2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rosemary Brown

P. Sahota

L. Mayencourt

Jim Spilsbury

H. Long

Rosemary Brown

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Business Number Act (Bill 36)

Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Family Services building for Vancouver-Burrard area

L. Mayencourt

2009 World Police and Fire Games

P. Sahota

Clinton Annual Ball

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Sale of B.C. Rail assets

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Police services in Surrey

B. Locke

Hon. R. Coleman

Impact of SARS on tourism industry

I. Chong

Hon. R. Thorpe

Fair Pharmacare registration

S. Brice

Hon. C. Hansen

J. MacPhail

Development of offshore oil and gas industry

B. Belsey

Hon. R. Neufeld

Tabling Documents

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform: Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chair

Ministerial Statements

Day of mourning for workplace injuries and deaths

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents

Auditor general report No. 10, 2002-03, Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Statements — 2001-2002

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

(continued)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. MacPhail

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education

Hon. S. Bond

J. MacPhail

[ Page 6251 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2003

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

P. Wong:

Joining us in the House today, representing several ridings in the lower

mainland, we have a group of 30 members and their spouses from the Wongs'

Benevolent Association seniors group, led by the committee chair, Kenny Wong,

and former president, King Yeung Wong. They are as follows: Mr. Foon Hong Wong,

Yuen Kuen Wong, Don Wong, Wai Lan Wong, Ken S.F. Wong, Wing Yue Wong, Kai Sui

Wong, Sing Wong, Kam Wong, Chung Chiu Wong, Ying Lan Wong, Henry Wong, Ena Wong,

Siew Hong Wong, Looi Laan Wong, So Ching Wong, Stanley Wong, Gin Hong Wong, Sang

Lok Wong, Lee May Wong, Kerry Wong, Stanley Chow, May Wong, May Yu, May Lan

Wong, Kim Sek Wong, Sue Lun Wong and Mae Wong. Will the House please give them

the warmest welcome.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I have two introductions to make today. In the gallery with me are

members of the British Columbia Association of Optometrists. I would ask the

House to please help me welcome Dr. John Gentles, Dr. Mary Lou Riederer, Dr.

Paul Geneau, Dr. Joan Hansen, Dr. Paul Neumann, Dr. Michael Kellam and Cheryl

Williams, who is the chief executive officer.

My second

introduction is to three very special people. They are constituents and dear

friends of mine from Kelowna. Cindy Lombard and her two children, Jamie and

Brianna Guy, are visiting here to see how the Legislature works.

Jamie is an

avid hockey player. He's a goalie in the regular season on his team for the

Kelowna Ice Hawks. This spring he's played on an all-star team and just finished

a tournament where he got a best player award, so I'm pretty proud of him.

Brianna is in grade 5. She's an artist. She's a gymnast. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, those are two of the best little campaigners you've ever seen. I'm

hoping they'll continue to learn about our political process and work on

campaigns with me. I'd ask the House to make all three of them very, very

welcome.

H. Bloy:

It gives me great honour today to introduce some more great campaigners that

have worked very hard in the last few years for the B.C. Liberal Party. It's the

second-largest club at Simon Fraser University. It's the British Columbia Young

Liberals. We have their president here today. They represent the people of Simon

Fraser University. They supported the tuition increases, because they know it

created more classes and more professors.

I would

like to introduce the students. We have the president, Allan Spence from

Coquitlam-Maillardville. We have Woosang Lee from Burquitlam, Jessica Fuchs from

Vancouver-Fairview, Brock Stephenson from Burnaby-Willingdon, Miles Lunn from

Burnaby North, Dave Harrison from Burquitlam, Angus Ou from Burquitlam, Jessica

Marola from Coquitlam-Maillardville, Chantel Elloway from Port Moody–Westwood,

Steven Wheelhouse from Surrey–Green Timbers and Jared Zanette from Port

Moody–Westwood. I would like to thank them for all their hard work.

colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers will be introducing the balance of the

members.

Locke: I, too, would like to recognize and welcome some Young Liberals that

help me a great deal in my riding: Brandon Langhjelm, Adam Picotte and Esther

Park. I notice that Steve Wheelhouse has already been introduced, but I'll

introduce him again.

As well, I

would like to also introduce my daughter, Ashley Locke, and her friend Jesse

Hangengartner, who are in the chamber. Would the House make them welcome.

Anderson: I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming Charles Hung, who is

here today. He is a constituent in my riding, and he has a guest with him, Ali

Oguz Dirioz from Turkey, who is interested in construction and energy

development.

Stewart: I'd like to introduce an accomplished businessperson in my riding

and a member of the Rotary Club in Coquitlam: Valerie Gilbert. Visiting us from

the Rotary Club of Dee Why, New South Wales, Australia, is Mr. Tony Webber.

Would the House make them welcome.

[1410]

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 28 students from grade 5

visiting from Pacific Academy School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining

them is their teacher Mr. David Buzza, as well as several parent volunteers who

have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would

the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: In the gallery today is Kevin Penstock of Vancouver, a recent friend

of mine and an old friend of my ministerial assistant, Cameron Thorn. Would the

House please make him welcome.

Trumper: In the gallery today is someone who manages to keep me organized

most of the time: my constituency assistant, Maryann Washington. Accompanying

her today is her husband, who is celebrating his birthday. Would you please make

them welcome.

Tributes

ROSEMARY BROWN

Sahota: It's with sadness that I note the passing of Rosemary Brown, a

former member of this Legislature and a former MLA for the riding of Burnaby-

[ Page 6252 ]

Edmonds. I'd ask the House to send condolences to Ms. Brown's family.

Mayencourt: I also want to join with the other member in noting the passing

of Rosemary Brown. She also served this Legislature as the member for

Vancouver-Burrard, and I know she was a great contributor to this chamber but

also in her fight for social justice for women, for gays and lesbians, and for

other visible minorities within our society. I also pass my condolences to her

family.

JIM SPILSBURY

H. Long:

I also rise today to note the passing of a legendary British Columbian. Jim

Spilsbury was one of the defining personalities of west coast life. He was

raised on Savary Island and made the inlets, bays and harbours of the coast his

back yard. The radios he built opened communication lifelines all along the

coast of British Columbia. The airline he founded, Queen Charlotte Airlines,

became Canada's third-largest airline in 1949.

Many

British Columbians are familiar with tales of his pioneering life on the coast,

thanks to his books Spilsbury's Coast and The Accidental Airline .

They are two of the most successful books published in British Columbia.

He was many

things: an inventor, an entrepreneur, a pioneer, a painter and an author. B.C.

is poorer for his passing. I offer my condolences, and I ask this House to offer

theirs to his family and friends. He will be sorely missed.

ROSEMARY BROWN

MacPhail: Thank you to the colleagues who have already acknowledged Rosemary

Brown. I, too, rise today to mourn the passing of someone who is truly one of

B.C.'s most respected former MLAs.

Rosemary

Brown was a passionate defender of human rights and women's rights, and she

passed away at the very early age of 72 this weekend. I know that all of our

thoughts go out to her family and her loved ones. She is survived by her husband

Bill, three children and seven grandchildren. I know I stand not only with

everyone in this House but with all British Columbians in mourning this great

loss to the province of B.C.

Rosemary

Brown was an intelligent, articulate spokesperson for progressive causes for all

of her life. She was the first black woman elected to a Canadian legislature.

She was an officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Order of British

Columbia. After completing her studies at McGill University and the University

of British Columbia, Rosemary became the founding member of the Vancouver Status

of Women Council and a founding member of the Vancouver Crisis Centre. Rosemary

was elected first to the B.C. Legislature, as the member from Vancouver-Burrard

pointed out, for that riding in 1972, and she stayed in this Legislature until

1986, so she sat with many of us present in this chamber during that time.

In between,

she ran for the leadership of the federal NDP. Her impact carried far beyond the

work that she did in this House. She affected the lives of thousands of people.

After politics, Rosemary served as the CEO of Match International, which was a

development agency to promote women's issues on a global basis. She also served

as chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

[1415]

Rosemary

had a great impact on me personally and on my decision to get involved in public

life. She really did ensure, everywhere she went, that the voices of women and

people of colour would be represented. I think it's safe to say that Rosemary

Brown led the way for women who wanted to play a role in public service.

Rosemary

Brown created a committee to eliminate sexism in textbooks and educational

curricula. She introduced legislation that would prohibit discrimination on the

basis of sex or marital status. Through her efforts, there was a marked increase

in the number of women represented on boards, commissions and directorates.

I think

that if Rosemary were in the House today, she would be eloquently standing up

for the many voices of society that never make it into this Legislature. Her

legacy will live on amongst thousands of women and people of colour who were

inspired and have become involved in politics through her role as an activist,

an educator and a role model.

Many of us

who worked with Rosemary for three decades remember this quote that she made at

a function that many of us attended. She said: "Fighting for equality is

like washing the dishes. You've got to keep on it every single day." May we

all give our condolences to her family.

Hon. L.

Stephens: I share the sentiments of all the members of this House when, over

the weekend, we were saddened to learn that a former member, Dr. Rosemary Brown,

had passed away. She was a passionate woman who came to Canada from Jamaica in

the 1950s. She served our province as an MLA from 1972 to 1986 with distinction.

She was a social worker, a university professor, founder of the Vancouver Status

of Women Council, and served as chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights

Commission, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated. She was also the

founding member of the Vancouver Crisis Centre.

She was a

tireless worker in the struggle for the rights of women, men and children

everywhere. She's been honoured around the world for her life's work, and she

became an inspiration in the field of social activism. She was an officer of the

Order of Canada and a recipient of the Order of British Columbia.

Rosemary

was a wonderful person, a role model and a great British Columbian. She will be

most remembered for her vigilance, commitment, courage and vision. She will be

sadly missed by everyone who knew her, but her passion for justice, fairness and

[ Page 6253 ]

equality will live on in all those who were touched by her energy and

determination to raise awareness and to open dialogue, debate and discussion for

a better society for all. I join with all members of this House, Mr. Speaker,

and ask that you express our sincerest condolences on behalf of all the members

of this House.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered. Thank you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BUSINESS NUMBER ACT

Hon. R.

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

intituled Business Number Act.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 36, the Business Number

Act. The Business Number Act will establish the adoption of a business number as

a common business identifier for British Columbia businesses. The act also

establishes the information system, the B.C. Hub, to be developed by the single

business number initiative to support business number processes.

The federal

business number is currently used as a common business identifier in selected

programs in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario. Manitoba is

currently developing a common business identifier project using the federal

business number. This legislation does not contain significant policy change,

but it does enable the implementation of the single business number initiative,

which is consistent with our government's new-era directive of reducing business

processes and the regulatory burden for British Columbia businesses and follows

up on our government commitment to establish e-government to business services.

Without

this legislation, businesses would continue to have to use various numbers when

accessing different levels of government and services. The business registration

would continue to be complicated and time-consuming. It is important to note

that several provincial and national business organizations strongly support the

single business number initiative.

[1420]

Bill 36 is

consistent with our government's commitment to assist British Columbia

businesses to succeed. The Business Number Act will simplify the relationship

between business and government and will assist in restoring British Columbia as

a world leader in e-government.

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.

