to the Premier and while there is still a stated belief and a stated commitment to the new relationship, that this minister put this decision to release the lands from TFL 6 into abeyance until discussions can take place between the Kwakiutl First Nation and the minister and, one would hope, with the Premier.

Hon. R. Coleman: We continue to have dialogue with this first nation on a number of issues, broader than just this removal from the TFL, which are caught up in maybe some other discussions. There are still

[ Page 6849 ]

discussions going on, on some issues. I'll make it clear to the member, though, that the decision is made. The decision was announced, and it is not the intention of the minister to go back on the decision.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in the estimates for the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'd like to continue discussion of the removal of lands from TFLs on Vancouver Island. I'd like to come down to my neighbourhood, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and, in particular, lands removed in and around Jordan River, Port Renfrew and the district of Sooke. Could the minister advise me of the amount of land that was removed and what the public policy motivation was at the time?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the Jordan River area almost 12,000 hectares will come from tree farm licence 25.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response. The last time significant tracts of land were removed from TFLs, there was a briefing note prepared — I have it here — for the minister at that time, advising that there would be considerations when deletions were proposed. Some of those included equitable treatment of similarly situated private lands and fair market evaluations of both sides of the transaction — the deletion itself and the consideration.

Could the minister advise if there were market evaluations done of the properties in and around Jordan River?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't do a market evaluation of the lands. We did do an evaluation of the infrastructure that the government would be receiving or inheriting as a result of any of the transitions.

J. Horgan: What's the benefit to the people in my community, particularly those who were working in the forest sector in Jordan River and the district of Sooke? What's the benefit to them of this removal?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think any effect, quite frankly. This isn't a removal from forest production, and there are no mills in that particular area. There may be some logging going on, and those people will still be employed in logging or in transport or whatever the case may be with regard to the jobs in the bush.

J. Horgan: If that's the case, then, what valuation of infrastructure was the minister referring to in his previous answer?

Hon. R. Coleman: As part of the evaluation when we do this, we examine the public accesses, including features for the public to have access to Crown lands. This is for a number of reasons, both from a recreational standpoint and from a future forest aspect, so that there's access onto other portions of land if they can be affected.

We do receive road accesses and setbacks along those roads that we take back into the public, so the public has control and ownership of those roads, when we do this. I don't have the evaluation of the infrastructure in any particular area of this thing, but I'll be happy to get it for the member.

J. Horgan: I'll look forward to that information from the minister.

Was there a cash transfer of any kind involving this arrangement with Western Forest Products?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

J. Horgan: I understand that the minister doesn't have the details and that they'll be forthcoming, but why do an evaluation? I don't understand. People in my community are concerned. The minister will know that TimberWest is a large private land owner in my constituency and that Western Forest Products has now become, through this policy initiative, a large private land holder in my constituency.

[1530]

Development without being part of the official community plans of the various communities up and down the west coast of the Island is of primary concern. If there was an evaluation of assets returning to the Crown, I'm wondering what Western Forest Products was getting in return, beyond the land. What, if any, restrictions are there on the use of that land?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to answer the member's first question, because we did find a number: the conservative value of the roads that we received in all of the TFLs that we took back, that we got back into the public hands for the access to the public, is $2.5 million. No cash changed hands. We received those, basically….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's across them all. I will endeavour to get the ones separately, though, for the member's issue.

The Private Managed Forest Land Act will apply to these lands unless their status changes — e.g., they're developed for a higher and better use. Other legislation, such as the federal Fisheries Act, Heritage Conservation Act and Drinking Water Protection Act will apply to the lands, despite its future use.

In addition to that, there are no log exports from the affected lands for three years, even if the land is resold to a third party.

There's an agreement to work with the Ministry of Environment on protecting ungulate and winter ranges. They have to maintain current ISO and/or CSA sustainable forest management certification; the continued recreational access to the removed lands for the public; and continued access for first nations using neighbouring Crown lands for hunting, fishing and cultural purposes.

