2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

B.C. Council for Families

Hon. L.

Reid

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Active North Shore

Whittred

Anaphylaxis

Simpson

B.C. seafood products

R. Lee

North coast water quality and

biotoxin program

G. Coons

U.S. water-tasting awards

Roddick

B.C. Mixed Curling Championship

Routley

Oral Questions

Raw log exports

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Puchmayr

Routley

Closing of Deni House

Conroy

Hon. G.

Abbott

Simpson

Transportation safety for

farmworkers

Chouhan

Hon. K.

Falcon

Jumbo Glacier Resort

Macdonald

Hon. I.

Chong

Petitions

C. Trevena

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Crown Corporations, first report

I. Black

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 12) (continued)

J. Brar

Hon. C.

Richmond

Trevena

L. Krog

Horgan

Hon. M.

Coell

Hon. J.

Les

Farnworth

Hon. K.

Krueger

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

MacKay

Macdonald

Ralston

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 12)

Committee of the Whole House

Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)

Macdonald

Hon. I.

Chong

Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Chudnovsky

D. Thorne

C. Puchmayr

K. Conroy

B. Simpson

[ Page 6469 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: I'd like to introduce my wife Karen and my daughter Brandy, who are joining us all the way from Golden. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to have in the gallery today my wife Yasmin. Yasmin is accompanied today by her good friend Jo Beverley. Jo is a Victoria resident and an award-winning author of over 30 historical romance novels, which have been translated into 15 languages. Would the House please make Jo and Yasmin very welcome.

R. Chouhan: In the gallery today I have two very dear friends. Michelle Boudreau is the communications editor for The Mixer , Unite Here Canada Local 40, and Shelly Ervin is the financial secretary-treasurer. Would you please join me to welcome them.

J. Rustad: It's always a pleasure when I have somebody from my riding who's come down to visit. Today it's my pleasure to introduce to the House a good friend. Would the House please welcome Dennis Jackson from my riding.

C. Trevena: I think most of us who live in rural communities know the importance of our village post offices and village stores. So it gives me great pleasure to welcome two people who've been very instrumental in Heriot Bay on Quadra Island, where I live: Susan Enns and her husband Gerry. Susan's father used to run the Heriot Bay store and was committed to Quadra Islanders. Then it was taken over by Susan's husband Gerry while Susan was the postmistress.

Both are now retired. Both were able to come down to Victoria for a visit, and I hope the House will make them welcome. They're very eager to watch question period.

[1335]

Hon. S. Bond: Today is day 2 in Education Week in British Columbia, and we continue our theme of celebrating excellence. It was very inspiring today to meet for lunch and spend some time with 13 incredible educators from across the province. Each one of these individuals was recently the recipient of the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence. We felt that it was important to recognize them here in the Legislature certainly and in British Columbia for the phenomenal work they do every day.

Please allow me to introduce to the Legislature today Lorraine Baron from Central Okanagan; Andrew Lum from the Delta school district; Maryam Moayeri from school district 45, West Vancouver; Briar Ballou from North Vancouver; Linda Beaven from Okanagan-Skaha; Brent Cameron from an independent school; Kathleen Forsythe from an independent school; Michael Maser from an independent school; Sharon Conrad from Langley; Jim Cram from Nanaimo-Ladysmith; Don Hutchinson from Coquitlam; Christina MacDonald from Vancouver Island North; and Antonio Vendramin from Surrey. Not able to join her colleagues today, very unfortunately, is Janet Williams, who was also recognized. She is from MacKenzie.

Mr. Speaker, these are incredible educators. Next year we will have our very own award here in British Columbia to recognize excellence. I ask my colleagues to please make them very welcome in the precinct today.

D. Chudnovsky: My colleagues in the House will know that of the 79 constituencies, of course, the best one is Vancouver-Kensington. I've reminded them on a number of occasions.

In Vancouver-Kensington we have wonderful students and teachers, and some of them are here to visit with us today. We have 65 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, with four of their teachers — Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Lum, Ms. Paris and Mr. Peacock. I hope the House will join me in making them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, a delegation from China is visiting the Legislative Assembly today. The delegation comprises senior officials from the National People's Congress of China and from several provincial people's congresses.

The delegation is interested in the B.C. experience with respect to government accountability and budgetary matters and with regard to federal-provincial budgetary transfers. I know the group has visited the House of Commons and the Ontario Legislature and has met with senior officials at the B.C. Ministry of Finance, and they will be exchanging with B.C. MLAs later this afternoon.

I would ask that the House please welcome our visitors from China, Mr. Jian Feng of the budget affairs commission of the National People's Congress and the leader of this delegation.

C. Puchmayr: Today in the House we have many members from the building trades that are here meeting with the government and meeting with the opposition. I would like this House to make them all welcome. They are the people that built this province.

Tributes

B.C. COUNCIL FOR FAMILIES

Hon. L. Reid: I have the pleasure today of recognizing 30 years of excellence in the B.C. Council for Families, 1977 to 2007. It was established as a registered non-profit society incorporated under the Society Act on March 23, 1977. Over its 30-year history the

[ Page 6470 ]

council has positioned itself as a strong advocate for prevention and a focused approach to child and family development.

They have been led by Dr. Carol Matusicky as executive director over many years. She has made an outstanding contribution, and I would ask the House to join me in recognizing that contribution today.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to join with the Minister of Education to welcome all 13, and one in particular from the constituency of the Sunshine Coast. I'd like to just say to Michael Maser, the director of SelfDesign Learning Community: welcome to the House. I hope my colleagues join me in that welcome.

S. Hawkins: Not exactly in the gallery but in the home gallery today is someone who is watching intently. I just got a call from him; it's our Attorney General. He wants everybody to know — and he's watching — that he's doing very well. He's thankful for all the warm wishes, and he just lets everybody know that he's doing well and he's at home.

[1340]

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome my dear friend Doug Morgan, member of the Local 180 executive of the Steelworkers and a longtime friend from Cowichan-Ladysmith.

Hon. I. Chong: The term "catastrophic" took on a new meaning for our world when on December 26, 2004, an earthquake registering 9.0 on the Richter scale wrenched the floor of the Indian Ocean. Tsunamis generated by the quake devastated coastlines of 12 countries, killing more than 225,000 people. Approximately 2.2 million people were affected, of which an estimated 1.5 million people were displaced.

The world responded. Among the most generous were the people of British Columbia. Individuals lined up for hours to make donations, and an unparalleled number of volunteers came forward to offer assistance. Companies and their employees rallied together to raise funds. I can say that the Red Cross internationally has provided assistance for more than 1.7 million tsunami survivors. Approximately 30,000 transitional and permanent homes have been constructed by the Red Cross to date, with another 40,000 permanent houses in the works.

I was able to meet with two representatives of the Red Cross who are in the gallery today. I would like the House to help acknowledge and welcome Mr. Peter Brimacombe, the manager of major donor relations and planned giving, as well as Kimberley Nemrava, the director of B.C. disaster management.

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce today some people that are joining us from the Kootenays: Valentina Fierro from Nelson, Wendy Boulliane from Castlegar and Joanne Chatten from the Slocan Valley. They are all here with their spouses, who are part of the building trades delegation.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome back to the House my spouse Ed Conroy, who is also here with us today.

L. Mayencourt: In the gallery today a gentleman by the name of Dave Eddy is here. Dave runs the Vancouver Native Housing Society in Vancouver. That agency literally touches thousands of people in our neighbourhood and provides wonderful housing accommodation for them. Would the House please make Dave feel very welcome.

R. Fleming: I'd like to introduce a couple of gentlemen representing the skilled trades who are in the legislative precinct today: Phil Venoit, who is the business manager for the electricians union, Local 230 on the Island, and Al Laird, who's the business manager for the painters and allied workers on the south Island. Will the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ACTIVE NORTH SHORE

K. Whittred: As spring arrives, our thoughts turn to getting outdoors and exploring our communities. Active North Shore network is part of the ActNow B.C. active communities initiative. It is my community's local response to encourage our already active community to be even more active and healthy. Active North Shore partners include North Shore Health, the school districts, Action Schools B.C., the recreation commission as well as many local businesses.

One part to get North Shore residents involved is through their summertime Active North Shore walks. With nearly 20 walks planned from May to September, there is a walk for everyone. The trails selected include wheelchair-and-walker-accessible routes as well as challenging trails for the more adventurous. There are walks that encourage everyone from the very elderly to moms with tots.

Last year I took

part in some of the walks and thoroughly enjoyed not only the exercise but the community spirit. I was so impressed by the popularity and participation of the program that this year I plan to host my very own walk on my favourite trail along Lynn Creek in Lynn Canyon Park.

Active North Shore is a great community effort to encourage active healthy living. Congratulations to Active North Shore and to ActNow B.C. I encourage everyone to get up, get out and take a walk.

ANAPHYLAXIS

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand in the House today concerning an issue that impacts parents and children in all of our constituencies.

[1345]

[ Page 6471 ]

Anaphylaxis is a severe systemic allergic reaction to a range of products such as peanuts and milk. The results of this reaction can prove fatal in its most severe instances. Approximately 2 percent of B.C. children suffer from this condition, and sadly, that number is growing.

While there is no cure for anaphylaxis, there are preventative measures and tools that can help ensure that accidents don't occur. These include, for example, making the EpiPen — a device that administers adrenalin, which will halt an allergic reaction — more available and providing improved training for school staff in how to both recognize an anaphylactic attack and deal with it quickly and effectively.

There is also a legislative option. In 2005 Ontario adopted Sabrina's law, named after a young girl, Sabrina Shannon, who died at the age of 13 after eating french fries that were accidentally cross-contaminated with cheese in a school kitchen.

Sabrina's law does not call for the banning of products in schools. Rather, it is a more balanced approach that requires school boards to ensure that there are individual school-based plans for each student suffering from anaphylaxis, as well as policies to reduce exposure to causative agents. It calls for communications and public awareness strategies on its risks and provides for training on how to deal effectively with accidents, as well as supplying EpiPens to all schools.

Sabrina's law is an example of a positive response to anaphylaxis that is about inclusiveness rather than exclusion. It strives to provide a preventative and precautionary approach that identifies risk for impacted students and offers strategies to minimize those risks.

Tomorrow my colleague the member for Saanich South will be introducing the anaphylactic student protection act. I hope all members can support this non-partisan effort to adopt legislation on this critical matter to help ensure that we never have to hear about another unnecessary and preventable tragedy due to this condition.