Bill 36

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) FAMILY SERVICES BUILDING

FOR VANCOUVER-BURRARD AREA

Mayencourt: I've spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the

wonderfully diverse community I live in. We have a lot of seniors. We have the

gay and lesbian community. We have new urban singles. We also have one other

group, and that's the street-entrenched youth. Though they may not have an

address in my constituency, I do consider them to be my constituents, and I am

committed to serving them.

It gives me

great pleasure to rise in this House today to speak in favour of the

construction of a 9,000-square-foot building in the downtown south that will

house the Family Services of Greater Vancouver's programs. The building will be

set to house the existing street youth services, Street Youth Job Action and

Dusk to Dawn shelter programs and will provide transitional housing for youth in

this neighbourhood.

There's

massive redevelopment which is occurring in the downtown south of Vancouver, and

it's causing some resources for homeless youth in the area to become strained.

The construction of a centralized and integrated provider of youth services will

help prevent these youngsters from being exploited into the sex trade or the

drug world.

The

construction of such a building will make an integrated service delivery model

for street-involved youth much more feasible, and it will allow for an operating

schedule seven days a week. Programs in this building will offer outreach,

counselling, support, advocacy, drop-in services, drug and alcohol counselling,

health services, life skills, hygiene, employment training and recreational

services. It is anticipated that if we get this off the ground, we could have

this project completed by September of 2004 with operations commencing shortly

thereafter.

I'm proud

of the work that Family Services is doing in this neighbourhood, and I fully

support their efforts to move forward in the construction of this building and

amalgamate their services for youth. I know it will be a welcome addition in the

downtown south and to all citizens of Vancouver who will enjoy the benefits

their services create.

2009 WORLD POLICE AND FIRE GAMES

Sahota: I have some great news. On Saturday the 2009 World Police and Fire

Games were awarded to

[ Page 6254 ]

British Columbia. This is the second-largest event outside of the Summer

Olympics.

As many in

this House know, for the past number of months my colleagues from Burnaby and I

have been working hard on this bid. Last October the four Burnaby MLAs endorsed

the 2009 bid. Last month the entire Legislature endorsed a motion to support the

games. Last week the selection committee was in the lower mainland and

inspecting the sites, and they were impressed with what they saw.

There were

many people that made this happen, so I want to congratulate the entire bid

committee and the many organizations who worked together to create this

successful bid for our province, including the city of Burnaby, the city of

Vancouver, Tourism Vancouver, our law enforcement agencies and, of course, our

2010 Winter Olympics bid committee. I would also like to congratulate Burnaby

firefighters — in particular, Jeff Clark and Miles Ritchie — for their

tireless work and unwavering dedication to bringing the games to British

Columbia.

I also want

to thank some of the people in our own government. I want to thank the Minister

of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and his staff for their hard work

and commitment to this bid. I also want to thank the Solicitor General and the

Minister of Forests, who took out time last week to address the selection

committee. Lastly, of course, I want to thank the Premier, who addressed the

entire federation board of directors on Saturday.

Together we

had a successful bid, and we are ready to do this for 2009. I know this is a

testament of this government's commitment to our protective services and to

sport. This will help build a future for British Columbia that is strong,

healthy and prosperous.

CLINTON ANNUAL BALL

W. Cobb:

My comments today are in the form of an invitation. On Friday, May 23, 2003, the

136th Clinton Annual Ball will take place in the Clinton Memorial Hall. This is

the longest-running annual event of its kind in Canada. It has continued through

two world wars, the Depression, population decline and diminishing resources.

From the numerous volunteers that have worked on the ball to the support by way

of donations and attendance, the community has preserved an enchanting piece of

early pioneer spirit.

[1425]

Held in

1868, the first ball was the idea of Mrs. Smith, co-owner of the old Clinton

Hotel, the biggest and best hotel in the Cariboo Gold Rush Trail. By invitation,

people came on horse-drawn equipment from as far away as San Francisco and

Chicago. The annual soirée lasted for days as guests, dressed in elegant,

important fashion, dined and danced in beautifully decorated halls. Dignitaries

attended and honoured the contribution of a dedicated community.

The Clinton

community wish to extend their welcome and invitation to you to join us in

making this year's event a spectacular reflection of the Clinton Annual Ball

that began so many years ago. I encourage everyone, even if they may not be able

to attend, to purchase a ticket as a donation to assist the community of Clinton

in having this event declared a heritage event, to pursue some of the great

history we have in the Cariboo. I have tickets if you so wish. [Applause.]

Mr.

Speaker: There's a group over here that's excited about going.

Oral Questions

SALE OF B.C. RAIL ASSETS

MacPhail: While this House was in recess, the Minister of Transportation

admitted to an audience in Prince George that the government was breaking its

promise not to sell B.C. Rail. She would only say that the government would try

to live by the spirit of that promise. Before the Easter break the Minister of

Transportation stood up in the House and contradicted the Premier. She said that

B.C. Rail's tracks were not for sale and that those tracks would remain publicly

owned. Does the Minister of Transportation stand by that promise, or can we

expect it to be sacrificed as part of their government's plan to abandon

northern communities?

Hon. J.

Reid: We have been clear. We have been consistent. I've spoken with people

in Prince George. There is going to be continued public ownership of the rail

track and the right-of-way, and we are proceeding in looking at a partnership to

strengthen the rail services. This is at the request of both the shippers and

the communities who rely on those industries.

We're

working with the communities on this proposal, and we believe that this is going

to be a good, sound business plan to move B.C. Rail into the future.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: All this government has done is make it as clear as mud about what

the plans for B.C. Rail are.

It was only

a few weeks ago that the Premier went on provincewide TV. He said that B.C.

Rail's tracks will not be sold. But as recently as two weeks ago, in a letter to

first nations in the north, the Premier would only promise that he would

"not transfer the ownership of the rail bed to a third party." Can the

minister explain why, if she stands behind her commitment to not sell B.C.

Rail's tracks, the Premier will now only say that the rail bed beneath the

tracks will remain in public hands?

Hon. J.

Reid: They're both going to remain in public hands, and, again, we've been

consistent.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

[ Page 6255 ]

MacPhail: Well, actually, if this House extends its sitting much longer,

there will be several more vague promises shifting back and forth, because

here's the evolution….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: Here's the evolution of the new-era promise not to sell B.C. Rail.

It's a fascinating study in Liberal logic. The promise has gone from keeping the

whole operation in public hands — that was during an election — to keeping

just the freight service, to only keeping the tracks and now to keeping the land

upon which the tracks sit. In fact, the promise that they're only going to keep

the right-of-way may wither away, which the Premier has said.

Actually, I

don't think British Columbians will be surprised if soon the Premier says that

his promise not to sell B.C. Rail only included the air in the general area of

the B.C. Rail tracks.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

[1430]

MacPhail: Will the minister stop this silly charade and admit that she and

her Premier are trying to spin their way out of a promise not to sell a

profitable public corporation that is essential to the northern economy?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm glad we do agree — the member opposite has clarity on that one

fact — that indeed this is an essential operation for this province and

especially the north of this province. This has been a consistent statement…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. J.

Reid: …and in looking at an operating partner in moving forward, in

working with the communities, we are anticipating that is going to provide the

long-term stability and the long-term investment back in B.C. Rail to support

the industries and support the communities of this province.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY

Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is

working on an integration plan for some RCMP detachments in the lower mainland.

In my view, integrating this makes sense because we know that criminals do not

care about municipal boundaries. However, Surrey council is considering opting

out of this plan and creating its own municipal police force at a great cost to

the taxpayer. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents what he believes

will be the most effective and efficient policing system for the residents of

Surrey?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There are really two questions there. First of all, through to the

member, there is no opting out of integration and policing in the province of

British Columbia. It is the model for the twenty-first century of policing.

Things like serious crime, homicide, sex crimes, forensics and ident should all

be integrated cross-border so information is shared by police departments

seamlessly for the investigations of any crime in this province.

To the

people of Surrey: I can tell you right now you have a world-class police force

in the RCMP in Surrey. They are one of the best in the world. We should remember

that those people are out on your streets every night doing a job on behalf of

your community, and that discussion that's taking place because someone may not

like the design of a management model is only damaging the morale of those

professional people in the field of policing in the province of British

Columbia.

It is not

the position to encourage or approve new police forces in British Columbia. We

want to see integration; we want to see modernization. That's why we're doing

PRIME. That's why what we're doing in policing is strong for the future, and

we'll continue to stand by our plan for policing.

IMPACT OF SARS ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

Chong: Over the past few weeks I've heard from business owners in greater

Victoria concerned about the potential impact on tourism due to the SARS

outbreak. Yesterday the minister participated in a conference call with federal

and provincial tourism ministers from across the country. Can the Minister of

Competition, Science and Enterprise update us on what this government is doing

to ensure that the tourism industry, which is so vital to many parts of our

province and in particular to greater Victoria, is not being harmed?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: We will continue to be very vigilant in our work to contain SARS in

British Columbia, where our health workers have been very, very successful, and

we should all be very proud of them.

On the

conference call on Sunday between the federal minister and the provincial and

territorial ministers, it was agreed that we would all work together to develop

an action plan. We are meeting in Toronto on May 9 and May 10 to review the

first draft of that action plan. We will then meet again on May 23 and May 24 in

Vancouver. We are all going to work together. We're going to remain very

vigilant, and we're going to develop our marketing plan to release to our key

mar-

[ Page 6256 ]

kets at the appropriate time. Together — by everyone in the tourism

industry working together — we will have a successful tourism year.

FAIR PHARMACARE REGISTRATION

Brice: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. With the May 1

deadline for registration of Pharmacare about to occur, I have heard from

constituents who are not understanding just what the consequences are going to

be if they don't get signed up by the deadline.

Would the

minister please explain what the consequences will be for those who don't get

signed up by the deadline, but who do require services after that?

[1435]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The first thing I want to emphasize is that there is no deadline for

registering for the new Fair Pharmacare program. The program takes effect on May

1, but an individual can sign up today, sign up next month or sign up next year

if they want. But in order to be eligible, if they think they qualify for

financial assistance under the new Fair Pharmacare, then we obviously encourage

them to sign up sooner than later.

There are

two groups that should really take the effort sooner than later, and they are

low- and middle-income seniors and non-senior families earning under $50,000 a

year. Under the new Fair Pharmacare program they will actually be eligible, by

and large, for greater financial assistance than they would have under the old

program. I am pleased to tell the member that if a British Columbian doesn't get

themselves registered before May 1 and they would qualify for benefits prior to

them becoming registered, we will in fact, at the end of the year, be

reimbursing those individuals for any overpayment they may have made from the

period from May 1 until such time as they do get themselves registered.

MacPhail: I wasn't actually going to ask a question on this, but the

misinformation on this is astounding. The minister just gave out some new

information, so they've changed the program again. Here's the confusion, Mr.

Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. When the House comes to order, we will continue.

MacPhail: Not only is the telephone call or the on-line access to this

registration not the completion of actually getting your benefits, but, indeed,

the minister has just changed the information about how those benefits would

apply. We have evidence directly to the contrary.

