2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Fort St. John medal winners

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Introductions by Members

Statements

Message of appreciation

Hawkins

Tributes

Mark Rose

Farnworth

Hon. C.

Richmond

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Housing Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 10)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Status of women

Trevena

Agriculture Safety Awareness Week

Roddick

B.C. amateur hockey tournaments

G. Coons

Sexual exploitation of children

and youth

I. Black

North Cariboo Community Campus

Simpson

Ethel Tibbits Awards in Richmond

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Government relationship with Ken

Dobell

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Karagianis

J. Kwan

Farnworth

Simpson

Chudnovsky

Macdonald

Simpson

Fleming

L. Krog

Petitions

D. MacKay

G. Coons

Second Reading of Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 8)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Trevena

C. Wyse

Hon. R.

Coleman

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Simpson

Second Reading of Bills

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 9)

Hon. P.

Bell

L. Krog

C. Wyse

Hon. P.

Bell

Local Government Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)

Hon. I.

Chong

C. Wyse

Thorne

Farnworth

Simpson

Sather

Gentner

J. Kwan

Ralston

Bennett

Hon. I.

Chong

Electoral Reform Referendum 2009

Act (Bill 6)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Committee of the Whole House

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)

Ralston

Hon. M.

de Jong

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation

Hon. K.

Falcon

Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small

Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform

Hon. R.

Thorpe

J. Brar

Robertson

Routley

[ Page 10339 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Today we are really thrilled to have

representatives from the government caucus members' constituency offices, the

constituency assistants who serve not only the members of this assembly but

British Columbians so well. We hope that all members will take advantage of this

opportunity to both welcome them and express our thanks for the tremendous work

they do.

Hon. G. Campbell: I just did want to say how much we

appreciate the work that all of our constituency assistants do across the

province, whether it's on the opposition side, I'm sure, or our side. They are

the true front-line workers for all government services in British Columbia, and

I want to say how much we all appreciate the work that they do on behalf of the

people of the province of British Columbia.

C. James: Today in the Legislature we have ESL teacher

Frances Embury with three of her students, who are touring the buildings.

Frances is tutoring three women who've come from South Korea with their

be returning to Korea to reunite with their families at the end of the school

term, and some of them are looking at perhaps coming back in September. So

please make welcome Frances Embury, Bu Ja Hwang, Mi Ran Yoo and Jeung Eun Jang.

[1335]

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to welcome back to the

legislative precinct the MLA for Kelowna-Mission. [Applause.]

D. Chudnovsky: It's wonderful to see in the gallery today

guests of mine who are here visiting, my brother-in-law Gavin Herman and

sister-in-law Shirley Herman. It's a wonderful treat to have them here visiting

us in B.C. They've been doing some travelling.

Together with them is a cousin and great friend, Brian Taylor, who

is visiting us from Birmingham in England. He is the most progressive minister

I've ever met and also one of the funniest. Accompanying them is my partner Ruth

Herman, who, as you all know, is the best political organizer in the known

universe. Would you welcome them all, please.

Tributes

FORT ST. JOHN MEDAL WINNERS

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm proud to say that this last weekend, a

Fort St. John native was winning international accolades. Denny Morrison

captured the gold medal at the world single distance speed skating championship.

Denny won the men's 1,500-metre event on Sunday in Nagano, Japan. On Saturday,

Denny also won a bronze medal in the 1,000-metre event.

Canada ended the competition with nine medals. It's great to see

our speed skating team is on the right track to own the podium at the 2010

Olympics right here in British Columbia. Could we please give Denny and the team

a round of applause.

Last Thursday I was also able to introduce two bands from my

school district in Fort St. John. They were competing at BandFest here in

Victoria by invitation. I want to also send congratulations to those youngsters

and individuals. Both of them won gold while they were here in Victoria.

I think that's just great for young people to come all the way

from Fort St. John down here, compete and go home with two gold medals. Would we

give them a round of applause too, please.

Introductions by Members

D. MacKay: Last night I was watching television, and I

couldn't help but notice some shots from back east in the province of Ontario,

where people were trying to move that heavy snow. Certainly, I can understand

why people would want to come out to British Columbia for a visit during this

time of the year.

I had lunch today with a couple of people I met a few years ago

from Lake Simcoe. Jim and Mary Roberts are in the precinct today, and I'd ask

the House to please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I have three guests in the legislative

precinct this afternoon: Karen Mooney, who has worked on my campaign since 1981,

her daughter Jennifer Collard and her husband John Collard. Would the House

please make them all welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the gallery today is a good

friend and a good supporter, Dennis Jackson from Prince George. Would the House

please make him very welcome.

B. Bennett: Did you know that it takes 12 hours to drive to

Cranbrook from Vancouver while it only takes eight hours to drive to Prince

George from Vancouver? There is a gentleman in the House here today, Jerry Sobe,

who is the program director for the restorative justice program in Cranbrook and

district, who drove all the way down here just so he could come in here today,

watch us in question period and see how democracy works. So please help me make

Jerry welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

S. Hawkins: If I may say, it's great to be back. If I can,

I just want to say thank you for your support, Mr. Speaker, and to everyone in

this chamber for the last….

[ Page 10340 ]

It's been almost five months. Time flies when you're having fun. I've really

appreciated all the thoughts, the prayers, the cards, the gifts.

[1340]

You know, oftentimes in this chamber there's a clashing, but when

someone is ill, the place comes together. I can't think of better friends and

family than people in these precincts. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier,

the Leader of the Opposition and all my colleagues. Thanks for all your support.

Tributes

MARK ROSE

M. Farnworth: It's my sad duty to inform the House of the

passing on Saturday of one of our most distinguished members in recent years.

That is Mark Rose, who was the MLA for Coquitlam-Moody from 1983 to 1991.

Mark was my predecessor. He was a great friend and a mentor to me

in politics. He was born on March 5 in Vancouver in 1924. He served as a

councillor — or at that time an alderman — in what was the district of Coquitlam

prior to running first in a federal election in 1965, but being successful in

the federal election of 1968 and serving as an MP for Fraser Valley West, which

at that time took in from Port Moody all the way up the valley out to Langley.

He served until 1975, when he lost in 1975. Then he returned in 1979 and served

federally until 1983, when he entered this House.

Mark established a reputation here as someone with a great sense

of humour and a very, very sharp wit. But he was a man who used it not to be

mean but to make a point in a good-natured way. That was very much, I think, the

hallmark by which he was known around these chambers.

Someone who respected the institution, he respected all members on

both sides of the House. He had a great, great sense of this place about him,

and he really was a remarkable individual. He was Opposition House Leader from

'86 to '91.

He had a tremendous musical talent, which served the opposition

extremely well during the annual press gallery skit. He composed a number of

skits for the press gallery, some of them quite remarkable and some of them

always remarkable — often modelled on some of his favourite operetta musicals,

usually around Gilbert and Sullivan. They were extremely well done. I know my

colleague from Kamloops knows all about them, as does the member from Comox, who

had the privilege of serving with him.

His musical career served him well in retirement in Vernon, where

he played in a band, I believe with the member from Kamloops as well — quite the

musicians, both of them.

He's survived by his wife Isabel and his daughters. I just want to

ask you, hon. Speaker, that we send condolences to his family, because his was a

rare talent and a rare presence that graced this chamber.

Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to add a few comments to what

the Opposition House Leader said. I had the pleasure of serving in this House

for several years with Mark, as did my colleague the Minister of Tourism, Sport

and the Arts.

I made a few comments about Mark on Thursday, but they were kind

comments, so I just want to add a couple of things. As the member for Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain said, he was Opposition House Leader for quite a while.

At the time, I was Government House Leader, so we had a lot to talk about every

day.

Naturally we didn't always agree on everything, because he was on

that side and I was on this side, but we always had the utmost respect for each

other. Mark was a gentleman and a man of his word. When he said something, you

could count on it.

He was an accomplished musician. Although I did little gigs around

here with Mark, we never managed to play in the same band together. He never

made an application to join the Kamloops Rube Band. I'm sure he would have been

qualified. I have no doubt about it.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Richmond: But he was a great guy, and I enjoyed him

very much. He became a good friend, and I will miss him very much.

[1345]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 10 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: Today I introduce Bill 10, which proposes

amendments to the Local Government Act, the Community Charter, the Vancouver

Charter, the Architects Act, and the Engineers and Geoscientists Act of British

Columbia.

The amendments in this bill will create safer building and a

greener building code by improving the way buildings and construction are

regulated. This bill allows local governments to enact bylaws to conserve energy

for persons with disabilities. It is the first step to a greener B.C. building

code, with much more to come in the weeks ahead.

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 10, Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed

[ Page 10341 ]

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) STATUS OF WOMEN

C. Trevena: Saturday was International Women's Day. There

were Women's Day celebrations throughout the weekend, but it should also perhaps

be a time to reflect for women. We've been celebrating this day for almost 100

years. We as women have come far, but I don't think far enough.

We are persons, although I think if you'd asked a woman 100 years

ago if she was a person, she would have told you she was. It just took the

courts some time to catch up. We have the vote, and there are 17 of us elected

women in this chamber. We go to university, and we get degrees, and we go to

work. In most households, both the man and the woman have to work. In the

majority of those households, it will be the woman who, on top of the largely

underpaid work, will still deal with the cooking, the cleaning and the child

care.

But it's not because of these slightly cynical sighs do I suggest

that Canadian women may want to pause in their celebration this year for

International Women's Day, at least for a couple of months, because pay equity

day doesn't actually fall until May 10. It's going to take until May 10 for

Canadian women to earn what Canadian men earned in 2007. Canadian women earned

64 percent of what men earned, so it takes 17 months to earn what a man earns in

12. That's just the average; 60 percent of women earn less than $25,000 a year.

When we talk about poverty, we are usually talking about women —

single moms trying to raise their kids on a couple of minimum-wage jobs,

struggling to pay the rent and get groceries on the table. So for many women,

we're still not even talking about equality. We are talking about simple

survival, keeping afloat in this consumerist society with the high cost of

living, while other families watch MVP: The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives

or the isn't-it-so-delightful teen-pregnancy movie Juno .

Maybe we haven't come as far as any of us had thought. Perhaps the

sisterhood of today should look back to the fighters of a century ago or maybe

even just 40 years ago, and pick up the pens and the placards and demand a full

and equal place for all women in all parts of society.

AGRICULTURE SAFETY AWARENESS WEEK

V. Roddick: Manage more than just your back. This is the

theme of the Agriculture Safety Awareness Week campaign that is being recognized

from March 12 to 18. During Agriculture Safety Awareness Week, we recognize

worker safety, health care, economic productivity, meeting regulatory

obligations and, most importantly, the moral obligation we have to preserve our

most important asset — our people.

