2007 Legislative Session: Third 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Mission Foundation Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill Pr402)

R. Hawes

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Courage to Come Back award

winners

H. Bloy

Millside Elementary 100th

anniversary

Thorne

Contributions of seniors

D. Hayer

Medical use of marijuana

Simons

Memoir of nurse Gertrude Ladner

Roddick

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood

House 30th anniversary

J. Kwan

Oral Questions

Comments by former Finance

Minister regarding municipal politicians

J. Kwan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Call for investigation of media

activities by Liberal staff

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Comments by former Finance

Minister regarding municipal politicians

Fleming

Hon. W.

Oppal

Call for investigation of media

activities by Liberal staff

Macdonald

Hon. W.

Oppal

Comments by former Finance

Minister regarding municipal politicians

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Government policy on ministerial

appointments

Horgan

Hon. C.

Taylor

Funding for Mary Manning Centre

Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

Government consultation with

first nations on release of private lands

Trevena

Hon. M.

de Jong

Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion costs

Gentner

Hon. S.

Hagen

H. Bains

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board,

annual report, 2005-2006

Hon. B.

Penner

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Horgan

Sather

Estimates: Other appropriations

Point of Privilege

J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

Ralston

Hon. C.

Taylor

Horgan

Estimates: Management of public

funds and debt

Estimates: Other appropriations

[ Page 7513 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I have the pleasure today of introducing three amazing women. Rheta Steer has joined us. Many of you will recognize that lovely face as the person who took my babies around this building in the early days. Karen Legeer is with us as well, the godmother to my daughter Olivia. And my dear mom is here, Cathy Reid. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

C. Evans: On behalf of the member for West Kootenay–Boundary, I'd like to introduce Mary Bermel from Castlegar, who is a constituent of the member for West Kootenay–Boundary, and her sister Lillian Nechvatal from Armstrong. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House today two ladies, Ashley Kroening and Sarah Prud'Homme. They are in Victoria taking

part in the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's mother-daughter breakfast program.

The Mother-Daughter Breakfast Tour travels to 40 communities across the province each year, raising awareness, very appropriately, for breast cancer prevention and detection with young women and their mothers. I'd ask all members of the House to please make Ashley and Sarah most welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I have four guests in the audience. Monira Karim and her daughter Nafisa Karim are in the gallery today. Make them welcome, first of all.

I wasn't directing that at you, Speaker — at my colleagues.

Also, David and Melissa Sneed from Grapevine, Texas. Please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today I would like to acknowledge some special visitors to this House from Norway. I ask the House to join me in welcoming His Excellency Tor Berntin Næss, Ambassador of Norway to Canada. He is joined by his trade commissioner, Mr. Tor Mühlbradt, and honorary Consul General Mr. Stein Gudmundseth.

This is the ambassador's first visit to British Columbia, and we look forward to strengthening the bonds that exist between our two jurisdictions. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

N. Macdonald: Jeff Dean is one of our research officers. His mother Gayle Gavin is joining us in the gallery to see what we're up to. I'd like you to join me in making her welcome.

[1335]

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today we have two very good friends of mine, Don Jones and Marilyn Buchanan. These two people have been really very helpful to me right through my political career, and Don Jones is a great Rotarian. Would the House please make both of them feel very welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce our intern researcher, Sarah Wiebe. Not only do I want to welcome her, I also want to wish her a very happy birthday. Please join me to do that.

B. Lekstrom: Today in the gallery and throughout the buildings, we have a number of motorcycle enthusiasts that have joined us. May is Motorcycle Awareness Month in the province, which brings awareness to the safety of riders on the roads of British Columbia. I would like the House to make them all feel very welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce three very special guests here today in the gallery and the Legislature. The first two are from Gainesville, Florida. My daughter Noelle is a doctoral candidate in medical anthropology at the University of Florida. She announced to me today that she has won the fellowship, and she's off to Africa. With her is my grandson Flynn — and he's a Florida Gators fan, both football and basketball — and of course my dear, lovely wife Shirley. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in this House by a couple who truly understand the essence of community and have made significant contributions to the communities of this province, firstly, here in Victoria and now in Surrey–White Rock. Would the House please make most welcome Barbara Courtney-Young and Michael Young.

I. Black: It's a pleasure for me to welcome to the vicinity 45 students from Hampton Park Elementary School in my riding. They've been here taking a tour and going to the Titanic exhibit next door. They've just had a terrific day. They're a great bunch of kids. I had a chance to spend a little time with them. Specifically, I want to welcome Eric and Adam Chattan, two boisterous little kids who also happen to be next-door neighbours of mine.

D. Hayer: I have many special guests today. It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Mrs. Sharon Douglas and Grant Wirtz as well as 30 parent volunteers. It also includes Connie Johl, who's one of our constituents and hard-working volunteers. All of these parents have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

I have another special guest. My wife Isabelle Martinez is here. She volunteers in my constituency and helps me whenever I need help. Would the House please make her very welcome.

J. McIntyre: It seems that we have lots of students here today. I just want to add a voice of welcome to a

[ Page 7514 ]

class from Brackendale Elementary in my riding. They will be here later this afternoon at three o'clock, so I'm giving them an advance welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

R. Hawes presented a bill intituled Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007.

R. Hawes: I move that a bill intituled Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: The Mission Foundation is a charitable organization in Mission that does incredible good works for the community. The name Mission Foundation has not been truly descriptive, and so they have requested that their name be changed to the Mission Community Foundation. It's a fairly simple straightforward bill for a great organization.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

[1340]

Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARD WINNERS

H. Bloy: I recently had the honour of serving as a judge in the 2007 Courage to Come Back Awards. I was a judge for the mental health category, and I can tell you that the selection of the three finalists was an incredibly difficult process. Every single one of the 29 nominees deserved to be acknowledged for what they have gone through in their lives.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about one of the award winners, a Burquitlam resident, Merle Smith. When Merle was just 14 years of age she was hiking with friends, and a whiteout hit. Her group fell off a cliff, resulting in Merle breaking her neck and making her a quadriplegic. Her school was not accessible at the time, but her friends helped her. She graduated from high school, and she went on to complete a BA at Simon Fraser University and then a master's from the University of British Columbia.

She got a job with the Ministry of Health in 1973 and was soon appointed the ombudsman for the handicapped. In 1975 she was dealt another severe challenge when her car was struck by a drunk driver, resulting in life-threatening injuries. Once again, Merle refused to give in.

Another winner from Burnaby, Leslie Nelson, received the social adversity award that night for overcoming a lifetime of drug abuse and now works tirelessly to empower others and help them to confront their own challenges.

I would also like to recognize the other recipients from that night: Loyanne McCuaig from Vancouver, John Morrison from Prince George, Hersh Abramson from Vancouver and Kaytee Tuomola from Vancouver.

MILLSIDE ELEMENTARY

100TH ANNIVERSARY

D. Thorne: Millside Elementary School, which began as a two-room school on what is now Brunette Avenue in Maillardville, is marking its centennial this week. In 100 years, a lot of learning has taken place there, and a lot of lives have been touched.

Alumni and others are invited to drop by and enjoy displays and events designed to honour and celebrate some of the world events that have transpired since 1907 — for example, the year 1925, when Winnie the Pooh had his literary debut; 1945, VE Day; 1958 and the Hula Hoop craze that hit Canada; and finally, the start of the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope in 1981.

Mr. Speaker, we need to step back in time a little to comprehend how this little school came to be. In 1907 Fraser Mills was severely handicapped by the lack of skilled workers. They decided to build a school to attract workers whose children could then get something very new, actually — a free education. Many new arrivals from Quebec still chose to enrol their children in the Catholic school after they arrived. But during the Depression this all changed, and enrolment ballooned as people could no longer afford to pay tuition fees at the Catholic school.

The two-room school grew finally to 232 students by 1936. Additional buildings were built, and eventually a gym and finally a computer lab. Services increased as organizations like the SHARE Family and Community Services Society offered early childhood education and a family resource centre.

Through the past 100 years, children and their families from many countries have learned they could be part of the larger community simply by getting involved in their local community school — Millside. It is the memory of this sense of belonging that the school hopes to rekindle in its alumni and their families when they drop in to travel back to another time in their lives during this week.

I'd like the House put its hands together and say happy 100 to Millside School, the little school that did.

[ Page 7515 ]

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

D. Hayer: I had the pleasure of visiting the Elim Village seniors housing complex and the opening ceremonies of the Guru Nanak Niwas assisted living complex for seniors. I also visited the Surrey Lawn Bowling Club for the annual opening ceremonies.

[1345]

I had the privilege of meeting many seniors who are on the front line of volunteerism, contributing their time, their skills and their enthusiasm to helping thousands of others.

It impressed me to see how much our seniors contribute to our society, how they're so willing to step up to the plate to help others. I acknowledge how important our seniors are and how much they have contributed to our society, to our community and to the lifestyles and prosperity we enjoy today. As well, it is because of our pioneers and our seniors that we enjoy our right to vote and the freedom and democracy that we also hold precious.

Our seniors are role models that everyone should look up to, who we must recognize are the builders of this province, this country and the community. Age, it seems, is no deterrent because no matter where you go in Surrey or throughout the province, you will find seniors actively participating in making a difference in our community. The example they set is outstanding.

Therefore, I ask everyone in the House to join me in thanking seniors across British Columbia for the contributions they have made, both in the past and the present, which have made our province the best place on earth to live, work and do business in.

MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

N. Simons: I rise to speak about a specific health care problem facing people in every one of our 79 constituencies. These are people living with a range of illnesses and conditions, including multiple sclerosis, cancer, spinal cord injuries, HIV and AIDS, epilepsy, chronic pain and arthritis.

They have found marijuana to provide relief from their symptoms. Among other things, marijuana helps in the management of their seizures. It assists those with anorexia and wasting, and it combats the numerous horrendous side effects of pharmaceuticals.

We're coming up on ten years since the right to use marijuana was granted to Jim Wakeford by our courts. Despite his victory, patients continue to suffer in this province because of the difficulty they have in finding a free, consistent and quality supply of their medicine.

Doctors know that marijuana will help their patients. In order to exercise their rights, patients have to break the law or get gouged with high prices and poor quality. The fact that they have to pay anyone — a drug dealer, a compassion club or the federal government — goes against the principle of fairness.

While the federal government charges less than the average drug dealer, they charge tax and shipping. It's estimated that the markup on government-approved marijuana is in the range of 1,500 percent. Over 200 doctors in British Columbia and almost 1,000 doctors across this country refer patients to marijuana.