[ Page 6850 ]

J. Horgan: People in Malahat–Juan de Fuca are quite concerned about access to private lands for recreational purposes now. I have ongoing discussions with TimberWest with respect to access to their private lands off Renfrew Road, just north of Shawnigan Lake, where hundreds and hundreds of recreational users enter onto their lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes.

The concern in Sooke and environs as a result of this deletion is that rather than providing access to these lands, through the government decision those lands are now alienated from public use. Following on the responses that I heard the minister give to my colleague from North Coast, I'm wondering: if the deletion has resulted in fee simple private lands, has there been a net increase in and around TFL 25 of fee simple private lands? Or were these the entire amount that was put back in when the arrangement was struck some time ago — some decades ago?

[1535]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification, these were always fee simple private lands. There was no change to the title of the private land. It was fee simple private land. They were within a TFL, which is what the removal was. In the agreement with the company, basically, current access is being maintained for public use on the private lands. I don't know about the particular road that the member is specifically talking about, but I have come across a couple of times when I've had calls about somebody putting up a gate on a road on private lands, and saying: "They're restricting our access."

In the two times I've had to deal with that, when I've made inquiries, I've found that the reason was for public safety issues because there was an active logging operation going on. They wanted to make sure they didn't have anybody coming up and down the road because of the public safety aspect of not wanting anybody to get hurt by ongoing industrial operations.

I don't know about the member's particular road, but I'm happy to look into that one.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

J. Horgan: The last thing the minister wants to do is to wade into the Renfrew Road issue. I was using that as an illustration rather than a specific. So put that one away, and we'll worry about that some time in the future.

With respect to Jordan River and the Sooke district, the concern there is…. I guess I'll phrase the question this way. So 12,000 hectares came out. Was it 12,000 hectares that went in when the TFL was created initially?

Hon. R. Coleman: We would have to do some research back on the history of these lands because it goes back decades. We'll get that information for the member.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that. Again, speaking on behalf of my constituents, their concern is that this was productive forest lands benefiting all people in the community. It was considered to be public lands. An agreement was struck, not with Western Forest Products but various iterations of that back to the '40s and '50s.

The concern in the community is that bringing the land out now for what they perceive to be development purposes — not to continue on as forest lands — dramatically alters the landscape in the community. It will affect the official community plans.

I'm going to specifically ask the question: when the removal of the deletion took place, were his staff aware that the development restrictions were one living unit per 300 hectares? Or were they under the impression that it was more units for fewer hectares?

A. Dix: While the minister is waiting to answer the question, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: I wanted to introduce to the House 20 students from grades 8 to 12 from West Coast Alternate School in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway.

Just for their information, we're debating the budget of the Ministry of Forests right now. The Minister of Forests is over there, and we on the opposition side will be asking the Minister of Forests questions over the next little while.

Thank you very much, and I ask the House to make our guests welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Coleman: The local zoning is the local zoning. Frankly, it's not our responsibility to deal with that in the Ministry of Forests.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate that, and I'm well aware of that. Since the decision was made for the deletion, or the deletion was made public, a review of zoning in the area was undertaken by the electoral area representative and people in the community. I would suggest that when the decision was made, Western Forest Products was under the assumption that the minimum lot size was 2.5 hectares.

Since then it has been learned that there was an error at the capital regional district, and now the minimum lot size is 300 hectares, which kind of puts a dent in your development plan if you're building condos.

The question I have for the minister is: when you were devising the deletion, the public response I heard was that it was to assist Western Forest Products address their debt management challenges and build for the future. Does this zoning issue materially alter that, in your view?

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think that it does, and it's really not my problem. The deletion was done to take it out of the TFL. There are 12,000 hectares here.