But let me

ask this question. The telephone call that can't get through and the on-line

access that you can't get through…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …is just the beginning of the registration process. You then get

a form mailed out that you have to sign and send back before you're actually

registered. How many affidavits has the minister received to date?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm delighted to get the member's question, because this Fair

Pharmacare is actually a great program. What I have found is that British

Columbians, particularly British Columbia seniors…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Let's hear the answer, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …when they find out how it's going to impact them, are really

quite thrilled, because they will see greater financial assistance under the new

Fair Pharmacare program. We today on our telephone lines are able to register

8,000 families an hour. We can register 7,000 British Columbians on the website

simultaneously. Already to date, we are in excess of 850,000 British Columbia

families who are registered.

Just to put

that in perspective, under the former plans A and plans E in Pharmacare that the

new Fair Pharmacare plan is replacing, there were about 440,000 British Columbia

families that had tapped into benefits in the past. We already have 850,000

families signed up.

To address

the member's specific question about the forms: the member is very correct when

she says it is a two-stage process, but from the minute you register on phone or

on the website, you are registered and you are eligible for benefits under the

Fair Pharmacare program, and….

Interjections.

MacPhail: What about privacy? Are you breaking the privacy laws, then?

An Hon.

Member: No.

MacPhail: Yes, you are.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member is talking about privacy. The whole issue of privacy has

been discussed with the office of the privacy commissioner…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please, Mr. Minister.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …and we have taken all the measures necessary to make sure an

individual's privacy…

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …is 100 percent protected.

[ Page 6257 ]

[Mr.

Speaker rose.]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please! When I ask for order, I expect order

in this place. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order and listen to the

answer.

Minister,

would you please start over again. Thank you.

[1440]

[Mr.

Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. C.

Hansen: It is a two-stage process, as the member had indicated earlier, but

I'm told that an individual can actually go to a pharmacy counter with a very

expensive prescription and the pharmacist can advise them what that prescription

might cost. They can literally walk over to a telephone, get themselves

registered, walk back to the counter, and they will be in the system and be

eligible for benefits.

There is a

follow-up on that. We do have to confirm what they declare as their income, and

we do that through the form that's subsequently sent out. But that is after the

fact, because the individual becomes eligible from the minute they are

registered, whether it's via telephone or via the website.

DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. I'd like to ask

a question that will help pay for the health care system which that member would

like to see.

The

development of offshore oil and gas industry in B.C. is bringing a new spirit of

hope to the economies of coastal communities. After recent comments by the

Minister of Natural Resources, it appears that the federal government may

finally be willing to address the offshore exploration moratorium in B.C.

However, last week the federal Minister of Environment offered comments that

seem to contradict and confuse the position of the federal government. Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines clarify for the House the status of the federal

review process and what this means for offshore development in British Columbia?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The opportunity of offshore oil and gas off the west coast of

British Columbia is great news for British Columbians, and we will do it only if

it's environmentally sound and very sensitive to the environment. We want to

make sure that we're able to continue to provide health care and education in

this province.

The federal

government has committed to a process. We're attempting to work with the federal

government as best as we possibly can to make that happen quicker — but making

sure we do the right steps to make sure it happens for us. In that vein, we have

just written another letter to the minister relaying our concerns and wanting to

work with them.

As far as

the Minister of Environment goes, federally, he seems to be a little bit off

base with his colleagues in Ottawa in a lot of his comments, but we hope that

through the good work we're trying to do, someday he will finally realize that

good jobs are available in the oil and gas industry off the west coast of

British Columbia — just like it is on the east coast, which he supports. We

hope he starts to remember that and that we need some money in British Columbia

to continue to provide health care and education and that we'll do it in a very

sound, environmentally friendly way.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Plant: I seek leave to table a document entitled Citizens' Assembly on

Electoral Reform: Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chair.

Leave

granted.

Ministerial Statements

DAY OF MOURNING FOR

WORKPLACE INJURIES AND DEATHS

Hon. G.

Bruce: I rise today to make a ministerial statement. Today is a day of

mourning. We pay tribute to workers who have been injured or who have died as a

result of workplace accidents or diseases. Today, April 28, marks the

International Day of Mourning, recognized in nearly 100 countries. In keeping

with the importance of this occasion, flags are flying at half-mast in the

legislative precincts, at government buildings throughout the province and

across Canada.

This day of

solemn remembrance is also about our communities. In 2002, 157 British

Columbians lost their lives, and in every case a community lost someone whose

memory is held dear. Perhaps it was a soccer coach who helped your kids or a

neighbour who could always be depended on or simply a friendly face that you

were used to seeing as you went about your daily business.

Earlier

today I joined a group of people — employers, employees, members of the board

from WCB and families of injured or deceased workers — in a memorial ceremony

in Vancouver. Similar gatherings have been taking place today in communities

throughout the province and across the country. That's because in every

community including my own, we have felt the tragedy of losing someone we care

about.

[1445]

government we must continue to work with businesses, labour associations and

communities to reduce the human, social and economic loss that results from

workplace accident, injury and disease. Regardless of our different views, we

need to work cooperatively to make every B.C. workplace a safe and healthy

[ Page 6258 ]

workplace. If each of us makes that commitment, we can make a difference.

MacPhail: Today I, too, mourn the loss of productive workers in this

province, either through injury or death, and the effect that has on all of us.

In the 1990s, April 28 became recognized in this province as the day of mourning

for injured workers. The flag is flying at half-mast in acknowledgment of that.

I joined

with the Minister of Labour today at a ceremony in Vancouver, which was as

moving as I have ever experienced. We all shared the statistics and the desire

to make things better in British Columbia in this horrible toll. Then we heard

from a mom and her two kids, which brought tears to every single one of us. The

mom's husband and the father of those two kids died about a year and a half ago

in a completely preventable worksite accident. The eloquence of all three of

them should be repeated in this Legislature. I hope we all take the time to

review what the people around this province are saying, the people who have been

affected directly by workplace injury and death — how it is on their lives.

We are

consumed with SARS and rightfully so. We as a nation are consumed with SARS. But

one of the statistics we heard today, where there are people behind every single

one of those statistics, is that the number of people who have been killed

worldwide by SARS falls short of the number of people who have been killed in

only one year in British Columbia alone due to workplace deaths. We must also

recognize that those who are fighting SARS on the front lines are workers

themselves, health care workers, and they are showing bravery in challenging

that.

I know it

is only the time to join together with common goals and a common purpose on this

day of mourning. I join with everyone in this House, looking forward very, very

much to the day when the day of mourning is no longer necessary.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's

report No. 10, 2002-03, Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial

Statement — 2001-2002 .

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Committee of Supply

The House

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

The

committee met at 2:49 p.m.

The

Chair: We are going to take a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 2:49 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(continued)

On vote 37:

ministry operations, $90,001,000 (continued) .

Hon. S.

Hagen: There were some questions raised by the hon. member opposite on the

Thursday afternoon that we were last in here. I have some answers to those

questions, together with a map that I will give to her. I just want to give a

response to some of the questions asked with regard to…. Discussion was around

the areas that are not recommended for fish farms.

MacPhail: I'm sorry — say that again?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The discussion was about areas not recommended for fish farms. You

talked about that.

The AOS

mapping process was completed on March 12, 2002, and was the first step in

completing a North Island straits integrated plan, which was completed December

10, 2002. The AOS maps are to be used to facilitate finding sites for those

farms identified on the provincial relocation lists, not to show where existing

farms had a conflict. The maps were accompanied by a letter that contained

caveats and limitations.

[1510]

The maps

are to be used as a very coarse filter. Map data and siting criteria used to

build the maps were used at a very broad scale. Therefore, it is possible that

within the areas shown as unavailable due to siting criteria, local area

investigations may identify sites that in fact meet the siting criteria. The

maps are at a broad scale, and the subsequent NIS, North Island straits, plan

will provide more detailed direction.

The

subsequent plan shows that all the farms occurring within the North Island

straits aquaculture no-opportunity areas fall into the following category: the

uses acceptable at existing levels of tenure, subject to limited modifications

as required by government. Applications for new tenures should not be accepted.

Abandoned or underutilized sites should not subsequently be made available for

the same use.

The scope

of the NIS plan was to address potential new sites and not to comment on whether

or not existing uses should be removed. This is accompanied, by the way, by an

Excel spreadsheet showing the marine tenures. I'd like to give this and the map

to the member opposite.

MacPhail: I appreciate that. That was my first follow-up for things

promised. Did the minister bring the briefing note on the sale of the land on

the Victoria waterfront? During the estimates these were questions he answered

with: "I'll get back to you later."

Hon. S.

Hagen: I have a two-page briefing note which I'd be pleased to share with

the member.

[ Page 6259 ]

MacPhail: Can the minister provide the documentation he promised regarding

the consultation that took place between Land and Water B.C. and the city of

Courtenay and between Land and Water B.C. and the Comox-Strathcona regional

district?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We will have that very shortly.

MacPhail: Did the minister bring the timber survey for Lannan forest?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We do have the timber survey, but the information is confidential

until the sale is completed.

MacPhail: Then I'll get to that in a moment. Did the minister bring the

socioeconomic study of the South Chilcotin Mountains Park?

Hon. S.

Hagen: W e have a socioeconomic study that is outdated, and we're

presently working to update that. I can give you the outdated one, and I'll be

pleased to share the updated one which will be ready, hopefully, in a couple of

weeks.

MacPhail: What is the date of the outdated one?

Hon. S.

Hagen: July 2002.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. How is that outdated?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We started engaging first nations in September of 2002. We have been

in talks with first nations, arriving hopefully very shortly at an agreement

with them for participation on the Lillooet plan. So that's the information that

we will be incorporating into the new socioeconomic study.

MacPhail: I have a follow-up question on the issue of the sale process of

the Lannan forest. I was reviewing our debate over the two-week break from the

Legislature. I'm wondering whether the minister can actually go through the sale

process from start to finish — dates, everything.

[1515]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, I'd be pleased to read the chronology on the sale of Crown land

at Lannan Road in the Comox Valley to the Silverado Land Corporation.

December

21, 1989. A fax from Silverado indicating interest in acquiring Lannan Road

property.

June 5,

1990. A letter from Silverado repeating interest in acquiring the Crown land.

September

10, 1990 — and I'll be pleased to share this, by the way, with the members. A

letter to Silverado stating that Crown lands will initiate deletion from the

provincial forest and hold for disposition by public competition once services

have been extended to the property by Silverado.

February 8,

1995. A letter from Minister Sihota to Ruth Masters stating that B.C. Lands has

not accepted an application from the Comox-Strathcona regional district to

acquire the land for a sports centre.

February

13, 1995. A letter to consultants returning the regional district's application

for site to use as a sports centre.

March 7,

1995. A letter from the Ministry of Forests stating support for deletion from

the provincial forest if the land is used as a sports centre.

October 2,

1995. A letter from the regional district to B.C. Lands indicating intent to

apply for land as a nature park, an urban fringe buffer to protect visual value.

February 2,

1996. A letter to the regional district stating that B.C. Lands does not provide

Crown land for urban fringe buffers or preservation of visual values.

February

13, '01. A request from the Ministry of Forests for a statement of British

Columbia Assets and Land Corporation's interest in the Crown land as part of a

review of the regional district's application to manage recreation trails on

site under the agreement with the Ministry of Forests.