B.C. SEAFOOD PRODUCTS

R. Lee: Two weeks ago I attended the Fifth Anniversary Celebration and Seafood Gala presented by the Western Canada Seafood Merchants and Processors Association. More than 500 guests, including the consuls general from People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Lithuania, came to celebrate this special occasion and tasted a variety of B.C. seafood.

British Columbia's beautiful freshwater and marine environments produce over 80 high-quality species of finfish, shellfish and plants. This industry generates $1 billion in wholesale value and employs over 15,000 people. Seafood is B.C.'s number one export in the food product category, and you can find B.C. seafood in more than 50 countries.

Last year more than $500 million of seafood products were exported. About half of these products went to Asia-Pacific countries. Japan, the leading importer, consumed $165 million of B.C. seafood in 2006. Many of our seafood are of such superb quality that they are the preferred delicacy in Asian banquets. Dungeness crab, prawns, scallops and fish are common dishes in a formal Chinese dinner. Asian gastronomists highly value our red sea urchin, geoduck, oysters and spawn-on-kelp and of course the traditional salmon, Pacific halibut, sablefish, tuna, clams and mussels.

It's interesting to know that geoduck, also known as king clam or elephant trunk clam, is one of the longest-living animals in the world. Recently the Underwater Harvesters Association researchers found a 168-year-old geoduck from Tasu Sound on the Queen Charlotte Islands. As the annual allowable harvest of geoduck is only 1 percent, with proper sustainability management, we can expect our children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy the best of British Columbia for many years to come.

Please join me in thanking the B.C. seafood processors and seafood merchants for their efforts.

NORTH COAST WATER QUALITY

AND BIOTOXIN PROGRAM

G. Coons: I think it quite appropriate that I follow my colleague from Burnaby North. I want to talk about the North Coast Water Quality and Biotoxin Program Society, which is based in Prince Rupert and performs an essential service for many in the region.

It coordinates biotoxin and water quality monitoring and testing services for shellfish harvesting and growing interests on the north coast and Haida Gwaii. The program is vital for first nations on the coast as they undertake very significant initiatives in order to develop a shellfish aquaculture industry.

The federal government supports and funds these activities along with funding from the province. The balance of a new regional industry hinges on continued funding for the biotoxin program, but more important is the need for a local facility to test and continue the sampling.

[1350]

First nations on the coast are currently in government negotiations with regards to openings for food, social and ceremonial harvest of shellfish. At present the entire north coast is closed to any type of shellfish gathering. Despite this closure, many individuals continue to harvest, putting their health and the health of their communities at risk. Continued monitoring by the biotoxin program is crucial to ensure the health and safety of participants in future food, social and ceremonial openings.

On the north coast we all believe that shellfish development holds much promise for the many communities that need economic initiatives as well as the employment that accompanies it. Participants in the program include the first nation communities at Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Kitimat, Lax Kw'alaams, Hartley Bay, Kitsumkalum along with commercial recreational interests on Porcher Island and in Haida Gwaii. The Nisga'a Nation also has stations affiliated with the program.

It's absolutely essential that biotoxin and marine water quality monitoring continue and that the necessary resources be allocated so that the remoteness of the rugged north coast is not another excuse for a missed opportunity.

[ Page 6472 ]

U.S. WATER-TASTING AWARDS

V. Roddick: Those of us in the field of agriculture often feel that we tend to bear the brunt of everything that's wrong with the world — global warming, silent springs, water contamination and so forth — despite the fact that the farmers and ranchers of British Columbia produce the most diverse, local, safe, fresh, delicious and nutritious food in North America.

It gives me great pleasure to announce that for the second year in a row, a B.C. municipality won a U.S. award for having the second-tastiest tap water among entries from North America. The awards come after the weekend tastings at the annual Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting in West Virginia, which bills itself as home of the first warm-water spa in the U.S. and discovered by former U.S. President George Washington.

A hundred waters from 23 states and 11 countries were judged in various categories. Elkford, located in the East Kootenays, placed third with a bronze. But the big surprise was a silver medal that went to Clearbrook, which amalgamated with Abbotsford more than a decade ago.

To quote Mayor George Ferguson: "Obviously, they've got a good well." Jill Klein Rone, the event producer, explained that it's just like wine tasting and went on to deliver congratulations to B.C. "You really do have good water."

It shows that agriculture and our urban communities can exist side by side and by working together environmentally can deliver not only the best food but the best water in North America. Congratulations to B.C. Remember, we all have to eat and drink to live.

B.C. MIXED CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the B.C. mixed curling championships in my riding, Cowichan-Ladysmith, which start today. Curling started out as the peaceful settlement of a disagreement between a monk, John Slater, and the lay governor of his abbey, Gavin Hamilton. They went down to the ice patch in the orchard and settled their score, and Mr. Slater won his argument.

Today men and women are joining in Duncan to entertain this peaceful settlement of disagreement — curling. Today Curl B.C. has the slogan: "One house, great delivery." Curl B.C. is the amalgamation of the Pacific Coast Curling Association, B.C. Ladies Curling Association, B.C. Interior Curling Association and the former Curl B.C.

They organize competitions and playdowns throughout B.C. They coordinate volunteer efforts by the host communities. They engage in a communications newsletter with their various curling clubs, and they host evaluation camps. Other activities of Curl B.C. are courses in playing and coaching as well as ice-making and symposiums on the business of curling.

[1355]

This week in Duncan we welcome curling rinks from eight communities — three from the Royal City area, one from Trail, two from Kelowna, one from Prince George and one from Duncan led by skip Jason Montgomery, third Rachelle Haider, second Will Duggan and Nicole Montgomery. These folks have come to the warm land, Cowichan, and I welcome them. All the people of Cowichan join me in welcoming these eight great teams.

Cowichan is known as Quw'utsun', the first nations word for warm land, which is apt acknowledgment for our friendly climate and warm people. I am sure they will have a wonderful tournament, and I'm wishing all the teams good luck. I hope that they will enjoy their wonderful experience and will visit us again. In the words of the Cowichan people, hi sa' ap ca , or thank you.

Oral Questions

RAW LOG EXPORTS

C. James: On many occasions we've asked the Minister of Forests about job losses in the forest sector. We get a lot of bluster but rarely get answers. According to the Council of Forest Industries, B.C. has lost 10,000 forest jobs since 2001. The Minister of Forests has a report on his desk collecting dust that recommends action on raw log exports.

When is the minister going to pick up that report and take actions to protect jobs, or does he just not care?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member for her question. For the member's information, if she was paying attention to the route that's taken place here, there were two people, Wright and Dumont, who did a report on log exports. I then asked organizations to comment on that report to the end of January, which they've done. There's a parallel process going on, the coast forest recovery program, with people affected by the industry across the board who are paralleling today.

In the next 30 days or so we will be doing both the activities and actions on the log export report and on that coast forest products report to build a strong future for the coast forest products in B.C.

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

C. James: Well, I'd like to ask the Forests Minister: how many reports does it take to actually get the Forests Minister to do something about the crisis in the industry?

The Wright report was clear. It recommended action on raw logs. Thirty-nine mills have closed in this province since 2001. A profitable mill in New Westminster closed permanently this February because they didn't have enough logs. Here's the irony. While that mill was shutting down, the minister signed an order allowing 60,000 more truckloads of logs to leave this province.

The minister procrastinates while forest communities suffer. When is the minister going to listen, and when is he going to take action to stop raw log exports from this province?

[ Page 6473 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: In ten years of the NDP, you did nothing about raw log exports. You did not do any reports. You did no action on it at all. As a matter of fact, during the era of the NDP you made a great big announcement in Prince George one time saying you were going to have a jobs and timber accord and create 21,000 jobs in the forest sector. You delivered zero jobs in forestry in British Columbia.

The Pearse report in 2001 told us that we had a challenge on the coast. Everybody knows we have a challenge on the coast. Quite frankly, all the parties — the labour unions, the companies, the communities — have been hard at work for the last year as we've tried to get to a coast recovery plan for the coast of British Columbia. We're going to implement that plan as soon as we get it through our process, which is a very, very short period. The work these people have done has been exceptional, and it will be good for the coast when it goes forward.

Interjections.

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

[1400]

C. James: The minister seems to forget that he's been in government. It's his government record, and they've done nothing to protect this forest industry.

It was this B.C. Liberal government that promised a revitalized forest sector with more jobs, and we've lost 10,000 jobs since they made that promise. The Minister of Forests acts like nothing is wrong. There's no time to act on the Wright report, but there's certainly no problem in sending logs out of our province.

Again to the Minister of Forests: why is he ignoring forest communities, ignoring workers and families, and when will he wake up to the crisis and take action?

Hon. R. Coleman: The forest sector in the interior of B.C. is in very good shape and doing very well. The forest sector on the coast of British Columbia is, in actual fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you don't believe it. You know what you can't stand? You can't stand the fact that unemployment in British Columbia is at the lowest point in the history of the province. I know you can't stand the fact that they actually went out and put two people, independently, on log exports.

I have not heard a consistent message on log exports from the members of the opposition. You don't have a position on that particular program. As a matter of fact, the Wright report said it was a very complicated issue. Maybe you should read the report, hon. Member, because it does tell you that there's no one pat solution. We're working through that process. We're going to come up with the solutions, and the people on the coast will be better for it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member for New Westminster has the floor.

C. Puchmayr: Log exports continue to rise in this province, and the minister likes to reflect back. In 1997, 275,000 cubic metres of logs were exported. Now we're up to five million cubic metres of logs — five million.

The mill in New Westminster that just closed. It's a consolation that they can now go out and work in some fast-food restaurant — that's what the minister is telling them — while they lose value-added, high-paying jobs.

As log exports continue, the recommendations were supposed to be responded to in February. It is now almost May. The minister has not responded to them. Will the minister take some action now to ensure that the mills in British Columbia get the logs they need so that we have value-added jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I'd just like to maybe remind the member of a quote where it says: "The sun is shining today on the lives of 136 sawmill workers and families. Western Forest Products Saltair mill will begin pumping out lumber after a year-long shutdown." That was the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.

Now realize that Western Forest Products had to make a business decision with regards to its operation. They made those decisions, and they made them while looking at the fact that 90 employees at New Westminster sawmill were eligible for retirement. So 50 have chosen to retire, 20 have found alternate employment, and the rest of them have an opportunity to be relocated and placed elsewhere within Western's operations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Interesting how he can justify that. If we weren't exporting the logs we're exporting today, both those mills could be open and both those mills could be providing value-added jobs. Some 297 direct jobs in my community left. The minister would not respond to the wishes of the council, would not respond to the wishes of the workers, and didn't have the decency to come and speak to the people about his policies and how they're creating job loss in my community.