Over one and a half million Canadians use marijuana recreationally. Over half of Canadians support its legalization or its decriminalization. The marijuana industry in this province is estimated to be worth $6 billion. I'm hoping that a rational, levelheaded and even-tempered discussion on this subject will result in patients getting good consistent quality marijuana at no cost to them.

MEMOIR OF NURSE GERTRUDE LADNER

V. Roddick: May 6 to 12 is National Nursing Week. This week provides us with the opportunity to recognize the invaluable contribution of nurses, the heart of health care. Three local women in my community of Delta South recently wrote a book on a remarkable woman from our past, Labour of Love: A Memoir of Gertrude Richards Ladner, 1879 to 1976 , written by Valerie Grant and Sheila Rankin Zerr and Glynneth Zilm.

Based on the enchanting story of a young nurse of the early 1900s, this book provides insights into the life of a remarkably spirited and independent young woman. Her account certainly gives a different historical picture of a professional nurse of 100 years ago. At that time there were no doctors in the Ladner area. She was a one-woman health care delivery system and, from all accounts, damn good at it.

The book is based on a family diary dictated by Gertrude Ladner to her daughter Edna Ladner and based also on family photographs and documents. This book contains background on the Richards and Ladner families, both of whom made — and continue to make — important contributions to the history and future of B.C.'s lower mainland. Two chapters contain primary data on the history of the provincial Royal Jubilee Hospital and on nursing uniforms of the day.

[1350]

Nurses have played a critical role in caring for us in times of illness since Florence Nightingale and the Crimean War, and will continue their precious work taking care of us long into the future. I ask that the House join me in acknowledging and celebrating the incredible contributions that nurses make to our communities each and every day.

MOUNT PLEASANT NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

30TH ANNIVERSARY

J. Kwan: Last Thursday there was a party for over a hundred people at 800 East Broadway in my constituency. Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House was celebrating its 30th birthday. Vancouver's neighbourhood houses have a long and distinguished tradition of providing places where people can gather together to get information, share ideas, access service and, most important of all, connect with their neighbours. Neighbourhood houses are the living rooms of our communities.

[ Page 7516 ]

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House was particularly lucky to have had the late David Adair serve as the founding executive director for the first 25 years. With the local board members and its amazing band of volunteers, he guided the development of programs to respond to the evolving needs of the community.

This tradition continues today. The range of services includes a mobile service to help people file their income tax forms, child care, ESL programs, seniors groups, access to health care services and much, much more. The neighbourhood house works in partnership with non-profit groups, educational institutions, government departments, businesses and, most important of all, the people in the neighbourhood.

At the anniversary celebration there was a video presentation in which local residents talked about the value they place on neighbourhood houses. People of various ages from a wide range of ethnocultural backgrounds spoke about the warmth of the welcome they get, the pleasure they get in meeting with people from the community, the support and services they receive from the staff and of course its many, many volunteers.

Last week I wished the Vancouver Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House a happy anniversary. This week I invite all the members of this House to join with me in congratulating them on their 30th anniversary and wishing them continued successes.

Oral Questions

COMMENTS BY FORMER FINANCE MINISTER

REGARDING MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS

J. Kwan: Yesterday we learned just how far the B.C. Liberals would go to defend their broken promise of B.C. Rail. It was much more than dirty tricks. B.C. Liberals were actively attacking local municipal leaders. A transcript of just one recorded conversation is shocking.

Dave Basi: "Bill Vander Zalm will be on with Barb Sharp, mayor of North Vancouver. I wanted to have the mayor of Squamish, who's a good friend of ours, rip Barb Sharp a new…." Expletive. "Is that okay?"

Former Finance Minister Gary Collins: "Absolutely."

Surely someone, anyone, on that side of the House will stand up and denounce such personal attacks and dirty tricks. Or will this government stay silent and protect their B.C. Liberal friends?

Hon. W. Oppal: Obviously, the member from the opposition is making reference to evidence that's being led in the trial. She's reading from transcripts, apparently, of what was wiretap evidence. Obviously, we can't comment on that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Mayor Barb Sharp was doing her job, standing up for the people of North Vancouver and the hundreds of B.C. Rail jobs that this government was ripping away. She was standing up for her community, but this government was desperate — desperate enough to tear her down. The former Finance Minister gave the go-ahead for a dirty personal attack.

[1355]

It is a simple question to the Attorney General and has nothing to do with the court case. Is this something that the government supports, or will the Attorney General admit today that such actions are simply wrong?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we simply don't have the luxury of passing judgment before the trial concludes. The member opposite may have that luxury, but it would be improper for us to do that.

CALL FOR INVESTIGATION OF MEDIA

ACTIVITIES BY LIBERAL STAFF

L. Krog: Every day we learn just how low the B.C. Liberals are willing to go. Today it is truly a new low. Not only were B.C. Liberals deploying dirty tricks on the opposition; they were attacking a respected municipal leader behind her back for defending her community. They set her up on a radio call-in show. Fake calls, on-air ambushing, personal attacks — and they were all signed off by a senior Liberal cabinet minister.

To the Attorney General: how much more evidence does this government need before they investigate their own dirty tricks?

Hon. W. Oppal: Surely the member opposite knows, as a member of the bar, that these are allegations that are made at trial. It would be totally, totally improper for anyone in this House to comment on them, let alone draw conclusions from them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: A transcript is a transcript. Dave Basi, Prem Vinning, Steve Vander Wal — they've all been caught playing dirty tricks. Now we can add the government's former Finance Minister and House Leader to that list. But this government won't denounce such dirty tricks, and they have every opportunity to do so.

I say to the Attorney General: will the government not only investigate this pattern of dirty tricks from the Premier's office all the way down, but will the Attorney General denounce them today in this House as he should properly do?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is an investigation going on. It's called the trial.

B. Ralston: I have a simple question, and it is not sub judice. Is this government today — today — actively engaged in dirty tricks and personal attacks against municipal leaders? A yes or no will suffice.

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

Somebody made a comment over here, and I would expect that they would take that back.

An Hon. Member: I'll withdraw the comment.

[ Page 7517 ]

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, all of this arises out of the same source, and that is the trial that's going on before the Supreme Court. I would have thought that the last two members who asked would know better. Both are lawyers; both have practised before the courts. It is totally improper for anyone in this House to comment on evidence that emanates from that trial.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: There are

interpretations of the sub judice rule other than the one that's put forward by the Attorney General. Other parliaments, including the British House of Commons, have said that the presumption should be for discussion rather than for stonewalling.

This is a question that we're asking about what's taking place today. So again to the Attorney General: will he commit to investigate the lengthy pattern of dirty tricks and assure British Columbians that they have stopped?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, I don't conduct investigations of that sort. Secondly, if the member has any evidence of wrongdoing, then he should take it to the appropriate authorities.

[1400]

COMMENTS BY FORMER FINANCE MINISTER

REGARDING MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS

R. Fleming: You know, part of accountability is taking it to the proper authorities, and the proper authority is the Attorney General in matters like this.

The B.C. Liberal dirty tricks aren't limited to a few political aides. We know the names Vinning, Vander Wal and others. They have nothing to do with this trial. It's now clear that at least one senior cabinet minister was giving sign-off for these dirty political tricks.

Will the Attorney General stand up and condemn the actions approved of by his government's former Minister of Finance so the public can know clearly what the government thinks of these actions and whether they will admit that they're right or wrong?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, there's a judge presiding over this trial. The judge will make the appropriate findings. It's totally irresponsible for anybody in this House to suggest and to conclude that any of those allegations are accurate or truthful or factual.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Premier is today speaking to an audience of elected municipal leaders in Merritt. I'm sure that in his set speech, he's not going to explain why government ministers and why B.C. Liberal staff orchestrated personal attacks on the mayor of North Vancouver.

But will the Attorney General, here in this House, assure mayors and indeed all British Columbians that his government is no longer paying staff or awarding contracts for dirty tricks campaigns against elected officials on the airwaves of our province?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's a disturbing trend here to just throw mud….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Some of the mud may even stick some day. The fact is that if there is any evidence of wrongdoing — and the member there has suggested all types of wrongdoing — then take it to the appropriate authorities. The Attorney General doesn't investigate conduct of that type.

CALL FOR INVESTIGATION OF MEDIA

ACTIVITIES BY LIBERAL STAFF

N. Macdonald: Very clearly, the Premier sets a standard. He said so himself. At the same time the people I represent in Columbia River–Revelstoke were being told that there is no money for forestry workers…. They had to go. There was no money for biologists, no money for a conservation officer, no money for nurses, no money for teacher-librarians and no money for special ed. At the same time government was saying that they could do without that, they had the dirty tricks squad.

The question I have is: why is that not being investigated? Why will the Attorney General not stand up and say that is not acceptable and promise to this House that it will be investigated and turned forward?

Hon. W. Oppal: I was going to say that this is good theatre, but it isn't. It's bad theatre.

You know, it is being investigated now. It's being investigated before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Why don't we wait to hear what that court concludes?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COMMENTS BY FORMER FINANCE MINISTER

REGARDING MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS

M. Farnworth: I didn't know that the actions of the former Finance Minister are currently on trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. If they are, would he please enlighten this House?

[1405]

What we are talking about is the conduct of a minister of the Crown. If we have concerns about that, he is exactly the individual that we should be raising those concerns with, hon. Speaker.

A minister of the Crown is sanctioning a dirty tricks program on another elected official at another branch of government in this province. That is unacceptable. So my question to the Attorney General is this. Does he

[ Page 7518 ]

think that it is ethical for this type of behaviour to take place? If he doesn't, will he kindly let the rest of his cabinet colleagues know that this type of behaviour is unethical and it should cease forthwith?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that was quite dramatic. The fact is that if the conduct is as flagrant as the member suggested, this is something that should be taken to the authorities. Obviously, this is something that you should be taking to the authorities.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, if the Attorney General feels that he does not have the authority to deal with this allegation, then perhaps he will communicate it to his boss, who most certainly does have this authority. Communicate it to the Premier of the province and tell the Premier of the province when he's speaking to local government officials that he should apologize to them for the dirty tricks campaign being waged out of his office.

Will the Attorney General at least do that?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think there was a question there, and I'll do my best to answer it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, if there's evidence of dirty tricks on the part of any cabinet minister or any member of the executive council, the member opposite knows where the investigation begins.

An Hon. Member: Through you.

Hon. W. Oppal: That indicates to me how little they know about the role of the Attorney General.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON

MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS

J. Horgan: Former ministerial aide Max Logan has left government to take up work with the Canadian Retail Council. On his departure, the Minister of Finance wrote to Mr. Logan advising him that he was prohibited from contacting the Ministry of Finance for one year.

