2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

B.C. Lions — Grey Cup champions

Mr. Speaker (Hon. B. Barisoff)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 36 — School Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. G. Abbott

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Day of Mourning for workers

R. Chouhan

Cancer Society Daffodil Day and support for cancer patients

C. Hansen

C. James

Surrey Canadian Baseball Association

D. Hayer

Power to Be Adventure Therapy Society

L. Popham

Parksville Chamber of Commerce awards

R. Cantelon

Oral Questions

Government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Worker safety and report on Burns Lake mill explosion

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Government action on millworker safety

B. Routley

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Safety of Vancouver floatplane terminal

M. Elmore

Hon. P. Bell

RCMP contract and public consultation on police services

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Government spending on communications and tendering of contracts

D. Routley

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

V. Huntington

Reporting of Bills

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. T. Lake

L. Krog

Reporting of Bills

Bill 24 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

M. Karagianis

C. James

R. Fleming

J. Horgan

G. Gentner

[ Page 11185 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

B.C. LIONS — GREY CUP CHAMPIONS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we have some very special guests who are in the precincts today. At this point in time I'd like to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to open the doors of the chamber and allow our guests to be presented at the Bar of the House.

From the Grey Cup champions, the B.C. Lions football team, I'm pleased to welcome president and chief executive officer Dennis Skulsky; director of communications and relations Jamie Taras; No. 14, quarterback Travis Lulay, CFL outstanding player for 2011; and centre Angus Reid, CFL west division all-star for 2011. [Applause.]

At this time I'd like to ask the Government House Leader to say a few words.

[1335]

Hon. R. Coleman: On behalf of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Legislature, I'd like to welcome the Grey Cup champion B.C. Lions and the Grey Cup to our chamber here today.

You know, this is the first team in Canadian history of the Grey Cup that has taken the cup around the small communities and large communities across the province of British Columbia. This cup, since they've won it, has been in 165 schools across B.C., showing what this team is really about.

This team is really a British Columbia gem. It's British Columbia's team. Their community outreach work is incredible. Their leadership and outreach in mental health and youth programs that they do and participation in some programs with government and others with the communities themselves are touching lives every day.

It's not just about the cup. It's about a group of individuals who actually believe in British Columbia, in the communities that they come from and actually bring value back to our communities and show leadership and give our youth leadership as an example.

In particular, though, today I want to thank Sen. David Braley, the owner of the B.C. Lions. Frankly, if it wasn't for Senator Braley, there probably wouldn't be a CFL today. His belief in the CFL and his community outreach have rebuilt the league into what it should be — a league that actually represents provinces and communities across Canada in the work that it does.

I know he's not here today, but I know Wally Buono, and I wanted to pass on that we all know he's the winningest coach in CFL history. He's a friend, a really valued guy to our community as well.

This group of athletes are community leaders. The team is a big piece of British Columbia's culture and our history. What they give back to British Columbia is far more than just winning the Grey Cup. It's what you do for the whole province of British Columbia.

So on behalf of all of us, I'd like to thank you.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and all my colleagues on this side of the House, I want to extend our gratitude and warm wishes to the representatives of the B.C. Lions who have joined us here at the Bar of the Legislature today.

It's not the Vancouver Lions, as my colleague on the opposite side said. It's the B.C. Lions, the British Columbia Lions. In every corner of this province these representatives and their colleagues have criss-crossed, talking to young people, talking to seniors, talking to people who have dreamed about the Grey Cup.

I shared an anecdote with the Lions at lunch today about being a young boy in the 1960s and crying myself to sleep after they lost time after time after time against the Edmonton Eskimos — the dreaded, awful, vile Edmonton Eskimos.

So it's an absolute delight. I can't stop smiling. It's a delight to be able to recognize them here today in the Legislature — not just as champions, not just as a group of individuals that went from 0 and 5, 1 and 6, to holding aloft the oldest trophy in professional sports in North America.

True champions and true community leaders, setting an example and letting kids and young people know — I don't want the B.C. Liberals to take too much out of this — that even on dark days, if you work hard and you persevere, success will follow. That doesn't often happen in politics, but these gentlemen and their teammates are examples of what happens in sport when people work together. They dig down, they help each other out, and the result is there before you — the shining, glorious Grey Cup.

So on behalf of the opposition, welcome to the Legislature of British Columbia, and thank you very much for the community work that you do.

Mr. Speaker: At this time I'd like to ask the two House Leaders, who could probably also be linebackers for the B.C. Lions, to join me up front.

Now we'll move on to introduction of guests.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I note in the gallery today, and I'm delighted to ask the House to welcome to it, Richard Goode, the

[ Page 11186 ]

president of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union.

Hon. T. Lake: On September 6, 2011, the first new law school in Canada in 33 years was opened at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Today in the gallery we're very pleased to have the founding dean and founding assistant dean of the TRU law school.

Chris Axworthy is no stranger to parliamentary procedures. In 1988 he was MP for Saskatoon–Clark's Crossing, re-elected twice, in 1993 and 1997. In 1999 he was elected MLA for Saskatoon-Fairview and served as Minister of Justice and AG for the province of Saskatchewan, later adding Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Affairs to his portfolio. So we're very pleased to have Chris Axworthy as the founding dean at TRU.

With him today is the founding assistant dean, Anne Pappas, who we stole from the University of Victoria law school, where she did some great work and helped to establish the Law Centre and the environmental law clinic.

I would wish the House to join me in making Chris and Anne very welcome in the buildings today.

L. Popham: I had the pleasure of having lunch with former MLA and cabinet minister Joan Sawicki at the Legislature today. She is also joining us on the floor of the chamber this afternoon.

Joan served as MLA for the Burnaby-Willingdon riding from 1991 to 2001 as a member of the B.C. NDP. She served as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly from 1992 to 1994 and as Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks from 1999 to 2000. In this role, she introduced the first climate action plan for Canada.

Joan is a great resource for me as I navigate my way through my first term as MLA. Please welcome Joan Sawicki.

R. Cantelon: Joining us today are some young visitors from the Comox Valley, from Huband Park Elementary School. Their teacher Mrs. Debbie Nelson brings 36 grade 5 children and four adults. These children will observe the realities of how government behaves. We hope we behave well today. Let's please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: It's my great pleasure to make a number of introductions today. The first introductions are of Bill Magri and Gerry Cunningham. Bill is the president of CUPE Local 7000. Gerry was the longtime president, past-president, of CUPE Local 7000. Local 7000 are the SkyTrain and Southern Rail workers who work so hard on your behalf in public transportation. I hope the House will please make them very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like the House to join me today in welcoming members from the Technology Education and Careers Council. The members that are here with us today are the chair, Sid Siddiqui, with Stantec; Tracy Armatage, with B.C. Hydro; Harry Diemer, ASTTBC; Oksana Exell, the Asia Pacific Gateway Skills Table; Andrew Hay, Okanagan College; Reid Johnson, the Health Sciences Association; John Leech, the executive director of ASTTBC; Janine North, Northern Trust; Catherine Roome, the B.C. Safety Authority; Bryan Tisdall, Science World; M.J. Whitemarsh, the Canadian Home Builders Association; and Lesley Wilson, Concost Consultants. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1345]

R. Austin: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Gord Lechner to the House. I first got to know Gord when he was working with the CAW Local 2301 up in Kitimat. That's the union that represents the Alcan or Rio Tinto workers. He now is on secondment to the B.C. fed. I would like the House to join me in giving him a warm welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Setting a trend that would be repeated quite frequently, it was, I think, just over 18 years ago on my first day in this chamber that Speaker Sawicki called me out of order. She has recovered from the trauma. I have not. It is good to see the former Speaker in the chamber again.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome my friends Marcel Marsolais and Cherene Groundwater. Marcel is my current president of my constituency association, and Cherene Groundwater was my previous president. Please join me to welcome both of them to this chamber.

D. Routley: I would like to welcome one of my constituents, president of the ferry workers, Richard Goode, who is in fact a resident of Gabriola and very ferry-dependent himself, so he certainly lives his trade. Welcome to the House, Richard, on behalf of the Legislature.

N. Macdonald: I'd like introduce Mrs. Agnes Macdonald and Mr. Murdo Macdonald. They're my parents. They're visiting from Manitoba, which is special. It seems Manitobans have to come to British Columbia if they're going to see the Grey Cup. We're going to change that next year. I'm just telling you now. Please join me in making them welcome.

K. Corrigan: Well, I have a number more introductions to do today, so I guess I'll go through them all before I sit down. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a previous colleague of mine, Rob Jandric. Rob has recently, as of yesterday, been elected the CSU president.

Rob is here today visiting Victoria with his family: his wife, Leslie Jansen, and two children, Katelyn Jandric, 11,

[ Page 11187 ]

and Matthew Jandric, 9. Katelyn and Matthew were telling me that they're going to go back and tell their teachers about their trip to Victoria, so I hope the House will make them very welcome.

In addition, it also gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome into the House the new assistant regional director of CUPE BC, Rob Hewitt. Rob, again, a longtime colleague of mine, so I hope that the House will make him feel very welcome as well.

I want to also thank CUPE so much. They're here having their annual convention, and I thank them so much for the warm welcome they gave all of us last night at their wonderful reception.

My final introduction is for a longtime friend of mine, Gordie Larkin, who is also the president of the Burnaby Citizens Association. I hope you'll make him feel welcome as well.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to introduce the School Amendment Act, which will support B.C.'s education plan by removing barriers to personalized learning and providing students and parents with greater flexibility and choice.

First, the legislation will eliminate the standard school calendar as of the 2013-2014 school year to enable school districts to offer more creative scheduling options that would better meet the need of their students.

[1350]

Second, the legislation will increase choice by allowing kindergarten-to-grade-9 students to enrol in a mix of bricks-and-mortar and distance learning courses. Third, the legislation will clarify that boards of education can charge fees to offset the extra costs associated with international baccalaureate programs.

Furthermore, the legislation requires districts to establish financial hardship policies for students who might otherwise be excluded from these programs.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, we first have to move first reading.

Hon. G. Abbott: So moved, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move it be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, School Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

R. Chouhan: This coming Saturday, on April 28, Canadians from coast to coast will be remembering hundreds and thousands of those people who died at the job. Many were seriously injured as well. We are remembering these workers who, when they left home in the morning, hoped that they'd be back home in the evening. In some of their cases, it didn't happen. They lost their lives, and many who were injured are still impacted.