The number one issue on the coast right now is the lack of logs. It's not capital. It's not workers. It's not regulations. It's not first nations. It's the lack of logs. When will this minister intervene to ensure that our mills have the logs they require to continue to manufacture?

[1405]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is completely wrong. The fact of the matter is that it's all of the above, hon. Member. The mills are not competitive. There are issues with regards to labour. There's an issue with regard to fibre supply. There's an issue with access to

[ Page 6474 ]

fibre supply. There are a whole number of issues on the coast that have to be addressed in a coast recovery plan, and that's what's going to happen in the next month or month and a half when we release that coast recovery plan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: The minister can deny reality all he wants, but the reality in our communities is that we're watching hundreds of truckloads of timber leave our ridings and head south, and along with those logs go our jobs.

The minister won't act on the review panel report and restrict raw log exports, but he has acted to continue those exports. On March 1 this year, knowing full well that we've had mill shutdowns due to a lack of logs, the Minister of Forests extended his own log export approvals for the midcoast and the North Coast, Kalum and Skeena forest districts. These are government-sanctioned log exports at a time when mills are shutting down due to a lack of logs.

My question to the minister is this. Instead of permitting more log exports, why didn't the minister implement a tax on raw log exports as recommended by his own review panel?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I answer the question, I would like to personally congratulate the member opposite's fast response to a person who was in cardiac arrest earlier today on the grounds of the Legislature.

Let's be clear about the midcoast and the northwest on the coast. Let's be clear about a couple of things. First nations and communities up and down the coast asked for the extension of that export permit to be continued. They asked for it for a lengthier period of time than it was given. It was given to the end of August, I believe, of this year so that we could get on with the log export review and the changes in the log export policy of government.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Despite the blaming of other people and demands from other communities, I'm not hearing that. Nor are any of the people on the coast or on the Island. We are hearing a demand to stop raw log exports. That's what we're hearing. We want our jobs, and we want our mills back.

Not only is this Minister of Forests not acting on his own log export report and is continuing to approve these log exports, he's actually increasing them across the province. Before the log export panel had even tabled their report with the minister, the Minister of Forests approved a 2½-million-cubic-metre increase of log exports from public forests in the interior of the province. That's over 60,000 additional truckloads of logs that don't have to be processed in B.C.

To the Minister of Forests: yes or no? At a time when mills are closing due to log shortages, will this minister stop expanding log exports and immediately impose export taxes on log exports to stem the flow of logs and jobs out of this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's interesting, coming from these members, that they don't understand the whole aspect of log exports and who actually has jurisdiction. On one side of it, the private land logs in British Columbia are covered by federal statute, and these members know that. They know that.

But there is a surplus test. Yesterday I was actually in a meeting with private land log owners who were telling me they're having difficulty getting their logs exported because of the blocking bids and the surplus test. They said: "Your system is actually working to stem the log exports."

However, it's not good enough for me that we're going to live with the old and the old and the old forever. That's why we asked Dumont and Wright to do the report. That's why I asked for public comment back on that report in January.

[1410]

That's why I've been working in the last couple of months to have both the coast recovery plan and the log export policy changes that will come forward ready to go by mid-April, and then we will implement them once we've gone through our process.

CLOSING OF DENI HOUSE

K. Conroy: Yesterday in Williams Lake the Interior Health Authority locked down Deni House and started to relocate the seniors. They locked the doors to the facility and put security guards on all of the doors. They prevented families from seeing their loved ones to offer them support through this painful process.

The health authority started boxing up the life possessions of one senior while the poor woman sat dazed and confused because she didn't know who these men were in her room or what they were doing.

Does the Minister of Health still stand by his statement of yesterday and "absolutely support Interior Health in the changes they are making in Williams Lake"?

Hon. G. Abbott: I do support Interior Health and the changes they are making at Williams Lake. First of all, I think it should be noted that there are going to be, with the new units that have been opened at Williams Lake retirement village, 23 percent more residential care and assisted-living beds in Williams Lake than when we took office. Further, we have moved from a situation where there are multi-bed wards, where there are doorways and hallways that are wheelchair inaccessible, where there were insufficient recreational and social amenities.

[ Page 6475 ]

What Interior Health is doing with their very substantial investment through Williams Lake retirement village is providing, both quantitatively and qualitatively, a far better life for the frail elderly that are served by that facility.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: This minister needs to listen to the community, a community who has said from the start that they did not want this facility to close. There have been petitions of over 7,000 signatures, letters from agencies, first nations and local governments, and delegations in Kamloops and here in Victoria.

My question is to the Premier. Does he agree that seniors should be dragged out of their homes that they've lived in, the only homes that they care about and want to live in? Does he want to stand up for the seniors of Williams Lake and commit today to reopening Deni House?

Hon. G. Abbott: No government in the history of British Columbia has made a greater investment in residential care and assisted living than this government. The condition of some of the housing stock that existed in 2001 when we took office was shameful. We had facilities that were multi-bed wards, not the private rooms that we have today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: We had facilities where people in wheelchairs could not get proper access to the facilities. We had poor standards that simply don't meet the standards that we have put in place today.

I think that rather than criticizing the move by Interior Health from a substandard facility to a world-class facility, the opposition ought to be supporting that move — as we do.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Health calls these individuals "frail elderly." They are our veterans. They are our first nations elders. They are the pioneers of our community.

[1415]

They've had their doors locked. They've had security guards placed inside and outside their doors. They've had their family blocked from coming and seeing them and helping them in a painful transition process. Many are disoriented and do not know what's going on, and their families are locked outside. This minister says that he supports that relocation process. He just said it.

To the Premier of this province: will the Premier please intervene in this case? This is wrong. It is immoral to do this to the seniors in that community. It is disrespectful. To the Premier of this province: please stop the actions that are occurring in Williams Lake today.

Hon. G. Abbott: What is immoral and disgraceful is the way that this opposition takes on issues that are aimed at making better lives for the elderly. Three thousand incremental residential care and assisted-living units in this province; 5,000 substandard units of residential care stock that we inherited in 2001 have been remediated — tens of millions of dollars of investment.

In the Leader of the Opposition's own riding is the James Bay Care Centre. She might have a look at that. There used to be 200 residents in multi-bed wards. Today there are 110 in private, beautiful rooms. I'm proud of that investment, and I'm proud of the investment we're making in Williams Lake as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister is trying to hide behind statistics, trying to hide behind numbers. We are talking about people. We are talking about people at a stage in their life where they deserve our utmost respect, not the disrespect that they are being shown today.

This minister knows, because we brought the people here to tell him directly, that these veterans, these pioneers, these first nations elders do not want to go. What does the minister not understand about that? They like Deni House. They've asked to stay in Deni House.

Again, my question is to the Premier of the province. Will the Premier please stop what is happening in this unconscionable transition process and stop dragging people out of a place they do not want to leave?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we so often hear from the NDP opposition is that there should never be any progress in this province. We should never….

An Hon. Member: Don't change anything.

Hon. G. Abbott: Don't change anything. Leave everything exactly as it is. Even if it's substandard, leave it exactly as it is. Apparently…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …the NDP in British Columbia don't believe our seniors deserve new and modern facilities to live in. But let's test the proposition for a moment, shall we?

The member has asked a couple of questions here, and maybe the member can advise me. We're about to make a huge investment in Quesnel in a place called Dunrovin Lodge. I challenge the member to get up and tell us whether he wants us to make that investment in Quesnel or not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 6476 ]

Interjection.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: Member.

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY FOR

FARMWORKERS

R. Chouhan: Over the three days of roadside inspections of motor vehicles, three vans owned by the labour contractors were taken off the road because of serious mechanical defects, and ten more vans were found with other major defects. Despite the fatal accident on March 7 killing three farmworkers and seriously injuring 13 others, the farm labour contractors are still transporting workers in unsafe, dangerous vehicles.

The harvesting season is fast approaching, and there will be hundreds of these vehicles driving thousands of farmworkers to fields during the season. Can the Minister of Labour assure farmworkers that these vehicles are safe and there's no danger to their lives?

Hon. K. Falcon: As a matter of fact, yes, I can tell that member that we have…. I believe there are 131 vehicles involved in the transportation of farmworkers. Our commercial vehicle inspection staff have hit virtually every single one of them. I believe that this week we will complete. We've got four or five more to inspect.

I want the member to know this and everyone in this House to understand this. If they are not operating vehicles that are safe and in full accordance with the laws and the regulations, both federally and provincially, the full force of this government will rain down upon them. We will yank them off the road, as we've been doing. We will hit them with fines, as we have been doing. And we will make sure that those vehicles are operating in the safest possible manner. We'll demand that in every sector in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: Twenty days after that deadly accident, these labour contractors are still driving those deadly, unsafe vehicles. I don't know where the law is that the minister is talking about.

When an unsafe van is impounded during the roadside inspection, farmworkers are left stranded on the roadside wondering who would provide them with a ride to and from the farm and back home.

Will the Minister of Labour tell us: in such situations, who will be responsible to provide safe transportation to farmworkers and make sure they get their lost wages paid by the labour contractors while waiting?

Hon. K. Falcon: In the early days when we undertook the inspections, we did actually provide transportation for those individuals to get to their workplaces. Now, that's obviously not something that is typically done. We don't want the workers, of course, to pay the price of not being able to get to their worksite because there are certain contractors who are utilizing transportation that is not up to snuff.

I think the critical thing here is to know…. Whether it's with the dumptruck sector, which we also had problems with, as that member well knows, or the taxi industry, where we identified some problems as a result of safety blitzes, or the farmworker transportation….

If they are not complying in these vehicles, they're going to have to understand this. We're going to yank them off the road, as we're doing, and we're going to hit them with fines. We'll continue to hit them with fines, and we'll continue to pay attention until they get it into their heads that they've got to operate safe vehicles in the province of British Columbia, and they're going to have to do that.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT

N. Macdonald: On October 14, 2004, this government made a commitment to the people of the Kootenays that Jumbo Glacier Resort would not proceed without the approval of the regional district of East Kootenay. It was clear; it was unequivocal. Rumours abound that the government intends on breaking that commitment.

My question is to the Premier. Will the regional district of East Kootenay be making the final decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort? Is it yes, or is it no?

Hon. I. Chong: The only rumours that are abounding in the area are the rumours that have been started by that member in Columbia River–Revelstoke. Mr. Speaker, that member…

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: …has been irresponsibly spreading rumours in his riding, getting everybody worked up when he knows there's a process in place that is being adhered to. If he would allow that process to continue, he will see the conclusion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: People are worked up in the East Kootenay. They are upset about what appears to be…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …the breaking of a commitment. On Monday on CBC I asked the minister to state clearly the same question that I've asked here. I've asked it repeatedly, and every single time I get some

[ Page 6477 ]

ambiguous answer. Did the minister answer the question that was clear — yes or no? She did not. Instead, she skates around it.