Can the minister confirm that this is now government policy and that there are post-employment restrictions on ministerial appointments? If that is government policy, when did it come into effect?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, this was an agreement that was reached between Mr. Logan and myself. He is a talented young man that I expect at some point we might even see in this House representing a community in B.C. He has gone on to the next step in his career, which is with the Retail Council.

I felt very strongly — and he echoed that as well — that it would be proper, since it is a direct relationship with the Minister of Finance, that for the next year we have no contact. He accepts this, and I'm led to believe — I haven't received it yet — that the Retail Council is also sending me a letter confirming that.

J. Horgan: Well, Mike Marasco has a six-month prohibition from engaging with Partnerships B.C., an agency that the minister was responsible for. In one instance, it's six months. In another instance, on the minister's whim, it's 12 months. With respect to Ken Dobell it's ten, and Richard Turner, seven months.

Wouldn't the minister agree with me that it is high time there was some consistency in this policy? The elasticity of the ethics on that side of the House is difficult for the public to comprehend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Will she agree that it's time for legislation to make it clear to all British Columbians what the standard is?

[1410]

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, I think you've proven the point that every case is different. Even with the Mike Marasco…. Just so that I can correct the record….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Taylor: In the Mike Marasco case, since the name has been mentioned here, I will explain a little bit more in detail what the actual contract agreement is with Mr. Marasco. He is not the CEO of Partnerships B.C. He is one of the executive team. The board felt this was an important issue that they had to look to. So they went to an outside firm, and they asked in the business and commercial case — which this is, because he was certainly working on Partnerships B.C. issues — what would be the proper way to firewall Partnerships B.C. from this individual as he went forward with his career.

The recommendation that came back was to do a complete six-month ban. In fact, it requested that he not even attend the Vancouver offices of the Plenary company. So he is working out of Toronto for that six months.

It goes further than that. It said that Mr. Marasco was in fact working in Partnerships B.C. on some health issues and health developments. In those developments that were in the works when he was there and that he would have had information on, he is not allowed to participate in any way. It doesn't matter how long it takes. It might be nine months, or it might be a year. Who knows? But he's not to participate at all until a proponent has been chosen.

[ Page 7519 ]

FUNDING FOR MARY MANNING CENTRE

M. Karagianis: In February in this House I asked the Minister of Children and Family Development if he would commit to adequate funding for the Mary Manning Centre. It provides therapy, court support and victim services for sexually abused children here in Victoria. I alerted the minister to the likelihood of staff layoffs if he did not help the centre. The minister said at that time that his government is committed to ensuring that children who are in need of counselling services receive those services.

Well, now the centre has had to lay off three counsellors due to the lack of funding, which means longer waiting lists for those children. The minister has reneged on meeting with this organization. So I'd like to ask: why is this minister abandoning these vulnerable children?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Children and Family Development continues to fund the Mary Manning Centre. We have engaged in a process at the local level with service providers, community stakeholders and client groups to determine how to allocate new resources. That has resulted in an increase in the base budget to the Mary Manning Centre this year of $25,000, and we will continue to respond to local consultations in determining how to allocate new resources.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: As the minister knows, the centre actually needs $170,000 of one-time funding. It is a small amount, given the kind of surpluses we have seen from this government. In fact, a former government MLA, Sheila Orr, has called on this government today to come up with the funding for the Mary Manning Centre.

I'll tell you what. Here's what a parent has to say about the situation over there: "There shouldn't be waiting lists. You can't take a child and say: 'Okay, you've been sexually abused for three years, but now you're going to have to wait for months on a waiting list before we can even talk to you.'"

I'd like to know why this government is abandoning these vulnerable children and what this minister has to say to those parents who have children on waiting lists for counselling.

Hon. T. Christensen: On the south Island, over the course of the last two years, the Ministry of Children and Family Development funding has gone from just under $50 million to just under $58 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: There has been a significant addition of resources. The ministry committed to work through its regional office with local communities in determining how resources would be allocated. We have done that. Since the member raised this issue back in February, ministry officials have met on a number of occasions with representatives from the Mary Manning Centre. Just on April 27, by a letter, the executive director for the region committed to continue those meetings to try and address the challenges of the Mary Manning Centre.

[1415]

But it would be irresponsible, after a community consultation process has been undertaken, for the ministry, for the minister, to now step in, undermine that community direction and decide that we should remove funding from some service providers to increase the contract with one.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

WITH FIRST NATIONS ON

RELEASE OF PRIVATE LANDS

C. Trevena: The elected Chief of the Kwakiutl First Nation has appealed to the Premier to reverse the decision to remove private lands from TFLs 6, 19 and 25. The band wasn't fully consulted, and this removal has extinguished their aboriginal rights.

The Minister of Forests and Range used his authority to take those lands from the TFL, but in a letter to the Chief he says: "I have no authority to reverse this decision." It does beg the question of whether the person who has the authority is Ken Dobell.

I would like to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation whether he will step in and make sure first nations rights are being protected.

Hon. M. de Jong: The government, the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia, take very seriously our obligations to both consult and to accommodate interests of first nations where those interests are being impacted. We pursue that at every opportunity with diligence and determination.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: A very interesting response from the minister, because the minister, when he was Minister of Forests — before it was Forests and Range — was reprimanded by the courts for doing the same action as his successor has done.

I would again ask whether this statement by the minister is a commitment that he will reverse the decision made by his colleague the Minister of Forests and Range and make sure that the Kwakiutl band's aboriginal rights and aboriginal heritage are being protected.

Hon. M. de Jong: When it comes to discharging the obligations that the Crown, in the right of the province of British Columbia, has with respect to first nations, the nice thing — the good thing — is that the member doesn't actually have to take my word for it. I suspect at times she is skeptical about doing so. But what she can do is look at the record. She can….

Interjections.

[ Page 7520 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I heard someone talk about the Hupacasath. I was actually in Port Alberni just a few weeks ago. We signed a protocol with Chief Judith Sayers providing for hundreds of thousands of dollars to work cooperatively with the Hupacasath — another example of how we're working together. Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: You know, we are the first province to have fully embraced the notion of resource revenue-sharing with first nations. Not theoretically, not on some piece of paper — but we have signed over 100 Forests and Range opportunity agreements with first nations right across British Columbia.

As always, I appreciate the member's question. But before she casts aspersions or calls into doubt the motivation, I suggest she look at the record of this government, which is second to none right across the country.

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

G. Gentner: Ken Dobell from day one mismanaged the Vancouver Convention Centre project, along with the project's handpicked B.C. Liberal team. This project is well behind schedule, and the provincial portion is 100 percent over budget.

[1420]

When the Premier was in opposition he said that sort of performance should get you fired. Now that it's a friend doing it, it's suddenly changed. When the Premier was Leader of the Opposition he said: "No-cost contracts." He said that cost-plus contracts were a foolish way to proceed. But on this project Mr. Ken Dobell uses cost-plus contracting. Can the minister responsible for this mess explain why?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I just heard the member opposite say that he supports P3s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Take your seat, Minister. Continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: What the member is talking about is the project that is going to be showing off British Columbia long into the future. Because of this project we were able to book 50 conventions, 27 of which we'd never be able to book in this city.

This is going to draw $850 million worth of economic activity to the province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: I think for the minister's knowledge, this side of the House supports the fixed-price contract.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: For weeks we've been asking this minister the true cost of the convention centre fiasco. For weeks this minister is denying that information.

In February he was quoted in the media that he would know the true cost in two weeks. That was over four weeks ago. Can the minister today tell this House: what is the true cost of the Olympic convention fiasco?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can say to the member opposite that a stipulated lump sum contract is being negotiated at the present time. There are a lot of tough negotiations going on. It's a very complex project, as the member well knows, but at the end of the day we are going to end up with a facility that's going to attract people from all over the world to this great province — the best place on earth.

[End of question period.]

Hon. B. Penner: I seek leave to present a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Penner: I present the 2005-2006 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber we will be discussing the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Environment and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

[1425-1430]

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 2:32 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $186,557,000 (continued).

[ Page 7521 ]

S. Simpson: So that the minister and his staff are aware, I've got a couple of questions just to close out on environmental assessment stuff that we didn't quite finish. I know I have a colleague coming to finish a couple of questions that didn't get done yesterday afternoon on some of the constituency stuff, and then we will be talking about parks. We'll be spending time on parks. After parks, we'll be talking about species.

The question I do want to ask, though…. It relates, again, to environmental assessment and to one specific area of environmental assessment. It is one of the areas where it's my view that there is a significant deficiency in the environmental assessment process, and I'd like to get the minister's view of this.

This is in regard to the issue around measurement of cumulative impacts on environmental assessments. We know that currently most of the environmental assessments that are done look at very specific impacts and project-specific effects. They don't necessarily look at cumulative impacts.

An example of that may be a case in an area like Squamish to Lillooet where…. We've talked about things like run of the river before. Setting aside our debate about that, we know that when there's a significant number of projects being proposed and potentially going ahead in an area, there may be a question about whether the impact of all of those projects once they're operational adds new dynamics in terms of environmental impact, over and above the impacts of any one of them on their own.

My question to the minister is: why has the government decided, to this point, not to measure cumulative impacts as one of the specific requirements in environmental assessment?

[1435]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. Neither the original 1995 version of the Environmental Assessment Act nor the amended version from, I believe, 2002 have a specific statutory requirement to consider cumulative impacts.

However — and I guess this was the case with the previous government as well — the government relies on a strategic foundation for cumulative impact assessment, which is embedded in land use plans and associated resource management directions, utilizing protected areas, species-at-risk policy, various resource-specific resource management guidelines, regulatory requirements, strategic policies and various associated resource plans — such as the water strategy, which I've talked about previously, a clean air strategy that we're working on in the ministry, and the mining plan and energy plan, etc.

S. Simpson: This is, I think, a deficiency in the Environmental Assessment Act. In this case, it's not a question of whether it was there in '95 and not there in 2002. I think it's a matter for us all as to where we get to today.

It seems to me that particularly as we see growth in development…. I'll give the minister another example that I think is a good example, and it's one where it fell down. When we look at what went on around the work related to the container port expansion at Roberts Bank for Deltaport…. I believe there was a federal assessment specifically talking about the need for a cumulative effects assessment, but it never occurred, as I understand. That's partly a responsibility provincially, federally. But it didn't occur.

The problem I see here is that there you had a case where you were going to do a significant container port expansion, but in terms of the impacts on that marine ecosystem…. You had the B.C. Ferries operation that was already there, a coal port that was already there, an existing container terminal that was there — all of which have an impact that we may or may not have confidence that we know what the effects are.

