2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Dining Out for Life

Mayencourt

Abebooks

Fleming

Nechako cold water release

facility

Rustad

Martha Joseph

Fraser

Hockey in Smithers

MacKay

Campbell River festivals

Trevena

Oral Questions

Implementation of kith-and-kin

program

C. James

Hon. S.

Hagen

A. Dix

J. Brar

Highway of tears investigation

J. Brar

Hon. J.

Les

J. Kwan

Evaluation of Pharmacare

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Regulation of sour gas wells

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Gentner

Air quality monitoring and

standards

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Review of health care services in

interior B.C.

Conroy

Hon. G.

Abbott

Committee of the Whole House

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 9) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 9)

Committee of the Whole House

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 14)

Karagianis

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 14)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 15)

L. Krog

Hon. C.

Hansen

Hon. B.

Penner

MacKay

Hon. K.

Falcon

Simons

Trevena

Karagianis

Hon. M.

Coell

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 15)

Second Reading of Bills

Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 17)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Settlement of International

Investment Disputes Act (Bill 19)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Income Trust Liability Act (Bill

13)

Hon. C.

Taylor

J. Kwan

Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 18)

Hon. C.

Taylor

J. Kwan

Apology Act (Bill 16)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Mayencourt

McIntyre

R. Hawes

Farnworth

I. Black

Simons

M. Polak

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Hon. S. Bond

J. Horgan

G. Robertson

Trevena

Fraser

R. Austin

Chudnovsky

J. Kwan

D. Routley

B. Ralston

Macdonald

[ Page 3425 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to note today that we're joined in the House by John Bishop. John developed his passion for cooking early in his life while he was still residing in Wales. He came to Vancouver, in British Columbia, in 1973 with the grand total of $200 in his pockets. He is now one of B.C.'s most renowned chefs and restaurateurs, and he is contributing to people across the province, in terms of his expertise.

Last week Minister Abbott joined with John Bishop to launch an ActNow British Columbia program, with regard to healthy eating and healthy diets for people, to commit to the Healthy Living Alliance of British Columbia. Mr. Bishop was there. For those of us who weren't, Minister Abbott is willing to share his cuisinary expertise now. He does a superb pork and beans, I understand.

Really, it's Mr. Bishop that I want to focus our attention on, because so often the restaurant industry in British Columbia creates jobs for people and creates opportunities for people. He's joined today by Mark von Schellwitz, the vice-president for western Canada of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

What Mr. Bishop has done is that he has taken his business, his community work, and he has provided opportunities and indeed leadership to people across British Columbia with regard to healthy living, with regard to local produce in our food.

I want to say that he has been a true leader for all of us. I hope the House will make him welcome.

[1405]

D. Chudnovsky: About four blocks from where I live in beautiful downtown East Vancouver there is a terrific high school, Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, which is a model of diversity, energy and community. Today in the gallery we have 68 grade 11 students, seven adults and two teachers, Auton Lum and Bonnie Burnell. I hope the House will join me in welcoming these wonderful students from East Vancouver.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today I would ask the House to recognize Greg Sidwell, a longtime member of the legislative press gallery. Greg is retiring from CBC this week after decades and decades and decades, as well as decades, of being the on-site cameraman here in Victoria.

He started in 1972 at CBC as a film editor, and there are some that say film wasn't actually invented when Greg started. But we all know Greg. We all know that he has made a contribution in terms of providing the public with information. I think it is important for us to note that nine times out of ten, Greg's film has been in focus, which is an important thing. I hope we will say thank you to Greg and thank you to his family, and wish him well in his retirement.

N. Macdonald: It is my pleasure to introduce Margaret Dickson from Winnipeg, Agnes Macdonald from Gimli and Murdo Macdonald from Gimli. That's my sister, my mother and my father. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a special visitor from Cuba. Please join me in welcoming Ernesto Antonio Senti, the Ambassador of the Republic of Cuba. This is His Excellency's first trip to British Columbia. We look forward to an ongoing positive relationship between our two jurisdictions. I ask the House to please give him a warm British Columbia welcome.

R. Hawes: This morning members of our caucus met with a number of representatives from the food industry, included in which were Mark von Schellwitz and John Bishop, but also Justin Sherwood of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, Dave Pearson of Canada Safeway and Bruce Kent of Westfair Foods. It was pointed out that they are responsible for a payroll in this province approaching $2 billion, which is a very significant part of our economy. Could the House please make these gentlemen welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my good friend Roy Foster, manager of B.C. operations for High Science. Roy is a director and past president of the Rotary Club of Surrey and past director of the South Fraser child development centre. He is a big supporter of the Gateway project, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 from Langley to Vancouver. Would the House please make him very welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the House today, in the gallery, is a teacher from Riverside Secondary who has been teaching for 11 years and is a constituent of mine. His name is Mr. David Romani. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Lee: In the House today we have a delegation from the Tianjin economic and technological development area of China. The city of Tianjin is one of the four municipalities directly under the central government of China. The other three are Beijing, Shanghai and Chongqing.

With a population of over ten million, and only 120 kilometres away from Beijing, Tianjin is the gateway to Beijing and the Bohai Sea. Currently Tianjin port possesses the biggest container dock in China.

[1410]

TEDA, which is the delegation represented, is one of the first state-class economic and technological development areas in the country. It has attracted over $30 billion of investment to that area, which is famous for its scientific, microelectronics and chemical indus-

[ Page 3426 ]

tries. The delegation is interested in establishing a closer trade relationship with British Columbia.

In the gallery we have the delegation leader Zhang Jun, vice-chairman of TEDA, and the members are Xu Wenjin, chief representative of TEDA's U.S. office; Mei Zhihong, vice-director of TEDA economic development bureau; Ding Lei, vice-director of TEDA press corps office; Zhang Ruihia, senior researcher of TEDA policy research office; and Cai Hui, officer of TEDA trade development bureau.

Would the House please join me in giving them the warmest welcome.

C. Trevena: I would like the House to make welcome today Cecile McVittie, a teacher and librarian from Campbell River.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to introduce two guests in the gallery who are with us today. From the People's Republic of China, Mr. Yi Zhang, who is the managing partner of Shanghai's King and Wood law firm, one of the first law firms to be formed as a private partnership in People's Republic of China and which today has over 400 lawyers. With Mr. Zhang is Mr. Colin Taylor, QC, a distinguished lawyer, arbitrator and mediator. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I rise to introduce two special guests in the gallery today. One is a teacher from East Vancouver, Sandra Holmes. Another one is Mary Leah DeZwart. Mary is a constituent of mine and is a teacher in Surrey. She's also a member of the BCTF. Would the House please welcome both of these special guests.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the privilege of making the last introduction. I was beginning to feel like a one-man ActNow program, hopping up and down here.

I have the privilege today of introducing two teachers from my constituency. They've travelled to Victoria on the BCTF-sponsored visitations meeting with MLAs. One of them, Sandra Holmes, has been teaching since 1973 — 33 years, 25 of which have been in the Kamloops school district. Sandra currently teaches at Blue River School. This is a single-teacher school with 11 students, two and a half hours north of Kamloops but not yet at the north extremity of my riding. It's a real pleasure to have Sandra Holmes here. I'll be meeting with her a little bit later. She's a member of the executive of the Rural and Small School Teachers Association.

Also, Cecile McVittie, 38 years a resident of Kamloops, currently a part-time teacher-librarian at Summit Elementary in Kamloops, president of the Kamloops-Thompson Teacher-Librarians Association and communications chairperson of the Kamloops-Thompson Teachers Association. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Fleming: In the gallery today is a young constituent of mine who sat in these chairs just a couple of months ago as a participant of the B.C. model parliament. Ben Johnson is a political science student at Camosun College. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) DINING OUT FOR LIFE

L. Mayencourt: I rise today to talk about the 11th annual Dining Out for Life event which took place last Thursday evening. Dining Out for Life is a fundraising event that is organized by Friends for Life, AIDS Vancouver Island and A Loving Spoonful. It brings individuals, businesses and communities together to fight AIDS. This year 193 restaurants from Whistler to White Rock participated. For the first time, in Victoria we had 51 Vancouver Island restaurants that participated.

All of the restaurants donate 25 percent of their food revenue from that night. The event's title sponsor is Wolf Blass Wines, and they are donating partial proceeds from the sale of their wines all through the month of March. All money raised through Dining Out for Life is being donated to Friends for Life, A Loving Spoonful and AIDS Vancouver Island — charities that support local people living with AIDS.

In the case of A Loving Spoonful, they provide free nutritious meals to people living with HIV-AIDS in the Greater Vancouver area. More than 2,500 meals are prepared and delivered every week.

[1415]

Friends for Life supports people living with life-threatening illness and provides help to their families and caregivers. This wellness centre was formed with the belief that no one should face serious illness alone. It provides a range of programs and services free for all in a safe, confidential environment. We know very well all the good work that Miki Hansen does here in Victoria with AIDS Vancouver Island as well.

Dining Out for Life last year raised $165,000. That's not bad for a little fundraiser like that. Once again this year's event was an astounding success, and while the final total is not in just yet, event organizers are very confident that they will exceed last year's record.

This year I had the pleasure of dining out at Zin, a really wonderful restaurant in Vancouver, to lend my support to the event. An interesting thing about Zin is that they have a Dining Out for Life table all through the year. So anytime you want to go into Zin restaurant, ask for the Dining Out for Life table, and you'll be donating 25 percent of your food bill to the charities.

ABEBOOKS

R. Fleming: I'd like to take this opportunity to share with the House a significant anniversary of a dynamic, progressive, knowledge-based company that is headquartered in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. From small local beginnings, abebooks.com

[ Page 3427 ]

has grown to become the world's largest marketplace for new, used, rare and out-of print books.

Founded in 1996, this company celebrates its tenth anniversary next month, a significant anniversary for any small or medium-sized business — perhaps more significant for a technology company. Abebooks was started by Rick and Vivian Pura and Keith and Cathy Waters as a way to apply emerging technologies to their love of and interest in the book trade. Since day one, theirs was a business born of a philosophy that celebrates books and the people that love them.

The success of this company has been phenomenal. Abebooks.com now processes over three million book searches each day. Their virtual inventory is now over 80 million volumes, encompassing about 13,000 independent booksellers in 53 countries around the world. Abebooks head office now directly employs over 90 people here in our local economy. The company has grown overseas to include operations in Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

This business is a local success story from my constituency, but I'm sure members of the House will think of similar interesting businesses in their communities and join me in congratulating this made-in-B.C. company for its global success and its achievement of a significant milestone.