In 1991 the Parliament of Canada adopted April 28 as a National Day of Mourning. Since 2000 we have lost over 10,000 Canadian workers who were killed or seriously injured at work. It impacts all industries — public sector, private sector, agriculture, mining, forestry, construction, everywhere.

To bring home the horror of how this impacts us all, only this week we have seen the terrible tragedy at the Lakeland lumber mill in Prince George. Twenty-three workers were seriously injured, and two are dead. We also have seen a similar tragedy in Burns Lake a few months ago.

On April 28 thousands of Canadians will be getting together with their thoughts and prayers for those who lost their lives and their thoughts and prayers for those who are left behind. I urge all British Columbians, all of us, wherever they can to participate in those ceremonies and remember those workers who laid down their lives for all of us.

CANCER SOCIETY DAFFODIL DAY AND

SUPPORT FOR CANCER PATIENTS

C. Hansen: I remember the day vividly from 1975 when I got a phone call from my mother informing me that she had been diagnosed with cancer. It was lymphoma, for which at that time the survival rates were not very good at all. She endured months of radiation and chemotherapy, and I have no doubt she got the best medical treatment that medical science could offer at the time.

While the doctors and the other health professionals gave her excellent medical care, what was missing was the

[ Page 11188 ]

emotional support and the advice that could come from others who had travelled the same journey before her.

When she got well enough to do something about it, she started a cancer survivor self-help group in the Comox Valley which later affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Society.

For decades the Canadian Cancer Society has been supporting cancer patients and their families with support that reaches into every community in British Columbia. They support research, provide counselling services, assist with travel for patients to get to treatment and even support for camps for kids with cancer.

I was thrilled four weeks ago to be asked to represent the Premier and the Minister of Health for the kickoff of Daffodil Month. Tomorrow is officially proclaimed as Daffodil Day in British Columbia. When you wear a daffodil and you make a donation to the Canadian Cancer Society, you are supporting the excellent programs that they provide.

My mother passed away just over a year ago at the age of 85. Near her bed was something that she was very proud of. It was a framed certificate acknowledging her 30 years of volunteer service to the Canadian Cancer Society.

[1355]

Tomorrow I will be wearing my daffodil with pride. It will recognize the tremendous support that the Canadian Cancer Society gave my mother and the thousands of other British Columbians who battle cancer every year.

I urge every member of the House to wear their daffodil tomorrow, to remember those that were close to them that have succumbed to cancer and to celebrate cancer survivors and to celebrate the great work of the Canadian Cancer Society.

C. James: I want to thank the member, and I want to emphasize Daffodil Month and Daffodil Day. Every three minutes another Canadian hears the words: "You have cancer." Those are difficult words to hear, and I know that from personal experience.

With help from the best medical professionals and love and care from my family and friends, I fought cancer and won, and so too have hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The support I received was such an important part of my fight. The Canadian Cancer Society wants those battling the disease to know that they aren't alone, so it is important on April 27 to wear your daffodil. By wearing a bright yellow daffodil pin, Canadians honour those who have been lost to the disease, and they also show their support for people who are fighting cancer.

This month special events and activities are taking place in communities all across this country. The dollars raised go to prevent cancer, to pay for research, to support people living with cancer and to stand up for policies that improve the health of all Canadians.

The Canadian Cancer Society is encouraging us to do something special on Daffodil Day for those living with cancer or to contribute towards the fight. That might be making a small difference for someone you know who has cancer. It might be volunteering with the Canadian Cancer Society. It could mean joining up for a Relay for Life team.

I had the honour of speaking this month at the Lakes District Daffodil Extravaganza, which was an evening of fun and celebration that recognized the extraordinary efforts of those volunteers all year round, many of them survivors themselves, who work every single day to support people. The daffodil pins are symbols of determination, hope and resiliency. They're a reminder each year that the search for the cure is ongoing, and we won't give up until all forms of this disease are defeated.

SURREY CANADIAN BASEBALL ASSOCIATION

D. Hayer: One of the best little league baseball associations in Canada, the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association, threw its first pitch of the season this month. I attended the opening event, as I have for over a decade.

I appreciate the importance that this sport has in developing sportsmanship, skills and healthy lifestyles among our youth. The Surrey Canadian Baseball Association, just like the Whalley Little League, is a non-profit, volunteer-based organization that provides an exceptional athletic experience for all its players, along with rewarding entertainment and good sportsmanship.

The association maintains all the parks and baseball diamonds it plays on and operates its own concessions to support the teams and players. Parents and other volunteers also contribute time and energy to ensure Surrey's parks are the best possible. This dedication is reflected in the results on the field.

For the first time in the association's history the Surrey Canadian peewee double-A Cardinals won the western Canadian baseball championships held in Saskatchewan. They also won the B.C. championships last year, as did the Surrey mosquito double-A Angels in their division.

For their efforts in developing baseball skills and teaching sportsmanship and fair play and developing community spirit and mutual respect, I want to congratulate the president, Steven Cramer, along with the executives, directors, managers, umpires, commissioners, coordinators and all volunteers, including Rob Masson, Kevin Phelan, Brian Davis, T.J. Jagpal, Silvana Dodd, Frank Love, Trevor Haqq, Bruce Lawson, Don Schwartz, Allan Padgham, Karen Parker, Rick Hunter, Vito Mussio, Julie Love, Alex Pezzolesi, Loretta Deveau, Diane Natino, Mike Roberts, Pat McHugh, Al Taylor, Bob Peterson, David Breen, Minerva Padgham and Stuart Ludwar.

Can we all thank them for the awesome work they're doing to develop the game and their team.

[ Page 11189 ]

POWER TO BE

ADVENTURE THERAPY SOCIETY

L. Popham: It's a privilege to rise in this House today and speak to a dynamic and life-changing program called Power To Be.

[1400]

The driving force of Power To Be is Tim Cormode. His hard work has brought together hundreds of not-for-profit organizations and businesses. Everyone who has had the chance to experience the wild places of our beautiful province knows that nature is awe-inspiring, and our experience of it can be emotional and profound. Power To Be taps into that power of nature. It uses that natural energy to nurture youth.

Power To Be provides two comprehensive programs for the community: adaptive recreation and the wilderness school program. Adaptive recreation uses nature-based recreation activities to help people living with a barrier or disability to deepen their sense of security in themselves. Facing nature builds people up, and when they return to their homes, they are better able to overcome day-to-day challenges.

The wilderness school program helps youth with life skills. There are weekend programs every month and multiday expeditions in the summer. They offer structured activities to develop leadership, teach outdoor skills and improve confidence, discipline and focus. My son, Kye, is a new member of the wilderness school program, and as a family, we have been amazed by this program in just two short months.

According to one recent participant:

"There is so much I thought I would never be able to do. I never thought of myself as a kayaker, a rock climber, a canoer, a snowboarder or any of those adventurous things.

"I was always told that there's so much I couldn't do, but with Power To Be, I've learned that people told me wrong. With Power To Be, they told me I can do these things if I set my mind to it, even though I have autism 24-7. They respect autism and also teach that I can set my mind to do anything."

Power To Be has recently won a B.C. Community Achievement Award and a business excellence award from the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. I wish them continued success in the valuable work of harnessing the power of nature to nurture youth and families in B.C., as Power To Be….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

PARKSVILLE CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE AWARDS

R. Cantelon: Parksville is not one of the biggest towns on Vancouver Island. Its 12,000 residents rank it 15th in size, but it has one of the most energetic and vigorous chambers of commerce. Its membership topped 500. These are job creators, full of ideas and initiative. It operates like one big networking group, and the enthusiasm is infectious.

One of the ways they support one another is recognition of outstanding achievements. They call it the Glassies Awards. Volunteer of the year was awarded to Ginny Brucker. Ginny is a founding member of the Nanoose Community Services, which supports the Nanoose community through its food bank, Christmas elf project and many other services. She has inspired many to get involved and get out and help.

Community builder of the year was presented to Building Learning Together. BLT is driven by Deb Davenport of school district 69. Creative approaches make early learning easy and fun, like Words on Wheels and Munchkin Land. Families are pulled into this imagination-inspiring vortex that stimulates young minds.

Outstanding customer service of the year went to Dan LaRocque of Up Your Media. An Apple-certified support professional, Dan not only repairs and maintains computers with his mobile service but helps customers maximize the response they get from their websites.

Mikayla Canning was recognized as Youth of the Year for leadership at Ballenas Secondary School, organizing such things as the annual 24-hour famine.

Business of the Year went to Horne Lake caves and campground, a premiere Island attraction that saw 160,000 visitors guided on an unforgettable spelunking experience.

Citizen of the Year recognized Carrie Powell-Davidson for her tireless efforts in promoting Parksville. A consummate collaborator, her passion for Parksville is infectious. A Parksville city councillor, Carrie is one of those people you can count on to make it happen.

Let's celebrate these Parksville leaders.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: Over the past number of days the B.C. Liberals have found new ways to cover up their mendacity and incompetence on the Boss Power boondoggle. Let's just review, if we could, so those watching at home have a sense of what's been going on here.

[1405]

A few years ago the B.C. Liberals introduced a moratorium on uranium mining in British Columbia, but they neglected to follow their legal obligations and instead felt that a press release was sufficient. Following that, the senior public servants were directed by someone — we still don't know who — to advise the chief inspector of mines

[ Page 11190 ]

to ignore his statutory obligation.

This information came forward in the courts as misfeasance on behalf of the government. The B.C. Liberals then settled out of court for $21 million more than the independent evaluation provided for, presented to the courts.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. If he is so confident that the fair compensation that he argues — that $30 million — is correct, will he join with the opposition and send this matter to the Auditor General so that we can have a real, genuine, impartial assessment of what happened to that $21 million, so all members of this House can have confidence?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I'll try to do today is speak a little slower for the members opposite so they can get the information that I have in buckets with regards to their ability to do things when they were in government — which, by the way, actually even today….

The NDP were in the habit in the 1990s of giving out loan guarantees. They gave out loan guarantees to all kinds of businesses. They gave out a loan guaranteeing a live event. The loan has had to be written off. They gave a loan guarantee out to Apex Mountain. The loan had to be written off.

Millions and millions and millions of dollars had to be written off because you gave out loan guarantees to companies — "you" being the NDP, hon. Speaker, because I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was being personal with any member across the House and have to be interrupted today.

I think what I'll do is this. I'll repeat to the member that we had legal counsel look at this, come back with an assessment and tell us, the Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance, where we should settle. We did that.