[ Page 6851 ]

I am familiar with the area of Jordan River. I would think that a couple of hundred hectares of development in that area would be a substantial development. My understanding is that these will still be private managed forest lands. They will meet the standards for CSA and standards for how they would do their practices. They're obviously going to take care of the ungulate range and the setbacks and all of that stuff.

I would think that they're going to manage this forest, as they've managed it in the past, for the long-term turnover of that land for, obviously, the next crop after this crop. And they will do it in a manner that is sustainable.

From the development side, that's not a consideration. Frankly, it's really not my due diligence that would have been required to know what might happen with the land afterwards. That would be the company's. It's really, I guess, not my problem.

J. Horgan: Well, it has certainly now become a problem for Western Forest Products. I appreciate that the minister was undertaking his responsibilities as he saw them, and Western Forest Products will have to deal with that.

I am pleased with the last response, and it gives me some comfort that I can return to Sooke and Jordan River and advise the people there that it's the minister's and the government of British Columbia's view that this land will remain as productive forest land, and it won't be developed hodgepodge to meet debt requirements by selling real estate.

I thank the minister for that, and I'm sure it gives some comfort to my community.

B. Simpson: With the previous comment, it's a nice segue into where I want to go with this.

The minister has mentioned a number of times, not only in this venue today but in question period and other venues, that these are private lands. They always have been private lands. I am wondering if the minister could share with us his understanding of the original arrangement for tree farm licences on Vancouver Island, of which these private lands were part.

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: None of us were here then. It was the 1940s and 1950s. My understanding of the inclusion of the private lands in the 1940s and 1950s was that by agreeing to include their lands within TFLs, companies at that time were provided with some additional rights to some public timber.

We should also recognize that at no time, whether they're in or out of a TFL, have they ever paid stumpage to the Crown.

B. Simpson: The minister is correct. While we weren't there, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with anything. One thing I've found in this file in particular is if you don't know the history, you don't understand the current conditions and you don't understand the way things are and why they are that way.

So here's an education. I find it hard to believe that the briefing note to the minister, in the particular case that the minister was involved in, could be much different in terms of providing background to this minister than the briefing note that went to the previous Forests Minister back in 2004, where that detailed information was.

The reason for these private lands coming into tree farm licences was because of the E&N Railway land grants. The public at the time was very concerned that most of southern Vancouver Island had been given over to private interests. So the explicit reason for entering into these tree farm licences in the 1940s and 1950s was so they would be managed under public control. That was the explicit reason for these tree farm licences on Vancouver Island.

It was a contract — and I'm sure the minister understands what contracts are all about — between the companies and the Crown, with a presumption of gain to the companies. By bringing private lands in, they got more direct access over Crown land.

The deal was that that private land got managed as public land. I find it rather ironic, if not hypocritical, that in the forestry revitalization strategy it states explicitly that this government was going to retain public ownership of our forests and ensure strict environmental standards.

If the minister has read the briefing notes or been briefed by his staff, he would know that one of the major reasons that the companies want these private lands out is to get under the less strict private managed forest lands regulations.

In the case of the release from tree farm licence 44, in the court case Brascan, which was buying Weyerhaeuser at the time, made it explicitly clear that they were going to save anywhere from $15 million to $24 million annually simply by getting out from underneath the code and the upcoming Forest and Range Practices Act.

In the 1990s the government of the day was involved in the protected areas strategy and was involved in the CORE process. There were set-asides, and there were parks. At that time TimberWest came to the government, along with MacMillan Bloedel, and said: "Release our private lands back out again."

In a full-blown public consultation called the Perry report, the people spoke with a single voice, particularly the people of Port Alberni, and said: "Do not do that. We want those lands managed under the Crown, not as private managed forest lands."

It was clear; the consultation was comprehensive. The government of the day actually paid MacMillan Bloedel $83 million in lieu of releasing the private land. At that time government policy was a recognition of the set-asides and recognition of the valuation of the private lands. If they'd flipped the private lands out, Wayco would not have gotten the cash. Because they couldn't flip the private lands out, Wayco got cash. There was a presumption of compensation.

