2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Charlie Coleman

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Refugee Rights Day

Chouhan

Innovative Burnaby businesses

H. Bloy

South Asian immigrants to Canada

H. Bains

Tsunami relief work of Kevin and

Susan Garber

M. Polak

Ridge Meadows seniors health

clinic

Sather

Homelessness relief programs in

Mission

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

Involvement of David Basi in

government business

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Chudnovsky

J. Kwan

Involvement of David Basi in

decisions of Agricultural Land Commission

Ralston

Hon. P.

Bell

Horgan

Lobbyists registration

legislation

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Farnworth

Role of government in B.C.

Ferries planning and reporting

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Government action on homelessness

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Petitions

C. James

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General, gaming policy and enforcement branch, annual

report,

April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005

Petitions

C. Puchmayr

Tabling Documents

Agricultural Land Commission,

decision document for Sunriver Estates Ltd.

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Sather

Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Hon. B.

Bennett

C. Evans

Simons

Thorne

Horgan

[ Page 3679 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. James: It is my pleasure today to introduce Mr. John Kula, a constituent of mine from Victoria–Beacon Hill, who lives in a float home at lovely Fisherman's Wharf, which is just a few blocks from here. Would the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

CHARLIE COLEMAN

Hon. S. Bond: I just wanted to bring a really good-news update to the members of the House. Last week we celebrated Education Week, and I know that members from both sides of the House joined in celebration of eight outstanding individuals — just a sample of the ones that serve in public education.

We introduced you to Charlie Coleman, who is the principal of Khowhemun Elementary School in Duncan, who had been recognized for his achievement. We said at that time that he had also been nominated for an award, the 2005 Outstanding Young Educator of the Year, which was offered by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. That is an international organization.

Charlie just got back from Chicago, and I am so pleased to tell the House that Charlie was honoured at the opening session of the ASCD. He was made the Outstanding Young Educator. That is the first time that has ever happened in Canada, so we are proud to recognize him again here in the House today.

Introductions by Members

D. Cubberley: We're joined in the galleries today by 23 grade four students from Pacific Christian School in my constituency, who are here with their chaperons and their teacher Ms. Diane Houston. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: Congratulations to members from both sides of the House who walked, ran, wheeled, crawled…

An Hon. Member: Some are still out there.

Hon. M. de Jong: …and to those that are still out there — in the first annual 5K fun run, walk, wheel. To the staff and countless others — hundreds, in fact — who joined with us for that event over the lunch hour: congratulations, thanks, and remember to act now.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome to the House today in the gallery Sam Heppell, the president of the UBC YND and a former cello student of mine. He is, surprisingly — notwithstanding that — a pretty good musician. So if the House would please make him welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like the House to welcome a number of students from the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design. These students are pioneers. They're young adults with developmental disabilities who are taking their rightful place on the campuses and universities and colleges of British Columbia. These students are not classmates. In fact, this is the first time these students have been asked to come together.

Like any other student, they audit courses of interest such as biology, psychology, human kinetics or 20th-century art history. Like their classmates, they pursue other campus activities — all as individuals, not as a group activity — such as yoga classes, international house lunches, clubs and fitness activities.

Inclusive post-secondary education has been made a provincial priority by a determined community organization at the STEPS Forward Inclusive Post-secondary Education Society. My ministry, with the support of Community Living B.C., the non-profit group VOICES, and the administration and faculty of the universities of Victoria and British Columbia and Emily Carr, have implemented an important vision. By working together, we have made inclusive post-secondary education a reality in British Columbia. These students are leading the way in a new frontier of inclusiveness that will slowly transform post-secondary classrooms and workplaces across the province.

Would the House please welcome Elizabeth Etmanski, Joel Klassen, Stephanie Phillips, April Proudlove, Jenna Proudlove, Aine Rathwell, Benjamin Russell and Riia Talve. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and acknowledge Bruce Fraser, my brother, who is watching the proceedings today. Bruce and I grew up learning a unique sense of humour so superior that few people laugh at our jokes, but we crack each other up. It's Bruce's birthday today. He turns 43. Will the House join me in giving applause in recognition of Bruce's birthday.

L. Mayencourt: Members on both sides of the House joined the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia for a breakfast meeting this morning, and we very much enjoyed it. The executive director Ms. Glenn Martin is here with us today, as well as Rob Harmer and Arnold Badke. Would the House please make these three very important guests welcome.

R. Hawes: I notice that on the floor with us today is the former member for Nanaimo, Mike Hunter. Could the House please welcome Mike back. Good to see you, Mike.

[ Page 3680 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) REFUGEE RIGHTS DAY

R. Chouhan: April 4 is Refugee Rights Day. On this date in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the rights of refugee claimants in Canada to life, liberty and security of person, and that claimants are entitled to an oral hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

This ruling has become known as the Singh decision in recognition of Harbhajan Singh, Sadhu Singh Thandi, Paramjit Singh Mann, Kewal Singh, Charanjit Singh Gill, Indrani and Satnam Singh, who brought their case to the court.

[1410]

The Singh decision has had a great impact on the lives of refugees living in Canada. Refugees now have access to basic entitlements to allow them to live in dignity and afford them the same rights to work, education and emergency health care coverage that other Canadians enjoy.

Despite their progress, refugees to Canada continue to face challenges in their search for protection. Refugee claimants are often unnecessarily detained. They wait years for their families to be allowed to join them, and they are often misrepresented in the media. When people are forced to flee their homelands as refugees, they look for a safe place for themselves and their families. For many refugees, coming to Canada means a drop in their standard of living. People with professional careers in their home countries often end up working menial jobs in Canada.

Refugees around the world face tremendous hardships, and Refugee Rights Day is an opportunity for us to recognize and better understand the experience of refugees who live among us. I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing Refugee Rights Day.

INNOVATIVE BURNABY BUSINESSES

H. Bloy: It is my pleasure to speak about two innovative companies from Burnaby which are demonstrating a commitment to green technology and improving worker safety.

Recently I attended the opening of the Swiss Water Decaffeinated Coffee Co.'s second production line. The reason the second production line is in Burnaby and not the U.S.A. is because we eliminated the provincial sales tax on manufacturing equipment. What is unique about the Swiss Water is that they are the only coffee company in the world that does not use chemicals during the process, producing a healthier product but also being more ecologically friendly.

This socially and environmentally responsible company also used local engineering firms, suppliers and contractors in their expansion, injecting over $13 million into the economy of the lower mainland.

The second company, ALGIS, an acronym for automatic lumber grading and inspection, has developed a system for the high-speed automated grading of lumber. This innovative technology will assist graders with the manual and highly repetitive aspect of their job. Not only that, automated grading will increase accuracy and, most importantly, help prevent injuries. Of course, safer, faster, more efficient grading means a better return for mills and a better contribution to British Columbia's booming economy — benefiting all.

This B.C.-based company is also becoming an international success. Their products are being used in as many as ten different countries, and over 150 ALGIS systems are in service. With pioneering companies such as these, our province is surely establishing itself as a world leader.

SOUTH ASIAN IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA

H. Bains: It is with mixed feelings that I stand before you today speaking about Komagata Maru . It was 92 years ago today that Komagata Maru set sail from Hong Kong on a voyage to Vancouver to challenge the discriminatory and unjust immigration laws of Canada. The ship carried 376 passengers of Indian origin led by Mr. Gurdit Singh.

My feelings are mixed because these passengers were never allowed to come off the ship. They were sent back because the lawmakers of this country passed laws to halt the immigration of Indians to Canada. There were laws requiring Indians to have $200 on their person and come to Vancouver via direct passage, knowing full well there were no ships that travelled between India and Canada directly.

These were very unreasonable and unjust laws designated to keep people of the South Asian region out of Canada. Indians who were already in Canada were also subjected to bad faith and discriminatory laws. Even though they were British subjects, a law was passed denying them the right to citizenship and hence denying them the right to vote. They were prohibited to run for public office, serve on juries and were not permitted to practise in many professions. It was their way to challenge these unjust and bad laws.

It is with great pride and accomplishment that I stand here today, 92 years later, with elected men and women of this House. With different ethnic and religious and political backgrounds, we came together a couple of weeks ago and unanimously agreed on a bill recognizing the Sikh contributions to Canada and the Five Ks.

[1415]

Please join with me in recognizing how far we have come towards recognizing our unity in diversity and to thank those men and women before us for their hard work and vision to enable us to realize their dream.

TSUNAMI RELIEF WORK OF

KEVIN AND SUSAN GARBER

M. Polak: Members of this House will recall that on December 26, 2004, a tsunami devastated a large area

[ Page 3681 ]

in Southeast Asia. The disaster motivated a worldwide response. Today, in the spring of 2006, the damaged areas are still recovering.

Constituents of mine, Kevin and Susan Garber, were visiting the island of Khao Lak, Thailand, when the tsunami hit. While they and their three children escaped without harm, they were deeply moved by the tragedy around them. The Garbers' response was to put together a fundraiser at the Langley Coast Hotel and Convention Centre. They raised over $30,000.

The Garbers' initiative, along with the generosity of the people of Langley, is only one small part of the recovery for victims of the tsunami. Realizing this, the Garbers intend to continue their work. There are plans underway now to make the fundraiser an annual event. As Kevin Garber says: "We'd like to remind people that this is going to take years to fix."

Mr. Speaker, I know that as members of this House we remember and think often of the needs of those around the world who have suffered great tragedies. We encourage all of those, like Kevin and Susan, who give of their time and energies to help.

RIDGE MEADOWS SENIORS HEALTH CLINIC

M. Sather: The Ridge Meadows Health and Wellness Clinic for Seniors has been in operation since 1987 and has been a huge success. Nearly 400 clients are registered with an average 70 to 80 clients per week attending their three-hour Tuesday clinics.

The program, run out of the Ridge Meadows seniors centre, provides a drop-in clinic to monitor blood pressure, weight and height of seniors over 55 in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. It is run by Peggy Lambert, a former practical nurse, who along with other volunteer nurses provides these services to our local seniors. The program provides an opportunity for local seniors to take charge of their own health and receive ongoing support, informal counselling and referrals. Seniors participating in this program are encouraged to have their own personal physician.

The clinic boasts senior peer counsellors who are dedicated volunteers and who provide support and guidance to those who experience problems or are in crisis. From time to time, medical speakers are brought in to inform seniors about their prescription and non-prescription medications. These volunteers work one-on-one with seniors and identify potential problems.

The third Tuesday of every month, experts from Crystal Optical come in to clean hearing aids, fix lenses, check ears and arrange for hearing testing, if necessary. On that Tuesday they also have a local pharmacist and diabetic educator, who provide advice on diabetic diets and do blood pressure testing, if necessary. Finally, they have a massage therapist who comes in every Tuesday to provide ten-minute massages.