I'm asking her to stand up. The question could not be clearer. She can say yes, or she can say no. The people in the East Kootenay want to know: does this government keep the commitments that it makes? And the question is this: is this government going to keep its word and keep the decision where it properly rests — with the regional district of East Kootenay? The minister can stand up and say yes or no. Which is it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: Prior to a number of days ago…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: …there was no frenzy occurring in the East Kootenays. There were no issues that were being raised. There were no interviews having to be taken. But it was because that member irresponsibly has gone out in the community and created an issue that doesn't exist.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: I have to ask the member.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just wait until there's quiet. Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: It is clear on this side of the House that we support a strong economy. We support resort development. Does that member support resort development? Clearly he doesn't, but maybe he should go back to his community and ask them if they want the jobs and the economic growth that will occur in his area.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I rise to present a petition, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition from a number of signatories in Vancouver protesting cuts in child care.

I have a second petition from residents in Campbell River who are supporting Tom Bakken, who is facing eviction from the Crown land he's been homesteading.

Reports from Committees

I. Black: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for the second session of the 38th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

I. Black: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

I. Black: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make some brief comments.

During the second session the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations met with the senior officers of six of British Columbia's Crown agencies. Representatives from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, British Columbia Securities Commission, Partnerships British Columbia, British Columbia Lottery Corp., British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and British Columbia Innovation Council all appeared before the committee to present their respective annual reports and service plans.

The committee's unanimous report includes 14 recommendations on how each of these six Crown corporations may improve their respective performance-reporting documents.

[1430]

I would like to thank the senior officers of the various Crown corporations who appeared before the committee in the previous year. In addition, I would like to thank all members of the committee from both sides of the House for their spirited contributions and their important additions to the committee's unanimous report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply. For the information of members, you will continue to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

section 15 (continued).

[ Page 6478 ]

J. Brar: I would like to continue the debate and take up from where we left. Last year when the CAP program was restructured by the ministry, the stand-alone advocacy agencies lost their funding — for example, in Surrey, the Newton Advocacy Group, called NAG. They used to provide advocacy services to income assistance clients, including helping them to prepare for, and representing them in front of, the appeal panel.

Now those clients don't have those individualized support mechanisms available anymore. The impacts of that, in my opinion, are: first, a significant majority of these clients do not have the ability to represent themselves in front of the panel.

Secondly, they don't have the ability to insist — a word that the minister used a few times; they have to insist — with the ministry on three members, because they are scared to offend officials of the ministry.

Thirdly, the minister is not prepared just to give them the right to request a three-member panel. They have to insist. It's not their right, as my understanding is.

Fourthly, a significant majority of these clients are not aware of their rights to insist on a three-member panel to have a fair hearing.

On one side, the ministry has cut funding, and they've lost the advocates who can prepare them and represent them in front of the panel. On the other side, now the panel is being redefined where only one person can stand up and be a panel member.

My question to the minister is: what is the plan of the ministry to address those four important issues I just said, to ensure that appeal panels continue serving their purpose of providing timely and fair decision-making?

[1435]

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, we are doing this to give people faster service, so they can get in front of a tribunal quickly instead of having to wait months at times. We are also talking about a very small number here. The estimate from history is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent — from 45 to 90 clients per year.

Secondly, they will be told that they can avail themselves of a three-member panel if they so wish, but if it's in a remote area one of the members or maybe even two might be there by teleconference.

Thirdly, they are welcome to take any advocate of their choosing with them. They can have an advocate there to advocate for them.

We are not doing this to in any means diminish a person's right to a fair hearing. We are trying to expedite things and get them in front of a tribunal within a few weeks, rather than a few months.

J. Brar: With due respect, I understand the concept of expediting the process, and I appreciate that. With that process, my fear is: are we going to sacrifice the fair process of appealing? That's the concern I have.

My question to the minister is: how is the minister going to make sure that the clients have proper education about the rights, that they can have a three-member panel?

Hon. C. Richmond: Let me read from a document that we have crafted to do exactly what the member is worried about.

"The ministry implemented a number of reconsideration and appeal policy/procedure changes. Reconsideration and appeal brochures would be provided to all clients at the initial application. Brochures would be automatically provided with all written denials. Brochures would be made available with all verbal denials in person or by phone. Substantive denial reasons would be provided for all denial decisions.

"Clients would be advised of the availability of all information used in making a decision when clients were informed of the denial. Copies of all information used to make an initial decision would be automatically provided to clients when they made a request for reconsideration."

J. Brar: I appreciate that the minister understands that there's a need for an advocate to assist these people to go through that process. As I said before, a significant majority of these people have challenges to represent themselves in front of the panel because of fear, because of the language challenges and because of many other things — the fear of offending the officials.

What are the plans of the ministry to ensure that these clients are going to have advocates which are supported by the ministry so that they can go with them and represent them in the appeal process?

Hon. C. Richmond: To repeat, every client will be advised of all of their rights. They will be given brochures explaining what the procedure is. They will all be told that they have the right to insist on a three-person tribunal, and they will also be told they can take any advocate with them that they wish.

J. Brar: Basically, the process when we talk about the rights of the clients to request or insist — whatever the word I have been hearing — by the clients….

[1440]

Is that part of the brochure you're talking about, or will they be informed to make sure that they actually understand that that's part of their right?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, they will be informed of exactly what their options are. Like I said, if they live in a remote area of the province, quite often they would prefer to say: "I would like to be heard now. Rather than having to wait a month, two months, three months, I can be heard now." Quite often the one tribunal member that will hear their case may be in the exact town in which they live, so they can be heard almost immediately rather than having to wait till we can put a three-member panel together.

J. Brar: Do they have to file with somebody or submit a request in writing in order to have a three-member panel?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. They just have to tell the tribunal chair that they would prefer to be heard by three people rather than one. The chair will then make

[ Page 6479 ]

that determination on how soon she can put a three-member panel together. She may tell the client that it may be a long time before…. It has happened in the past. It could be five or six months before they can get a three-panel tribunal to hear them. Or she'd say: "Would you prefer to be heard by a single member" — an impartial member who is on neither side of the issue. An impartial member would sit down and hear the hearing.

If they insist on having three members, as I've said before, the tribunal chair can say: "Yes, you can have three, but two might be there by telephone."

J. Brar: If a client who has to appeal the decision comes back to the ministry and says, "I don't have anybody to support me; in other words, I need an advocate to talk to me, to prepare for my case or represent me in front of the panel," what support will the ministry provide?

Hon. C. Richmond: The client does not have to have an advocate with him or her when they appear in front of the tribunal. It's their decision. If they wish to have one, they can bring anyone they like. But they will get a fair hearing in front of a tribunal, whether it's one person, two or three.

To repeat what I said earlier, about 90 to 95 percent of the cases will be heard in front of three people. It's only to accommodate people mostly in remote areas of the province where this is very difficult.

J. Brar: I understand your challenge. It's hard to find people for the appeal panel in the rural area, in order to continue the panel's work. But my concern is on the other side, from a client's perspective. It is equally difficult for the clients to find an advocate in that area as well, because we don't have a lot of organizations who have funding for providing advocacy services. We are dealing with one area, one aspect of the problem, but we're leaving the other side of the problem, which is related to the clients.

My question to you was: if the client needed support from an advocate, and if those advocacy services are not available in that area and the client requests the ministry that they need somebody, are you not going to provide support to that client?

Hon. C. Richmond: The answer to that is no, we do not.

[1445]

C. Trevena: I just had a couple of questions. I've been listening to some of the questions here.

The minister said in response to one of the questions from my colleague for Surrey–Panorama Ridge that if the client "insists" on having a three-person panel…. I just wanted to know whether there is going…. I guess it's a matter of

interpretation. I think this is somebody's right to have a panel rather than one person sitting in judgment, so I'd like to get a bit of clarification from the minister on that.

Hon. C. Richmond: As I said earlier to one of the members who was questioning, the chair will accommodate the concerns of the appellant. They will be informed that they can be heard probably almost immediately by a one-person tribunal — which is a bit of an oxymoron, I suppose. They can be heard by one person now, or they can be heard by three when we can put a three-person panel together.

C. Trevena: As a representative of a rural constituency where a number of people will most likely be having this alternative put in front of them — and as the minister quite rightly says, it is an oxymoron; you don't really have a tribunal if it's one person — I wondered whether this is the last recourse. If the one-person tribunal decides against the claimant, does the claimant have anywhere else to go? Or is that the final ruling, from that one person who is making the decision?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. As I said earlier, nothing changes in the procedure. The first step before a tribunal is requested is reconsideration by the ministry staff, which involves supervisors. The second step is the tribunal, and if they're not satisfied with that, then it's a judicial review.

J. Brar: I would like to make some comments and probably ask my last question if I get the answer. I was surprised to hear from the minister that in order to deal with this issue because of a lack of people available for the panel, the ministry has decided to move forward and make this amendment to the existing act. I understand that. But on the same side, when we talk about expediting the appeal process, the important component of that is the fair process when it comes to the appeal process. Justice must be delivered in a fair way.

From the last comment the minister made, that if somebody needs an advocate to help them, the ministry will not support them…. It's a bit surprising to me that the ministry is only looking, at this point in time, from the administrative point of view rather than from the clients' perspective as well. They are the most vulnerable clients in the province.

My question. If the ministry will not provide services, how does the minister think that this will be a fair process if the person involved in the appeal process has a severe addiction or mental disability? Even in that situation the minister will proceed with the so-called…. It could be one member, because this person doesn't know how to work with the system.

Hon. C. Richmond: For barriered clients who may have difficulty navigating the appeal system on their own, the ministry staff will always provide a list of community agencies that can help them pursue any eligibility complaints. So while we don't provide an advocate — that's what I meant by my former answer — we will always steer them to an agency that may be able to provide them with an advocate.

Five years ago we moved away from the adversarial system in these tribunals. It's working much better

[ Page 6480 ]

than the old system, and to repeat, the chair will always accommodate the concerns of the appellant. If they feel they must have an advocate there, we will try to guide them to someone who will be an advocate for them. But they will always accommodate the concerns.

[1450]

If the advocate says that this person wants to be heard in front of a three-person panel, then, as I've said several times already, the chair will accommodate that. But if it's in a town way up north, two of the panel members may be there by teleconference.