Between 2001 and 2004, Weyerhaeuser again approached the government and the minister of the day

[ Page 6852 ]

asking for those private lands to be released. There was no public consultation at this time.

[1550]

The sale of Weyerhaeuser to Brascan, now Brookfield Asset Management, was explicitly based on the release of the private lands and was valued at a significant incremental value. Those findings, again, are in the court case. As I indicated, one of the main reasons was to get out from the Crown obligations.

The ministerial advice at the time — and that's why we're asking for the briefing note to the minister this time — delivered to the minister by one of the members of the minister's staff sitting in the House today, explicitly states that there should be an expectation of compensation.

It says that at one level this change is simply a matter of contract. The government and the landowner made a contract decades ago to manage the land as if it were public. Deletion undoes that contract. Since the initial contract involved consideration — the award by government to the landowner of timber rights on Crown land — it would seem that the landowner should be able to buy out of that contract by providing appropriate consideration in return.

My question to the minister at this juncture is: what was the appropriate consideration in return in the deletion of the private lands that the minister undertook? What did the Crown get as a result of those deletions and the breaking of that contract?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to rise to the bait. Over 60 years ago the maturity of the forest management was vastly changed over the last 60 years, and its management has improved — professional practices, foresters guided by the Forest Act and sophistication of companies different then than now. This decision was made after consultation with my staff. It's done. It wasn't about us getting compensation. It was about trying to create an environment for an opportunity for a company to have stable investment in the future and to look at some of the highest and best uses of the land.

B. Simpson: I always find it interesting that the minister goes to help Western Forest Products out on this, given that yesterday he claimed that I think that he only talks to corporations. So here's a question for the minister: what communities, outside of the first nations communities, were consulted with the release of the private lands that this minister oversaw?

Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't. These are private lands. The decision was made to remove them from the TFL.

B. Simpson: Did the minister have direct consultations with Western Forest Products on this transaction?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

B. Simpson: So the minister at no time had a discussion with any agent of Western Forest Products with respect to the removal of these private lands?

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: I didn't have any formal meetings on this particular issue with the company. Obviously, I was in other meetings with the company where it was brought to my attention that something might be coming forward to me, but I didn't at any time give them any indication that I would make a decision one way or the other. I just basically said at the time that I would wait for the information to come forward from staff and that I would make a decision in a timely manner one way or the other based on the information I received.

I didn't ever go into a meeting formally on this particular issue. But as the member knows, when you're in different meetings and conversations with people, they'll bring up a variety of subjects. I wouldn't say that at no time did it ever did come up, because I'm sure that it did.

B. Simpson: In my meetings with the CEO prior to this release he certainly made sure that I was crystal-clear that this was a significant portion of their go-forward strategy — crystal-clear — and that in order for them to do what they needed to do, they needed the softwood lumber return.

Now, they were very reluctant. They did not like the softwood lumber deal for all of the reasons that the minister is aware of why the coast didn't like it. But they saw a portion of that return to extinguish some of their debt and the release of the private lands to extinguish some of their debt. So in the conversation that the minister had around this issue, whether it was formal or not, was mention made to the minister that the intent of Western Forest Products was to liquidate these lands, to sell them, to cash them out?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

B. Simpson: It certainly was made very clear to me, and it was also made clear when the CEO of the company was asked questions about the sale afterwards. So that takes me to another area.

The minister has given two messages here. He says that the lands released will be managed as they were managed in the past and that they will be managed sustainably. How much of Western Forest Products lands were released and will be available for what the minister calls higher and better use, which in the industry does not mean "managed as forest lands"? Was the minister ever apprised of what proportion of these lands released will become higher- and better-use lands?

[1600]

Hon. R. Coleman: No, hon. Member. When it's private land, they have the ability, if they want to go to zoning in a local community if it's interfacing with the community, to see if some of that land has another use.