The health and wellness clinic has received very positive feedback from clients and a lot of support from local doctors. I commend the work that is being done by all the volunteers who run the clinic and who have made the program such a great success.

HOMELESSNESS RELIEF PROGRAMS

IN MISSION

R. Hawes: Homelessness is not a new phenomenon. Although a number of cities are working on the Premier's task force to seek solutions, many communities and individuals still look exclusively to the provincial government to solve the problem. But that's not so in my community. In Mission, they're acting.

The Mission Downtown Coalition, comprised of social agencies and downtown businesses, recognized a few years ago that panhandlers were a problem. They reacted by developing the heart of Mission red card. The card costs $2 and is available at most downtown businesses. It entitles the recipient to a choice of a coffee, a meal, a bag of toiletries, clothing articles or a shower, and it's given out instead of cash. The concept has been very successful, and panhandling has been greatly reduced.

[1420]

But now the coalition is ready for the next phase — the gold card. The card will be available to about 15 permanent Mission residents per year. In addition to the basics of food, shelter and clothing, the card could provide services such as basic dental visits, haircuts, access to movies, the library or the leisure centre. The gold card will come with responsibilities. These could include volunteering in the community, following addiction treatments and/or counselling, and making a commitment to a weekly mentoring program. The cost of the program has been underwritten by the Mission Community Services and business improvement area businesses of downtown Mission.

This is truly an example of a community taking responsibility and acting with compassion. I congratulate them and pledge whatever support I can lend to ensure that the gold card program in Mission is successful.

Oral Questions

INVOLVEMENT OF DAVID BASI

IN GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

C. James: In March 2004 the Minister of Transportation received information from the RCMP that the B.C. Rail spur line deal may have been compromised. As a result, the deal was cancelled. We now know a little more about this period of time. Top government aides were allegedly wrapped up in an elaborate lobby and kickback scheme.

My question is to the Attorney General. Can he inform this House if the government has conducted a

[ Page 3682 ]

thorough investigation of every file that Mr. Basi touched?

Hon. W. Oppal: This government, in the spirit of openness and transparency, enacted legislation in 2001 that required the lobbyist to be registered. The Lobbyists Registration Act was enacted in 2001; the registry was opened in 2002. That was done in the spirit of openness so that people can have access to persons who lobby government.

I would point out that no similar legislation was enacted by the NDP in the ten years that they were in power. I do note, however, that in 1994 a private member, Mr. Schreck, introduced legislation. However, the NDP obviously did not think it was important enough, because the legislation was never enacted.

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

C. James: To the Attorney General: my question is actually about political aides appointed by the government, not about lobbyists, but I'll try again.

To the Attorney General. If we take a look at the specific spur line deal, here's what the Minister of Transportation said about the decision to cancel that deal: "In one case they — the Premier's office — felt that there were serious enough allegations being presented to the RCMP to terminate." So we know, according to the Transportation Minister, that the Premier's office stepped in.

My question to the Attorney General: if the Premier had enough information to cancel the spur line deal, then why won't the Attorney General look closely at all dealings that Mr. Basi had within government?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, knows that this matter is now the subject of proceedings in the Supreme Court. If she has information regarding any improprieties in the awarding of contracts, that information ought to be given to the RCMP. But it would be totally improper for me to comment on the scope or the tenor of any investigation that the RCMP is involved in. That matter is now before the courts.

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

C. James: The last time I checked, decisions made by the Premier and this government were not before the courts. Therefore, I'll ask my question again of the Attorney General.

[1425]

We know that Mr. Basi was allegedly working behind the scenes in three different ministries to secure deals for Liberal insiders. My question, again, to the Attorney General: what evidence does the government have that Mr. Basi wasn't working with other ministries on behalf of other Liberal insiders?

Hon. W. Oppal: I must say that I find disturbing the somewhat cavalier fashion in which the Leader of the Opposition attributes wrongdoings and illegal activities to people who are before the courts. We live under the rule of law. The foundation of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that statements of that sort make it very difficult for any judge or jury to make findings of fact.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

D. Chudnovsky: When Justice Dohm released the initial

summary of the search warrants, the Premier stated: "It is clear from the court

summary that this is a personal issue. It is not an issue with government." The B.C. Rail spur line was cancelled, and now it seems that the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission has been compromised. These are issues within government.

The allegations paint a very disturbing pattern of corruption. Can the Attorney General assure this House and British Columbians today that no other files have been compromised by this top Liberal insider?

Hon. W. Oppal: Clearly, the hon. member didn't hear my last answer. That is that it is totally improper for anyone here to comment upon whether or not there was any criminal damage done and whether or not anybody's interests were compromised. I'm not prepared to make any comment or speculate as to what criminal activity took place. That will be ultimately decided in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: To be clear, the questions that are being asked from this side of the House today are about actions or inactions of government. They do not bear directly on any court case.

It's interesting. Cabinet ministers were very sure of themselves two years ago. Here's what the Minister of Forests and Range said at the time: "I have every confidence that the integrity of government has been protected."

Clearly, that confidence was misplaced. What evidence does the Attorney General have that backs up the minister's claim that the integrity of government has been protected?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, if the member has an allegation of wrongdoing on the part of a minister or any governmental official, then it's the obligation of the lawmaker to report that to the RCMP and not to speculate in this House.

J. Kwan: The Premier, back in 2004, was concerned enough that he actually cancelled the B.C. Rail spur line deal. Gary Collins, the former Minister of Finance, assured British Columbians that Mr. Basi had no involvement in anything related to the budget, to cabinet

[ Page 3683 ]

meetings, to Treasury Board, to caucus meetings or to legislation. But it appears that the ministerial assistant to the former Minister of Finance was involved in the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1430]

The government's assertion that Mr. Basi was just some legislative usher is simply not credible. He was a top aide and a top adviser, hand-picked by the former Minister of Finance. He was a top organizer within the Liberal Party. If the Attorney General is so sure that there was nothing untoward with respect to Mr. Basi's actions, will the Attorney General then table all relevant documentation such as calendars and e-mails pertaining to Mr. Basi's role while he was in government?

Mr. Speaker: Member. I want to remind members to be very careful of where they're going here, because we have breached a little bit over the line here. I think the comments that the Attorney General made are very salient in the points that we should be very careful where we're going. We're making accusations about things that the Supreme Court has to make a decision on, so I think we want to be very careful where we're going.

Hon. W. Oppal: That's precisely the comment that I was going to make. You know, it's fair to ask questions of me. That's why I'm here. But to suggest that Mr. Basi was guilty of some wrongdoing or that a deal was cancelled as a result of his improper conduct is clearly a matter before the Supreme Court. It would be totally improper for me or for any other member in this House to prejudge those comments and thereby compromise Basi's right to a fair trial.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Well, then I think what's important for members of this House, and I think for British Columbians, is for the minister to commit to tabling all the documentation and involvement relating to Mr. Basi so that we can see what really happened in terms of how far the reach of Mr. Basi was in terms of the issue. Will the Attorney General commit to produce a full inventory of Mr. Basi's dealings in all areas of government so that the public can finally know…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, member.

J. Kwan: …how far his influence reached?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the examination and the assessment of documents will be before the Supreme Court. That's precisely the nature of the process. The Crown seized certain documents as a result of information that was sworn, and a warrant was issued and executed. It's not for me to say how the Crown is going to run their case. There's a special prosecutor involved here who is not associated with the ministry. We have an independent special prosecutor who's looking after the case.

In any event, the point I'm making here is that whatever documents the hon. member makes reference to will be in the public arena. They will no doubt be exhibits in the trial, and every person in British Columbia will have the right to look at them through the media.

INVOLVEMENT OF DAVID BASI

IN DECISIONS OF

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

B. Ralston: Yesterday we learned that Mr. Basi's alleged dealings touched on the Agricultural Land Commission. The public perception of its integrity is now in doubt. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Lands outline what steps he has taken to find out exactly what level of involvement Mr. Basi may have had with the Agricultural Land Commission?

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members again to be very careful where we're going here.

Hon. P. Bell: It's already been clearly articulated by my colleague the Attorney General in terms of what may or may not be revealed. But what I can tell members of this House and what I've already stated this morning — the member canvassed clearly in estimates — is that we have been advised by the RCMP that the Agricultural Land Commission itself and the agricultural land commissioners are not part of this investigation. There is no reason why either anyone in the commission or the commission itself has been implicated in the documents brought forward yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

[1435]

B. Ralston: Well, that may be the view of the police conducting the investigation at this stage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The Attorney General has not said that the investigation is not ongoing. However, given the allegations that touch on the land commission, will the Minister of Agriculture and Lands commit to review all agricultural land reserve exclusion decisions that took place while Mr. Basi was here in this building wielding his influence?

Hon. P. Bell: That is a totally inappropriate question, and I'm amazed that the member would even ask that question. But let me state very clearly that the RCMP have indicated to us that the Agricultural Land

[ Page 3684 ]

Commission and all the individuals within the Agricultural Land Commission are not part of this investigation. There is no reason to believe there was anything untoward done on the part of the Agricultural Land Commission. Quite honestly, I find it despicable that the member opposite would even suggest that.

J. Horgan: I listened very carefully to the Minister of Agriculture's response. But the situation we find ourselves in…. A special prosecutor recommended charges in a case revolving around a decision by the Agricultural Land Commission.

So my question to the minister is this. Does he believe that public confidence in the ALC has been compromised by these charges?

Hon. P. Bell: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Does the member have a new question?

J. Horgan: Yes, I do, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: The community of Sooke, just outside Victoria, is a vital part of my constituency, and the community is in upheaval as a result of these charges. The question being raised in the community is: did the process follow the course that it should have?

Does the minister agree that confidence in my community in the ALC decisions with respect to land in that area has been compromised?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure what the members opposite don't get here. The courts in British Columbia have a job to do. Let's allow the courts to do that job.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

L. Krog: I agree with the comments of the minister. The courts have a job to do, and the Legislature has a job to do, and the government has a job to do, which is to ensure transparency in government activities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: The Lobbyists Registration Act does nothing more than provide a listing of lobbyists. It provides no requirement to disclose when lobbyists meet with political appointees.

We know that representatives from Pilothouse Public Affairs Group met with various ministers or met with the government. My question to the Attorney General is, very simply, this. Can he inform the House if ministerial assistants in the Ministries of Health, Forests, Public Safety or Economic Development ever met with these lobbyists on issues around Omnitrax?

Hon. W. Oppal: Clearly, those are matters that will be before the court. Obviously the member, being a lawyer, knows full well that I can't answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo has a supplemental.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, the reason the question cannot be answered is not because this matter is before the courts. It is because the Lobbyists Registration Act does not require the disclosure of that important information. That is the source of the problem.

