2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr405)

R. Nijjar

Ash Developments Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr401)

V. Anderson

Kennett Contracting Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr402)

V. Anderson

Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr403)

T. Christensen

M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr404)

T. Christensen

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Vast educational opportunities centre in Port

Alberni

G. Trumper

Prevention of violence against women

P. Sahota

Pacific Assistance Dogs Society

J. Nuraney

Oral Questions

Role of Fisheries minister in investigation into Stolt Sea Farm

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. van Dongen

Labour dispute at Simon Fraser University

H. Bloy

Hon. G. Bruce

Anchoring fees in marine parks

B. Kerr

Hon. J. Murray

Use of ditch water for irrigation

T. Bhullar

Hon. J. van Dongen

Business immigration and investment

P. Wong

Hon. R. Thorpe

Appeal of monetary awards to Woodwards building protesters

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Abbott

Independent living services

S. Orr

Hon. K. Whittred

Petitions

K. Manhas

Committee of the Whole House

Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24)

I. Chong

Hon. R. Thorpe

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24)

Committee of the Whole House

Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16)

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Neufeld

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

(continued)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. MacPhail

Royal Assent to Bills

Foresters Act (Bill 5)

Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12)

Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16)

Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24)

Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 25)

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 30)

[ Page 6207 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Nuraney: We have in the gallery today Dorothy and Don Wrigley. It was Don

who ten years ago saved, restored and installed a carousel, which has become a

pride of Burnaby, in a pavilion that is named after him. Please join me in

welcoming Don and Dorothy Wrigley.

Trumper: Today I would like to ask the House to welcome students from the

Vast leadership program in school district 70. They are John Roberts, Roy

Roberts, Jesse Chase, Jen McBride, Judy Horgan, Steve Standingworth, Lisa Ho,

Lianne Lawson, Cory Roywood, Josh Johnson, Dwayne Coutts, Ray Gore and their

principal, Mr. Tom McEvay. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: In the gallery today are some representatives from Weyerhaeuser, a

great forest corporation in British Columbia: Anne Giardini, Tom Holmes, Ted

Kimoto, Lawrence Pillon, James O'Hanley and Bob Taylor. I'd like the House to

make them all welcome.

[1405]

Krueger: In the summer of 2001 we imported a young man to be the research

director for the B.C. Liberal caucus here in the Legislature. He came from

Ontario. He had a strong background there. He found out this is no Queen's Park,

but he distinguished himself for us. Sadly, for family reasons he's decided to

move back to Ontario. We'll miss him. We wish him Godspeed and wish him well.

He's

leaving a part of himself here. We're not sure where it went, but he lost his

hair and 40 pounds while he was here. We say to his mother: "We send him

back to you. We've trimmed him up. We ask you to look after him and make sure he

doesn't slip back on us."

All the

best to Satinder Chera from all of us.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's so seldom I get to stand in the House and introduce anyone,

and it's not from Peace River North. In the gallery today are Ernestine and

Lawrence Sweet. They are family members of Colleen Sweet, my executive

assistant. She's very happy to have them here visiting with her from New

Brunswick. Would the House please make them welcome.

Visser: Well, today in the gallery is somebody who's followed me around the

riding, had a heck of a time trying to get me to return his phone calls and in

fact has had real trouble trying to get a meeting with me for the last three

months. He's here today. He finally tracked me down. Would the House please make

Ted Skwarok, my constituency assistant, welcome.

P. Wong:

I'm pleased to introduce the second half of the 160 students visiting from Sir

Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. Once again, I'm pleased to inform

the House that I have garnered another $500 scholarship from the Better

Community Partnership Outreach Network sponsor, Mr. Johnny Fong. This is the

fourth scholarship awarded to the students of the school under this network

program. These 84 students are led by respectable teachers Mr. Ferguson, Ms.

Heather Paris, Mr. Brian Chan and Mr. Aaron Mueller, along with the school's

vice-principal, Mr. Chris Atkinson. Would the House please extend our warmest

welcome again.

Christensen: As any members of the House who follow junior hockey in this

province will know, the Vernon Vipers are becoming a junior hockey legacy in

British Columbia. Last night they beat the Chilliwack Chiefs 1-0 to sweep that

series and capture their fourth British Columbia championship since 1990 and

their ninth since 1970.