[1440]

It seems to me, as we look at how environmental assessments are going to move forward in this province, that when you start saying, "Okay, and we're going to add a terminal for three container terminals, but we know we have these very significant developments already there," maybe we should be looking at what the effects of those are and how does this compound the problem.

It doesn't appear to me that the environmental assessment allows that to occur. My problem with that is that I've got to believe it ends up in a situation where the minister, who has some responsibility to make a judgment on the environmental assessment in terms of what he's going to require in this case…. There's a lack of information there that's pretty critical information that is there to support the minister's decisions as to what will occur.

I guess my question to the minister is: does he have any concern at all that environmental assessment doesn't look at the cumulative impact question specifically through this office, which obviously has a huge responsibility for our future sustainability because of the work it does?

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: In the Legislature today are students from David Thompson high school from my riding. I'd ask that the House make them welcome.

[1445]

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: We're just checking on the details of the Deltaport 3 review, and the executive director will get that information shortly.

In terms of how the reviews are conducted…. In fact, the terms of reference do take a look at what incremental impact a specific project or proposal will have. Part of that consideration is taking a look at the existing or current environment which could be influenced or impacted by existing development. So those kinds of things are taken a look at through the environmental assessment process.

[ Page 7522 ]

The B.C. environmental assessment office is highly regarded. Its reviews are thorough and comprehensive, and I think by any measure, the B.C. environmental assessment office is a very successful entity. In fact, they received the Premier's award for excellence last year. That's something that the staff at that office are justly proud of.

S. Simpson: I'll look forward to the information about Deltaport, which I was using as an example. But maybe we can be enlightened by it.

I don't want this in any way to be seen to be besmirching the environmental assessment office. Those are people there that work very hard doing the job based on the piece of legislation that they're asked to administer. I know they work very hard, and they're very diligent. They do the best job that they can.

I would hope with this that the minister will talk to this issue. He can choose to talk about where we may or may not disagree about private power and run of the river. He's free, obviously, to go there if he chooses, but I would really like him to talk about this one issue.

This is another example where the cumulative impact question sort of jumped out at me. It was raised to me by the Squamish-Lillooet regional district folks, who we know have had some concerns around some of the run-of-river projects in their region. They approved a number of them before Bill 30 came along. They no longer have that responsibility.

One of the things they asked for, I know, at the point when that whole issue was heating up around the Ashlu…. I believe they sent a request to look at a plan for what was the 20 or 30 or however many potential projects there were in their region. One of the things they asked about was the cumulative environmental impact of these projects, acknowledging that in many cases, the one-offs can be totally determined to be not a significant impact. In many cases, they clearly aren't, but when you put them all together, they were concerned that the result may be different.

At least to this point, I believe, the government has chosen not to look at cumulative impacts, for example, around those projects. They look at them as individual applications when they come forward for their environmental assessment.

In those instances, how do we deal with that question of cumulative impact? Really, the legislation doesn't allow for it. Each one is a separate application looked at as a site-specific application. Certainly I stand to be corrected, but I don't see where it gets all weaved together to look at it as one package, or as a package in a potential plan.

I'm just trying to figure out: how do we deal with that issue — because sustainability is about cumulative impact as a huge responsibility or a huge implication for sustainability? I'm just trying to struggle with how we get around that.

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: If the member is referring to small run-of-the-river hydro projects specifically, we did canvass that topic extensively last year. I remember we talked about how in the water licensing application process and the reviews that are done by the ministry, in fact, the cumulative impacts that power projects would have on a particular watercourse are taken into account in the water licensing process.

Beyond that, go back to my earlier comment that the government's approach is to lay a strategic foundation for making decisions that affect land use or affect the land base. This includes government policies around species at risk, it involves things around our water strategy for British Columbia, and it includes the land use planning process. So if conservancies or parks are established in particular locations, then that has an implication for any other decisions that may be considered or requested about uses on that land base. If someone's interested in doing something in a provincial park, they have to turn to the Park Act to see what rules apply in that park.

That's the broader context on the issue of specific applications for specific projects. You'll recall from last year that we did have extensive discussion around this and that the cumulative impact on watercourses where a licence is being applied for is taken into account.

S. Simpson: I think we'll just move on at this point. The one other question that I had — a question in regard to the environmental assessment, and then I have a question that kind of transitions out of that — is the site-specific nature of the applications, of the reviews and the assessments.

I understand the difficulties or the problems in saying: "Okay, if it's not site-specific, if it's not the footprint of the project, then how far do you go and what do you look at?" I appreciate that some of that's a judgment call and it's difficult to suss out where you go with that. It certainly seems to me that in some instances, something broader than site-specific becomes important.

I'll give an example of comments that have been made to me. I was up in the Fernie area, and I did have some discussion with people in relation…. Actually, I think it was with the chamber of commerce people in Fernie. I met with them and was very interested in their comments around the Flathead and the Cline mine and what their feeling was about that.

It was mixed opinion. Certainly, there was support for the mine. There were others primarily interested in hunting and that, and they were somewhat less supportive. But one of the comments that was made that seemed to be acknowledged by a number of the people there — and again, I would note these were chamber folks — was that they were looking…. They said their understanding of the environmental assessment in that case was the footprint of the mine site and the haul road and that it wouldn't necessarily look past that within an assessment.

The concern they raised is that they wanted some confidence that it was a big enough parameter to be able to deal with what was their uncertainty. They weren't certain one way or another. They just weren't so sure that the footprint for an environmental assessment would kind of give them the confidence that it

[ Page 7523 ]

was as broad an assessment as they felt they'd like to have so that — whatever the result of that assessment was and whatever the government chooses to do at the end of the day, based on that assessment — it was going to protect their interest.

As the minister knows, that's a community that's been built on the coal industry. There's a whole lot of support for the coal industry there, but there's also a whole lot of support for habitat and wildlife and hunting and fishing. That's extremely important to the people in that community as well. There are people who are torn by that, and they just weren't sure about that.

[1455]

So my question to the minister is: is the minister confident that the very site-specific nature of the environmental assessments that are done under the act meet the needs in all instances, or are there cases where the minister believes we really have to broaden those parameters because of the potential impacts?

Hon. B. Penner: I think as I heard the member describe it, he's suggesting that just the physical footprint of the mine is something that would be considered in terms of an environmental assessment or in terms of studies about potential environmental impacts and/or the need to mitigate those impacts. That's not correct.

In fact, the environmental assessment does go to great lengths to try and determine what the potential scope of the project might be and its ramifications for any aspect of the environment — whether it is watercourses, the forest, or wildlife resources. Those are things that are considered by the environmental assessment review, even if it takes it beyond the physical footprint of the mine shaft or the various outbuildings that would be constructed to support any mining operations, should the environmental assessment process conclude that it's a project that should be issued a permit.

That project has not yet completed that review process, and in fact, I think it's got a long ways to go. It is still in the preapplication stage. So it is some way off.

S. Simpson: I was using that particular project as an example. I wasn't actually looking to talk about that specific project, though we might get a chance to do that at some point.

When I talk about the footprint, the discussion really is that this is the site-specific impacts that are looked at. Broadly, as I understand it, it's the impacts on that immediate area that are considered.

I don't see in the act where it looks past and considers the implications of, say, in the case of an area like that, the broader habitat. Is there an impact on broader habitat outside of that area — I just don't see where the act allows for significant review of that.

If it in fact does, I'd be interested to see that and where that occurs. Because it seems to me it does look at the impacts of the specific site or project. It doesn't look in a broader way. Maybe the minister could point me in the direction of projects where the environmental assessment has looked at those broader implications based on the terms of reference. I'd be interested to see that.

Hon. B. Penner: Just before I do that, it looks like the Energy critic is wearing a mango-coloured shirt. I'm not sure that's the appropriate name for that colour, but it certainly looks like mango to me. That's maybe some energy we could do without.

Just to give the member one example, to go back to the Deltaport 3 expansion, in fact I'm told that if you look at

section 16 of the assessment report, there are comments there addressing the cumulative effects from that particular review.

[1500]

S. Simpson: In issues related to that…. I believe that that was a project done under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Obviously, the province is an active participant in that, but it was driven by federal requirements around the assessment. Is there a difference here versus the provincial requirements of the assessment? Would that have been a requirement provincially?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not fully apprised of all the workings of the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but the member is correct. That was a harmonized review that took place with the Deltaport 3 project.

S. Simpson: Yeah. That was my sense.

I'm going to ask one more question because I know that we have the environmental assessment folks here. Then I'll give my colleague here a chance. This kind of becomes almost a transition question between Parks and environmental assessment, but I'm looking to figure out a bit of the chicken-and-egg here.

This may have been canvassed to some to degree by my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville yesterday afternoon, but I didn't have the opportunity. I was called away to other responsibilities when she had the opportunity to ask some questions. It is around the upper Pitt and some of the power projects. I know that there's a preapplication in play right now for those projects. I think Ledcor has seven licence applications there. But I also believe that since the Pinecone Burke Provincial Park is a class-A park, it would require it to be dealt with through a park boundaries amendment, which I don't believe has occurred for that park.

What I'm trying to determine here is…. The application for transmission lines through the park is currently not allowable because there hasn't been a park adjustment done, to this point, on the park that would allow that to occur. So my question is….

When I read the guide to the British Columbia environmental assessment process, it says, "Environmental assessment is conducted within the context of existing land use plans," and it goes on to say: "It is a project-specific review mechanism and has no authority to act as a land use planning mechanism or to reopen previously approved land use plans." So we have a class-A park. We have a very clear park use. A land use plan is there. The company is seeking to put a

[ Page 7524 ]

transmission line through the park. It's not an allowable use.

There hasn't been an adjustment to the park to allow that use. So how can the environmental assessment office entertain an application when there hasn't been a change made to the legislation to allow it to occur?

[1505]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by the executive director of the environmental assessment office that this particular proposal is in what is referred to as the preapplication stage with the environmental assessment office. Under the legislation, their review processes are triggered by whatever the statutory mechanisms are in the Environmental Assessment Act.

As it relates to energy projects or, more specifically, electricity projects, an environmental assessment office review is triggered by a project that is 50 megawatts or larger in size. So presumably, the proponent determined that their project was 50 megawatts or larger in size and contacted the environmental assessment office to start making inquiries about how they would proceed through the environmental assessment process. That's how they get to the preapplication stage.

None of that presupposes what would happen in terms of an application for a park boundary amendment, if that's what the member is suggesting. To the best of my knowledge, the ministry has not received any application for a park boundary amendment or adjustment related to Pinecone Burke Park or this particular proposal.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I'm trying to figure out what the process is here. I understand preapplication is not application. Am I to understand that the environmental assessment office will not entertain an application for this project until such time as a park adjustment has gone through?