NECHAKO COLD WATER

RELEASE FACILITY

J. Rustad: I rise to speak about a unique and diverse organization in my riding of Prince George–Omineca. The Nechako Watershed Council is unusual in that it brings together a host of differing viewpoints — environmental, recreation, industrial and government — to sit at the same table. Under the leadership of Chair Henry Klassen, the group has worked for years towards a common goal: improving the health of the Nechako River.

They're currently in the middle of a ten-year work plan to examine all facets leading to the construction of a cold water release facility at the Kenney Dam. This important project is expected to bring about a number of positive effects, including lowering risks to chinook salmon and endangered white sturgeon on the Nechako River through more natural water flow and summer water temperature management. This will, in turn, increase fisheries-related recreation and tourism opportunities for communities in my riding.

The creation of this facility is being undertaken thanks to a partnership between the province and Alcan, who jointly agreed to fund this major undertaking. Bringing a cold water release facility has been a dream for over a decade, but it's this government that has taken real steps towards making that dream a reality.

I'm pleased to announce today for the first time increasing provincial support for the work of the Nechako Watershed Council as they tackle the second half of their plan for the cold water release facility. We've committed to providing $120,000 this year to the council to conduct sediment and hydrothermal studies that will give us important information as we move towards construction of a cold water facility.

One of our great goals is to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best fisheries management. We're putting that goal into action in the Nechako basin and making real progress towards a long-lasting solution to improve habitat for salmon and sturgeon.

[1420]

MARTHA JOSEPH

S. Fraser: On Thursday evening I attended an event at the University of Victoria. It was a very moving event. To a packed theatre, Martha Joseph told her story.

Martha is a 68-year-old champion of the Alberni Residential School. Like 87,000 other indigenous children, this Kispiox woman was taken from her Gitxsan family and territory to be interned in a residential school. She was taken from her family when she was only five years old. Her sister was three. From the onset she endured physical, psychological and emotional degradation and abuse — one of the darkest stains of our history.

Her story was gut-wrenching, but it needs to be heard. Martha's four suicide attempts failed, unlike her sister's. After driving over a cliff, the prognosis was that Martha would never walk again, yet Martha walks across the land.

Martha's 2005 Victory Walk for Justice spanned Kelowna to Ottawa. On September 16, Residential School Survivors Day, Martha arrived on Parliament Hill, having walked from B.C. to raise awareness for the residential school issue. In Ottawa she was largely ignored. She is still walking, though. Last Friday she led a walk to the rally here at the Legislature, in this building. Martha is not done yet. There is still much to be reconciled.

On April 5 a similar journey begins on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Other former survivors of residential schools begin their journey to Ottawa. This journey will involve towing a 25-foot cedar canoe log from Huu-ay-aht territory near Bamfield. It's the Spirit of Humis . That's the Nuu-chah-nulth word for cedar.

The journey across the country will have many stops along the way, arriving in the nation's capital in June. The survivors will be seeking parliamentary time. Aboriginal Healing Foundation funds are inadequate. Should they fail to be recognized in Ottawa, the journey will continue to the United Nations. We all must recognize this issue.

HOCKEY IN SMITHERS

D. MacKay: How do you unify a community? You give the community an impossible task. The impossible task is for a small community to compete with every other community in Canada for the right to be called Hockeyville when the final decision is made on June 11.

To give you an example of what Smithers has done…. We have hosted the highest-hockey-elevation women's hockey game in North America on Hudson

[ Page 3428 ]

Bay Mountain. Hockeyville was spelled out with large letters on Hudson Bay Mountain, using biodegradable dye, to ensure that the CBC crew who filmed the women's hockey game knew Smithers was serious.

We are home to Canada's best backyard rink according to Hockey Night in Canada 's backyard rink contest. The Taylor's rink was chosen from five finalists out of 300 entries.

For a small town of 5,000 people, we have produced seven NHL players. The CBC TV crew commented when they arrived in Smithers a few weeks ago that they have never had such a welcome as that which they encountered as the Bulkley Valley Youth Fiddlers, along with Daniel Lapp, played the theme to Hockey Night in Canada at the Smithers Airport.

You can sign our petition on line at smithershockeyville.com, and if you are a hockey player, you will know the name Paul Henderson. He not only signed the petition; he is sending in a letter of support.

The winning community, to be announced on June 11, will win $50,000 in arena upgrades from Home Depot. This will go great with the $1.7 million provided to Smithers by the provincial government for the second sheet of ice; $10,000 in hockey equipment will be provided. Two NHL teams will play an exhibition game in the hometown that wins, valued at $400,000.

Tonight, March 29, at 8 p.m. the 50 communities left in the running will be announced on CBC. Watch for Smithers to be one of those, and on June 11 Smithers will be known as Hockeyville in all of Canada.

CAMPBELL RIVER FESTIVALS

C. Trevena: I don't know how many in the House know Campbell River, but I'm sure you are aware that it is a city with a beautiful location and is very hard-working. It's a city based on its resources of the ocean, forests and mines, and it's increasingly a city of festivals.

Just last weekend the fifth annual Words on the Water Festival was held at the Maritime Heritage Centre, a festival of B.C. coastal writers, their writings and their readers, which this year was sold out within days of tickets going on sale. It's an impressive two-day event, pulling together a host of different authors, poets and readers for readings and workshops. It's perhaps even more impressive because for the five years of its existence, it's been devised and run by volunteers. This year it was graced by the Lieutenant-Governor.

[1425]

Words on the Water is the start of the unofficial Campbell River festival season. It's soon followed by Painters at Painter's, an artists' festival at Painter's Lodge. As the summer progresses, we head to the driftwood carving festival, where wonderful pieces of art are created from the wood that lines the city's beaches. I have a phoenix outside my office.

The season runs through the summer. Added to the calendar now is the Showcase Theatre Festival, which I'm sure the Minister of Children and Family Development enjoys as much as I do, because dancer and choreographer Jeff Hyslop has inspired an amazing amateur and professional rep company to bring Shakespeare plays and their musical counterparts to the stage in both our communities. This year — the second — we look forward to Taming of the Shrew and Kiss Me Kate .

The season continues with outdoor events, with a hugely popular — and huge — logger sports and salmon festival, and wraps up in the fall with the Haig-Brown Festival, which I have already told the House about.

Campbell River is a hard-working city with a truly joyous heart.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF

KITH-AND-KIN PROGRAM

C. James: The government's original target date for implementation of the kith-and-kin policy was September 3, 2002. We now know from internal ministry documents that the minister of the day and senior ministry officials decided to rush the implementation of the policy, moving ahead on July 8 instead of the original date. Can the Minister of Children and Families please explain why?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, let me give the Leader of the Opposition a bit of a history lesson. It was the NDP who put the

section 8 on kith and kin into the legislation in 1996. Civil servants worked for many years after that to get the policy into place and to have it proclaimed. The release date for the guidelines was moved up because the regions actually asked for it. As this letter states, which is dated July 2, the regions fully embrace the kith and kin. The social workers wanted that option. They wanted to use this option, and it was finally available to them. That's why it was released early.

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

C. James: I would like to remind the minister that there was not a request to move forward on these guidelines with no resources, no support and no training. No request.

The information received from the ministry through FOI had sections and pages removed. The ministry removed discussions regarding problems with the program and its implementation. They removed discussions regarding budget and resources. They removed discussions regarding communication vulnerabilities.

So my question to the minister is: could he tell the House whether this information, unsevered, has been given to Mr. Ted Hughes for his review?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, I can say this to the Leader of the Opposition. When she talks about severed and unsevered and FOI processes and everything else….

[ Page 3429 ]

I find it atrocious that my critic, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, actually called up my deputy minister and tried to influence him into expediting the release of the FOI before it had gone through all of the proper steps. I can tell you that that is totally inappropriate. That is political interference, and that is something that the members of this side of the House would not do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Once again we get no response from the minister on critical questions, on important issues — on important issues to the people of British Columbia and, in particular, to children and families at risk.

The information received proves that this government is more interested in budget reductions and their own political issues than it was in protecting children in care. After months of denial from the minister and from the Premier, we heard the Solicitor General come clean and admit that budget cuts and mismanagement of government contributed to the chaos we've seen in Children and Families.

[1430]

To the minister: what possible justification can the minister provide that has anything to do with the protection of children for why they rushed the implementation of this policy with no support and no training?

Hon. S. Hagen: Perhaps it's time for the other side of the House to say whether or not they support kith-and-kin agreements, which they have never said. But let me give them an example of why they should support kith and kin.

Over the period from July of 2002 to March 2005, there were 619 children in kith-and-kin agreements. Over that three-year period, 80 percent — 80 percent — of the children who have been in kith-and-kin placements were able to return home to their families and communities.

A. Dix: A very simple question to the minister today — very simple. Can the minister explain why the negligent implementation of kith and kin, the moving-up of the implementation date before social workers were trained, the moving-up of the implementation date before systems were ready, the moving-up of the implementation dates before there was even an accurate set of practice guidelines — one that didn't leave out 29 serious criminal offences…? Why has information about the moving-up of that implementation been covered up until it was released today?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can say quite accurately that there has been no cover-up. I said when the director's review was released last July that there were mistakes made. We have acknowledged that.

But as far back as 2003, improvements were put in place where we replaced those guidelines with the child protection standards. In addition to the standards, there is also a reference guide that social workers can refer to.

What we're talking about here is…. The critic is back in 2002. We're now in 2006. Do we have a better system? You bet. Are we continuing to make that system better? You bet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, this was the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Premier who sat there last September and blamed the tragedy in Port Alberni on a single social worker. Those are their words; they weren't my words.

I want to say to the Premier: you know, the Minister of Children and Families, back when the minister.…

Mr. Speaker: Direct your questions through the Chair, please.

A. Dix: Through you to the Premier, hon. Speaker: the current Transportation Minister, back when he was training to be a full cabinet minister, gave the Ministry of Children and Family Development an award — the deregulation spirit award — for being the first ministry to meet or exceed its arbitrary target reduction of regulations.

Hon. Speaker, when the government removed the obligation on resource social workers to ensure that homes were safe before putting children at risk in those homes, that was deregulation. I want to ask the Premier through you, hon. Speaker: will the Premier finally admit that those policies of deregulation and budget-cutting when applied to child protection were wrong?

Hon. S. Hagen: We care about the children and families in this province. We care.

With regard to the reference of the member opposite, the critic from Vancouver-Kingsway, to say that we impose blame on anybody is ludicrous. When I go around and talk to social workers — and I was in an office yesterday — you know what they say to me? "Can't you get the NDP to stop hammering social workers? What can we do about that?"