It may come

as some consolation to the members from Chilliwack that they're in good company.

Prior to the Chilliwack series, the Vipers had smoked the Trail Smoke Eaters in

four straight games, and they had tamed the Penticton Panthers in four games. In

fact, the Vipers are on a 15-game winning streak including the regular season.

They're now on to pursue the Doyle Cup against the champions of Alberta, and I'm

sure it will be on to another national championship with the Royal Bank Cup in

Charlottetown.

I wish them

the best of luck, and I think it's time for all members of this House, whether

they're from Chilliwack, Trail or Penticton, to wish them good luck as well.

Hon. K.

Falcon: In the precinct today, although I'm not sure if he is in the

galleries or not, I ran into a former Attorney General of British Columbia, Alex

Macdonald. Alex was also a former professor of mine at SFU, and I'd like to

point out to Alex that I thought he was a far better professor than he was an

MLA. Nevertheless, he's a very, very fine man, and he was a very good professor.

I would ask that the House please make Alex welcome.

Hon. M.

Coell: In the House today are a number of students from Boundary Park School

and their teachers, and with them is my cousin, Justin Baarts. Would the House

please make them all welcome.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SCORE RESOURCES LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

Nijjar presented a bill intituled Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2003.

Nijjar: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on

the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

[ Page 6208 ]

Motion

approved.

Nijjar: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr405

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

ASH DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

V. Anderson

presented a bill intituled Ash Developments Ltd. (Corporation Restoration) Act,

Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill, of which notice has been given

on the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Anderson: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

KENNETT CONTRACTING LIMITED

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

V. Anderson

presented a bill intituled Kennett Contracting Limited (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2003.

Anderson: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order

paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Anderson: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

CAM GLASS INC.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

Christensen presented a bill intituled Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2003.

Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the

order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

Bill Pr403

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

M&M INSULATIONS LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

Christensen presented a bill intituled M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003.

Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the

order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

Bill Pr404

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) VAST EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

CENTRE IN PORT ALBERNI

Trumper: We have in the House today students from the Vast Educational

Centre of school district 70. These programs are led by Tom McEvay, the

principal — someone who has a gift for motivating students, and someone for

whom I have the greatest respect. I know that some of the other MLAs had the

opportunity to meet these students earlier on.

The

education centre is an accredited B.C. public school offering students in school

district 70 alternative means to complete B.C. curriculum in grades 10 to 12.

Students enrolled in Vast are a minimum of 16 years of age through to adult

learners. Students at Vast are usually seeking a B.C. graduation, an adult

graduation or some form of upgrading.

Vast offers

courses in a standard, self-paced format using learning guides and textbooks, as

well as computer-delivered curriculum. They can apply to have adjudication of

prior learning and equivalency for courses. External course credits can be

granted, based upon ministry guidelines. Some students are developing

independent directed studies with their advisers, and a growing number of

students are combining courses from Vast, the regular high school and even the

local college in their education plans.

[ Page 6209 ]

The centre

is one component of the alternate programs of the Alberni school district. These

programs include three intensive behaviour support programs called project

classes; the options focus program, which is a transition program for high-risk

youth; a separate adult education class; hospital home support; and an in-school

alternate program in junior secondaries. All of these programs are designed to

meet the diverse needs of the learners and to ensure that no student is

forgotten in school district 70.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

Sahota: For eight years the government of British Columbia has recognized

the fourth week of April as Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. We set

aside this week in April in the hopes that people around this province have the

opportunity to consider this very important and serious issue.

[1415]

As a

society we have recognized that violence exists, and most of us know that women

and children are the most vulnerable. We know that during this week we set aside

this month, too many women will be the victims of violence — most likely by

someone they know, most likely by someone that's their partner. On any day this

week or next week or the week after, our government will provide services in the

61 transition houses around the province. Other women will be staying at safe

houses and second-stage housing as they try to rebuild their lives. The

government provides more than $25 million a year to community organizations to

operate transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing in communities

all around this province. We provide a further $7 million each year to Stopping

the Violence counselling and Children Who Witness Abuse counselling.

Through our

actions we are making changes. In the coming months the Minister of State for

Women's Equality will introduce a safer community strategy that will examine

programs for women and make sure that women are receiving the access to the

services they need.