Now, we didn't do as the NDP did on the Carrier Lumber case in the 1990s, where the judge said this…. I'll read it slowly so you hear it today. Mr. Justice Parrett said that the provincial government, that being the NDP government of the day, "chose to cover its own failings…"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"…and to orchestrate matters to conceal their own breach. Through a series of manoeuvres and self-serving documents, they sought to frustrate Carrier's harvesting activities and then to proceed with the suspension and eventual cancellation of their licence."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I genuinely appreciate that the Government House Leader likes to take walks down memory lane, but we would really like him and, I believe, the people of British Columbia would like him to perhaps focus on the here and the now. The here and the now is the responsibility of the B.C. Liberal Party.

I can appreciate the member's reticence to put faith in the Auditor General. The last time that the Auditor General reviewed his work, it had to do with a tree farm licence in my constituency. The findings were that hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit went to shareholders; zero came to the public. I'm hopeful we won't find that with the Boss Power case as well.

Again, quite simply, my question is to the minister. Will he join with the opposition and allow the Auditor General to review the documents? The Auditor General is reviewing the Basi-Virk giveaway, although having difficulty getting all of the information.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to make amends and make good with the Auditor. Allow him to take a look at the reviews and the assessments that the minister refers to, which were withheld from us through FOI, and let the public know what's going on. Let the sun shine in, Minister. Let's have a look.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to make something clear in the comments of the member just now. A snowball will melt in hell before I'll ever join the opposition.

I know that the member opposite doesn't like the fact that we actually followed the legal process and took the legal advice that we had, through the Attorney General and through the Minister of Finance, and came to a settlement on the Boss Power case, which is what happened.

The reason he doesn't like going down memory lane is because it's embarrassing to him, and I'll tell you why. Here's another thing that Mr. Justice Parrett said, and I'm going to say it slowly and quietly so they all get it. Mr. Justice Parrett also stated….

Interjection.

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, if you keep asking the same question, you're going to get the same answer. You keep asking for….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: "It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words 'managing perception' may have a gloss which seems to carry with it some high purpose. The reality is, at least in this case, little more than a process of altering reality by concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated cover story."

[ Page 11191 ]

That cost government $30 million, two parcels of land and 1.5 million cubic metres of wood.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Regardless of the minister's reference to snowballs and where they may melt, they're certainly going to be melting from the hot air coming out of that side of the House.

Now, again, I appreciate that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …the Government House Leader wants to try to keep as many people on that side of the House as he possibly can, but I know there have got to be one or two people over there that are hearing from their constituents about why $21 million was given to a uranium mining company when $7.8 million appeared to be fair.

I want to quote the minister's former Liberal riding association president, the now head of the taxpayers federation, Jordan Bateman, who decried the minister's incompetence and said the following. "Taxpayers were taken behind the woodshed, and paid dearly — three times what was necessary." With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Why don't you put aside the partisanship, put the public interest first, join with us and allow the Auditor General to get to the bottom of this? What have you got to hide? And please, before you start on the 1990s, Minister, let's take that as read and move on.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: you know, you had ten years to decide what to do with uranium mining and didn't, and this claim goes back even beyond those days.

The fact of the matter is that the member opposite who's asking the questions already said, when he was asked about the NDP's support for uranium mining: "We do not." The member for Kootenay West said: "I am well aware of the political firestorm that was brewing over the uranium mine. The residents of the area did not want it." The people in and around Kelowna and in the Okanagan were very concerned about uranium mining.

So we did something you would never do, members opposite. We actually made a decision to get out of uranium mining. We did it for the environment. We did it for the people who wanted us to do it. That came with a cost because there were claims on the land base. We negotiated. We took the advice of our legal counsel, through the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance, and settled the claim.

WORKER SAFETY AND

REPORT ON BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

R. Chouhan: There were 179 reported deaths in 2010 and 186 reported deaths in 2011. The deaths of British Columbia workers continue to rise. It has been over 100 days since the Burns Lake Babine mill disaster. We know the WCB has been investigating. This was a very urgent matter.

I understand that there's an interim report. Why, when workers' lives were at risk, hasn't the interim report been released?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, I know that everyone on both sides of this House believes that the death of even one worker is something that should…. It horrifies us all. We're all concerned about worker safety, and we share that.

The member is mistaken, however, with respect to WorkSafe having an interim report at this time. I met with WorkSafe yesterday. I met with WorkSafe along with partners from industry, partners from the Steelworkers union, from the Safety Authority. We sat down together.

WorkSafe understands very clearly how much people want to know any details that can be shared about the Burns Lake investigation. They understand that very clearly. There is not an interim report at this time.

[1415]

However, what WorkSafe has committed to do is if there are any details that can be shared — even so much as ruling out things that have been ruled out — they've made a commitment to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: We have had numerous investigations into workers' deaths in this province, but this Liberal government has dragged its feet, doing very little to respond to those investigations.

Grant De Patie's death resulted in new laws for workers in gas stations. These are now being rolled back by this government. The coroner had made recommendations in the tragic deaths of three farmworkers who had been transported in unsafe vehicles, but very little was done. Further, the families of the mushroom farmworkers are still waiting for action on the deaths of their family members.

We have had delay after delay in WCB investigations and in the implementation of recommendations of the WCB's and the coroner's reports in these cases. We had the blast and fire in Burns Lake three months ago, and now in Prince George. When is this government going to take workers' deaths seriously and immediately require stronger protections for them?

[ Page 11192 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I respect the member opposite, that he is passionate about workers' safety and that he has devoted himself to this issue. At the same time, I cannot say how deeply I regret that anyone on the other side of this House would politicize this issue. I'm lost for words, which isn't actually a good thing at this time.

Mr. Speaker, many of us on this side of the House will attend Day of Mourning ceremonies tomorrow. It is not a partisan issue; it is not a political issue. It's something that affects us, and it affects our constituents. It's people's lives that we're talking about, and as I said, I just don't see a place for partisanship here.

Let me talk just very briefly about what has happened in this province. The members opposite know that workplace safety is a priority for this government, and it's a priority for every government.

What has happened over the last number of years is that WorkSafe is investing more in safety. They have more investigations officers than they've ever had in our history. The injury rate in British Columbia is down by 45 percent — a result of hard work by WorkSafe, by unionized workers, by their representatives and by employers, and it's something that we should all be very proud of.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

MILLWORKER SAFETY

B. Routley: Workers from both Burns Lake and Prince George have said that they heard the awful sound of "Boom! Boom!" as the blast happened, in both mills.

Mill safety reps know that boom, boom — and exactly what it means. It means there has been an initial ignition. The second boom means that the dust accumulation has been ignited — very serious and tragic circumstances for millworkers and their families. We know that the burned workers in Burns Lake told investigators about hearing the boom, boom.

In the mushroom farmworkers tragedy, the WCB immediately ordered inspections of all similar operations, to be completed within four weeks. Yes, proper time must be taken on a full and complete investigation. However, could the Minister of Labour tell us: why wasn't an alert issued about mill safety immediately after the Burns Lake fire, just as it has been done in Prince George?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What I can tell the member is that after the tragedy in Burns Lake, WorkSafe did increase their inspections. Not only that, but a number of mills around the province took the initiative. Workers came forward, and operators of mills came forward and said, "What can we do to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again?" in spite of the fact that we do not know what caused that tragedy.

[1420]

I think that Steve Hunt, from the Steelworkers, yesterday at our meeting put it best when he said: "Many of us thought that what happened in Burns Lake was a perfect storm: weather conditions, freezing cold and various other things that were thought to be unique at the time."

Tragically, that was not the case. Since that first terrible tragedy happened, WorkSafe did increase their inspections, and increased safety precautions were being taken around the province.

Now that we've had this second extraordinary and tragic event, WorkSafe has again…. They are taking action. As of today, they will begin. Every single mill in this province, over 340, will be visited and will be inspected. As of today, the order has gone out that steps should be taken to address risk analysis and safety precautions, and everyone is partnering in that initiative.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: Three months have passed since the Burns Lake tragedy, and no finding has been publicly released. No warnings, no orders to set up safety inspections after the Burns Lake fire. Now we have the awful blast and fire at Prince George mill.

Will this government commit to an expedited report on both the Burns Lake and Prince George mill fires, and will this government commit to long-term improved safety for millworkers?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Here is WorkSafe B.C., an organization that is an independent statutory authority. Those words may be familiar to the members opposite. We, in fact, will not be interfering or intervening. They are doing their work.

When I met yesterday, at what was an extraordinarily constructive meeting…. I asked people to join me at this meeting with far less than 24 hours' notice. Members of the union were present, representatives from the union, from industry, from the safety authority and WorkSafe. We joined together, and we were able to find common ground very quickly, and that is workers' safety.

People are forming partnerships — people who realize that this is absolutely not a partisan issue but one where we all need to work together. There was a great deal of collective wisdom in that room.

One thing that WorkSafe understands very clearly is that any information, any knowledge that might help with workers' safety in this terrible time, must be shared immediately. It's very clear they understood that before we had the meeting, but it was clearly articulated, and they've made a firm commitment that if there's any information that can be shared, it will be shared.

What's very important is that we not speculate. This is not a time for speculation, and this is not a time for anyone to try to assign blame to anyone. This is a time for full steam ahead on the investigation, and as soon as any details can be responsibly shared, they abso-

[ Page 11193 ]

lutely will be.

SAFETY OF

VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE TERMINAL

M. Elmore: The Liberals' deal with the Clarke Group to build the $21 million floatplane terminal has been a mess from the beginning. While the Liberal minister for Jobs, Tourism and Innovation suggested that operators would be moved in by last summer, Harbour Air and others have refused due to a ridiculous pricing scheme, leaving the docks operating at a meagre 5 percent capacity. This is despite millions of dollars in subsidies floated by the B.C. Pavilion Corporation.

Now the government is saying that the flight centre has never been safe or functional for floatplane operations, and that the government-commissioned docks may cause property damage and personal injury.

To the minister: how did the Liberal government allow this to become such a mess, and how do you plan to fix it?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite knows that this issue is the subject of a lawsuit and a countersuit at this time, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that suit in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: "Never been safe or functional for floatplane operations," says PavCo, and "may cause property damage and personal injury." Yet this Liberal government pulled out all the stops to try to pressure the majority of travellers to use this terminal. A mediator and millions in subsidies were used to try and pressure Harbour Air to use a facility that the government now claims is unsafe.

[1425]

Can the minister responsible for Jobs, Tourism and Innovation explain why the Liberal government was trying to pressure floatplane operators and passengers to pay more so that they can dock at a terminal they now claim is unsafe?