J. Brar: I understand that the ministry is going to provide the list of various agencies, but my understanding is that in rural areas there may be some towns where we don't have a local agency which provides advocacy services. In other words, the client may have to go out and find somebody far from where the panel is going to take place.

Will the ministry provide, in that situation, any assistance to the advocate when it comes to their expenses, or will that be the responsibility of the client, who is already very vulnerable and may not have any money?

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm certain, knowing our staff and the way they operate and the empathy they have for people, that they would be able to find a name for a person in their town who would advocate for somebody. I feel 100-percent sure that they would find someone for them.

[1455]

Section 15 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 29

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Macdonald

Conroy

[1500]

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

J. Brar: I would like to ask the minister for some clarification on this one. Can the minister clarify: what is the difference between prescribed professionals and health professionals?

Hon. C. Richmond: This

section substitutes "prescribed professional" for "health professional" in

section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, and moves the definition of "prescribed professional" from the act to the regulations.

Professionals such as nurses and social workers provide supportive information as part of the application for persons-with-disabilities designation. This amendment provides flexibility and adds to the list of approved professionals without requiring legislative change. Also, by changing the term to "prescribed professional," it clarifies that both health professionals and non-health professionals, such as social workers, are crucial in supporting this process.

It allows us to add a prescribed professional other than a health professional to make a decision. It could be a chiropractor. It could be a nurse practitioner. Not only can we add them to the list of professionals who can qualify or disqualify someone for PWD status, but it also enables us to do it without having to come back to the Legislature and change the act. In other words, we don't have to come back and wait a year for an amendment to go through the Legislature. We can do it by regulation.

J. Brar: If I understand that correctly, the change means that this could include professionals other than health professionals and that there will be lists of professions prescribed by the ministry with which the ministry would like to work and with which the ministry would want the clients to work. Is that the case, or is it something different?

Hon. C. Richmond: The current list of professionals is very short. I'll just list them off: a medical practitioner, a registered psychologist, a registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist or a social worker. That list is not going to change.

What we want to do with this is to make it better for the client so that we can add another prescribed

[ Page 6481 ]

practitioner — maybe not a health professional — such as maybe a chiropractor or a nurse practitioner or someone like that. We want to be able to do it without having to come back for a legislative change to do it. Because of the time that it takes to get an amendment through the House just to add, say, a nurse practitioner, we want to be able to do that by regulation.

J. Brar: Other than not coming back to the House for each and every change, how is this change actually going to impact the service delivery or the assessment process? Is it going to expedite it? Is it going to make it better? What is the response on that one?

[1505]

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, it will make it much easier to get the application form completed. The ministry requires that professionals who complete part of the PWD application may be authorized under an enactment to practise in B.C. This includes health professionals as well as social workers and ensures that individuals completing these forms are accountable, especially since they are working with some of our most vulnerable citizens.

We will assess additions to the list on their own merits, taking into account the capacity of the profession to positively impact service for clients, their profession's accountability and its scope of practice.

What we're trying to do is broaden the list of those who can approve someone for PWD status. In order to do that, we have to be able to add to the list, and we want to add to the list without having to go back to the Legislature every time.

J. Brar: So will the client have the right to have options of two or three professionals and choose one of them? Or will the client be directed to one person, and there's no other choice?

Hon. C. Richmond: They have that right now, and that's not going to change. It's the client's choice who they go to, to be examined for PWD status.

J. Brar: My last question. I asked this question before, but I think a more specific way is: will this in any way expedite or shorten the assessment process for people who are making application for PWD?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, it will, and that's the intent of the amendment.

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for his candour today because he was very straightforward in saying the whole purpose of

section 18 is to take out of this chamber the right to amend the list — in other words, to give it to cabinet.

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I have raised this issue over and over again in this House, and each time we are assured that it's just a convenience. Trust good old cabinet. Cabinet will look after it. Government will do it.

I can't help but think to myself: if the members on the government benches were sitting over here in the opposition, what would their reaction be as the Legislature, through sections and amendments like this, continues to be stripped of its authority, its usefulness and its very function, which is to actually make the laws in this place, not to constantly turn over the power to cabinet to add to and change lists?

We give them broad regulatory powers so that the statutes themselves are starting to look a bit silly, frankly. You have this little thin statute, and then you have this great raft of regulations which are passed by cabinet, don't come before this House, don't face debate and don't face public scrutiny.

That's the issue, and I'm going to continue to repeat it every time it comes up in this House. It's come up in the last two days in separate statutes and separate bills, as well, and that is this constant interest in reducing the work of this place to, frankly, becoming mere ciphers. Either we are here to make law as legislators duly elected by the people of British Columbia, or we are here just to rubber-stamp things and let cabinet run the place like it's a corporate entity. That's my concern.

I appreciate the minister being so straightforward about it. But my question to the minister is: if we're contemplating adding people to the list as it exists now in the definition

section of

section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, is it that difficult and is it that much beyond the comprehension of the experienced staff of the ministry to actually figure out?

Given the number of professionals and bodies and people that have been consulted and referred to in all the work of the ministry year in and year out, is it that difficult for the minister to simply provide an amendment in

section 18 that would say, "We're adding to the list this year because we've discovered there are a couple of other professions or occupations that actually make sense that should be added to the list of people who could do it," as opposed to turning it over to cabinet?

Does the minister have in contemplation the kinds of professionals who would be described under the act now as prescribed professionals? If we know those occupations, what are they?

[1510]

Hon. C. Richmond: I can understand the member's concern. I really do. All we're trying to do here is make it easier and much quicker for people to get PWD status. No, we didn't sit down and try to contemplate every profession that might come along. That's why we would like the right to do it by regulation, rather than having to come back.

That is exactly what concerns the member, but I think he knows full well that we would not sit in the cabinet room and dream something up. The recommendation would come from our staff, who are very qualified. They would come through me to cabinet and say: "This is a profession" — maybe nurse practitioner

[ Page 6482 ]

— "that we believe should be added to the list." We would just like to add that name by regulation, rather than having to wait for the next legislative session to have that name added to the list.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

J. Horgan: As we look at the next number of sections for Bill 12, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, sections 20 through 40 seem to be exclusively to do with the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. I'm just talking while staff can take their seats for the Minister of Advanced Education.

Now that everyone's comfortable, I'll begin by posing a very simple question. Why are the bulk of these amendments contained in a miscellaneous amendment act and not in a stand-alone bill?

Hon. M. Coell: Basically, packaging by the legislative counsel. As the member knows, this is a very old act. The engineers and geoscientists would like the entire act reviewed. This is the minimum they've asked for and have worked with our staff. I think it fits in a misc bill at this point.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that clarification.

In consultation with geoscientists and engineers and their various associations and those that would be interested in this act…. Was that consultation the bulk of this bill, or were there additional consultations?

Hon. M. Coell: The consultation was with the engineers and geoscientists.

If I can just outline for the member in simple form what the request was. As I said, I think the request initially was: can we have the 80-year-old act revisited? We did not have time to do that this year, but we took out a number of parts that they felt were important and addressed them.

It basically clarifies the association's mandate by setting out its duties and objects. I believe it improves public protection by permitting mandatory professional development. It modernizes the investigation, discipline, dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms.

It removes the unintended restrictions on the ability to seal professional documents and conduct ballots by electronic means. They did not have that ability, as many other professions do now, to do business electronically.

It simplifies and improves the administrative processes to remove provisions meant to be transitional and generally clarifies and standardizes the legislation. I think that in the not too distant future you will see a revised act come before this House as well.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that.

The opposition caucus had a number of meetings with this body as well, and they made it very clear to us where they wanted to proceed. On the surface of it at that time we had no concerns, but now that we see the bill in its final form, I have a few additional questions. As we proceed through the sections, I'll rise and pose them.

[1515]

Just a simple one: what's the benefit of the association having the rights of a natural person, for those watching at home.

Hon. M. Coell: The powers of a natural person. It simplifies for them some of the things they can do, and I can give you some examples. It's the ability to alter the rights and duties, liabilities and other legal relationships either for oneself or other people — so they can do that as an association. The ability to acquire or dispose of property, to lend and to borrow, to invest as an association, and to hold property and trust are some of the more prevalent examples.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. Again, some of these questions are more for the edification of those at home. Of course, the government knows that our function on this side is to get clarification on issues so that the public has a better understanding of the intent of the legislation.

section 20,

section 3(3), the bill reads: "The Business Corporations Act does not apply to the association unless the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by order, provides that specified provisions…."

The Chair: Member, are you asking a question on

section 23?

J. Horgan: On 20,

section 3(3).

The Chair: Sub 3. Okay.

J. Horgan: The first section, 3(3). It's basically that clause. What circumstances are contemplated whereby the L-G-in-C would allow the Business Corporations Act to apply?

Hon. M. Coell: The second subsection is necessary to avoid the unintended application of the Business Corporations Act, and this is consistent with a lot of the new, recently enacted or amended professional legislation.

J. Horgan: Could the minister help me out and maybe cite an example of an unintended consequence that we're preventing by this section?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, the complicated provisions for windup would be a good example of why we wouldn't want to have the unintended use of the Business Corporations Act.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

J. Horgan: This section, which is amending

section 10(1) — it's

section 24 of this bill — is establishing levy-

[ Page 6483 ]

ing, payment and remission of…. And it inventories annual fees, admission fees, application fees, licence fees, professional liability insurance and so on. I'm curious as to why this set of fee schedules is outlined in the legislation and wouldn't be dealt with by a bylaw of the association.

Hon. M. Coell: Being that it's such an old act, what we're doing is clarifying what they can do by bylaw and what needs to be done by legislation.

J. Horgan: This is where I'm not clear. What's left for bylaws if the legislation sets out this inventory? And was it an inventory that was provided by the association?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, it was.

J. Horgan: So this list is comprehensive? The association didn't contemplate any others that they would add to this fee inventory, and this is then comprehensive?

Hon. M. Coell: Not at this point.

[1520]

J. Horgan: In the explanatory notes with the bill,

section 24 states that

section (a) "clarifies that late fees and reinstatement fees for members, licensees and certificate holders are not set by bylaw." As I understand that, these fees that are inventoried here are comprehensive and the association could not amend them by bylaw, but they would have to be amended by legislation. Is that correct, or am I overstepping with that?

Hon. M. Coell: Just to clarify, and I think I understand the question,

section 10(1) is amended, and then there is a list of fees. Those will be able to be enacted by bylaw of the association.

J. Horgan: I see lots of head nodding, and that's really what I thought was a more appropriate task for the association. So I was curious as to why the list was here in the legislation.