[1435]

On Monday this week we proclaimed Social Work Week. We paid tribute to social workers around this province. We had social workers to my office for lunch and introduced them in the House. We stand up for social workers every chance we get. This year the budget has been increased by $273 million to give those workers the resources they need so that they can do their work, wherever they work in the province.

J. Brar: You know, we are not hammering anyone here. We fully support the work being done by all the social workers and civil servants in this province. We are asking questions which are very crucial to British

[ Page 3430 ]

Columbians, and we are asking for the real answers. That's the problem.

HIGHWAY OF TEARS INVESTIGATION

J. Brar: Let's change the topic. The actual number of women missing around the highway of tears is not clear. As per the RCMP, the number of those missing women is just nine as of today, but according to Amnesty International and the Native Women's Association of Canada, the actual number of missing women is 33.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Can the minister tell this House what he believes is the actual number, and will the minister commit today to work with Amnesty International and the Native Women's Association of Canada to find strategies and techniques for solving those cold cases?

Hon. J. Les: I would simply say this. Every fatality that has occurred along the Highway 16 corridor and beyond is one too many. I know that the RCMP and other agencies are very diligently investigating all of those events. I have every confidence that if there are solutions, if there are conclusions to those investigations that are available, they will achieve the conclusion of those investigations.

As the member knows, the community is hosting a symposium tomorrow which I think is going to play a useful role, as well, in terms of helping the communities deal with those issues and perhaps achieving some solutions in terms of helping the communities protect themselves going forward. We want to make sure that the resources are available to the police, and indeed they are. As the member knows, there are some 35 members of the RCMP working on these investigations. We take this very seriously, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a supplemental.

J. Brar: I don't dispute what the RCMP is doing. I fully respect — and we are all proud of — the work the RCMP is doing in this province. But my question was not that. The question was about numbers. But I will try the next one.

The RCMP has done an excellent job, and they're doing an excellent job, and they will continue doing that job as well. But this government has not done anything when it comes to the missing women around the highway of tears. There is one strategy that has proven to be effective, and that is offering a reward for information. As recently as last week, Victoria police announced a $100,000 reward for information on the 16-year-old case of Michael Dunahee. In two short days police received over 80 tips.

Again, my question is to the minister. Will the minister commit today to offer a reward for information leading to successful resolution of those long-pending cold cases?

Hon. J. Les: Important decisions around an investigation as important as this one are not made here during question period. I will take direction from the RCMP on matters such as these. In fact, I'm pleased that the member opposite has every confidence in the RCMP. I do as well, and I know that they will continue to conduct the investigation around these incidents with the highest degree of professionalism.

[1440]

J. Kwan: Would the Solicitor General, then, just raise the matter with the RCMP and ask them whether or not a reward system would be useful and helpful in trying to resolve the cases around the highway of tears?

Hon. J. Les: I don't think this is the appropriate forum to be making those kinds of decisions or, indeed, to be discussing the various considerations that the RCMP might have around this particular investigation. I think it's appropriate to let the RCMP do their work. We know that they are a highly professional, well-respected force, and if there are conclusions available to these investigations, they will achieve those conclusions.

EVALUATION OF PHARMACARE

D. Cubberley: Last week the Auditor General released a report on B.C.'s Pharmacare program. The report references the Fair Pharmacare program introduced in 2003, stating: "…any potential negative impacts of Fair Pharmacare are being monitored, and…preliminary evaluations indicate that drug use has not decreased in either the senior or non-senior groups since implementation." Interestingly, this is identical language to the 2003-2004 Ministry of Health service plan, which states exactly the same thing. Obviously, the Ministry of Health had seen enough information to draw very firm conclusions about this, but the Auditor General did not see whatever evaluation that was based on.

Will the minister agree to make the evaluation public so that we can know whether B.C. seniors have fair access to the drugs they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising this important question.

The issue of the access of all seniors, including those seniors of disadvantaged circumstances, is very important. Pharmaceuticals can play an important

part in promoting health and maintaining good lifestyles and a good life in this province. As the member probably knows, the most important step that was ever taken by any government in this province was the introduction of Fair Pharmacare just a few years ago by this government.

Notwithstanding the opposition's not understandable reluctance to embrace Fair Pharmacare, what we have actually done with Fair Pharmacare is ensure that every British Columbian, regardless of their economic circumstances, has access to the pharmaceuticals that they need.

[ Page 3431 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: We're squarely committed to fairness on this side of the House, and we're very interested in whether Fair Pharmacare is indeed fair. The concern is a legitimate one, because an independent review of Quebec's experience with income-based user fees showed that higher fees did lead to reduced use of essential drugs and to more negative incidents.

The then Minister of Health Services told the public at the time, "We have already put in place a contract with officials at UBC to make sure that this transition is properly monitored…to make sure that no senior…is negatively impacted in terms of…their ability to pay to get the medications they need" — an independent review.

Fair Pharmacare has been in place for three years now. The transition is long over. Proper monitoring was promised. Will the minister agree now to release the independent review of the program's impact so the public can assess if Fair Pharmacare is in fact fair?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can assure the member that Fair Pharmacare is fair. One need only look at the patterns of use under Fair Pharmacare. We have ensured that every British Columbian, regardless of their economic circumstance, has access to the full range of drugs which they may require to either sustain their life or make their life better. That's very important. Fair Pharmacare is the basis of our pharmaceutical policies in this province.

I read the Auditor General's report with interest as well. The Auditor General notes, for example, the leadership of this province with respect to PharmaNet, with respect to Fair Pharmacare, with respect to cost containment, with respect to the therapeutics initiative, which the member recognizes.

[1445]

We know that the Auditor General always tries to push governments to go further and to go faster, but I believe that, in fact, with the most comprehensive formulary in the entire nation, with the broadest coverage in the entire nation, we are leading the nation in Pharmacare.

REGULATION OF SOUR GAS WELLS

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Mines. Last summer when I was visiting the Peace district, everybody there was talking about the need for appropriate setbacks between residential homes and farms and sour gas wells. It was my understanding at the time that British Columbia was participating — I think, paid $600,000 — in the western Canada study on animal and human health associated with exposure to emissions. It was my understanding that when that study was finished, it would determine appropriate setbacks.

My question for the minister is: is my understanding true, and is this, in fact, the policy of the province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we are doing a number of things in northeastern British Columbia with regard to setbacks of gas wells, whether they're sweet or sour. We are awaiting a report that has been a number of years in the making, which British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have all participated in. Once that report is made available, we'll be able to assess from that report…. It will help inform us on how we move forward from there.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I do — again, for the Minister of Energy. It's my understanding that the regional district in the area has said: "Well, the study has been going on for five years, and perhaps there's a need for interim guidelines following a precautionary principle to protect human health and animal health, while we await the outcome of science."

At first, I was under the impression that the minister wished to put in place interim guidelines awaiting the outcome of the science. But now I'm under the impression that the minister has reversed that position and has stated to the regional district that there will be no interim guidelines until the outcome of the study. Is that, in fact, the minister's position?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, unlike the past government, who for ten years didn't pay attention to anyone in northeastern British Columbia as to where well sites were sited, this government took the initiative to create some committees in the south Peace, the north Peace and the Northern Rockies district to get some input from those people affected — first nations included — as to the setbacks that should be in place that actually meet everyone's needs. We've moved a long way with the oil and gas operations in northeastern British Columbia, and in a positive way with landowners, unlike the past government who ignored them and just took the money and fled.

G. Gentner: This week I've been receiving a lot of phone calls from residents up in the Peace, mainly because they aren't getting the attention of the MLA in that area.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: Today I talked to Mike and Mo Kroecher and other residents along the Good Hope Road who have sour gas wells located near their homes. Would the Minister of Energy and Mines guarantee their health and safety in the absence of any interim or new setback standards?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Amongst all those phone calls that the member is getting, he should get it right. It is not Good Hope; it's the Old Hope Road — okay? So

[ Page 3432 ]

when you get those calls, make sure you write that down. Secondly, we have actually had lots of meetings with the people on the Old Fort Road…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the answer.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …or the Old Hope Road.

We have been working with them. In fact, they will be part of this communication process, the committee process in north Peace that will come to the table with their concerns. We'll hear them and actually act on them in time.

[1450]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta North has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: My question to the minister is: who really is driving the bus regarding the file on sour gas wells impacting the residents of Old Hope Road? I mean, is it the minister himself? The ministry? The Oil and Gas Commission? Or perhaps it's another agency. My question really is: who's taking the lead here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am, as the minister responsible.

AIR QUALITY

MONITORING AND STANDARDS

S. Simpson: The B.C. Business Council has recently launched a campaign to move responsibility for air quality monitoring from the local level to the provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Finlayson, the executive vice-president of the Business Council, is quoted as saying: "It just doesn't make any sense to have municipalities setting different standards from one to the other. We want to see a coherent provincewide approach to managing air quality, and the Ministry of Environment has got to be the lead in doing that."

Can the Minister of Environment tell us whether he's discussed this matter with the Business Council? And does he support their position?

Hon. B. Penner: It's a good day to ask that question, because today British Columbians — and Fraser Valley residents, especially — heard some very good news. SE2 has written to Washington State regulators asking that their existing permits be cancelled. That is remarkable news for the Fraser Valley residents.

That outcome is the result of many years of hard work by members on this side of the House, Fraser Valley residents, local governments and people around the province who supported Fraser Valley residents who were concerned about air quality.

This government is not content to rest on its laurels, however, and we do want to see what we can do in terms of continuing to see improvements in air quality across the province. We recognize that we need to work with local governments, local regional districts, stakeholders and individuals across the province to continually make progressive improvement in air quality, no matter what part of the province you're talking about.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, it certainly is question period and not answer period today.

I understand the minister doesn't want to answer that question about devolution or about changing authority, so I'd like to ask another question.

We know that from 1985 to 2005, we've seen a reduction in fine particulate matter of about 23 percent in the Greater Vancouver regional district, and overall air pollution has fallen by about 31 percent. Largely, that's attributed to the air quality regime of the Greater Vancouver regional district and the work they've done.

In response to this, though, the B.C. Business Council has stated that it believes the air quality standards of the GVRD are too stringent, and they are seeking some lessening of those standards. Does the minister agree with the Business Council on that matter?

Hon. B. Penner: We certainly recognize that molecules and air particles don't stop at municipal boundaries. That's why it makes sense to make sure that we have planning throughout the province. Frankly, that's one reason we were so steadfastly opposed to the SE2 project just south of our border. It was outside of our jurisdiction, but we knew that the majority of the pollutants would end up in the Fraser Valley.