May 3, '01.

E-mail from BCAL to the Ministry of Forests stating that the land should be

administered by BCAL.

October 22,

'01. A memo from Jack Hall to Greg Koyl of the Ministry of Forests requesting

that a licence not be issued to the regional district pending completion of a

review of the property by BCAL.

January 30,

'02. An application to the Ministry of Forests from the regional district to

take over maintenance of trails on the property.

February 5,

'02. E-mail to Land and Water B.C. from the Ministry of Forests regarding

willingness for clarifying status of Lannan Road and Lerwick Road properties.

March 12,

'02. A memo from Land and Water B.C. to the Ministry of Forests requesting that

a licence not be issued to the regional district pending completion of Land and

Water British Columbia's review of the property.

March 13,

'02. A letter to the regional district from the Ministry of Forests stating that

its application is not accepted but that the regional district may apply to Land

and Water B.C. for a licence of occupation.

March 21,

'02. A note from Ministry of Forests that Land and Water B.C.'s letter of March

12, '02, had been sent to the regional district.

April 5,

'02. Land and Water B.C. signed a memorandum of understanding with Silverado

regarding purchase of the Crown land to expand Crown Isle golf course from 18 to

27 holes.

April 5,

'02. A draft MOU presented to the city of Courtenay regarding processes for

properties at Lannan and Lerwick roads as well as Millard Creek.

April 30,

'02. Memo to Ministry of Forests from Land and Water B.C. requesting deletion

from the provincial forest and forest land reserve of the Lannan and Lerwick

Road properties.

May 6, '02.

The aboriginal interest assessment report completed.

[ Page 6260 ]

July 3,

'02. A letter from the Ministry of Forests to Land and Water B.C. confirming

that deletion from the provincial forest is proceeding.

September

18, '02. Land and Water B.C. declined the regional district's application for a

free Crown grant.

October 10,

'02. A letter to Minister Hagen from the chair of the regional district

regarding Crown land on Hornby Island and at Lannan Road, expressing surprise

that Land and Water B.C. had declined its request for a licence of occupation on

the Lannan Road property because it was being managed by the development and

marketing division. The regional district asked for an update on the status of

the Crown parcels and indicated that they wished to secure tenure over both.

October 11,

'02. A letter to Land and Water B.C. from Art Meyers, indicating that Silverado

wished to proceed with the purchase of the land.

October 15,

'02. A letter from Land and Water B.C. to Art Meyers, stating that Land and

Water B.C. will prepare a sales contract with the sale subject to deletion from

the provincial forest and the forest land reserve and inclusion of the land

within the city.

[1520]

October 28,

'02. A letter to Minister Hagen from the chair of the regional district,

indicating concern that the province will no longer issue free Crown grants for

local parks, with Lannan Road indicated as an outstanding concern.

November 8,

'02. Letter from Minister Hagen to chair of the regional district, advising that

the Ministry of Forests is removing the land from the provincial forest to allow

for disposition by Land and Water British Columbia. The letter noted that Land

and Water British Columbia had scheduled a meeting for November 8, '02, to

discuss the regional district's interest in trails on the property adjacent to

Crown Isle.

November 8,

'02. Land and Water British Columbia met staff of the regional district in

Courtenay and advised them of the discussions regarding the sale to the owners

of Crown Isle and that the purchaser and the city were expected to agree to

establishing trails around the perimeter of the property.

November

15, '02. Land and Water British Columbia received offer of purchase and sale

from Silverado.

December 4,

'02. Letter to Minister Hagen from the chair of the regional district thanking

him for Mark Hallam's visit on November 8, '02, and stating that the regional

district remains opposed to the sale and development of the land.

December 9,

'02. Comox Valley Land Trust sent a letter to Minister Hagen regarding the loss

of Crown land in the Comox Valley, including the Lannan Road property.

December

11, '02. Revised MOU regarding three Courtenay properties sent by Land and Water

British Columbia to the city of Courtenay.

December

12, '02. Revised offer of purchase sent to Silverado by Land and Water British

Columbia.

December

18, '02. Land and Water British Columbia received a copy of a letter to the

ombudsman from Bob Campbell.

December

19, '02. Land and Water British Columbia signed offer to purchase from

Silverado.

January 9,

'03. Letter from the ombudsman summarizing allegations that Land and Water

British Columbia was unfair and unreasonable in its administration of the

proposed sale of the Crown land.

January 9,

'03. Ministry of Forests approved the deletion of the land from the provincial

forest for residential development.

January 17,

'03. Letter from Minister Hagen to chair of the regional district advising that

Land and Water British Columbia has signed a sales agreement with the owner of

Crown Isle. The letter states that Land and Water British Columbia was aware

that the regional district was interested in acquiring the land as a park but

was also mindful of economic benefits from the expansion of the golf course.

January 28,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia e-mailed to city councillor Larry Jangula,

explaining that the sale was based on the appraised value of the property and

that there was not a bidding process as the owners of the adjoining golf course

were in a unique position to develop the Crown land.

January 29,

'03. Letter from ombudsman requesting delivery of Lannan Road file for review.

January

30,'03. Letter to Land and Water British Columbia dated January 8, '03, from the

Hamatla Treaty Society opposing the sale of the land due to treaty concerns and

alleging breach of provincial policy on consultation prior to the alienation of

Crown land.

February 5,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia file sent to the ombudsman.

February

12, '03. Files returned from the ombudsman.

February

21, '03. Land and Water British Columbia applied to Courtenay to include the

Crown land into the city.

March 5,

'03. Letter from the ombudsman providing preliminary findings.

March 14,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia solicitor wrote to the Comox Valley

Record to ask for a retraction of a statement attributed to area B director

Barbara Price that Hallam was lying about information the regional district

about the sale of the property.

March 28,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia prepared a chronology for Bill Valentine.

March 31,

'03. Bill Valentine and Mark Hallam addressed the mayor and council of Courtenay

re Lannan Road.

For some

reason the next is an unknown date. It says that the minister responded in the

Legislature to a question from the chair of the Comox-Strathcona regional

district regarding the decision to sell the property to Crown Isle, including

the consultation process.

April 7,

'03. Bill Valentine wrote to the city of Courtenay and the editors of the Comox

Valley Record and the Comox Valley Echo summarizing the presentation

made to the city council.

April 8,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to the Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management, information and privacy branch, analysis of

[ Page 6261 ]

e-mails of April 1 and 2 regarding FOI requests from Shirley Ward.

April 9,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to the city of Courtenay's letter

of March 10, '03, advising that it was unable to comment on the status of any

inquiry by the ombudsman's office.

April 23,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to Shirley Ward's e-mail of April

4, '03, advising that Land and Water British Columbia was preparing a statement

of its procedures for the marketing and sale of Crown land and would provide a

copy when available.

[1525]

April 24,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to the Hamatla Treaty Society's

letter dated January 8, '03, regarding Land and Water British Columbia's

consideration of first nation interests at Lannan Road.

April 25,

'03. Land and Water British Columbia provided a briefing note to the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management, information and privacy branch, re Lannan Road

FOI, advising that it may be preferable to release the proposed sale price, even

if this may affect a subsequent sale of the land.

MacPhail: I heard two uses in the application — one, to put nine holes of

golf course in. Then in early January — I missed the exact date — was the

application for residential development?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I guess the short answer to that question is that the uses the

property will be put to will be determined by the zoning of the city of

Courtenay.

MacPhail: I appreciate the minister giving me this, but it does say:

"Ministry of Forests approved the deletion of the land from the provincial

forests for residential development." That's January 9, '03. So Crown Isle

gets the land, but it's up to the city of Courtenay to determine what they can

do with that land?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Crown Isle may or may not get that land. I mean, it depends on

whether or not the city takes it within their boundaries. If it comes within the

boundaries of the city of Courtenay, then the city of Courtenay will determine

the zoning on that property.

MacPhail: Why is that up for question? Is it not established now whether the

land is inside Courtenay? Maybe the minister could expand on that. Is there some

rezoning going on as well?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There are two conditions, apparently, on the offer. One is that it

come within the boundaries of the city of Courtenay. The second is that the

cabinet authorize through OIC the extension of those boundaries to take in that

land. It's a boundary extension application.

MacPhail: Those are conditions put on by the purchaser?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Those are conditions agreed to by both the purchaser and the seller.

MacPhail: Is the city of Courtenay aware of this?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Absolutely.

MacPhail: One of the reasons why I was asking for the timber survey was

because there's been quite a bit of a reaction to the minister revealing that

the amount of timber is worth $40,000. Is the minister standing by that

evaluation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes. Having seen the two values, I'm very satisfied with that number.

Sultan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Sultan: I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon an old friend,

Mr. Bill Jennings, who has the distinction of holding several world powerboat

speed championships. Should any members miss the ferry, give Bill a call.

Would the

House please make him welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: All right. Well, we'll have more discussion as information comes

up about the timber survey and that, because that got quite an interesting

reaction from the community. Disbelief wouldn't be too strong a word, but we'll

just wait and see the timber survey. It will be interesting.

[1530]

I think the

minister just said that of the two, he's satisfied, so I'm not sure what he

meant by that. What did the minister mean by of the two, he's satisfied?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I've seen two numbers. The two numbers I've seen make me very

satisfied with the number I gave you.

MacPhail: Okay. I expect I'll be getting all that information.

Muskwa-Kechika. I understand the ministry commits a million dollars annually to

the Muskwa-Kechika board and then matches the board up to another

million. How much did the board raise in '02-03?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told the number is around $150,000. We can get the exact number

if you would like that.

MacPhail: Yes, I would, because when this government took over, the funding

for the Muskwa-Kechika board was $3 million. This government cut it to a

commitment of $1 million and then made a great hoo-ha over the fact that there

would probably be an-

[ Page 6262 ]

other $2 million there because the board itself could raise $500,000 and the

government would match it. I assume the funding now is the equivalent of about

$1.3 million, which is less than 50 percent of what it was just two short years

ago. Is that correct?

Hon. S.

Hagen: For '02-03 there was a carryover from the previous year, so the

budget for last year was about $2 million.

MacPhail: We'll get to the bottom of this, so that's not an answer. An

annualized budget of what this government has committed is the equivalent of

about $1.3 million, as far as I can tell — $1 million from the government,

$150,000 that was fundraised by the board, and then I assume the government is

matching that. So that's $1.3 million for an annual budget, and it was $3

million when this government assumed responsibility. Am I off base?

Hon. S.

Hagen: No, I don't think so. I think you're accurate.

MacPhail: Then I guess the minister's going to be putting out a news release

that's taken the glow off the news release he released when he changed the

funding for this and had great hope that the private sector would rush in and

donate. That was why there was no reason for the government to commit to the

board funding for this wonderful, world-class area. Does the government consider

the sum raised by the board sufficient to continue to protect the

Muskwa-Kechika?

Hon. S.

Hagen: This is where the answer I gave previously comes into play. There's

still the potential for the board to end up with a $3 million budget. However,

because of a shortfall in fundraising for this year, their budget was reduced to

about $2.3 million, and that's what they have to carry out their operations for

'02-03.

MacPhail: How much did the Oil and Gas Commission donate in '02-03?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'll provide that information. We just have to get it.