[1440]

Now that the Attorney General has had an opportunity in the last 24 hours to consider the position of the government in this matter, will he now commit to an all-party review of the Lobbyists Registration Act to restore some trust in government in British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: I find it somewhat ironical that the hon. member who was here in the '90s was part of a government that didn't think it was important enough to have such

an act.

I admire and respect the member's sudden interest in the Lobbyists Registration Act. To answer the question more directly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney General.

Hon. W. Oppal: We're always prepared to listen to reasoned discussion, reasoned submissions and ideas to improve the legislation. This government has always been dedicated to transparency and openness.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I give you the fixed elections. Did the opposition ever bring them in?

What about the awarding and hiring of contracts? They're done on a merit basis. The political process was taken out of those.

What about Crown corporations — ICBC, B.C. Hydro? There's openness involved in all of the legislation regarding their accountability to the public.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General needs to realize that we're not here talking about something that occurred in the 1990s. We're talking about what's happening here today in British Columbia. The Attorney General has indicated to this House both yesterday and today that he is open to suggestions, that he is amenable to constructive alternatives, constructive criticism

[ Page 3685 ]

and constructive suggestions. Well, I want to offer one right now.

Earlier we heard that serious allegations around the spur line deal in the Premier's office brought an end to that deal. They were clearly concerned. What we have right now are allegations that have been made and that involve, in part, the lobbyists act and its contribution to those allegations. So while that is before the courts, perhaps the Attorney General might want to take into account the fact that allegations have been raised that should cause them some concern. They may want to start investigating possible solutions to some of these problems, and that revolves around the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Our question is very simple. Will the Attorney General commit to putting the Lobbyists Registration Act to an all-party review of this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I appreciate the member's passion. My purpose in pointing out the 1990s was simply…. If the members opposite were so concerned about lobbyists, I asked rhetorically why nothing was ever done about it. But I'm digressing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose of the Lobbyists Registration Act is to ensure that those people who are involved in lobbying activities register so as to make their activities transparent. The act was never intended to reveal criminal activity, unlawful activity or activity that was not proper. That is a part of the criminal law and the civil law of the land.

That legislation has to be looked at in conjunction with other legislation. That's exactly what has happened here. The Lobbyists Registration Act was never, ever intended — and it's never intended in any jurisdiction — to have, as a part of the legislation, any sanctions and criminal activity other than the fact that if you failed to register, then you're liable to a $25,000 fine.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: The Lobbyists Registration Act was intended to give confidence to the public of British Columbia, and right now it's not doing that.

My question, again, to the Attorney General…. Recognizing how all these things are tied up, this is one small part that he may want to look at, which helps to restore confidence while these allegations make their way through the courts. That is, will he push for an all-party standing committee to review the Lobbyists Registration Act to see how it can be improved and restore confidence for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: This government is always open to transparency. We're concerned with openness — openness of government, openness of procedures. If the member has any suggestions or any recommendations, we're prepared to listen to them, as I'm sure is the registrar under the act.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN

B.C. FERRIES PLANNING AND REPORTING

G. Coons: The Minister of Transportation has continually referred to three independent reports that shaped and moulded the privatization of our marine highway. He maintains that this government is absolutely consistent with these three reports. However, he conveniently chooses to ignore the most important part of the Wright report, which recommends that under this model B.C. Ferries would receive a clear mandate and understanding of the provincial expectations, would annually present its business plan through the Minister of Transportation to this Legislature and would report quarterly on the results of its operations.

The reason the report recommended these business plans and reports come back to this Legislature is because Mr. Wright understood that public resources and assets must receive full public scrutiny and oversight.

My question is to the minister. When can we expect the business plan and quarterly results from B.C. Ferries to come to this Legislature so the $127 million in public funds can be adequately scrutinized, as the Wright report recommends?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to see the opposition now has a renewed interest in seeing business plans. That's progress from the 1990s, certainly.

I'm a little surprised that they're kind of going back to the well on this question, Mr. Speaker. You know, we canvassed this pretty thoroughly a couple of weeks ago. Not surprisingly, none of the public came rushing to the aid of their suggestion that we need to make it a Crown corporation again and turn it back into a situation where you get political interference.

The fact of the matter is that today there is more accountability in place for B.C. Ferries than there ever was when it was a Crown corporation with NDP members interfering in it. The independent ferry commissioner has broad-ranging powers. If the member or any member of the public has any concerns, they can see that independent ferry commissioner, and he would be happy to help address any of those concerns or investigate them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Coast has a supplemental.

G. Coons: One reason the public wasn't running to the minister is because most people were concerned about the people in Hartley Bay. They were concerned about the passengers; they were concerned about the crew of the ship. I recommend that this minister take a visit to Hartley Bay and see what's happening there.

[ Page 3686 ]

My question. As the minister knows…. He's read these reports, and they recommend significant and clear oversight by this House. The Wright report concluded, as the minister should know, with the following statement: "It is imperative that an integrated marine transportation plan be prepared, which delineates the role of roads, bridges and other competitive transportation alternatives."

It's clear that this minister has essentially washed his hands of our vital marine highway system. My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will she commit today to legislating a special committee with coastal MLAs to develop a long-term vision for our marine highway that is accountable to this House, and to amend the Coastal Ferry Act to ensure that ferry-dependent communities have a ferry system that is safe, reliable and affordable?

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this is really rich. You know, the member has finally taken time to read the reports, and I want to commend the member for that, because clearly it took him several years to read these three independent reports. And he forgets an important paragraph from that report — the Wright report — and that one of the overriding recommendations was to make sure B.C. Ferries was going to be exempt from political interference. That's exactly what we did. It was the right decision then. It's the right decision today.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS

D. Routley: Homelessness is an exploding crisis in B.C., like nowhere else in Canada, and the response by this government has been inadequate. By cutting services and making applications for income supports more onerous, the Liberal government has worsened the problem. Five thousand people in Vancouver last year were turned away from two shelters alone; 2,700 in Surrey. Many homeless people find our shelters being used as detox centres and mental health clinics rather than appropriate shelter for them — particularly women.

Will the minister stand up in this House and commit today to provide adequate resources to the shelters and to the housing program of B.C., to properly house and adequately and appropriately shelter all the needy residents of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: The province has increased funding for housing and emergency shelters in this province at a higher level than anytime in the history of British Columbia. As a matter of fact…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: …we've increased the annual funding for the emergency shelter program by 40 percent, increased year-round shelter beds from 711 to 868, increased cold-wet weather beds from 197 to 391. We had the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, which is the first task force in the history of British Columbia to take some leadership with communities to build and work with the homeless issue in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. James: I rise to present a petition from resident float home owners residing at Fisherman's Wharf in Victoria asking that float home owners enjoy the same rights, freedom and privileges as other property owners in British Columbia when it comes to the homeowner grant.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Les: I have the honour of presenting today the annual report of the gaming policy and enforcement branch in my ministry dated April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.

Petitions

C. Puchmayr: I rise to present a petition of hundreds of cards from students in my community, and I will just read the sentence: "I owe $25,000 in student debt, and I can't afford to graduate."

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Bell: In the spirit of openness and transparency, I rise to table the decision document from the Agricultural Land Commission for Sunriver Estates Ltd.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in

Section A we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and, in this chamber, the continued estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

[1455]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP

AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

[ Page 3687 ]

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $152,559,000 (continued).

Hon. B. Penner: Just to pick up where we left off prior to the lunch break, the member who was asking questions — from Skeena, I believe — asked a question related to the location of seasonal conservation officers for this year. I have now obtained a copy of the news release, which is available on the ministry's website, dated March 2, 2006. This year seasonal conservation officers will be deployed to the following communities: North Vancouver, Whistler, Port Hardy, Sechelt, Campbell River, Fernie, Vernon, Castlegar, Kelowna, Invermere, Dease Lake, Fort St. John, Burns Lake, Williams Lake, Prince George, Chetwynd and Vanderhoof.

Also, in further answer to a question from the Environment critic prior to noon about staffing in the minister's office, I can confirm that the order-in-council number rescinding the appointment of Joel Palmer as ministerial assistant to the Minister of Environment is contained in order-in-council 90, approved on February 21, 2006.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that information. At this point I'd like to explore a couple more questions related to fisheries matters. I believe that the appropriate staff are here.

Specifically, I'd like to explore a couple of questions related to the ongoing discussion around the Cheakamus River and the restoration of the steelhead in the Cheakamus.

[1500]

As the minister well knows, and certainly in discussions that I've had with him and with some of his officials and others, we know there is a difference of opinion between the ministry and ministry staff and, as best I can tell, the district of Squamish, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Squamish First Nation and now a number of eminent scientists from the University of British Columbia fisheries programs. They all have a very different view that suggests that some limited and targeted hatchery and enhancement program would be the appropriate way to go on the question of steelhead.

Could the minister tell us what his thinking is currently and why he has chosen not to explore this option that's put forward by this group of experts and critical stakeholders?

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, the member will remember we had a short discussion about this in question period a week ago or so. My message remains essentially the same. The Ministry of Environment is interested in making decisions based on sound science. I know some people would prefer that we make decisions based on politics or political pressure. That's not the intention of the ministry. We want to look at what the best available science is when making important decisions around fish and, particularly, wild steelhead, which are an important symbol for British Columbia.

I know that there are organizations out there saying…. I'll read a quote I've just been provided with: "If we want the government and the company to act, we have to force them politically." Well, in fact, we are acting. Within hours of the CN train derailment on August 5, 2005, Ministry of Environment staff were on site, and they haven't stopped working ever since. The work has been ongoing in terms of, first of all, assessing the damage, mitigating the spill, helping with the cleanup, collecting evidence along the riverbanks for possible future investigations, and working with recovery plans.

A number of projects are planned over the summer, as the member knows, with the conservation corps, which is a new program with a $9 million commitment from government over three years to have recent graduates and students participate in a hands-on way in improving the habitat and the environment for British Columbia.

There is a divergence of views in the scientific community. Some people prefer fish farms; other people don't. Some people prefer using hatchery augmentation to achieve goals related to steelhead. There are others in the fishing community, including scientists, who say that hatchery steelhead have not proven to be successful over time. So there is a divergence of views, and I recognize that. The ministry does have professional biologists, and their ultimate goal is to recover the wild steelhead habitat.

Appreciating the fact that there is a divergence of views on this issue, the ministry has retained an independent scientist, Dr. Marc Labelle, who, as I understand it, has a PhD from the University of British Columbia. He'll be reviewing the science and information that's available and assessing what the advice was from outside stakeholders as well as advice provided by professional biologists within the Ministry of Environment.