We're always looking for ways to improve air quality management in the province, and we are seeing successes and reductions in pollution. Frankly, I welcome suggestions from everyone, including the critic, about what we can do across the province to improve our air quality in British Columbia.

REVIEW OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN INTERIOR B.C.

K. Conroy: Yesterday the Minister of Health spoke about his perception of health care in B.C. Today we need to talk about what is really happening in B.C. We have Code Purples in emergency rooms and operating rooms, and community care is struggling to provide services. We have hallway medicine and ambulances being used for ER beds. We have seniors waiting in acute care beds and thousands of citizens signing petitions. We have city councils passing motions asking this minister to put forth an independent review into what's happening to the IHA. We have the city of Kimberley and the city of Castlegar passing motions, in addition to all the other ones you've already heard from.

[1455]

Again, will the minister commit today to an independent review of what is happening with the Interior

[ Page 3433 ]

Health Authority so that he, too, can really learn what is really happening with the IHA?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the members opposite always find ways to find clouds inside every silver lining. In fact, we have a great health care system in British Columbia. We have a great health care system in Interior Health.

I know the members have been out to see city councils and implore them to pass resolutions asking me to do things. That's great. It's good they're getting out and talking to people. But I can tell you that we've got a great health care system in British Columbia. The Conference Board of Canada, in the most comprehensive report on provincial health care systems that's ever been done in this province — 119 different indicators of how well health systems are doing — said British Columbia is number one, and number one by a considerable margin.

Is the system perfect? No, it's not. We have challenges all across the province. That's why we get up every day. That's why 120,000 people who work in the health care system get up every day and dedicate themselves to continuous improvement in that system.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Education, and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 9. For the information of members, that will be, upon completion, followed by Bill 14, committee stage debate on the Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

[1500]

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

section 20.

B. Simpson: I note that the minister has different staff than yesterday, and I'd like to give leave for the minister to introduce staff.

Hon. R. Coleman: Today I have with me Graham Archdekin, RPF, manager of tenure opportunities, B.C. Timber Sales, Ministry of Forests and Range; Ian Miller, who is legislation policy and forester, also an RPF and a BSF as well — I guess that opens up all kinds of comments — Ministry of Forests and Range, forest practices branch; and of course, Richard Grieve, who was here yesterday and is, frankly, my genius behind legislation.

B. Simpson: I could make a quip about the genius on the other side there, but I'll leave that one alone as well.

Section 20, according to the explanatory notes, is adding a reference to a forestry licence to cut. If I could get a brief explanation of what is a forestry licence to cut.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's one of our minor tenures for harvesting timber. It's used for a number of purposes. It's usually for short term and small volume.

B. Simpson: Subsection (

c) then, the substitution language — does that

section then apply the obligation for free-to-grow to all forms of licences that the ministry issues? If not, which licences are excluded from this section?

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: This

section has nothing to do with reforestation. Maybe I'll read.

The forest revitalization plan's suite of legislative changes enables the conversion of a timber sale licence to a forestry licence to cut. The resulting forestry licence to cut has a five-year term and is non-replaceable. However, free-growing obligations of these licensees will continue for ten years or longer after the licences have expired. The amendment to this

section will allow the silviculture obligations to be transferred to government in the same way as obligations under other non-replaceable licence or transfer.

B. Simpson: I'm sorry. I don't understand the comment. This is an obligation to establish a free-growing stand. My question was: are there other licences that are not included in the descriptor of licences? It says: "…timber licence, forestry licence to cut, non-replaceable forest licence, non-replaceable woodlot licence or non-replaceable timber sale licence." Are there licences that are not included in this list of licences to which this clause does not apply?

Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn't establish the obligation. It allows that…. If there is an obligation relative to the licence, either by regulation or law, for a non-replaceable forest licence obligation, it allows the obligation to be able to be transferred to government — obviously, with the financial remuneration that would come with it to us — so we could continue on with the work. It is not offered to other forest licences that are not non-replaceable forest licences.

B. Simpson: In this case, then, it is only the non-replaceable that are on that list. Replaceable licences still hold the responsibility for free-to-grow. They retain that obligation and cannot pass that to government. Is my understanding correct?

[ Page 3434 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: That is the correct understanding.

B. Simpson: What proportion of the assigned allowable cut, at this juncture, could the ministry then accrue free-to-grow obligations for — either on a proportional basis of volume or just a percentage of allowable cut?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to do round numbers as best as we have the information here. If the member wants more detail, we'll get it in more detail.

Basically, under the woodlot side, virtually none, because they are basically mostly replaceable forest licences. We think it's somewhere around maybe a maximum of three million cubic metres, or less than 5 percent of the annual allowable cut. That's the number given — sort of like the historical information. It's here at the table with the members of my staff. If the member wants more detail, we'll be happy to suss that number out in more detail.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that response.

In terms of projecting forward, the government has established a target of 20 percent to be managed by B.C. Timber Sales. It's my understanding that most of those will be in the form of non-renewable timber licences. Is it possible or conceivable that a larger proportion, then, will come under — as much as potentially 20 percent of the land base — that people exercise this right to give that obligation back to the Crown?

Hon. R. Coleman: None of the timber sales licences are in this category. Theirs are timber sales licences. We sell the non-replaceable licence, we collect the stumpage, including the silviculture responsibility, and we do the silviculture.

Sections 20 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

B. Simpson: In the ministry's information bulletin with respect to Bill 9, the statement is made that

section 26 allows "extending the deadline for timber reallocation under the Forestry Revitalization Act to March 31, 2008, to allow more time for first nations consultation." What was the nature of the first nations consultation on the Forestry Revitalization Act in the first place?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: The Forestry Revitalization Act enables a minister to make orders to delete land from timber licences and tree farm licences in order to implement the reallocation of harvesting rights under the forestry revitalization plan.

Currently all orders must be made by March 31. We're not ready to do them all by March 31 because of the extensive consultation we've already undertaken with first nations. We concentrated on certain areas, particularly with B.C. Timber Sales, to concentrate enough that we can get some of those out, frankly, into sales so we can move to our market pricing system. Then we concentrated on areas with first nations, so we can identify with them. Now a lot of that work has been completed.

There are a number of ministerial orders that will be completed shortly, and some are coming in the ensuing months, which I have to sign. We want to make sure that we do them within the legislation, so the amendment to this

section will allow the minister's orders in relation to area deletions to be made until March 31, 2008. That's so we can have the time to make sure that if there's an area deletion that first nations have an interest in or whatever, we can work through that consultation.

The amendment gives the ministry adequate time to identify areas that are required to support the market pricing system, as I said, to consult with first nations regarding their areas of interest. This will ensure an orderly examination of timber licence and tree farm licence areas to determine appropriate deletions.

I think, frankly, that as we've done this…. It's a pretty complicated process. There's extensive consultation with first nations, and we just want to make sure we have the time to finish the work.

B. Simpson: What percentage of the takeback is complete as of today?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: All the volume is done by the end of this month as far as the takeback is concerned. In other words, we've taken back the 20-percent volume. This is identifying the area within the tree farm licence and the forest licences to be removed, in actual fact. We've done the takeback notionally.

This is the step that identifies the area we're actually taking. This is basically to have an orderly examination of those licences so that we're able to determine the appropriate deletions so that we don't have somebody with a tree farm licence with a responsibility for land. They know what land isn't theirs anymore, basically, which they don't have any operating power on. That's what this does.

B. Simpson: If I understand the minister correctly, then, the negotiation of the appropriate 20 percent per licensee or group of licences with a licensee, as the act stipulates…. If I understand the minister correctly, that takeback portion has been done. Have all of those licence holders then been compensated on that takeback? What I'm hearing is that the takeback has been done, but the areas have not yet been ascertained. So has the compensation also been done in conjunction with the takeback?

Hon. R. Coleman: For the most part all the areas are already identified. But before the formal removal of the area, even though we've done the discussion with the companies, we've identified the area. Before formal

[ Page 3435 ]

removal first nations consultation has to be completed, and some of those are still ongoing. That's why the extension of the date.

On the compensation side, we have done a number of these that we've completed, and a number are still in negotiation. I'm led to believe it's about 50 percent so far on the negotiation on the financial side, but we can get those details.

B. Simpson: With respect to the latter point of getting the details, how does the public access these details? If the public wants to go to one window…. This government likes to be transparent and have this one window on line. Where's the webpage I can go to on line and get a report on the status of both the takeback and the compensation?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that news releases have gone out each time one of these is done, with the information that can go in. That's in the public domain now. We're not sure how long they would be kept on the ministry website once we've put them out. They don't keep every news release for years on there.

There may be other information relative to a deal that's proprietary to us as the ministry that we wouldn't release, probably for a number of reasons. One of them I could think of is if I'm still negotiating with somebody who wants to negotiate with us for compensation. I don't know that I want them to know what we might have paid somebody else. I mean, they might know global numbers and areas, but they certainly wouldn't know, maybe, all the nuances of the deal, because that would be something we might want to use again in another negotiation.

B. Simpson: So at some point will the public know each deal? After all, this is a public resource. The money in the deal is coming from taxpayers' dollars. It's out of their pockets that the companies are being remunerated.

While it's fair for the minister to say that during negotiations you might not put the deal out, but at some point will the public know what the deal was, exactly what areas were taken back and exactly what the nature of the compensation was? How will that public accountability and transparency take place?

Hon. R. Coleman: The news release always says how much money is paid and what volume of takeback was taken. It's in the public domain. There's nothing hidden from the public.

All I'm saying is that there may be nuances to negotiations that may not be in a public domain because negotiations are ongoing in other places. But each and every one of these has had a press release when the deal has been completed with XYZ tree farm licence — whatever the case may be. The information has been released to the public, including the volume and where that is. It's in the public domain. Like I said earlier, I don't know how long a press release stays on the government website with regards to everything that goes on, but every single one of these is in the public domain.

B. Simpson: Let's go back to the first nations consultation. I'm confused, because the Forestry Revitalization Act is not about the reallocation. It's about the takeback, if I read it correctly.

Let me ask a question to the minister to make sure that I understand the act correctly. Does the act stipulate anything about reallocation?

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: The news releases on takeback — and all news releases — are archived on our website back to 1994. That's where you would go for the information. It's in the public domain.

The act is a mechanism for taking the timber back, not for its reallocation. That is, once it's taken back, it comes back to us, and under the Forest Act, we can sell it, or we can reallocate it. We can take a percentage to B.C. Timber Sales, a percentage to first nations, a percentage to small tenure. That's where we have the mechanism that allows us to deal with the timber once we have it back. The act allows us to take it back.