My sense here is that I don't see how this particular application does not fit with the approved land use plans today. How does the environmental assessment office assess a project that is outside of the approved land use plans without having those plans adjusted?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that should this project proceed through to a formal environmental assessment — and that will be determined on the part of the proponent, if they're going to pursue this project — and if it's 50 megawatts or larger in size, then they must go through the environmental assessment process in order to get approval. The environmental assessment office will advise the decision-making ministers about whether or not the project is in compliance with the existing land use plans.

S. Simpson: Does the environmental assessment office accept an application that it knows is not in compliance with currently approved land use plans?

There is no question that you can't put a transmission line through a class-A park without having gone through a park adjustment. That's my sense. If I'm wrong about that, the minister can tell me. But today you can't put transmission lines through a class-A park without adjusting the boundaries of the park to allow that to occur.

That has not occurred, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, if the environmental assessment office considers or even accepts the application, it's saying: "We're prepared to consider applications that contravene approved land use plans."

The guide to the British Columbia assessment process says it "is a project-specific review mechanism and has no authority to act as a land use planning mechanism or to reopen previously approved land use plans." If it's entertaining the application, it's certainly heading in that direction.

[1510]

Hon. B. Penner: As I was indicating to the member, those issues about whether or not a project would be in compliance with existing land use designations or requirements would be identified during the environmental assessment process. The environmental assessment office's opinion regarding that would be forwarded to the minister, who is making the decisions as part of their report about that project.

S. Simpson: Then is it the minister's position that the environmental assessment office could do an environmental assessment of this application, proceed through that and, presumably at the end of the day when the assessment was completed, file a report with the minister that says: "Here's our answer to all the questions about this project, but it doesn't comply because there hasn't been a park adjustment done — the legislative change for park adjustment. So that's what we're telling you, but we've completed the environmental assessment in all other ways."

Is that what the minister is saying can happen?

Hon. B. Penner: Proponents always bear the risk that they won't make it through the environmental process. In fact, I'm advised by the environmental assessment office executive director that about 15 percent of the projects that have entered the review process don't make it through for a variety of reasons. They stall out. They withdraw. They go dormant.

One of the things that happens during the environmental assessment process is that various issues are identified that the proponent needs to address and deal with in some fashion before they're going to be granted a certificate in order to proceed.

S. Simpson: So 15 percent of projects may stall out or go dormant. It's my belief that the environmental assessment has never said no to a project. Some of them have decided on their own to walk away. I understand that, but the environmental office doesn't say no to projects. It tells them how to fix their projects, and then proponents decide what to do with that.

Based on what the minister is saying here…. Am I to understand that the environmental assessment office is prepared to look at pretty much any project that gets

[ Page 7525 ]

put in front of it by a proponent who is prepared to go through the hoops — pay the fees, whatever they might be, but go through the hoops — of the preapplication and the application process?

This office will consider pretty much any project and put it before the minister if a proponent wants to bring it forward — is that what we're saying? — regardless of whether it breaches existing land use policies or, for that matter, breaches pretty much anything else. Ultimately the process will acknowledge that, but that's what I hear the minister saying.

[1515]

Land use plans, legislated — it doesn't matter. They can be breached in an application. Clearly, the minister would have to consider that when he looks at the project at the end of the day. But they can go through an environmental assessment regardless of that? Is that my understanding now?

Hon. B. Penner: The environmental assessment office operates in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, and as I've described to the member, there are a number of triggers. So if somebody wakes up one morning and says, "I've got an idea. I want to build a 50-megawatt — or larger — power project," guess what. They are captured by the environmental assessment office process, and they have to go through a review.

I understand that in this case someone has come up with an idea to generate some electricity. Apparently it would be zero-emission, 100-percent-renewable electricity. I understand that the members don't like IPPs generally for ideological reasons. But setting that aside, they have to go through an environmental assessment process, and — I don't know how I can be any clearer — they bear the risk that they may not make it through the end of that process for a whole variety of reasons. Either they don't comply with various legislative or regulatory requirements, or what have you.

That's their business, frankly. They have to decide if they're going to spend their money to go through a process where they may encounter roadblocks. That's the risk you take if you're an entrepreneur.

I understand that the opposition doesn't like private investment in that sector, and that's their ideological choice. But given that the environmental assessment office has to follow the legislation that's in place and obey the law, that's what they do. A proponent comes and knocks on their door and says: "Please review our project." If they pay the fees, that will trigger a process, and the proponent may find out that there are some obstacles to their project.

S. Simpson: Certainly, the minister's

interpretation is important, because he is the minister. But it seems to me that the guide, which says that you don't reopen previously approved land use plans, should suggest to somebody that the environmental office at some point says: "Go out and get your project in line, or make the appropriate applications to make your project comply, and then we'll talk to you." But that's not what I'm hearing, and that's fine. It is the minister's prerogative to interpret this, I guess, however he sees fit.

I'm going to pursue one more question on this, and then I'm going to let my friend from Malahat–Juan de Fuca have some questions that I know he wants to ask.

Am I to understand, in the case of Pinecone Burke Provincial Park, that what will occur now…? Of course, the proponent could walk away at any time; I understand that. But where we're at now, should the proponent choose to proceed past the preapplication stage that they're at now and put a completed application in, that application will go forward.

At the point where it's completed, including comment about the fact that it is inconsistent with the land use plan, then the environmental assessment office will bring that material forward to the minister. The minister then makes a decision or then receives a second application from the proponent on the question of a park adjustment. Or how does that proceed?

After the environmental assessment is done, how does the park adjustment process proceed at that point? And what information in addition to the environmental assessment will be required?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to correct something that I think I heard the member say and may not have meant to suggest — that it would be the environmental assessment office that would seek a park boundary adjustment…. At all times it's the responsibility of the proponent to do whatever it is that they need to do and meet whatever requirements are in place.

In terms of the park boundary amendment policy which we debated at some length this morning — I think for about an hour in this chamber — the comments that applied there apply equally here in terms of the six specific topics that need to be considered. That policy has been on our ministry website since about 2004. It's there to be downloaded and read at your leisure.

In

summary, I can advise that the ministry, when receiving an application — and at this point we have not — for park boundary adjustment, considers those applications on a case-by-case basis and examines whether there's a substantial public benefit from making any proposed boundary amendment, taking into consideration the economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposal; possible mitigation measures; possible alternative sites or routes for the project; and the results of consultation with stakeholders, local governments and first nations.

S. Simpson: I wasn't suggesting for a minute that the environmental assessment office would bring forward a park adjustment. I fully appreciate that that's a responsibility of a proponent who wants to advance that. But in terms of the work…. We did talk around this question this morning during committee stage of Bill 24. We canvassed the six specific requirements or conditions and expectations of the park adjustment policy.

[ Page 7526 ]

My question is this. If we have an environmental assessment done, the environmental assessment office knows full well that in order for this project to proceed it will require the proponent at some time to do a park adjustment in order for it to be eligible for consideration. Does the environmental assessment office then review and ensure that there are answers to those questions required in the park adjustment? Or is that a wholly separate process done by somebody else subsequent to the environmental assessment?

[1525]

Hon. B. Penner: It would be B.C. Parks staff that would consider the application, if one were to be received, for a park boundary amendment in this case, just as it was the case, for example, with Mount Robson that we debated at length this morning.

As we discussed in reference to Mount Robson, information obtained during the B.C. Parks process of considering the economic, social and environmental impacts of that proposal in Mount Robson…. Just as some of that information was used in the environmental assessment that took place under the auspices of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act…. Just as some of that information was used for multiple purposes, here too one could conceptualize that information obtained for one process could be also used by the proponent in another process if it's relevant.

S. Simpson: But the project director for the environmental assessment office doing the assessment of the project wouldn't necessarily do any of that work unless they felt it was specifically applicable to the environmental assessment

whereas, obviously, the park boundaries have other considerations that are separate and distinct from the environmental assessment — in addition to environmental questions, of course. But there are other issues there, like economic impacts and those kinds of things, like alternate routes. For example, I know in the park boundaries…. I know in the case of the Pinecone Burke there is talk of a second route that might come down the boundary of the park versus the one that cuts across the park.

Now, would it be fair…? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth that this would or wouldn't be considered, but that wouldn't necessarily be a consideration of the environmental assessment office as to whether it was this route for the transmission line or a southern route on the park boundary, because that's a park adjustment issue, potentially. The environmental assessment office wouldn't necessarily look at that question — would they?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: Maybe I should offer the member a BabelFish so he can better understand what I'm attempting to communicate here. There is, as the member is aware, the potential for some parallel processes. The environmental assessment office has in the past looked at optional routes or the option for another route. An example is the Sea to Sky Highway project, where two different routes were examined and considered.

According to the member, if I hear him correctly, the proponent for the upper Pitt River hydroelectric projects does have the option of a power line route, I think as he described it, outside of the park — going south, I think he said. I guess there is that potential.

Certainly, as identified in the B.C. park boundary adjustment policy, alternative routes are required to be considered and examined. Again, this goes back to the discussion we had this morning about Mount Robson — that as part of our park boundary adjustment policy, alternative routes to the existing pipeline right-of-way were examined and looked at in terms of whether they'd be feasible environmentally, socially and economically. In that case it was determined that to move the pipeline from its current routing so that it would be completely outside of the park would have more environmental impact than leaving it inside the park where it already is.

[1530]

S. Simpson: Just a quick question. I know that the park boundaries adjustment looks at economic impacts and those issues. If the environmental assessment office, in terms of what it looks at…. I know that we talked about the fact that there's not the explicit list of purposes quite in the same way.

Now, if the environmental assessment office looks at, for example, transmission line across the park versus transmission line along the boundary, does it consider economic impacts and implications for the company, or does it look at this almost exclusively as an environmental question?

Hon. B. Penner: Just seeking a clarification from the member. Was his question whether or not the environmental assessment office considers only the environmental aspects of a proposal? I thought that's what I heard him say, but I might be wrong.

S. Simpson: We know when we talked about the park adjustment, that it specifically has the half a dozen things it considers, and the economic impact is clearly one of those six for park adjustment. I don't see where that's clearly one of the things that the environmental assessment office looks at when it does an environmental assessment, so I'm trying to determine: would that be a consideration for looking at the transmission line through the park versus around the park for the purposes of the assessment?

Hon. B. Penner: It would be the B.C. Parks staff that would be taking a look if an application were received for a park boundary adjustment, about whether or not the park boundary adjustment was justified according to the six criteria that are listed in the park boundary adjustment policy.