Just for clarification then, why wouldn't we have had leg. counsel draft a

section here that would have said just that — that there are fees that may be levied as set by bylaw of the association, rather than having a list that may not over time be comprehensive? As we've said with other sections of this bill in debate today, we're not always here in the Legislature to make these amendments. Why wouldn't we have used, in this instance, language that would have been more permissive of change absent legislation?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the quick answer to that is we're limited of what we can do with this bylaw, because it's so old, without opening it up and doing a complete review. What we wanted to do was make some basically minor amendments that would keep them going for a number of years before we did the complete review.

J. Horgan: In your consultation with the association, that was a compromise they were comfortable with: "Let's change what we can change now, and we'll have a more comprehensive look in the future"?

I know I'm anxious the Government House Leader not jump upon me for talking about future legislation. But in satisfying the association with these amendments, did you give any indication to the association at what time they could expect a more comprehensive review?

Hon. M. Coell: The association is happy to have these amendments this year. I think it's safe to say that they would have liked to have seen a complete review, but we did not have the time to do that this year.

Sections 24 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

J. Horgan: While I'm on my feet, I thank the staff of the minister for the previous

section for their good work. Well done.

Now, with

section 41, it's the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. When we have the opportunity to amend the list, why have we only got the one public body? Are there any other public bodies that are contemplated in the near future? If so, why wouldn't they be here today?

Hon. J. Les: Sorry, Madam Chair. I wasn't aware that I was up already, so if the member would repeat the question, I'd be much obliged.

M. Farnworth: The question was a simple one. Given that we're dealing with the information and privacy act and that this particular issue is being removed because of the legislative change, were there any other titles or changes that could have been made to the act at this particular time?

[1525]

Hon. J. Les: This is pretty straightforward. It is absolutely a consequential amendment as a result of the repeal of the Parole Act and nothing else.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

section 43.

J. Horgan: This may well also be a consequential amendment, but as I have in my constituency communities with less than 5,000 souls, I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me the impact of this amendment on those communities.

Hon. J. Les: We will get to the sections of the act later that include communities under 5,000 and electoral areas in terms of paying for policing. This is a consequential amendment, although it's earlier in the bill, to that issue.

[ Page 6484 ]

Section 43 approved.

section 44.

J. Horgan: Now I've found my comfort zone, and I'm anxious to continue the discussion we had today with the Minister for Mining. We debated at committee stage this morning changes to the Coal Act, and now we find ourselves with the Mineral Tenure Act. We've had a chance over lunch to think about the thoughtful comments that were made in the House on the amendments to the Coal Act.

I'm wondering if anyone is going to come and join you, or are you just going to take this one?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Okay, fair enough. When we talked this morning, the minister made reference to mechanical disturbance on private land as a result of free miners exercising their subsurface rights. I'm wondering, for those in the House and for those at home, if the minister could explain what that mechanical disturbance would be and what consultation, what consent would be required before that could take place.

Hon. K. Krueger: The term referred to things such as bringing in a backhoe, bringing in a caterpillar, pushing dirt around. Free miners up until now have been able to enter onto the land, pick up rocks and hit them with hammers, that sort of thing, but in order to proceed with exploration that involved using mechanical devices such as I've described, they had to move to the next stage. What we've actually done is expand the requirement on explorers, free miners, so that they have to give notice before they go on to the land at all.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I'll just say, then…. So mechanical — he mentioned backhoes. Would a shovel be a mechanical disturbance?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

J. Horgan: So, then, the amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act proposed in the sections here in the miscellaneous amendment bill are intended to satisfy concerns of landowners and, as the minister said today and not to put too fine a point on it, to put a burden — in his mind, or the mind of some — on free miners to proceed with their exploration for subsurface opportunities.

[1530]

I guess the question would be to the minister: does he believe that these changes have satisfied that commitment to landowners groups in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Krueger: The change, as I said earlier, feels like a burden to free miners. It's something that they haven't had before. What the government seeks to do is strike more of a balance between the rights of surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders. In doing so, it has moved the balance more to the surface rights holders.

J. Horgan: Since the mineral tenure on-line registry has come into effect and is in fact creating more opportunities for free miners, I would think that would then be creating more stress on fee simple landowners. I'm wondering. In contemplating amending the legislation and changing what the minister said were pre-Confederation rules of engagement with the mining sector and property owners, did the minister contemplate the impact that access to on-line resources, in terms of identifying potential opportunities, would have on landowners?

[I. Black in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: The move to modernize exploration to MTO actually places significantly less stress on surface rights holders. No longer do free miners have to walk on the land, let alone break rocks or disturb anything. They don't have to pound stakes in. They don't have to leave miles and miles of netting and ropes and things that were done in the past.

It's also much safer for the people engaged in the exploration industry. I've heard tales of explorers jumping out of helicopters to pound in stakes and falling through snow cornices. This is much more environmentally friendly, is a much safer way to stake claims and is much less intrusive to the owners of the surface rights.

J. Horgan: Well, quite often the chase is half the fun in these situations, and if you can just google your various deposits on private lands, I think that would take some of the glamour out of free mining and the great find and staking your claim.

I live in the 21st century with the minister, so I understand that times are changing, but it seems to me that the opportunity to get to the stage of mechanical disturbance on what was private land is enhanced as a result of these technological cases. In cases of Crown land that's a positive thing. In cases of land where the landowner wants to participate in some meaningful way in the extraction, that's also a positive.

For those circumstances that we heard of from the member for Nelson-Creston and the groups that the minister knows well…. I'm sure his in-box is as active as mine from those who are galvanizing against this legislation and are concerned that a commitment was made to ease their pain.

They believe that we've missed the mark with this legislation and that the Legislature should give some thought to how we can modify the rules of engagement so that property owners have a better understanding of what risks they have by not accessing their subsurface rights. In fact, how can landowners even access those rights if they don't have an inclination to do so until such time as someone now sends them a notice?

This, I concede to the minister, is an improvement on the state of play today but is, when we look at our

[ Page 6485 ]

neighbours to the east in Alberta, a good distance away from consent. So I'll say to the minister, then, as we discuss this

section of the bill: has he contemplated since this morning moving to the Alberta model of consent rather than notice?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

J. Horgan: I thought a good hearty lunch and some reflection might have changed the minister's view, but apparently that hasn't happened.

An Hon. Member: You had ten years.

J. Horgan: You've got to come up with a better line than that. You guys have been driving the boat here for a goodly long time, and…

[1535]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, my goodness.

My question. I'll go back to the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement that is due to come into effect in British Columbia and Alberta on April 1. Has the minister reflected on my comments this morning about the intrusion on investors' rights in Alberta by them not coming down to our notice position?

Hon. K. Krueger: I told the member opposite, when he first raised this question this morning, that I thought it was a good question. I turned out to be mistaken, because the TILMA agreement actually doesn't apply to mining regulation.

C. Evans: Is the minister aware of the case just outside Vernon with the person holding a free-miner's licence who has been in the news harassing the neighbours? I think it's made national news — certainly, British Columbia news — and I think maybe even the United States news.

Hon. K. Krueger: I am aware of that case. If a person decides that they want to be a bad neighbour, they can find many ways to demonstrate it. It's difficult for mining regulation to deal with that sort of problem. By and large, the industry and the owners of surface rights get along very well.

The previous member made the point that we have had time to reflect on mining regulation with this government, and we've done that. Governments for over a hundred years in this chamber have had time to reflect on mining regulation and make changes — not just the NDP government of the '90s, as one of the members just pointed out, but for a hundred years.

We're the first government to move this far. We've done it because we think times have changed and people expect more involvement in matters that affect them than perhaps they did in the past. But I want to remind the member opposite again that there is only a handful of disputes historically in a year. There just haven't been that many disputes, and only one on average has actually had to go to the formal process — one per year to go to the formal process to resolve disputes.

C. Evans: I'm very pleased that the minister and I are both on the same page. We both understand the same issue. I think the fact that we both understand the same issue, with me just sort of naming a general area of the province, is indicative of the fact that this situation is indeed an anomaly. In the main, people holding a free-miner's licence are just that. They're prospectors. As the minister was saying before lunch, they're people who have found the wealth that created this building.

Historically, even in some of the years I've worked here, there's been a kind of assumption that if a citizen, any citizen, was willing to learn prospecting, there would be courses subsidized by the Crown to make it possible for a person to learn a beginning-level geology. At one point when I worked here, there was even a carryover from the grubstake provision of the old days, where a free miner could get a little bit of cash as a start at the beginning of the season.

I have no trouble with the idea of free-miners' licences, and in fact I think that without those wonderful people, most of the precomputer geology in British Columbia never would have happened. There are, of course, systems in place now that somewhat threaten the free miner, the prospector, by virtue of allowing — encouraging even — a form of prospecting that, as the minister says, does not require a citizen to walk on the land.

Setting all that aside, I want to endorse the idea of free miners, because I think that they are part of our history and part of our future. But there is the possibility, as I think the minister and I both acknowledge, that the free-miner's licence can create almost a licence for unkind or unfair and maybe even dangerous behaviour in a bully.

[1540]

I live where hard-rock mining is the history. In fact, when I came here, in what they used to call the maiden speech, I said that the silver from where we live built this building. I have no idea if that's true, but that's the mythology where I live. All of that is on the strength of the prospectors' capacity, especially in a place called Payne Mountain, in a village called Sandon, in a valley called the Slocan.

In Vernon at present there's a guy holding a free-miner's licence who has been on national news for scaring his neighbours. My observation about police is that police hate a rogue cop, because that cop brings down the reputation of policing. And I can't stand jerk politicians, because they bring down the reputation of the work I love and believe in. I would argue that if we can allow a free miner to behave in ways that denigrate prospectors, the people who should be most afraid of that are the gentleman who sits in the minister's chair and all the other prospectors in British Columbia.

I have some questions about the free-miner's licence. I would hope that we could figure out a way to exclude bullies from using that piece of paper in a way that denigrates prospecting, mining and maybe even

[ Page 6486 ]

governance. My first question is: will the minister tell us how much it costs to get a free-miner's licence?

Hon. K. Krueger: The cost is $25 for an individual, $500 for a corporation.

I'd respectfully like to point out to the member opposite that

section 44 merely deals with an amendment to the definition of "locate" and, again, the definition of "location." There might be other points where he'd like to raise these questions, but I just wanted to point that out.

C. Evans: Of course, I appreciate the advice of the minister. The minister has excellent advice.

It costs $25 to get a free-miner's licence. Of course, if you have a free-miner's licence, then you have to write a letter to actually use it. We'll get to the question of location. It's my understanding that in the Vernon access office of the government of British Columbia, it takes three minutes to get a free-miner's licence. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: That is a fact. It's a very quick, expeditious process, and I don't want to pass up the opportunity to agree with the member opposite in what I thought was an expression of support from him of the exploration industry in general.