B. Simpson: Hence, my confusion. The information bulletin from the ministry states: "…extending the deadline for timber reallocation under the Forestry Revitalization Act to March 31, 2008, to allow more time for first nations consultation." The minister has stated that for the most part all of the areas for the takeback have already been identified. The minister stated that what's happening is that there are some deals which still need to close and that first nations need to be consulted on the reallocation.

We've just found out that the reallocation has nothing to do with the Forestry Revitalization Act. Is the reason that we're extending the act simply to close the existing deals and nothing to do with first nations consultation, because that part of reallocation is not covered under the act?

Hon. R. Coleman: The volume by licensees is done. The areas to support the volume taken back has basically, for the most part, been done but is still subject to consultation, as there may be some fine-tuning with regards to that.

The amendment to this

section — and I'll say it again — will allow the ministerial orders in relation to the areas to be made until March 31, 2008, because we can't get them all done by the end of the month. We need some time, because as the member well knows, sometimes there may be issues in and around consultations with first nations that will take a little more time than some people think it will.

We feel that the amendment gives the ministry the adequate time to identify the areas that are required to support the market pricing system and to consult with first nations regarding their areas of interest. This is going to ensure an orderly examination of timber li-

[ Page 3436 ]

cence and tree farm licence areas to determine the appropriate deletions.

Although most of the work is done, there are still things around the edges that need to be completed and can't be completed so that I can sign a ministerial order before the end of March 2006. The amendment is to extend the deadline.

B. Simpson: I think I heard what I suspected in his comments. Let's take a different question.

[1535]

Are there budgetary implications for extending this? The money was originally allocated when the bill was created, and then I believe there was an addition to it. Given that — if I understand correctly — about 50 percent the deal has been closed, does the minister believe that there are sufficient funds? Will there be additional funds reallocated over this next three-year period?

Hon. R. Coleman: This has neither a positive nor negative impact on the ministry's fiscal plan.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

B. Simpson: The addition of the ranching sector under the Ministry of Forests Act, I'm sure, will be a welcome addition to the ranching community.

That addition, however, also has implications for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. With this ministry taking on the role of encouraging a vigorous, efficient and more competitive ranching sector…. If I'm a rancher, what does that mean for me, relative to my relationship with Agriculture and Lands? Is there a memorandum of understanding? How do those two ministries relate with respect to achieving this goal?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I go on, I want to introduce my latest staff member that's joined us, Dr. Judi Beck. Judi has a PhD and an RPF. She's a manager in wildfire management for the ministry.

The ranching sector statement is deliberate in this

section for a number of reasons. One, it was after extensive consultation with the industry, the Cattlemen's Association. They felt that was the proper descriptor, because the other animals that are involved in the land base — it may be cows or steers or bulls — could be in the dairy sector or whatever the case may be.

So it is deliberate. Obviously, we changed the name of the ministry to Ministry of Forests and Range to make sure people understood that in consultation with industries on the land base that forestry has a relationship with, because we also have the leases with regards to ranching, we would want to encourage both industries. So the ranching sector words are, in actual fact, the words that were agreed to by the parties that were consulted on the legislation.

B. Simpson: Sometimes assigning things to more than one ministry means you get a bit of a fractured approach. Under the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, for example, we can grow the ranching areas by getting a lease of Crown land, doing a conversion and doing a purchase and growing range capabilities that way, through a direct addition to either previous range land or private land.

The Minister of Agriculture and Lands has also been stating over the last few months that we need to double the ranching community and the ranching sector in the province, possibly through beetle wood that's converted to grasslands or whatever the case may be.

[1540]

So my question to the minister is: what is the comfort that the ranching community can have that there will be a coordinated effort between two significant and major ministries that both have obligations and stated intent of growing this sector of our economy?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Minister of Agriculture has to deal with a number of agencies with regards to stuff on the land base. He doesn't just have to deal with the Ministry of Forests and Range. He also has to have an integrated relationship with the Ministry of Health because of issues in and around things like slaughterhouses and stainless steel versus wood-type construction in countertops or whatever, if countertops have to be made of that sort of thing. How animals are handled with regards to their processing — that's Health.

He also has to have a relationship on a number of environmental issues with the Ministry of Environment with regards to aspects on the land base, and other agencies and groups. We're no different in that. This seems to be working very well. We have an ADM, David Borth, who's stationed in Kamloops as a member of our ministry as the person responsible for the range and our relationship with the cattlemen and to have an integrated relationship with the Ministry of Agriculture.

It seems to be working very well. By all accounts from the industry people I've spoken to and from the other people within ministries, they think this has been a worthwhile endeavour and will continue to be. But there will always have to be integration between ministries in government. It doesn't make any difference whether it's this one on range or this one on forestry where I have to deal with the Ministry of Transportation with regards to load levels and issues with regards to logging trucks, or with WorkSafe B.C. with regards to forest safety. All the ministries have to have an integrated approach in government. Otherwise we'll never be successful.

We endeavour to not have silos between our ministries. We do try and work very closely together, and by all accounts so far, this is working pretty well.

B. Simpson: Having said all of that, the minister is also aware of the struggles that we're having with the articulation between the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry of Transportation around logging roads, road rehabilitation, whether the bans are on or off, and the communications around that.

[ Page 3437 ]

Again, my question is quite explicit. Will we have an integrated strategy for the ranching community — much like some of the standing committees or standing management teams that the ministry has for various other functions — to give the ranching sector some surety that there is, in fact, that coordinated effort and the possibility of silos does not exist?

Having taken on this responsibility as an explicit objective, will there also be some sort of ranching sector strategy that's cross-functional and cross-ministerial?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's Mr. Borth's job. My expectation is that he would accomplish it. The last I met with him, he was working with integrated relationships across the ministries and with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — who would probably be the main client group in this — to make sure that issues such as integrated approaches to leases for range leases could be expedited in a manner that would better serve our client base.

I'm quite confident in the individual that we have in the position, having that integrated relationship. I'm quite confident that the industry is very comfortable with him. They have told me that he was a very good selection when we put him into the job and that he's doing a very good job.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

section 31.

B. Simpson: For clarification, under the previous Forest Practices Code, were licensees responsible for fires they created — full cost of rehabilitation and the fire management?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: Somebody causes a fire, and they're responsible for all costs.

Having said that, the reason it took a little longer to answer was because I said: well, the next question might be how you recover the costs if they don't have any money. We seek legal remedies on that and try to recover any costs to us, the Crown, from anybody that causes a fire. If they haven't paid or haven't met their legal responsibilities, we will pursue them.

B. Simpson: I asked one question and got an answer to two. The answer to the first question so that I'm crystal-clear…. Under the Forest Practices Code, where licensees are responsible for fire caused by their industrial activity, they bear those costs. Was it just part of doing business — that if you created a fire, it costs you?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's see if we can get this. If they cause a fire, the structure says they pay. That's basically been the structure, and that continues. Maybe I should just read the

section explanation into the record, if it helps the member:

The Wildfire Act currently requires persons who carry out an industrial activity to conduct fire hazard assessments and to abate any fire hazard which the person is aware of. As currently written, the provision requires persons carrying out an industrial activity or prescribed activity to abate any fire hazard they discover regardless of whether they caused it. The amendment to

section 7 clarifies that the fire abatement responsibilities of a person carrying out these activities apply only to hazards that are a result of the activity.

B. Simpson: That explanation was helpful.

section 31(2) there's a

section that has been removed. That

section is "…aware or ought reasonably to be aware." It's replaced with the word "exists." In the minister's opinion, is "exists" stronger language, or are we allowing someone to simply use the argument that they were not aware? It seems to me that the language seems to be loosening. It feels like a bit of a due diligence defence mechanism here. So why was "aware or ought reasonably to be aware" removed? And what are the implications of removing that language?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: Two things happened in this section. Actually, when we redrafted this act for — the reasons we did this section, which I'll explain in a second — the Forest Practices Code, legislation used to say "exist." When we did the Wildfire Act, the other language was put in. So when we came along to deal with the

section in the Wildfire Act, leg. counsel said that because that has never had a problem, a challenge or a difficulty, we should use "exist" in this

section because it's been the standard that has been in place with regards to it.

What this

section really does is clarify the fire abatement responsibilities, because the language previously in the Wildfire Act could be interpreted that you had to mitigate any fire hazard that existed if you had it on your land. The challenge with that, as the member knows, is that in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and up into the north there's a rather significant fire hazard that's starting to create itself in dying trees.

Theoretically, somebody could have been held accountable for a forest fire in dead pine on the land because they knew a fire hazard existed, even though they didn't create the fire hazard. The clarity is that it's a hazard that's been created as a result of the industrial or prescribed activity, not by a natural activity.

B. Simpson: The minister's comments about the operator, whoever is doing the industrial activity, ought to be aware…. How would that then apply to the waste allowances, when we do have operators in mountain pine beetle operating areas that many would argue are fuel-loading in how they're going about, particularly, cut-to-length?

Under "aware or ought reasonably to be aware…." It seems to me that covers the fact that if I have given a

[ Page 3438 ]

prescription in a salvage area that leaves a lot of fuel on the ground, I ought reasonably to be aware that I have created a fuel hazard and potentially, then, a fire occurs — as opposed to just going back to the old language of having it exist…. So wouldn't leaving "ought reasonably to be aware" be better, given some of the salvage operations we've got and the fuel-loading that's going on in the land base?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. That is not the advice I've been given.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear, the minister's previous answers helped me to understand the nature of the compensation here. In this case, they've added compensation for rehabilitation in

section 1(a)(ii) and for equipment loss and equipment damage.

[1555]

If I understand this correctly, this isn't a case where the individual or the individuals doing the work were not implicated in the actual cause of the fire. They're voluntarily doing this, or they're doing it under the direction of the ministry. Therefore, if they carry out either of these activities or in the course of fighting a fire lose some equipment, we are just clarifying the range of compensation for that voluntary activity. If I could just get a clarification so that I understand it correctly.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct.

Sections 32 to 36 inclusive approved.

Schedules A, B and C approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:57 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 9, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee on Bill 14.

Committee of the Whole House

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:59 p.m.

section 1.

M. Karagianis: I do have just one small question for the minister. I note in

section 10(3)(

b) that there is a comment, "improvements, other than a manufactured home, that are assessable under this Act," and then it goes on to clarify. Can the minister perhaps explain to me why manufactured homes have been excluded from this?

[1600]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Before I answer the member's question, let me just acknowledge the presence of my staff. Kinsburh Healey and Jeffrey Krasnick are with me today, and I appreciate their help.