In terms of the environmental assessment office and their process, they're required under

section 10 of

[ Page 7527 ]

the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection (1)(b), to consider whether a project would have "…a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage or health effect, taking into account practical means of preventing or reducing to an acceptable level any potential adverse effects of the project…."

There's a legislative requirement on the part of the environmental assessment office to consider not just environmental but also economic, social, heritage and health effects as part of the equation.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise again and participate in the estimates for the Minister of Environment. He and his capable staff, I'm sure, will have some answers to the questions that I'm about to pose, but before I get into that, I'd like to maybe go back to some of the issues that I raised yesterday, particularly with respect to contaminated soils in and around the Cowichan Valley.

When I posed the question about the Evans site, the minister suggested to the House that the materials arriving there were residential fill. That seems to me to be inconsistent with the information that I have. I understand that the material is industrial fill. The whole challenge, initially, for the people in the community was that in the CRD, the capital regional district, the soil was declared contaminated and unfit for residential zoning and therefore removed from Victoria to the Cowichan Valley.

In transiting the Malahat highway, which the members will know from my various interventions on that issue, it becomes industrial fill. So I'm wondering if the minister could clarify that for me before we start. Is it residential fill that's arriving at the Evans site, or is it in fact industrial fill?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to make sure we're talking about the same particular site. I think that yesterday we were using different terminology to perhaps identify the same location.

[1535]

Could the member tell us what he calls the site and whether in his mind it would be referred to as the Koksilah Evans Redi-Mix site, or is he instead referring to the Spectacle Lake site — Malahat?

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's confusion. We did go back and forth on that yesterday. The Spectacle Lake site is the one that the ministry demanded a remediation plan from the proponent that was to be forthcoming in the spring. We haven't heard anything in my community about where that is at. That's the Spectacle Lake site or the Malahat site.

The one in question, though — he is correct — is the Koksilah Road Evans Redi-Mix site. The challenge there is that residents are concerned that there's no containment strategy in place at the Evans site, and it is nestled between the Koksilah River and Calvin Creek, both fish-bearing streams.

The question is: did the minister misspeak yesterday referring to the soils or the materials as residential fill, because it's our understanding that it is, in fact, industrial fill.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just ask the member in that tantalizingly coloured shirt to answer, or just to nod for me: are we talking, then, about the Evans Redi-Mix site on Koksilah Road in Duncan?

J. Horgan: Correct.

Hon. B. Penner: If so, what I'm advised is that the soil that the member refers to originated from the Dockside Green development — are we talking about the same thing so far?

J. Horgan: Yes.

Hon. B. Penner: Samples were taken and analyzed in accordance with Ministry of Environment technical guidance. Sample results confirm that the soil met standards for residential land use.

J. Horgan: Then the question that that raises is: why would it not have stayed at Dockside Green? The second issue is that there was also a site on Humboldt Street, just around the corner from here, where there were not just hydrocarbons but other heavy metals in a site that I believe local residents would call the old B.C. Hydro site.

Just around the corner where they're putting in a new hotel, there were 1,200 truckloads coming from that site last summer. That was the genesis of the concern in the community. If it — the Dockside Green material — was in fact residential fill when it left Victoria, it surprises me that it would not have just stayed in Victoria.

Perhaps the minister and his staff could tell me what the status of the Humboldt Street material was.

[1540]

Hon. B. Penner: Unfortunately, it looks like the information we have here only pertains to the material that was moved from the Dockside Green development site. I don't seem to have anything here that refers to Humboldt. I think that's just a couple of blocks from here, just down the way. No, I don't have any information here about that, unfortunately.

J. Horgan: In the interest of time — I know we've got a fixed calendar here that we're working with — I'll provide the minister and his staff with the information that they provided me last summer, and perhaps we could have a discussion on line. I know the minister's staff are always available to me and to the public. So I'm happy to do that.

Just for the interest of those who are unaware: I am colour-blind. I wear this because my spouse wanted to entertain not just the House but Hansard, as well, today. I have no idea what this shirt is, but I'm pleased that the minister is happy with it.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Mango? It works for me. I love mangoes.

Moving away from the contaminated soil. Again, if the minister in his response to my next series of ques-

[ Page 7528 ]

tions, hon. Chair, would confirm a commitment to allow me to interact with his staff to get some clarity on that issue, I'd be delighted.

The other area I wanted to touch upon before I wrap up my comments on the minister's estimates…. TimberWest is a large landowner on Vancouver Island. Between TimberWest, Island Timberlands and other forest companies, almost 950,000 hectares or 2.35 million acres of land on southern Vancouver Island is under their control. Within that land area, or 28 percent of Vancouver Island, 20 lakes are stocked by the ministry.

For the record, those lakes are Anderson, Barsby, Boneyard, Boulder, Coronation, Dixie, Fourth, Nanaimo, Gooseneck, Heather, Holland, Holyoak, Jarvis, Little Echo, Lomas, Macdonald, Mere, Radeau, Rowbotham, Shelton and Tugwell. They are stocked or have been stocked over the past 30 years by various organizations with what I would consider to be a public asset — fish that are there for the enjoyment of anglers and recreationalists on Vancouver Island.

TimberWest has denied access to the public on their lands. As a result, recreationalists and those who want to go back to the wild and enjoy those parts of Vancouver Island that used to be accessible no longer can do so. I'm wondering if the minister has contemplated any initiatives that would allow the public back onto these lands so that they can fish those lakes that were stocked with public resources.

Hon. B. Penner: I have been aware of this issue for some time now. A couple months ago, I think, a reporter here at the Legislature actually brought it to my attention. He is someone who works for CBC radio — but I won't identify Jeff Davies by name — and who enjoys going fishing from time to time.

[1545]

Since then the ministry has been working with the Freshwater Fisheries Society and the B.C. Wildlife Federation to make a request to the private forest managed land association to work on this issue together. I'm advised that we — or now, more accurately, the Freshwater Fisheries Society, I guess — will not be stocking the 20 lakes that have had the public access closed. So that's one measure we're taking, to begin with.

Legal advice does suggest that the landowners are acting within their legal rights in terms of restricting access to their privately held lands. However, we are concerned about the enjoyment that people derive from pursuing, among other things, the virtually omnipresent rainbow trout in British Columbia. So we are working in a collaborative way to see if we can't find some satisfactory resolution to this issue.

J. Horgan: I don't know how the Freshwater Fisheries Society not continuing to stock the lakes is helping access those lands. It's just, I would suggest, discouraging people from accessing those lands.

I know that the minister in particular and his ministry in general are interested in encouraging urbanites, city dwellers, to go back to the country and go into the backwoods of British Columbia to see the splendour we have here. Of course, it's been here well before 2001, despite the branding of B.C. as the best place on earth. It was before this government and probably will be after this government.

In any event, people in my community are significantly affected by this policy. I think it's also important that when we contemplate legal advice and that sort of thing…. This land was not purchased by TimberWest or Island Timberlands. It was part of the E&N land grant a century ago.

Other parts of it were added on for land use planning tables to satisfy agreements and decisions that were made in the 1990s to get some more certainty on the land base. I don't believe that this government or any government ever contemplated restricting public access to these timberlands.

These are forest lands. It's not like we're going into someone's potato patch or picking apples off their tree without their permission. This was, for all intents and purposes, public land. So much so that the government stocked the lakes so the public could access them.

I'm wondering if the minister could give me some comfort that we would have the full weight of the government of British Columbia in pursuing the now owners of these forest lands to allow access so that recreation can occur, as it has in the past, and as it should in the future.

Hon. B. Penner: The member has got the rationale just a little bit upside down. The reason in the past that those lakes were stocked was because the public did have access to the lakes. It wasn't stocked so that the public would have access.

Those lakes that were accessible through private land were accessible previously. Therefore, the ministry and then the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. saw fit to stock those lakes, because the public had access to those lakes.

Keep in mind that the private forest landowners are probably getting legal advice from their lawyers that they are legally responsible and liable for acts committed upon their privately held land, if they're not taking reasonable measures to control access to it. I suspect that's what litigation lawyers or liability lawyers would be advising the private land owner.

It's much like if somebody comes to your home and gets injured on your property, there's a pretty good chance that you could be held liable in some way for the cost of the injuries or damages that result from that unfortunate incident.

I know that they're under pressure to deal with it. We're hoping we can work with private land owners and the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C., as well as the B.C. Wildlife Federation, to see if we can't meet the concerns of everyone involved here.

It won't be easy. It's a complicated issue. I guess that's often the case once lawyers get involved. But we are operating under the rule of law here in British Columbia, and the law has evolved to what it is in terms of liability.

[1550]

J. Horgan: I completely accept the minister's response, but it's the movable targets being set by the

[ Page 7529 ]

private forest landowners that are troubling to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for example, which has offered on numerous occasions to purchase fire insurance and liability insurance for their members so that they can access these lakes.

I believe every effort is being made by responsible users. I know the minister supports this. My intent here is to not put him on the spot unduly. I know he supports the thrust of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, as do I. And I know he wants to see more people accessing the splendour of the back country on Vancouver Island, as do I.

The challenge that we have is that the private forest landowners keep moving the bar. When individuals and organizations approach them with reasonable and practical solutions that were agreed upon in meetings and in consultations, the bar changes. It goes a little bit higher.

With this one question, perhaps I can move to a point where the minister would completely endorse my perspective. Is it the case that there are fewer conservation officers on Vancouver Island now than there were in 1995?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't have the 1995 data here, but I'll have the current data in a moment. Staff are just coming in.

I'm advised that there are — and this is our best guess — 21 positions allocated to Vancouver Island from the conservation officer service. I'm not sure if those include seasonal FTEs or not. We're just checking that.

It is my great pleasure at this time, hon. Chair, to introduce to you and to all members of the House and those watching via television and reading this later as they're going to bed, the newest member of our all-star cast of support staff here supporting me, the executive director of our compliance division in the Ministry of Environment, Brian Riddell.

J. Horgan: Welcome, Brian, to this august chamber.

I know that this scattergun approach is extremely difficult, not just for him but for staff who are trying to keep up with the rapid pace with which the member for Vancouver-Hastings and I are firing out questions on different subjects.

What I want to go back to is if there are 21 conservation officers, FTEs, dedicated to Vancouver Island, wouldn't there be a tremendous public benefit to allow private citizens onto these lands to enjoy the lands as recreationalists, as anglers, to ensure that forest practices are not, at least visually, out of step with regulation, to ensure that fire does not despoil parts of Vancouver Island?

[1555]

Wouldn't it be in the public interest to allow the public onto these lands in the interests of preserving the wildlife and the flora?