[1350]

The goal of this year's campaign is to encourage farmers and

ranchers to think through their work and find ways to reduce risk. Our

government has made huge progress in the area of protecting farmworkers. The

Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association, FRSHA, now works directly with

farm labour contractors on safety education and through its field safety

coordinators. Many injuries can be prevented through proper design of work

environment, redesign of tools and appropriate worker training.

Once high-risk activities are recognized, steps can be taken to

prevent or control occurrence and severity of accidents in agriculture. This

includes working with major labour contractors to provide in-house training to

their workers and ensuring appropriate health and safety programs are in place.

I would thank all members of the House for joining me in

recognizing Agriculture Safety Awareness Week because, of course, we all have to

eat to live.

B.C. AMATEUR HOCKEY TOURNAMENTS

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about

some very exciting events coming up in a number of our communities. During

spring break the B.C. Amateur Hockey Association championships will swing into

action in 16 of our communities throughout the province, from peewee division to

juveniles, both males and females participating to show who can bring home the

bragging rights.

I approach this topic today as I finally reminisce about my

travels to many provincial championships in my past capacity as the northwest

coaching coordinator for B.C. Amateur Hockey. I do want to mention that Rupert

is the host for this year's girls bantam-A provincials, and I know that Rupert

will rock for five straight days as the eight girls teams pull into town. Three

local players, Sage Vanier, Tristen Repole and Kelcie German, will lace up for

the first time.

I remember back in 1982 when women's hockey was first officially

recognized in our province. It was the year of the infamous Vancouver Canuck

race for the title. The towels were waving throughout the province, and B.C.

Amateur Hockey finally, after six decades of encouragement, threw in the towel

and welcomed girls to the ranks. To their credit, they immediately took a

leadership role and promoted women's hockey at the next B.C. Winter Games.

I wish to acknowledge and thank the horde of organizers and

volunteers in all of the host communities from Cranbrook, Chase, Dawson Creek,

Nanaimo, Vernon, Kitimat, Summerland, Beaver Valley, Mackenzie, Vancouver,

Prince George, Victoria, Kamloops, Comox Valley and especially Prince Rupert for

making these tournaments happen.

Hockey is a lifelong activity that must ensure fun and positive

experiences are combined with the teachings of skill and technique. I encourage

everyone to

[ Page 10342 ]

head down to their host arena and take in a game or two. I wish all the

players the best of luck, along with a tidbit of advice: carry your stick low,

keep your head up and, most of all, have fun.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

I. Black: Sexual abuse can be broadly defined as the

exploitation of an individual through prostitution, pornography and the exchange

of drugs, alcohol, transportation or shelter. This, of course, has serious

adverse impacts on the victims, their families and our communities. The

unacceptable nature of this abuse, this exploitation, becomes dark and

viscerally repugnant when you contemplate the victim as being a child.

Our Lieutenant-Governor has agreed to the government's request to

proclaim March 10 to 16 as Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth

Awareness Week. The fuchsia-coloured ribbon that I'm wearing today symbolizes

the efforts in preventing the exploitation of children and youth, because it is

a combination of red, for red-light districts, and purple, the provincial colour

of violence prevention.

The week recognizes the importance of supporting communities to

develop prevention, education, enforcement and intervention strategies to

address the sexual exploitation of children and youth. A variety of school and

community-based events are being held throughout the province to support local

programs, raise awareness and provide networking opportunities for the outreach

and social workers who do this crucial work with an emotional fortitude that I

can't begin to comprehend.

This exploitation of kids is so wrong and so profoundly disturbing

at every level of humanity. Crushing it today and preventing it from recurring

in the future will only happen if communities, individuals, police and

government work together. We have to own this in our communities, teach our

youth and the adults who have youngsters in their charge the awareness and

self-defence against creating, encouraging or engaging in the circumstances and

behaviours that lead to the crime of abusing kids.

[1355]

I would like all members to join me in offering encouragement and

appreciation to all the organizations in B.C., including many in the Tri-Cities

like PLEA and Children of the Streets and the PoCoMo Youth Services Society, for

constantly reminding those of us in a position of authority and leadership of

the existence of this exploitation and for their tireless and cooperative energy

at making this reality become a thing of the past.

NORTH CARIBOO COMMUNITY CAMPUS

B. Simpson: I stand today to speak about the North Cariboo

Community Campus. That campus in the city of Quesnel is a beacon for

cooperation. It's a community effort, it's an institutional effort, and it is

also a political effort that over the years has transpired into a beautiful

campus. It sits overlooking the Quesnel River.

I first encountered this ten years ago when the current mayor was

then a city councillor and was selling $10 tickets on street corners for anybody

who wanted to get involved in a thing called the post-secondary council. Nobody

believed that it would come to fruition, but the NDP government of the day

actually set land aside. Then that was followed through by the current

government, who helped that campus to be built. As the Minister of Education and

the Minister of Advanced Education know, this group did not stop there. They

tactfully but persistently continued to lobby for what they call phase 2 of that

campus.

The phase 2 campus would give the community a trades and

technology centre and what they call a magnet centre for an agricultural focus

to attract people to the community. They're currently offering trades and

technology through one of our local high schools that has been closed. They have

132 people across six trade groups. We are now attracting people from out of

town into the community who, once they see how beautiful Quesnel is, decide that

they're going to relocate there.

So it's now become a relocation initiative as well as an economic

development initiative for us. The community advocated for the phase 2 at the

Finance Committee and in a recent visit with the Minister of Education. Kudos to

that group to continue the community effort, to not sit back on their laurels

once they got the first phase, and to continue to participate in the future of

our community and what we need to develop that community and diversify our

economy. I ask the House to join me today and say a heartfelt thanks to the

post-secondary advisory council in Quesnel.

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: On this Monday following International Women's Day,

I rise to recognize the hard work, dedication and community spirit of a group of

women from my community of Richmond.

Last Monday I was honoured to join 300 fellow Richmond citizens

and attend the 15th annual Ethel Tibbits women of distinction awards. Organized

by the staff at the Richmond Review, the awards are a formal way of

thanking those women who have excelled in a variety of ways around our

community.

The award is named in honour of the Richmond Review 's

pioneering editor, Ethel Tibbits, who took over the helm in 1934 and was not

afraid to speak her mind and stand up for the injustices that she saw going on

around her. Although she was outspoken on many issues, she'll be remembered most

for her series of editorials condemning the internment of Japanese Canadians

following the events at Pearl Harbor. She was a woman who spoke out when others

remained silent and was a true hero for many.

This year there were many great nominees, and the awards went to a

very deserving group indeed. Nikki Avendano won the youth award for

contributions to volunteering and youth leadership. Robert Alexander

[ Page 10343 ]

McMath Secondary School teacher Manninagh L'Abbe took home the community

award for her dedication to her students and encouraging student involvement in

the community. Stephanie Kennedy won the sports award for her continued

involvement both locally and provincially in the sport of cheerleading.

Lennie Tan won the award for excellence in arts for her use of

music therapy in the rehabilitation of people with both emotional and physical

needs. Elizabeth Specht, executive director of Volunteer Richmond, won the

business award for excellent management of the non-profit organization.

This year's fundraiser raised a record $20,000 for local

charities, including the women's safe haven Nova House, Richmond Hospital's

maternity ward and the Ethel Tibbits scholarship endowment fund. All in all, it

was an excellent event to honour those who dedicate themselves to continually

improving our community.

[1400]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP

WITH KEN DOBELL

C. James: Just a few moments ago British Columbians learned

that a special prosecutor approved a charge against one of the Premier's top

advisers, Ken Dobell. Terrence Robertson has recommended that Ken Dobell be

charged for violating the Lobbyists Registration Act. He also concluded that

there is a substantial likelihood of conviction for influence-peddling under the

Criminal Code.

My question is to the Premier. He knew Ken Dobell was lobbying. He

knew that Ken Dobell was wearing many hats and doing many projects. Why didn't

he do something to stop it?

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Dobell is scheduled to appear in court

in Vancouver on the 12th of March. In the circumstances, it would not be

appropriate to comment.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: This is about the Premier's behaviour. Last time

I checked, the Premier's behaviour wasn't in front of the courts.

It took the opposition raising questions of conflict of interest

and lobbying violations before we saw this government do anything, before we saw

absolutely any kind of investigation occur. The Premier sat back and watched his

top adviser break the rules. This goes to the heart of the Premier's integrity

and the integrity in his office.

So my question is to the Premier. How can British Columbians have

any trust in the ethics of the Premier's office when a special prosecutor has

said there is substantial likelihood of influence-peddling, and the Premier did

nothing about it?

Hon. W. Oppal: The special prosecutor has also said that it

would not be appropriate to comment on the circumstances of the case at this

time.

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

supplemental.

C. James: You know, once again, we see the government doing

what they always do, which is trying to hide behind being able to answer any

questions.

This is not about the case. This is about the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: This is about the Premier's integrity. This is

about the integrity of the Premier's office.

The Premier had his deputy, Jessica McDonald, investigate the

charges of conflict and lobbying. And what did she come back and say? She came

back and said that Ken Dobell was acting with the utmost integrity and that

everything was fine. Clearly, she was wrong.

The entire investigation was a whitewash. The special prosecutor

has concluded that Ken Dobell could be convicted of influence-peddling.

Again, my question to the Premier: these illegal activities took

place in his office with his knowledge, so how can British Columbians trust a

Premier when he allowed these illegal activities to go on under his watch?

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Dobell is scheduled to make his first

appearance in Vancouver Provincial Court on the morning of March 12, 2008. As

this matter is before the court, it would not be appropriate to comment on the

circumstances of the case at this time.

In the meantime I would recommend to members of the opposition to

read the report of the special prosecutor.

M. Karagianis: I have a matter that is not before the

courts. In early January it was revealed that Mr. Ken Dobell has expanded his

business and is now lobbying on behalf of Cubic Transportation Systems.

In light of the report of the special prosecutor, will the

government commit today to suspending all meetings and activities with Mr.

Dobell, including those activities that involve lobbying public government

agencies such as TransLink?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know what part of my previous answer

the opposition doesn't understand, but the matter is before the court. A judge

will hear the case. A judge will make the appropriate finding.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1405]

M. Karagianis: This has nothing to do with the courts or

any appearance before the courts.

[ Page 10344 ]

I am asking the government if they will commit today to cease all

future meetings and activities regarding Mr. Ken Dobell, his lobbying efforts to

this government and, specifically and especially, to TransLink on behalf of

Cubic Transportation Systems. Very simple question. Will they please commit to

discontinue all future meetings and activities with Mr. Dobell until this matter

is resolved?

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, these are not my words. These

are the words of the criminal justice branch and the special prosecutor who was

assigned in the case.