[1505]

Let's be very clear. This government is very committed to improving the waterways in British Columbia. We've established the living rivers trust fund. That was done under our government a couple of years ago. We started it with a $2 million contribution, and then we increased it to $7 million a couple of years ago. During the last election campaign, the Premier made a commitment to triple it from $7 million to $21 million. That funding will go to supporting and enhancing rivers around British Columbia, because that is a key priority for this government and for my ministry.

There are a number of activities underway across the province, but specifically related to the Cheakamus, I've detailed what the ministry has been doing. I know there's a steering committee that's in place. We're waiting to hear formally from what the steering committee has to say about recovery options for the Cheakamus, but in the meantime we are taking action along the lines I've already outlined in terms of habitat and spawning enhancement.

S. Simpson: I guess just to be clear, this isn't…. I'm not raising these questions to challenge that the minis-

[ Page 3688 ]

try has acted in regard to the river and has done a number of things after the derailment to try to deal with the river. Certainly, I'm not questioning whether the ministry has a commitment to steelhead. What I'm questioning here is whether the decision that's being made is the correct one.

The concern here…. Maybe first is a question to help clarify this. The minister referenced an independent scientist who has been retained by the ministry in order to provide some assessment. Could the minister first tell us: is the job that this scientist has been asked to comment on or to do some analysis of whether the decision around a natural habitat approach to steelhead versus the enhancement approach…? Is that what this scientist has been asked to comment on — his view as to which of those is the preferred option? Or has he been asked to comment on something else?

Hon. B. Penner: Some more information, first of all, about the scientist that I referred to, Marc Labelle. For the Hansard record, that's Marc spelled M-a-r-c and Labelle, L-a-b-e-l-l-e. I am advised that he has extensive academic training and work experience in marine and fishery sciences acquired all over the world during the last 30 years. His areas of expertise include salmon biology, tropical reef fish ecology, biostatistical modelling and stock and fisheries assessment.

Dr. Labelle served as the head of the stock management unit at the fisheries branch of the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, Parks and Housing in the past. He's been the head of — this is a French organization — Mathématique Appliqué, something about evaluation of resources and a word that I'm not going to even attempt to pronounce, and something else. I can get the CV to the member in due course here.

During the past few years Dr. Labelle has worked mainly on assessing the performance of models and methods used to assess the status of a number of different stocks. He is a graduate of three Canadian universities: McGill University for his bachelor of science degree, master's degree in science from the University of Alberta and a PhD from the University of British Columbia.

My apology to French-speaking people everywhere for that attempt.

Dr. Labelle will be preparing reports specifically related to the Cheakamus and providing us with recommendations after reviewing, among other things, academic literature, and meeting with ministry staff, NGOs, first nations, and Squamish and Whistler municipalities for input.

S. Simpson: I'm glad that this is a unilingual House, for both our sakes.

[1510]

Interjection.

S. Simpson: No, believe me. I'm glad because my French is no better than the minister's.

Just getting back to the question. To be more specific, I appreciate that the doctor is going to look at a range of issues. Will he be making a specific recommendation on this issue related to the steelhead and the best approach to take in order to restore the steelhead in the most effective and efficient way? Is that his intention?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: what's the time line for the doctor to report back on that issue?

Hon. B. Penner: I've asked my staff to get me that information.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I look forward to that.

Here's the point that I would make. I am told by folks who know, including people from UBC and from wildlife interests and local community interests, that we have a relatively short window here now that the steelhead are back. We probably have three weeks, give or take a week, in order to take a brood stock, if that decision was to be made — based on the advice that the minister is getting from his staff, from external interests, and now from Dr. Labelle, when the doctor reports. This is a very tight window we have. After that, we lose that opportunity.

I'm told that because of the cycle of the steelhead, where 400 or 500 fish — something in that range — will be back this year, the numbers drop dramatically in the next couple of years, and about three to four years out, we will have essentially no fish come back that year because that will be the stock that was killed in the derailment.

The question I have is: what is the minister's intention in terms of…? To be clear, the minister obviously, since he's getting this assessment done, continues to have somewhat of an open mind on this question, or he wouldn't be getting this assessment done. If that assessment isn't going to be available in time to change a decision, how's the minister going to deal with that in terms of determining how to go forward?

Hon. B. Penner: The professor I've identified, Dr. Labelle, has already commenced work with the Ministry of Environment. I would assume that if he were to come to a conclusion, even early on in his work, that the ministry was recommending the inappropriate action, he would give us an immediate interim indication of that. I have not been made aware of that at this point. Certainly, I remain willing and able to hear any kind of message of that sort, if that were to be forthcoming from Dr. Labelle.

I think it's important for members to recognize — and I admit I'm not a specialist when it comes to fish, and I'm busy learning about fish and all other kinds of species in this job that I find myself in — that steelhead have a different life cycle than other fish that we may be more familiar with, particularly Pacific salmon.

[ Page 3689 ]

Whereas Pacific salmon may come back to spawn once in their lifetime, steelhead, depending on circumstances, may actually spawn up to three times in their life. Some steelhead may choose not to go out to the ocean.

[1515]

In fact, one of the risks that's been identified in terms of using hatchery steelhead is that the fry from hatchery steelhead may choose in greater numbers not to go to the ocean but continue to live out their lives in the river and act as predators upon wild steelhead fry and, in effect, displace the wild steelhead by preying on the emerging juvenile steelhead from the wild stock — clearly not the result that we would be looking for.

That's what the scientists are looking at. I acknowledge that there are arguments on both sides of the equation here. It's a delicate balance to strike. At the end of the day, I think it's important that we make this decision carefully because if we make the wrong decision here, it could have lasting consequences. And that's on both sides of the options that are presented. If the risks manifest themselves in terms of hatchery steelhead and they end up displacing the wild steelhead, that won't be very good for the guide-outfitters and others that have come to depend on tourism activity around the steelhead.

I'm advised there's a premium that people are willing to pay in order to go out and fish for wild steelhead over hatchery steelhead.

I'm looking forward to getting the report as quickly as possible from Dr. Labelle, but I'm also told that if he were to come to some emergent conclusions that were causing him alarm, he would pick up the phone and let me know.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I guess what my response would be is that I also had discussions with a number of people who are much, much wiser than I am on this issue and who are proponents of a limited hatchery program for the steelhead. They tell me that part of the issue is that they would be less excited about that option if they weren't talking about taking a brood stock from the wild steelhead in the Cheakamus itself and the fish that were coming from that river initially. That's where those trout would be coming from, and that was significant for them.

They also spoke extensively about the need to be very careful about how you reintroduce those fish into the river if you use the hatchery program. There are challenges; there's no doubt about that. The point they made — and as the minister will know, nothing's black and white; everything's some shade of grey on these things — was that if it was done properly, the enhancement possibilities are significantly better. It's an argument that I found compelling, but I appreciate the minister, at this point, is of a different view.

The question I have for the minister is that the advice I've got that sounds particularly wise to me, because there are scientific differences of opinion, is the advice that says: go in now; take that brood stock of 30, 40, 50 — whatever the appropriate number of fish is — put it into a hatchery where you have the fish available; and allow the discussion to take a little bit more time between the scientific interests of the ministry, independent interests and others who have something to contribute to the discussion.

If, at the end of the day, the determination is that this is not viable, then you can deal with the matter — with those fish in the hatchery. If the decision at the end of the day is yes, this makes sense under the circumstances — a situation nobody ever wanted to be in, to have to make this choice…. But if it's decided it is viable, the option and alternative remains.

What we're being told, though, is if the ministry doesn't go forward with this, the option does not exist. The question I have for the minister is: why wouldn't the ministry choose to take a brood stock and look at creating that option, making it available while the scientists still sort things out?

Hon. B. Penner: That will be something that Dr. Labelle is looking at, and I'll make sure that he is. It's important to note, though…. The critic may find this interesting, because I know there's been media attention over the last year or two — and increasingly so — concerning the fate of the Cultus Lake sockeye. Now that's a COSEWIC-listed species, and the primary responsibility for that species rests with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Department of Fisheries and Oceans biologists have determined that using the approach that the member just referred to in terms of steelhead in the Cheakamus would not be appropriate in terms of preserving the Cultus Lake sockeye.

[1520]

They have recommended other approaches, other options for protecting the Cultus Lake sockeye and making sure they continue to exist as a species, and that's because, I'm told, using brood stock or hatchery approaches for conservation purposes is considered experimental. That's the approach that DFO has taken with Cultus Lake sockeye as well as with the Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stocks. That's to be contrasted with using hatchery augmentation for simply increasing angling opportunities versus conservation purposes.

I don't think I've got the charts or graphs in front of me, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm busy learning all about fish in this job that I've got. Maybe eight or nine or ten days ago I had an opportunity to pay a visit to a number of rivers along the east coast of northern Vancouver Island. In doing so, I met with some people who showed me charts and graphs correlating the release of hatchery steelhead with the number of fish actually being caught in the river. I have to tell you that there was a disturbing correlation. It seemed to suggest that the greater the use of hatchery fish, the lower the returns were in subsequent years.

Whether or not there's cause and effect, I'm not one to say, but there certainly was a correlation that was not positive and was counterintuitive. I would have thought, as a layperson before starting to learn about fish, that simply dumping buckets and buckets of

[ Page 3690 ]

hatchery fish into the river would mean that at the end of the day, there would be more and more fish coming back for people to catch.

Apparently, the relationship is not linear. In fact, in some cases, it's actually counter to that. Not in all cases. That's why the scientific community gets divided on this, and that's why it's not an easy question to determine. The evidence is mixed at best, so here we are. Accordingly, I've instructed the ministry to hire Dr. Labelle to review the best available science that's out there because, at the end of the day, we all want what's best for the wild steelhead. I will take the member's suggestion under consideration, and I'll make sure we get a response from Dr. Labelle about that suggestion.

S. Simpson: Just one last question in relation to this. I understand that there are other rivers that use hatchery programs

and such in relation to the steelhead — the Chilliwack, I believe, and the Vedder.

Could the minister tell me: what's the difference? What is it that works there that might not work in a place like the Cheakamus, from his understanding?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've mentioned, I'm still learning all about fish, but here's what I've learned to date. As I mentioned, on eastern Vancouver Island hatchery augmentation of wild steelhead has not resulted in increased numbers of steelhead in rivers in subsequent years. In fact, the results have been very discouraging. It's a bit of a puzzle, so we can only conclude that there are a number of factors at play. In fact, it's possible — not proven, but possible — that using hatchery steelhead has actually hurt the wild steelhead.

How could that be the case? One of the possible explanations — although, again, I'm not offering this as solid proof, but it's been offered to me as a possible explanation — is that the hatchery steelhead tend to reside longer in the river and, in fact, in their life span may choose not to go into the ocean. As they become larger, they become more and more interested in using the wild steelhead that are just emerging as fry from the gravel as their food stock. In effect, the hatchery steelhead may end up preying on the wild steelhead and have a negative consequence.