Hon. B. Penner: I certainly support, I think, the member's intent, which is to allow people to get out and recreate on Vancouver Island. Of course, the difficulty is, as I mentioned earlier, these are private lands. Private land owners in British Columbia and most of the western world have certain rights that come with the ownership of land.

We are working, as I've mentioned, in a collaborative fashion with the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C., as well as the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Private Forest Landowners Association to see if we can't come to some kind of satisfactory resolution. I would prefer if people had some access, but I also understand the concerns around liability.

The member's point is well taken. I know that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has developed a number of proposals, and they've indicated a willingness to take out insurance and do things like that to help indemnify the private property owner.

Of course, the challenge is this. How do you restrict the access of people who may not be insured, people who may not be members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation and, unfortunately, people who may not be very responsible when it comes to the outdoors?

In a previous lifetime when I worked as a park ranger, for example, most of the people I encountered were great people to have in the outdoors. Unfortunately, they weren't all the people. There are some people who, for whatever reason…. I guess I won't make any more comments about that.

For some reason there are some people who just don't want to follow the social construct. Therefore, in a B.C. park they'll take an axe to a picnic table that cost $1,000 to put there. They'll set fire to a bathroom facility in a B.C. park or in a private forest or on Crown land, and they'll do other things. That's the minority of people, but that minority can certainly cause a lot of havoc for the majority of law-abiding and generally well-intentioned individuals.

It'll have to fall to somebody else who's more of a social scientist than I to explain something that I find absolutely perplexing. That is why there are certain ne'er-do-wells that can't seem to go out into the great outdoors without making a mess of it. I'm frustrated with that and probably just as frustrated as the member is when it comes to that. But it's those few bad actors that, I think, are resulting in reduced access for people here on Vancouver Island.

J. Horgan: I know, certainly since my election to represent the people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, that this is one of the issues that just doesn't seem to go away. I have residents at the end of Renfrew Road in the Shawnigan Lake area who appealed and encouraged me to have TimberWest restrict access to these lands, and for good reason. It was the hooligan factor that the minister references.

But I'm concerned that the tyranny of the minority is preventing access for the majority. I know that's a social science question, and one that we could debate at length, but we don't have the time to do that here.

In terms of assisting the public, that majority, that responsible group that not only enjoys the back country but in fact is of net benefit to the public by being there, observing and making sure that the hooligan

[ Page 7530 ]

effect is minimized, ensuring that fire may not take hold and so on….

Is the government contemplating assisting with, perhaps, bulk liability on forest lands, or finding some way for the Attorney General to work with the Ministry of Environment to protect large organizations like the B.C. Wildlife Federation to assist them in finding the insurance balance that the private owners appear to want, or finding some other way to mutually aid, if you will, the public in this back country?

[1600]

Hon. B. Penner: I can't give a definitive answer about what kind of conclusions we'll come to. But as mentioned, we will be meeting with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. and the Private Forest Landowners Association to see if we can't come up with some ideas. I'm prepared to think outside of the box, because we know that in addition to the acts of violence that I've described in parks, where we have physical assets that we've paid for and built with taxpayers' money, there are also the flora and fauna that get impacted.

We have people that go into the back country and rip out various things for their own commercial or financial interests. They steal wood. They cut down trees in parks, or they take it off Crown land without paying stumpage. They'll perhaps tear out protected species, things like the dogwood or red-listed plants — perhaps even things like the hairy manzanita, which is a native species here in British Columbia.

The negative impact of improper conduct in the back country comes in a variety of forms, and that's something that we'll be cognizant of. Hopefully, we can find some kind of resolution. But it's not going to be easy, I don't think.

J. Horgan: I certainly want to offer my assistance to the minister in any way in terms of dealing with TimberWest here on the islands as part of the private forest lands group. If there's anything that the minister feels I can do to assist in that discussion and negotiation, I want him to know that my door is always open.

I just want to qualify…. I did mention to the minister that I was hopeful I could speak directly with his senior management with respect to the Koksilah Road site. I want to confirm that that's got the minister's blessing.

Hon. B. Penner: We'll certainly get you that information. My staff are looking at that right now.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I'd like to talk a little bit at this point and have some discussion around parks. The minister, I believe, referenced this number the other day. Could the minister tell us how many park rangers we have — FTEs — in British Columbia today?

Hon. B. Penner: Across the ministry there are about 190 people during the course of the year who are appointed as park rangers and carry out authorities under the Park Act with that designation.

[1605]

S. Simpson: I just wanted to note that we have this group of young people up here watching us. Welcome to the Legislature. It's good that you're here. I'm not sure which school they are, but they're visiting with us, and that's great.

My question to the minister was: how many FTEs?

Hon. B. Penner: There were 63.8 FTEs allocated last year specifically for that function. There is an increase in this year's budget of five FTEs, and there is a rule of thumb….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: If the Minister of Transportation could come to order. Minister of Transportation? Thank you.

We operate on a rule of thumb that there are approximately 2.3 park rangers per FTE, because a significant number of the positions are seasonal in nature during the peak season.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how many park rangers are full-time year-round in parks, and then how many would fall under the category the minister just mentioned — seasonal or temporary?

Hon. B. Penner: About 60 people would be working year-round in the B.C. Parks system with park ranger status under the authority of the Park Act.

S. Simpson: Possibly the minister could explain that math to me, then. The minister told us just a moment ago that last year there were 63.8 FTEs who did this job. He said 190 people did this job for some period of the year last year, and there were 63.8 FTEs.

I don't know how that works. If 60 of those people are working year-round, I don't see how that math works. That means that the other 130 are shared between 3.8 FTEs? How does that work?

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: As the member knows, the parks business is quite seasonal. For the most part, it's busy in the summer. There are certain parks that have a winter aspect to them as well — Cypress, Seymour, Manning Park. Most of that is in the downhill ski area, but not entirely.

As I indicated, there are about 190 people that work within the ministry that are designated or appointed as park rangers, giving them legal status, including some enforcement capability under the law. That authority is pursuant to the Park Act. That number includes year-round staff who fall into the following categories: entry-level park rangers, people who then move up to become area supervisors,

section heads and various levels moving up the hierarchy.

I don't mean to belittle the role or besmirch the entry-level position. That's an important position. People start as what's called the back country or a park ranger. Then you can become an area supervisor, a

section head, etc. Taken together then, that accounts for those numbers.

[ Page 7531 ]

In addition, of course there are the seasonal park rangers that tend to get hired mostly in the summer. I think there may be some exceptions in certain winter-oriented parks, but for the most part, the seasonal park ranger staff are part of our summer complement.

In addition, I don't want to overlook the contributions of the employees of the park facility operators. I've had a chance to meet with many of their staff, and I can tell you that they tend to be very enthusiastic and committed to their jobs as well. There are more than 700 employees of the park facility operators that are identified in their business plans.

S. Simpson: Going back to my question, I understand we have roughly 190 people who perform park ranger functions for some period of the year in British Columbia. Last year we had 63.8 FTEs — full-time-equivalents — based on what the minister just told us, who do this job. It will increase to 68.8 FTEs this year because of an addition of five FTEs. So I understand that.

I believe the minister said there are about 60 people who do this year-round. I'm trying to figure out where the other money comes from, because you have 130 people there, roughly, who are not year-round, who perform this function for some period of the year. Where does that money come from if 60 of those FTES are year-round, full-time positions? Otherwise, can the minister tell us how many people work 2,000-plus hours a year — you know, 52 weeks a year, given off for holidays — as park rangers in the province?

[1615]

Hon. B. Penner: I think the confusion arises from the fact that I did not tell the member that there are about 50 additional FTEs that fall under the category that I was describing in my last answer, and that's around area supervisors and

section heads, etc. That was not provided in my initial answer, and I apologize for that.

The member is correct. That's why he wasn't getting the math to work in terms of the total number of people in the course of a year that carry out duties and do so under appointment as park ranger status pursuant to the Park Act.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that and appreciate the clarification and the number.

So taking into account the other 50, that's an additional 50 FTEs. What we're talking about here, then, is…. If we put those together with the others, we are talking about something in the category of 118 FTEs this year who would perform some kind of function. Out of that total, there are about 60 who you would say were full-time park rangers of some sort, working full-time, year-round in the service. Would that be correct?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the numbers are adding up now. Yes, about 60 people that carry out that job year-round have park ranger status under the Park Act.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how many hectares of class-A parkland there are in British Columbia?

[1620]

Hon. B. Penner: As of December 2006 there were 606 provincial parks covering 10,146,518 hectares; 24 conservancies, covering 540,948 hectares; and then a number of recreation areas, ecological reserves and other designated protected areas. As of noon today, with the completion of Bill 24, we will soon have additional conservancies and three additional class-A parks, but that won't happen, I guess, until royal assent.

S. Simpson: What we have is something in excess of ten million hectares in 600-plus provincial parks. We have 60 full-time people to deal with those 600 parks and ten million hectares, and in the high season about three times that many dealing with that, as I understand — a little bit more than three times that many.

Maybe the minister could tell us a little bit about what the duties are of those park rangers in those parks, considering that they obviously — I guess with the exception of some of the most significant of the parks — can't be spending too much time in parks, because they need to be travelling around doing their duties in a range of places. Maybe the minister could tell us: what are their primary duties in those parks?

Hon. B. Penner: In short, a park ranger's job is never done. There are a variety of functions that a park ranger performs, including, specifically, public safety enforcement and compliance because of their authority pursuant to the Park Act. They have certain enforcement powers under provincial statutes, including things like what used to be known as the Litter Act or the Liquor Control Act; the Motor Vehicle Act; the Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act; of course, the Park Act; and I may be missing one or two others — the Forest and Range Practices Act.

In addition, they work on construction and some capital projects. If it was a very large or significant capital project, I expect that would likely be contracted for and we would have somebody who specializes in constructing things to handle that.

[1625]

For minor capital projects, park rangers can be seen hard at work rebuilding trails or bridges; fixing campsites; painting buildings; servicing back-country campsites, including — and it's not always glamorous — cleaning up pit toilets; packing out garbage; keeping notes about the status of wildflowers; working with the B.C. Conservation Corps, which is that new program that we've launched with about 150 students and recent graduates every year; and working in something that I was kind of intrigued to learn about shortly after I became a minister, certain shared stewardship initiatives.

I'll give you an example. Every year the Sierra Club of the United States — not to be confused with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, but something called the Sierra Club in the United States — actually pays B.C.

[ Page 7532 ]

Parks money to have people come from the United States to spend, I think, seven to ten days in the back country in Mount Robson Park to do work for B.C. Parks.