MacPhail: Okay. I'd like that information before we complete estimates. I'm

curious as to why it's not available right now. How much of the $150,000 raised

came from the oil and gas industry?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I said in answer to your last question, we'll get that information

for you just as quickly as we can.

MacPhail: What did the board do with its funds in '02-03?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'd be pleased to provide the member with the annual report, which

was released not that long ago.

[1535]

MacPhail: I'm sorry. It was the annual report for '02-03?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We'll provide the latest annual report and also the budget for

'02-03.

MacPhail: Okay, Mr. Chair, this is the time when I'm supposed to get

information, not have to wait for information. But I'll just keep the estimates

going, because to shut down the estimates without answer means that the public

gets denied the information that it is due.

What

progress did the Muskwa-Kechika board make during '02-03? What changes occurred

in the area?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Actually, they had a very productive year. They've completed the

pre-tenure planning for the Besa-Prophet area. They've done a contract with the

Nature Conservancy of Canada for environmental mapping for the area. They've

made good progress on two other pre-tenure plans. There was first nations

consultation and also a joint venture with the Ministry of Energy and Mines on

geological potential for natural gas.

MacPhail: Well, I'll have more questions when I get the information that the

minister has promised on donations.

If the

minister needs to notify staff, I want to talk about contaminated sites. How

much money has the ministry devoted to contaminated sites in '02-03, and what's

the budget for '03-04?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There was no money allocated last year because the contaminated sites

were just transferred to the ministry in the latter part of '02-03. In '03-04 we

have budgeted $400,000.

MacPhail: Yes, I just want to remind the minister. He may not have been

listening to the estimates with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection,

but they delegated all these questions around contaminated sites to the

minister, and of course it was this minister that responded to the auditor

general's report on contaminated sites that was released in December 2002. How

does this budget of $400,000 for this upcoming year compare with the amount

spent on contaminated sites last year?

[1540]

Hon. S.

Hagen: My information is that there was no money spent in '02-03 because of

the transfer of responsibility to SRM. The $400,000 that I mentioned is budgeted

for '03-04.

MacPhail: Okay. And of course, the auditor general did release a report in

December of 2002 on contaminated sites. How much goes to developing

"governmentwide policies that will guide management plans for contaminated

sites on Crown land"?

Page 6263 ]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The answer is about half, about $200,000, to develop policy across

ministries.

MacPhail: How many FTEs are dedicated to governmentwide policies?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Five.

MacPhail: And how is this governmentwide policy-making that the minister

said he was carrying out…? How does it work? Perhaps he could outline for us

how it's working right now.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Identifying, inventorying, assessing and prioritizing sites;

establishing a process for resource allocation and funding; and rationalized

performance targets for the governmentwide business plan with staff and

resources.

MacPhail: And who sits on…? What ministries are involved in this? I know

the minister made a commitment to governmentwide, but what are the exact

ministries involved in this policy-making?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Forests; Ministry of

Energy and Mines; Land and Water B.C.; Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection; B.C. Hydro; BCBC; B.C. Ferries; B.C. Rail.

MacPhail: What resources has the minister dedicated to the creation of a

central registry of contaminated sites? Perhaps he could describe how the

registry will operate.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The establishment of databases will be complete at the end of fiscal

year '03-04 in working with the agencies and ministries I mentioned.

MacPhail: And what will the registry look like? Is it public? How do we

access it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, it's part of our integrated registry work that we are doing in

the ministry. The information will be public, and it'll be posted on our

website.

[1545]

MacPhail: Now, I must confess, Mr. Chair: I'm a bit taken aback by a budget

the size of $400,000. Let's be clear. That's $400,000 that will be committed

over 24 months. The minister has said nothing was spent in '02-03, even though

the auditor general's report came down at the beginning of December and there

were four months left in that fiscal year where activity could have taken place.

We have

$400,000 over 24 months. The minister has said $200,000 will go to establishing

the governmentwide policies. That only leaves $200,000 for real work. What's

that being spent on?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I just want to correct the member. It's $400,000 over 12 months. The

previous 12 months are gone.

MacPhail: So you spent zero.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I think that's what I said, yes.

MacPhail: Yeah. That's what I'm saying.

Hon. S.

Hagen: We're working on a business plan to confirm the contaminated sites

registry, a site inventory; establish the database; develop governmentwide

policies relating to management of contaminated sites and reporting guidelines;

and then work on managing the individual sites.

MacPhail: My point about the 24 months was this. At the end of the '03-04

budget, over the course of the two years previous to March 31, '04, this

government will have spent a total of $400,000. Nothing was spent in '02-03, by

the minister's admission, and he's spending $400,000 this year. Over a period of

24 months the government will have spent a maximum of $400,000.

How much

money…? I didn't hear anything being listed for dedication to the remediation

of contaminated sites.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The $400,000 does not include money for remediation. Remediation

would be the response of the agency or the ministry in which the responsibility

lies. If we were to need more money in SRM, we would have to go back to Treasury

Board.

MacPhail: Yes, but this minister is in charge of this project, by his own

admission. How much money across government is being spent on remediation of

contaminated sites, then?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I said previously, we do not have the responsibility for

remediation. That responsibility lies with the Ministry of Forests or the other

agencies, B.C. Hydro and the other agencies that I read out — Land and Water

B.C., B.C. Ferries, etc.

MacPhail: The minister said this — not only to me just now but to the

public when the auditor general's report on contaminated sites was released: he

was in charge of governmentwide policies that will guide management plans for

contaminated sites on Crown lands. Does this mean that you're not discussing how

to remediate contaminated sites — that the minister has no information about

this? How can you be in charge if you don't know?

Hon. S.

Hagen: My ministry provides the information and the data necessary to

identify these sites, and the remediation is carried out by the agency or the

ministry responsible.

MacPhail: What follow-up do you do?

Hon. S.

Hagen: My ministry will be auditing the sites, and also, we have to report

back annually to Treasury Board.

[ Page 6264 ]

MacPhail: What's the nature of the reporting you would do? Sorry, Mr. Chair.

What's the nature of what the minister would do? Is there a requirement to list

the number of contaminated sites that have been remediated? What's the budget?

[1550]

The

response to the auditor general was that this minister was taking charge —

taking charge governmentwide. So far we have $400,000 being spent on this over

the course of 24 months. That's piddly. I can't get any information about how

much is being invested in remediation. When will the minister know? When does

the monitoring start about remediation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Our job is to have a central place for gathering the data and the

information that is needed. WLAP's job is the regulations. We are to report back

annually to Treasury Board, including the liability number we see in each site.

MacPhail: Okay, but this minister is the one who's responsible for Crown

land. No matter which way you look at it, this minister gets paid the big bucks

because he's in charge of Crown land. If he's not remediating Crown land, who

is?

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the case of the mining companies, they are responsible, under

their permit, to clean up their sites. B.C. Hydro is responsible for its site

cleanup. B.C. Rail and any of the other agencies are responsible to clean up the

individual sites they're involved with.

MacPhail: There are contaminated sites on Crown land that don't involve any

of those agencies or Crown corps, so what's happening?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm not sure if the member opposite has a specific example of that. I

mean, the mining companies operate on Crown land. They have to remediate their

site. These things take place on Crown land, so I'm not exactly sure where

you're going.

MacPhail: Here we have a situation where an auditor general's report has

been released. In order to get off the hook, this government said: "Oh yes,

we agree with the auditor general's report. We're going to take action."

I'm trying to figure out what action the government is taking. So far, nothing.

Does he go to the mining companies and say: "Please remediate land"?

What if they've abandoned the land?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The mining companies have a statutory responsibility under the Mining

Act and have also posted a bond, which can be called if they don't do what

they're supposed to do.

MacPhail: Then the minister can give me an update on how it's going.

Hon. S.

Hagen: That's exactly what we're doing. As I read out to the member

opposite, we're confirming the contaminated sites registry, which is ongoing,

and we will be releasing the site inventory at the end of the third quarter of

'03-04.

MacPhail: Okay. Here's what the auditor general recommended:

"Government identify a lead agency to coordinate a governmentwide policy

for management" — that's this minister — "creation of a

comprehensive information regime, a registry that prioritizes sites on risk. The

establishment of an accountability framework that includes financial liability,

expenditure and accomplishment…." Is that what the minister's working on

now?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes. What the member did was read out what I actually read to her. I

can read it out over again, but I won't. Anyway, yes, she's right.

[1555]

MacPhail: It's my job to ask the questions, and it's the minister's job to

show what action has been taken on this. I guess maybe by December or January,

the minister might have a registry. What happens after that, then? How do we

actually get the companies to clean up the land on Crown land, for which the

minister is taking no responsibility? What's the next step?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Our first priority is to go to the polluter. As I said to you, WLAP

sets the regulations. If the polluter has left or is gone or has no ability to

do it, then there's an assessment made of the liability, and my ministry goes to

Treasury Board to ask for the funds to do the cleanup.

MacPhail: How does the ministry decide whether or not Crown land should be

remediated?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection sets the standards and

the regulations, and we go under their direction.

MacPhail: Well, I'm not going to allow for a merry-go-round on this. The

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection referred me to this minister, so what

are those standards? Do those standards have to be met before the land is

released for tenure?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The standards are set out in the Waste Management Act, which comes

under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail:

You know, it's unbelievable. I'm the only one asking questions, and these

ministers as a group dodge and weave. They refer to their colleagues; they won't

answer the questions. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection referred

all of these questions to this minister, and he stands up and refers it back to

her. It's pathetic. It's nothing short of pathetic. Does this minister not know

the determinants that are used?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Certainly, my staff does.

[ Page 6265 ]

MacPhail: Then perhaps the staff could tell the minister, who could tell me,

who could then…. It could be on the public record.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The standards are public. They're on the website of the Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection. Also, a report that has been done recently is on

the website about which areas might need to be modified.

MacPhail: Does redevelopment have anything to do in ranking properties for

remediation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes. In answer to the question, redevelopment may be an issue as far

as the sites are concerned.

MacPhail: I wonder how much. The reason why I'm asking this is because I

want to know whether the government is going to commit valuable resources to

remediation of certain Crown lands in order to promote development and attract

business, when other Crown lands may have a higher priority for remediation.

[1600]

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. S.

Hagen: We presently have a special vote in our ministry for two specific

sites: Britannia, $75 million, and Pacific Place, $50 million. This is a special

vote under our budget. It's not part of the ministry budget.

MacPhail: So did the minister answer my general question with those two

specifics, thereby implying that those are the only two sites for redevelopment

that are given priority for remediation? Is that why he answered in that way?

Hon. S.

Hagen: That's correct.

MacPhail: What list was the minister reading from? Is there a list of sites

that are ready for remediation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There was a partial list in the auditor general's report which

covered those two sites and a few others.

MacPhail: Given a budget of 400,000 bucks, where would the minister rank

remediation of contaminated sites in his priorities? Is there an outcome goal

listed in his service plan, for instance?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It is in our service plan, and certainly if there were an issue of

public health involved, the rating would be very, very high.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could tell me then what the criteria are for

determining high priority. I'm trying to get him to put it on the public record.

I'm having difficulty.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The rating would be very high in instances of public health potential

damage and also any potential damage to water, land or air.