Hon. P. Bell: This issue has been canvassed thoroughly, not just in this House in various question periods prior to the lawsuit being filed but also in the estimates process.

This has always been about safety. The member opposite knows that this has always been about safety. That is the subject of the claim and counterclaim that is out there today. The member opposite can read the claim, and she can read the counterclaim. I'd encourage her to do that if she doesn't understand what it is.

RCMP CONTRACT AND PUBLIC

CONSULTATION ON POLICE SERVICES

K. Corrigan: Late yesterday morning the B.C. Liberals launched an engagement process that will ask British Columbians for input as "part of the Premier's commitment to develop a policing strategy." Well, I think that the obvious question for the Minister of Justice is: wouldn't it have made more sense to engage in this process before the province locked itself into a 20-year contract with the RCMP?

Hon. S. Bond: As we engaged with municipalities across the province in the most inclusive process that has been held in British Columbia regarding policing, they made it clear to us, as the negotiations were undertaken, that the vast majority, if not all, of those communities wanted to retain the RCMP. In fact, I'm sure the member opposite, if she had done her homework, would know that that process has been underway for almost four years in British Columbia.

We actually think that it is perfect timing to have a conversation as we talk about looking at the justice system in its totality, making sure that we can find a way to increase the confidence that British Columbians have in the justice system. You bet we're going to go out and talk to British Columbians. We think it's a pretty important thing to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I can't believe that the minister is saying that we've had four years to negotiate and is just figuring out now that it's time to start talking to people about policing. With every day we learn more and more about how poorly the Liberals have managed the negotiations for the new 20-year contract for the RCMP.

First, the government didn't even bother to cost out an alternative to the RCMP, and that narrowed the province's ability to position itself. Then talks broke down, and the federal government had to issue an ultimatum to the Liberals to get back to the negotiating table.

Then the Liberals signed a contract and tried to strong-arm municipalities into signing just days before local governments and the Liberals themselves were surprised to learn of cost increases. It's a mess.

Again, to the minister: why didn't you engage the public for input on the future of policing before locking into a 20-year contract?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that we did engage in was a consistent and in-depth discussion with municipalities across the province. The member opposite could probably have just chatted with the mayor of Burnaby to know that, in fact, we have had webinars. We have had conference calls. We have actually had a member of the

[ Page 11194 ]

Union of B.C. Municipalities sit on our negotiating team. We've made public presentations. We've asked for input and dialogue.

I can tell you this. The contract gives new tools to British Columbians to manage the RCMP contract, and that was done in partnership with the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

[1430]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON

COMMUNICATIONS AND

TENDERING OF CONTRACTS

D. Routley: Communications positions in this government's spin shops have increased from about 190 people back up to around 220. The U.S. White House has 38 people in communications. The B.C. Liberal government has 220. Apparently that's not good enough. We now learn, through freedom of information, that nearly $400,000 worth…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: …of additional direct-award contracts have been handed out for more communications support.

To the Minister of Open Government: how does she justify adding secret communications contracts to the 220 people already spinning for the B.C. Liberals?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am being heckled by my own side here.

It's not often that you get a gift like this in the House, so I do have a smile on my face, I must admit. Yesterday there was a story run by one of the media outlets. In spite of them being provided with information, which I have in writing in my possession and which was accurate, unfortunately, that information was not reported accurately. I am pleased to tell the member opposite that he is mistaken on many counts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The government communications was affectionately known, back in 2001-2002, as Cupcakes. The government of the day was spending, at that time, $39 million a year on Cupcakes. The budget this year for us is $26 million — significantly lower.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, the spin doctors are earning their keep right here — aren't they?

The fact is that most of the direct-award contracts were untendered because they were for less than $25,000, except several contracts went to the same people or companies. One individual received four contracts totalling $65,000. One company received three contracts totalling $41,000. It is clear that the B.C. Liberals, once again, are manipulating process to avoid public tendering of these contracts.

Would the Minister of Open Government explain how awarding multiple secret contracts to hide from the public the tendering process even resembles open government?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Of course this information is not secret. This information, in fact, is on our website, part of open government.

Within the budget of GCPE, our communications area, the budget is $26 million, as opposed to the $39 million Cupcake budget, a place where we have 199 people working, where back in 2001-2002 there were 322.

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: On our side of the House, Mr. Speaker, it is true that there were a number of direct-award contracts that were within the budget of GCPE. The largest contract, in fact, went to someone who is actually a former NDP press secretary and a friend of the New Democrats. These contracts are being awarded when the work is necessary and when we are not hiring new people, and it is being done within the budget.

E. Foster: Leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: Joining us in the House are a group of young children. Grade 5 students from the Vernon Christian

[ Page 11195 ]

School are here with their teacher and parents to see the Legislature and visit Victoria. I wish the House to make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue committee stage of Bill 26, intituled the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. Should we finish that, we would then move to committee stage of Bill 24, intituled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, in

Section A, we will be doing the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, continued. Should that complete, we would then move to the Ministry of Education.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 26 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

section 1.

N. Macdonald: To begin with, as I think we commonly do, just to thank the minister for the briefings and to thank the staff that has performed the briefings as well. We understand that there will be an amendment that will be tabled. Again, just to thank the minister for very quickly arranging briefings so that we come into this part of the debate on Bill 26 properly informed.

We're looking at

section 1, which repeals sections 105.1 and 105.2 of the Forest Act and replaces them with sections 105.1 and 105.2 as laid out in this bill.

Now, I understand that the changes that are made here are a result of a court case. Could the minister give us the court case or in a simple way explain the legal process that led to these changes being made in Bill 26?

Hon. S. Thomson: To the members opposite, I look forward to the discussion, and thanks for the fact that we had the opportunity to brief the members opposite on the parts of this bill. Many parts of this bill are technical amendments, so I think it was useful to be able to provide those briefings.

Just before I start, I want to introduce the staff who are here helping: Richard Grieve, the director of legislation; Marg Shamlock, our senior adviser for legislation and policy; John Harkema, behind me, the senior compliance and enforcement forester; and Murray Stech, who's our director of the timber pricing branch. I appreciate their support.

Just to say, in terms of the reason for this amendment and the linkage to the court case that was referenced, which is through an appeal, there is not a direct linkage between that court case. I think the member opposite knows the case. It's the Canfor case, where there was a retroactive application of changed circumstances under the appraisal manual.

During that process some of the limitations of the current legislation were pointed out. That's why we brought these amendments forward, simply to strengthen the requirements to make sure that as we find circumstances where there is not complete or not accurate information, we're able to have the strength of the legislation to be able to ensure that we can clearly take the action required.

This has been a process where we've been monitoring it. Suggestions have been made by legal counsel to strengthen the wording in the legislation to make sure we have all the tools available for us to ensure that we protect government revenues when we have those circumstances.

[1445]

N. Macdonald: Just to understand, when was the existing

section 105.1? What exists presently in the bill that this

section is replacing? When was that first put in as legislation? What period of time does that particular

section come from?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that they were put forward as part of the forestry revitalization plan in 2003.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so this is legislation, then, that comes from that period. I guess when you look at this…. To a layman, especially, some of the language, such as making sure that information that is provided to government is complete and accurate…. To the layman, it just seems incredibly self-evident that that would be the expectation.

Can the minister explain why it has to be laid out in such a clear way and why it wouldn't be completely self-evident? If you're asked to provide information to set stumpage, why would it not be the expectation that the information be completely concise and accurate in every way?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section and the amendments are about the ability with respect to compliance and enforcement. Really, it is ensuring that when you go through that, you have wording that provides you the strongest legal position in order to be able to do that compliance enforcement. This is really not about….

I'll just use a bit of an analogy here to say the speed limit is not about 30 miles an hour; the speed limit is 30

[ Page 11196 ]

miles an hour. What we want to do is to make sure that we have that strength, that the information must be complete and accurate. As the member opposite points, it may seem a bit self-evident, but what we want to make sure is that the wording provides us all that capability that we have to do the appropriate compliance and enforcement.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear. The minister had said that it doesn't relate specifically to a particular case, but has the Crown been denied revenue because of either a specific case or because the Crown or the minister responsible didn't feel it was a strong enough case, given the language, to properly go back and set stumpage and, perhaps, ask for other revenues that were due to the Crown? Is this something that over the past ten years the Crown has lost money on because it was worded in a way different from what we're proposing to word it?

[1450]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, we've had a number of determinations that go through under the appeal. I'm advised that of 21, 18 of those were successful. Three were not, based on the determination. In the majority of cases, any redeterminations are successful, but in limited circumstances there have been some unsuccessful determinations. As a result, the strengthened wording is being proposed in this amendment.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand…. With those three cases, do we have an idea of the amount of money that we're talking about? Is this something where we're talking about hundreds of thousands, or is it millions of dollars? Or does the minister have a clear idea of what sort of sums we're talking about? Three cases were lost by the Crown because of the existing language.

Hon. S. Thomson: The

section we're talking about here, 105.1, just to make it clear…. Those are determinations where you can move to the penalty process. So it's not about lost revenue, in a sense. It's about whether or not penalties can be applied for not providing the appropriate information.

When you move to…. Then there are other circumstances for being able to make the stumpage redetermination under changed circumstances. So 105.1 is about the…. When you're going through the process of not having provided the complete and accurate information, then sanctions can be provided. So the loss of stumpage revenue is not the determinant in those cases. It's whether or not complete and accurate information was provided.

N. Macdonald: I apologize. I mean, this is technical. I had a briefing, but I didn't fully understand.

My understanding was, then, that this would simply be looking at the stumpage that was paid, finding out that not all the information was accurate or presented in a way that the Crown felt was fair, and therefore there would be an adjustment in the stumpage and that amount would be paid. But there's a punitive nature.

So can the minister explain? There are about 18 cases where a company was found not following the rules and providing information that was found to be incorrect. What are the penalties that we're talking about? What are the sums that are used to penalize the company that does not provide proper information to the Crown?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to draw back to the intent of 105.1, which is where there are situations where it's believed that there is lack of complete or accurate information provided and whether or not penalties or sanctions should be provided. On those ones where that action is taken, where it has been successful, those penalties range from small amounts to up to $5,000 or so — in those ranges.

The important point there is once that step is taken, this is where we feel that that is where you take the step where you feel that that lack of provision of that complete or inaccurate information was egregious or deliberate, in that sense.

Then, if that is the case, you move towards the next section, which is doing the stumpage redetermination. That is when the additional stumpage revenue is gained through changed circumstances by getting the additional stumpage revenue through that process.