It is not appropriate to comment on any of these matters that are

before the court. The opposition member can word the question any way she wants,

but the fact is she's asking us to comment on matters, directly or indirectly,

that are still before the court.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. Jessica McDonald was asked by the

Premier to investigate the conflict-of-interest allegations related to Ken

Dobell. She cleared Ken Dobell of conflict of interest not once but twice.

My question is to the Premier. How could it be that his top person

cleared Ken Dobell of conflict of interest when the Crown prosecutor is now

making charges against him? Why did the Premier stand by and let Jessica

McDonald clear Ken Dobell of conflict of interest in his office?

Hon. W. Oppal: Why don't we wait for the matter to come to

court? Why don't we just wait for the matter to come to court…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Of course, it's easier to speculate in this

assembly, isn't it? Let's stop playing cheap politics with this. This matter….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: This matter is before the Provincial Court

of British Columbia. There's a very good reason why we have a sub judice rule,

so as to have a separation of power and to respect those separations of powers

that we have. We don't comment on matters that are before the court. There will

be lots of time afterwards to comment on these cases.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier

tell this House and British Columbians what other involvements is Ken Dobell

involved in with this government, and will he actually set aside all Ken

Dobell's responsibilities until the court date?

Hon. W. Oppal: The matter is before the Provincial Court.

It is not appropriate to comment on the circumstances of the case at the time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Farnworth: To the Attorney General. If a minister of the

Crown was facing charges recommended by a special prosecutor, we would hope the

Premier would ask that they stand aside. So my question to the Attorney General

is: why does he not think it's appropriate, then, that Mr. Dobell — a senior

political aide, a former senior political aide of this Premier — step aside from

any lobbying activity, any meetings with the provincial government, any meetings

with any publicly funded agency until this matter is cleared up?

Hon. W. Oppal: As a former member of the executive of

government, that member should know better than to ask that question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental. Proceed.

[1410]

M. Farnworth: Well, if the Attorney General doesn't get the

appearance of someone facing charges continuing to lobby public agencies,

perhaps the Premier of British Columbia might get it. Until this matter has been

cleared up before the courts, will the Premier tell this House that it is

unacceptable for Mr. Dobell to lobby in any way, shape or form any member of

this government, any publicly funded agency until this issue has been dealt with

by the courts of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, it's apparent to me that the hon.

member has not read the report of the special prosecutor and the statement of

the criminal justice branch, which is issued independent of our office. Mr.

Dobell is scheduled to make his first appearance at the Vancouver Provincial

Court on the morning of March 12, 2008. As this matter is before the court, it

would not be appropriate to comment on the circumstances of the case at this

time.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: it's four times we've asked

this question.

S. Simpson: I realize the question has been asked a number

of times. Unfortunately, the government has refused to answer the question.

My question is to the Premier. It's very clear Mr. Dobell is now

before the courts. The special prosecutor has said that there's more than enough

evidence to pursue a conviction. Will the Premier commit to this House today

that he will sever all relationships

[ Page 10345 ]

between this government and Mr. Dobell until this matter is settled by the

courts?

Hon. W. Oppal: You see, the difficulty with that question

is that whatever takes place in a courtroom is inseparable from what that member

has asked. We don't know what the court is going to say. We don't know what the

court's ultimate disposition will be. In those circumstances, it is improper for

us to comment as to what the court may or may not do. We are not free to

speculate as to what a court will do. It's inappropriate to comment. I don't

know what part of that the opposition members don't understand.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I would assume that any minister over there or

senior deputy or senior official in this government that was facing the

circumstances that Mr. Dobell faces today — facing charges in front of the court

for influence-peddling — would be stepping aside their position until this

matter was settled.

Why is there a double standard for Mr. Dobell, and will the

Premier stand up and say that there is no double standard and that he and his

government will not deal with Mr. Dobell until this matter is settled in the

courts?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would assume that the member can read the

report of the special prosecutor, who is independent of government. If the

member read the report, he would understand why the recommendation is made by

the criminal justice branch not to comment any further on the matter.

D. Chudnovsky: The Premier is in charge. The buck stops

there, in that seat. We ask the Premier to stand today in this House and say

that the relationship with Mr. Dobell will be ended today until this is cleared

up. Will the Premier answer the House?

[1415]

Hon. W. Oppal: Actually, the buck stops in the courtroom.

There's a difference between a courtroom and this body here, and the opposition

members should know that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: The courtrooms try trials. The government is

here in this room, and that man is in charge of the government. It's his

responsibility to answer to this House. We ask him to answer to this House. Will

the government take the action it can take? Will the Premier take the action he

can take and sever the relationship with Mr. Dobell?

Hon. W. Oppal: We….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: We believe in the rule of law. We think it's

appropriate.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: I notice that they laugh at that, when we

talk about the rule of law. Obviously, they don't believe in the rule of law.

The rule of law dictates that we wait for the judge to make his or

her decision before any further action is taken. At this stage….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge

wants to say something, so I'll sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: What we're talking about here is the

appearance that this creates. The Premier has to answer this question. Does he

think that it's okay for Ken Dobell to continue in his role with this hanging

over the government's head? Is that in any way appropriate?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, what we think about a particular

set of circumstances and how we speculate on what may or may not take place in a

courtroom is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we adhere to the principle of

the rule of law. The rule of law under which we live is far too important to be

compromised by political opportunism, which is taking place right now in this

House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: This has everything to do with public

confidence. Will the Premier sever all relationships with Ken Dobell

immediately?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wonder if it ever occurred to the members

opposite that, at this stage, Mr. Dobell is innocent. He is presumed to be

innocent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: That's a fundamental principle in our

criminal law. You should understand that. We're hearing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Attorney, continue.

[ Page 10346 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: We are all sworn to uphold the law. Under

our law, every person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved.

The Crown has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That hasn't been done.

The fact that something may or may not happen to Ken Dobell down

the road is completely irrelevant, and it's totally improper for anyone in this

House, let alone lawmakers, to be talking about this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're just going to wait for some silence.

[1420]

B. Simpson: The Attorney General keeps speaking about the

rule of law. He keeps asking if this side has actually read the briefing and the

backgrounders on this, and the answer is yes. That's why we're in the House

asking questions of ethical conduct and ethical standards that ought to apply to

anyone who gets government money, particularly anyone who gets government money

from the Premier's office, and who has stated publicly that he did not do the

right thing in this case, that he did do something that was wrong — that there

is going to be an investigation for further wrongdoing.

This is a matter of ethical standards of the Premier's office.

Again to the Premier: will the Premier ask Mr. Dobell to step aside? Will he

sever all relationships with Mr. Dobell until this matter is cleared up once and

for all?

Hon. W. Oppal: I assume, if the member opposite has read

the report as he says he has, that he's ignoring the last two lines of the

report. I'll read them again: "Mr. Dobell is scheduled to make his first

appearance in Vancouver Provincial Court on the morning of March 12, 2008. As

this matter is before the court, it would not be appropriate to comment on the

circumstances of the case at this time." I don't know what part of that the

members opposite don't understand.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, the reason that there's persistent

comment, the reason that there'll be a persistent buzz in the public and the

reason that we'll keep asking the questions is because right now there's a

question of the ethical conduct in the Premier's office for continuing a

relationship with Mr. Dobell.

We're not commenting on what will happen in the courtroom. We're

not commenting on anything. We're commenting on the fact that Mr. Dobell has

already indicated that he did not follow the laws in the lobbyists registry.

He's already indicated that he has done wrong.

For highest ethical standards, the Premier should do the single

most important thing today: stand up and sever the relationship. Then we can get

into the court system with the highest ethical standard.

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me see if I've got this right. The

Premier should step in now and impose some kind of penalty on something that's

not yet before the courts. Never mind about the presumption of innocence. Never

mind….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Attorney hasn't finished.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Never mind that it's the Provincial Court

judge who has the ultimate authority to decide what to do with Mr. Dobell. But

you know, according to that member opposite, the Premier should step in right

now and circumvent whatever the judge is going to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Attorney.

Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: That round of applause and the approval of

that question indicate to me how much respect they have for the presumption of

innocence and the rule of law.

R. Fleming: We know that Mr. Dobell is before the courts.

We don't need to hear that over and over again from the Attorney General. What

we're asking about today….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member. Just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

[1425]

R. Fleming: What we're asking about today is why Mr. Dobell

continues to make money from lobbying this government, the government that he is

so closely tied to.

Attorney General, I'm not asking you to comment on the serious

charges before the courts. We're asking the Premier — and this is a question for

him — to show good judgment and leadership and sever the relationship today,

once and for all, with Mr. Dobell until this matter is cleared before the

courts.

Hon. W. Oppal: So let's see if we've got this right. We're

not going to prejudge this case. We believe in the rule of law, but the Premier

should do this and he should do that, and let's ignore the court proceedings for

the time being.

[ Page 10347 ]

Never mind the rule of law. Never mind the presumption of

innocence. Never mind the fact that it's the judge who ultimately will decide

what's going to happen to Mr. Dobell and what won't happen to Mr. Dobell. Let's

prejudge all of it and do it in here.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: There is ample precedent in this Legislative

Assembly of ministers…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …stepping aside while they're before the courts

facing charges similar to what is occurring today. Conflict is about actual and

perceived conflict. Until the prosecution is complete regarding these serious

charges about ethics and lobbying, he shouldn't be working. That's the point the

opposition is trying to make.

Again, to the Attorney General….

Interjections.

R. Fleming: He shouldn't be working with this government.

Again, the question is to the Attorney General. Will he take…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …the precedented steps that have been done by

ministers and deputy ministers before and order and sever ties between this

government and their highest-paid adviser, who has ties to this government?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, in the 1990s Stephen Owen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat. Sit down.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: In the 1990s Stephen Owen conducted an

inquiry, and he gave advice to the government of the day. The government of the

day, to its credit, passed a Crown Counsel Act. What it did was place the

prosecution of cases outside the political realm, wherein the criminal justice

branch is responsible for the prosecution of cases.

But in certain circumstances where there may be a perception of

bias, there's a provision for the appointment of a special prosecutor so as to

take it all out of the political realm. That's what's happened in this case. The

special prosecutor has given us, through the criminal justice branch, certain

advice, and we plan to adhere to it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: What the Attorney General doesn't seem to

understand is that the special prosecutor has stated in his

summary very clearly

that Mr. Dobell is willing to waive the Offence Act limitation period and enter

a plea of guilty for failing to register as a lobbyist under the Lobbyists

Registration Act. The question is the sentencing.

The real question is the integrity of government, the integrity of

the Premier's office. Mr. Dobell was his special appointee. If Mr. Dobell was a

police officer being charged, he'd be suspended with pay right now.

All the opposition is asking of this Premier is that he

demonstrate some leadership here today in this House and tell this House that

Mr. Dobell's activities are suspended.