I've also been told that the survival rate for fish from hatcheries in terms of their return to the source of where their life originated is much, much lower than the return rate for wild fish. Whether it's salmon or steelhead, the percentage return on hatchery fish is lower. Again, it's a matter of argument and debate — and, perhaps, some speculation and conjecture — about why that is.

One of the explanations I was given by the hatchery manager at the Chilliwack fish hatchery when I visited there some weeks ago was that hatchery fish do not necessarily learn the right actions to survive. In other words, because they're raised in a protected environment — they're fed by hand — they don't have the same competitive instinct in terms of finding food and avoiding predators when they're raised in the hatchery setting. That may account, in part, for their lower ocean survival once they're released into the river. That's just offered as one possible explanation why hatchery fish may not be as successful in the long term in terms of retuning back up the river to spawn.

[1525]

The member mentions the Chilliwack River. The member is correct; there is a hatchery program there. One of the explanations for that is that there is a relatively healthy — it varies from year to year — stock of wild steelhead in adequate numbers, perhaps, to withstand predation from the hatchery steelhead. On eastern Vancouver Island, for example, the numbers of wild steelhead have dropped significantly, and that may make them more vulnerable to the impact of hatchery steelhead.

We've also adopted fairly recently in the ministry something called the steelhead stream classification policy, where certain rivers are designated as wild and where the ministry's goal and objective is to pursue wild steelhead as the dominant fish for that particular river — again, to enhance angling opportunities and economic benefits. As I mentioned earlier, there's a premium that people are willing to pay if they're fishing for wild steelhead as opposed to hatchery steelhead.

S. Simpson: Hopefully, we'll disagree on this one at the moment, and maybe there'll be a difference and one of us will change our mind over time.

The last question I would ask is: will the minister commit to make Dr. Labelle's reports or analysis available, including any interim report, in a timely way so that both the members of this side of the House and, more importantly, those members of the public who are most concerned about this issue — and members of organizations like the Wildlife Federation — will be made aware of Dr. Labelle's comments and can either be comforted by that or question that analysis?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, in answer to the member's questions. In addition, the work by Dr. Labelle will be shared with the various groups that are represented in the Cheakamus River recovery steering committee.

Before we leave the whole topic of the Cheakamus, I may as well put this on the record. The member knows this, in part, because of the speech that he had to endure me giving last week at the Wildlife Federation. The ministry has sent an interim bill to CN Rail for the costs of our response last summer to the immediate spill. That was $60,000. CN has paid that bill.

More recently, a couple of weeks ago, we issued a second interim bill to CN Rail in the amount, I believe, of $78,000 and change. I've got the exact number here somewhere: $78,398.90, to CN Rail, reflecting the cost now of our recovery planning process. As we embark on further measures, whatever they may be, including side-channel enhancements to promote spawning opportunities and rearing opportunities for fish, those costs will be directed towards CN Rail.

Again, just so members don't get it confused in their minds, those are the out-of-pocket costs for recov-

[ Page 3691 ]

ering from the spill. Anything related to possible prosecutions or convictions would result in additional payments if that were to be the result.

S. Simpson: I was done, but now that last point by the minister actually raises another question. I thank the minister for reminding me about that.

The minister will know that in Alberta, where CN had a problem in relation to damage in a lake from a spill, they ended up, I believe, putting into a trust fund somewhere from $12 million to $18 million. We also have heard about — not with CN but with a comparable U.S. railway — the Sacramento River in California where, again, there was a fund created of around $28 million U.S. Those funds were put in place both to pay the costs of cleanup, of remediation, of all those costs, and to be able to deal with any kind of penalties in relation to that.

[1530]

I understand that different approaches are taken by different jurisdictions. Could the minister tell us why he has chosen to do this a bill at a time rather than to ask CN to put a significant amount of money in trust that could be expended? I'll just reference…. The reason for this is I have been told that certainly while people in the community around the Squamish community are working hard on this and CN is at the table, many of them would feel more comfortable if there was a pot of money there that was not necessarily directly in CN's hands that they were drawing from to pay the bills.

I'm just wondering what the administrative decision is as to why to not create a pot of money versus doing it the way that you've done it.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm aware CN has made a contribution, I think, to the Pacific Salmon Foundation in the order of $1.25 million, give or take. That money will be used for a variety of projects not necessarily directly related to the Cheakamus. What we've done, and it's what we're authorized to do under provincial law under the spill cost recovery regulation, is hit CN for the full cost of our actual out-of-pocket expenses. What we're doing in the ministry, and I've asked staff to do so, is collect and keep every receipt associated with the costs of responding to this.

Quite frankly, a very tragic situation. I'm pleased that no human life was lost last August. That could have very well happened with the crew on that train, and if you had a chance to see that bridge and how far the train tumbled down the tracks, it's quite conceivable somebody could have been killed in that incident. Nevertheless, it was a very serious incident and about as serious an incident as you can imagine from an environmental perspective.

I'm not aware that the approach we've taken is in any way slowing down the response. Our response is that we're going to spend whatever it takes to do the best thing from a scientific perspective in terms of recovering from that spill, and CN will be held responsible for those costs. I don't think there is a significant risk of CN not being around today or tomorrow or a year from now in terms of being there to pay the bill.

I do — and this comes from my history, having been a lawyer in private practice — believe in the method of interim billing so that you continue to keep the cash coming in. That's what I have instructed the staff to do, and that's why we are taking the interim billing approach — so that we regularly send CN an idea of what it's costing us, and we keep the money flowing back into government. But none of that will slow us down either, in terms of what we're going to spend to recover the river as best we can, based on the best available science we have.

There is an investigation that's actively underway by both federal and, I believe, provincial authorities participating. I don't want to prejudge the outcome of that investigation, but it's a matter of record what the potential penalties could be for that.

The member mentioned the incident that took place last year in Alberta, which was also a very serious incident from an environmental perspective. I'm told that last fall the Alberta government commissioned a study or a review to see how they responded to that event because I'm told their response was not as coordinated as ours. One of the things they looked at was adopting our incident command structure, or unified command structure, that we use here in British Columbia to address environmental emergencies.

It's the same approach that we implemented on the north coast two weeks ago, when the ferry sank, to help bring all the various agencies together — federal, provincial and local — under one unified command structure so that we don't get into jurisdictional arguments and delays. I'm told that to some extent some of that happened in Alberta, and it led to less timely information-sharing than might otherwise have been the case.

[1535]

We're always looking for more or better ideas and certainly keeping an open mind. But it does appear to me that the unified command structure approach that we've been implementing in B.C. has been a good approach. Obviously, we'd all prefer that this event had never happened and that the train had stayed on the tracks. That would be my first choice. But given that emergencies will occasionally happen, I think it's good to have a unified command structure to break down those jurisdictional walls as much as possible between agencies, because at the end of the day, I think taxpayers want us all pulling together in the same direction to solve the problem.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the comments. As the minister did state, the million-plus dollars — the million and a quarter or whatever it was — that CN gave to the Pacific Salmon Foundation…. It is my understanding that there is no direct linkage between the Cheakamus and that money, which is fine. I'm sure that the Salmon Foundation will do good things with it, and they may make sure some of the money goes in there, but they aren't obliged to do that.

[ Page 3692 ]

I do want to switch gears a little bit here, and the minister transitioned it well when he made references to the Queen of the North . Could the minister tell us around that what the status is now in relation to the Queen of the North and particularly the status in relation to the 200,000-odd litres of fuel and oil that I understand remain on the ship?

Hon. B. Penner: I think all members of this House are indebted to the quick response of ministry staff in responding to that incident. B.C. Ferries personnel on the ship did a tremendous job in rescuing as many people as they did from that ship. Certainly, the outcome, although tragic, could have been worse in terms of loss of human life.

In terms of the environmental response, at 7:15 that morning we had Ministry of Environment personnel dispatched to the north coast area. I've had a chance to talk to the opposition critic about this and the fact that last fall the ministry actually had completed and conducted a spill-response exercise in that general area — it may have been Kitimat; I think I told the member Prince Rupert, but I've since been told it might have been in the Kitimat area, but nonetheless, in the northwest part of the province — simulating a very similar-sized event.

We did a table-top review of that exercise in February to see what processes could be improved, and I think that has served us well in terms of a speedy and coordinated response.

Andy Ackerman, who's a regional manager for the Ministry of the Environment in the northeast part of the province, served as our incident commander from the outset of the incident. It was on Wednesday. I forget the date exactly, but it was a Wednesday — not last week but the week before. He has now been replaced or relieved. He's done his stint. I'm advised that Lance Sundquist will now take over as the incident commander. He's a ministry employee as well. I think normally he would be serving as a regional manager for conservation officers, but he's now assuming the role as incident commander to coordinate our environmental response.

I'm told there are some international engineering experts who have been retained at the cost of B.C. Ferries to take a look at the wreckage and what can be done to minimize, mitigate or eliminate the risk of further fuel contamination into the water. I'm not aware of a recommendation being received yet. It's certainly one that I'm very interested in because, as the member mentions, there could well be a sizeable quantity of fuel still on board the vessel.

[1540]

The last information I had was that the rate of leakage appears to be slowing. That was confirmed by the submersible that has cameras and was able to apparently document the rate of fuel leakage. I forget the exact numbers now, but I think they said that a quarter-sized globule every 25 or 30 seconds or so appeared to be emerging from the vessel. That information is as of late last week. I'll be getting more information, and when I do so, I will be pleased to share it with the member.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the offer, and I look forward to the information.

I'll look forward to hearing what these experts — the engineers or the experts — have to say about how to deal with the vessel and with the leakage. Is the minister confident that in fact those tanks are secure enough at this point that we don't need to worry about further damage with the tanks, or is he of the view that we really can't take any of that for granted and that we need to deal with either capping or getting the fuel out of the tanks?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe it's too soon to tell for sure what conclusions the international salvage experts will come to in terms of what the best course of action is. The vessel appears at a depth of greater than 1,400 feet below the surface, so I believe that makes it impossible to scuba dive to. In fact, it requires the use of a submersible to get down to that depth and investigate. That makes, I would guess, some of the recovery options more difficult, given the depth of the water, so we'll have to wait and see what is practical and possible.

My information is, though, that the rate of leakage has slowed considerably since the incident first took place. The ministry, in conjunction with the federal agencies — including the federal department of environment and DFO — B.C. Ferries and the contractor Burrard Clean, has been working with first nations who are embedded into our incident command structure. Local representatives of the Hartley Bay band as well as the Kitkatla — if I have that correct — are embedded right in the incident command structure. When I visited Prince Rupert I had a chance to see them working around the table with representatives of the various government agencies.