But if you look at where the lands are located and the size of the tracts…. My understanding all the way through this in any discussions I ever had with anybody is that the majority of the land will probably always be in a renewable forest operation that will be managed.

[ Page 6853 ]

B. Simpson: That is precisely why communities needed to be consulted. The minute they come out from the tree farm licence, they are free to designate them as higher and better use, free to go through development processes, and free to get into the situation that we find in Port Alberni and other places, where Island Timberlands, which inherited the bulk of the previous deletions, is going after their export profile and development in a way that communities have no say over. That's why communities should have been consulted, let alone the fact that it was a breaking of an original contract, explicitly, because people wanted these lands managed.

Now, I'm presuming that what the minister is talking about is his letter, and I find it interesting that the minister says he doesn't have control over what happens after they're released because they're private lands. The minister wrote a letter to Western Forest Products, under the presumption that somehow there would be some kind of gentleman's agreement as to what would happen with those lands afterwards.

My question to the minister is: does that letter the minister wrote have force of law?

Hon. R. Coleman: Certainly the log export part of the letter does. It follows that the land, obviously, the wildlife habitat…. They're working with the Ministry of Environment. The ungulate range and those things are governed by that particular ministry and its statutes, so the force of law would be there.

The certification side and all that…. My expectation is that there would be a follow-through. I can't tell you which one has specific force of law because I don't have legal counsel here, but I'm happy to get that for the member.

You know, when somebody decides to take a piece of land in a community…. I know the member is familiar with this, but I want to remind him, because I think it's unfair to make some comments that say that communities don't get consulted. If they take a piece of land and choose to rezone it for something, they go through public hearings. They go through a public process if they want to go into the community plan or into a regional district and develop it for another use. That has always been my understanding.

Now, if they're in an unorganized area, I would imagine there is some other process involved. But I do expect that if it's something…. In and around Jordan River, for instance, if it was close to the community, there would be a regional district involved in the approval process of allowing somebody to build, for lack of a better description, houses or whatever the case may be or, as the one member mentioned, condos on some of the land.

That's where the public consultation comes in with the community. The member also knows that even in the public hearing stage in communities, there is an area around it where the notification is given to the actual neighbours of the land. So those things are all in other processes and are not what drives this particular decision.

B. Simpson: I'm always happy when the minister makes sure that I understand what I'm doing. However, I would correct…. My understanding is that when that land was under Crown, when it was in the tree farm licence, there was no opportunity for designation of higher and better use. There was no opportunity, when it was in the TFL, to come out. That's what I'm saying. The communities are understanding now that in changing it to private managed forest lands, they can take it out any time they want to, and there isn't a requirement for community consultation on what land gets taken out and what doesn't.

[1605]

The minister is correct. What they're going to develop that land for then has to go through the process. But the very issue of them being flipped from tree farm licence to private managed forest land licence does mean that there is a different option there for the landholders.

With respect to the private managed forest land there are also further constraints — or no constraints, I guess — in terms of community consultation. It's one of the changes that they get in the less regulated environment under private managed forest lands. We'll get into the Forest and Range Practices Act. If it was a tree farm licence, there is at least still some requirement for consultation. Again, I believe communities ought to have been consulted. There is a presumption in the briefing note to the previous minister that communities ought to be consulted.

Let's go to the letter. This is an example where we have a situation in which a previous minister went down this path, so we actually have a case study that we can look at it see how good this letter is going to turn out to be. With respect to the deletions from tree farm licences 39 and 44, on July 9, 2004, a letter went to Weyerhaeuser at the time. Again, a number of explicit requirements were put in the letter. One was future forest management. It says:

"Subject to applicable law and Weyerhaeuser's operational risk management and other needs, the current status of managed forest on the private property will continue and be subject to all applicable legislation and regulations within the Private Managed Forest Land Act, the governance planning, soil conversion, harvesting rate and reforestation. Variable retention, stewardship, zoning and old-growth areas will be maintained indefinitely."