So 105.1 doesn't gain you the additional stumpage revenue; it simply provides whether there are penalties to be applied against the licensee or the permit holder, in this case.

B. Routley: I, too, would like to thank the minister and the staff for the opportunity to ask some questions today and for the information that they've given us in the past, although we are hearing some new things that do beg a number of questions. For example, we have gone from what used to be the word "accurate" and added "complete and accurate," as I understand it.

It does beg the question, if there were three cases that were involved, whether there were any other cases that may have been dropped as a result of a finding in one of those cases. Were there other cases that were in the hopper, so to speak, or being lined up to come forward, or are the three cases that you are talking about the only reason for this change? Should there be other reasons that we're alarmed today?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: I just want to go back to the process here. It is a bit of an iterative process in terms of what is being added to this amendment in the section. While those specific…. A number of cases have sort of been identified, where we took the process through and

[ Page 11197 ]

weren't successful in a couple of those cases. This is really about….

What happens is that the application is made. The information may all be accurate. Something's later found to be missing, so there's something not quite complete in it. That's why this is really just a step to provide accurate information, but all the necessary information. It has to be complete.

It's something that has just developed over time, not referenced to any very specific case. As we've been working through the process, we've realized — and legal advice has said — that it is in order to ensure that when you're looking at whether you may be taking enforcement action…. To have the wording that it is accurate and complete strengthens our ability to ensure that, from the front end, people are giving us all the information. If we find something afterwards where it wasn't complete, all the information we have had previously was accurate.

We just want to be sure that we've got that strength and capacity. It's really about protecting and ensuring government revenues.

B. Routley: Obviously, we're talking about stumpage here. And the fact that the revenue to the Crown is in any way affected by acts or omissions by the parties involved, in giving what used to be required, accurate information, and to find that we now have three occasions where someone didn't give complete information — at least, that's my assumption — we're now adding the word "complete."

That leads me to the conclusion that there may have been misleading, either intentional or otherwise, information provided that was accurate but not fulsome or the complete story. The government is now asking for the complete story. But on at least three occasions we know that they weren't provided with the complete story. That's my assumption.

The Chair: Member, I'll caution you on your use of parliamentary language.

B. Routley: Thank you.

So the question is: has the minister done a thorough review, given what we've heard today, based on the fact that we have concerns about the need for adding additional words like the word "complete"?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm working at getting the more specific response, but I want to go back, just to make clear the provision that we're changing, that we're amending here in terms of 105.1. That's the

section we're talking about in terms of "complete and accurate" information.

What we've really done here — because there's always been a little bit of ambiguity in this

section — is to say that the applicant who is required under this act to submit information must ensure, at the time the information is submitted, that it's complete and accurate. There's always been some ambiguity as to whether, if new information comes later….

It means that at the time it's submitted, it has to be complete and accurate and also that it's required, under this agreement, "to submit information to the government (

a) for use in determining…or varying a stumpage rate, or (

b) for any other purpose under this Act."

It relates to two things. One is taking the sanctioned process, if it's viewed to not be accurate or complete, and also to ensure that as we find that new information, then we go through the redetermination process for the stumpage.

Sometimes that's to the benefit of the Crown; sometimes that's actually to the benefit of the licensee. There may have been changed circumstances where there may have been, as part of the process, a culvert to be put in, and then it turned out it needed more, in terms of more extensive works or something like that.

This can go both ways, sometimes, in the cases of applicants. But again, it's to clear up the ambiguity around provision of complete and accurate information and at the time of submission.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

N. Macdonald:

Section 2 is a fairly minor change, as I understand it. It was fairly well laid out during the briefing, but essentially, the minister will from time to time order the closure of roads, or those that are responsible to him.

Just to put it on the record, can the minister explain what is going to change? If you look back at the Forest Act, it talks about the Gazette . It talks about the newspaper. The changes that are contemplated here should be put on the record. Basically, I guess, the question is: what are the practices in choosing methods of informing the public that the minister anticipates?

Hon. S. Thomson: The change that's being brought through with this amendment…. The previous legislation only gave two options — either in the Gazette or the newspaper — and said that if you were to discontinue or close a right-of-way of a Forest Service road, which does requires notification, you had to do it in the newspaper or the Gazette .

[ Page 11198 ]

[1510]

It may be, in many cases, particularly in local communities, that the newspaper notice would still be the most appropriate way to do it. But what it really does is provides us the flexibility to notify in the appropriate way, depending on the nature of the road and the nature of the area or the community, as opposed to being restricted. It was our view that not too many people read the Gazette regularly, so it was to give ourselves more flexibility. We would then design the communication notification appropriate to the circumstances.

Can the minister just explain a bit more what the government's view of appropriate is, give a few examples, and then we can move on to the next section?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the member opposite is correct. It will really depend on the circumstances.

So if this is just a very remote spur road that has very limited access and very limited potential use, that could simply be a notice on the ministry website and maybe signage on the road. If it's one that has much more back-country access, then we would look at saying that that may include radio, may include the local newspaper, may include a distribution through appropriate user groups and stakeholder groups in the community.

It would all really hinge on the nature of the road. High use and high interest would obviously have a lot more notification requirements associated with them. For a remote spur road, we would probably use a more minimal and less costly approach.

This

section really does provide us the flexibility to design the circumstances, as opposed to having to say that it's the newspaper or the Gazette , which is very limiting in the current legislation.

B. Routley: I just have a question about this.

Section 105.2 also adds the concern about incomplete information. In section (6) of 105.2, it talks about what would happen if the stumpage was redetermined or varied and that at that time….

Given that there have been occasions — at least, occasions — where incomplete information was provided, now we're going to get the complete information because we're adding the words about incomplete or complete information in this amendment. It talks about a penalty, in (a), taking effect "the day after the date on which the earlier determined, redetermined or varied stumpage rate" took place.

My question to the minister is…. It sounds to me like the minister has said that there is a penalty somewhere between, I think you said, $500 and $5,000 that could be assessed. But if people are not paying their correct stumpage, in effect, it's a loan from the Crown. They're borrowing money. They're taking money from the Crown, and then they're going to pay it back. This is talking about it being paid back, and if it's redetermined or varied stumpage.

[1515]

Do I have this correct, that that's really the only penalty that someone has to pay: a $5,000 fine? If they've not provided complete information, and for a period of time they've been paying a lower stumpage, when they are found to be not providing the complete information so that the Crown can collect the revenue that we're entitled to collect, is that really the only penalty that you have to pay: a maximum $5,000? I've heard of stumpage plays before where companies in the past have had people specifically working on what were called stumpage plays.

I guess what I'm trying to get at…. Is the minister telling us today that this change really doesn't add any other penalty? It could be viewed as almost a green light. You are signalling to people that in the past people were getting away with lower stumpage based on incomplete information. At least, that is my concern.

The Chair: Member, can you return to a canvass of

section 1?

The minister may choose to respond.

B. Routley: It talks about incomplete or inaccurate information, and prior it only required accurate information.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm not quite sure of the protocol, since this

section has already been voted on and passed.

The Chair: The advice from the Chair was that it was your decision to respond.

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry?

The Chair: You may choose to respond if you wish.

Hon. S. Thomson: Okay, I'll respond.

Just to be clear, this section, 105.2….

I'll respond once and then hopefully that will be it. If we do need to do a follow-up discussion with the member opposite, we can certainly do that.

The first section, 105.1, was about the penalties and sanctions, and 105.2 is about the redetermination of stumpage. What this

section does is provide that when that redetermination takes place, it goes back to the day after the information that was deemed to be the changed

[ Page 11199 ]

circumstances or the new information resulted in redetermination.

It takes us back to that point of submission of the original information so that we can ensure we can collect the additional stumpage. Or if it is to the credit of the other way, then it would make sure it covers that full time period. That's what the amendments to this

section cover.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

N. Macdonald: This seems pretty straightforward, but just a quick explanation on the purpose for

section 3.

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is simply a very minor amendment to reflect the language that was amended in 105.1. It is accurate to simply say that it reflects the same language, which is to add in "was incomplete or inaccurate" to mirror the amendments that we made previously.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

N. Macdonald: At this point…. The minister can indicate if I have the wrong place here, but the minister did say in his second reading wrap-up that he would explain the funding provisions for the lien act protection fund. If this is the appropriate place, if the minister could just lay out how that works.

The minister will remember that the protection fund was something that was talked about by the Premier. There was a need to top up that protection fund, and it was unclear at the time where the funding would come from.

[1520]

If the minister could lay that out for us at this time, if it's appropriate, and if not, we can get it at the appropriate place.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify, this

section here is dealing with the process around the registration of the liens and a number of other factors. It's made to assist with making the ability to have the fund fully operational and ensuring follow-through on those commitments.

I'm quite happy to respond to the member opposite's question in terms of where we're at currently with the fund. The fund was created by regulation on March 30. There was an initial seeding of Crown funding into the fund. So $5 million has been provided to the fund. This is regarded as seed funding to establish the fund.

We have appointed an administrative authority for the fund for a one-year time period, guided by an administrative agreement. That is with Eric van Soeren, who is the trustee for the forestry revitalization fund. We established the fund by regulation, provided some initial seed funding, and now we are continuing to work with the industry associations, the Truck Loggers Association, the licensees, to work out the mechanics for the additional moneys into the fund, how the fund will operate.

That work is still to be done, and that is ongoing. So I think there's significant progress in terms of getting the fund established by regulation, having the fund in place, but still work to do with the industry in terms of all of the mechanics. That process is underway, and a working group is working very actively on that within our stakeholder groups.

N. Macdonald: So the language, then, is part of the process that allows you to set up this fund.

Just to get more details on how this fund would work. First, what is the size of the fund that the minister anticipates would be needed? And, in terms of future funding, the Premier did say that the contractor community would not have to participate. Was that in initial outlays of money, or does that mean that they wouldn't have to participate in ongoing funding? Exactly what does that mean? As well, maybe the minister could also talk about the licensees. What's anticipated with their participation?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm again, the discussion we're having currently does not relate at all to the amendments here in terms of what's been provided in the legislation here. This is solely about being able to register the liens and that process.

[1525]

Again, just to advise the member that the fund has initially been established, initial seeding into the fund. There is lots of work to do with that stakeholder group in terms of the mechanics of it — target levels. There are various ranges people talk about as to what might be needed to be a target level, how the initial funding would be brought into the fund to move to it to whatever target level may be appropriate over whatever time period may be appropriate.