I know that the people in the industry were tremendously upset about the example that the member has raised. The fact that it was and probably still is national news indicates what a rare occurrence that was. People occasionally do very nasty things to other people right across the spectrum. Surely the opposition wouldn't want us to impose all sorts of additional cost and expense on the exploration industry in general because one individual engaged in rogue behaviour.

I'm willing to offer another example of why we felt that it was appropriate to move in this direction, to start requiring notice. Again, the times are changing.

We had an issue where a camp for children had an issue with a free miner wandering across the property. Of course, in this day and age we don't want strangers in situations like that. In fact, the people who run children's camps have legal obligations. They're not to have adults on the property who haven't been subjects of criminal checks, and they have liability and insurance concerns.

That was another example. It wasn't a situation where anything bad had happened; it was a concern that was voiced to us.

The Chair: Member, on

section 44.

C. Evans: Yes, sir, hon. Chair. Thanks a lot.

Okay, so now we've established that it costs $25 to become a free miner, and it takes three minutes to do it. Is there a criminal-record check involved?

[1545]

Hon. K. Krueger: No, there is not. I think it would be respectful to the House to deal with what

section 44 actually sets out, which is very simple. Perhaps we could move onto other sections for other questions.

C. Evans: I appreciate that. You appreciate, of course, that there are people watching this debate and that these matters are of great interest to those folks. We're talking about

section 44. We're talking about providing notice, and we're getting to the importance of the notice.

I received notice that a free miner wants to come onto my land. I now know that the notice comes from a person who has $25, took three minutes and for whom there is no criminal-record check. I'm kind of wondering how I have some satisfaction that this person who sent me notice is in fact a legitimate prospector.

My next question to the minister is: is there any obligation to know anything about geology or prospecting? Is there a test or an exam? Is there anything I have to do to prove that I have the slightest interest in the mining industry in order to become a free miner?

Hon. K. Krueger: No, there is currently no test about geological expertise.

C. Evans: Wow. Three minutes, $25, no criminal-record check, and I don't even have to know anything about rocks.

My next question to the minister is…. Okay, now suppose you're the RCMP, and you receive a call from a citizen who is afraid because there is a person on their property who has a free-miner's licence. Does the RCMP then have the right to remove that individual? Or does the permit, as a free miner's licence on the property — and the notice, of course — give that person right of access?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: There is nothing in the act nor in these amendments that would deter the police from doing their duty or delay or defer them from doing their duty.

The things that the member opposite is now raising as concerns would all have been just as legitimate for the entire term of the 1990s, when he sat with the government, or for any time over the last hundred years.

The legislation moves to improve the situation and the rights of surface title holders, people who have surface rights. Why would the member be concerned about that sort of question today when he wasn't from 1991 to 2001, when he was in a position to do something about it?

C. Evans: I love it that we've actually reversed the system and now the minister is asking questions of the member. I don't even need staff to help answer the question.

I'm concerned now because we actually have a situation where an individual is walking around the province using a piece of paper and scaring people. It's on national news, which denigrates British Columbia's reputation, and all the prospectors and free miners and workers in the mining industry in my constituency. I'm standing here trying to figure out a way to get this person off the news in order to make free miners the

[ Page 6487 ]

elevated persons that they once were and ought to be in British Columbia.

My next question — and I'll make it my last question because I can see the minister is unhappy with the line of questioning — is: will the minister consider coming back into this House with another amendment in order to put in place criminal-record checks or some assurance so that when the notice comes from the free miner that they are coming onto your land, that is, in fact, an honourable individual and one with rights to be there who will respect the private property, well-being, health and happiness of the citizen, rather than a bully?

[1550]

Hon. K. Krueger: I want to put it on record that with regard to the individual that the member is questioning about and the incidents that he's talking about, we do have enforcement action underway. We are investigating that particular free miner's holdings, and we may withdraw the licence for his claims.

The member gives me a thumbs-up, but I want to make sure the member understands that by requiring free miners, for the first time in British Columbia's history, to give formal notice before they go on an individual's land, we're going to be requiring them to identify themselves and how to reach them, how to get in touch with them.

Up until now, including all through the 1990s, people often wouldn't even know that somebody had been exploring on their land. There was no requirement to tell the owner or even find out who they were. This is a substantial improvement to the rights of surface rights holders.

Sections 44 and 45 approved.

section 46.

J. Horgan:

Section 46(1.1), "The chief gold commissioner," etc. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what new powers this

section will pass to the chief gold commissioner.

Hon. K. Krueger: Up until we brought this legislation before the House to oblige free miners to give notice, of course there didn't need to be any provision for anyone to deal with problems that might arise in trying to do that. But the fact is that it is sometimes very difficult to identify who the owner of property is — for example, in the case of the property being owned through people who live in other countries, foreign ownership.

The manner in which the chief gold commissioner would have the authority to provide an exemption will be prescribed, as the legislation says, and the free miner making a request for exemption would have to convince, satisfy, the chief gold commissioner that due diligence had been undertaken — that genuine efforts had been made, that all possible means of identifying the owner of the land had been followed and that it just could not be ascertained.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his response, but as I read

section 46 and particularly (1.1), it says that the gold commissioner can exempt a free miner from

section 46(1), which is the essence of the notice period and procedure that the intent of these amendments is heading towards. I'm wondering what new powers that, then, would require — for the gold commissioner to discharge that — if a free miner is compelled to follow the law and yet get an exemption, other than in the situation that the minister just suggested.

[1555]

Hon. K. Krueger: I apparently failed to be clear. What I was trying to say was that we have brought in a new requirement for free miners. What (1.1) does is that in these very rare circumstances where ownership can't be ascertained, it gives the chief gold commissioner, who I hope the member has met — if he has, he would have enjoyed it; he's a wonderful civil servant and a guy who would never exercise his powers lightly — the authority to provide for an exemption in those rare circumstances.

If the member refers to the act itself, 11(2) still applies. And just for the member's edification so that he doesn't have to look it up, the right-of-entry does not extend to land that's occupied by a building; the curtilage of a dwelling house, meaning a reasonable distance around it; orchard land; land under cultivation; and land lawfully occupied for mining purposes, except for the purposes of exploring for and locating minerals or placer minerals as permitted by the act.

It also doesn't apply to protected heritage property, except as authorized by the local government or the minister responsible for the protection of the protected heritage property or land in a park, except as permitted by

section 21. So there are many restrictions, and that hasn't changed.

Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

J. Horgan: On

section 49. I'm just confirming, I think. We had a discussion a moment ago, the minister and I, with respect to the on-line registry and how it's taken some of the romance out of prospecting, but it's greenhouse gas–neutral if you just click and drag and stake your claim.

Can the minister confirm that

section 49 is just allowing the gold commissioner to take as a claim something posted on the Internet, rather than by stakes, marks or posts? Is that the intent?

Hon. K. Krueger: We have about 20,000 ground-staked claims still in existence, and for four years government has been patiently urging the people who own those claims to make sure that the mapping of them is very accurate, because we want to convert them all to MTO. All new staking has to be with MTO.

Sections 49 to 53 inclusive approved.

[ Page 6488 ]

section 54.

M. Farnworth: I have just a couple of questions to ask on behalf of the critic, so I won't harp on this particular

section particularly long. But it does strike a chord, and I think it's important to make a couple of notes on this particular section. I'll ask the questions, and if the minister wishes to trumpet his response, he's more than welcome to.

The Registered Music Teachers Association has existed since the first decade of the 20th century, and its demise is a noteworthy event. What's the purpose of repealing the act?

Hon. M. Coell: Given that the association can now incorporate as a society, it will have the occupational titles protection for its members pursuant to

part 10 of the Society Act. It really offers superior mechanisms to ensure that the occupational titles of members are protected, and it's proposed that we would repeal the act only once the association has been incorporated. By becoming a society, the Registered Music Teachers Association will be governed by and accountable to the government, along the same lines as other occupations are now as well.

[1600]

M. Farnworth: I indicated that I had a duet of questions, and that solo answer has dealt with the second question.

Sections 54 to 58 inclusive approved.

section 59.

J. Horgan: I just have a couple of questions, more of an explanatory nature. I think that those who are watching at home or reading the act as we go through clause by clause will want to know what the minister's definition of stratigraphic reversion is. So I welcome the minister to respond.

What is stratigraphic reversion, and why are we amending this bill?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think this is a pretty straightforward section. What it means is that natural gas and oil are produced from different zones down in the earth. I know the member is aware of that. What happened back in 1985…. Let me back up a bit. What used to happen was that oil and gas companies would buy the right to drill for that oil and gas, and they retained everything from the deepest depth that they drilled to the surface.

In 1985 the government of the day said that the zones that were below where they were producing from would revert back to the Crown because they weren't producing them, and there could be gas or oil there. That happened in 1985.

We've been in consultation with the industry for a couple of years now about doing the reverse on the area above the zones that they're producing. What would happen on a normal lease, which is usually five or ten years…. I know the member is aware of that also. At the date of that fifth year, if they have not produced above a certain zone, that right actually reverts to the Crown to be resold to some other company that may want to drill into that pool — or, if not that pool, other pools — to produce that gas.

The soonest it could take place after this

section comes into force would be 2012. It's a good thing for the province, reverting those rights back, because they can be resold and produced at a later time by another company instead of lying dormant.

Sections 59 and 60 approved.

section 61.

J. Horgan: We're talking about the Police Act, so I thought I'd get to my feet. If the minister could find some staff….

I'll just pose a couple of questions to the minister. I gave him a bit of a

preamble or a heads-up on the Islands Trust amendment. If this is an appropriate spot to raise the issue of communities with less than 5,000 people in them and the costs of policing, and how this amendment will impact those communities….

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member is aware, we've had a situation in the province for quite a number of years that, frankly, many people saw as being inequitable: that is, a situation where municipalities under 5,000 in population and rural areas of the province were contributing little or nothing towards the costs of policing.

[1605]

What these amendments propose to do is to provide a mechanism whereby they will be contributing to the costs of policing, albeit on a somewhat reduced basis from the contributions that are being made by other municipalities across the province. We think that the proposals in this legislation do that in a fair and equitable way and resolve this inequity that has existed for a long time.

D. MacKay: I believe that the minister realizes that I have a large number of small communities located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Smithers is the only community that is currently paying for police services, because it's over the 5,000 population. That's just a bit of a

preamble.