My question to the minister is: how much of the release from tree farm licences 39 and 44 has been switched to higher and better use and no longer comes under these regulations?

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, there are questions that come in estimates…. We're actually talking about the estimates of the budget of the ministry. We don't have that information here. I understand there may have actually been a look at this, and the information may be available. We will endeavour to get that information for the member, if we have it.

B. Simpson: My understanding of estimates is that it has to do with the budget and the operations of the

[ Page 6854 ]

ministry. The release of the private lands is a policy decision by the ministry that is fair game in estimates.

Let's talk about budget, then, if the minister wants to talk about budget. When tree farm licences 39 and 44 were released, did the ministry have to buy back access to alienated areas of Crown land in the Port Alberni Valley? If so, how much did they have to pay?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know what estimates is — about the operation of the ministry — but this is 2004. To expect that I would have that information in front of me in a debate in 2007 is probably not correct. Quite frankly, we will endeavour to get that information for the member.

The Chair: Member, the minister's point is well taken.

Continue.

[1610]

B. Simpson: Madam Chair, with due respect, I was going to contest the minister's contention.

What we're trying to understand is that the minister gave a letter in a current transaction that occurred this year to a forest company in which he laid out very similar requirements to what occurred in 2004. We're trying to understand what the legality and legal standing of that letter is in 2007 with respect to lessons learned or actions that were taken with the letter in 2004. It is a current issue, and the precedence of that is what we're trying to explore. As far as I know, the transaction in buying back occurred sometime recently. So my last question had to do with a recent occurrence.

With that, one of the questions that we have very significantly with respect to all of this, is that as part of the minister's briefing, did staff go back and look at what occurred in 2004, point for point in that letter — the constraints around water quality, the constraints around forest management, wildlife habitat, certification? Did they go back and look at that and say: "Okay, look. There was a situation in 2004 in which we did the same thing. Did it get adhered to before we then release lands this year and write a similar letter?"

Hon. R. Coleman: The deputy minister does recall a review, and substantially the conditions of the letter were met, but we will get that information for the member. We don't have it here today because it was in 2004 that this took place.

The member makes a comment about some money transferring hands in the last year or so. That's not the case. I don't know where he gets that information from. But it's not the case with regards to the operation of this ministry and budget with regards to this exclusion.

What we will do is we will endeavour to get the member, as I said already, that information with regards to what was reviewed and how it was working and how the letter was being met. But we do recall that that was done, and it was substantially in very good performance with regards to the condition in the letters. But I don't have that in front of me. So we will get the information for the member.

B. Simpson: I'm not asking for information from 2004. I'm presuming that a briefing note went to the minister, and I'm asking the question: as part of that briefing, was an evaluation done in this last year when this transaction occurred? Did the ministry staff go back and look at what happened? This is a current event, not something that happened in 2004. An event occurred in 2004. A letter was written that the minister was about to write to another company. I'm asking if an evaluation was done this year on the implications of the letter that was written in 2004.

For example, did the ministry check and see…? There was an explicit requirement, for example, that Weyerhaeuser will maintain ISO and/or CSA certification and continue to subject the private lands to the public advisory as per CSA standards. So did the ministry this year go back and look and see if Island Timberlands, which now has this land, has maintained its certification as one example of the evaluation that needed to be done?

[L. Mayencourt in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: Same answer. We will endeavour to get the information for the member.

[1615]

S. Fraser: Going to the letter of July 9, 2004, the conditions that were laid out for Island Timberlands. There was one issue that I'm aware of that was dealt with currently, because I did it through correspondence to the minister in January of 2007. That was around road access or lack thereof.

The issue that I brought forward was the closure of the Comox main line in the Alberni Valley. I see heads nodding, so I think this is totally germane to current issues. In the letter I referred to the conditions that were laid out in 2004 with the removal of the lands from TFL 44 — against the minister of the day's own staff's advice, I might add.