[1430]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I must say that I'm somewhat

disappointed by the question from that member, because I expected better. He was

here in the '90s when the Crown Counsel Act was passed. He understands why the

Crown Counsel Act was passed. He understands why we have special prosecutors. He

understands fully why, if we're going to follow the rule of law, we take

politics out of it. He fully understands all of that. So I'll resile to the

previous answer I gave, and that is that we're not commenting upon this case

until it's fully finalized in a courtroom.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. MacKay: I have a petition here on behalf of 2,100 people

in the Bulkley Valley who are concerned about people having to sell their homes,

leave their friends and move to a centre where they can receive a

life-sustaining treatment. They are asking the health care partners in Bulkley

Valley to take the necessary steps to bring in a dialysis machine for the

Bulkley Valley District Hospital.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Coons: It's hard to hear in here. Two petitions to

present, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

G. Coons: A petition from 260 people in the Prince Rupert

area wanting to pass legislation banning the sale of poisonous antifreeze and

another petition from 388 residents of Galiano Island who would like to place

[ Page 10348 ]

a moratorium on ferry fares until a legislative committee is in place.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of

Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the

Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. In this chamber I call second reading of

Bill 8, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Coleman: I move Bill 8 be read a second time now.

Bill 8 makes important amendments to three statutes: the Wildfire

Act, the Forest Act, and the Forests and Range Practices Act.

Amendments to the Wildfire Act. Under this bill, communities are

asked to ensure the highest standards for fire protection apply to areas they

regulate. It asks them to ensure that a strong, local bylaw or wildfire act will

apply in these areas. It clarifies obligations for forest operators or other

individuals conducting activities in local government boundaries, so that if

there's a forest fire, people will know who to contact for firefighting services

— the local government or the province — and how it will be coordinated.

This is important where local government boundaries include large

areas of forest but they do not have the capacity to respond to fires in all

parts of their district. With these changes, wildfires may be quickly actioned

by the appropriate authority.

This act also responds to the needs of first nations who wish to

practise their rights to harvest timber for domestic use, such as building their

own homes. The right to harvest timber for domestic purposes has been upheld by

the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sappier decision. We're expanding the free

use permit process to include domestic use by first nations and to increase the

amount of timber that can be harvested.

It also streamlines administration. It supports the coast forest

action plan by reducing red tape, meaning industry is more competitive. It

streamlines the marking of timber transported by water. It no longer needs to

have forest workers hammer timber marks in every stick of boom, where it is

dangerous to do so. It simplifies the operations and addresses worker safety at

the same time.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

On the B.C. Timber Sales side, it allows for greater flexibility

to pursue new opportunities for B.C. Timber Sales. For example, it would enable

B.C. Timber Sales to develop a business relationship with a first nation or

group to bring more wood to market. With more flexible financial controls, BCTS

could develop a collaborative timber sale licence and be paid for expenses and

help the first nation in order to build its capacity.

It supports a new relationship with first nations, allows more

timber to market and actually deals with an issue that is near and dear to both

first nations and licensees — each other.

There are some other administrative amendments which ensure that

forest licensees consistently report all cost information to the government in a

timely manner. That data is necessary to support the market pricing system,

which is important to our relationship with the United States under softwood and

also to identify what the price of the value of the commodity should be to

government.

[1435]

The Forest and Range Practices Act, which is going to be updated,

is related to the rules around the forest stewardship plans and their approval,

review and replacement. Amendments increase the opportunity for the public to

review and give input and a requirement for government approval.

Amendments also strengthen sustainable forest management by

ensuring all significant harvest of timber affected by fire, pest or disease is

governed by a forest stewardship plan. This ensures harvest reflects government

objectives for the conservation of forest and range values. At the same time,

salvage harvest for forest health purposes can be conducted promptly.

The bill continues the work of this government in ensuring the

sound management of forest resources and the forest sector in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: As usual, amendment acts are…. It's very

difficult to determine what the true purpose is without an awful lot of work and

some debate in the House, so my comments with respect to this act are

perfunctory. I will be looking at various details in the act as we go through

it. But the act does give us an opportunity to say what is not being addressed

in here.

As the minister starts out, he talks about the Wildfire Act and

the changes with respect to bylaws for local government. What local governments

really need are more resources to address the fuel that is building up all

around their communities. What they need is more assistance from the government

to complete their wildfire plans but then, once they're completed, to actually

get the resources that they need to be able to reduce the fuel loading on their

land base.

The minister could come back and say: "Well, they're giving

community forests out. They're giving all kinds of things out to try and help

that happen." But the issue here has been raised by the community of Logan Lake,

through the UBCM — that there are fundamental issues of liability. There are

fundamental issues concerning who bears the brunt of the costs.

As an example, if a municipality is the owner of a wildfire plan

and has made that wildfire plan for their interface, then they're required to

expend municipal tax dollars to extend outside their borders into Crown land and

other land, because that's the requirement that necessitates getting the

funding. You have to have

[ Page 10349 ]

some of your own money on the table. There's a funding formula.

The municipalities are saying: why should they take tax dollars

from the municipal property tax base to do work outside of the municipal

boundaries? That's not an appropriate use of municipal tax dollars. That issue

is not addressed in this bill. It's not a fix that has been given, and there are

no resources for the communities to address that. The issue of liability is

there, and it's something that we're going to have to canvass in the debate.

I need to understand, from the minister's perspective and his

staff when we get into third reading on this, if this is a transfer of liability

to municipalities and to local governments by the fact that they have to have a

bylaw. As the minister indicates, it gives them the ability to do first

response. They don't have to wait for ministry. But as the industry has pointed

out to the minister on many occasions, the Wildfire Act is

an act to pass

liability downward and away from government.

I can tell you that I have had local governments approach me and

ask me whether or not that's what this is doing. It's making that liability not

just pass to the licensees and to the people who are doing the work on the land

base. Are we now passing liability for wildfire and all of the consequences of a

wildfire onto local government and municipalities?

Rather than fixing the problem that was raised through the UBCM's

first interface fire report, we're actually, potentially exacerbating it. Again,

that will be something that we will canvass during the debate to make sure that

is clearly understood, not by just the members of this House but by the local

governments that need that clarification.

One aspect of this bill, as the minister points out, is in

response to a court finding with respect to first nations having access to the

forests surrounding them for their own use. It's the free use permits on the

land base, independent of things like forest and range agreements.

[1440]

What this bill does not address — and the minister well knows, as

does his staff, as does the staff in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and

various other land use ministries — is that first nations have a fundamental

problem with the structure of forest and range agreements and forest and range

opportunities. They don't like them. They take them because there's cash upfront

and, in many cases, it's the only way they get access to the land base. But they

don't like them. They have been asking this government to fundamentally change

them since they first put them in place.

The Nadleh First Nation has worked with the ministry and the

minister's staff for a long time now and cannot get an answer as to how they get

an economic access to their land base that will work for them and make them

viable. They can't get answers from the government. They want fundamental change

to forest range agreements and forest range opportunities. The free use permit

is nice. It's a nice addition; it's a nice correction. It does not address what

their issues are.

In fact, there was a report out recently. I know the minister

likes to wax eloquent about all the numbers of forest and range agreements and

all the volume that's out there, but a report entitled Aboriginal Forestry

Enterprise Roadmap that was published last week makes the following

comments: "It is true that a few first nations have achieved modest success in

forestry in B.C., but this is not the case for the vast majority. The job

creation record of first nations is about 3 percent of the industry standard."

Here are the actual numbers. Of the 70,000 people employed in

B.C., only 934 jobs from first nations communities. Instead of getting an

industry average of a thousand jobs for every cubic metre, the first nations

only get 34.7 jobs. That's what needs to be addressed, and it's not addressed in

here.

Again, the report states: "Cash received from government was

inadequate to the real costs of developing their forest and range tenures." That

is a significant issue for forest range agreements, where the upfront cash —

which the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled was not a constitutional

formula-based approach to giving that cash out in the first place — is simply

not sufficient for the first nations to build the capacity they need to maximize

even the small volumes of tenure that they're given.

So the tenure size is a problem. The cash upfront is a problem.

And, as the minister well knows, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has pointed out

time and time again that these call into question judicial and constitutional

arguments. They bring that to the fore once again, because the first nations do

not believe that these agreements are either constitutional or judicially fair

to them based on findings.

Bill 8 doesn't do that; it doesn't address that. That's an

immediate need of the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs has asked and, in fact, has

roasted a few ministers as a result of that. It's not addressed in this bill. So

while free use permits are a nice thing to have, the real issue is not

addressed.

Let's talk about the streamlining of timber marking. I was trying

to figure out — because the press release is a bit disconnected from the bill —

where the bill does actually address the coast recovery plan. I'm thankful the

minister's pointing that out. It's in the streamlining of marking of timber.

Now, I get that there are safety considerations with marking

timber on the water, but one of the things that we will be canvassing here is

the full range of streamlining for marking timber. If you read the compliance

and enforcement annual reports, you'll find that one of the biggest problems

that they have is improperly or not-marked timber. So in streamlining, in order

to achieve one goal, we may be exacerbating a problem that exists already. We

may be making that problem worse.

In particular, when we look at some of the issues around the MPS

system — the market pricing system — the timely data collection, driving

stumpage prices, etc., unmarked, poorly marked, improperly marked timber is a

significant problem, particularly on the coast, but it's a problem also in the

interior. Streamlining that further could actually exacerbate that situation,

[ Page 10350 ]

all in the name of somehow giving efficiencies to the companies.

We should remember who the companies are on the coast now. Most of

the companies on the coast now have collapsed down to being log exporters and

land developers, save one major company. As a consequence, their manipulating

the system to their benefit under the guise of efficiencies has great benefit to

their shareholders, but I'm not sure that it necessarily benefits British

Columbians.

[1445]

We have significant problems with how we address the stumpage

system just now. That flared up, and it goes to the whole market pricing system

and timely data collection. I find that almost laughable, given what has been

revealed over the last little while and what I've been aware of since last fall.

That is the fact that in the interior we are kiln-drying whole logs in order to

drive us to 25-cent stumpage.

You have this market pricing system, but the minister, through his

staff, has allowed two companies and two companies only to go from what was

supposed to be a pilot project to fix a grading-rule problem into actually

booking kiln-dried logs and therefore driving the stumpage prices down as just

part of how they do business. Tolko did not get that opportunity. Others did not

get the opportunity to do that.

Interjection.

B. Simpson: I see that I've got a reaction from the

minister. I look forward to his response to it, but I think I have the floor.

As a consequence to that ad hoc approach, there's got to be a

question there about how the timely data collection influences true pricing

relative to some of the commitments that this minister has made in an ad hoc

fashion all around the province. "We're going to change the point of appraisal."