I want to start, first of all, with the contributing area under the definition of this particular section, where it describes municipalities that are "not providing policing and law enforcement under

section 3(2)," an electoral area, and an area of the Province outside a regional district.

My first question. Could the minister tell me: does this include Indian reserves located in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: No.

D. MacKay: Could the minister tell me: does this include the Nisga'a Nation?

[ Page 6489 ]

Hon. J. Les: No.

D. MacKay: With that answer, would the exemption of the Nisga'a Nation be a result of the treaty or of the fact that it's not included in this definition?

Hon. J. Les: There are policing provisions within the Nisga'a treaty that provide for policing. So that situation is provided for, and there's no need to include that within this legislation.

D. MacKay: Does that mean, then, that the Nisga'a Nation will be a contributing factor in the policing costs for communities under 5,000 going forward?

Hon. J. Les: The existing arrangements that apply to the Nisga'a self-government area are in place pursuant to the treaty, and they are in place until the year 2012. So there is no necessity at this point to address those issues.

There are policing provisions in place, contributions being made pursuant to the treaty. We have not contemplated making any arrangements within this legislation to specifically address Nisga'a because they are addressed.

D. MacKay: Obviously, I'm still somewhat confused about that last answer. I will take it upon myself to discuss it with the minister one-on-one so that I don't waste valuable time in this House.

Again to the minister: I've done some homework on this and, based on 2001 figures, if a community has a population of over 5,000 people the average cost per capita is about $164.

[1610]

For those communities, once they exceed the 5,000 population they are now responsible for 70 percent of the actual policing cost based on the number of personnel they had at that detachment. That means the federal government is contributing 30 percent.

This may sound like a long question, so I'll have to ask you to bear with me while I go through this. So 70 percent is being paid by the community that's within the boundaries and that has the population in excess of 5,000. The federal government is contributing 30 percent. Again, I'd just ask you to keep that in mind as I go through this.

The total cost to the province for municipal and provincial police services in British Columbia is roughly $806 million. I'm going to break that down for you. The provincial government contributed $153 million for provincial policing. For municipal policing costs, they contributed $551 million. The federal government contributed $101 million for a total of $806 million.

A part of the $153 million that the province paid for services for those communities under the 5,000 population…. So $90 million out of that $153 million was for police infrastructure and specialized functions. Will the small rural communities now be asked to contribute to this $90 million that pays for the specialized services such as the identification section, police services dog and other identification

section services? Are they now going to be asked to contribute to that $90 million?

Hon. J. Les: The answer is no. The small communities will be making a contribution only to basic community policing. None of the specialized forms of policing will be included in the formula.

D. MacKay: Again, with that new provision that has been included in Bill 12, as the minister said, they'll be asked to raise 50 percent of those costs. If my number is correct, it would be $63 million that they would have to collect, which is equal to one half of the…. So $39 million is for unincorporated areas, $15 million for populations under 5,000 and $9 million for Indian reserves, for a total of $90 million for police infrastructure and specialized services.

Could the minister tell me how much we are expected to recover from the rural areas in the populations under 5,000 people?

Hon. J. Les: Without being too complicated here, I'll just go straight to the numbers — roughly what they are. The total that will be collected from all of the rural areas — that is, the electoral areas and the communities under 5,000 — is in the neighbourhood of $25 million. That would be the gross amount collected.

Then, of course, we need to bear in mind that these communities and electoral areas will be eligible to participate in a share of the traffic fine revenue as well. That will be netted out against that $25 million, roughly.

D. MacKay: So $25 million is the expected recovery. That's much less than my numbers actually showed, so I'm pleased to hear that.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me…. The money that is going to be collected, is it going to be from rural residents only and only from residential homes, or does it include all different types of taxation — industrial? I'm thinking of sawmills in small towns. Are they also going to be assessed a portion of this policing cost money?

Hon. J. Les: The assessment is assessed against the entire tax base.

[1615]

N. Macdonald:

Section 61 is the amendment to the Police Act, which provides the mechanism for the province to collect money for communities under 5,000 to cover the cost of 50 percent of the policing.

As the minister knows, the community that I come from — just as my colleague here comes from — contains a number of communities that are under 5,000 and that had previously not paid for policing. This includes Golden, Radium, Invermere, Canal Flats, as well as the regional districts.

Since the mid-'90s, attending UBCMs, I had the opportunity to listen to the Premier. At that time — in his time as Leader of the Opposition — and then in documents since, the Premier consistently talked

[ Page 6490 ]

about their commitment to not download costs onto communities.

I go back to even when the Community Charter Council Act was put together. There was a provision in there that outlined that the provincial government would not reduce its costs by transferring responsibilities of costs to municipalities. In other words, it would not download. Yet I put it to you that this is a download.

I'd ask the minister to explain. How is this cost not a download if it is applying costs to communities that previously did not pay for this?

Hon. J. Les: I thank the member for his question. I think what the member would perhaps want to do is look at this in context. There is no question that for the first time we're asking those communities to contribute to policing. As I've already indicated to a previous question, that is no more than providing some equity.

I'm sure the member is aware of small communities that happen to have 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 population within their borders. It has been a matter of concern to them for a number of years that communities only slightly smaller were not required to pay for policing services. So what we have done is implemented a construct here that I think is demonstrably fair.

At the same time, though, we have made a number of contributions towards policing in British Columbia that enhance the policing service available to communities. We have invested approximately $35 million, for example, for the implementation of PRIME, which is a common information-sharing network that by the end of this year will be available to all police forces right across British Columbia.

We have increased the province's contribution to policing by $122 million a year just a couple of years ago, which enables a very significant additional number of police personnel to be deployed across the province.

We have invested in integrated police resources across the province. There are some nine or ten of those specialized integrated police organizations across the province that investigate major crime — for example, that are involved in the Internet-based crime — and that are involved in integrated traffic enforcement, the integrated road safety units. And there are a number of others like that.

I would perhaps take issue with the member. This certainly isn't a case of downloading. This is first and foremost a case of providing some equity. Secondly, demonstrably, our government over the last number of years has provided very significant additional policing resources. So I would suggest that the province is at least picking up its share of the burden and, in fact, is doing much more than that.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the answer. Just to continue with that theme, and then at a later time we'll talk about the equity issue. The commitment was made to not download. Because you don't have the economy of scale, the burden that is placed upon smaller communities especially and upon the property tax payer is significant.

I think all MLAs here will be receiving, especially around tax time, indications of concern around the cost for community members with their property.

[1620]

I'll just give you examples of things that have also been downloaded, and this is just taken from a community in my riding that's under 5,000. A few examples. The lab cost for water testing. The cost for a community under 5,000 can be as much as $30,000, and that was a cost that was previously paid by the province up until 2004. Cross-connection control and aquifer protection was mandated by the province, but the cost to a community under 5,000…. The number I had was $59,000.

There are more onerous sewer reporting proceedings that cost communities up to $10,000. There are costs, as well, for interface fire preparation, costs for the reorganization of the fire commissioner's office. Now you have an additional cost, an additional download, for community police funding for communities under 5,000. No matter how it's presented, it means that small rural communities are going to be under pressure to raise funds.

The additional pressures come from other things that previously were done, such as the building of dikes. They were partially financed through the provincial government. You had those costs as well as many others that come down to these small communities.

Now, there are economies of scale, so I just repeat: how does the fact that you are downloading this cost in any way line up with repeated promises not to download those costs? How is it not a download?

Hon. J. Les: I think I attempted to explain to the member that this is not a one-way street. While there are going to be contributions towards policing costs, the province has already done quite a number of things specific to policing to more than square that circle.

In addition to that, my colleague the Minister of Community Services has indicated a number of times over that there are quite a number of programs specifically oriented and geared towards small communities that will help offset some of their costs. In many of those small communities they enjoy a much stronger economy today than was the case six, seven and eight years ago. That, too, is obviously helpful.

When we're talking about the increased cost, I just want to point out for the benefit of the member and anyone else who might be interested that we're not talking about hundreds and hundreds of dollars here. The member might be interested in the community of Canal Flats, for example, where the average house in that community will be paying an additional cost of $42 per year. That's $3.50 a month.

We have tried very deliberately to mitigate the impact and to keep the costs at a very reasonable level. I think we've very successfully done that. Clearly, there is always change going on. This is in fact a change, but there have been many other changes as well that have benefited communities and the taxpayers in those communities.

When you do the math and try to weigh these things one off against the other, I think communities

[ Page 6491 ]

today are definitely better off than they were a half dozen years ago.

N. Macdonald: One of the reasons I mentioned a number of things that have been downloaded is because all of these, regardless of their size, incrementally put pressure on one small and, I would argue, regressive form of taxation, which is property tax. You have the cumulative effect. In a community like Golden it will be an additional $150,000 for the community.

You could argue that that's not going to break anyone, but it comes on the back of many, many other costs that are downloaded, and these communities will be telling all MLAs, I'm sure, that they feel pressure. I think my compatriot from the north will hear the same thing.

The economies of scale for these communities are not there. Every additional cost that they are forced to absorb is therefore a serious problem, and while $42 per person for Canal Flats seems inconsequential, as a whole it is part of an additional burden.

It is seniors that we're very often hearing from. Communities not only have additional costs, but many communities in my area also now own courthouses that they picked up when the province decided to get out of courthouses. Well, that's new. We have communities that have to pick up the cost of hospitals that were left. There are additional costs in these communities.

[1625]

The question of equity. The changes to small-community funding will not mean money in the pool of money for policing. Is it going to mean that any other community pays less? If you're talking about equity…. For the communities that now pay 70 percent, is this going to change what they pay? My understanding is that it does not. It simply goes into the provincial fund.

I don't see how that makes it any more equal for communities to pay the full cost or pay 70 percent of the cost, because this doesn't change their situation at all. It is historically set up so that communities that are small and that will face an economy of scale, a burden put upon them, can still be places that are appealing for people to live.

What we repeatedly see is that with cost pressures combined with the removal of services, you have these places now less and less appealing. We see that with the data, as people find that they cannot easily live in these communities. They don't get the services, and there are property taxes.

The question I had for you was: is my assessment correct? Is what I said correct — about the fact of this additional $25 million that is collected? You said it was $25 million. Does it in any way ease the burden for any of the other communities that are paying for policing? Does it do any of that?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the additional contribution of $25 million will tend to be shared by all British Columbians generally, so it'll ease the tax burden on all taxpayers.

I want to caution the member about engaging in a discussion about downloading, because I don't believe that this side of the House has anything to learn from the NDP on that matter. I was a mayor in the 1990s. If you want to talk about downloading, Madam Chair, I can go on all aftern