In the conditions of that removal — one of the few conditions that was laid out, as no compensation was required, even though staff said that there should be — was access to road systems. I'll quote: "Weyerhaeuser" — then Weyerhaeuser — "will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." At the time this was written, in 2004, as the minister and staff may know, that road system was open, unimpeded and has always — for decades, historically — been well used as a main transportation route to Comox, back and forth from the Alberni Valley.

Since those conditions ensuring that the road systems were maintained with the current public access — current as of 2004, which was open — Island Timberlands closed that. They locked the gate there. The minister responded to me on February 15 and tried to explain the rationale for that closure. I don't understand the rationale. It contradicts the basic conditions that were originally laid out when the land was removed. Could he explain that for me, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the letter I sent you in front of me, but if I recall it, I think it was Timber-

[ Page 6855 ]

West, if I'm not mistaken. There was a rationale that I got back from the company that there were some industrial operations occurring, and they were concerned about public safety with regards to people using the road at the time that they were doing logging or extraction of timber on the land base.

There was always the intent when these things were done — and always will be the intent, quite frankly — that the current access would be maintained by the landowner. But there are times, to ensure public and worker safety and to protect the property, that it's become necessary to restrict public access during active industrial operations.

That includes, in my mind, restricting access in order to protect the value of your assets. So if you're experiencing a lot of vandalism on your equipment and what have you because you're planning on doing industrial what have you, and you haven't moved equipment out or whatever the case may be, I think you're entitled to try and protect that as well.

The intent is always, as I understand it, to keep that restriction to a minimum — only as required to conduct operations. If that isn't the case on this particular road, and the member wants to tell me that, I will have another conversation with the company.

[1620]

S. Fraser: What I'm getting at is that the condition was very specific in the conditions of removal. "Weyerhaeuser will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." They will maintain it. There are no conditions there. That is it. That is the end of the statement on road access.

Presumably, in the release of the land, the minister of the day, Minister de Jong, would have known that that land was to have accelerated use because of the weaker restrictions on private managed forest lands.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. I just want to remind you that the use of proper names is not permitted in the chamber.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I apologize.

The minister of the day would have known that the lands being removed…. The request to remove them by then-Weyerhaeuser was so they could have the weaker restrictions of the private managed forest land and receive the financial benefits of that. So with the knowledge of the day from the minister of the day that obviously the increased activity would be occurring — surely that was anticipated — the conditions still said that the roads must be kept open.

Since the company received what amounted to a windfall profit by the release of the lands — against, again, the minister of the day's own staff's advice — surely the company should have kept that road open regardless. If there was a security issue, they could have used some of the tens or hundreds of millions of windfall profit to hire a security guard or some other means.

But the statement was that "Weyerhaeuser will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups" of the day. Is that in no way binding?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have both letters now, and so I will comment to those. First of all, the fact that the letter went out on February 15, after a letter was received by us January 17, was actually good turnaround for my correspondence branch, and I must compliment them on that.

I don't know why the member would be confused by the letter, because it's pretty clear in the letter what I advised the member:

"My staff advised me that Island Timberlands has a gate located approximately one kilometre along the Comox trail on their private lands. There is another gate located approximately ten kilometres up the Comox trail from the first gate. The company has three active logging blocks on the Comox trail between these two gates and is also active on the adjacent spur roads.

"While the gates block access along the Comox trail for approximately ten kilometres, there is still access through…"

And I go through the Great Central Lake, Elsie Lake, Lowry Lake, Strathcona Park and back onto Comox trail through the road to Great Central Lake and connecting logging roads.

Now, "legislation on Crown lands," as I also go on to state, "does even today provide for us on our Crown lands to close roads due to industrial operations when it endangers property, public health or safety. The gates were locked after the contractor experienced nightly vandalism on their logging equipment and the theft of their fuel."