When I encountered these people in the back country at Mount Robson, I was somewhat surprised to learn they included an aerospace engineer from Boeing out of Chicago; a corporate finance lawyer from New York City; a doctor from Pennsylvania and, I think, another doctor from California; and a Starbucks baristo from eastern Washington, Spokane. These people pay a substantial amount of money to the Sierra Club, who in turn organize this annual outing, which is organized by the park rangers at Mount Robson, who make sure that they get meaningful projects to work on.

They are supervised to some extent by the B.C. park rangers — because there are a few of them — and they do excellent work. This is an example of shared stewardship that has been working pretty well. I don't know for how many years that program has been in effect, but they do seem to have a lot of interest when they market this through their website. In the United States they have no shortage of people lining up to pay money to come and work in B.C. parks. So that's just an interesting anecdote.

Overall, I would say that park rangers are a uniform presence and kind of a face for the public. But of course they are much more than a pretty face. They work pretty hard. In addition, there are the 700 or so employees of the various park facility operators around the province, who also work very hard to make sure that people have the best possible experience when they visit a B.C. park.

S. Simpson: I don't have the number in front of me right now. But just to confirm, I know the minister said that this year in the budget documents they cut this number out as a separate number. I believe the overall budget for parks was something just in excess of $30 million. Maybe the minister could confirm that number.

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this year it is a separate line item, and it's $36,921,000 for fiscal 2007-2008.

S. Simpson: That budget of just under $37 million is all-encompassing to cover all of the costs for the 606 provincial parks with something just in excess of ten million hectares of land? Pretty much all the costs related to those parks fall into that almost $37 million?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: Not quite. In answer to the member's question, there is the $36.921 million on the operating side, plus there is the revenue that is derived from parks through camping fees and things like that, which gets retained by the park facility operators to help them hire the 700 or so employees that they have and provide services.

[1630]

In addition to that, there is approximately $14 million in the Parks capital budget this year, over and above the $14.85 million that we talked about this morning, for potential compensation issues around the additional new conservancies that are being created on the midcoast and the north coast.

L. Krog: I'd ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: On behalf of the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, I would ask the House to please welcome here today a group of students — 50 grade 4 students and 11 adults from W.E. Kinvig Elementary School. Accompanying them are Stacey Anderson, Krista Petersen and Jana Marynick. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: I was reading through the service plan. When I get to page 46 of the service plan, it talks about the Parks for People strategy developed by the ministry in 2006 and identifies world-class, high-quality recreation tourism and stewardship opportunities — activities including increasing visitor attendance and satisfaction, investing in facility upgrades and working with partners such as the Society of Park Facility Operators and Nature B.C. to offer

interpretation services. It talks about wanting to enhance that.

I then notice that it talks about…. The approximate number for '05-06 is 18.5 million recorded visits. When I look back at the baseline, it tells us that there were 22.6 million visits in 2002. That number dropped to about 19 million in 2003. It then dropped to 18.3 million in 2004, and it's now popped up a little bit to 18.5 million in '05-06.

Can the minister explain why he believes that we've seen a 20-percent reduction in park visits over the last few years?

Hon. B. Penner: There has been a decrease, and it's sometimes cyclical. We saw some significant decreases during the 1990s, as well — in some cases larger year-over-year changes than were experienced over the last four or five years.

There are a variety of factors at play. We know that tourism generally saw a decrease post-9/11. The British Columbia tourism sector was hit pretty hard. We know that the introduction of fees can cause an effect when it's something new for people to adjust to. Across North America we are all witnessing a demographic shift. Not many of us are getting younger. As I look across this chamber, I don't see anybody here that's getting any younger, and that's reflected across our society.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Sorry. The Minister of Forests and Range is, of course, looking much younger. But except for him and, of course, the remarkably youthful,

[ Page 7533 ]

always-spry member for West Vancouver–Capilano…. The rest of us….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Of course, the ActNow Minister is working very hard to regain his youthful appeal, and I think he's having some success.

[1635]

But this is a serious issue. It's affecting health care costs, as we know, as the aging population requires greater health care services and health care intervention, and that has a significant hit to our provincial budget and budgets everywhere.

Quite concerning to me is that is that even amongst the younger population themselves there is an increasing tendency — no offence to the assembled young faces in the House here — towards sedentary activities.

At the risk of personalizing this and facing the wrath of my nieces and nephews when I get home, I see it even amongst my family. All their friends engage in the MSN Messenger. They're playing video games on line — sometimes not even next to each other but across town. They can somehow, through the Internet, play video games against each other across town instead of getting outside and enjoying the outdoors.

There are a whole range of societal factors at play. We have identified that the introduction of some new park-use fees a number of years ago was a contributing factor. We have taken a number of measures to try and ameliorate that. Part of it is simply people getting used to something new. But to try and assist in that adjustment, a few weeks ago with the support of my cabinet colleagues, I was able to lower day-use fees from a maximum of $5 a day down to $3 for about 40 of the B.C. parks that have day-use fees in place.

So it's down to a maximum of $3 for a day; that's per vehicle. So if you can load up the family van with seven or eight people, or however many seatbelts you have in that vehicle, you all get to come to the park for that single cost of $3 for an entire day, or $1 an hour up to a maximum of $3 a day.

An even better value — and I would encourage all members of this House to do so, because I certainly have — is to go out and purchase an annual B.C. Parks parking pass. We reduced the cost of that from $50 for a year down to $25 for an entire year. I think that represents tremendous value.

That revenue stays within the B.C. Parks system to help defray costs, and it certainly does cost us money to operate day-use areas. I've already referred earlier to the cost of replacing picnic tables at a thousand dollars each. Bathroom facilities…. We're embarking on, as I mentioned, about $14 million in capital works this year replacing picnic facilities and bathroom facilities so that people can continue to have a quality experience.

Even so, the day-use fees will really only represent about $1 out of $4, in terms of what it actually costs to operate those day-use facilities. So taxpayers generally are still subsidizing or paying the vast majority of the cost of looking after the day-use areas. Nevertheless, the day-use fee does represent some significant revenue to help us defray the cost of providing top-class service for people who enjoy our parks in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: The reduction from 2002 up to '05-06 in terms of park visits. Does the minister have a number…? What was the impact of that on revenues, both to the ministry and also to the park operators? Did they see a reduction in revenues because of this 20-percent reduction in visitors?

Hon. B. Penner: I suspect that if there were fewer people using the parks, particularly using the campgrounds, then the PFOs would see a decrease in their revenue, especially if they were operating campgrounds.

[1640]

S. Simpson: Do we know what those reductions were? Did it have an impact on the fees that come into the ministry?

Hon. B. Penner: I think in most instances it requires additional funding to top up the PFOs who operate campgrounds. I think there may be some limited situations where the campgrounds are self-supporting on a financial basis with the camping fees that are levied, but in the majority of cases the campground fee itself does not generate enough revenue to actually pay for the full cost of providing the service.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: what's the current status of the lodges and resorts policy of the ministry in terms of how many contracts have been let for lodge and resort facilities and in which parks?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member knows, proposals were received for five parks. Three represent new opportunities in Mount Robson, Maxhamish Lake and Cape Scott parks, and two were for existing facilities at Elk Lakes and Mount Assiniboine. In that case it was bidding for the right to operate existing facilities in those two parks. It's my understanding — at least as of April 18, 2007, which is the latest information I have — that contracts have not been completed for any of those five parks.

S. Simpson: Maybe I didn't hear the minister. I thought that there were proposals for Cape Scott. Did you mention Cape Scott on that list?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes.

S. Simpson: Fine. Thank you.

Could the minister tell us — I understand it's in the negotiation process — what the expectation is about the completion of those contracts? And then when we might actually see facilities in place?

[1645]

Hon. B. Penner: I guess the short answer is that it depends on which particular park or facility we're

[ Page 7534 ]

looking at. They each have to follow the process, and for some it may take longer than for others. Some of the things that are necessary to complete are things like first nations consultations, and it's sometimes hard to predict with any certainty just how long that will take.

Public consultation and environmental impact assessments need to be done and then negotiations to secure a park use permit. To some extent that depends on the capacity of the proponent — what kind of resources or sophistication they bring to the process. So in some measure, how long it takes kind of turns on the capacity or ability of the proponent.

S. Simpson: Does the government have any intention of letting any further RFPs for other parks, either to bring back some of those parks where there was no interest generated or for additional parks — to let RFPs for resorts and lodges in the coming year or so?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not anticipating issuing any further requests for proposals for fixed-roof accommodation.

S. Simpson: Does the minister anticipate any expansion of sponsorship opportunities within our parks in the coming time?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry thinks there may be some opportunities for some partnerships with volunteer, not-for-profit or corporate individuals to assist us in some of our objectives within the park system. But that's still something that's under consideration.

S. Simpson: What's the current situation with sponsorship in our parks? What sponsorship is going on presently in the parks, if any?

[1650]

Hon. B. Penner: There are examples around the park system today where you can see evidence of some previous partnerships that have been struck — to the benefit of the park system, I think. For example, we talked extensively this morning about Mount Robson Provincial Park. If you go there, near the visitor centre you'll see a beautiful interpretive sign display that was actually constructed about 20 years ago using what was then state-of-the-art enamel tech signage, something I'm still fond of. I hope to see more of that in the future, because it holds its colour for decades.

Now, if somebody is wilfully trying to destroy it with a rock, a gun or a hammer, they can chip away at it and cause damage, but — this is an active conversation I'm having with staff in the ministry about what the best form of signage is — the enamel tech signs that you see at Mount Robson are large, colourful and vibrant, and they're still there as if they were brand-new. They were put in place in 1986 with a partnership with what was then known as B.C. Tel, today known as Telus.

If you look at that display, the only indication that Telus sponsored it is right at the very top of the display. Above the beautiful, colourful interpretive sign with photographs embedded in it and some script on top to give you some historical reference, it says: "Sponsored by Telus." Most people probably don't notice that, but that was a sponsorship or partnership with Telus.

There are some other signs that I've seen around the park system also with a logo attached from Telus, so there has been, obviously, some kind of a partnership arrangement in the past. I understand that in the Okanagan there is some signage provided courtesy of West Kootenay Power. Perhaps they've had some issue in the past that had them dealing with the park system, and B.C. Parks staff were able to extract some kind of benefit from them.

I'm also advised that the film industry frequently likes to make use of B.C. parks, and we can understand why. They provide a spectacular backdrop. They do have to pay a licence or permitting fee to do so, but I'm advised that on an informal basis, extra benefits sometimes result to the park in terms of upgrades to trails, a new bridge being installed or some other types of facilities left behind as a positive legacy of the filming work that was done in a particular park.

There may be some opportunity to bring a more formal structure around that kind of partnership arrangement so that we can make sure i