All of that work still has to be done, but I think what is important is that we've made a very important start to it in terms of getting the fund established, initial funding. That has provided the impetus to ensure that we have the focus with the working group on developing those mechanics and those mechanisms as opposed to worrying about whether the fund is actually going to be established or not.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

N. Macdonald: I just appreciate the minister's indulgence on something that was somewhat off topic. Nevertheless, it was good information. I appreciate it.

[ Page 11200 ]

Maybe with

section 6, the minister could simply explain the purpose of the

section and the amendment, and then we can go from there.

Hon. S. Thomson: Currently under the act, it relies on a definition of "registrar" and "registration" to enable the liens and charges to be registered in the personal property registry. This

section amendment adds a new

section to the act that specifies that sections of the Personal Property Security Act apply to the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act. These sections that are referenced relate to the registration of security interests under the act in the registry.

This proposed amendment ensures that the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act expressly provides for the application of registration provisions of the Personal Property Security Act for liens and charges under the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

N. Macdonald: Again, if the minister could give an explanation for

section 10 please.

Hon. S. Thomson: Two bases to this section. As I think was pointed out in second reading, the reason that this is needing to be dealt with here is the decision previously not to repeal the Woodworker Lien Act. This is all consequential to that decision, since we're maintaining that provision.

This provision is to establish the priority. What it does is it sets up the fact that any lien under the Woodworker Lien Act and any other statute respecting navigation and shipping and any lien or charge under the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act trump the tugboat lien, because that's specific to logs.

[1530]

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

N. Macdonald: Just again for the record, what is this

section intended to accomplish?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a technical amendment again. What this does is ensures that there's continuity of the fire hazard abatement provisions when there's a new tenure being awarded which relates particularly to bioenergy tenure.

Currently when a licensee harvests it, he maintains those fire abatement obligations under the act. When new tenure comes in, the way it's currently set up means that those fire abatement obligations don't take over until the new tenure holder starts activity. There could be a gap in between. What this does is make the provisions…. When we issue the new bioenergy tenure, the abatement obligations take place on issuing that tenure and not on the time when you actually start the activity so that there's no gap in the protection or the obligations.

N. Macdonald: Okay. This is something that the government has been working on for quite a while, to figure out how to make these overlapping tenures work. Just for a bit more clarity on the handover, is this something that as soon as the new tenure is signed off to the bioenergy company, that's when the obligations are taken over, or is there a period where they are both responsible? How exactly does it work? Does it begin with the signing of the taking on of the new tenure? Is that how it works?

Hon. S. Thomson: The clock starts for the new tenure holder as soon as the agreement is issued. It's not a phased process or anything. That obligation takes over on the issuing of the new tenure.

N. Macdonald: If for some reason the bioenergy company…. Perhaps these are newer companies; perhaps they don't have the certainty of a licensee. If for some reason the bioenergy company takes over the obligations and in some way fails, does the obligation go back to the original licensee, or does it stay, then, with the government? How does that work?

Hon. S. Thomson: The situation would be that if they don't fulfil those obligations, they would be issued an order to abate those obligations. We would treat them exactly the same as we would any other licensee if the obligations aren't met. It doesn't revert back to the previous licensee. It would only apply to the area to which the bioenergy tenure applied.

[1535]

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, the area that's anticipated to be included in the bioenergy tenure, this sort of new tenure, would be close to the roads and close to the landing. It's restricted in area in that way, generally. Is that the anticipation?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

N. Macdonald: In terms of the responsibilities that are here to "abate a fire hazard of which the person is aware or ought reasonably to be aware," is that the same sort of language that would apply to a licensee? Is that common language and very familiar to any sort of a process that would have to adjudicate whether responsibilities to the new tenure holder would be met or not met?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. There's no change here. This

[ Page 11201 ]

is the same language that has always been applied. If you look up into the…. You may not have the red-line section, the deleted

section from the previous section. It's the same wording. There's no change. It would carry on the previous policy.

B. Routley: Just for the record, I think we're very supportive of seeing a licence within a licence and the concept of better utilizing the waste wood that's out there in the forest.

I guess the question I have is this. Are we convinced now that we've got it right with this new language? Do we have people ready to sign licences under this new language as it's been rewritten?

Hon. S. Thomson: This amendment here is one of the pieces that needed to be completed in order to be able to complete the other processes with respect to receiving licences and fibre supply licences to cut, which are the tenure forms that we've had previous legislation through to be able to do. Once we moved through this, we have this piece. It was one of the constraints that would prevent some of that from taking place, but we will be in a position now to complete the processes around the regulations for both of those forms.

We're in final consultation with the industry on that. That'll provide those opportunities. Our preferred approach, which takes place now, is the business-to-business relationship, and that's the approach that we encourage and continue to encourage. But the new tools will be available shortly, and this is the final piece.

N. Macdonald: This goes back throughout my time here in the Legislature, where the bioenergy sector was put forward. I think probably we all didn't realize how complex some of these issues would be, going forward. This is one part of it, as the minister has said, with this piece.

Surely the minister has consulted heavily with all of the people, all of the companies, that will be impacted. Is the minister satisfied that there's been full consultation and that this complication for the bioenergy sector moving forward is properly taken care of — that there's been full consultation and that the minister is completely confident that this is something that all parties agree will be workable?

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, this section, in terms of the fire abatement provision, is part of that suite that was needed, was with consultation and supported by industry. As the member opposite pointed out, the provisions around the fibre supply licence to cut, receiving licences…. He rightly pointed out some of the complexity of it. But just to say that the consultation process has been extensive on it. It continues, and as I've pointed out, we're now with this piece being completed, wherein we'll be in the stages now where we can finalize that process with industry. We hope to have the regulations to be able to utilize those new forms of tenure very shortly.

B. Routley: I just want to be certain that I have this right. The new licence within a licence, while it creates the possibility, there is no new requirement for tenure holders to permit a second licensee. There still has to be some kind of cooperation with the original licensee. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to again reiterate, our preferred approach is the business-to-business approach and cooperation. That's the way we'll continue to encourage it, because I think that ultimately gets the best arrangements in place. But as you know with the previous legislation, if you look back to what we've taken through and what we will be bringing the regulations for….

In those circumstances where you don't have that and there is availability, it would require the licensee to declare the area abandoned, and we can then issue the fibre supply licence to cut or a receiving licence for that area. That's the regulatory approach. So we can compel that to happen if we don't have the cooperative arrangements that we're encouraging in a business-to-business relationship.

[1545]

B. Routley: Just for greater clarity and certainty, will this allow these business-to-business relationships to sign on to longer-term licences? Like, what exactly…? Maybe you could give us some examples of the kinds of relationships that could be possible as a result of this change. Can people have 20-year licences or ongoing licences in the sense that's intended by this change?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in the business-to-business relationship approach, there are no restrictions in terms of the amount of time that that could be provided for. You could have a relationship between a licensee and a bioenergy producer that could extend for any number of years that they would want to work out in terms of the licence that the licensee has, in terms of his length of term. Again, that's the preferred approach, and that's what we're encouraging.

On the fibre supply licence to cut, those could be offered for up to five years. The key piece of this legislation — and, in fact, one of the reasons for having that fire abatement issue dealt with — is really, in many respects, to encourage the business-to-business relationship. It was one of the constraints of getting those new arrangements, because there were concerns about that gap. By being able to have fire abatement provisions taken on from the time of the agreement — when a fibre supply licence to cut, for example, was issued — that actually

[ Page 11202 ]

promotes that. It will also promote the business-to-business relationship.

B. Routley: Again, for greater clarity, is there any process whereby the second licensee…? You've got the second licensee. There's an obligation, clearly, for the second licensee to work with the main licensee and work out some details or arrangement.

I had a situation where a salvage contractor who had a business arrangement was able to sell whatever product that he came up with out of his salvaged material. Then that came to the attention of the licensee, and they essentially said, "Now you're going to have to sell all of your product to me" — to the licensee. If such a thing were to happen….

I assume we're trying to support individual businesses or new businesses to get into, for example, bioenergy or even something like firewood. Any kind of new business opportunity could be developed with a second licence.

Has the minister contemplated any rights for the second licensee should there be any problems?

Hon. S. Thomson: We're straying a little bit beyond the specifics of the fire abatement provisions here. Just to confirm that on a fibre supply licence to cut, the holder of that fibre supply licence to cut has the rights to that. Those are his rights. He can do what he wants with that product.

[1550]

There would be no compelling that he would have to sell it to a specific licensee or to…. It's his licence and his rights, if he has that fibre supply licence to cut.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to

section 13, hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 13 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

SECTION 13, by adding the text shown as underlined and deleting the text shown as struck out:

Section 1 of the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 337, is amended by adding the following

definitions:

"limited liability entity" , in relation to a resource road, means either each of the following : , including any employees and contractors:

(

a) the maintainer, if any, of the resource road;

(

b) the government;

"maintainer" , in relation to a resource road, means the person , including, without limitation, the government, that is obligated or authorized under an enactment to maintain the resource road, but does not include a prescribed person or a person within a prescribed class of persons;

"motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is

(

a) intended to be self-propelled, and

(

b) designed primarily for travel on land on surfaces other than rails;

"resource road" means any road or portion of a road that is

(

a) on Crown land, and

(

b) used or intended for use by motor vehicles,

but does not include a municipal highway or a provincial public highway as those terms are defined in the Transportation Act ; .]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Did you wish to speak to it?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the opportunity. With these amendments in the next sections, we did have a chance to review these amendments with the members opposite.

The proposed amendment to

section 13 in this definition of a "limited liability entity" replaces the term "either" with "each," to clarify that for a resource road, a limited liability entity could be the maintainer and government. It removes the references to employees and contractors in the definition and makes a housekeeping change to the definition of "maintainer," to make it clear that the government can also be a maintainer.

N. Macdonald: Again, thank you for the briefing. That was hugely helpful. Elements of this are very technical.

Essentially, the Occupiers Liability Act is being amended in such a way that it's intended as a precursor to the natural resource road act, which will be introduced at some point in the future. The minister in his second reading debate described this as part of an open roads policy.

Now, in terms of the definition of "resource road," does it include roads on woodlots? Is that considered a resource road, or is that something that would be defined in a different way?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that it would apply to the roads on the Crown portion of a woodlot but not to the private portion of a woodlot.

N. Macdonald: Okay. The next question is: do these amendments limit liability for government as well? There are descriptions of a "limited liability entity." Just a question: does that limit for government in the same way as it does for individuals that would possibly take on these roads?