MacPhail: The moneys that were committed to the Expo lands and to the

Britannia mine lands were committed by previous governments, the previous Social

Credit government and the previous NDP government. This government hasn't

committed any money of its own to remediation.

[1605]

What does

this ministry do if lands are contaminated and there is no owner still in

operation or no identified owner-polluter for Crown land?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Actually, I already answered that, and the answer is that we go to

Treasury Board to ask for the funds.

MacPhail: Yes, except the minister can't tell me how he's identifying that.

That's what I'm asking. Is there an inventory of such sites where there is no

identified owner to target? And where are they?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I mentioned beforehand, the contaminated sites management program

consists of doing the business plan and, in specific answer to the member

opposite, confirming the contaminated sites registry and doing the site

inventory. That's what we're working on right now.

MacPhail: Well, Land and Water B.C has plans to aggressively market land

tenures and sales of Crown land. Is the minister doing that where the

information about the site being contaminated or not is not yet available?

Hon. S.

Hagen: No. I don't think that Land and Water B.C. would be marketing land

that had environmentally damaging products on it.

MacPhail: Well, let's explore what Land and Water B.C. is going to do.

They're going to, by their own admission, aggressively market land tenures and

sales of Crown lands. They said: "It's an untapped market."

What check

does the minister have that ensures there are no contaminated sites? What check

does the minister have to ensure that there's public consultation in the sale of

Crown land?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Any Land and Water B.C. site that has any potential liability from an

environmental standpoint goes through an environmental assessment process.

MacPhail: Okay — and the question about the check on public consultation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: If there is environmental liability on a piece of property that

originally was put up for

[ Page 6266 ]

sale — if there's found to be that liability — it will be taken off the

market and not sold.

MacPhail: Sorry. I'm moving on a little bit, broadening the discussion. I

appreciate the minister's answer, but I'm broadening the discussion generally

about tenures and land sales now and what checks and balances are in place

around that. One question was on making sure the site was not contaminated. The

next question was on ensuring public consultation during a sale process.

[1610]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The service plan for Land and Water B.C. lays out the things that

Land and Water B.C. look at in the sale of a property. One of the most important

things is the sustainability principles which we have. They have to be met in

the sale of a piece of property.

MacPhail: What's the assurance about public consultation during a sale?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Land and Water B.C. works very closely with local governments when

they're looking at a piece of property. It does market surveys and other

information to find the value of the property. It looks at the assessed value of

the property. But generally speaking, it works with local governments.

MacPhail: What are the guidelines that Land and Water B.C. follow when

allocating land?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The guidelines that are presently in place at Land and Water B.C. are

out of date. They came in about four or five years ago. The board has looked at

a revised set of guidelines, and when they've reached a determination on those

guidelines, they'll be presented to me. I've not yet seen them.

MacPhail: What guidelines do staff follow now — the outdated ones?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, they're using the ones I referred to as outdated. This is all

part of the file we inherited with the long list of outstanding applications for

Crown land and water. The staff determined at that time that the guidelines

would have to be updated. Those are the updated guidelines that are now being

looked at by the board, and when their work finished, they'll be passed up to

me.

MacPhail: So for two years, I guess, this minister has been operating an

operation for which he says the guidelines are outdated. That's interesting.

What does

Land and Water B.C. do to assess potential environmental impacts of tenure

holders' activities as they apply?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I wonder if I could get the member to repeat her question.

The

Chair: Would the Leader of the Opposition like to repeat her question,

please.

[1615]

MacPhail: I'm wondering what Land and Water B.C. uses in the area of

guidelines to assess the potential environmental impact of the tenure holders'

activities who are applying for either lease or Crown land ownership.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The guidelines are reviewed. They look for conflicts and try to

resolve the conflicts. There's a referral process that then refers it to other

ministries or agencies. There will be conditions that are put on the tenuring

process. If there are violations of those, the land officer who finds the

violation has the ability to penalize or pull the tenure.

MacPhail: Does Land and Water B.C. investigate the potential socioeconomic

impact of the potential tenure holder's activities?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The staff makes sure that it's a viable management plan and makes

sure the tenure applicants can meet the conditions that are imposed in the

tender offer and that due diligence is done.

MacPhail: Does the management plan require submission on socioeconomic

costs?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes. That's an issue where there might be conflicting uses or

conflicting tenures, and the socioeconomic study takes a big play in that.

MacPhail: Is there a ranking of factors like environmental or socioeconomic?

Does the government rank importance?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There is no ranking. If there are significant environmental

liabilities or possibility of that, then that would be a big part of the

consideration. But we try to accommodate and we try to find ways to settle the

conflicts that may be there at the beginning. When the parties sit down

together, they can usually resolve those conflicts.

MacPhail: Sorry. Could the minister repeat the deadline for when he expects

the new guidelines to be in place? When is that expected? Will they be subject

to public review?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The interim draft guidelines have been presented to the board, as I

mentioned. The final guidelines I will expect to see in about a month, and they

will be posted on our website.

MacPhail: Has the board done public consultation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There was no public consultation done. What was looked at was what

the province of

[ Page 6267 ]

Ontario does, what the province of Alberta does and what the Canada land

corporation does.

[1620]

MacPhail: How many applications for lease were made in '02-03 and how many

applications for sale in '02-03, and how do those figures compare to those two

categories for '01-02?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The increase in tenure and licence activities in '02-03. There were

1,529 new land tenures issued. There were 691 new water licences issued, over

2,000 replacement tenures issued and 492 water licence amendments issued.

The

reduction of backlog and elimination of delays. There was eliminated land

application backlog — over 1,480 applications. Exceeded the 90 percent target

for reduction in historical water licence backlog — over 1,980 licences, to

its lowest level in over 40 years.

Referral

agreements in place with provincial agencies. Land and water application

processing. We redesigned an integrated application process to achieve 50

percent reduction in processing time and a more streamlined process for clients;

90 percent of new land applications were processed within 140 days. We exceeded

the 90 percent target for processing land replacement tenures — over 1,690

tenures — developed and implemented a 140-day turnaround processing time for

all new water applications, effective April 1, 2003.

I can go

into revenue and expenditures if you would like those numbers — $93 million

generated in land sales and tenure management activity, which is an increase of

$20 million over the previous year. Forecasting net profit of $746,000 for the

year ending March 31, '03. We'll complete the year below the current expenditure

limit of $22.5 million.

Achieved a

reduction of $2.73 million in expenditures from last fiscal year. Substantial

improvement in revenue collection — 92 percent of land rents collected within

90 days. Reduced cost–gained efficiencies resulted in improved revenue and

expenditure ratio from 3 to 1 to 4 to 1.

The

comparison numbers that you asked for on land backlog applications. There were

40 in '01-02 and 30 in '02-03.

Water

backlog applications. There were 402 in '01-02 and 158 in '02-03.

Land

replacement backlog. There were 518 in '01-02, and 187 in '02-03.

Water

amendment backlog — the same: 2,450 each year.

In new land

tenures issued, in '01-02 there were 1,506 and in '02-03, 1,529.

New oil and

gas tenures issued — 710 in '01-02 to 2,381 in '02-03.

Replacement

tenures issued — 1,364 in '01-02 to 2,020 in '02-03.

Water

licence amendments issued — 422 in '01-02 to 492 in '02-03.

New water

licence issued — 789 in '01-02 and 691 in '02-03.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Did the minister say the jump was from 700-odd to

2,300-odd in oil and gas tenders?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, that's correct.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, when you take that out, what's the…? I mean, I'm

interested…. Believe you me, let's give credit where credit is due. This

sounds like a good record. But when you take the oil and gas tenders out, what's

the…? Does that have an effect on the change in terms of successful

statistics?

[1625]

I mean, I

do understand that the backlog is disappearing, because what I'm trying to find

out is…. The minister said that he's using the same guidelines that are

outdated, but that's what he's been working with. If you remove the oil and gas

tenders, what's changed?

Hon. S.

Hagen: One of the reasons for the turnaround is that we're now processing

applications in 140 days. I want to clarify that not every land application is

approved; 40 percent of the applications for Crown land tenure are not approved.

MacPhail: What was the turnaround time in '01-02 or 2000-01? What was the

turnaround time then?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I am told that it used to be two years for a land application and 15

months for water. There was no target set until the year 2002.

MacPhail: Well, it's all right for the minister to be glib. I'm not trying

to say the minister is trying to attack the record of Land and Water B.C., but

there were major changes to BCAL in 1999, which is the precursor to Land and

Water B.C. I'm trying to figure out what it is that the minister and Land and

Water B.C. are doing differently, using the same guidelines that were used

previously. Are there fewer steps? Are there fewer things that the tenure holder

or the applicant has to do? What is it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Well, we realized that we needed to make some changes with BCAL,

which became Land and Water B.C. The first thing was a change in management,

more client focus. The people who now work in Land and Water B.C. are really

focused on giving the client service. We set targets for revenue and also for

application turnaround.

MacPhail: So being more client-focused has led to this. You take the same

rules and guidelines that you had before, but you're more client-focused. That's

what's led to the reduction? I mean, this is a business, so there's got to be an

explanation of where the reduction in time has occurred. Were there nine steps

under

[ Page 6268 ]

the previous guidelines, and you're now using these same guidelines in four

steps, or what is it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The whole application process was taken apart. I have to say that I

am very complimentary with regard to the staff at Land and Water B.C., because

they have done an exceptional job not only in reducing the backlog but also in

the approach they take to dealing with current applications. As I say, 90

percent of those applications are dealt with in 140 days.

MacPhail: Well, I don't want to start off a second part of a session

accusing the minister of not giving me answers. I'm actually trying to figure

out what it is that has changed that has led to this success, and the minister

is unable to tell me — unable to tell me. That was why I asked my questions

earlier about socioeconomic costs or environmental costs having to be

identified. Is there greater priority or less priority given to those? Anyway,

I'm frustrated already, I must say.

Does Land

and Water B.C. consult first nations before allocation of all land?

[1630]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Consultation with first nations is based on the assessment of

interest that first nations may have on a particular piece of property. The

consultation guidelines for Land and Water B.C. are presently being reviewed. We

are in discussions with first nations on that as well, but it depends on the

assessment of interest of the particular first nation.

MacPhail: How does a first nation express that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The obligation, as you know, is on us, Land and Water B.C., to

consult if there is an assessment of interest. The response from the first

nations may be a combination of things. It might be in writing. It might be a

no-response. It might be discussions around a table to reach an accommodation.

It might be looking for potential partnerships with first nations. It can

involve any number of consultations and accommodation.

MacPhail: Is it up to the first nations to go through the websites and

figure out what applications are made? How does that work?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I said, we are very proactive on this. The obligation is on us to

do the consulting.

MacPhail: Is there coordination with the treaty negotiations office?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Absolutely.

MacPhail: Are the decisions published, or are they communicated to first

nations? Are they communicated to local residents? How are the decisions made?

How do we find out, including first nations, about decisions?

Hon. S.

Hagen: If Land and Water B.C. is in consultation with first nations, then we

are obliged to let the first nations know of our reasons and our decision. The

reasons are also posted on the website of Land and Water B.C.

MacPhail: What does LWBC do with their duty to accommodate?