There already is a provision in the Assessment Act to cover damage to manufactured homes. That's why that is not specified here.

M. Karagianis: I know that during estimates the minister and I had some discussions about float homes as well. I know that within much of the legislation in Small Business, float homes are categorized with manufactured homes. In fact, how is this applicable to float homes?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The Assessment Act, as I understand it, pertains to land and buildings on that land. Therefore, we need the component of those two pieces. It's my understanding that if a float home somehow had land in some form attached to it, then it would be covered by B.C. Assessment. Otherwise, it's my understanding that it would not be.

M. Karagianis: I do know from experience that float homes do actually pay property tax based on an assessment. I believe much of that is levied on their water lot as being a recognized component or entity.

In this case this is really about extending a definition of the assessment around damage and destruction for a specific date beyond the 31st of October to January 1. I'd be curious as to why that would not cover float homes as well. Perhaps the minister could just elaborate a little bit more on that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important for us to understand that these amendments apply to the Assessment Act. Therefore, if a float home or another form of home — whatever's on the B.C. Assessment roll…. This deals with the B.C. Assessment roll.

[ Page 3439 ]

Up until this legislation is passed, should it be passed, when a home gets damaged on November 1 and a value has been established based on the July value, there is no way to get it off the rolls. It had to stay on the rolls. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I understand, in the discussions with the member, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to her either.

This is dealing with the things that are on the B.C. Assessment roll. They will be covered.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

[1605]

M. Karagianis: This is more a point of information than anything. Why is the extended time period required? Why is that necessary now?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This provision is put in and is initiated at the discretion of the taxpayer. It provides that taxpayer an extra period of time, should they want it. They initiate it. What we have found is that when we have the firm deadline, for whatever reason, from time to time, taxpayers have some difficulty, some challenges, providing all of their documentation by the deadline.

Currently, as it happens, if that deadline comes and we haven't received information from the taxpayer, then we must make an assessment. Then we have to roll through the whole assessment and appeal process. We believe that providing this discretionary waiver opportunity for the taxpayer — based on the experience of the ministry and the folks that work with the property transfer tax — will actually provide a service and benefit to taxpayers who require some more time.

M. Karagianis: I guess one more aspect of this is whether or not the new extended time period is going to be commonly known or how that information is going to be distributed to the taxpayer to let them know that they have that up-to-six-month grace period. How is that information being reported out or promoted to the taxpayers?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member. That's a very, very good question. What we do as the course of our business is…. The ministry has embarked upon an ongoing, continuous improvement in customer service. Through the process of property transfer tax folks dealing with taxpayers, this would come up in the discussions. They would advise them of their options.

The other thing that we will do, because we do have brochures on property transfer tax and those kinds of things, is make sure that we put that on our new brochures if and when this should become law.

M. Karagianis: Knowing, in fact, that the amount of value of the property transfer tax is being reported as being significant, is there any loss of interest or revenue-related…? I'm thinking interest or loss of revenue on this six-month grace period, with the ministry not actually collecting the transfer tax for that period of time — up to six months.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That actually has not been a consideration for bringing forward this amendment. This provides improved customer service to the taxpayers, should they choose to seek the use of this waiver. But what it also does is to save the taxpayer the hardship of having to go through an appeal process and the time that that takes, and quite frankly, it also saves the ministry time and having to deal with appeals. I'd like to say that I think this is a win-win, but we have not even considered, in bringing forward this amendment, possible loss of interest or any of those things. We've brought this forward as a customer service initiative.

M. Karagianis: Is it fair to ask, then, if this is going to be a revenue-neutral function? Or at some time would there be a cost to the taxpayer for stretching their time for the full six months?

[1610]

Would there be a possibility of then charging a small interest fee for that, much as your income tax? If you file late, there is often a fee. Is that a possibility in the future? Or is that in any way going to be embedded in language to protect the taxpayer from that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, the waiver freezes everything. There is not going to be additional interest or any of that stuff.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

M. Karagianis: On

section 13. I have actually mentioned this to the minister before, but I would appreciate a dialogue on this. I think that this is an excellent use of electronic communication, but given my queries to both staff and the minister about safeguards and confirmation processes, has there been any additional thought around how safeguards and confirmation process might be applied to electronic communication?

Hon. R. Thorpe: To the member: I want to thank her for her questions and her interest in this area because it's a very, very important area.

Currently, we do not use e-mails. That has been, as I understand it from discussions and staff discussions with the member, her concern and a very legitimate concern. We do use faxes now. We do have a protocol in place to make sure that faxes are going to the right folks. But should this bill be passed, with respect to e-mail, it's very, very important that we put in place protocols to ensure the protection of personal and private information. We will do that.

I want to assure this House and the member that should this bill be proclaimed and when we're at that stage — as I said, we're not using e-mails now — I

[ Page 3440 ]

would be pleased to advise the member of the protocols that will be in place to protect the personal and private information of British Columbians with respect to the use of e-mails.

M. Karagianis: I think that's an excellent response from the minister on this.

My last question, really, is around the legal challenges to this type of communication. I know that at one point faxed material was not actually considered to be evidentiary. Certainly, there has been much debate around e-mail as being a legal contract between the sender and receiver. Has your staff managed to look at any legal precedents around challenges to this from either party — sending or receiving this information — and, perhaps, claims that information was not received in a timely manner or that information, in fact, doesn't stand up to a legal challenge of whether the e-mail is considered a legally binding contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the Electronics Document Act does say that faxes and e-mails are acceptable, and as a matter of interest, this and other statutes have been in place since the year 2000.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 14, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee on Bill 15.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: My question to the minister is: what's the purpose of

section 1, the addition of the corporate governance plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: The purpose of

section 1 is to provide amendments to the Employee Investment Act with regard to labour-sponsored funds, to really provide more clarity to the fund managers with regard to their governance structures. This is an issue that has surfaced nationally. As I think various jurisdictions have been reviewing their legislations — they've been in place — the determination was made that we should actually provide for more specificity with regard to the kind of governance that would be expected of these labour-sponsored funds.

[1620]

L. Krog: With respect to these corporate governance plans and policies and practices, who is going to review those? Will it be the administrator under the act, or will it be some other part of government? Will they, in fact, be reviewed by government?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it will be reviewed by the administrator.

L. Krog: Then I take it that up until now the plans have not either included, on a regular basis, the provision of corporate governance plans or…. What has been the practice of the administrator to date with respect to corporate governance plans? Have they been included? Have they been reviewed? Have they not been reviewed? Have they been rejected because of an absence?

Hon. C. Hansen: It has not been a part of the discussion or the relationship between the administrator and the plans up until now.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: This appears to me to be a significant change to the legislation. It is now excluding liability of the government; an employee, agent, or minister of the government; the administrator — who, quite frankly, is not terribly well-defined in the legislation; a person designated or appointed under this act by the administrator; or a person acting on behalf of or under the administrator. In other words, it appears to me to be a complete absolution given to government, essentially, as the administrator is appointed by the Minister of Finance — as I understand it. Is that, in fact, the purpose of the section?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this

section does is not to eliminate that liability, as the member suggested, but rather to define exactly the extent of the liability that would be held by government officials acting in their capacities.

L. Krog: With respect, my reading of it is that it says — in

section sub (2) of 41.1, as proposed — that

[ Page 3441 ]

"no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against a protected person because of anything done or omitted (

a) in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Act, or (

b) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Act."

My question to the minister would be…. That seems to me to cover all of the activities that might be undertaken by the administrator or the government or an employee, etc., as set out in subsection (1). I'm just wondering; if it doesn't absolve all those persons of liability, what activities, short of those being criminal, are we talking about?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think for the benefit of the member I'll read this paragraph, which will perhaps give a bit of an expanded explanation of the section. It says: "The definition of 'protected person' provides liability protection for government; employees, including an agent or minister of the government; the administrator, or other persons appointed by the administrator or acting on his or her behalf." I think this next is the most important sentence: "The liability protection is limited to acts or omissions of powers or duties under the act, performed or exercised in good faith."

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can clarify what he's reading from.

Hon. C. Hansen: These are the notes that have been prepared for my purposes, for this committee stage which we in the middle of.

L. Krog: Without wishing to be difficult, I suppose I'm really asking: is that the legal opinion given, or is that simply a policy analyst's comments on the provisions?

[1625]

Hon. C. Hansen: The notes that I quoted were prepared by legislative counsel.

L. Krog: These schemes, WOF included, are very well-known, seen by the public, I would generally suspect, as essentially government-sponsored schemes on which they perhaps have more reliance than the average offering on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

What this

section appears to me to do is to remove, or certainly weaken, notwithstanding the minister's comments, the possibility of a successful suit being brought against government if they've not done their job appropriately — or the administrator or agents of government. So what it appears to be doing is that the public is essentially losing a protection that it might formerly have enjoyed by taking a legal proceeding. I wonder if the minister can advise me whether I'm completely off base in that suggestion.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think to emphasize that…. There are liabilities that would still exist if any of these officials were to be acting in bad faith. Basically, as long as these officials are doing their jobs and doing it properly, they would be provided with that protection. But I think what's important to recognize is that we are talking about investments that have elements of risk to them. It would not be appropriate for us to hold government officials or the administrator liable for areas that are really beyond their scope of control or the powers or duties that they hold and the responsibilities that they have in their oversight responsibilities.

L. Krog: My question to the minister is: have there been any successful suits or claims brought prior to the introduction of this bill against the administrator or officials of government or any of the persons who are now listed as being protected persons under the proposed section?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, there have not been any cases brought forward of the nature that the member described.

L. Krog: My question to the minister, then, is: why has the government brought this particular

section — which appears to, in my respectful opinion, lessen or more narrowly define potential liability of the Crown and its agents — forward at this time if we have no pending suits and no successful suits?

Hon. C. Hansen: These investments, by their nature, as I mentioned before, do have their elements of risk. There is a case in another province where there has been a class action lawsuit brought against the fund, which potentially had implications for government officials who may have had some degree of oversight responsibility. So we want to make sure that we are proactive in British Columbia and that we ensure that the appropriate protections are in place.

L. Krog: I appreciate, much like the words of Milton, that thousands at the minister's call "post o'er land and ocean without rest," so to speak. He has obviously accessed information that might not be available to the lowly opposition over here.

[1630]

I'm curious to know: was the suit that the minister refers to successful against the government or agents of the Crown in that circumstance?

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not based on any privileged information that I have access to. The case is very public. It is currently before the courts. Therefore, there has not been a determination made. Any of the knowledge that I have shared with the member is public information.