We also

have a role not only as elected officials but as citizens. Each one of us must

accept personal responsibility for stepping forward and helping to protect women

and children against abuse and for stopping the violence. We must speak out when

we see and hear things that contribute to violence against any member of our

society.

I would ask

each and every one of us in this House to consider what we can do in our

everyday lives year-round to meet this commitment in our constituencies and in

our work.

PACIFIC ASSISTANCE DOGS SOCIETY

Nuraney: I would like to speak today about an organization that is offering

a very unique service to people who are facing the daily challenges of life with

a disability other than blindness.

The society

is called the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society and is based in Burnaby. We all

have heard about the seeing dogs that help people with blindness. PADS dogs,

however, are specially trained to aid the physically disabled, the deaf and the

hard of hearing or are placed with professional caregivers who work with the

elderly, the disabled and in the long- term care facilities.

They are a

great support for persons unable to perform simple tasks such as turning on

light switches, retrieving dropped items or even answering telephones. They also

instil in their recipients a greater sense of confidence and independence.

According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 240,000

mobility-impaired, 241,000 agility-impaired and 170,000 hearing-impaired people

in B.C. alone, and this is only a part of the population that PADS attempts to

service.

These dogs

are valued between $6,000 and $15,000, depending upon the level of skills

training. The society has placed about 70 working dogs so far. What is

commendable is the fact that this organization operates entirely on community

and corporate donations. This is a very good example of the success of a true

community effort to meet a need of our society.

This is

also an organization that has acquired international recognition and

accreditation. I'm looking forward to attending a graduation event this weekend,

on Saturday, where these dogs will exhibit their skills and training.

I would

like to congratulate the society for the invaluable work they do and also the

volunteers like Don and Dorothy Wrigley, who help make the lives of those who

really need this service a little better.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes member statements.

Oral Questions

ROLE OF FISHERIES MINISTER IN

INVESTIGATION INTO STOLT SEA FARM

MacPhail: Yesterday the Attorney General gave the Minister of Fisheries

clearance to answer questions about his role in the ongoing fish farm fiasco.

Let me quote from the Attorney as he said in yesterday's estimates: "There

is no restriction I'm aware of that flows out of the special prosecutor process,

which in any way constrains the ability of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries to answer questions with respect to what the reason for the

investigation was…what actions he may or may not have taken…."

So, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has the Attorney's clearance. Now let me ask

the minister again exactly what I asked him in the House over the last few days:

could the minister tell this House what his role was in advocating whether to

pursue or not pursue Water, Land and Air Protection's investigation into Stolt

Sea Farm?

[1420]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I want to, first of all, acknowledge to this House that I did

make a mistake — that I released a document that should have remained

[ Page 6210 ]

confidential. In any of my dealings as minister, it was never my intent to

interfere with any investigation or compromise any investigation.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm not sure whether the minister thinks that this is a

confessional or what, but that's not good enough. He's had clearance from the

Attorney General to answer specific questions. The Premier, too, said that the

minister should come clean. The Premier said that he would be talking to the

minister personally to encourage him to come clean. There's no legal, political

and certainly no ethical reason why the minister continues to hide information

from the public. All he has to do is answer the questions that he dodged

yesterday. He dodged by hiding behind the special prosecutor's report. He's had

clearance from the Attorney General.

Again, I

ask him a question I asked him in the House the day before yesterday: did the

minister know that representatives of Stolt Sea Farm were personally lobbying to

have the investigations into its practices stopped? When did he know that?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I was certainly aware that Stolt had issues with the second

investigation. As I said, I have never taken any action to compromise any

investigation or any of the process involved in the investigation and the

decision to lay charges. I've never taken any action — never intended to take

any action — to compromise an investigation.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Unfortunately, all we have in this House is the minister's word,

which, frankly, is not worth much right now. In fact, the minister didn't answer

the question. The question was: when did he know? He didn't answer that

question. He said that he never did anything to compromise an investigation. I

asked him a specific question. When did he know?

The

minister escaped criminal charges, but he has not escaped his responsibility to

account for his actions. He has legal and political clearance to answer the

questions. He continues to dodge; he continues to hide; he continues to evade.