Hon. S. Thomson: To the member opposite: the answer is yes. It limits government liability to the resource road in the same way, if the government is the maintainer of that road.

B. Routley: I think it would be appropriate for the minister to talk a little bit more about this section, because it's really a good-news day for, I think, a lot of British Columbians. I know there has been a lot of work go into talking to a number of groups that are interested in having access to resource roads.

[ Page 11203 ]

[1555]

Maybe you could describe the purpose of this change and some of the work that has gone on to consult with stakeholders and what the benefits to British Columbians at large are going to be as a result of what I see as a proactive amendment that's going to be helpful for various recreation uses.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Kootenay West seeks the floor to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a group of students from the Lucerne Elementary Secondary School. There are 18 students from grades 5, 6 and 7, their teacher Ms. Katrina Sumrall, and a number of chaperones, including Barb Marks, whose son Tony went to school with my son Ben, and Anita Dumas, one of my favourite potters. I think of her every time I make a pot of tea out of my favourite teapot.

The students have fundraised all year to travel here, including spaghetti dinners and even performed a play called Law and Order .

Just to give the members an idea of how far this group has come, Lucerne is situated in New Denver on the shores of the beautiful Slocan Lake. It was a five-hour drive to Kelowna, and then a flight down here. I understand that it was the first flight for some of the students, so they were quite excited.

They'll spend three days here in Victoria and three in Vancouver before heading back home. So would the members please join me in welcoming them all to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the comments.

Yes, this is in our view a very positive and proactive step today with this change. It is a step because, as was pointed out, there is an ongoing process of active consultation with stakeholder groups all across the province around natural resource roads legislation overall. But this is an important first step.

Essentially, it is something that user groups, industry, have been asking for as part of the recommendations that come out of the UBCM — to be able to reduce the liability and essentially move towards that limited liability entity, to define that, which reduces that level of duty of care so that you move towards the process where it is more "use it at your own risk," recognizing that there is still the provision that you can't do anything that would wilfully create a safety hazard or any of those kinds of things.

What it does, because it has that reduced duty of care and provision of care, is create a disincentive to close a road strictly because of the liability issues. We would still see closures of those roads if there were significant environmental issues for which those roads needed to be closed, but if it was simply just because of concerns around liability that resulted in the decision to close, because this provides for a reduced duty of care, it's hoped that that will be an incentive to keep the roads open and to have less closures, which I think is a benefit to all.

V. Huntington: In

section 13 you're mentioning the resource road and the definition of resource road. I note that just recently the Ministry of Transportation has issued a notice that involves a discussion of "industrial road," which it describes as a road on which any natural resource is transported. They also refer to the specifics of their changes in safety on…. Well, for this matter it was anti-lock brake systems. But they also talk about it as being a forest practices road or an industrial road on Crown or private land.

[1600]

Is there going to be any difference in the

interpretations of resource roads versus industrial roads for these purposes?

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: I was just getting some instructions, and now I have to gather my thoughts again. Hopefully, I'll get this correct.

Industrial roads are a subset of resource roads, so this reduced liability, which has been provided for with this amendment to the Occupiers Liability Act, would apply to those industrial roads. But recognizing there's also an Industrial Roads Act that covers all of the safety provisions, this is simply about the liability side of it. It doesn't apply to…. What I'm advised is all the safety provisions under the Industrial Roads Act would continue to apply.

B. Routley: I know that there are a number of sections that follow that have this same theme, so if the minister wants to go by this

section and wants me to ask this question in 14, I could do that.

But my question is…. I think it's related. I know that the minister and his staff consulted broadly. For the purposes of informing the public, could you give us a description of the number of groups and the timeline under which you underwent consultations broadly throughout the province of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: There has been a very extensive consultation process on the resource road framework. We've received over 90 direct submissions from organizations and groups and over 4,000 individual comments

[ Page 11204 ]

into the consultation process. The team that is working on it has been to around ten communities in the province. Average attendance at those sessions was about 40 members from those communities — so another 400 people engaged in those consultation processes. We had web-based submission to it.

So we've had a very extensive consultation process, and just to say, that process continues. There were some concerns about how long people had to input, but we've taken all of that initial submission and are now continuing to consult with organizations and groups on the overall framework.

Amendment approved.

The Chair: The minister, I understand, has a second amendment.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, there are a couple more yet.

I move the amendment adding

section 13.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 13.1, by adding the following section:

13.1

Section 2 is amended

(

a) by renumbering

section 2 as

section 2 (1),

(

b) in subsection (1) by striking out " sections 4 and 9, " and substituting " sections 4 and 9 and subsection (2) of this section, " , and

(

c) by adding the following subsection:

(2) This Act establishes the duty of care to which a limited liability entity is subject in relation to a resource road in all circumstances other than those referred to in

section 3.1 (2).]

On the amendment.

[1605]

B. Routley: So does this amendment limit liability…? Liability for government as well?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is about limiting liability for both government and maintainers, so the answer is yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 13.1 approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move the amendment to

section 14 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 14, in proposed

section 3.1 (1), by adding the text shown as underlined:

3.1

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who enters onto or otherwise uses a resource road is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks, and a person who is, in relation to the resource road, a limited liability entity is , in relation to that resource road, subject only to the duty of care set out in

section 3 (3) and, for that purpose, a reference in

section 3 (3) to an occupier is deemed to include a reference to a limited liability entity.]

Amendment approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Madam Chair, maybe I haven't done this quite correctly, because there were two amendments to

section 14. So I move…. Maybe I should have done both amendments the first time.

The Chair: No, please proceed with second amendment.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move the amendment to

section 14 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 14, by deleting proposed

section 3.1 (2) and substituting the following:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the duty of care to which a limited liability entity is subject in relation to a resource road

(

a) in prescribed circumstances,

(

b) if the person in relation to whom the duty of care is owed is a prescribed person or a person within a prescribed class of persons, or

(

c) if under another enactment or at law a limited liability entity is subject to a more limited duty of care than the duty of care to which the limited liability entity is subject under subsection (1).

(2.1) In the situation referred to in subsection (2) (c), the limited liability entity is subject to the more limited duty of care.]

Amendment approved.

section 14 as amended.

B. Routley:

Section 14 makes it so that resource roads are used at the user's own risk, as I understand it. Presumably, the level of risk being considered is well known for government. Could the minister very specifically lay out what level of liability, with examples if appropriate…?

For example, if you're an employee or someone that's taking that road, what will their level of risk be? For example, maybe I could use myself. I've gone out on resource roads in a 4-by-4 where there was no road. In some cases, the road was washed out, and you're driving through areas where there have been washouts and very difficult terrain. What are the new liabilities that are taken on by the public?

Hon. S. Thomson: If you look at section (3.3) of the legislation, essentially, when the public goes onto the roads, they're assuming the risk and the liability unless the occupier or the maintainer creates "a danger with intent to do harm to the person or damage to the person's property," or acts "with reckless disregard to the safety of the person or the integrity of the person's property."

[ Page 11205 ]

So the public, in utilization of these roads, assumes the risk unless there are actions by the maintainer or the occupier or government that create that danger or act with reckless disregard.

[1610]

These are the same kinds of provisions that are in place now for many recreation cases. I'm advised that in the majority of cases, through the court processes, the common law process determines that level of risk, but the onus would be on the person using the road to prove that the maintainer or the occupier had taken any of those specific actions that would create a danger or was acting with reckless disregard.

B. Routley: With these changes, if an employee is directed to use a road and is injured, is the employer still responsible?

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is yes. Under workers compensation regulations that would be the case. This provision of a limited liability or lowered duty of care has not changed that relationship at all.

Section 14 as amended approved.

section 15.

B. Routley: Just for greater clarity. If the government maintains control of the road, is there any reduced liability?

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is yes. If the government is a maintainer of the road, it's defined as the limited liability entity. It has the same reduced liability that a non-government maintainer would have.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Madam Chair, I move the bill complete as amended.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 26 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Bill 26, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. S. Thomson: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Bill 26, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call continued debate on third stage of Bill 24, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012.

[1615]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:18 p.m.

On the amendment (continued) .

L. Popham: I would like to submit my support for the amendment that the government is putting forward.

Amendment approved.

section 7 as amended.

L. Popham: Can I confirm with the minister that this

section would define what the Farm Industry Review Board would do?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, it does. This

section sets out the review by the society, followed by the appeal that's available through the FIRB.

L. Popham: We may have covered this yesterday, but can the minister explain why the Farm Industry Review Board was chosen to be part of the appeal process?

[1620]

[ Page 11206 ]

Hon. T. Lake: This board was determined to have the administrative capabilities and expertise to consider this type of appeal. We are very confident in this board's expertise to handle the types of appeals that we would expect to be put to it under this act.

L. Popham: Does the minister know if the FIRB appeal board would be mobile across the province?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, BCFIRB does go to different communities around the province to hear different appeals — you know, historically — and it certainly could do that in this situation as well.

L. Popham: Can the minister confirm that if an appeal is made, FIRB would travel to the place that the appeal originated from?

Hon. T. Lake: Generally speaking, the FIRB would travel to the origin from which the appeal was filed.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the makeup of the FIRB board and the appeal process?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member: the FIRB is made up of four members, from which a panel is developed for each of the separate appeals. The panel may be anywhere from one to three members.

The makeup of the board is typically varied in terms of their background. Currently, for instance, you have someone with a background in agriculture and agrifoods, a lawyer who has experience with administrative tribunals — a variety of different expertise.

With this new responsibility, FIRB is going to be looking for someone with some background in animal health. It could be a veterinarian. It could be someone in animal welfare — someone with some expertise in the types of issues that would be encountered with this new duty under the changes to the act.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer. Will FIRB be able to bring the board to site visits of the place where the animal was seized? Would all of the members of that board that were brought on for each specific case be brought to the site?

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: In the

section 7, under sub 20.5(2)(b), the board may, through the panel, "inspect the premises and any equipment or other thing on the premises that are relevant to the determination of the appeal." So the panel would have the option of going to the site, doing a site visit, whether it's a farm or a home, to inspect the premises and the conditions under which the animals may have been kept.

L. Popham: Given that these would not be permanent members, can the minister foresee any time delays in bringing that panel together for something like that?

Hon. T. Lake: The flexibility is there to ensure a rapid response to an appeal. A panel doesn't have to be three members, because that may be problematic — getting those three members together to do the appeal and investigation, if you like. So it could be a one-person panel that would be able to attend the appeal and the investigation more quickly.