Everybody's input is going into the decision-making process about where to locate the booms to minimize the risk of damage and also to share information. Again, it's quite something to see that number of different agencies sharing information openly and, frankly, it's what should take place, in my view. There shouldn't be a balkanization of information between different government agencies when responding to something like this.

I have had a chance to speak to the federal Environment Minister twice, I think, about this — Minister Ambrose — once in person in Vancouver, just talking, again, about what we needed to do to coordinate our response. There's a high level of interest in this incident, obviously, and to date, the environmental damage, I'm told, has been minimal.

The ministry, however, is committed to a testing or monitoring program in conjunction with first nations, with them helping us identify those areas that are of greatest concern to them. Those results from the testing will be made available when that testing is complete. But I expect that there will be a series of tests over time to monitor the key shellfish sites that have been identified.

S. Simpson: I'm glad to hear that, because I'm sure, as the minister knows, the people of Hartley Bay are

[ Page 3693 ]

not quite as confident. I know that I've been speaking to them fairly regularly — to the chief up there — and they're not quite as confident. They are feeling a little bit better after a more recent discussion with ministry officials. But as the minister knows, they have serious concerns about the impacts on shellfish, on their seaweed harvest, on what's happening in Wright Sound, on Fin Island and on Farrant Island, among others.

That raises another question. I'm curious. The chief there, Bob Hill, expressed frustration to me that after what was a heroic effort on their part to play a role in the rescue — to come out, this small community, and clearly, to initially be the centre of attention for a day or two while things were being put together — they have felt to some degree like they have been out of the loop.

[1545]

One of the concerns that they raised to me was around, I guess, when the Premier went to Prince Rupert and didn't make it up to Hartley Bay. I understand he's now said he's going to look forward to getting there at some time in the future when his

schedule allows.

Also, when the minister went out to the dive site and didn't come back to Hartley Bay to meet with the chief and people in the community itself…. I'm just curious as to why the minister didn't go back to Hartley Bay. He knew they were feeling some anxiety. It was their community and their livelihood on the ocean that was there. Why is it that the minister wasn't able to make it back to speak to the chief and the community?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure if the member for Vancouver-Hastings has ever been to Prince Rupert, but it's not a quick place to get to, particularly from Victoria. The member will also be cognizant of the fact that the Legislature is in session. I don't know if he has to deal with the Whip, but I do from time to time. So there are constraints on the amount of time that I can spend outside the Legislature when the Legislature is in session.

That said, I would have loved to have gone to Hartley Bay itself, but I was advised by an elected representative of Hartley Bay that he would like me to go take a look at the shellfish sites that they were concerned about from an environmental perspective.

So the day goes something like this. The plane leaves Vancouver Airport sometime after seven in the morning and lands in Prince Rupert. Again, if you've ever been to Prince Rupert, you realize that you land on an island, not in Prince Rupert itself. There's some delay that takes place in trying to get from the airport onto a bus. You have to wait until everybody is ready with their luggage. Although I didn't bring any, I had to wait for people who did.

Then once you get on the bus, you drive to a little ferry. Then there's some delay in terms of getting on the ferry. Then the ferry takes you across a bay to Prince Rupert proper. From there I went to meet with ministry staff to say hello, and then we went to the floatplane to fly to the site. There was some delay in terms of arranging the floatplane. The floatplane took me to the site of the sinking. I got off the floatplane, and we had to wait for RCMP because the RCMP are involved in that area and protecting the site for investigation. So there was a protocol that had to be followed.

I lost track of how much time was taken up in terms of just waiting for clearance from the RCMP to get from the floatplane onto an RCMP Zodiac to take me to the barge operated by Burrard Clean. Burrard Clean's barge is where the majority of the equipment is located in terms of responding to the spill.

I appreciate that I'm giving the member a travelogue, but I recognize he hasn't had the same opportunity that I've had to go to that site. On the barge I had a chance to meet with people involved with the spill recovery, including some first nations members from Hartley Bay. At that point we had a discussion about how much time was left in the day and whether I would be able to make it to Hartley Bay or go see the shellfish sites.

Using a boat operated by a member of the Hartley Bay band…. I think it was Marven Robinson. He took me, along with an elected member from Hartley Bay, to the shellfish sites. I got a chance to walk around Fin Island, and it's a remarkable place. I saw where some of the booms are in place. I talked to some of the people looking after the booms, including first nations members, and I talked about how the spill response had worked to date. I was told that in fact the people were very pleased at the quick response and that it appeared at that point that there hadn't been serious contamination, although we're continuing to monitor that.

At that point the floatplane came to get us. In order to get back and catch a return flight out of Prince Rupert, we had to get back in time in order to catch another bus and wait for everybody else to marshal onto the bus to take us to the ferry, which then takes us to the airport. I did have a chance to make a brief visit, as I mentioned, to the incident command centre. That's where, again, I saw some first nations members who are embedded right into the incident command structure.

My commitment has been, and the ministry's commitment remains, that we will be there to complete the work as long as it takes. Somebody asked me the other day: how long will it take? It will take as long as it takes. We will continue with the monitoring and taking a lot of our guidance from the first nations members, from that band and others who are closest to the situation.

[1550]

I know the government of British Columbia is extremely grateful to the people from Hartley Bay who participated in the rescue efforts. Again, it was my great pleasure to spend some time with one of the individuals who operated his own boat in performing that rescue. That's Marven Robinson. It was with him that I went to Fin Island.

I expect that in the days ahead…. There's already been discussion about what we can do to further recognize the community of Hartley Bay. It may well re-

[ Page 3694 ]

sult in visits from other members of the government. Certainly, if I ever get a chance to go back to that area, I would love to go visit. We did fly over Hartley Bay, at my request, on the way back, but I was advised that time would not permit us to land and then also catch our flight.

No slight intended to Hartley Bay; in fact, the Hartley Bay elected representative is directly involved in our incident command structure and, I'm told by my ministry staff, is providing valuable input in a meaningful way into determining our priorities.

S. Simpson: I know the morning that the minister was up at the dive site, I was speaking with the chief, and he said: "Well, you know, the minister's here. The minister is out at the site and visiting." He was quite keen; he certainly seemed to be under the impression that you would be coming to Hartley Bay to meet with him. When I spoke to him later on in the day, after it became clear that that wouldn't happen, I know he was quite disappointed by that. So the minister might want to give the chief a call and talk to him, if you haven't had a chance to do that since the incident.

I want to take this to the next point of discussion around our oceans. We know now that.… We've heard this raised now by the Haida and by others, following the situation with the Queen of the North. The issue that we're hearing about reflects on what may be decisions around tankers and Enbridge, coming out of Kitimat. The question I have is: what assessment is the ministry doing of that proposal and of any of those options related to the notion of tankers or activity of that sort in the strait and up into Kitimat? Is this an issue that the ministry is looking at?

Hon. B. Penner: Madam Chair, if you see me grimace from time to time, it's just that my back is rapidly deteriorating on me here. We'll see how long I can continue.

I have just asked for the deputy minister of the environmental assessment office to come. I can tell the member that we do take the whole issue around marine traffic very seriously, particularly since the Exxon Valdez spill. I think that was in 1989, if I remember correctly. The Minister of Environment at that time initiated a number of measures to mitigate any similar occurrences from taking place in our marine and coastal environment.

[1555]

When I was in Prince Rupert, a gentleman accompanied me from the ministry and has been involved since that time, I think, in helping document and record electronically the most sensitive areas along the coast. In fact, I think the entire coastline of British Columbia has now been electronically mapped, including videotaping, so that we have that information readily at hand should an event occur, and so we can pull out of archives detailed information about estuaries and bays and different areas that may be impacted should something happen.

Obviously, our preference is for things not to happen, so what we've done…. I'm trying to find the note here, but there is an agreement about where tanker traffic can go. There's something called the B.C. marine oil spill response plan that provides a coordinated response by the province to major oil spills.

I think I've now been joined by the deputy minister from the environmental assessment office, and I'll add more to my answer in a moment.

S. Simpson: I just have one or two more questions related specifically to this. I understand that the minister is feeling a little out of sorts here with his back. But I have a couple of quick questions here, and then I would like to move to some discussion around wildlife and species items that will come up quite quickly.

The question I have, then, around the assessment: what is the expectation around…? This is a very large project, obviously. The Enbridge project, if it's coming in, is a very large project. It would be a brand-new situation for us to have those tankers moving in and out of the Kitimat area.

Can the minister give me some sense of…? What's the scope of what the environmental assessment looks like for a project like that? It's not something that we've entertained in that way in British Columbia before, I don't think, or at least not in recent times.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just getting clarification on the proposal. The member asked about the Enbridge proposal, which, as I understand it, is being reviewed by the Canadian environmental assessment office for a CEAA review — Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review. As well, the National Energy Board has some jurisdiction in the matter. Certainly, I would be inclined to offer them our perspective on concerns related to British Columbia, as they fulfil their legal obligation under their legislation to review that project.

S. Simpson: Is the minister saying that this proposal will not have a provincially based assessment? It will be done exclusively at the federal level? There'll be no provincial assessment of the impact of tankers in and out? Not just the pipeline per se, but the actual vessels coming in and out to load — there'll be no provincial assessment?

[1600]

Hon. B. Penner: The Enbridge proposal, as I mentioned, is reviewed pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as the National Energy Board Act. I'm told that there's no legal role for the province in the sense that it's a federally regulated undertaking under the division of powers in the constitution. That's how the federal government gets into it: through the pipeline, which is considered to be a national undertaking or something that falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to, I guess it would be,

section 91 of the Constitution Act of Canada.

Certainly, the province does take an interest, though. It would be my view that we would share with them specific concerns that we would have and ask

[ Page 3695 ]

that the CEAA and the NEB, for that matter, take those matters into consideration.

S. Simpson: I'm going to leave that for the moment. What I want to do is…. I'm going to move our discussion now. We'll talk about environmental assessment at a later time. I believe it's planned to be later in our schedule, and I appreciate pulling the ADM in for this.

I want to now move to the discussion of wildlife and species questions, and I'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague down the way here who has some questions in relation to that, and then I'll be back later, if it's okay.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about a couple of species of animals that are considered of special concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada — that being the grizzly and the wolverine.

I wanted to talk with specific reference to a study that was done on these two species by Wayne McCrory in Kakwa Provincial Park recently. Mr. McCrory is a renowned carnivore biologist in British Columbia. He's had a lot of exposure to grizzly bears in terms of the studies he did in the Khutzeymateen. He has done a report outlining concerns with regard to intensive snowmobiling in that park and the effect on the grizzly and the wolverine.

Apparently, during his study, they measured — in one two-week period — 600 snowmobiles in use in that particular area. The concern is around the denning behaviour of these two species. Grizzlies are hibernators. If they're disturbed from hibernation and actually come out of hibernation, their energy balance is at risk in terms of their survival and well-being. If it's a sow with cubs, of course, it could be fatal to the cubs, which are born at a very precocial stage.