"We're going to have B.C. Timber Sales put out a big volume," as the Minister of

Agriculture somehow managed to do up in Mackenzie area. All of that impacts the

market pricing system at a much higher level than timely data collection. I look

forward to that discussion.

With respect to B.C. Timber Sales. B.C. Timber Sales' problems go

much deeper than the relationship with first nations. B.C. Timber Sales is

struggling, as an entity, to meet its stated objectives. It's struggling, as an

entity, because on the one hand — and we've canvassed this in estimates debate —

it's supposed to maximize revenue to the Crown. It's supposed to do it at the

least cost possible, and yet at the same time, somehow it's supposed to set the

market pricing system. The connection between B.C. Timber Sales and its role in

the marketplace and the market pricing system needs to be canvassed. Again,

timely data collection for the market pricing system just simply doesn't address

the real issues that are out on the land base.

I mostly want to concentrate on the forest stewardship plan aspect

of this and the minister's claim and the claim in the press release that this

bill is going to actually improve public review and the government approval

process for forest stewardship plans. I dispute that claim. I don't believe it

does that at all. What it does is guarantee automatic approval of these forest

stewardship plans so that we turn them from five-year plans into ten-year plans.

Now, these forest stewardship plans have a sordid history. These

are part of the so-called results-based codes under the Forest and Range

Practices Act. They have been a problem from the start. We had to canvass those

problems in here in question period.

We had a report from the Forest Practices Board that pointed out

that these forest stewardship plans were becoming legal documents that had very

little to do with stewardship on the land base and that these plans have

objectives in them that are the minimum objectives required by government but

don't give anybody — the public or even the Ministry of Forests — any inkling of

what the actual results were beyond the land base.

We have examples, around this province, of forest stewardship

plans for vast tracts of British Columbia that are collapsed down into one very

tiny document, a few pages that simply say, "We will meet the minimum legal

objectives that the Crown requires for us," and in a language such that the

public does not understand what is being said.

In the case of the Cariboo land use plan, there was huge backlash

by the people who were involved in that, because they kept saying they did not

believe that, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, the objectives that were

so hard-fought and won at the core process table were going to be protected

under these plans. And they still don't believe that.

[1450]

In fact, Ministry of Forests staff said, in a presentation up in

the Clayoquot Sound that they did to the folks who are managing that land use

plan going forward, that they could not guarantee the protection of the

objectives in the Clayoquot Sound land use plan. We've had a more specific

example recently, a Forest Practices Board investigation into a forest

stewardship plan that was done on the Stillwater and the Sunshine Coast.

They agree that this was done in November of last year. They agree

that these plans have a difficult format, that it's difficult for the public to

interpret and provide meaningful comment on forest stewardship plans. They

state, in this case, that this one particular plan covered all of the licensee's

coastal operations, including Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands and

the mainland — one plan.

Now, can you imagine the watershed component of that plan, in

which they put one objective for watershed management, and that is that the sum

total of activities in the watershed will not exceed what a municipal water

system could accommodate, as long as it doesn't unduly restrict the flow of

timber from the province of British Columbia?

Imagine how many watersheds there are in the Queen Charlotte

Islands, on Vancouver Island, on the coast — how many community watersheds, let

alone

[ Page 10351 ]

other watersheds that don't feed communities but that feed our fish stocks,

that feed our ocean systems. All of those, covered under one statement in this

one plan.

There is a fundamental problem with forest stewardship plans. The

public does not like them. The Forest Practices Board has made it known that

they don't like them. In the case of this Stillwater plan, they actually call

into question whether or not the objectives that were so hard-fought and

negotiated in the Stillwater pilot project were actually carried into the forest

stewardship plan. They're very concerned about that.

So what do we get? We get in this bill that the minister must roll

these plans over for five more years if minimum criteria are met. That is not

what the public wants. What the public wants is for these plans to be opened up

less legalese. They want them written by foresters, not lawyers. They want them

to be understood by the public so that the public knows what's happening on the

land base. And they want to go back to notification. When a licensee or a tenure

holder is going to operate in their area, they get notification, and they get

the ability to put public comment into that.

Does that do this in this bill? Not on your life. It rolls these

bad plans, these ill-formed legalese documents, over automatically for another

five years. The minister must do that, provided minimum criteria are met.

Well, what's at risk? Again, the Forest Practices Board put out a

special investigation in January of this year, called High Retention

Harvesting and Timber Sustainability on the British Columbia Coast . They

open up their comments with a very interesting statement from a forester by the

name of Hamish Kimmons.

He stated: "Timber mining is not necessarily an inappropriate

management goal. However, its danger for the forestry profession is not inherent

in the practice itself, but only when it occurs consciously or unconsciously

under the guise of sustained yield. To do so further diminishes the credibility

of foresters in the eyes of the public and the scientific community."

The Forest Practices Board pointed out that, in the number of

cutblocks they investigated, we were mining the prime timber from those

cutblocks, to the long-term detriment of those forests to even have economic

value, let alone all of the other values that are there. We were actually mining

them so that we took away future economic value.

I'll say it in this House, and I've said it publicly: we are

mining our forests with impunity today. We are mining our forests in the

interior. We are mining our forests on the coast. We are mining private lands on

the coast that this government released so that that could happen with impunity.

That has to stop. This Forest Range Practices Act actually allows

that to happen because the government has allowed such wiggle room and legalese

in those plans that a due diligence defence applies. There are no standards that

they can be held accountable to other than minimum legal objectives, which are

prescribed and constrained by "unduly clauses" and as long as is practicable or

wherever practicable.

[1455]

So we vehemently oppose any movement on the part of the government

to take these forest stewardship plans and roll them over for another five years

without massive public consultation and a massive reworking of these plans so

that the public can understand what it is that's going to happen on their land

base, so that they can give meaningful comment to what is going to happen on

their land base and so that they get due notification on a consistent basis

whenever a licensee or a tenure holder is going to come in and operate in their

watershed, their backyard or their viewscape. That has to happen, and it's not

in this bill.

There's another aspect of this bill that I will be canvassing

during debate and that the minister didn't point out. And that is that there's

an amendment for being able to retroactively apply — to an approved forest

stewardship plan — a downgraded standard for stocking and for silviculture.

Again, I'll canvass this with the minister. My concern right now,

particularly in the mountain pine beetle area, is that we are accruing a massive

silviculture liability. The companies have that silviculture liability on their

books, and they're carrying it forward. It's in the tens of millions of dollars

and could accrue, according to the minister's own documentation in the Mountain

Pine Beetle Task Force document…. It could amount to a billion dollars in

accrued liability in the mountain pine beetle area alone.

That liability is driven by the standards for what we expect we

regrow our forests to today. Those standards are high standards. A licensee that

goes and cuts has to put the forest back and get it to what's called a

free-growing state. The number of stems per hectare, the girth of those stems

and the health of those stems are all part of that.

In this bill there's an inclusion of clauses that will allow those

standards to be downgraded, even if a forest stewardship plan has expired. You

can retroactively go back and downgrade those standards in a forest stewardship

plan.

forest stewardship plan approved and get my right to cut approved on the basis

of established high standards for silviculture and regrowth of that forest in my

plan. If something happens a little bit later on…. I've already cut the trees.

I've already got my economic value off the trees. But if something happens later

on and I cannot meet those standards, I can come to this government, and I can

say: "Hmm. Can't meet those standards."

I can get the Council of Forest Industries to go and lobby the

government that we all can't meet the standards, because climate change is

making it very difficult for us to get plantations to come back. It's becoming

cost-prohibitive for us to keep going in and trying to get those plantations. So

I can go to the minister, and I can say: "Look, I want those standards

downgraded, and we'll put the downgraded standards into

[ Page 10352 ]

the plan that I was approved for." That's what this bill indicates. That's

what we'll be canvassing when we get into the debate on this bill.

This bill doesn't do what people need done on our land base. It

doesn't restore confidence to the public by fundamentally changing these forest

stewardship plans. That's what the public wants. It's not what the minister is

doing.

It doesn't give first nations the ability to get access to the

land base in a meaningful way through a fundamental change to the forest and

range agreements and the forest and range opportunities.

It doesn't address the issues that communities want for more

resources for wildfire protection, for clarification of liability and for

clarification of who's obligated for land outside the municipal boundary. It

doesn't do that.

I have questions with a government of the day, a sympathetic

administration of the worst possible kind when it comes to the forest industry

and the land base, streamlining further all of the regulations with respect to

timber marking. That should scare British Columbians, and we will be canvassing

that further.

I look forward to the debate on a clause-by-clause…. Well, I don't

really. It will be an interesting debate on a clause-by-clause basis. I will be

bringing these questions and concerns into that, and I will concede the floor to

the member for North Island.

Hon. B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1500]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: It's an honour for me to introduce a club

which I joined about 13 years ago. I think it was in the spring of 1995 that I

became a member of the Chilliwack Rotary Club.

Today we're honoured to have their presence here. There's a large

contingent seated in the gallery. I understand that they're here to find out why

my attendance has dipped over the last 12 years or so since I got elected to

come to this place.

Hon. K. Krueger: Thanks for putting up with him.

Hon. B. Penner: Actually, it's these guys that have to put

up with me now. This fact-finding tour is led by none other than their

president, Barrie McMaster, who cut his teeth here as a reporter covering the

machinations of the W.A.C. Bennett government when he then worked for the

predecessor radio station that today we call CKNW.

He's joined in this fact-finding tour by my former vice-principal

Bob Hagkull, who I think is still trying to find out where I went when I was

missing from some of those school classes in Sardis Secondary School back in the

early 1980s.

I ask that you please wish this group well on their fact-finding

tour here in Victoria.

Debate Continued

C. Trevena: I'll keep my remarks short on this. I just

wanted to raise a few concerns that I have with Bill 8, the Forests and Range

Statutes Amendment Act. Firstly, the issue of how it's dealing with first

nations and the first nations forests and range act. I have a number of first

nations in my constituency, a number of whom have forest and range agreements.

What I hear from many of them is the fact that although they have the forest and

range agreements, they really don't get much benefit out of them.

I'm looking forward to hearing the discussion as we get to

committee stage, because what I see in this act is that it doesn't help those

first nations who have these forest and range agreements to really benefit from

them. There is always a concern of having the forest and range agreement when a

first nation is discussing treaty anyway and what the implications of the

agreement will have for their treaty, but there is always the hope that it will

help the economic viability of the first nation. Many first nations enter these

agreements thinking that there's going to be something that's going to really

benefit their people, that there is a way they can access their resource, get

the land and actually use it.