L. Popham: Would the board have the ability to sit for consecutive days if there was potential for a lengthy appeal?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, they have the flexibility to take the necessary time to conduct the appeal. And that may be consecutive days.

L. Popham: Does the minister foresee any conflict with FIRB, given that it's the Farm Industry Review Board, when hearing issues of conflicts around animal husbandry or different philosophies of animal husbandry?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the board isn't legally allowed to be in a conflict, but the need to have someone from the veterinary profession or the animal welfare world would certainly, I think, provide that input and that expertise. The board has had multiple responsibilities for a number of years, and it has never had a situation where there was a conflict. Of course, there is always recourse to the Ombudsperson, for instance, if there is a perceived conflict.

I think what the member is getting at, perhaps, is: this is a board that deals with agriculture, and there may be some that view certain animal husbandry procedures as not being humane, because they have a different view of the world than the producer might. But the board — particularly with the veterinary expertise or the animal welfare expertise that would be added to the board, I think — would be well equipped to sort of separate out those.

[1630]

There are standards of practice, either codes of practice or societally accepted practices, which I think are fairly widely accepted. So I don't think it would be a conflict. Certainly, in my experience professionally and personally, I haven't seen that occur.

L. Popham: The current mandate of FIRB, as I understand it to be, is to promote farming. Would the mandate be changing for FIRB?

Hon. T. Lake: Under the Natural Products Marketing Act, FIRB would have a particular mandate. Under this

[ Page 11207 ]

act, the mandate would be different and separate, even though, obviously, it's the same board. But the mandates are quite different.

L. Popham: Within this legislation is that new mandate defined?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, this act gives FIRB the mandate, the power, to enforce this part of the act, which is to conduct an appeal. The hearings, as outlined under

section 20.5, outline how the board shall respond to an appeal. That is the mandate given to the board.

L. Popham: If the board was made up of the same members from both mandates, would there not be a conflict there? I'm just not sure how two different mandates could be followed at the same time.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the board has a mandate under one act and has a mandate under a different act. In this case it's hearing an appeal from an animal owner who has exhausted a review through the society and now is making an appeal of that decision to FIRB.

FIRB, under this act, has the power to adjudicate the situation that caused the animal seizure to arise, whatever the conditions were. It has the ability to ask questions of the society and ask questions of the owner or the owner's agent. It has the ability to inspect premises and the ability to mediate as well.

That mandate is fairly clear, so I don't really perceive a conflict. It's like many of us have different aspects of our job. They don't necessarily come into conflict. We clearly recognize that this is what we're trying to accomplish, and under this act, we're trying to accomplish a hearing of an appeal of an animal owner that feels the society has not made the right decision under their review process.

L. Popham: I'm just wondering: was a separate tribunal considered when looking at weighing things out? Why did the minister choose the Farm Industry Review Board over a different tribunal board?

[1635]

Hon. T. Lake: A number of reasons for selecting FIRB for this process. Number 1 and, I think, most importantly, to have the experience of being part of a tribunal is a pretty steep learning curve. Here we have a board that is experienced, that has the expertise and the support necessary to conduct administrative tribunals. Also, obviously, the ministry is responsible for both acts under which FIRB has a mandate. So it, again, makes it more efficient in terms of support to the organization.

A separate tribunal was considered, but when factored in against the experience, the support that's available to this already present board and the additional costs of putting a brand-new board together — in terms of training, support services and all of the things that would have to come together for a new, separate tribunal body — the decision was made to use FIRB for this purpose.

L. Popham: Is there a maximum number of people that could be invited to sit on the board for certain appeals?

Hon. T. Lake: The maximum number of people that can sit on FIRB is ten.

L. Popham: With that maximum — and if that maximum was used in the majority of appeals, if there were complex appeals…. We still, at this point, don't really know how this is going to work.

We have moved into this system. I think the intent was to make it easier for people to appeal decisions that they didn't feel comfortable with. If that increases the workload and the complexity of cases, I'm wondering what financial commitments there are to support FIRB.

Hon. T. Lake: A number of things come to mind to answer the member's question. First of all, while there can be ten people that sit on the board, I think the flexibility we talked about earlier, where panels are set up from the board…. Those panels can be anywhere from one to three people. We don't expect more than ten to 15 appeals per year, so we don't expect that the maximum capacity of the board would be exhausted in that time period.

Also, because the animal owner has gone through a review process with the SPCA already, you've got a process in place that can be quickly reviewed. So it's not like you're starting something from the very beginning. You've got something that can be reviewed, and I think that will add to the conciseness of the appeal.

This is meant to be something that turns around very quickly so that we've got administrative fairness to both the owner and the society.

L. Popham: The speedy process has been mentioned quite a bit, so I'm wondering if there's a definition of the time that the ministry considers speedy.

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the intent is for FIRB to consult with the SPCA to kind of determine the process and procedures that would be followed for these appeals to make sure that they are done in an expeditious manner.

Certainly, we know that judicial appeals can be very…. Well, the concern is that they're not timely enough. So our goal here, obviously, is to reduce the amount of time versus a judicial review. We would set up protocols and procedures for the FIRB that is hearing these types of appeals, very conscious of the fact that they need to be turned around in a certain amount of time.

Now, I can't tell the member what that time is. Probably,

[ Page 11208 ]

some that are fairly straightforward would be a matter of maybe a week. Some may require more work in terms of visiting a site, getting more information, talking to a veterinarian. Those could take longer. I think that all of that would be worked out when the group turns its mind to the process and protocols that would be put in place to guide them.

L. Popham: I understand that the average length of time it would take it go through a judicial review is about 75 days, given each case that has happened, I think, since 2003. I'm assuming, then, that the goal of the FIRB review board would be to make sure that it was less than that.

Given that, is there a time at some point where we would review the cases that FIRB has handled to see if that has actually gone down?

Hon. T. Lake: Through the making of the protocol, if you like, FIRB will set out some goals in terms of timeliness and also will set out a process to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.

I don't want to set out what those protocols are for FIRB, because obviously it's an independent body that will make these itself. But the commitment is to do a review after a certain period of time to see if FIRB is meeting the goals of being more timely than the judicial review. Of course, government always has the ability to mandate timelines through the legislation, if government found that to be necessary.

L. Popham: I understand that FIRB would be independent, but I'm wondering: would the minister be implementing a review at some point — say, within a 12-month period — so that we can be assured that the system is working?

It would be unfortunate if the system wasn't working and we didn't find out for some time and the judicial review process was actually more effective. In the case that it wasn't more effective, would the ministry be looking at going back to the judicial review process?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, anything is possible, of course, but I don't want to commit the government to a timeline for a review at this point. I think we need to give FIRB a chance to demonstrate that they are the appropriate body to do the work, which we believe they are.

[1645]

I share the member's view that we should always be looking and continuously improving things if we don't think they are achieving the goals for which they are set up, but I don't want to commit the government to a certain timeline to do that. I think that would become self-evident if we were hearing from animal owners that the process was in fact not timely, not efficient, not effective and not fair.

L. Popham: So is it fair to say that the measurement tool for success would be feedback from the people within the system?

Hon. T. Lake: I think it's much like we do with many things in government. If laws that we create are causing concerns, MLAs, as representatives of their constituents, will hear about them. The Ombudsperson may hear about administrative fairness, and of course, the society, in this case, may hear about some concerns.

So there are many avenues for concerns to be raised, and we would respond accordingly as a government to those concerns if that were to be the case.

L. Popham: My next line of questioning will be around the review of decisions and appeals.

There has been some confusion around the timeline that animal owners would have to participate in the appeal process. It's my understanding that if an animal is seized, they go into a 14-day period with the BCSPCA. At that point they are informed that their animal may not be coming back to them, and then they would have a chance to appeal that decision.

How is the person informed that the animal is not coming back to them? How would they initiate the appeal process? And how many days would they have in order to start the appeal process?

Hon. T. Lake: There are two stages, as the member will know from the bill. There is a review stage conducted by the society and then a potential appeal that is conducted by FIRB.

So if an animal considered under distress is seized, then the owner has 14 days to request a review by the society. Once that request is made, the society must conduct a review within 28 days. Once that review decision is delivered to the owner, the owner has four days in which to ask for an appeal through FIRB.

L. Popham: How is the owner notified of those four days?

Hon. T. Lake: In our consultations with the SPCA we learned that their current procedure for notifying people of these types of decisions is to deliver the decision in person, followed by registered letter.

As I think the member is alluding, it's really critically important that the owner knows what the decision is and has adequate time to file an appeal with FIRB. So the notification by the SPCA currently is in person, followed by registered letter.

[1650]

L. Popham: In that case, if the animal owner decides that they would like to begin an appeal process, how would they start that appeal process?

[ Page 11209 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The owner just has to notify the FIRB. That can be through a phone call. It can be through e-mail. It can be through fax. They also have to notify the society. Once the society is notified, then they cannot dispose of the animal — once they know an appeal has been filed with FIRB.

L. Popham: So once that appeal process has started…. I'm understanding that that can start with a simple phone call to FIRB or the SPCA. Can I get confirmation that a phone call would stop the four days from coming to a conclusion?

Hon. T. Lake: I must correct the record. A phone call would not be adequate. It would have to be in a written form. Either e-mail or fax would be the two most common ways of notifying the board.

L. Krog: I just have a few questions in reference to

section 7 and the portion, 20.2. It says in sub (2): "A request for a review may be made to the society (

a) in the form required by the society, and (

b) within, (

i) if

section 17 (

b) applies, 4 days after notice is given as required by that section."

Now,

section 17(b), as amended, says that if an animal is taken into custody under

section 10.1 and "(

b) the owner is known, the society (

i) must give to the owner notice, in accordance with

section 19, that the society may destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of the animal and that a review of the decision may be requested under

section 20.2, and (ii) may, no earlier than 4 days after giving notice, destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of the animal." So that's the new section.

In sub 20.2(2) it says that the request for a review may be given to the society in the form — blah, blah, blah — "4 days after notice is given as required by that section." Well, notice refers to being given under

section 19.

Now,

section 19 says: "The notice referred to in sections 17 (

b) and 18…." So it makes no difference, because the existing

section 19 is going to continue in effect.

Under the existing act, it says:

"The notice referred to in sections 17 (

b) and 18 must be in writing and (

a) mailed to or served personally on the owner, or (

b) if it cannot be mailed to or served personally on the owner, (

i) published at least 3 times at 2 day intervals in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the animal was taken into custody, or