[1635]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Certainly, the issue of accommodation, as the member knows, is new.

We are working on a framework together with the treaty negotiations office on

accommodation. Again, it will vary. It can vary from band to band, from property

to property. There is a range of activities. Land and Water B.C. works very

closely with the staff at the TNO and also the Sustainable Resource Management

ministry on consultation and accommodation.

MacPhail: Is that duty listed in the consultation document that the

government issued a few months ago in terms of consultation with first nations?

Where would I find that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told you were provided with a copy of that document, the

consultation guidelines. If you'd like another one, we'll provide you with that.

Those consultation guidelines were updated because of the recent court cases

like Haida, Haida 2 and the Taku River Tlingit.

MacPhail: I have the consultation document. That's what I just said. Are the

guidelines for Land and Water B.C. the same guidelines that are included in the

duty to accommodate across government?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The guidelines that were sent out last fall are operational

guidelines for all ministries. In the meantime, all ministries and agencies like

Land and Water B.C. are developing their guidelines using that, I guess, as an

example to make sure the guidelines we have in Land and Water B.C. will work for

Land and Water B.C. and the first nations.

MacPhail: How many applications are being challenged by first nations now?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told the number is two or three.

MacPhail: I'm going to move to agricultural land reserve. This minister is

responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission. I understand the Agricultural

Land Commission committed to increasing its profile in rural British Columbia. I

wonder how the minister is doing that when the number of FTEs in the

Agricultural Land Commission is declining from 43 in '01-02 to 20 FTEs by

'04-05.

Hon. S.

Hagen: We have a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission, which

has taken

[ Page 6269 ]

some of the work away. The regional panels that were set up — I think there

are six — have been doing a good job. That saves decisions coming back into

the head office.

[1640]

MacPhail: Well, sorry. Are panels not counted as part of the 20 FTEs or

something?

Hon. S.

Hagen: No, the panels are commissioners actually. They're not FTEs. They're

commissioners that are appointed by OIC.

MacPhail: The panel work in the regions is in addition to the work of the

Agricultural Land Commission staff. Are you saying because those panels are in

the regions, that's a higher profile? If the answer to that is yes, perhaps the

minister could explain how that works.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Definitely, the Agricultural Land Commission has a higher profile in

the regions. The commissioners meet with every applicant. They actually look at

every piece of property. The number of applications has not changed. It's about

the same — about 500. The largest reduction in FTEs came…. There were

apparently five FTEs working with the forest land reserve, which we've done away

with.

MacPhail: The Agricultural Land Commission didn't do this work before. Is

that right?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I am told we have the same number of staff in the Agricultural Land

Commission working on applications and carrying out those applications as

before. There was a reduction in some mapping staff. That work has been taken

over by Sustainable Resource Management, which, if you recall, has consolidated

all of the mapping and data collection the government does.

MacPhail: If it's the same number of staff doing the work they did before

— and I actually have information doing it in exactly the same way — how is

the minister actually getting a higher profile — the Agricultural Land

Commission? What's the advance? That's what I'm looking for.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Great question, actually. The advance is that we actually have local

panels now in the regions making those decisions locally.

MacPhail: Yeah, well, I'm sorry. That's the way it was done in a lot of

cases before as well. I'm trying to get the minister to explain to me why this

isn't window dressing. Unfortunately, he's not that great a salesperson. Of the

20 FTEs that will remain, how many are scientists?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told that we have the same number of professionals as we've had

for the last ten years.

MacPhail: Is it possible to have a number, which is what I asked?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The number is one.

[1645]

MacPhail: Part of the Agricultural Land Commission professional staff is

one?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, there's one professional agrologist, which is the number that I

gave the member opposite. There are also four planners, who are professionals

but don't carry a designation, and five regional research officers, who are also

professionals but don't carry a professional designation.

MacPhail: Who are these people that have been cut, then? The minister said

five, because the minister has done away with the forest land reserve. So of the

other 23 that are to be cut or have been cut, who were they?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There were three professional foresters that were reduced when we did

away with the Forest Land Commission, two administrative officers, three

administrative support and one mapping person.

MacPhail: That's so far. Am I wrong in saying that staff is being reduced

from 43 to 20?

Hon. S.

Hagen: In '01-02 there were 33 staff. That's being reduced in the service

plan to 20 by '04-05.

MacPhail: Okay. I got the information that it was 43. Fair enough.

What is the

work that's been contracted out to the Oil and Gas Commission? What percentage

of that work constituted the Agricultural Land Commission's work?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's just fewer than 50 applications that will be done by the Oil and

Gas Commission, which would have before come to the Agricultural Land

Commission.

MacPhail: I heard the minister say earlier there were about 500

applications, so it's 10 percent of the work that has been contracted. And is it

contracted or just relegated?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission which

lays out the specifics on how they may have to make the decision. The decisions,

of course, have to be reached under the act, which is there. But I think if my

colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines does the job that he says he's going

to do, the number of applications could increase.

[1650]

MacPhail: Well, I'm curious. With the expansion of methane gas production

and the change in land that

[ Page 6270 ]

results from methane gas production, will challenges to that in terms of land

use now be decided by the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told that the commissioners for the northeast are actually up

there today meeting with landowners and talking about coalbed methane, but we

don't know what the results of those discussions are.

MacPhail: I understand this work has been delegated to the Oil and Gas

Commission. Is that not correct? My question was: is that the kind of delegated

work that the Oil and Gas Commission is now responsible for — determining land

use between agriculture and coalbed methane production? Is that what the Oil and

Gas Commission is now responsible for determining?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes. The short answer to your question is that the Oil and Gas

Commission will be making those decisions, but I'd like to qualify that by

saying that one of the terms of the delegation agreement is that no more than

four wells per quarter

section can be authorized by the commission. If there are

any more applications than that, it has to come to the Agricultural Land

Commission.

MacPhail: Yes. There are those who would even dispute that, though, and the

minister probably knows that from the public meetings that have been taking

place in areas like Hudson's Hope, etc.

What has

changed in the law that prevents a conflict of interest in such a situation?

What's the delegation authority that prevents a conflict?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There's a

section in the act that lays out which powers we can

delegate in the agreements. Annually, there's an audit done by an independent

auditor on the status of the company that has the lease.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could read into the record what the law says

about that.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'll be happy to do that as soon as someone brings me a copy of the

act.

MacPhail: In terms of the delegated authority, is that delegation with

compensation, or is it just a responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission? Does

the Agricultural Land Commission pay the Oil and Gas Commission to do this, or

is it free?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There is no cost involved.

MacPhail: What kind of delegated authority hands over something free to the

Oil and Gas Commission? I mean, what's the quid pro quo? If there's no

compensation or exchange in a contract, what is the prevention of a conflict?

You're asking the Oil and Gas Commission to do something for which you have no

strings attached whatsoever.

[1655]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The delegation agreement would lay out all of those terms, and the

delegation agreement would have to be in accordance with the regulations and

with the act.

MacPhail: Yes, and I'm actually trying to get the minister to tell me —

because the last time we debated this, there was nothing in writing that the

minister could provide — when the act was changed, etc. Is that public? Is

that a public document? Is there somewhere I can reach it now, or do I have to

FOI it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It will be public upon finalization and final signature.

MacPhail: I am going through the service plan right now of the Agricultural

Land Commission, and as I understand it, there were 43 FTEs in '01-02. Is that

not correct, or am I totally wrong? There were 33 in '02-03 because the

government cut ten from '01-02 to '02-03.

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the service plan that I have, the total staff FTEs for '02-03 is

MacPhail: Yes, I said in '01-02 there were 43.

The

Chair: Member, you'll address through the Chair when the minister is

finished.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I am told by the CEO that they've never had 43, that the most they've

ever had is 33.

MacPhail: Okay. I guess the information published was wrong.

This

contract and delegation authority is available at the local level, is it, to the

Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The delegation agreement will be available to everyone. It will be

published on our website.

MacPhail: But these discussions are happening now in the community. What

information does the community have now around the…? What's the commission

doing today? What document are they working with today when they're up there?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The commissioners are up there today meeting with four owners,

apparently, to discuss issues and potential issues around coalbed methane. There

will then be a series of meetings held, which will be public meetings and

stakeholder meetings, over the next several months.

MacPhail: This contracting-out document — although it's contracting out

without any resources being

[ Page 6271 ]

provided, so I don't know why the Oil and Gas Commission would feel that it

has to abide by what the Agricultural Land Commission has to say — will be

ready before any action is taken on coalbed methane production? If the answer to

that is yes, what is the time line for that?

[1700]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'd like to point out that this is a voluntary agreement. There's no

obligation on the part of the Oil and Gas Commission to do this. It's a

voluntary agreement. We hope to have the final agreement in place in two to

three months. We don't have a time line on the coalbed methane discussions.

MacPhail: Well, if it's a voluntary agreement, and they refuse to do it or

think that it's a conflict — which would be wise on their part — then who

does it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Then the commission would do it.

MacPhail: Why wouldn't the commission just do it in the first place?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The purpose of doing the voluntary agreement with the Oil and Gas

Commission is to streamline the process and to give a quicker response.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

MacPhail: Well, we'll see. I am interested to see how many Liberal MLAs tout

coalbed methane as going to be the saviour of the economy any day now. It's very

controversial amongst farmers and ranchers up in the Peace particularly. There's

been many a discussion, and I'm sure that's why the Agricultural Land Commission

is up there right now. I would expect that the great, speedy time line expected

by this government isn't anywhere close to being met for coalbed methane

production, and rightfully so.

What's the

time line for determining whether the Oil and Gas Commission can actually

determine land use?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I mentioned, we're going to start the stakeholder consultation and

the public consultation. We expect, after taking the comments that we receive

into consideration, that we should have the document in place and signed in the

next two to three months.

MacPhail: No, I didn't mean whether you're successful. What's a cut-off

point for saying it just isn't feasible for the Oil and Gas Commission to do it

and that we're going to get the Agricultural Land Commission to do it? Or is the

minister just assuming that there's going to be a delegation, regardless of

conflict?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The Oil and Gas Commission, as I said previously, will have to abide

by the regulations and the act, and the way they do their business in

consultation with Water, Land and Air Protection and any other affected

ministries doesn't change.

MacPhail: The Agricultural Land Commission used to be the body that

determined land use for protected land within the agricultural land reserve. The

minister has just said about 10 percent of applications for land use inside the

agricultural land reserve has been delegated — the determination for that land

use has been delegated — to the Oil and Gas Commission. In the North Peace or

in the Peace, there is a brewing potential conflict between coalbed methane

production and agricultural use on land inside the agricultural land reserve.

That determination of land use is now going to be referred, as I understand it,

to the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1705]

I'm trying

to find out, if there is no resolution to the potential conflict of the Oil and

Gas Commission in determining land use — whether it be agricultural or oil and

gas production, which seems like a pretty obvious conflict to me — when the

minister says: "Enough. We're going to now revert to the Agricultural Land

Commission making those decisions."

Hon. S.

Hagen: Since 1974 the Agricultural Land Commission has worked with the Oil

and Gas Commission. There have been thousands of wells approved on agricultural

land during that time. The purpose of the consultation, which will take place

over the next two or three months, is to come up with the terms of reference and

how these conflicts, if they materialize, will be dealt with.