What is very sad and what I've seen throughout my constituency is

that on the whole, first nations aren't in a position to benefit from these

agreements and aren't in a position to benefit themselves from the access to the

land. It ends up that if they are having access to the timber to harvest it,

they tend to contract out. They haven't got the skills to develop this

themselves. They haven't got the skills to go into the skilled side of the

logging industry. They haven't got the money or the resources to truly invest in

what a proper logging operation means in what are often very, very small areas

of land.

My colleague from Cariboo North quoted some very sad statistics

that we have with this.

Whereas usually there are a thousand jobs per cubic

metre, among first nations there are only 34.7 jobs. I think that's very

telling. I think that's one of the very troubling things with both the forest

and range agreements and the fact that it appears that this bill will not

address those concerns.

We do need to make sure that first nations can have full access to

their land and to their traditional territories, which will obviously come

through treaty. But we also need to make sure that people have the capacity so

that if they have access to the land, whether it is through a forest and range

agreement, they actually do have the ability and the resource and the capacity

to best use that.

At the moment they don't have that, and there is nothing in this

that will give them that support. There's a lot of support that is needed.

There's a lot of willingness to learn, but there is a huge capacity deficit,

really.

There are one or two people who are skilled, and there are people

who've been working in the industry for many, many years. There is no question

about that. There are many people who've been working in the industry for many

years, but it isn't enough. It isn't enough to take a first nation which is

small in numbers and really benefit economically from these agreements.

[1505]

[ Page 10353 ]

I would hope that in discussion in committee stage, this can be

addressed — that the government will look at moving on with this — so that first

nations can really get benefits from the land base and can make sure that they

are sharing in the wealth of British Columbia as they most rightly deserve.

The other issue that I have with this, in what is clearly an

omnibus bill — and so I'm just picking out a couple of the items in the omnibus

bill — is the forest stewardship lands. These have had a very bad reputation.

I've talked to — whether it's foresters, people in the Forest Service, woodlot

operators…. Right across the board, there has been a real problem with forest

stewardship plans, how they work, what is expected of them and how they'll work

in the future.

It's very troubling that this seems to be just rolling over into a

bigger deal, rather than looking at what the problem is and saying, "Okay, how

are we going to address this?" and making sure there was a solution. It looks

like it's just pushing on for another few years. We're going to keep on with

more of the same problems, which won't really address the problems that those

who are dealing with this regularly face and that the big companies face.

One of the issues I have with the whole bill itself is as an

omnibus bill. We do talk very often in this House about the crisis in the forest

industry, the crisis on the coast, and what's happening in B.C. and what's

happening with B.C.'s main industry, which is still forestry and which supports

many, many people in my own communities.

Again, this bill just doesn't address that. It sort of picks and

chooses and cherry-picks a few things here and there, but it isn't looking at

some of the substantial changes that we really need to be looking at — and

looking at community by community and region by region — to see how we can move

forward and make forestry into an industry which is going to take us through the

21st century as well as it took us through the 20th century. There are

possibilities there, and I think we have to work very hard to achieve them.

In this bill, I don't see that the government is looking at trying

to find changes and find new ways of doing things. It looks like it is mainly

tweaking some of the things that it set up and not really looking at the broader

picture of how to best look at the whole scene of what is happening in forestry

on the coast.

With that, I'll take my seat and look forward to committee stage.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my privilege as well as my

responsibility to be up in the House today to talk about Bill 8 and to share

with the House a meeting that took place up in Cariboo South that involved the

Minister of Forests and Range along with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

It specifically was dealing with issues around forestry.

It is important that this House recognize that this bill, as I

would understand it at this moment in time, leaves the working relationship with

first nations on any forest relation act, forestry range opportunities, still

highly undefined with first nations.

Where I am from, the Tsilhqot'in served information with me very

shortly after being elected that unless issues were dealt with around their

requests, issues and questions, any development in the Chilcotin was going to be

subject to great obstacles, as their interests were not being dealt with.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The ministers — both of them; I was pleased — attended a meeting.

It looked like there may be resolutions upon a specific issue out in the

Chilcotin. But recent conversations I've had with the first nations leadership

in Cariboo South on this item would indicate that is not moving along as well as

what all of us here would have hoped would be the case.

Clearly, the incident that I'm talking about in my riding

indicates the need for government to be in a position to deal with first nations

around these types of agreements. It would be my understanding of the

legislation, as it reads at this moment in time, that it falls very short of

doing that.

[1510]

If what I have experienced as an MLA is at all representative of

what is happening across the entire province, it indicates that this omnibus

bill still falls way short, at least on this one important issue. I wish the

House to be aware that on that issue alone, I have very severe and strong

reservations on the inadequacy of this particular bill. I'm hoping that as we

move into the next stage with more detail, we can either clarify the concerns

around this item or make the necessary amendments. Otherwise, this bill falls

very, very short of what is necessary to deal with this one item.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of

Forests closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I always find it interesting when I hear

the NDP talking about a miscellaneous statutes amendment act on forestry, and

they decide that they…. I walk away with this really bad feeling that they don't

like the industry, don't like forest-dependent communities, don't like the

people that work in them and don't like the businesses supported by them. It's

just bizarre.

The member for North Island gets up and complains about forest

stewardship plans, but without flexibility and a land base we wouldn't be

finding wood for Neucel today, which is a major employer in her riding in Port

Alice.

I sit and listen to this thing about the Filmon report, the

cooperative thing and wildfires, and $21 million has been given to local

communities to do wildfire plans. A whole bunch of them have completed those. A

number are already in process. There's $20 million additional for fuel

management.

In addition to fuel management, I was struck by the comment of the

member for Cariboo North about Logan Lake, because we've been giving Logan Lake

forest workers out of season for the last few years to implement their forest

plan. The mayor of Logan Lake

[ Page 10354 ]

and her council come to me at UBCM every year and thank me for what we're

doing with their community. They applaud that and have actually given us an

award from that community because of what we've done with them. I know you don't

like to hear about success. As you go through this, you've sort of got to

wonder.

The member for Cariboo South gets up and brings up a deal on which

he stood in a room and thanked me in front of first nations for our leadership.

He thanked me and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations for coming to Williams

Lake and solving a problem. Then he stands up in the House and says: "It's not

going so well, and I don't see how this legislation is fixing it."

Well, I've got news for the member for Cariboo South. It's got

nothing to do with the legislation. The deal is done; the commitment is made.

We're working through the details.

I don't need a piece of legislation to follow along on that deal

whatsoever. If you're going to get up and debate a bill, get your facts

straight. Understand the circumstance, and for heaven's sake, don't get up and

say this legislation doesn't fix the problem — it's already been fixed, and the

negotiations are going on — after, in front of the press and the local

community, you've thanked the minister and the other minister, of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation.

As we go through this bill, I'm sure we'll wander off, as we

usually do, on a number of issues that have nothing to do with regard to the

issues and the sections of the bill, which we often do in committee stage with

these folks.

I want to talk about a couple of issues that the members seemed to

want to take a shot at. Forest and range opportunities are not called forest and

range agreements anymore, hon. Members. It's forest and range opportunities.

Why? By agreement with the First Nations Forestry Council and the first nations

leadership, we changed the language and the name of the agreements to meet their

expectations under the new relationship.

As we did this, let's be clear about something. This is really, I

think, very important. Since September of 2002 we've signed agreements with 149

first nations. We're providing over $200 million in revenue-sharing and access

to 33 million cubic metres of wood.

The member for Cariboo North likes to quote the Aboriginal Forest

Industries Council report that summarizes some opinions with regard to first

nations and their survey with regard to the number of jobs per cubic metre

today.

But let me tell you something, hon. Members. This is about

capacity-building. This is starting from scratch to build a relationship in an

industry. That will take some time. The fact of the matter, though, is that the

First Nations Forestry Council and I have been working through a process for a

number of months now, headed toward how we're dealing with pricing and building

relationships with the land base.

[1515]

They asked us, quite frankly, to allow for B.C. Timber Sales to be

one of the partners that might be able to form a joint venture with them to move

wood, and the members seem to be opposed to that.

In addition to that, this is the interesting one I've got to

remind the members of. I know you don't like to hear about the 1990s up to 2001.

But do you know that in that period of time, you didn't actually give one dollar

in revenue-sharing and access to any money for first nations in British

Columbia? Did you know you ignored them completely? Did you know you didn't

build a relationship?

Now, it may take some time for success, but there's one thing that

this side of the House is committed to. That is making sure the forest and range

opportunities we're working on with first nations in British Columbia are

successful in the short term and in the long term, given the length of tenure

and everything — that we're actually working on it with them today.

And oh, a little surprise for you. I don't need legislation to

make those changes that we're already working on today. So a little surprise for

you. The work is getting done.

Maybe you might want to sit down with some members of the First

Nations Forestry Council who actually know what's going on in the province of

British Columbia versus taking shots at the first nations who…. It disgusts me

when it's always a shot at the first nations' ability to perform, when I believe

first nations can get the job done, can build these capacity relationships with

government and with industry. They can do it because we actually work with them.

You get these comments and these debates, and you can't let them

sit there — like the issue around kiln-drying. First thing I would suggest to

the members that have made comments about this one is find out who was in the

room and had the opportunity to participate in the pilot, who decided to

participate in the pilot and who decided not to participate in the pilot. That

might be the first note.

The second thing the member might want to do is talk to industry

and find out what the ministry is doing today to balance that, to make it fair

and make it work for all industry. I know the member doesn't like the notion of

kiln-drying, to see what it reflects with a log yard, with hundreds of

thousands, if not millions of cubic metres of wood sitting in it.

What happens when the weather warms up and the wood cracks and

we've charged stumpage on a level of wood that isn't as good as what they

thought they bought? I know you don't like that. I know you'd rather see the

industry go broke.

I know you'd rather see them be able to stand up in the House and

defame the industry rather than actually see that the government and you, hon.

Member, could actually work cooperatively, given the fact that you have an

absolutely huge, huge forest-dependent community in your own riding. Those

companies are trying to survive and build a future for forestry in British

Columbia, and they do it in spite of the local MLA trying to demean and put down

their actual ability to do the job.

On reforestation, another comment. Last year we planted a record

276 million trees in the province.

[ Page 10355 ]

Imagine that. We do reforestation, we do get on the land base, and we will

continue to get on the land base.

Then there's the member for North Island. We thought we might want

to not handle the wood as often as when we transport by water, because every

time we touch it, it costs about $4 to $6 a cubic metre. We thought we might

want to streamline that process, handle the wood once, make it fair to all, keep

the costs in line so that the competitive nature of the coastal forest industry

could be there.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Jobs.

Hon. R. Coleman: Jobs, futures, investment…. I know the

member doesn't like it because it's part of the coast forest action plan, which

is enhancing a shift to second growth, which encourages hardwood harvesting,

which uses innovation to develop markets for hemlock and balsam, which promotes

the value-added sector, which supports competitive pulp and paper sector, which

improves the viability of first nations tenures, which examines the option to

provide land use certainty and streamlines the administrative processes like

timber marking.

Shocking. We're doing what we said that the industry asked us to

do — and the communities on the coast said you wanted to — about streamlining

the way we handle the wood on the coast of British Columbia.

So get up and tell your communities you don't support it. It's

fine. You know, we put millions of dollars in FPInnovations, we put millions of

dollars into the forest action plan, and we're going to continue to invest with

the value-added sector.

[1520]

Oh, by the way, all of those initiatives, every single dollar —

whether it was the millions to the wood guys on the value-added side, whether it

was the money for FPInnovations, whether it was the money to enhance how we

manage on the coast, whether it was the $640 million we put into pine beetle….

Oh, by the way, in that dark decade we talked about, all you did

was let the beetle kill — invested nothing, did nothing to deal with the beetle.

And $650 million is a lot of money that you didn't actually have any interest in

saving forest-dependent communities with.

You know what they did? They voted against every single dollar for

every community, for every plan for economic development, for every single stick

of seedling to be planted in the interior and other places of British Columbia;

against FPInnovations for innovations for technology and opportunities, against

technologies to improve the pulp and paper sector and against other issues with

regards to forests.

Every single time a dollar or initiative has been brought to this

House, those people have voted against it. They don't actually believe in

forestry in the province of British Columbia. They actually just sit there and

say: "Oh, I don't care about China. I don't care because you took FPInnovations

and FII under the coast action plan and invested in it. Who cares if the

Canadian lumber sales to China, mainly from B.C., are up 58 percent by volume

and 46 percent by value in first half of 2007?" You wouldn't want to make an

investment. You just spend your time with negativity.

It's incredible. This is the opposition that is actually going to

— they've already said it — abrogate the softwood lumber deal, and they'd put

every single high-valued cap industry that has value-added stuff in British

Columbia out of business overnight if they ever did that. So anybody in the

forest sector that's adding value to timber in the province better realize this.

The NDP do not want you in business. They do not want you to be successful,

because they do not believe in standing up for the industry in British Columbia.

I find the second reading of these things as interesting as I

don't find the committee stage, but I also understand that the opposition will

want to go through it item by item, and I'm happy to do that. Maybe we can get

an opportunity for them to understand the significant financial, the significant

personal commitment to forestry in British Columbia that this government has,

which they continue to not support.

I know they will be arguing against anything and everything that

will streamline and build opportunity so we can attract the best investment and

have a strong future in forestry in the province of British Columbia.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 8.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Simpson: I rise on a point of privilege.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just waiting to hear if the member is

intending to make his point now. Or is he reserving his right to raise it later?

B. Simpson: My apologies. I reserve the right to raise a

point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I'll do the recognizing.

Member for Cariboo North.

B. Simpson: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the right

to raise a point of privilege.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for that clarification.

I now call second reading of Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Amendment Act, 2008.

[ Page 10356 ]

Second Reading of Bills

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. P. Bell: Okay, now it's time for happy bucks. We've

got a great-news bill here. I move that Bill 9 now be read a second time.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

This bill amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act establishes the British Columbia Society

for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the BCSPCA, and gives it the legal

authority to assist animals that are in distress or abandoned. The act also

makes it an offence under provincial law to cause or permit an animal to be in

distress and provides penalties to persons who neglect to properly care for

their animals.

[1525]

The BCSPCA was first established in 1895. This year marks the

113th year that the BCSPCA has been of service to British Columbians. Last week

I had the honour of introducing to the House the president of the BCSPCA,

Marguerite Vogel; CEO Craig Daniell; Marcie Moriarty, the general manager of

cruelty investigations; and Lorie Chortyk, the general manager of community

relations for the BCSPCA.

This organization provides a tremendous number of services to

British Columbians and deals with issues as the primary enforcement and

compliance officer for domesticated animals throughout the province and also

deals with exotic species from time to time. They provide a tremendous service

to our province and are a well-respected entity.

As I said in my remarks out on the front steps when we announced

this initiative, the SPCA has one of the best organizations in terms of working

with the political arms of government to encourage behaviour change and changes

in legislation and policy. They have done a fantastic job of working with us

over the past couple of years to develop this piece of legislation.

I want to go through some numbers that I think are particularly

relevant for members of the House and put them on the record. In 2007 they

rescued 41,884 injured, homeless, neglected and abused animals — companion, farm

or wild. They reunited 5,911 lost animals — including 4,681 dogs, 1,111 cats, 23

rabbits and one MLA — with their anxious families. Oh, sorry. I added that in by

accident.

They transported 3,739 animals, and 1,183 of these animals were

transported through Pet Express, which is an animal transport vehicle provided

by a local company. They found new loving homes for 20,067 homeless animals just

last year. They helped 1,864 injured and orphaned wild animals, which included a

wide variety. Most were rehabilitated right here in Metchosin on Vancouver

Island.

They conducted 4,647 cruelty investigations. They removed 1,501

animals from dangerous or neglected situations through cruelty investigations

and rescued an additional 4,007 injured animals. They did execute 103 warrants

under the Criminal Code of Canada, the PCA Act and the Offence Act. They

submitted 57 charges of animal cruelty and neglect to Crown counsel. Most

importantly of all, they received 182,657,764 hits on their website from lovers

of animals all over the world.

They are an organization that provides tremendous services to

British Columbians — highly respected — and I'm very pleased that we were able

to bring this amendment forward. It is a broadly and actively supported

organization by the public of B.C.

The SPCA has over 4,000 volunteers, and I will say that one of

those happens to be from the Bell family. My oldest daughter has become

officially eligible to become a small-animal cuddler. She is working on her

authority to start walking dogs, and I believe that soon she'll be graduating

from that as well. They have 80,000 donors in British Columbia, all dedicated

towards ensuring that animals are treated humanely.

The province highly values the services the BCSPCA provides to the

animals and citizens of B.C. and is committed to ensuring that the BCSPCA has

the legal authority it needs to be able to carry out its mandate effectively and

efficiently. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was last amended in 1994.

The changes made at that time were quite extensive and gave the act a new look.

The two most significant changes at that time were the establishment of the

definition of "distress" and the establishment of an offence.

[1530]

The definition of distress established a clear standard of care

that animal owners and caregivers were required to provide their animals. The

BCSPCA has identified a number of areas where operational experience has shown

that the act needs to be adjusted and where updates need to be made to ensure

British Columbia's animal welfare legislation is consistent with the standards

across Canada.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

These amendments will refine the definition of "distress" to

include situations where an animal's health or well-being is affected by

inadequate ventilation, space, care or veterinary treatment; authorize agents

operating in remote areas to obtain warrants by telephone; clarify the authority

of agents to seize evidence of an offence; clarify the authority of agents to

take abandoned animals into custody; clarify the BCSPCA's authority to hold and

dispose of animals and the obligation of animal owners to reimburse the society

for its care-related costs; provide immunity from legal proceedings for damages

to persons performing duties or exercising powers under the act; and update

provisions relating to corporate structure and obligations.

In addition, the amendments will also stiffen the penalties that

can be imposed against persons who cause or permit an animal to be in distress.

This is an important change because it recognizes the seriousness of the offence

and the concern that all British Columbi-

[ Page 10357 ]

ans feel when persons deliberately neglect their obligations to properly care

for animals in their care.

The BCSPCA and its many supporters have told us that they believed

the existing fines in the act provided were not sufficient, and we've heard that

message loud and clear. The amendments will increase the maximum fine that can

be levied against a person convicted of the offence to $5,000 from the existing

$2,000. If they repeat the offence, they will be liable for a fine of up to

$10,000.

In addition to fines, persons who mistreat animals can be jailed

for up to six months and can be prohibited from owning or having custody or

control of an animal for a period of time determined by the court, potentially

including life.

Those are serious penalties, and we expect that they will

encourage people to properly care for and carry out their obligations towards

animals in their care. We also expect these changes will send a signal regarding

what the consequences should be if they choose not to do that.

These are very simple but worthwhile amendments, and I hope that

all members of the House will join me in supporting them. It gives me great

pleasure to move second reading.

L. Krog: I am delighted to rise in the debate here today,

and I was delighted to hear the self-congratulatory message from the Minister of

Agriculture. I want to say to him on a personal level that I congratulate his

daughter for taking the steps to become a master of cuddling small animals. I

hope after the election in May 2009 she'll be able to cuddle larger animals.

You know, it's pretty difficult for a member of the opposition to

stand in this chamber and say anything critical about a bill that might, in

fact, improve the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and that would enhance

the work of the SPCA. I think we're talking about an organization that, with the

exception perhaps of some knuckle-draggers in this province who have no respect

for any kind of life, enjoys the support of all British Columbians.

I'm reminded of the fact that the former member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale told me once that he got the most positive response to his

constituency newsletter when he published a picture in it of him with the family

cat on his lap. He was a vigorous supporter, as was a member from Burnaby — I

can't remember which one — who supported the private member's bill, as I recall,

to see that tenants could have pets.

I think every one of us understands the importance of pets and

animals. Indeed, how we treat pets and animals — whether we're raising them

simply as companions, raising them for food production or for recreational use —

is extremely important.

I must admit, though, that I was somewhat disappointed when this

bill was introduced that it didn't contain what I thought would have been a very

sensible provision. It would have been a recognition of the hard work of the

member for Alberni-Qualicum. I noted with interest in the throne speech that the

government happily, after pooh-poohing the concept, decided it would bring

forward legislation to prevent smoking in cars with children under the age of

16. I didn't mind them stealing the opposition's idea. I thought it was a fine

thing for them to do, and I compliment the minister for doing it.

[1535]

I would have thought that the Minister of Agriculture could have

taken that one further step — given that the government, apparently, has been

working on this for a number of years — and included provisions of what the

member for Alberni-Qualicum referred to as Andre's bill: the Promotion of Safe

Antifreeze Act, 2007.

That would have been a sensible, welcomed and decent thing to do.

It is one thing to praise the work of the SPCA, but it is another thing to deny

them a request that was so widely and broadly and popularly supported across

British Columbia. It's a simple matter. It was environmentally sensitive. It was

the right thing to do and, if passed, would have prevented the horrible deaths

of thousands of cats in this province.

The job of the opposition is to criticize, and it is arguably, in

the simplest proposition, to oppose. So, as much as the opposition is delighted

to see the government bring forward this legislation, one has to ask: why did it

take so long? The SPCA, my constituents, and I'm sure, the Minister of

Agriculture's constituents and thousands of people across British Columbia, if

my e-mails and letters are any indication, have been promoting this kind of

legislative change year after year.

This government has now had nearly seven years in its electoral

mandate to bring this forward. These are not difficult concepts. This is not a

difficult piece of legislation. I don't think the draftspersons in the Ministry

of the Attorney General's branch had to spend weeks and months and years working

on this stuff. It's pretty straightforward.

It is about doing the right thing for animals in this province. It

is about respecting the work of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals. It is about respecting the work they do. It is about respecting the

affection and feelings that literally hundreds of thousands of British

Columbians have for their pets or, if they're working in agriculture, for the

animals they raise for consumption or use — for the horse breeders, for the

sheep breeders, for all of those people.

Every thinking British Columbian supports this legislation. Every

caring British Columbian supports this legislation. Yet it has taken the

government such a very long time to simply do the right thing. And it is the

right thing.

But, as is true of most legislative changes, the average person in

the public is going to ask the question: "This is good, but is the government

really sincere about it?" That is where the opposition does have to question the

government.

For a number of years, the government was providing roughly

$71,000 to the SPCA to help fund its operations. The rest of its budget was

raised by caring British Columbians, by pet owners, by all those people who work

in the SPCA doing the fundraising, the car washes, the asks, the calendars, the

pet calendars — all of those things.

[ Page 10358 ]

In 2003-2004, to his credit — and I think it's fair to give credit

here — the Solicitor General added a further $475,000 from the gaming proceeds

to the base budget. That brought it up to a grand total of $546,550. To

paraphrase what I heard once in the parliamentary Finance Committee, that's not

even a rounding error in the Minister of Health's budget. That brought it, as I

say, up to $571,000 by 2004-2005, and then it dropped again by close to $50,000,

and it has dropped again in 2006-2007.

The fact is that on one side the minister is saying: "Look, we're

doing the right thing. Congratulate us. Aren't we just the best government in

the world? All the pet owners in British Columbia should love us. And all those

people who work with animals should love us." The truth is that they're not

putting their money where their mouth is. Those of us who work in this business

understand that it's one thing to have the high-sounding phrases, it's one thing

to have great throne speeches, but the real issue is: are you prepared to pay

for it?

[1540]

I've looked through this bill very carefully. What I do see is an

increase in fines — absolutely appropriate and long overdue. That's a great

thing. But is the SPCA going to have the money that it needs to do the kind of

enforcement that this bill will enable them to do? Is the SPCA going to be able

to go out and find those individuals and relieve the distress of animals, so

that a person who does commit an offence can be liable to a fine of $2,000 or

imprisonment for not more than six months? That's under

section 23.

Under

section 24, are they going to be able to fine them? Are they

going to be able to enforce it so that we can fine them up to $5,000 and $10,000

on a subsequent offence? Are we going to be able to do it, or will it just be an

empty statute sitting on the books with little or no enforcement?

A very wise police officer spoke to my law 11 class a very, very

long time ago and said that a law that can't be enforced is a bad law. This is a

good law because it can be enforced. The question is: will it be enforced? Will

the government step up to the plate and enforce this legislation?

Subject to the kinds of natural and intelligent questions the

opposition is always putting forward during committee stage of a bill, this bill

is going to pass through this House in fairly ready order. In that sense, I want

to congratulate the minister, in fairness. I say this quite sincerely. I'm glad

he's brought it forward. It is the right thing to do, but that doesn't change

the perspective of the opposition — that is, are we going to do something useful

with it? Are we actually going to do the right thing by the animals of this

province?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think every one of us is conscious of all the literature

surrounding the importance of contact with animals in terms of health,

particularly for seniors. All of us are conscious of the joy that the pets of

our families bring us. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that there are pets at the

Krog household. On tough days, there's nothing that reaches you quite so warmly

as a small furry animal. They don't expect much. They don't criticize, and

they're not mad at you for having missed another evening at home. They're just

delighted to see you.

If this is to succeed, I would love to hear the minister, when he

closes debate, as I said earlier, indicate that the government is going to put

its money where its mouth is. Otherwise, all this is and was, was a great photo

opportunity on the front steps of the Legislature, which I went out and watched.

It was a wonderful event. That's all it's going to be if we don't carry forward

and do the right thing.

I encourage the minister, now that he's found his political

courage on this issue, to take one further step. Do the right thing. Pay homage

to the member for Alberni-Qualicum. Ban the use of antifreeze that will in fact

kill animals in this province. It's a very simple thing. It's good for the

environment, consistent with the throne speech and consistent with what the

Premier has had to say.

Goodness, I'll be forced to stand up again in this chamber and

compliment the government if they do it. The member for Alberni-Qualicum will

clap and cheer. We'll all cheer. I just say to the minister — pardon the pun —

we've opened the barn door. You're welcome to come on through. Get out there in

the sunshine of political support that you'll enjoy if you do the right thing on

this.

The opposition will support this. The opposition is pleased that

the hard work and efforts of thousands and thousands of British Columbians to

force the government to do this have, in fact, borne fruit. We are delighted on

this side of the House, and we're glad the government has finally, after a long

period of lobbying, done the right thing for the animals of British Columbia.

The next step is up to the minister; it's up to the government.

Show us the money. Show us the money.

C. Wyse: I would like to acknowledge the minister for the

work that he has done in this area. I am appreciative of the communications that

have taken place between the minister and me on various items around animals and

their care and well-being. I have found his openness very gratifying, and I wish

to acknowledge that right from the beginning to the minister in the House.

[1545]

I would like to not only share here the efforts of the minister

with the work that has been done to date but also draw attention to

correspondence that I receive in a connected deal with the animal cruelty aspect

of it. That is the meat industry regulations. With the changes that have taken

place in it, I get correspondence from constituents. It's not only from the

Cariboo area and, specifically, Cariboo South, but I also get them from around

the province.

It shows that with the changes in the meat industry regulations,

it may also be contributing to the manner in which farm animals are now being

slaughtered. It's an area that I hope the minister, as he moves through

[ Page 10359 ]

all the complexity of these items, will also find time to address.

With that, I thank the House and the minister for hearing the

concerns from my area.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands closes debate.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much to the member for Cariboo

South. He earns a happy buck for his comments, although the Rotary folks have

now left. The member for Nanaimo, I think, is probably going to be fined for

some of his comments.

I just want to highlight one thing that the member for Nanaimo

said. He said it not just once but twice, actually. It really caught my

attention. And there may have been a third time. I'll have to go back and check

Hansard . It shows the fundamental difference between the NDP and this

government. What he said was: "They're not putting their money where their mouth

is."

Government doesn't have any money. It is the taxpayers' money. It

is the people of British Columbia's money. It is their money. It is not the

government's money.

Fundamentally, that's where the opposition and this government

really go down different paths. The member opposite, when he was in government,

believed that it was his money, and that's how he managed this government.

That's why the debt doubled from $17 billion to $34 billion in the ten years

that they were on this side of the House. Ultimately, it is an attitude that

says that it is government's money that is fundamentally at the root of the poor

fiscal policy that took place during those years.

However, this is a good-news day for the SPCA. It's a great-news

day for the pets and the animals of British Columbia.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008, read

a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call for second reading debate, Bill

7, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 7, entitled the Local

Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be read for a second time now, and I am

pleased to offer my comments to the House in respect of this bill.

All of us in this House recognize the importance of local

governments in our communities. We all value that they do make our B.C.

communities the best place to live and the best place to work. Our government is

committed to supporting local governments in becoming even more socially

responsive and environmentally sustainable.

We have the same goals for all of our communities, but we do not

take the same approach to each one. Courtenay is not the same as Peachland; Fort

St. James is not the same as Trail. That's why we work with local governments

very closely. We listen to their feedback, and we design programs and

legislation that best meet their needs.

We have consulted with the Union of B.C. Municipalities — UBCM is

their acronym — on this very legislation. The UBCM provides valuable insight

into what tools local governments need to make effective improvements in their

own communities.

While each local government is unique, with distinct challenges

and distinct opportunities, we know that they share many common interests, many

common concerns. The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, will address

some of these common interests but will also embrace communities' diverse needs

and diverse interests.

[1550]

The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, recognizes the

importance of supporting local government to improve transparency and

accountability to the public in local government elections and to provide

electors with more voting opportunities. Under these legislative improvements,

more election campaigns will be subject to the financing disclosure rules and

will become more transparent, more accountable. The new rules mean that people

or groups that run campaigns in support of candidates need to report financial

contributions once they receive $500 in contributions.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The new rules also provide local governments with the authority to

post on their websites the names of campaign contributors and the amounts

they've contributed — information that has previously only been available upon

request at local government offices. British Columbia is one of the few

provinces to recognize civic electoral parties in local election finance rules.

As well, these legislative changes will increase the level of

public commitment required to stand for local office by requiring candidates to

make a solemn commitment to take office if elected. Through this, local

governments will be empowered to provide more flexibility for voters, to allow

more opportunities for advanced voting and for mail ballot voting, allowing more

opportunities for resident and non-resident property electors to vote.

To protect the personal privacy of those voters, we are limiting

the release of copies of documents that contain personal information related to

voting day.

The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, also provides

legislative improvements to streamline administrative processes. These changes

are

[ Page 10360 ]

mostly related to improving our own internal processes to make them more

effective and efficient for the benefit of local government and taxpayers — for

example, by reducing the number of improvement district bylaws that have to be

registered with the province and eliminating a step in approval of regional

district tax requisitions.

These and other changes are relatively minor but necessary to

update or maintain the framework of local government legislation and to let

local governments deal effectively with a variety of issues they face.

Finally, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, brings

a new opportunity for the communities of Elkford, Fernie, Sparwood and the

regional district of East Kootenay to share municipal property tax revenues from

coalmining properties in the Elk Valley. The local governments negotiated the

new agreement in consultation with Elk Valley Coal Corp. and with the support of

staff from my ministry, the Ministry of Community Services.

This agreement is a shining example of how local governments, the

province and industry can work together for the benefit of residents and

communities. The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, brings balance,

certainty and new opportunities for local governments and their communities

around British Columbia, and I ask that all members lend their support to this

worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation.

With that, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 7.

C. Wyse: It is my pleasure as critic to respond to this

particular bill, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act.

An overguiding statement to assist the House. An amendment act, as

my hon. colleague has mentioned, is exactly that. It is a collection of a

variety of different amendments, many of which are meant to streamline and make

improvements to how local governments go ahead and deliver governance to their

various communities.

The vast majority of this legislation, if not all of the

legislation, is supportable as presented. However, I will explain briefly where

the legislation stops very, very short, in our estimation, of what in actual

fact is required. Therefore, it raises questions that I wish to draw the

minister's attention to, where concerns exist with the legislation. However, let

me return to highlight three or four different points within the legislation

which, in our judgment, are laudable and are worthy of the support of this side

of the House also.

[1555]

One of the aspects is the change of a possibility for local

gover