[1605]

Wolverines are not hibernators, but they den to give birth, and their young also are very much at risk of disturbance.

I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, if you would make that report public.

Hon. B. Penner: I have looked at this myself on the ministry website. If you look up Kakwa Provincial Park, you'll find that there's a draft management plan that you can download. It's my understanding that the draft management plan would incorporate some of the views or the information provided from the person that you are referring to. I haven't seen the actual report that you're mentioning, which is from Dr. McCrory, I believe, but certainly we can endeavour to get that.

M. Sather: The report was done, as the minister knows, for B.C. Parks. A draft management plan had suggested that snowmobiling be restricted in two areas — Mount Sir Alexander and Mount Ida.

Subsequent to that, or at about that time, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, who is from Prince George, apparently made a petition on behalf of the snowmobiling club there in Prince George to B.C. Parks that there be no restriction placed on snowmobiling in those areas. That hasn't been done to this date, as far as I'm aware. I was wanting to ask the minister if he would place those needed restrictions in Kakwa Provincial Park?

Hon. B. Penner: As I mentioned, there's a draft plan that's available on the website for people to download and take a look at — or save the paper and don't download it, but just read it off the computer monitor. That document's still available because we're still receiving public input, and that is part of our planning process.

I expect that the public comment period will close sometime by the end of this month, and then I expect that I would be given a recommendation from staff at the regional level as it works its way up through the ministry.

[1610]

I don't know the precise date when a decision will be made, but I'm expecting that the public comment period will close fairly soon. If people have specific suggestions or comments in respect of the draft management plan, now would be a good time to offer those comments through the ministry website or the regional office.

I believe Kakwa Provincial Park was established in 1999 as a class-A park. It's about 170,000 hectares in size, and from the time it was established in 1999 until the present, there have been no restrictions on the use of snowmobiles in that park.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about mountain caribou. We did talk about mountain caribou last fall, and the minister was very forthcoming with information. That was appreciated.

I wanted to ask about recreation tenures in the caribou range. There's a moratorium, as I understand, on those tenures in the southern part of the mountain caribou range. Those are the most vulnerable populations. If one looks at the recreational tenures down there, they're pretty well subscribed now, so a map of the recreational tenures is pretty consistent with a map of mountain caribou winter range.

There's been no commitment to extend that moratorium to the northern part of the range of those caribou. In December a tenure was approved for BearPaw Heli-Skiing, and I believe it was the Hart Ranges, where there is a more stable population of caribou. This was despite the recovery implementation group's request that no further recreation tenures be granted in mountain caribou winter range until they'd had a chance to complete their work.

I just wondered if the minister could comment on that — if there was any reason why that moratorium couldn't be extended to all of the mountain caribou winter range.

Hon. B. Penner: I know the member was asking some questions of the Minister of Agriculture and

[ Page 3696 ]

Lands as well — at least, I believe you were — around this topic. The responsibility for implementing plans for three particular species, including the mountain caribou, rests with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands due to the importance of the land base to that particular animal and the fact that they live on Crown land.

[1615]

However, we do provide advice in a supporting role to the species-at-risk coordination office. That work is ongoing in terms of the recovery strategy. It's not complete. There's more work being done.

I could direct the member to a source of information for what's known as "tourism wildlife guidelines" that's applicable to tenure holders in British Columbia where there are wildlife considerations, and that website address is too long for me to give here, as helpful as this note is. It's basically accessible through the Ministry of Environment website; then go to "Wildlife" and then one or two more clicks will get you there.

M. Sather: Switching gears to fish in the Fraser River. The minister, I'm sure, is aware that there was a serious fish kill near Ferry Island in the Fraser recently, where a structure having a causeway…. It resulted in damming water to allow the causeway…. The purpose of it was to allow individuals to reach a gravel deposit. But in the course of that operation, it's been discovered that millions of salmon alevins perished as a result of lack of water.

Salmon, of course, in the Fraser are the primary responsibility of the DFO, Fisheries Canada, but the Ministry of Environment, as I understand, has some involvement in this. I just wondered if the minister could outline what the role of his ministry is in this area.

Hon. B. Penner: I am aware of the incident that the member raises. I had a chance to go out there and take a look at it a couple weeks ago, shortly after it was reported in a Chilliwack newspaper and after I received some phone calls from some local anglers that I know.

By the time I got there, the structure that the member referred to had been removed, but the water level was still low. I'm told that water levels are much lower this year than previous years. I have asked staff in the ministry to share whatever information or insight they may have with their federal counterparts in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because we certainly don't want to see a situation where alevins — things that will soon become fish — are prevented from carrying on in their life cycle and becoming fish. That's clearly not the result anybody's looking for.

There was a follow-up

article that I can refer the member to from the Chilliwack Progress dated March 17, 2003, where a DFO official, identified as an area director, Jim Wild, said it was "totally inappropriate" to blame a causeway built by the contractor with federal fisheries approval for what took place. This individual, Mr. Wild, goes on to say that the water levels were low compared to previous years, etc.

Now, I'm not in a position to say whether or not that explanation is the correct one, but that's certainly the view of that person. I have asked that ministry staff, if we have information, share that with the federal counterparts to see what happened.

It's important that gravel removal take place in the Fraser River, but it has to be done in a way that does not negatively impact fish stocks. I'm advised, and there have been plenty of reports and studies to support this, that it is possible to have a regimen of gravel extraction at certain times of the year, respecting fish windows and the like, without unduly affecting fish habitat. Certainly, nobody that I've ever spoken to wants to impact fish habitat.

[1620]

There is a societal need to reduce the flood risk in the Fraser Valley by making sure that the channel remains deep enough that the river can contain the water during the spring freshet. On the other hand, we all are looking forward to the continuation of that incredible heritage that we have, which is Pacific salmon and other fish species in the Fraser River.

Something happened here. I don't know exactly, again, about causation. There appears to be correlation. What the officials will try to determine is if there is, in fact, causation that resulted in the negative impact to those alevins.

M. Sather: Well, there certainly are different points of view. There are those that are well versed in fisheries biology who disagree completely with Mr. Wild that it was in any way a natural causation, and they maintain quite steadfastly that it was the result of the causeway.

I do want to also ask the minister about that, though. With regard to gravel extraction, it's my understanding that there was a technical committee that had a role from the ministry — with the ministry's involvement, at least — in these gravel extraction contracts. I wonder if he could just talk a bit about that role.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm trying to remember the member's question. There is a technical committee, I'm advised, where the Ministry of Environment provides input. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands also has a role to play from the provincial perspective. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has lead responsibility in terms of determining what measures are required for protecting fish habitat and protecting the fish.

We provide advice pertaining to what sites or gravel removal projects will have a benefit from a hydraulic navigation and/or erosion control benefit. When I say hydraulic, I think what I mean is in terms of controlling the water flows or helping mitigate the risk of flooding during the annual freshet. So this is a group effort, but the lead responsibility in terms of the fish habitat in the Fraser River rests with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

M. Sather: Well, I'm advised that the technical committee is not as strong as it was some years ago, in

[ Page 3697 ]

2002. There is some concern about the oversight of the Ministry of Environment with regard to gravel removal in the Fraser River.

This is my last question to the minister. In view of the fact that we have a building boom, a construction boom, in the lower mainland, gravel is in great demand. Can the minister assure this House that lobbying efforts by members of the Legislature are not in any way influencing this procedure such that the environment is being put at risk?

Hon. B. Penner: My primary interest is in making sure that we protect the environment and that any gravel removal is done in a way that is sustainable from an environmental perspective. The primary motivation in terms of removing gravel, certainly from my perspective, has been to lower the level of the river to reduce flood risk.

During the 1990s there was a moratorium placed on gravel removal. The net result of that was that the bottom of the river rose over time. Depending on the report, I am told that we might have lost a metre of freeboard. That means that today the same volume of water might be a metre higher as compared to the top of the dikes.

[1625]

This results in increased seepage along the side of the dikes, which has a number of impacts in terms of agriculture in the Fraser Valley. In other words, farmers can't get on their land as often. More seriously and perhaps worse from a public safety perspective, it means that the dikes are closer to being overtopped.

One solution that some people put forward is to just keep making those dikes higher and higher and higher. You can imagine the risk that takes place if you do have a breach. Then you suddenly have an incredible torrent that will do untold damage not just to communities, and there's hundreds of thousands of people that live in the Fraser Valley, but also to any fish that might happen to be in the river at the time of the flood — if a flood were to take place.

What we want to do, in a measured way, is reduce the amount of aggregate that's accumulated to lower the riverbed so that, all things being equal, the surface of the river drops to a level that is no longer as much of a risk. However, and this is the big caveat, we have to find ways to do it in a way that is not harmful to fish. It's my belief that we can do that, but it has to be done appropriately.

There was an incident that took place a few weeks ago, and I know there's a lot of discussion about it. I take it very seriously, and that's why I've asked ministry staff to share whatever information or perspectives they have with DFO to see what took place, because we can't have situations taking place where the fish eggs and the like are deprived of water and their source of oxygen as a result of gravel removal. That should not be taking place. But it is also important that we lower the riverbed for the reasons I've stated.

I know that there may be a side benefit in terms of the aggregate that's produced, but that's not the reason why we support a regulated and controlled withdrawal of gravel from the banks of the river. It's for flood protection purposes, not to supply a source of aggregate to industry, although that may be one of the results at the end of the day.

S. Simpson: Maybe just a quick related water question here. When I look at the budget, on page 15 of the service plan, I notice the most significant number…. All of the numbers stay fairly consistent across the board excepting water stewardship, where there is a dramatic increase, particularly in the '07-08 plan. There's a mention here that this has to do with the integration of land and water. Could that be confirmed that that's, in fact, what's occurring here to create this big jump to $63 million from $28-odd million in the '06-07 budget?

Hon. B. Penner: The estimates do indicate an increase of, I think, $7.6 million or so, or about 36.6 percent. But the member's suspicion is correct. A lot of that has to do with the full-year accounting on an annualized basis of the transfer of responsibilities from what was the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Just to break that down a little bit in terms of that increase, I can advise that there's $4.4 million in water rental remissions; $2.89 million in annualized funding to support programs previously run by Land and Water B.C., which as you know, was a Crown corporation that reported in through the previous Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; $191,000 is apparently a building occupancy adjustment; $124,000, employee benefits — apparently a rate was increased from 24 to 25.6 percent; and $23,000 representing a lift to, again, the transfer related to issues or components of the previous ministry.

[1630]

S. Simpson: I appreciate that this shift from '05-06 to '06-07 — which I think the minister was referencing, the $7 million, $8 million or so — includes, I see, about 31 FTEs that presumably came over with Water and Land. I appreciate that, and I understand where that comes from.