L. Krog: I'm wondering then, in the circumstances, if the government is being proactive in this area. Is the government not concerned that by the very passage of this

section it will in fact discourage parties from investing in these funds, which have contributed to the economic prosperity of the province?

[ Page 3442 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think it's important that these funds, when they are communicating with potential investors, provide their prospectuses and that they do their due diligence. I think in that course an investor would learn that there are elements of risk to these types of investments. But certainly there is nothing that's intended to cause investors to have any increased doubt. This is purely a measure that we're taking because we believe that it's appropriate to provide this protection and to clarify where the liability protection rests. But there is nothing in this that is intended to in any way affect the reputation of any of the labour-sponsored funds that exist.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: This is one of those lovely technical

definitions: striking out and substituting the definition of conservation officer. What's the purpose of this particular change?

Hon. B. Penner: The purpose of this section…. Basically, it's a consequential amendment to make it consistent to the amendment which is coming up in

section 5.

L. Krog: Is that essentially now to take into account the fact that it appears that the chief conservation officer, under the proposed

section 5, which we're not dealing with yet but which does allow the chief conservation officer to designate other persons other than has been the practice in the past…?

Hon. B. Penner: As I understand the question, the member is asking whether this somehow allows for a different type of conservation officer. My answer to that is no.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Krog: This

section is supposedly designed to clarify the chief conservation officer's authority to designate. I'm just wondering: does it in fact represent an expansion of the authority that presently exists?

Hon. B. Penner: The powers remain the same, but it does expand the category of people that the chief conservation officer may delegate those powers to.

[1635]

L. Krog: Does that expansion include people who, on the face of it, might not in fact have the qualifications or have met the criteria for the previous persons who would have been entitled to be appointed as conservation officers?

I'm wondering if that would include, for instance — and this is a bit of a ludicrous suggestion — anyone employed in the ministry, arguably. The wording of the section, as I see it, is fairly broad. It simply says "designated persons employed in the ministry." It doesn't seem to specify whether they require any particular skills in order to do this job.

Hon. B. Penner: Currently the restriction on who can receive these powers is listed in

section 106(3)(b). If the member reads that, it states the persons must be a class of persons employed in the ministry as auxiliary conservation officers at the very least. In the amended

section it will be subsection 106(3)(iv), if you can follow that along better than I can.

L. Krog: My friend has suggested that perhaps I need a map to follow that suggestion, but I think I've got the minister's point in this.

With respect to this, this

section appears to simply broaden the persons who may be employed from within the ministry as conservation officers. That appears to be the general intent and opens the door, I would argue, to the establishment of civilians as special conservation officers. I'm just wondering: is this simply going to mean that we're going to elevate existing staff to temporary positions, not necessarily a long-term solution to the problem of a lack of conservation officers?

Hon. B. Penner: I disagree with the characterization of the member, and I want it to be clear on the record that that is not our

interpretation or our intention in terms of this legislation. In short, it's to allow the chief conservation officer to delegate powers to regional managers within the conservation officer service.

[1640]

If the member goes back to the actual legislation, right in subsection (3) it says: "Subject to the direction of the minister…." So there's a caveat there. Subsection (

a) says that this pertains to people that the chief conservation officer has general supervision over.

Then sub (b)(i) — it has to be somebody who the chief conservation officer considers suitable. Those are all indicators that these authorities would only be delegated to properly trained conservation officers within the province of British Columbia.

Now, British Columbia has recently announced that we will be hiring 18 seasonal conservation officers around the province. These are people that will be fully trained as conservation officers, but it is not our intention to delegate these kinds of authorities to those conservation officers despite their training.

Rather, the intention here is to allow the chief conservation officer to delegate to regional managers or managers some extra authority so that functions that are better carried out at the regional level can be carried out at the regional level without getting bogged down waiting for approval from head office in Victoria. As a matter of policy, delegations of authority under this

section would always be to a manager in the conservation officer service.

L. Krog: Well, that raises the obvious question. If that is, in fact, the intention of the section, why does the

[ Page 3443 ]

section simply not use the term "regional manager" or some other such term that would qualify to designate regional managers? The language is very broad, I would suggest to the hon. minister, and I would appreciate a response to that.

Hon. B. Penner: We had one of those very conversations with legislative counsel who helped draft this legislation. Those are always interesting conversations to have. When you come up with your bright ideas, they're often the ones who tell you why your bright ideas aren't so bright. In this case what they told us is that the term regional manager is already a defined term elsewhere in the legislation and that to replicate it here may have consequences that were not intended. We want to confine the delegation of authorities that we're discussing to people within the conservation officer service.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister slight the lawyers' advice in this. I'm just grossly offended by that suggestion, blaming it on the able profession of the province. I see the Attorney General smiling as well.

In Alberta in 2004 there were some 220 conservation officers compared to 115 in British Columbia. Alberta has a third less territory and roughly a million fewer people than British Columbia. Is this section, in fact, designed to lead to a hoped-for expansion of the numbers of conservation officers in order to better protect B.C.'s natural beauty and wildlife?

Hon. B. Penner: The purpose for the section, just to repeat, is to clarify and give greater ability for the chief conservation officer to delegate certain authorities to managers within the conservation officer service throughout the province at the regional level. That's the purpose for this. We believe that it will allow those functions to be better carried out and will streamline delivery of the enforcement program so that we can be more effective in our enforcement priorities.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Krog: This

section seems to me to perhaps raise some Charter issues with respect to the search-and-seizure provisions. The

section refers to being able to enter "a part of premises occupied solely as a private residence" and "seize and remove anything that the member has reasonable or probable grounds for believing may provide evidence of the commission of an offence…without a warrant, if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but because of exigent circumstances it is not practicable to obtain the warrant."

Has the minister taken advice on this issue with respect to the search-and-seizure provisions?

[1645]

Hon. B. Penner: This legislation has actually gone through review by three different branches within the Attorney General's ministry, including legislative counsel, legal services branch and the criminal justice branch. We received approval to proceed with this legislation.

L. Krog: I'd like to defer for a moment to one of the other members who would like to ask a question in this particular section.

D. MacKay: Thank you to the member for Nanaimo for the opportunity to ask a similar-type question.

The Charter issue has been raised by the member for Nanaimo. Living in the northwest part of our province where we have a lot of guide-outfitters with hunting camps that are used part of the year as residence…. In the wintertime when the camps are closed, those facilities are then used for storage. I guess the question I have is: should a conservation officer decide to enter a premise or a building that was used part-time as a principal residence and is now in the storage mode, does he still have the authority, under this new legislation, to enter the residence portion of that building?

Hon. B. Penner: If the member is interested in joining me in going back to our enforcement days and we find ourselves in this type of situation that you just described, I think we would be better served by relying on the provisions of

section 93 of the Wildlife Act as it currently exists — specifically

section 93(c), which authorizes a conservation officer or constable without warrant to "enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located." That is a provision that already exists under law to allow that type of a warrant-less entry.

L. Krog: Sub (9), to be added now, says that for the purposes of subsection (8), exigent circumstances means "circumstances in which the delay necessary to obtain the warrant would result in danger to human life or safety or the loss or destruction of evidence." I'm just wondering, speaking for the animal lovers of this province, why the

section doesn't contain any provision with respect to danger or safety to animal life.

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, this proposed legislation did get reviewed by three different branches of the Attorney General's ministry. While we had approval to proceed, we're also trying to proceed cautiously lest there be the Charter challenges that the member opposite talks about.

[1650]

While we believe these authorities are necessary under the situations described here, we also want to make sure that we limit the authority to perform these types of searches without a warrant to those cases that will most likely survive a Charter challenge and Charter scrutiny. We have modelled this particular provision on an existing provision in the federal Fisheries Act, and it has similar language. We have some confi-

[ Page 3444 ]

dence that this language will be deemed acceptable by the courts.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: Just a general question on

section 7. What's the purpose of bringing

section 7 in — this addition?

Hon. B. Penner: In our unending quest to make the laws of British Columbia more accessible and understandable to the average person, we are endeavouring here to consolidate a number of different provisions and just simply reorder them in a more logical fashion so that when you turn to the particular

section or part of the legislation, you can see what the relevant provisions dealing with search and seizure are. We're just kind of recomposing existing authorities into a particular place in the legislation here.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 9, if the minister could simply explain the purpose of this change.

Hon. B. Penner: I believe this provision will actually increase environmental protection, because currently, in order for a conservation officer to perform an inspection of a vehicle, you have to believe that it's transporting hazardous waste. Until you perform that inspection, it's hard to know whether or not it is in fact carrying hazardous waste. It's difficult to form the necessary mental conclusions, as an investigating officer, on whether or not that vehicle is likely to be carrying hazardous waste.

Essentially, this broadens the authority of inspections to take place, and now the conservation officer or other inspector merely has to be satisfied or to believe that the vehicle is carrying waste in order to be entitled to inspect that vehicle and determine whether or not in fact it is carrying hazardous waste.

[1655]

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

L. Krog: I'm sure the minister involved will be kind with my ignorance, and I'm sure he's listening carefully to my question, as this involves the Ministry of Transportation.

It seems to me that this

section has the possibility of essentially removing a stream of revenue from local government. I would appreciate the comments on that.

With respect to

section 13, it strikes me that this, in fact, may have the effect of removing revenue from local government — is the way I would read it — as it appears to suggest that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to exempt from liability for taxation specified lands and improvements. I'm just wondering if, in fact, that is the case. If so, is there any compensation contemplated?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, that's not the case at all. This actually was a piece of legislation drafted in 1998. At the time when it was drafted, it was not anticipating, frankly, the use of P3s in terms of delivering of major projects. What you have is an exemption that is currently provided, for example, in the Millennium Line and the Expo Line. This is just ensuring that that same tax exemption applies to the Canada line or the Evergreen line or any other such transportation project.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, the intended purpose, then, is to simply allow government to provide exemptions to corporate bodies, I take it — not "persons," in the broad sense of the term, but to corporate bodies for purposes that are largely public in nature.

Hon. K. Falcon: "Persons" could theoretically be a person, but by the nature of these kinds of projects, the member opposite would probably recognize that these almost always are entirely corporations.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear from the minister, on the base wording of the language — and legislation is always presumed to have some intent behind it — that means a lowly, subcontracted carpenter, in theory, working individually, not through a corporate body, would be covered by this potential exemption. I just want to confirm with the minister that that is, in fact, the case.

Hon. K. Falcon: The lowly carpenter is unlikely to be the owner of the lands on which this rapid transit project is being built.