MacPhail: Yes, but in the past it was the Agricultural Land Commission that

made the determination around land use. Yes, they worked great. I think the

Agricultural Land Commission is a fabulous body. I wish it were as strong as it

was before. I wish it would grow ever stronger. But it was the Agricultural Land

Commission that made the decision about land use. This government is delegating

that decision to the Oil and Gas Commission.

I think my

point is made. The minister either doesn't understand what his government has

done in absolutely engraining a conflict around land use in the Peace, or he

does understand and is trying to obfuscate.

Before a

piece of land in the agricultural land reserve is released, the Agricultural

Land Commission assesses the potential impact of that decision on land use for

agriculture. Who does that work now? Have any of the people who did that

assessment been laid off?

Hon. S.

Hagen: No. I'm told we still have the same number of people, the same

expertise.

MacPhail: So all of that is still done. Is that done in the area of the

Peace? Or is it the Oil and Gas Commission that will be assessing that?

[ Page 6272 ]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I wonder if the member could clarify that. Are you talking about the

Peace only, or are you talking about the province with regard to the numbers of

people dealing with applications?

MacPhail: I'm talking about the work that has been delegated to the Oil and

Gas Commission.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told that in all the years the Oil and Gas Commission and the

Agricultural Land Commission have been working together, there has been one

application refused. That's why the Agricultural Land Commission feels very

comfortable in doing a delegation commitment with the Oil and Gas Commission.

They will be held accountable, and the Oil and Gas Commission has a number of

in-house professionals who are very capable of dealing with these decisions, but

they will have to be dealt with under the act and under the regulations that are

presently in place.

MacPhail: I appreciate the historical review, except that in the past the

final determination of land use has always been with the Agricultural Land

Commission. That may actually influence the outcome of a decision. Now that the

Oil and Gas Commission has that responsibility and that right to determine land

use, things may change. That's what I'm trying to say here.

What are

the checks and balances on the Oil and Gas Commission about land use decisions?

Referring to past history is absolutely useless, because it's this government

that has set the Agricultural Land Commission aside and has put the Oil and Gas

Commission completely in charge. That's the difference.

[1710]

I'm sure

there have been no disputes or only one dispute in the past, because the Oil and

Gas Commission has understood that the final decision rests with the

Agricultural Land Commission. That check, that balance, is gone now under this

government.

What's the

government's plan? Does the government still commit to compensation if lands are

removed from the agricultural land reserve or committed to non-farm uses?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I don't know whether the member has an example, but my information is

that the owners have never been compensated.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought I read in the service plan that

government was going to compensate if lands are removed from the reserve. I'll

get the cite for it. It's in the service plan, as I recall reading it. I'll wait

to ask those questions, although I did want to allow the commissioner, the CEO,

to go on these questions. But I'll get that information for him.

Can the

minister update me on what change has occurred in delegating decision-making

authority to local governments? What's been the result of that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There's one delegation agreement in place. That's with Fraser–Fort

George. And a letter has gone out from the Agricultural Land Commission to all

municipalities, local governments in B.C., asking them if they're interested in

doing a delegation agreement with the Agricultural Land Commission.

MacPhail: When was this first announced? How long ago?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told the delegation part of it has been on the books for a number

of years before the act was changed.

MacPhail: No, I thought it was…. Sorry. Okay. But it was this government

that said they were going to make this a big centrepiece of changes to the

Agricultural Land Commission — delegation to local authorities. We had lots of

discussion on it. There were editorials written on it, about this government

bringing in this change. There was an editorial in my own paper, which is a

downtown Vancouver paper.

Or am I

wrong? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone having this discussion around the

Agricultural Land Commission, but I do recall this.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I hate to tell the member opposite, but she is wrong. The delegation

to municipalities or municipal governments has been in the act for a number of

years. The change we brought in was to do a delegation agreement with an

authority, like the Oil and Gas Commission.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, but what has that got to do with the Agricultural Land

Commission? The delegated authority now is to the Oil and Gas Commission. Is

that right? So this government didn't make any big announcement about giving

more authority over land use to regions or local communities? Government didn't

announce that? I made that up?

Hon. S.

Hagen: When the announcement was made with regard to the regions, it was

talking about the six regional panels that were being created. The ability to

delegate to municipalities has been in the act for a number of years. The change

we brought in was the ability to delegate to an agency like the Oil and Gas

Commission.

[1715]

MacPhail: I'm sorry. When did this delegated agreement occur — the one

that's been done?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's been in place for three or four years.

MacPhail: In terms of the regional panels set up, what's the local input

from governments on land use determination through the regional panels?

Hon. S.

Hagen: All applications are referred to local governments, who are asked for

a recommendation. Those recommendations are weighed very carefully by

[ Page 6273 ]

the commissioners. There are more meetings with local governments and closer

cooperation with local governments.

MacPhail: What weight do those local recommendations carry now?

Hon. S.

Hagen: One of the considerations is that some local governments are more

dedicated to the preservation of agricultural land than others, but it certainly

is taken into consideration in the overall decision-making process.

MacPhail: Do local governments have more input now than they did before?

That's what the government…. I realize I have to make my questions very

specific. Even though there's just an opposition of one, this minister makes me

ask every single question. What has changed for local governments now in

relation to the agricultural land reserve? So far the minister says:

"Nothing."

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to actually give some figures to the member opposite. As

I mentioned before, the regional panels have made a difference in that they can

look at every piece of property in question and they can meet with every

applicant.

To help the

member opposite understand the relationship of a recommendation that comes from

a local government and how that impacts the final decision by the Agricultural

Land Commission, the percentage of concurrence on the Island is 78.6 percent. On

the south coast it's 67 percent. In the Okanagan it's 60.3 percent. In the

Kootenays it's 75.3 percent. In the north it's 71 percent. In the interior it's

72 percent, for an average of 70.7 percent.

MacPhail: Yes, and how does it work? I gather what the minister is trying to

tell me by those stats is that there's a lot of interest by local governments in

land use decisions. Seventy percent of land use decisions involve local council

input now. I gather that's what the stat is. What difference is it making?

[1720]

Hon. S.

Hagen: No, I need to clarify that. This is the concurrence, the agreement,

between local government recommendations and the panel decision. Those were the

numbers that I read out for you. In other words, if there was 100 percent

agreement, that would mean there was no disagreement. These numbers indicate an

average of 70 percent concurrence with local government recommendations and the

final decision.

MacPhail: Okay. How has that changed?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We don't have the numbers, because this is something they just

started tracking. The issue here is that the panels have brought the

decision-making more local, particularly to the regions of the province.

MacPhail: I'm actually trying to figure out what's changed here. Is it just

that the commission didn't keep track of the stats or that they didn't ask local

government what they thought of the recommendation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, you're absolutely right that the consultation with local

government was always there. They just started tracking the results of that

consultation.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could just update us, then, on how the system

has changed in a way that is more responsive to those of us who care about

preservation of agricultural land and yet at the same time takes into

consideration community input.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'd just like to emphasize that the mandate of the Agricultural Land

Commission has not changed. The act is still in place; the regulations are still

in place. The difference is that the services to the public are now delivered

through regional panels — six regional panels with three people on each panel

— to give those people making the decision the chance to have the time to go

look at each individual piece of property and also to talk to the individual

applicants. That's what has made it more regionally responsive.

MacPhail: How much has the agricultural land reserve changed in size?

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the last fiscal year ending in '03, there have been 1,902 hectares

excluded from the agricultural land reserve — so 1,902 hectares out of a total

of 4.9 million hectares.

MacPhail: And how does that compare to the previous three, four, five years?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We'd be pleased to provide those numbers to you. I'm told that

there's one anomaly in this — of 1,100 hectares in the Okanagan-Similkameen,

which was an agreement made between a municipality and the Agricultural Land

Commission as far as the agreement on removing it. If you take that out of the

1,900, it's about the same as previous years.

MacPhail: Has there been any change in what constitutes agricultural use of

land inside the agricultural land reserve?

[1725]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, there have been some changes with regard to uses through the

regulations. One is the addition of bed-and-breakfasts, home occupation and

campsites. But they're all a matter of public debate when the act was taken

through the House last spring.

J. MacPhail:

What about golf courses?

Hon. S.

Hagen: No. There's been no change.

MacPhail: Just back to the Lannan forest, then. Is it because you've

eliminated the forest land reserve

[ Page 6274 ]

that Silverado was able to apply for use of that land to be a golf course?

Hon. S.

Hagen: If that deal goes through, then the city of Courtenay zoning bylaws

take effect. Whatever the city of Courtenay zoning bylaws would allow on that

piece of property, that's what would be allowed on it.

MacPhail: This government has eliminated the forest land reserve. Is that

not right? The minister is nodding yes. Has permission for various types of land

use for purchase of forest land reserve parcels changed as a result of the

elimination of the forest land reserve?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes. They are subject to local government zoning regulations.

MacPhail: Okay, let me ask this question. If the forest land reserve were

still in place, would Lannan forest ever be allowed to be used as a golf course?

I don't know the answer to it. These aren't trick questions. I don't know the

answer to it.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm not in a position to answer that because if it wasn't coming into

the city of Courtenay, if it was under the forest land reserve — which is

purely hypothetical — then the commissioners would make a decision as to

whether or not to remove it from the forest land reserve or whether to allow

whatever the prospective owner was asking to be placed on there. That's not a

decision I make. It's a decision the commission would make.

MacPhail: Yeah, and that was my question. If the commission's responsibility

for forest land hadn't been eliminated, would that kind of land use be

permitted? That was my question.

It was an

agricultural and forest land reserve before this government came into power. The

forest land reserve land was protected; its usage was protected. This Liberal

government eliminated the forest land reserve. Am I wrong? Is land use around

the forest land reserve parcels no longer subject to review for use by the

Agricultural Land Commission? That's my question.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The answer is yes.

MacPhail: Yes, a golf course would be permitted under the previous system?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The question you asked was: would the land use have been permitted

under the forest land reserve? The answer is — and I gave the answer before

— that it would have been up to the commission to decide that.

[1730]

MacPhail: That's why I asked previously whether golf courses were a

permitted land use under the agricultural land reserve. The answer was no. Then

I asked the question: under the forest land reserve, was permitted usage a golf

course? Why is it that the answer is now: "It's up to the commission"?

Isn't it a simple yes or no answer, the same way it was before?

Hon. S.

Hagen: If the forest land reserve was still in place, which is a

hypothetical situation, the commission would have made the decision. With the

elimination of the forest land reserve, the decision is now made by local

governments according to their zoning bylaws.

MacPhail: Yes. I'd like to put on the record that golf courses would not

have been permitted as proper use of land within the forest land reserve, so a

commission would have to make a decision saying: "No, it's not a proper

use." This government, by removing the forest land reserve, has absolutely

promulgated the opportunities for using land that was previously protected for

golf courses now. That's my point, and the minister knows full well that's the

point. Because of his government's actions, eliminating the forest land reserve,

the protection against turning that kind of land into golf courses is therefore

gone.

I'm going

to switch now to the environmental assessment office. Hopefully, we'll get this

done before supper break, and then we'll carry on after supper break.

The

service plan for the environ