My interest, then, is '06-07 to '07-08 where the budget more than doubles to some $63 million from $28 million, and yet there are no additional FTEs. So somewhere in here an extra $35 million of operating expenses appears without any additional FTEs. I wonder if the minister could explain that.

Hon. B. Penner: Just confirming my hunch, and apparently, my hunch is correct. That figure, about $35 million, is attributable to water rental remissions anticipated in fiscal 2007-2008 — the next fiscal.

S. Simpson: So if I'm correct — I seem to remember this number from last year — these are remissions. This is dollars going back to hydro — remissions of dollars related to hydro? It's a bookkeeping exercise mostly?

That would be correct. I'll just take the nod and not ask the minister to stand up more than he has to.

[ Page 3698 ]

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Well, you know, that's bookkeeping.

I want to talk about species questions. But, before I do that, I think I'm going to just broach a topic here that came up and was raised to me primarily and I heard a lot about at the Wildlife Federation, which is the question of allocations for resident versus commercial hunters. Maybe we'll just explore that a little bit. Could the minister tell us what the new allocation policy is and how that differs from the old allocation policy?

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: The member may recall, with a varying degree of clarity, my speech from last week to the Wildlife Federation. This is one of the topics that I did address because I know it's been of considerable interest to guide-outfitters as well as the B.C. Wildlife Federation and others.

[1635]

In the past, allocation policy was largely determined by different regions. What we are seeking to do is provide greater consistency to the decision-making process by establishing a formula that will be applied across the province by regional offices and, by having a more transparent or explicit set of considerations, will make the process more transparent.

We have extended the time line for our decision. The decision is not finalized at this point. The reason we've extended the time line is to provide for more consultation and input from interested stakeholders, including the Wildlife Federation.

For those people who are following this debate but aren't entirely sure what we're referring to when we talk about wildlife allocation, we're referring to the process by which the harvestable portion of the wildlife population is divided between recreational hunters — also known as resident hunters — and commercial hunters, who are clients of guide-outfitters and quite often are non-residents in the province.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could simplify this for me. What is the current situation in terms of percentage of allocation that would go to resident hunters versus percentage to commercial? And what is the change in that in terms of the proposal?

Hon. B. Penner: Allocation becomes necessary when the harvest of a particular population of wildlife must be limited for conservation or other reasons. In many parts of the province that is the case for the species we're talking about, so the allocation rules vary by species and by region. That will continue to be the case, but we'll now have a more consistent set of criteria that are evaluated.

I'm told that, based on inventories, every year an assessment is done in terms of how many particular animals are in a particular herd. Then a number is determined that, in terms of the allowable or harvestable portion, biologists think is sustainable. From that, first nations get the first draw on the amount of the harvestable portion of wildlife. Following that, the priority has been and will continue to be to resident hunters in British Columbia.

For the sake of discussion with the groups we're currently talking to, we've been talking about a starting point of 75 percent in favour of residents and 25 percent for guide-outfitters. It depends on the species and the region. Then there'll be a list of criteria, so that 75-25 number could move back and forth a little bit, could vary, but that will be the essential starting point.

[1640]

In many parts of the province that is essentially where we're at today, but it does vary by region. There's less consistency today, in terms of the previous policy, than what we're hoping to achieve by going to the new policy and just having a more consistent set of criteria.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe I'll put the question this way. The minister will know, and his staff will know, that the Wildlife Federation is not real crazy about where this is going on the allocation issue. Certainly, the comments made to me by members of the Wildlife Federation are that they're not happy about where this is headed or where they believe this is headed. I understand that there haven't been final decisions made.

Maybe the minister could explain to me — because I'm sure that he's spoken to many people in that organization, as have his officials…. Maybe he could tell me: what is the ministry proposing, or what does the ministry have on the table that the Wildlife Federation finds objectionable from the point of view of resident hunters? Where is that problem that clearly was indicated at their annual general meeting?

Hon. B. Penner: There is a not unlimited resource of wildlife that we're talking about here, but there are competing demands and competing interests. I'm sure the guide-outfitters would like to have more, and I'm sure the B.C. Wildlife Federation and their members would like to have more. But there's a limited amount, so it's about allocation.

I've heard some concerns from those groups about the amount, for example, that first nations are allocated as well. Whenever we get into a situation where you're having to make decisions around allocating — I wouldn't say a scarce resource, although in some cases that's the case — certainly a resource that has its limits from a sustainability perspective, you're going to have divergent views about who should get the bigger share.

It will continue to be the case that resident hunters will be given priority over non-resident hunters. We do in British Columbia, though, reap significant economic benefits from having a viable guide-outfitting industry. So that's the balance that needs to be struck — giving resident hunters ample opportunity to hunt and recre-

[ Page 3699 ]

ate while also preserving our guide-outfitting industry in British Columbia, which provides substantial benefits to rural parts of the province. Many people make their livelihoods on that activity.

[1645]

S. Simpson: Has the ministry done an economic assessment or had one done to assess the economic value of the resident hunt for communities in the province versus the economic value of the commercial hunt?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have all the numbers that the member is asking for at my fingertips, but in 2004-2005 more than 83,000 resident hunters and 5,800 non-residents generated more than $8.7 million in direct revenues to the Crown in the form of licence sales. That's just in the sale of licences.

It's been estimated that hunters in British Columbia spend about $110 million annually, leading to 1,700 jobs and about $48 million in gross domestic product. As we already noted, many of those expenditures occur in rural communities.

As you'll know, a person hiring a guide will pay a substantial amount of money for the opportunity to be here in British Columbia, to take

part in hunting opportunities. I don't have the exact number on that, but I think the member will agree that there is an economic benefit from having guide-outfitting in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: I'm sure there are, as the minister said. It was $110 million or something, is what the guide-outfitters told me — the number they gave me. The number that interests me, and I'm not going to pursue this further at this time, is that the resident hunt tells me that they have hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, of course, that they generate through their activities and the expenditures in communities that they make when they go into communities to hunt as well. Their interest, as they put it to me, was in who calculates the value of that number and what that's worth as you measure this out.

I want to move, though, to the discussion of species at risk for a while. Particularly, I'm interested in…. I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands in his estimates the other day. We talked about species at risk, and of course the minister told me that he's not really responsible for species at risk. He's responsible for SaRCO, which is responsible for three species. All other matters related to species are the responsibility of the Minister of Environment. I believe he also told me that the references to the new legislation that are in the strategic plan are, in fact, Ministry of Environment legislative proposals.

The question I have is: what is the expectation…? Not of content, because I understand the minister can't talk about the content of legislation before it's on the table. But the strategic plan has announced that we will have a species-at-risk law in the province. What is the expectation in terms of the timing of that new species-at-risk law?

[1650]

Hon. B. Penner: I think the provisions that the member's referring to were actually contained in something known as the Wildlife Amendment Act. It may be commonly referred to by the term that the member used, but they were contained within the Wildlife Amendment Act.

The ministry is continuing to work in cooperation with the species-at-risk coordination office in developing regulations pursuant to that legislation that will provide for the listing process for species that are to be listed, as well as a definition of the residences for species. We want, wherever possible, to harmonize our process and our system with the federal government's approach under the Species at Risk Act that they've brought in. I'm told that they just recently completed some work that we are counting on for our process to make sure that we harmonize, as I mentioned, wherever possible.

S. Simpson: Maybe it was the way it was written. When I read the 2006 strategic plan…. It explicitly says in the plan, I believe, in the list of accomplishments under the fourth golden rule or goal, that B.C. would have its first species-at-risk law. Just a clarification: is the minister saying we're not going to have species-at-risk legislation, but there may be an amendment around the Wildlife Act and that we may see some amendments within the context of that act that will deal with species issues?

Hon. B. Penner: The reference the member is talking about occurs at page 30, I think, of the province of B.C. strategic plan. I'll read the section: "Passing species-at-risk protection legislation for the first time in British Columbia." We did that. The legislation that deals with protecting species at risk is contained in the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004.

S. Simpson: We currently have a situation in British Columbia where three species are on the SaRCO list. There is no effective protection necessarily for any other species in the province. So we can expect that nothing is going to change from what we have today? Is that what the minister's saying — that the species-at-risk regime that's in place today is the regime that we will have for the foreseeable future?

[1655]

Hon. B. Penner: The member may not have heard my answer a minute ago where I talked about the additional work we're doing in terms of the regulations we're drafting pursuant to the amendments that were passed in the Wildlife Act — working with the federal government to harmonize that process and those regulations so, as much as possible, it's consistent with or harmonized with the Species at Risk Act federally, which does apply in British Columbia.

[ Page 3700 ]

In addition, of course, there's the Wildlife Act that has existed for many years, and I'm told has provided specific protection in relation to the sea otter, the white pelican, the burrowing owl and the Vancouver Island marmot.

In addition, on the books in British Columbia, we've got the Forest and Range Practices Act as well as regulations made pursuant to that legislation. It does a number of things: allowing us to establish categories of species at risk, designating wildlife habitat areas. In my opening comments this morning, I talked about — and I think it was 265 or so — those areas that we've established over the last number of years, winter ungulate range reserves that have been established and other wildlife habitat features and protection measures for sensitive fisheries watersheds.

In addition to the Forest and Range Practices Act and the regulations pursuant to that legislation, there is something called the Private Managed Forest Land Act and the private managed forest land regulation made pursuant to that legislation, and there's a

schedule attached there that has a number of species identified.

S. Simpson: I found it interesting that the minister listed those four species: the burrowing owl, the white pelican, the sea otter and the Island marmot. To the best of my knowledge, those are the only four that cabinet has ever put on the list in 25 years.

The problem here, as I see it, is that we're not protecting the species we have in this province that are at risk. I'm told that there are about 1,300 species that in some way, shape or form are identified as being at risk in British Columbia. Could the minister confirm that number?

Hon. B. Penner: The fact that a particular species is not specifically mentioned under one of the acts I previously referred to does not mean that the ministry is not working on recovery plans in relation to those species. I think I was told we're currently working on recovery plans for a total of — quite a number — about 89, I believe, different species that we're working or leading in terms of planning process for species at risk under SARA legislation. There is a total number of…. Additional species, as well, that we're looking at in terms of participating — in terms of the recovery planning process.

[1700]

The ministry is busy and is working with SaRCO on the three you've mentioned, but we are also working on a wide range of other species, and I'm told that we're making good progress in that regard.

I just caution the member about climbing too high on a pedestal on this issue, because it was an NDP Environment Minister who at a previous time — his name was Moe Sihota — stated: "I have indicated on several occasions publicly that this province and this government does not intend to introduce endangered species legislation — period."

We have done that. We've made amendments to the Wildlife Act, and we're developing