L. Krog: As I understand it, then, if I'm an owner of land that is needed for one of these purposes, I could be exempted from taxation. What range of taxation are we talking about? That's what I'm not very clear on. I wonder if the minister can answer that.

Hon. K. Falcon: We're talking very specifically about property tax exemption.

Sections 13 to 23 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Will

section 24 pass? So ordered. Will

section 25 pass?

[1700]

L. Krog: Sorry. I'm a bit slow off the mark. I was rising on

section 24.

section 24.

L. Krog: Again, one of the concerns that the opposition has is around the issue of the Charter and unrea-

[ Page 3445 ]

sonable search-and-seizure provisions. I would appreciate the comments of the minister on this particular section.

Hon. B. Penner: First of all, I should clarify that this provision or these provisions —

section 24 — only pertain to situations where the landowner or homeowner has given permission, consent for someone to enter the property or the investigator has a warrant. The amendment applies to inspections as opposed to investigations.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

L. Krog: I'm wondering what this

section is aimed at in terms of vehicles; in other words, what vehicles is the ministry concerned about with this particular section?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily it refers to what they call motorcoaches or buses and commercial vehicles.

L. Krog: Does this have anything to do with making such vehicles more accessible to the public, particularly those who are handicapped?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it doesn't. This is more a case of where we've got requirements in legislation that don't often keep up with the changing nature of the industry. What this will help do is allow us to bring about, by regulation, some of the regulations required to meet the standards that are increasingly being set with respect to this industry. This amendment will address that issue, and by allowing us to include new requirements in the regulations rather than the act, it will improve the ministry's ability to respond to future requirements.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

section 31.

L. Krog: The particular change made to Ambrose Lake and the description for Gladys Lake Ecological Reserve: will that result in any reduction/increase in either of these?

[1705]

Hon. B. Penner: I have been joined by a new set of staff who have helped prepare the amendments when it comes to park boundaries, which, as I understand, is always a challenge in terms of getting the boundaries accurate.

In terms of the specific

section that we're dealing with here — I believe it's

section 31 — this change is to add 32 hectares to the existing ecological reserve. This means that the total area of the ecological reserve will now be 295 hectares. The land that we're adding, I'm advised, was previously Crown land.

N. Simons: Minister, thank you for answering these questions.

Are there any other changes in relation to Ambrose Lake besides the addition of this piece of land?

Hon. B. Penner: Apparently not. I'm told that this is it for now.

L. Krog: Again, the same question with respect to the Gladys Lake Ecological Reserve. I'm wondering if this represents an expansion or reduction, and if so, for what purpose?

Hon. B. Penner: The impetus for this particular change or amendment stems from a public advisory group that issued a report with a recommendation last year — I think in the summer of 2005. What's happening with this particular amendment is: converting 2,499 hectares from Gladys Lake Ecological Reserve to class-A park status in Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park. The member will know that's a class-A park.

Gladys Lake Ecological Reserve was originally 43,040 hectares. As a result of this amendment, the area will now be 40,541 hectares, but there is an addition of 2,499 hectares to Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park, which, as indicated, is a class-A park.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

section 33.

L. Krog: Particularly with reference to

section 33(a), repealing the descriptions of Barkerville Park and Sudeten Park, I wonder if the minister can confirm that the Sudeten Park is the park located south of Fort St. John?

Hon. B. Penner: I am ably assisted by my colleague, the member for Peace River North, who advises me that Sudeten Park is actually more closely located to Dawson Creek than it is to Fort St. John. I believe that it totals about five hectares in size — give or take. He also told me a few days ago that it was very negatively impacted by some flooding in the mid-1980s. As a result….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Oh, sorry, that's a different park, evidently. Nevertheless, Sudeten Park is near Dawson Creek. This amendment has been a matter of some discussion with the regional district, and I understand they're anxiously awaiting the transfer of management authority for that piece of land.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can confirm that Sudeten Park was in fact named for German socialists or pacifists who came and settled in that area back in the '20s or '30s? The minister might seek assistance from the other minister.

[1710]

Hon. B. Penner: I don't know what the particular political leanings were of the people involved in this,

[ Page 3446 ]

but apparently the area was set aside to commemorate the immigration of the Sudeten people from the former Czechoslovakia in 1938 as they left that particular area.

L. Krog: My thanks to the minister for confirming what I believed to be true, that this important park was in fact to commemorate those fleeing Nazi Germany and has some historical significance. Thus my questions around this particular area.

Will the fact that it is now being dropped, if you will, from the

schedule of B.C. Parks…? Are there any guarantees? Will there be contracts in place? How can the public of British Columbia be assured that this important recognition of an important piece of British Columbia's history and its settlement in that area would be protected in perpetuity for park purposes?

Hon. B. Penner: As is often the case in these types of transfers, there is a reversion clause in the legal documents so that if the park is no longer being used for park purposes by the group that's assuming management responsibility, then that land would revert back to the B.C. government and B.C. Parks. I should note, though, that the group that will be taking on management responsibility has, in practice and in fact, been looking after this particular area for about four years now, and I'm told they've done a good job.

L. Krog: The minister referred to "group." I'm just wondering…. I take it then, that this is not being transferred, in fact, to local government of any form. This is being transferred to a society or some association. Can the minister confirm, if that's the case, what sort of society or group we are talking about?

Hon. B. Penner: In fact, what we're proposing to do here is transfer ownership or management authority for this land to the Peace River regional district with the understanding that it would be managed by the Toms Lake and district recreation commission.

L. Krog: On to Kledo Creek Park. Can the minister tell us what's happening with Kledo Creek Park, and what changes or what benefit will the public receive from this?

Hon. B. Penner: This is the park I thought I was referring to earlier, based on input from my colleague the member for Peace River North, who advises me that in the mid-1980s — and parks staff confirm that — the facilities that were there were damaged in a flood. They were not repaired or replaced, and in 1988 all the facilities were removed from this rather small six-hectare park. It has not been utilized as a park since that time by members of the public, at least not to any significance, so the land is proposed to be returned back to the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands as Crown land.

L. Krog: If it's going back to the Ministry of Agriculture and Crown lands, is there some expectation that this will, in fact, be disposed of as opposed to being reserved for public use?

[1715]

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I'm being ably assisted by my colleague the member for Peace River North, who, helping with some of the large geography of this part of the world, tells me that this particular park is located approximately 60 kilometres north of Fort Nelson and is right adjacent to the Alaska Highway.

I don't imagine there's any particularly strong demand for the utilization of this piece of property, given its location. However, it will be Crown land. If members of the public want to stop there and go for a walk and stretch their legs, they certainly will be entitled to do that.

Clearly, if all we're talking about is a walk after you get out of your car as opposed to providing proper facilities, I'm wondering if the minister has consulted with the minister responsible for tourism with this particular section.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure if the member has ever been to that part of the world, but if he hasn't, I would highly recommend it, particularly with all the improvements in the roads that have taken place in the last few years, due to the able advocacy of the member for Peace River North.

This particular park…. The member perhaps wasn't listening carefully when I was describing earlier what happened. It wasn't B.C. Parks that took away the facilities; it was a flood of Kledo Creek in the mid-1980s. So Mother Nature kind of decommissioned this particular site all on its own. I'm told that from time to time people still do stop there and go for a walk, and if they want to continue to do so, they may do so. There are many other provincial parks in the vicinity. There is the Muskwa-Kechika protected area, which is a huge area in that part of British Columbia.

Seriously, though, I do commend that part of the province to members from the southern part of British Columbia who may not have been there. It's spectacular and well worth the visit.

L. Krog: With respect to the changes to Shannon Falls Park, as I understand it, this is to remove a hectare of the park for purposes of expanding the Sea to Sky Highway corridor for construction upgrades. I'm wondering if the minister is contemplating expansion of this park.

Hon. B. Penner: In answer to the member's question, changes are being made to improve the safety of

[ Page 3447 ]

the highway there. We did take a look — B.C. Parks staff did — to see if there was some other way to add to the size of Shannon Falls Park. I'm advised that there were no suitable replacement lands at Shannon Falls Park. However, there have been a number of initiatives undertaken in terms of compensation for the improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway. As a result, there are about 15 to 20 hectares of high-value conservation lands that are being added to nearby Murrin and Brandywine Falls Provincial Parks.

In addition, my colleague the Minister of Transportation has generously authorized the B.C. park system to access some capital money from his budget, which is allowing us to make a number of improvements to provincial parks along the Sea to Sky corridor.

Again, I can commend that particular trip to members opposite in your spare time — if you have any, because I know it is hard to find that time. But it's worthwhile taking a visit to Shannon Falls Park. I had a chance to stop in there a few months ago and was pleased to see the improvements that are being undertaken, in part with that funding we've received from the Ministry of Transportation.

[1720]

About $100,000 is being spent on capital upgrades right now in that provincial park, making it wheelchair-accessible for people to be able to get out and actually see the falls. Previously, those falls were not accessible to people confined to wheelchairs. So this is improving access, improving safety along the highway, without diminishing the ecological values of Shannon Falls provincial park.

L. Krog: I'd like to defer to the member for North Island with respect to Strathcona Park.

C. Trevena: Talking about the history of parks, I'm sure that the minister is well aware of the history of Strathcona Park, which is why I would like a little bit of an explanation about why there are two pages of amendments to the description of the park and what they entail.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to report that the new legal description for Strathcona provincial park, although still two pages, is a reduction from the previous legal description, which went on for almost three pages.

The reason for this is that, I'm told…. Over the years — and it's been many years — there have been numerous additions or changes to the boundaries of Strathcona Park. Each time an addition was made, a new paragraph was added to describe that addition. Over time, parts of the description became repetitive, as additions often shared a common segment of the boundary. The new description is a consolidated description, and therefore somewhat shorter in length.

The member is quite right. This park shares a very special place in the history of British Columbia because it's British Columbia's first provincial park, established, I believe, in 1911. It too, is a gorgeous place to go and visit. I haven't been there for a few years, but I have had a chance to do some back-country hiking along a few ridges there and to spend a few nights up in the wilderness. It is a spectacular part of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that explanation. I just wanted to suggest that he does come back to Strathcona Park when he can, because it is a stunning park. I think B.C. is extraordinarily lucky.

I just wanted to make sure that when we're talking about consolidating the description, it isn't reducing, at any place, the actual size of the park.

Hon. B. Penner: As a result of these amendments, the park will actually be bigger in size. More importantly, I'm told by people in the area that the area protected within the park will be of a higher ecological and recreational significance than was previously the case. That's because a number of lands that were set to be harvested, I t