So they did it to basically protect their asset during the time of the logging operation, which I think is not untoward and, quite frankly, is something that I would expect that the community would actually understand. If there's a logging operation going on, you don't want people just driving anything up a road where somebody might be falling a tree or running a large piece of machinery or driving a logging truck loaded with logs in a tight area when they're doing the work. Also, while that operation is going on, there should be the ability to be able to protect your assets.

That was the practice, hon. Member, when they were private lands within the tree farm licence. It's a practice that's allowed on Crown lands today, in TFLs and any Crown land for that matter, with regards to maintaining current access when you're trying to protect assets or public safety.

[1625]

S. Fraser: The minister says it's the practice on private lands within TFLs. It's the practice on public lands — TFL land, I assume he's referring to — but it is not the practice on private managed forest land according to what I see as a contractual agreement made between this government and then-Weyerhaeuser in 2004 to "…maintain current access for public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." So that was laid out as a condition.

[ Page 6856 ]

There's no arguing that there are trees coming down there. The Ash River Valley was devastated when these lands were removed from TFL 44 — export wood, I might add. But it says the stipulation was that the roads would be kept open — not on public land, as the minister was referring to, and not on private land within TFLs.

This was made private managed forest land. It was removed from the TFL. Under that condition of removal — clearly stated by the minister of the day, so it was standing under private managed forest land regulations — that road, that access for the public was to be maintained.

Again, I'll ask…. The minister is answering a different question, as he did in the letter. I'd like to know: if that condition is laid out in these ten conditions for removal and it's not being adhered to, clearly — and the minister is defending it not being adhered to under the current conditions — do any of these conditions apply, or will they be enforced by this government?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me help the member out. It says: "Weyerhaeuser will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." Correct. Do we agree on that? I think so.

The current public access — access for the public, industrial road–users at the time — is exactly as it is today. The current practice at the time of this agreement was that you could close a road for public safety and for security reasons while you were in an industrial logging operation. That's exactly what they're doing today.

It didn't say that Weyerhaeuser will keep the road open under all conditions all the time for public access. It said: "Access for public, industrial road–users — maintain current access." Current access is how we were operating at the time, and current access is how we're operating today.

Current access means that in order to protect public safety — we do it on our roads too — we maintain the current access for the public when it's safe to do so. But when it's not safe to do so, we have the right to close a logging road. That was the current practice for the current access at the time, and that's the current access that is being maintained.

The member may want to read between the lines, but I think the wording was actually written that way for a specific reason. "Current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." The current access at the time in a TFL would have been that if they were going to log on this particular road in that area and have three operating and active logging blocks, they would have been allowed to close the access to that road for public safety purposes. In the case of vandalism or theft of their equipment or fuel, they would have also been able to secure some access for security reasons on those roads. So that hasn't changed.

The reality is…. I get that the member thinks the road should be open all the time, but in an abundance of caution and the safety of the public, I believe that the company is doing what they would have done at any other time with logging on any land, whether it be Crown land or land within a TFL that was private land.

S. Fraser: I won't stay on this longer because we're running short on time on this issue. But the Comox trail main line historically was subsidized through public money, through the stumpage system. Is that correct?

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and make an assumption here for the member. If the road was always on the private land, they would have paid for the road — not us. If we used the road for the transport of commercial timber from Crown lands, whether in or out of the TFL, we would probably have paid an allowance to help with the maintenance of the road because we were using it. I don't know the details for sure.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The deputy offered to me, so I will offer to the member that — because this is actually a pretty local issue, and not at the level of detail that we would have here — perhaps we could arrange for the district manager or the regional manager in Port Alberni to sit down with the member, go over that and get the questions, I guess. It's a historical question that goes back 30 or 40 years. We may not have all the details, but the practice would be what I described in this particular instance.

Madam Chair, I wonder if we could take a five-minute recess.

The Chair: Absolutely. We'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee