2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th 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, October 27, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ross Gorman

Hon. S. Thomson

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rod Love

Hon. M. de Jong

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Chinese Federation of Commerce Canada

J. Yap

Hornsby Mammoth historic steam logging equipment

C. Trevena

Participation in summer reading programs by North Shore students

R. Sultan

J. Kwan

Foster and adoptive families

J. Thornthwaite

Hospital Employees Union

G. Heyman

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Oral Questions

J. Horgan

Hon. A. Virk

J. Kwan

H. Bains

J. Shin

M. Elmore

S. Simpson

M. Farnworth

Government action on poverty reduction

M. Mungall

Hon. S. Cadieux

Point of Privilege

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2013-14

B.C. Ferry Commission, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2014

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Kwan

Tabling Documents

Correspondence addressed to federal Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism dated July 10, 2012

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act (continued)

H. Bains

L. Krog

Hon. S. Thomson

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (continued)

L. Throness

G. Heyman

R. Austin

S. Simpson

[ Page 4925 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2014

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, on your behalf, I have two special guests to introduce: Richard Mole, president and chief executive officer; and Mehmood Alibhai, director of national policy and market access for Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, a pharmaceutical group of companies.

These gentlemen were your guests today, Madame Speaker, and I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

J. Kwan: Today in the gallery are some very special guests who want to succeed in B.C.’s economy and want to send a message that ELL matters. They are Avisa Abbasi, Beryl Cao, Bonnie Bo Liu, Dwijesh Das, Jie Wei, Julie Vodchenko, Mahtab Bodaghabadi and Monica Costa. They are also joined by another 360 students at the convention centre, and these students are from Vancouver Community College, Camosun, Douglas College and Thompson Rivers University. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: This afternoon I have two people that I would love to introduce. Joining us in the House this afternoon are Michael and Donna Hillman. Michael serves on the board of Fraser Health Authority, which obviously takes a lot of time. We thank him for his service. Prior to that Michael was involved in several major projects in the province’s history, including the Olympic bid, Expo 86, the SkyTrain project and the Victoria Commonwealth Games in 1994.

Donna has been spending her retirement after working for Telus volunteering for the Girl Guides and now completing her term as area commissioner for the west coast area that includes Vancouver, Richmond, South Delta, Burnaby and New Westminster, as well as time on Camp Olive. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Michael and Donna Hillman today.

H. Bains: Part of the delegation…. There are other students who are trying to make us understand the importance of ELL programs. They include Bernadette Atanacio, Eduardo Gonzalez, Hector Gonzalez, Yulia Makarova, Jose Ela Mbomio Mangue, Jianguo Zhang, Li Li and Ma Cecilia Sibonga. Please help welcome them to this House.

[1340]

Tributes

ROSS GORMAN

Hon. S. Thomson: On October 17 the province and our community in the forest industry lost a real pioneer of the industry. Ross Gorman, with Gorman forest products, passed away at the age of 93 after a fall in his office. The amazing thing about that story is that at 93 he was still going into the office every day.

This was a man who left such a legacy to our province and to our community and to the forest industry. He started the mill. He and his brother John were farmers. They got frozen out one year and decided they needed to find something else to do. They started buying trim ends from a local sawmill and constructing fruit boxes. From that, they built a business employing 1,200 people, with operations in Revelstoke, in Canoe, in Oroville, in Lumby and in West Kelowna, on the original homesite and the original farmstead where they settled.

He was a people person. He was loved by his employees, loved by the community and contributed so much back. It was really interesting. A huge community turnout for his service, and his son-in-law Nick spoke about the fact that they had a private family burial service for him, and he was buried in pine boards from Gorman’s lumber, cedar from the Downie mill and plywood from the Canoe operation, constructed by the employees and finger-jointed.

They were an operation that focused on quality and innovation. Just a tremendous family man, a real gentleman in the industry who contributed so much to industry associations. The forest sector will really miss him, the community will miss him, and the province will miss him.

I’d ask the House to pass on our condolences to his wife, Eunice, and all of his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. A great pioneer in the industry and a great contributor to the province of British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Notwithstanding she’s been several times before, she hasn’t lost her enthusiasm for question period. I’d like the House to welcome a member of my executive, a bright grade 12 student in the French immersion program at Nanaimo District Secondary, Avery Valerio.

D. Plecas: Today in the gallery we have Patrick Giesbrecht. He’s an Abbotsford civic leader, the past president of the chamber of commerce there. He’s currently a member of the board for the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Today he’s in the gallery with his brother Brad and his nephew Liam. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[ Page 4926 ]

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome many students, instructors and advocates from colleges across B.C. who know the importance of ELL courses to immigrants who come in with skills and want to contribute to and participate fully in our economy and become full citizens in British Columbia. I’d like to welcome Juliette Gort, Keri Zhang, Nyan Hamaraoof, Remmy Mpitarusuma, Ruo Hong Yang, Seyyed Dadgar, and Wen Liu — “Ellie.” I’d ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Tributes

ROD LOVE

Hon. M. de Jong: The passing of Rod Love earlier today represents something of a passing of an era in our country. Most members will know that Mr. Love served as chief of staff to Premier Ralph Klein during the years that he was Premier of Alberta. They were eventful years, and he certainly left an imprint on our neighbouring province to the east.

But he was also involved in many of the initiatives that brought our two provinces together. Many members here will have come to know Mr. Love. He certainly had a powerful personality and did not suffer from a lack of opinion. He made a great contribution of late. He had been involved in a number of projects that had brought him to British Columbia on a regular basis.

I know that all members of this chamber will want to pay tribute to something of a political giant in Alberta and someone who made a very positive and long-lasting contribution to public affairs, not just in Alberta but in Canada.

Introductions by Members

[1345]

I’d like to especially welcome Jenelle Davies, who spoke today to people gathered outside and who is with the Douglas College student union and the Canadian Federation of Students. Welcome to this House.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a number of people in the gallery today from my ministry, from the provincial office for the early years. Tessa Graham is the executive lead; Emily Horton is director of project management. Jan White is the director of stakeholder engagement, and Danielle Smith is the director of aboriginal stakeholder engagement — both their first time working in government. Welcome. Sally Reid, policy analyst, is also a co-op student, and Greg Viscoe is program assistant. If the House would please make them welcome to their first-ever visit to question period.

S. Simpson: I have a few introductions to make today, and I’d like to start with Fred Beasley. Fred Beasley is a young man from my constituency who has a keen interest in politics and how politics works. That’s brought him to Victoria, where he is studying political science currently at the University of Victoria and had the opportunity to come down and see how we work here.

As I said, Fred was active in my last campaign and — who knows? — maybe one day he’ll find himself in this place in a different way.

Nhung Nguyen, Pinar Alkac-Sik, Tam Bui, Yangjin Lee, Emi Fodor, Fawzya Elmokayed, Florence Ng Lee and Jane Zhang — please make them welcome, and I apologize if I butchered your names.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHINESE FEDERATION OF

COMMERCE CANADA

J. Yap: According to B.C. Statistics, about 10,000 immigrants landed in British Columbia during the second quarter of 2014. Of these 10,000, 700 are investors, 24 entrepreneurs, and more than half are immigrants from China.

It’s very important for our province to provide resources and support to businessmen and -women to undertake entrepreneurial activities in B.C. I’m very glad that the Chinese Federation of Commerce Canada, or CFCC, has been carrying out this mission for 25 years.

CFCC was set up by a group of passionate business leaders who immigrated to Canada many years ago. CFCC is a non-profit and non-political organization which aims at encouraging and assisting its members to establish businesses or investment programs in Canada

[ Page 4927 ]

and, thereafter, to promote their products and services to Canadian society.

More than 80 percent of its members are small businesses. CFCC works to support these businesses by providing skills development, networking and marketing opportunities and resources to address the full business life cycle. In addition to supporting its members, CFCC has also set up a scholarship fund at SFU to encourage and support students.

On October 18 the Attorney General, the member for Burnaby North and myself attended the 25th anniversary dinner of CFCC. Besides a milestone celebration, this event also raised funds for the 2381 B.C. Regiment (Irish Fusiliers) Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps.

I’m proud to recognize CFCC’s contribution to the development of our economy, society and community throughout the past 25 years.

[1350]

I especially would like to thank CFCC’s president, Mr. Joseph Hui, and the national board chairman, Mr. Pius Chan, for their diligence and contributions towards making our economy and communities stronger and more prosperous.

HORNSBY MAMMOTH HISTORIC

STEAM LOGGING EQUIPMENT

C. Trevena: The north Island is celebrating its industrial heritage in some style. A couple of years ago Woss once again became home to the 113 locomotive, part of the region’s logging history, and now Coal Harbour has the Hornsby Mammoth.

Even though at the moment the Hornsby is rusting, it is an amazing piece of machinery. It’s a steam crawler and one of the very first tracked vehicles ever built. It weighs 40 tonnes, and the track itself is taller than a person. While the Hornsby company made four other caterpillar machines, this was the only one driven by steam.

The Hornsby Mammoth was shipped from England in 1910, first being put to work in the Yukon. At the time caterpillar treads were experimental but seen as a way to haul coal to the goldfields through Yukon’s harsh climate. A few years later it ended up on the Island, where it worked in logging camps around Holberg and Port Alice before finding itself left, as logging equipment so often is, abandoned in the bush.

The Hornsby’s path took it to the regional Seven Hills golf course before being taken to Alberta for a steam show ten years ago, but it wasn’t brought back. Finally, the community of Coal Harbour and the regional district of Mount Waddington tracked it down and had it returned. Now the community is hoping its home will become even more permanent.

During the Second World War there was an RCAF base in Coal Harbour. The community club wants to refurbish what was the officers’ mess to house the Hornsby Mammoth and build a regional museum. In fact, one wall has already been removed and the concrete pad poured, but the Mammoth isn’t in place yet because there’s a lot of work and fundraising still needing to be done. With its whaling, logging and fishing past, there’d be lots to attract people, and the Hornsby Mammoth could definitely pull in many steam engine buffs and others.

Meanwhile, as a little piece of history, the Hornsby company ended up selling the patent to the chain tracks to what was to become the Caterpillar tractor company.

PARTICIPATION IN SUMMER READING

PROGRAMS BY NORTH SHORE STUDENTS

R. Sultan: Here’s the new reality: our youth are spending their time texting and playing mindless video games, right? Wrong. They’re actually reading books.

Your local public library and the B.C. Library Association, funded by the Ministry of Education’s library branch and the Royal Bank of Canada foundation, sponsor summer reading clubs with an enrolment provincewide of over 85,000.

In West Vancouver youth librarian Shannon Ozirny’s club has about 1,500 kids, ages preschool to 12. Several West Vancouver schools report participation rates of 25 percent, and West Bay Elementary heads the list, at 34 percent. Youth librarians Alison Campbell of North Vancouver District Library and Kate Longley of North Vancouver City Library report similar participation rates.

What are the club rules? Simple. You have to read at least 15 minutes a day for 50 days. Reading logs are handed back each September showing books of their own choice, ranging from Thomas the Tank Engine , my favourite, to the Red Pyramid , all about Egyptian mythology. If you can’t read, your parents are allowed to read to you.

I’ve been honoured to collect reading logbooks and hang beribboned Olympic-style gold medals around the necks of hundreds of these youngsters in West Vancouver, a non-stop parental photo op that any politician would die for.

Get ready, world. Here they come. Go read a book.

J. Kwan: Every year we welcome thousands of immigrants from all over the world to British Columbia. In fact, we’re now reliant on immigrants to bring their education, their training and their experience, in addition to their hopes and dreams for a new and better life in British Columbia.

Almost 30 percent of British Columbians had an immigrant language as their mother tongue. Our immigrants come with the desire and determination to work and want nothing more than to contribute to the cultural, social, economic and political fabric of this country. For

[ Page 4928 ]

[1355]

For decades — in fact, 40 years for Vancouver Community College — our colleges and universities have been the place where thousands of immigrants have received their language training. Almost two-thirds of immigrants aged 25 to 44 come with a university degree, but they need that extra boost of more general ELL courses to become proficient in their areas and, also, courses like communication for engineering and technology.

We need to and we want to welcome skilled immigrants, in thousands, who willingly come to our shores with those skills. Adult education, including ELL, is the path. It’s the doorway to success for immigrants, and it is in all of our best interests to put a welcome mat at their door. ELL matters.

FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE FAMILIES

J. Thornthwaite: I think we can all agree that today’s children hold the promise for our future. Unfortunately, some of those children face incredible challenges — challenges like abuse, neglect, medical difficulties or a family tragedy. Thankfully, here in British Columbia we have some 3,200 foster families who open their homes to roughly 5,900 vulnerable children and youth who have no other place to turn.

Many of those youth go on to be adopted. In fact, 39 percent of all kids in care are eventually adopted by their foster family. Overall, adoptive families have provided forever homes for nearly 1,250 children in the past five years. We are working hard to increase the number of home studies being done so that more families can be approved to adopt or permanently care for children and youth.

Foster and adoptive families give kids a safe and loving environment. These caring citizens come from all walks of life and live in communities all over the province. While their individual circumstances may vary, they all share a common goal of making a positive difference in the life of a young British Columbian.

As we approach the junction between October, Foster Family Month, and November, Adoption Awareness Month, we have the opportunity to reflect on the great service these families perform for our society. Foster and adoptive families are a shining example of how to turn compassion into action. If you have love in your heart and space in your home, we ask that you take the time to consider whether fostering or adoption might be right for you.

On behalf of government, I’d like to offer my deepest appreciation to all of those who have answered the call and to those ready to step forward and help today’s children realize the promise of a brighter tomorrow.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION

G. Heyman: On October 17, I was honoured to attend the Hospital Employees Union Vancouver General Hospital local’s 70th anniversary celebration. On October 13, 1944, Canada’s Trades and Labor Congress chartered Local 180 at VGH, later known as the Hospital Employees Union. HEU is B.C.’s oldest and largest health care union, started with just 300 members at VGH and now representing over 46,000.

At the founding, workers chose a model that crossed traditional craft lines to include everyone. Members now provide both direct and indirect care services in all areas of our health care system as well as community social services, First Nations health agencies and contracted services like food, security and cleaning.

In 1944 health care workers were subject to very low wages, long hours, few breaks, no sick leave and no protection from unfair firings. By 1970 HEU had fully embraced the fight to end gender-based wage discrimination. Through a human rights complaint on behalf of ten members at VGH, the union was able to win wage hikes. In 1992 pay equity contract language was negotiated, a huge win for HEU members — indeed, an important victory for all B.C. workers. Ending wage disparity is a struggle that continues, and victories must be renewed, as the HEU knows too well.

[1400]

In 2005 the VGH local was central in rallying first-agreement bargaining support for 1,100 newly organized Sodexo employees performing contracted work, demonstrating their intent to maintain solidarity and strength among all health care workers. Their determination to maintain fairness and respect in the workplace and to fight for quality patient care in a public health care system remains as strong as ever.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, on Thursday, October 23, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rose on a point of order. His question focused on whether a member speaking to a main motion who then moves a second reading amendment can regain the floor after the defeat of his or her amendment to resume speaking on the main motion on any remaining or banked time.

[ Page 4929 ]

I can confirm that earlier this calendar year one member spoke to a main motion, moved a hoist amendment, which was debated and rejected by the House, and then resumed his speech on the main motion for a few more minutes before yielding the floor.

This instance was not a common application in British Columbia or other jurisdictions. A review of records as far back as 2001 found no other instances of what appears to be members speaking twice to the main question.

Standing Order 42 confirms that a member can speak only once to a question, but our rules do not provide the required clarity on whether a member may bank time to continue main motion remarks after the disposal of an amendment.

When procedural questions arise, our standards refer us to British practice. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice , 21st edition, notes: “A member who moves an amendment cannot speak again upon the main question after the amendment has been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of since he has already spoken while the main question was before the House.” It’s found on page 370.

Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, an authoritative Canadian text, repeats the practice set out in May.

These sources confirm that a member moving an amendment at second reading stage cannot resume debate on the main motion following the disposal of the amendment. To do so, in essence, is permitting the member to speak twice to the same question. Of course, the member who has spoken to the main motion and moved an amendment has opportunities to speak to any additional amendments that are subsequently proposed by other members.

In closing, I thank all members for their attention and thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for raising the question.

Oral Questions

FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I know it comes as a surprise to us on this side of the House — and I suspect it’s going to be a surprise to the minister responsible at the federal level — to hear that the province of British Columbia opposed this. I’ll just read what that minister said less than a year ago on CBC radio.

[1405]

That minister said: “We’ve actually done it with the agreement of the province of British Columbia. I’ve been working very closely with” — he makes reference to the member for Prince George–Valemount — “on this transition. She supports it. The Premier supports it. The government endorses it.” That’s the end of the quote from the federal minister.

Regardless of whether the minister is correct or incorrect on whether they opposed it or supported it, my question is back to him. Why is there no plan in place to ensure that the young people of British Columbia, and those largely have post-secondary education already…? Why are we not, in British Columbia, giving the tools they need to succeed in their communities and in their workplaces and to build this province? Why isn’t the province doing something about that?

Hon. A. Virk: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Once again the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. I have a document — perhaps I can table it afterwards — a letter dated July 10, 2012 from the then Minister of Jobs, Pat Bell, at the time. I’ll paraphrase a portion of the letter. “I am disappointed with the de-

[ Page 4930 ]

cision, as British Columbia has successfully delivered a groundbreaking and internationally recognized program for over ten years, recognizing the need for locally responsive settlement services.”

This side of the House opposed the way the federal government was providing ESL. This document will be tabled afterwards. The Leader of the Opposition should get his facts correct.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: It’s rich for that member to say “get his facts correct” about something that happened a few years ago. I recall questions from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey that had some pretty serious facts in them that weren’t remembered by that member, even though he was directly responsible for them.

I’m pleased to hear that the departed Pat Bell had something to say about it, but we haven’t heard much from the government since then. Again, I go back to the federal minister, who less than a year ago said: “We’ve actually done it with the provincial government’s agreement.”

Again to the minister responsible: can he guarantee the people of B.C. that the government of British Columbia…? Rather than focusing all of their energy on temporary foreign workers, who get a ticket home when they come to this country, why won’t he and his colleagues instead build B.C. with immigrants who have access to citizenship, who have access to the tools they need to build lives for themselves, build lives in their communities?

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, must I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this government funded a number of post-secondary institutions across British Columbia to the tune of $17.2 million of provincial money to provide transitional — transitional — funding to make sure these institutions could work to a model that was sustainable in the long term?

J. Kwan: The minister should know that transitional money will end come December for VCC — $8 million short for VCC, coming this December. That means the end of the ELL programming for the students. Almost two-thirds of the immigrants aged between 25 and 44 come with a university degree. The way and the pathway for them to succeed is to get access to ELL programs, which they will not be able to get come this December.

Vancouver Community College has been providing ELL programs for 40 years. It is the largest and the oldest ELL provider in the province.

[1410]

VCC will have no choice but to close its doors to nearly half of the 9,000 students in this province if this minister does not agree to provide the $17 million necessary to keep the ELL programs going beyond December.

As someone who claims that he understands the importance of this program, will the minister tell the students — the 40 students that are here in this gallery today and the other 360 at the trade and convention centre who are watching question period today…? Will the minister tell the anxious students that he will not turn his back on them and that the immigrant community will get the support that they deserve?

In addition to that, there are over 35 not-for-profit organizations delivering ESL in over 80 locations across British Columbia. So ESL will continue to be provided, just by a different provider.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

I hope the minister agrees that everyone, including the immigrant community, should have the opportunity to succeed. Those thousands of jobs that the minister talks about that they want people to get access to — the immigrant community needs ELL to be able to get access to those job opportunities.

Provinces like Ontario and Alberta pay for these programs themselves. Will the minister tell the students that

[ Page 4931 ]

he will step in, join these provinces and support the immigrant community by committing to fund the $17 million that is necessary to continue to fund ELL programs ongoing?

Interjections.

Hon. A. Virk: There you go. Hit a sore point.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please take your seat.

Please continue.

Hon. A. Virk: This side of the House will continue to support new Canadians as they come to Canada to build a new life and to build this country.

H. Bains: This minister and everyone from that side should know that thousands of immigrants benefited from this program to be successful — not only for their personal success but also to contribute to the economy of this province and of this country.

[1415]

They are agreeing with the federal government to cut the program, and it’s not going to happen anymore now. That opportunity is gone now for the future students.

This was what she had to say when she learned about cuts to this program: “Just picture yourself in a whole different country, with little or no money, where your language is not much use. What would you do if you have many skills to put to use but the language is your barrier?”

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Surrey-Newton certainly will continue to misrepresent the facts even when presented with the dates and the exact quotations of the fact that this government opposed the changes to the system.

The member for Surrey-Newton also will continue to provide incorrect information to all those valuable new immigrants that come to Canada. The federal government has changed the model by which they deliver ESL. ESL is continuing to be provided in over 80 locations across the province, and over 35 not-for-profit organizations are going to continue to provide ESL all across B.C.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The facts — 2013, December 12, the federal minister responsible, Chris Alexander, on CBC radio said this: “We have actually done it with the agreement of the provincial government. I have been working very closely with” — the Minister of Jobs, he mentioned here — “on this transition. She supports it. The Premier supports it. The government endorses it.” Those are the facts, Minister. Read them.

Not only did they stay mum when they were cutting this program; they supported it. Those are the facts. This is from the federal government minister.

Will the minister stand here today and explain why he agreed to allow these programs cut?

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Surrey-Newton certainly has well-scripted notes and is unable to even change the script when presented with the evidence contrary to what he’s suggesting.

The federal minister was incorrect.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Virk: The federal minister was incorrect. This government has never endorsed the changes in the program. This government has not endorsed this program.

[ Page 4932 ]

[1420]

My question: will the Minister of Advanced Education please explain how it is possible that this government can always find money for their friends, like ex-Liberal MLA Mr. Ben Stewart — $2,400 for his Chinese lessons — yet continue to tell 9,000 British Columbians like Mr. Paul Yu: “Tough luck”?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, there is certainly no shortage of federal programs that the member opposite would suggest the province of B.C. and the taxpayers of B.C. should pay for. There is no shortage of federal programs that the members opposite…. They can grow money on their magic NDP money tree and suggest that British Columbia residents should be paying for them. This side of the House….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: Madame Speaker, this side of the House is absolutely committed, and you’ve heard it a number of times before, to growing a strong economy. That side of the House continues to oppose it. In fact, it took the leadership of the member from Oak Bay to lead all these individuals here to oppose LNG. That’s what this side stands for.

The loss of these programs is not just a loss to people who want to build their lives in Canada; it’s a loss to all of us. Our province is a better place because of these programs. They have meant that people with the skills our province needs have been able to realize their goals and contribute to B.C.’s workplaces.

The responsibility for restoring these programs rests at this minister’s feet. Will the minister take action and save these programs?

Hon. A. Virk: The members opposite certainly may know this, but perhaps I’ll give them that information: the province certainly has more of a limited role in settlement services after the federal government assumed responsibility for settlement services for most newcomers as of April 1, 2014.

The province has committed $4 million in funding to ensure that newcomers not eligible for federal immigration services can continue to access services. This side is committed to ensure that new immigrants get the full support to ensure they become productive British Columbians.

S. Simpson: It’s remarkable that this Minister of Advanced Education will tell you that the province has thrown their hands up and is providing no support for thousands and thousands of people who need language skills and that if they’re lucky, maybe they can find a non-profit to help them out. That’s what this minister calls leadership.

The Liberal government has been trying to clean up the mess they made in 2002 when they botched skills training in this province. They now have a plan to do that.

[1425]

Hon. A. Virk: I’ve corrected the misinformation provided by several of the members, and they continue on this same line that we on this side of the House did not support the federal government’s move to a new model.

I will certainly be tabling the letter suggesting the same. In fact on December 13, on page A17 of a certain newspaper, I’m quoted as saying that at the time that the federal government proposed the changes, the minister did not endorse the federal changes whatsoever. This is — I don’t know — three or four or five times that the members opposite have misrepresented the facts.

We acknowledge that immigrants play such an important

part in building our province. We certainly would have preferred the previous system, but we are committed to ensure that ESL…. We’re going to work with our institutions to ensure that it’s sustainable as we move forward.

[ Page 4933 ]

Those students don’t care whether the minister supported it two years ago or doesn’t support it now. What they want is to see a program reinstated.

My question to the minister is simple. Why is British Columbia unable to do what Alberta and Ontario have been able to do?

ESL is available. Part of that funding went to four post-secondary institutions as well, so ESL, contrary to the misinformation being provided continuously by these members, continues to be provided across B.C.

[1430]

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON POVERTY REDUCTION

M. Mungall: Saskatchewan just announced they will be joining eight other Canadians provinces and countless local governments with a legislated poverty reduction plan. Saskatchewan has the second-lowest poverty rate in the country.

For the last 13 years B.C. has had the highest poverty rate in the country, yet this government stubbornly refuses to legislate a comprehensive poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines. This is something our Representative for Children and Youth has called for, something British Columbians want across the province.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will she commit today to joining the rest of Canada with a real poverty reduction plan?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reality is that a real child poverty reduction plan is an economic development plan, and that’s something we have on this side of the House. Between 1990 and 2000, families living in poverty increased by 42 percent. However, since 2003….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, because since 2003, Member, child poverty in British Columbia has gone down by 41 percent.

There are only two ways to address poverty. The first is to create jobs for parents so that they can support their families, and the second is to provide targeted supports in a number of areas to help people who are living on low incomes. We are doing both, and we will continue to do so.

Will the minister step out of her ideology and step into reality and announce a poverty reduction plan for this province?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The child poverty rate in British Columbia is higher than anyone would like it to be. There is no question. But it is at its second-lowest point in two decades.

Across the country there are a variety of approaches taken. Having a legislated poverty plan, as we have recently observed in Ontario, is no guarantee of success because, in fact, their child poverty rates have increased.

We believe that assisting families who are living in poverty through programs like child care subsidies, through over $3½ billion invested in social housing programs, through increasing….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’m hearing from the members opposite that they don’t care about social housing programs. I think that’s atrocious, because the programs and services that this government has introduced over the last number of years…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order. Order.

[ Page 4934 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: …have lifted more than 69,000 children out of poverty in this province. We’re going to continue to keep working.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

Hon. M. de Jong: Late last week I reserved the right to raise a matter of privilege, and rather than have these things hang out there, I thought I would advance the reason for so doing at the time. It related to remarks made during question period by the Leader of the Opposition.

[1435]

I want to say at the outset that I am not suggesting that the hon. Leader of the Opposition set out to purposely mislead the House. I know he is concerned about ensuring that the record be accurate. I notice that his comments were repeated by the member for Nanaimo.

He pointed out that at the time the Oil and Gas Commission was established in the 1990s by the NDP government, the Liberals voted against it. And then shortly thereafter, the member for Nanaimo pointed out: “Those are the folks who in the ’90s voted against the Oil and Gas Commission…. Again, I come back to the Oil and Gas Commission. I mean, all those wonderful B.C. Liberals voted against that.”

Now, I deplore this constant going back to the 1990s. [Laughter.] Members know that. But I was one of those members that happened to be here at the time. I went back, and I checked the record. Lo and behold, it turns out that the arguments advanced by the government of the day, the NDP government of the day, were so persuasive that the opposition of the day chose to side with the government and support them.

If the member needs me to provide him with the references, I’ll provide that. Or he could ask the then acting Government House Leader who sits to his immediate right and called the bill in committee stage and second reading. But I know both members will simply want to confirm the facts and then adjust the record accordingly.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I know to guide you in your deliberations on this particular matter, you’ve heard the presentation from the Government House Leader. From this side of the House, I’d like to offer up, I think, an argument that is often used by the current government and the current House Leader on the issue, and that….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Don’t take my line. [Laughter.]

That is that there may not have been a standing division and that they can claim that they did not vote and that they voted in favour. But the fact of the matter is that the funding for the Oil and Gas Commission was in the budget, and they voted against the budget.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have two reports to be tabled: the report of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, Annual Report 2013-2014 ; and the report of the B.C. Ferry Commission, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2014 .

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Virk: I wish to table the document aforementioned.

R. Fleming: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: Joining us in the precinct this afternoon are representatives from the Camosun College Student Society and the University of Victoria Students Society. I’d like the House to please make welcome Greg Atkinson, Mackenzie Zouboules, Kayleigh Erickson, Ben Johnson and Tristan Ryan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage debate on Bill 3.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

The Chair: Shall

section 1 pass? So ordered.

Member for Surrey-Newton on

section 2.

H. Bains:

Section 2. But my understanding is that we are still on

section 1.

[ Page 4935 ]

The Chair: All right.

H. Bains: There are certain….

The Chair:

Section 1 we’ve just passed, but we’ll go back to

section 1 if that’s the member’s wish.

H. Bains: I would ask my colleague from Nanaimo to continue on with the

definitions side.

L. Krog: It’s so nice to be tossed the old football in the field.

With respect to the current…. The definition says “current action” and makes reference to the specific proceeding that’s outstanding now. Is the minister aware of any other proceedings that might impact on stone and timber rights arising out of any of those railway settlements?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond, I would like to introduce the staff that are with me here today. I neglected to do that on Thursday.

[1445]

With me is Richard Grieve, who’s the director of strategic initiatives in the legislation branch — was in our ministry, now in the Ministry of Natural Gas Development. Unfortunately, we’ve lost him over to there. Their gain, our loss. Brian Fardoe is the senior policy and land use adviser for strategic initiatives in our legislation branch. I’d like to thank them for being here.

It’s interesting. After watching a little bit of football on the weekend, I think I just saw an audible called at the line of scrimmage. Just to respond to the specific question, there is a 2006 legal claim that was put into abeyance, which we’re now taking steps to dismiss as part of the settlement agreement. Both CPR and the province have agreed that that will be dismissed, and I’m not aware of any other actions.

L. Krog: I’m curious then. The bill makes reference only to the action that was commenced in 2013 and doesn’t make reference to the action that the minister just described. I’m just curious to know why the bill doesn’t deal with both actions — and if the minister could also explain to the House the substance of the 2006 action. I mean, we get the point in the 2013 action. But what’s the substance of the 2006 action as well?

Hon. S. Thomson: The 2006 action was a petition by the province on a single sub-lot in Kamloops challenging the CPR ownership or reservation on that lot.

Because it was a provincial action, it’s not referenced specifically in this legislation. In the settlement action we’ve agreed to withdraw that, and the lot itself is listed in the

schedule to the legislation in the settlement agreement. That removes any reservations that were on that property, so it’s not necessary to reference the specific claim. The settlement agreement, and the fact that the province has agreed to withdraw that and petitioned the court to do that, means that it didn’t need to be specifically referenced.

L. Krog: This will be my last question. I take it, then, that that action — we’ll call it the Kamloops action, the 2006 petition, the proceeding by way of petition — was done really as sort of a test case for the government in trying to determine the legality of the claims of CPR overall. Is that a fair thing to say?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that’s a fair comment.

H. Bains: I want to go back. I know it was debated extensively the previous day by my colleague and other members on this side, but there’s one question that I may want to raise again along the line there.

[1450]

As we know, there were two types of private land owners — the ones who only received the surface rights and the others who paid a higher price to acquire not only the surface rights but the timber and stone rights.

The question is: how is it fair to those who paid the full price? Those who did not pay the full price, because they only paid for the surface rights, now automatically — because this bill extinguishes the CPR stone and timber rights — will be given the full rights, both timber and stone rights, without actually paying for it. My question is: how is it fair between those two groups? One paid the full price. Others paid a very small price because they only acquired the surface rights.

Hon. S. Thomson: We did canvass this point extensively in the earlier stages of the committee stage debate on this. Those individuals who purchased the timber and stone or who paid to have timber and stone reservations quieted on their title did so because they wanted certainty at the time. They wanted to not have any question about the values or their ability to either harvest timber or to look at potential stone values on those properties.

We talked about the challenges of trying to evaluate all of that, value it, given the unique nature of the reservations, in terms of what timber it applied to and what it didn’t apply to on the properties. As was pointed out, some of the timber on those properties would be subject to the reservation, and some of it might not be, depending on what had happened on that property in terms of previous activities, fire activity or anything.

The whole challenge, in terms of the complexity of it…. It was viewed that in order to provide certainty to all, both to private owners and to the Crown, the settlement agreement to remove the reservations, quiet those reservations over top or behind those titles was the step to be taken.

[1455]

[ Page 4936 ]

That was viewed as the most appropriate step to take in order to provide that certainty to all, which will now allow either Crown or private land owners to be able to utilize their properties, the values on their properties, in the most appropriate way.

H. Bains: I think maybe I’ll ask the minister this question. How many of those private land owners are there who paid the full price?

Hon. S. Thomson: Over the time, there were 70 transactions over 4,400 hectares.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could also tell us…. Out of the 68,000 hectares that we are talking about here that were in private hands, 70 paid for full rights. My understanding, speaking to the minister and to the briefing, is that it involves about 4,400 hectares from CP and about 700 from Crown. Can the minister clarify?

I just want to make sure that the minister gets the right question. Out of the 70, how many of them….? Or perhaps you can tell us in hectares. How much of that transaction took place from the Crown land, and how much was from CPR?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, on the private land it was 70 over 4,400 hectares. On the Crown land there were five sales of the reservations by CP for over 570 hectares. Those were primarily to small logging operators in selling the timber reservation.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us if any of those transactions took place after 2000?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, those were from the period after 2000 and up to 2014. As we’ve noted, in 2006 that process was challenged. Because of the uncertainty and the lack of clarity around ownership of those reservations, that’s when the process really started.

Then we, with subsequent legal action, came to the position, as I pointed out on Thursday, that they were selling an interest or selling a reservation that they did own. It was viewed that the settlement process was the most efficient way to provide the certainty to all, rather than go through a long and complex process of legal challenge, with a claim, as I pointed out, of over $40 million against the province in that claim. To provide the certainty to all, that was the settlement agreement reached. The agreement to quiet all historical reservations, whether on title or whether behind the title, was the step taken.

What we wanted to do was get to a point where, for both Crown and for private land owners, they had that certainty so that they could utilize the resources on their property without the uncertainty of CPR coming in and selling those reservations to somebody else, or of the Crown not being able to realize the values for timber and stone that would be on Crown property, particularly on the timber side of it when there is the question around exactly which timber it applied to and which it didn’t apply to.

As we pointed out in debate last week, in balance of all of the issues around this, a settlement approach, a settlement agreement in order to achieve that certainty, to be able to quiet all of that, was the step taken.

H. Bains: I guess I’m just trying to figure out here, at least for those who paid the full price for full rights — stone rights and timber rights — whether those are five who purchased those rights on Crown land and 70 who purchased those rights on CPR lands, and whether any of the transactions took place after CP initiated their lawsuit or discussion with the government, where they notified the government that they would be exerting their right to timber and stone rights.

As for that lawsuit in 2013, as mentioned, everything that they mentioned, whether that discussion took place somewhere in 2000, 2006…. Did any of this transaction take place after the initial discussion that CPR had with the government or brought to the government’s attention — that they intended to exert their rights, which they probably had forgotten or didn’t exert previous to that?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: Following the court filing in 2013, there was one small sale on Crown land that was to resolve a situation with regards to access on a communication tower, the TMO mobile, which needed to move forward, and five small transactions on private property from private land owners — all very small.

The situation with respect to those owners, I think…. I can’t speak specifically to what the motivation was for each of those owners, but they saw a situation where the CPR was asserting their rights of ownership. They may have had opportunities that they wanted to move forward on, wanted to get the certainty on their own individual properties, not knowing what the outcome of a long, protracted court proceeding would have been. They were looking for individual certainty for…. It could be a number of reasons.

So there were five small ones since that date.

H. Bains: I’ll talk about this one transaction on Crown land and the other five on private CP land, but I want to go back. My understanding, reading the Blues — the minister can correct me — is that this discussion started in early 2000. Then the minister clarified that 2006 was the actual year when extensive discussions took place along this line, which led to a court case in 2013.

If the discussion was started in 2006, one can argue that if you continued to sell those rights after the discussions took place…. Now you know full well that CPR is

[ Page 4937 ]

exerting its rights, and you’re still charging people who wanted to purchase those rights full price for timber rights and stone rights. But in the meantime, you’re defending that the CPR — in your initial response to the 2013, even previous to that — may not have a case. But you still continue with the transaction where at least one since 2013, on Crown land, was required to pay full price to acquire stone and timber rights.

Don’t you think that at least that one owner would have a case and a good argument to this government: “Look, you didn’t tell us you would be settling this case”?

Whereas others who had only surface rights will, as a result of your settlement, acquire full rights to timber and stone without paying any extra, in the meantime, you’re charging at least one person a full price for stone and timber.

[1510]

I think that’s something that they may argue — that you were fully aware that these discussions were taking place. You are still charging them full price for the all of the rights. So I think that’s….

How could you explain to that individual who paid in good faith, but the government didn’t advise them at that time that “We would be settling this case sometime” or “We’ll be fighting…”? Were they given the option to “Continue on, don’t pay for the full prices, or we will make you whole in the event that we settle”?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, it’s important to point out that the province was not selling the rights. From the approach of the questioning, it appears as though the member opposite is saying that we sold those rights, or the province did. That’s not the case. We didn’t. It was CP that was selling their reservations on what they assert was their property, either the reserved timber or the reserved stone with the historical reservations that were in the case.

There was awareness that there were discussions underway. But as I pointed out, for those individuals who on their property may have wanted to advance their interests — wanted to ensure that they had quiet title to their properties, wanted to move forward with some economic activity, whether it be timber or other values — and because they, in a number of those properties, would have known that they had an amount of private timber that may have been theirs to move forward on, they didn’t want those reservations sold to somebody else and be able to have somebody else access those values.

They made that conscious decision at that point to purchase those reservations sold by CPR, not by the province, to provide the certainty. Not knowing the outcome of all of this, they wanted to, in a sense, get that certainty in advance of whatever might come out of that.

Nobody knew at that time whether there would be a settlement. Nobody knew at that time that we would be, potentially, bringing in legislation to do it. It’s a little bit like, and I think the member…. You make your decisions at the time. You don’t know what tax legislation is or may not be. You look at all your circumstances at the time and make your decisions.

They did it for, I presume, a variety of reasons. I don’t know each individual owner’s motivation, at the time, to do that. Again, those were individual steps they took. Those reservations were sold by CPR, not by the province.

[1515]

H. Bains: I think I will leave it here. But I want to state that if I was one of those owners, I would feel that you have created two classes of those owners. One was required to pay a higher price because they were purchasing timber rights and stone rights, along with the surface rights, not knowing that the government would come in one day and settle on their behalf with CPR and have CPR’s rights extinguished.

By virtue of that action, they will now own full rights — meaning the timber and stone rights, along with the surface rights — which they never paid for. Indirectly, the government is paying for those rights on behalf of those who never paid for stone and timber rights. Indirectly, you can say that you’re not doing that. I know that you would say: “We are only extinguishing those rights as if those rights never existed.” But the fact remains, in reality, that they only purchased surface rights.

Now, by virtue of this bill, they will be granted full rights. That’s what they are getting as a result of the government action, at a cost of $19 million in taxpayer money,

whereas the other group of owners paid for the rights — not only the surface but the timber and stone rights. So there are two categories of ownership being created.

My question here would be: did the government, during negotiations or during the process of this settlement, think about…? These people actually paid the full price for all of the rights, and others didn’t. Others will be benefiting who never paid, as per the action of this government. Maybe we should make those who were required to pay for the timber rights and for the stone rights…. Make them whole or at least bring all owners to the same level somehow and then cut the deal.

Did the government consider: how do we deal with that issue so that we don’t leave two categories of owners here? One will feel that they are unfairly treated. Others, as a windfall of this decision, will be benefiting.

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for the question. This point was put forward during the committee stage debate last week. As I pointed out, we did consider…. One of the considerations in the process was the province assuming the ownership of those reservations, rather than simply just extinguishing those reservations.

But when we looked at the administrative complexity,

[ Page 4938 ]

the challenges around inventory of the values, how to appropriately assess those values on all of those 10,000 properties, it was determined that the settlement would be to simply extinguish the rights and provide that level of certainty for all. We recognize that there were properties….

[1520]

Again, I need to point out that in terms of purchasing out those reservations, it would have been in relation to the timber and the stone values, not all surface rights. It’s the historical reservations that are part of the settlement. We looked back and used the principle that said those decisions were made at the time by those individual landowners for a variety of reasons. To try to recognize each of the different circumstances would have been virtually impossible.

We also looked at the fact that there were many people who paid property transactions over the time and paid market value for those properties, assuming that they had the reservations on those properties. They paid full market value for the properties, assuming they had the timber and stone and that there wasn’t a reservation on those properties, because they didn’t know about them. They weren’t registered.

In the end, taking all those factors into consideration — the administrative complexity, the fact that a process to have the province assume the ownership and then try to adjust for all of that through our owning those reservations would have been virtually impossible to do — the decision was to avoid the legal process. To quiet the reservations, whether it’s directly on title or sitting behind the title, was a step that provided the most certainty to all.

H. Bains: Let me put it another way. This settlement is 145,000 hectares of Crown land and 68,000 hectares of private land. Therefore, there is a settlement for 213,000 hectares and the cost of $19 million to settle the lawsuit.

Did the government consider…? The argument made during negotiations was that part of the 68,000 — there are 4,400 or another 700 from the Crown — at least for those 75 landowners who already had paid the full price for service and timber and stone rights….

Was the settlement 213,000 hectares minus the land owned by these owners who already paid for the timber and stone rights? Was that taken into consideration? Had that been taken into consideration, would that have been less than $19 million then?

Hon. S. Thomson: As we pointed out last week, the settlement claim was in relation to CPR’s claim against the province on the Crown land and for historical timber that may or may not have been harvested. The reservations, the values on those properties — that was the basis of the claim. That was the value that we talked about.

That process, in order to settle the claim against the province on the Crown land, was the key focus of the settlement. But when it came down to final settlement conditions, what we said was that we can settle this on the Crown land portion, but we also want added to this settlement the quieting, or the extinguishment, of all timber and stone reservations on private properties to provide that certainty to all of the private land owners.

[1525]

That was an additional step that the province asked for in the settlement negotiations to prevent any future action against private land owners, to not have the ongoing requirement where private land owners would want to extinguish those historic reservations and would have to negotiate or buy those reservations, to not leave them at risk of CPR coming for future action against them if they had undertaken any activities on those private lands over time.

Where the line between what were the private timber values and what was actually owned by CP as part of the historical reservation…. That was added as an additional condition on the part of the province in order to reach the settlement agreement.

H. Bains: The court case S134003, May 30, 2013 — I think that was discussed last week. It talked about a defendant. One of them is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia, and then there’s the address. It goes on to say: “John Does, one to 100, whose numbers and identities are unknown to CPR, are current or former owners of lands in British Columbia who disposed of trees or stone owned by CPR without CPR consent as described herein.”

Then it goes on to the next one. The other defendants are ABC contractors, one to 100 — a similar language used here as for what I mentioned about the individual one to 100 John Does. They are going after three different groups: government, individuals and those contractors.

The settlement, I would gather, is based on the lawsuit that was filed and that I just mentioned. The question still is: at the end of the day, it was negotiated out of court, right? So when you were negotiating, they had their original position — $40 million, I understand, was mentioned last week — but that was based on the entire package of 213,000 hectares — 145,000 Crown and 68,000 private lands. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify for the member opposite, the suit against the province was on Crown land. It did name a number of John Does in the process. Those would’ve been people who may have harvested timber on their properties. It certainly doesn’t relate to all of the 68,000 hectares of private land that are part of the extinguishment of the reservations. It would also relate to small companies that may have harvested timber on Crown land under agreement.

[1530]

Again, the settlement of the suit was because of the

[ Page 4939 ]

claim against the province, and for all the reasons we outlined last week around the legal costs, the liability and the view that CP, through their assertions and through the historical records, did own these historical reservations. That was the balance. What we achieved in the settlement agreement by adding all of the private properties into the settlement agreement and getting full extinguishment of all the historic reservations was to provide certainty not only for the Crown, not only for the people that would have potentially been named.

They didn’t go after any of those individuals. They weren’t served or anything. They were just included in the claim and the full range — the 10,000 titles that are part of the private land that had those historical reservations either on title or quietly behind the title.

H. Bains: So that we are clear, when we’re talking about 145,000 acres…. Historically, according to the court document, only 50 percent of that was forfeited by the private purchasers or successors in title to the Crown for non-payment of property taxes. Were they going after the government only for half of 145,000 acres? According to this court document, that’s the land that came back as a result of the failure to pay property taxes, and it returned back to the Crown. It was only to deal with 72,000 hectares. Or was it 445,000 hectares?

My understanding is that the remainder of the 7,500 remained in private hands, and 72,000 came back to the Crown because they failed to pay taxes.

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: Our figures are that there are 145,000 hectares of Crown land that have the reservations — those came back to the Crown, historically, through forfeiture by individuals — and 68,000 hectares of private land. That’s the basis of the settlement. That’s the basis under which the rights and reservations were extinguished.

H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I will read you the paragraph. Maybe the minister and the staff can then provide us with how…. The minister’s answer is a little different than what this court case…. I’m still on the same court case, S134003, May 30, 2013, page 4, paragraph 12. I will read:

“Approximately 50 percent of the 145,000 acres of tree and stone reservation lands were forfeited by their private purchasers or successors in title to HMTQ for non-payment of property taxes — or in a small number of cases, otherwise acquired by HMTQ…”

HMTQ, as you know, refers to Her Majesty the Queen.

“…thereby transferring surface title of these lands to HMTQ — Crown lands with CPR tree and stone reservation. The remainder of the tree and stone reservation land remained in private title — private lands with CPR tree and stone reservations.”

CPR still maintains the stone and tree reservations, but half of the 145,000 remained in private lands.

“Particulars of the Crown lands with CPR tree and stone reservation and private lands with CPR tree and stone reservation are known to HMTQ.”

So they’re making their case. According to this case, there are only 50 percent that came back as the proceeds of forfeiture because of failure to pay taxes, and the other half remained in private lands.

I think that’s where my confusion is. Did we settle for the entire 145,000? The question is why, because otherwise, in private lands…. The Crown only retained the rights or acquired the rights, or they were transferred to them, because of taxes not being paid. There were only about 72½ thousand acres, probably, that the Crown actually owned out of those 145,000. Maybe the minister could clarify that.

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: The numbers. The CPR became the successor to the historic railways in 1956. As you know, they began asserting ownership on that around the year 2000. They had sold some reservations to third parties, as has been pointed out. They claimed ownership of timber and stone reservations of approximately 213,000 hectares of Crown and private land.

Of the 213,000 of claimed reservations, a portion was for timber and stone. A portion was stone only. When we went through the settlement process, in terms of settling it with respect to Crown land, with getting the additional protection and certainty for private land, for dealing with a number of other transactions….

There were 4,000 hectares of railway land in 14 district lots where CP questioned the validity of the historical tax forfeitures in the province against third-party purchasers who had not fully paid the historic railway for the land. The land, potentially, was still owned by the railway. The province estimated the value of that issue alone at about $10 million, which is about 5 percent of the estimated $300 million value of that disputed land.

What’s important to recognize here is that there was the claim against the province specifically, but what we achieved in the settlement agreement was both the quieting of the historical reservations and the settlement of some additional potential risks and liability to the province around land during historical forfeiture processes — 14 district lots, some of them with significant value. Significant legal costs in those proceedings, and also a risk, potentially, that if we had been unsuccessful, the province would have had liability for CP costs.

[1545]

When we added all of that potential risk and liability and value together, the timber values on those lands…. Stone values, as I pointed out on Thursday, are very, very hard to value because stone doesn’t include the base minerals. As I pointed out, it’s the historical building stone. It would have been a very, very difficult process to evaluate all of that, but it has value.

On balance, all of those factors taken into consideration, we’ve reached the settlement to put all of these issues behind us and provide the certainty to both the Crown

[ Page 4940 ]

and private land owners.

As we also pointed out, there were some comments in second reading around First Nations consultation in all of this process. I think it’s important to put on the record here and advise that this is actually, by settling all of this, beneficial from a First Nations perspective, particularly on those Crown lands.

It now means that when we’re going forward in looking at accommodation agreements, treaty settlement processes with First Nations like the Ktunaxa in the Kootenays and things like that, we now know we have Crown land that doesn’t have those historical reservations on them, that they’re clear both from a Crown and a private land perspective.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

H. Bains: I think the crux of this whole dispute, as I understand it, is that the CPR is alleging in that court case that they owned timber rights and stone rights on the lands that we have discussed here, with 50 percent of 145,000 plus 68,000. Their claim is that the Crown and private individuals and contractors removed timber and stone without their permission. That’s the crux. They are saying that they own those rights, and government issues — what’s the word that they use? — the timber marks to individuals or to companies on land where CPR still owned those rights without their permission.

Did anyone do any calculations of what would be the total value that the Crown and individuals have actually taken from those lands where CPR held rights? What was the total value that CPR is alleging that the Crown and individuals took without their permission?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to recognize that there are a whole number of factors that went into the calculation of the settlement value.

First of all, over time there had been timber-harvesting activities on both Crown and private land that potentially harvested CPR timber — if you accept the assertion, which we have, that they own that timber. There was that part of it. We didn’t go through and do a detailed valuation of all of that. It means going back and determining, in those cases, which was CPR and which wasn’t, which might have been Crown timber or which might have been private timber that’s not under the reservations on each of those individual properties. There was that factor.

There was the factor that on all of those 10,000 private properties and Crown land there is existing timber that subsequent to the settlement agreement was owned by CP Rail. In addition, we factored in all the potential legal costs, both Crown and — with the view if we carried the process unsuccessfully — the responsibility for some portion of CP legal costs and the CPR interests in the validity around historically forfeited land to the province, which was added into the settlement agreement, bringing all of the private land into the final settlement and providing all of that certainty.

When we factored all of those together, value in the mediated settlement process was determined. It was viewed as being a fair settlement in order to provide that certainty.

The settlement process was determined, putting to rest a long history of uncertainty for something that was done years and years ago in terms of the original grants — CPR becoming the successor to those rights, the fact that they existed, the fact that some people didn’t even know they existed, didn’t know they were on their property and may have taken action to prevent any future action against those private land owners, in particular, for action against the province. That, all packaged together, was determined to be the best steps.

The legislation that we’re debating here — still in

section 1 — and that we’re bringing forward here confirms the settlement. The settlement is there. Potentially, we could have just accepted the settlement, removed the court action which we’d agreed to, which was in abeyance and which we’ve applied to the court to remove. It could have been left at that.

But we felt that to provide the greatest degree of certainty, we also needed to bring legislation in which confirmed the settlement and also confirmed that there is no basis for future actions against any individuals or private land owners who may or may not have taken certain actions on their property. We wanted to have the greatest surety and assurances in the settlement.

H. Bains: I agree with the minister. The issue has to be resolved. The lawsuit is there, and it has to be resolved — no doubt. That is the right thing to do under all of the circumstances.

Again, the taxpayers who are watching are seeing that $19 million of taxpayer money is being used here to settle this. There has to be some basis for that. I know the minister is trying his best to explain the background and the reasons. But they’re asking: “How do you come up with those numbers?” CP can’t just pick a number and government try to negotiate halfway.

[1555]

They must justify it based on some logic, based on some documentation, based on some calculations done — how much timber was, according to them, stolen or stone quarried or other material taken without their consent. I think that’s the whole purpose. They must have some calculations done to convince the government and the Crown: “This is how much we have lost over the years, and here is the documentation to back up our argument.”

I’m just trying to ask those questions so that the taxpayers can actually see that, yes, there is a base for those numbers. Now, $40 million was mentioned by CPR. They bring the lawsuit against the government and others.

[ Page 4941 ]

They allege that that’s how much they lost over the years. How do they justify $40 million? They must have some mechanism to go by — how much timber was used.

Perhaps I could go back, which should be a little easier for the minister to answer. One of the allegations from CPR before this case was settled was that the Crown allowed or they allocated timber to private entities to come in and harvest on Crown land, which they alleged the government had no right to because CP still owned those reservations on timber and stone. The government issued licences for private contractors to come in and harvest, so government must know how much revenue government actually collected over the years from these 145,000 acres of that are in dispute here.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: In order to provide some clarity here, firstly, a detailed look back over all the history of how much timber on Crown lands was potentially harvested, where the province provided the authority for the harvest, tenures, licences — all of those processes.

We know that a portion of that would have been Crown timber and a portion would have been timber that had the reservation on it. It would have been CPR timber. But to go back and do all of that evaluation would have taken a great deal of time and effort in order to determine the exact valuation.

We knew we were at risk in the process, as part of it, for compensation for that. That was one part of the consideration for the settlement. The second part was that we know there are, in the very conservative estimates, about 2.7 million cubic metres of reserved timber on the Crown lands and an amount on private lands.

That wasn’t taken into consideration because, as I said, the evaluation was done based on the claim against the province. The private property extinguishment and rights was added into the settlement by the province in terms of achieving that additional value — over $10 million estimated in terms of the lots, about 4,000 hectares of railway land and district lots where the CPR questioned the validity of that under provincial tax forfeiture. We didn’t want to go into a long….

It would have taken a great deal of costs, potentially further legal costs and everything, to resolve that against third-party purchasers who had not paid the historic railway for the land. In other words, there could have been an argument advanced that the land was still owned by the railway.

When we look at the significant legal costs that would be involved in the process — continued legal costs around the court declaration on the sublot that we mentioned, a saving to the province in discontinuing that — all of those were packaged together to determine the value. CPR, obviously, if they’d continued to pursue the case, would have made the argument around maximum compensation. If it had proceeded, it would have taken a lot of work to value all of that.

[1605]

All packaged together, in our view, a reasonable settlement was achieved — a reasonable value for taxpayers, in the process — to provide the certainty both to the Crown and the private land owners so that we can move on with certainty on the land base for economic development for the Crown as we move forward with timber harvesting, potential stone reservations on those properties.

The private land owners can now, knowing that they have ownership or value of all of the timber…. They don’t have to worry about whether CPR is going to claim that and come against them. They don’t have to worry whether CPR might sell that reservation to somebody else. If it was offered to that landowner and he decided he didn’t want to take it up, then CPR could have said: “Well, we have some value here. We’re going to provide that to somebody else.” To remove that uncertainty for those private owners, to free up the land for potential, clear it with no encumbrances on it as far as future relations with First Nations….

All packaged together, we feel we’ve achieved a reasonable value for the province in the settlement.

H. Bains: Let me ask a question from a different angle. Now that there’s a settlement, CP will get $19 million. The private land owners will get the full title on their land. The government-owned or government portion of that settlement, 145,000 acres — now the government owns those rights. I should say that the reservation is removed on that 145,000 acres. It’s the same thing with the private owners.

I still haven’t got the answer to whether it’s 50 percent of 145,000 or whether it’s 145,000. That’s what I asked. In either case, let me ask if the minister put any value to stone and timber rights to the portion of the Crown part of the 145,000 acres so that we could see who’s getting what.

CP is getting 19,000, as said earlier. Private owners are having the reservation rights removed from their land. Now they own the land with full rights. The Crown now also owns their land with full rights, with all the reservations removed. There has to be benefit to all of them.

What is the benefit to the taxpayers — it’s costing them $19 million — of selling this? You gave all the other explanations and the reasons. But as far as the equity that we now, as government, have acquired on the portion of land that was Crown land — I think we still could use 145,000 acres…. What is the total value of the equity that we have acquired as a result of this settlement, as government?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: While we didn’t do a detailed evaluation of the timber on Crown land — it would have been very extensive in terms of what was Crown, what was CPR and the nature of all of the timber supply on all of

[ Page 4942 ]

those properties — conservatively, the estimate was that the value was around $10 million.

In addition to that value — which is timber that is there and that is now not subject to the reservations — plus all of the potential risk around any harvesting that had taken place over all of that time frame, that historical time period, plus the certainty for private land owners, plus the issue around the disputed lands under the forfeiture process…. Again, that added significant value to what was negotiated — for their cooperation in that process.

All of that added together in the process to avoid that long, complex legal process, to ensure that the province owned the timber on the Crown lands and to remove the risk against both the province and private land owners for previous activities. As I pointed out, we took all of that — values and conservative estimates — to come to the settlement without going through a detailed analysis on every piece of property, on every area subject to the claim.

Again, in our view and the view of the process with the professionals — and a professional mediator in the process — it was viewed as a fair settlement.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

H. Bains: The question to the minister would be…. We could have gone back to the definition of stone reservation. So 2(1) says: “All stone reservation interests held by CPR are extinguished.” Then you go back and take a look at the definition, and it says: “an interest in stone, including, without limitation, valuable or marketable stone, in, on or under the railway land.”

What does that mean when they talk about stone? Does that include minerals or anything under the ground?

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: The stone reservation results from the agreement between the historical railway company and the third party, where that third party received the land but the railway retained rights and access to the stone.

What they talked about in the terms of the transfer were “valuable and marketable stone.” These were the terms. They’re used, but they’re not defined. It’s believed that stone does not include base or precious minerals, which were not granted to railways under the original Crown grants, or sand or gravel, which is differential from stone in the Crown grants.

As I talked about last Thursday, it’s that construction or building stone that was important at that time in terms of economic development and moving forward with the construction of towns. The member for Nanaimo talked about Fernie — the historical building with stone in Fernie. Probably much of that stone came from some of those historical reservations, but it doesn’t include base or precious minerals.

It is undefined. That was one of the challenges in determining a valuation in all of that. Timber — we know what timber is in the process. Stone is a little more grey.

H. Bains: Thank you for that answer.

The next one, when we move on. Still under

definitions, it talks about: “(

b) interests incidental to the interest referred to in paragraph (a), including, without limitation, interests respecting the following: (

i) ingress to and egress from the railway land….” Can the minister explain what that means?

Hon. S. Thomson: In the drafting…. If you look in

section 1, “‘interest’ includes a claim, estate, right or title.” That, combined with the definition of “stone reservation,” where you talk about interests incidental to the interest, ingress and egress from the railway land, right to extract or carry away stone….

What we wanted to do in the

definitions and in the stone reservation and then referencing it to

section 2, which we’re dealing with, and extinguishing all of those…. We wanted to cover all of the potential circumstances that may have been there. So whether it was the stone itself or whether it had been a right that might have been granted to access some property for some reason, we wanted to capture it all.

That’s the basis of the definition, and

section 2 is simply extinguishing all of those stone reservation interests.

H. Bains: I think the question, then, is: with the language here, is the minister sure that with any of those private land owners that are covered by this settlement, you have determined that none of them could come back and challenge the minister or this settlement in any way?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we’re confident that’s the case.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

H. Bains: Again, the questions are about…. This one talks about extinguishment of timber reservation interests.

[1620]

With this, I guess it applies — as far as the benefits are concerned, as I earlier said — to the Crown land and to the private land. Did anyone do any calculations about the private lands by virtue of this settlement? Now they own the full rights to timber and stone rights. What would it do to the value of their lands, and if there’s any value taken into consideration, how much are they benefiting from it?

[ Page 4943 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as pointed out,

section 3 is the

section that extinguishes all of those interests, both on Crown and private land.

In discussions with the assessment authority and others, there wasn’t a difference in valuation between land that had the timber reservations on and land that didn’t. In fact, in many cases the landowners didn’t know the reservations were in place.

So in order to provide that additional certainty, when we were coming down to the stages of the settlement, we wanted to add that into the process to protect those landowners. First of all, to protect them against any potential claims for actions that had been taken on those properties in the past, where they may have harvested Crown or CPR timber — some Crown, some CPR…. We also wanted to provide that certainty to them going forward.

There will be individual circumstances, depending on the nature of the timber on that property, where a person could argue now that “I’ve got some additional value, in that….” If he knew there was a reservation in place and it was impacting it, in some way, now to have that certainty…. Obviously, having certainty and the lack of encumbrances on your property is a comfort and is a value to that landowner, particularly in estate provisions and all of those sort of things.

But we didn’t do a detailed valuation of it all. The value in the settlement was the value to the Crown. This was additional value that the province achieved in the settlement.

H. Bains: If he used the numbers that were earlier used for Crown land….

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair.

If you used the numbers that were talked about earlier, the estimation was $10 million of the equity that the government now will hold in the government portion of the plot — 145,000 acres. But the settlement talked about $19 million. At the same time, the private land owners, if they, up until now…. Many of them, the minister said, knew — others didn’t — whether there was some reservation on their property.

Now they know that there are no reservations, and now they own the full rights. Certainly, the value of their piece of property is now higher than it was before the settlement. So obviously, they’re benefiting from it materially and, now, legally.

[1625]

I think that’s something that needs to be out there so that they know that what the government has done is benefiting them as far as their property values are concerned.

As the Crown side of 145,000 acres, their timber and stone rights also have value. I was just wondering if the minister or anybody calculated that into this settlement. How much, actually, are they benefiting, as far as the escalation of their property value by virtue of all the reservations removed?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, we didn’t do the specific, detailed valuation. When you look back over the history on this, the majority of people who purchased these private properties, I think, purchased under the assumption and paid on the basis that they assumed that they were paying for all of the value on that property, not knowing that there was a reservation in place. The greatest majority of these landowners, unless it was somewhere where it was specifically on title, would not have known that these historical reservations existed.

In terms of providing additional value to them, in many cases they’ve already paid for that value in what they paid for properties, historically over time, based on assessed values and assessment of the properties when they’re looking at a private sale, seller to purchaser.

We didn’t do a specific valuation. As I said earlier, it was additional value that we wanted to include in the settlement to provide that certainty for all. The settlement could have been just simply to settle the claim against the province, which we didn’t feel was in the best long-term interests of the province. So that additional portion was added into the settlement agreement.

Again, this

section simply is the

section that extinguishes those rights. In the same way that we did with the stone reservation, we made sure that we covered all the potential bases, as it prevented any future potential claim against any of those private property owners and the Crown.

H. Bains: These two sections, sections 2 and 3. The way I read it — and I would like to ask the minister for confirmation — is that when we are saying in this that all stone or timber reservation interests by the CPR are extinguished, not only are they extinguished going forward from the date of the settlement, but they are extinguished as if they never existed. Therefore, the CPR or any other interested party or aggrieved party can never come back and say: “We once owned rights. Therefore, going backward or retroactively, we still own some interests, and we need to settle that.”

Is that the reason it is said here that it “must be read as if the stone reservation had not been included in the historic grant of railway land”? This means when the railway land was granted, between 1892 and 1908, it will be read now as if they’d never had the reservation rights, as far as the timber rights are concerned or the stone rights are concerned. It should be read as if it had never existed.

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[ Page 4944 ]

H. Bains: Here are, again, a number of

definitions or meanings: “‘owner’ has the same meaning as in the Land Title Act; ‘registrar’ has the same meaning as in the Land Title Act.”

Then it goes on to say:

“Despite any enactment, if a stone reservation interest or timber reservation interest (

a) is extinguished under

section 2 (1) or 3 (1), as applicable, and (

b) remains registered under the Land Title Act in favour of a historic railway company or CPR, or any other person, against a title to railway land, the registrar, on application by a person who is an owner in respect of the railway land, may cancel the registration of the stone reservation interest or timber reservation interest.”

It has to be through action of a person for this registration to be cancelled, in the event that it shows somewhere in the paperwork, I guess.

Can the minister explain what the purpose of this paragraph here is? I’ll read it again: “…the registrar, on application by a person who is an owner in respect of the railway land, may cancel the registration of the stone reservation interest or timber reservation interest.” What does that mean?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is here in order to allow individuals to clean up the title and provides the authority for the registrar, on application, to do that, to remove that from the title.

Section 2 and

section 3, which we have dealt with, clearly extinguish those historical reservations. The landowner can rely on those two provisions to know that his title is clear. But if he wants the additional process of having it actually specifically removed from the title if it isn’t there, he can apply, and this

section provides the authority for the registrar to remove that. He can rely on sections 2 and 3 of the bill to know that those historical rights no longer exist, and that reservation can be removed.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

H. Bains: This

section talks about, in subsection (1): “The payment of compensation by the government to CPR under the settlement agreement constitutes full and final settlement of all claims by CPR against any person, whether or not the person is named or described in the current action, in relation to any of the following matters,” and then it goes on to list those matters.

My question to the minister is…. This talk about “full and final settlement of all claims by CPR against any person” — I get that, but where does the government come in here? Where does the Crown come in here? Is that covered under any other section?

Hon. S. Thomson: The Crown is considered a person for purposes of this section.

[1635]

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

H. Bains: The validation section,

section 6: “In this section: ‘effective date’ means the date this

section comes into force.” I take it that when this bill is passed, is that the effective date? What would be the effective date if you just read the way the wording is? What’s the real effective date, if the minister could give us, in real terms, a real date?

Hon. S. Thomson: The definition is the date in which the…. The effective date is the

section when this comes into force by regulation. That effective date will coincide with the extinguishment of the reservations. This will ensure that the validation has the full legal effect in respect of the reservations.

H. Bains: So when this bill is passed and it’s finalized here in this House…. I think what I’m trying to get at is that we’re saying it comes into effect upon this

section coming into force. Does that require additional action by the minister? How do you bring this into force?

Hon. S. Thomson: The process that we…. The third reading, royal assent of it…. It’ll be brought into force…. An OIC would be needed to take it forward to bring it into force by regulation, and that would be the effective date. That will extinguish all those rights going forward. It’ll also validate, by the provisions of legislation, any action taken previously.

H. Bains: Just to clarify. So the date this bill gets the royal assent here — is that the date? Or will it require another process, through regulations, where the minister will proceed and finalize, and that will be the date to bring it into force?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, there is royal assent. Then there is a process of regulations, so that’s an additional step in the process. The reason that that is the case is to make sure that all the final legal documents — the settlement agreement, everything — are finalized before we enact it by regulation. But it is a step that we will do as quickly as possible with the passage of the legislation.

[1640]

H. Bains: What would be the estimated time frame after the royal assent?

Hon. S. Thomson: The timing with respect to royal assent will be determined by the House Leader in terms of bringing the Lieutenant-Governor in for assent. We’ll be doing the work to prepare the regulation during that time frame so that we’re ready, as soon as that process is

[ Page 4945 ]

completed, to move forward with the OIC. I don’t control the agenda to move things on for OIC, but I expect, given that the legislation has passed and the settlement agreement is in place, that that will follow quickly after royal assent.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

H. Bains: It talks about: “For certainty, sections 5 (2) and 7 do not apply to a claim, action or proceeding by CPR or the government to enforce or determine a right or obligation under the settlement agreement.” Can the minister explain what does that actually…? How is that going to play out?

Hon. S. Thomson: This relates back to those two sections, which are very clear in the fact that…. It extinguishes the rights. It validates past actions. This section, “Enforcement of settlement agreement,” provides the additional certainty that this does not prevent either of the parties from claim against either of the parties if they fail to live up to the settlement agreement.

If, for some reason, under the terms of the settlement, a party doesn’t live up to the terms of the settlement, then action can be taken. That’s appropriate to have that provision in there. But it relates to the settlement agreement itself, not to the historical rights or the extinguishment of the reservations.

H. Bains: The minister knows that I’m not a lawyer, but this thing…. If you read, it says, “For certainty, sections 5 (2),” which talks about settlement and extinguishment of claims, “and 7” — same thing. The way I read it, it says: “For certainty, sections 5 (2) and 7 do not apply to a claim, action or proceeding by CPR or the government to enforce or determine a right or obligation under the settlement agreement.”

The way I read it, it seems to me we’re saying that the claim that existed by CPR…. This does not apply to it. On the other hand, we are saying that the rights are extinguished as a part of the settlement. But here we are saying that it does not apply to a claim, action or proceeding by CPR. I mean, we had a proceeding and a claim by CPR, and that’s why this settlement is here before us. That’s why this bill is here. It seems to be saying that those sections do not apply.

[1645]

The

section that talks about extinguishment of rights by CPR — how does this

section fit with the previous section’s intent?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite will know that I’m also not a lawyer. But I appreciate the question. What this

section does is this relates strictly to the settlement agreement itself, not to the provisions of extinguishment under those other provisions.

The settlement agreement lays out certain steps that the parties must take: quick claim, those various steps that are incorporated in the settlement agreement. What this means is that if either of the parties don’t live up to the terms of the settlement agreement that was reached in exchange for the payment of compensation, then action could be taken against either of those parties.

You could use a very theoretical example. If we passed the legislation — took all the steps and everything like that — the settlement agreement was in place, and then the province decided we weren’t going to pay, then this would allow CP to take action against the province. Or if we paid and CP didn’t take the steps to quit the claim and things that are part of that settlement agreement, then we would be able to take action.

It refers to this settlement agreement, not to the extinguishment of the historical rights.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

H. Bains: This

section talks about retroactive effect. “This Act is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions and must not be construed as lacking retroactive effect in relation to any matter because it makes no specific reference to that matter.”

But once we…. Earlier we said that the CPR’s reservation rights are extinguished. So what’s the purpose of this

section here? It becomes retroactive anyway because now it must be read as if those reservation rights never existed. I mean, that’s what we talked about earlier, and we read through the

section earlier.

I understand it may be some legal requirement, but I’m just trying to understand. When you’re extinguishing the rights, you’re not buying those rights; you’re extinguishing as if they never existed. So what’s the purpose of this section?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is right. This is a legislation that extinguishes historical rights retroactively as though they never existed. This clause is a standard provision that provides additional certainty, used to ensure that the provisions of the act that need to apply in the past do so. It’s additional certainty.

I see the member opposite consulting with his colleague, who is a lawyer, on this. But I’m advised that this is a standard provision when you have

an act that has retroactive provisions, just to give that additional clarity and certainty.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

[ Page 4946 ]

H. Bains: “Regulations to amend Schedule. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, do one or more of the following: (

a) prescribe additional railway lands by adding items to the Schedule.” Can the minister explain what that means: “prescribe additional railway lands by adding items to the Schedule”?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section provides the government with regulation-making authority to amend the

schedule of district lots that are schedule-attached to this — for two years after the date this

section comes into force.

This will ensure that all historical lands are captured by the legislation, if there was some property that came forward that was identified as being subject to this and that wasn’t captured in the schedule. We think we have all the lands captured in the schedule, but this provides that provision. In the event that there is a landowner that comes forward and says, “My piece of property is not in the schedule, and I want it added,” this provides us the reg authority to do so.

H. Bains: To clarify, after this bill is passed and receives royal assent and is brought into force, from that point the government, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, has two years from that date to amend the

schedule — to add, in the event that some land or lots are left out, which may not have been captured going through the process. The enforcement date that is listed in “Validation,”

section 6 — is it two years from that date to add any land that may have been left out?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. Given that that validation

section comes into force with the passage of the regulation that would follow the passage of the legislation, that would be the effective date. It would be two years from that effective date.

H. Bains: Any idea, Minister, if, since the discussion and negotiations, any other land or lots have been identified? Do you know if there might be more? Or is this just to protect ourselves as government — to make sure that in case something is left out, you could add it within those two years?

Hon. S. Thomson: We’re not aware of any. Nothing has come forward since the legislation was introduced. We’re pretty confident that we have all of the lands identified. This is just extra protection for both the government and, particularly, the private owners who may come forward.

CPR would agree. This is part of the settlement agreement, so there would be no argument about adding any to it if they’re identified. In order to be able to ensure that we provide that extinguishment behind title when it may not be registered on that title, we just wanted to make sure that we had that time frame to be able to do that. So it’s just additional protection, but we’re pretty confident that we have all of it identified.

H. Bains: Has the government anything in mind, in particular, to make the private land owners aware that this has happened and that they have two years to come forward? Is there going to be a process of letting them know? Or it’s up to them to find out, and if they don’t find out, they’re out of luck? Is there, I will say, the responsibility of the government to let everyone who potentially could be included in this settlement know?

Hon. S. Thomson: We’ve been working to get the legislation through. That has obviously brought some attention to it. We don’t have a full communication plan developed, but obviously, we would undertake general communication around this to make sure that it’s generally made aware.

[1655]

That would probably involve a press release, some communication in local newspapers and media outlets in those areas and any other communication that we might be able to do — so some general communication. As I said, we’re pretty confident we have it all. But again, we want to provide that two years in case something comes forward and for some general communication.

H. Bains: My question would be why the government went the route of actually listing these lots, rather than negotiating a blanket agreement with wording such as “every lot that CPR may have reservation rights on and that falls under the category that we have earlier described.”

Wouldn’t that have been like a blanket coverage so that in the future anybody that CPR tried to go after would have the protection under the bill, rather than having them individually listed here? In the event that a few of them were left out or they didn’t find out within two years, then, again, they’re subject to some lawsuit by CPR.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a blanket way of doing it in terms of the extinguishment. What we’ve listed is the outer boundaries, the 115 district lots that were part of the original grants. We haven’t gone down and identified each individual property within all of those outer boundaries.

What we’ve done with the

schedule is define the outer boundaries of all of the grants. That’s why we’re confident that the legislation and the provisions have captured all of the properties. But in the event that something was just outside one of those defined boundaries for some reason, historically we wanted to make sure we provided that additional provision. But we haven’t gone down to list each individual property. It is a broader schedule.

H. Bains: That would be my exact question. If you want to put outside boundaries, within those boundaries

[ Page 4947 ]

that CPR was exerting their rights, and bring a lawsuit, would you not simply say that all of those lands mentioned by CPR are covered under this settlement, rather than individually listing, in each of the districts, lot 24, 25, for example? Item 24, district lot 327 in the land district of Kootenay….

I’m just trying to figure out…. You probably wanted to have blanket coverage within which every piece of property is covered, rather than individually listing them and then, by mistake or because we didn’t know, you leave out something. Even after two years, somebody wakes up. “Hey, by the way, I should be part of that, and I’m not.”

What was the rationale in doing this rather than having blanket coverage?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: Getting back to the definition where we talk about the reservations and applying them to “‘railway land’ means any land (

a) that was granted by the government to a historic railway company, and (

b) that was, at the time of the grant….”

In order to reference back to the definition that says “‘railway land’ means any land…” you have to describe that land. It means any, but it would be ruled as too vague if you didn’t define the bounds of the lands. That’s why the

schedule of the 115 district lots was attached as a schedule. That’s where the province granted the unencumbered Crown land to the historical railways between 1892 and 1908. That establishes the maximum area of railway land within those historical railways which created the timber and the stone reservations.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise and report that Bill 3 is complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

Bill 3, Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call continued second reading of Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

[1705]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL

REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, which is part of the larger vision for LNG that we have for our province. It’s a very exciting thing, and, of course, I want to speak in support of this bill.

But I want to explain my support of this bill, which combats global warming, particularly when I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming. I think I represent many of my constituents as well. Although I’m not convinced of human-caused or so-called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn’t call myself a denier either. I’m more of an agnostic on the question.

The very use of language like “skepticism” and “belief” and “denial” and “agnosticism,” which are widely used around the world, to me is telling. These are words that we use of faith matters rather than settled issues of science. It suggests to me that the science is not yet settled. After all, we don’t really discuss or argue about whether one plus one makes two or whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Those kinds of things are beyond debate. But this, obviously, is not beyond debate.

I think what makes me skeptical about the global warming debate is the passion, the rhetoric, the political pressure, the repression of opposing viewpoints, the accusations and condemnations and apocalyptic pronouncements that seem, to me, to substitute for hard scientific reality. I don’t like to give in to that kind of thing.

What also gives me pause about the science of global warming is the ongoing debate within the scientific community itself. For example, the latest news at the end of September was from two scientists from Alabama who compiled NASA satellite data to conclude that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t increased for the last 18 years. That, to me, is a problem for global warming.

A few years ago there was a scandal involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2009 and again in 2011 there were hundreds of thousands of e-mails and other documents that were hacked from a server in East Anglia, in England. They were made public, and they seemed to show that senior scientists who influence public policy on a global scale were pushing the bounds of scientific evidence and politicizing that issue.

[ Page 4948 ]

We have conclusions that the Earth has a fever, the seas are rising, and the skies are falling. Every extreme weather event, whether it’s too hot or too cold, is considered to be evidence for global warming. It all becomes very apocalyptic and panicky and driven by fear. To me, that’s not very convincing, so I remain skeptical.

But I have every confidence in the scientific process. I’m happy to be convinced, but I think it will take some time for that to happen, as we continue to gather data around the world. The question for us here in this House is: what do we do in the interim while we’re gathering that data, while we’re continuing the scientific work?

I’m certainly convinced, for example, that regional warming is taking place. I remember an elderly man, in the mid-’80s, telling me that when he was a boy, he used to take sleigh rides up and down East Hastings Street in Vancouver. That doesn’t happen anymore. Vancouver is warmer than it used to be.

As a child, I grew up in Fort St. John, and there used to be weeks on end where it would 30 and 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. That doesn’t happen so often anymore. Even in my own lifetime, in western Canada, the region has grown warmer. That, I would say, is an indication of regional warming.

Given that I’m somewhat of a skeptic, why would I support this bill? I need to explain my support for it to this House and to many of my constituents, who would oppose support for a bill that wants to combat global warming. There are three reasons why I’m supporting it.

The first is that the science may be true. The science may be accurate. The science may be not settled yet, but there are some indications, for sure, that the effect is real, whether or not it is caused by human activity. While we’re waiting for the science to firm up, perhaps there’s something that we ought to do, with this one condition: that we ought to follow a no-regrets policy.

What do I mean by that? If warming turns out to be regional, rather than global; if the effect is short term, rather than long term; if it turns out that we could not have changed the effect anyway, we should adopt a no-regrets policy now. The steps we should take should be careful steps, steps that won’t prove to have been wasted time and energy and money if it so happens that climate change turns out not to be global, not to be long term, not to be changeable.

[1710]

The second reason I’m in support of this bill is that we in the B.C. Liberal Party are a coalition. We have a diversity of views across the political spectrum. In a coalition, both sides of the coalition take some water with their wine, and I’m a good coalition partner. I’m happy to compromise on an issue that, to me, is not a fundamental issue of principle. That’s why I’m willing to live with a carbon tax and also with the idea of reducing greenhouse gases.

The third reason is, I think, the most important reason. There is a place where both global warming skeptics and those who are completely convinced of human-caused climate change can meet, where we can find common ground. That is on the issue of clean air. We all want to enjoy clean air. We all want to fight pollution. We all want a cleaner environment. Everyone can agree on that.

That is the effect that this bill will have. That is the third reason why I will support this bill.

I want to point out here that greenhouse gases do not only include carbon dioxide. They include any gas that absorbs the sun’s rays to contribute to the greenhouse effect. I want to quote the existing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, where it defines a greenhouse gas. This is what it says: “‘greenhouse gas’ means any or all of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and any other substance prescribed by regulation.”

This is a description of gases that pollute the atmosphere, and I am happy to find ways to reduce them, even while making use of our great and abundant natural resource of natural gas.

About a decade ago there was a terrible row in my riding over the building of SE2, which was a proposed natural gas cogeneration facility just across the border, in Sumas. My predecessor, Barry Penner, did a great job, along with many others, in a valiant struggle against this plant. There were about 25,000 letters written to the National Energy Board against the plant. They didn’t want the airshed of the Fraser Valley to be compromised.

Finally, they were successful. The plant was not built. Air pollution would have resulted from the burning of natural gas. Even though natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels, the use of natural gas, admittedly, produces pollution. The very existence of this bill acknowledges that.

I’m perfectly happy to support the bill, because its effect will be to reduce the intensity of pollution caused by the production and burning of natural gas across this province. The key here, as we develop this industry, is to require greenhouse gas emission reductions without scaring away investment in the first place so that companies don’t even consider coming here — and, once they invest, without bringing our economy grinding to a halt through targets that are too stringent and regulation that is too comprehensive and bureaucracy that is too punishing.

We want to develop an industry as well as a clean industry. This bill is, I think, successful in supplying a mechanism by which we’ll be able to attract industry while at the same time requiring levels of emissions that will create the cleanest LNG plants in the world.

I want here to address the issue of our provincial targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases versus the global reduction of greenhouse gases. The use of more LNG, particularly in China, will result in cleaner air around the world. This is a great thing. By getting involved in this industry, we’re going to be doing the en-

[ Page 4949 ]

tire world a favour by helping China to replace coal with LNG.

The NDP, I think, should be applauding this government’s initiative. I find it — as I find so many other of their policies — completely inexplicable that they are opposing this bill. They are putting on ideological blinkers over this issue, looking at B.C. but refusing to look at the bigger picture: the rest of the planet that will benefit from our great policy of LNG.

Our government could be bureaucratic bean counters. We could stick our heads in the sand and only worry about the impact of greenhouse gases on this province alone. We could ignore the rest of the world, but that would be to hide our eyes from the hundreds of millions of people in the cities of China who live and work in conditions that would be intolerable in this country.

To me, the development of our industry here, while tackling the problem of air pollution head on, is a demonstration of care for our own people and our own economy, which will benefit hugely from this industry, but it will also benefit the global situation. To refuse to exploit our resource because it produces greenhouse gases would be to stifle an incredibly valuable and useful industry at home while denying the world the benefit of that industry, so I fully support it and the way that we have chosen to reduce our GHGs.

[1715]

However, I would point out that in seeking to reduce them, our liquefaction plants will be the cleanest in the world. We intentionally chose targets that are the most stringent in the world. We do believe that because of the mechanism we’ve chosen, we will actually meet our overall global greenhouse gas targets even far into the future.

The mechanism this act lays out to reduce greenhouse gases — and I would term it pollution — is to set in place a system of offsets and to create a technology fund. We’ve decided not to establish a cap-and-trade system, and I applaud this. I think that’s good news.

Not only is a cap-and-trade system administratively very complex; the real problem with a cap-and-trade system is that it arbitrarily sets an upper limit on emissions without caring about how much it costs to reach that target, how much it costs industry to reduce emissions to those levels. The idea would be that we would set those caps lower and lower year by year, but this means that industry could actually be drummed out of the province, out of the marketplace, by the zeal of those who set those emissions.

The offsets that we’ve chosen to set in place will work this way. If a company doesn’t reach the required clean air targets, it would be required to purchase an offsetting reduction in pollution. I can think of marvellous ways to do that all over B.C.

There are many options for this kind of funding — for instance, to reduce emissions of the upstream production of natural gas, which would contribute to clean air in B.C.’s north. However, I’m a resident of the Lower Mainland. I live in the southern part of B.C. I’m hoping that some of the offset funds will come to the Fraser Valley, where I live with about three or four million others who are crowded into a small plain that’s bounded by mountains, which tend to trap air pollution.

These are projects that could be undertaken right here in the Lower Mainland that would help to reduce the consumption of natural gas or to convert away from dirtier fuels to make the air cleaner for the majority of British Columbians.

For example, I’d like to see some kind of assistance for greenhouse operators in the Lower Mainland, many of whom are in my riding. One of their largest costs is the cost of burning natural gas to heat their greenhouses. There may be investments that could be made to reduce these costs, such as building cogeneration facilities or partnering with unrelated businesses that produce excess heat that is not presently used.

I’ve been thinking in particular of a farm in my riding which uses waste from animals in a way that produces excess heat that is not used right now. We could help them find ways to use that heat without burning more natural gas.

Now, I don’t think that offset funds should be used only to fund reductions or efficiencies in the use of natural gas, either. We could also reduce th