He should know it's in his best interests, for his own political career, to come

clean. I asked the minister…

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: …yesterday what part of his oath of confidentiality he didn't

understand. Apparently, he thought that meant he had to keep the public in the

dark and only let his political backers in on the secrets. Again to the minister

— simple question, one I asked yesterday: did the minister have other

conversations with fish farm operators that are under investigation? When did he

have those conversations?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: First of all, I was generally aware in the summer and fall of

2001 that there was a concern about the second investigation. I'm not aware of

any other investigations into my conduct or any conduct of the ministry.

MacPhail: You're sure?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Yes, I am. Simply to confirm that all of the relevant

information was available to the special prosecutor — that's my understanding.

MacPhail: Release the report, then.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: That's my understanding. The matter was….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us…. Order.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I've answered your question. I'm simply confirming that the

matter, as far as I know, was fully investigated. The special prosecutor

reported out, and the results of the report….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Let's have order in this chamber, please. This is a serious matter.

Mr.

Minister, please continue.

[1425]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I simply want to restate it was never my intent to compromise an

investigation, and the matter has been dealt with through the special

prosecutor's report.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. My riding

of Burquitlam is home to Simon Fraser University, one of the country's finest

post-secondary institutions. In recent weeks my constituents have been following

the current labour dispute there with much interest.

In Bill 27,

the Education Services Collective Agreement Act,

section 5 provides for the

minister to review the collective bargaining structure in the education system.

In light of the situation at Simon Fraser University and at the University of

British Columbia, can the Minister of Skills Development and Labour tell the

House what he has done with this provision in Bill 27?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think it's important to note that in the issue with SFU, the

parties have agreed to my in-

[ Page 6211 ]

clusion of an industrial inquiry commissioner, who is working on trying to

come to a successful negotiation between the parties. I am confident and hopeful

that will, in fact, occur. Of course, as an indication of goodwill, the union

stopped the picketing that was taking place there, and the exams have carried

on. I'm hopeful that in short order, we'll hear back and there can be a

successfully negotiated contract.

In respect

to Bill 27 and the aspect of reviewing the negotiating structure of K-to-12, I

have the mandate within that particular act, under

section 5, if I choose to

move ahead and review that particular process. I've embarked upon a course of

meeting with a number of the players — the BCTF, the Principals and

Vice-Principals Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association and CUPE as a

member union — in and amongst the school organizations to determine whether or

not there really is a will to review that process. I'll be reporting back as I

move through on that and am determined to let you know just what my steps will

be.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

ANCHORING FEES IN MARINE PARKS

B. Kerr:

My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Recently a

number of my constituents have approached me, expressing their concerns about

the new proposal to charge anchoring fees in marine parks. I'm grateful to the

minister that she held meetings with me and a number of my colleagues, and I

also understand she has had other meetings with regard to these proposed fees.

My question is to the minister: can she provide the House and my constituents

with an update on these new proposed fees?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, we have had a number of meetings. My staff have had meetings

with associations representing boaters as well, and they've been constructive

and positive meetings. One thing I know is that boaters care about protecting

the environment of the marine parks, and a number of the clubs voluntarily help

out with cleaning up the marine parks.

We do

expect them, though — as we expect all park users to — to contribute to the

costs of maintaining and servicing the marine parks, so those discussions about

how that will happen are underway. We are taking a second look at those fees,

and I can assure the member we will not be charging for anchoring in marine

parks.

USE OF DITCH WATER FOR IRRIGATION

Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Numerous produce farms are irrigating from ditches in the Fraser Valley, and

from a quick glance, one can see they're polluted with hydrocarbons and other

pollutants. My question is: are there regulations in place to prohibit farmers

from drawing water from these ditches, and if there are, what method is in place

to ensure compliance with these regulations?

[1430]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Under our food safety business area and within our ministry, we

are working closely with the health authorities in the area on that issue. There

is an issue of E. coli in water in ditches that has been used for

irrigation and, in some cases, for washing vegetables. Our staff are working

closely with the farms involved and the health authorities on that matter.

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION

AND INVESTMENT

P. Wong:

My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. British

Columbia has much to offer to foreign entrepreneurs looking to invest in our

province. B.C.'s plentiful supply of natural resources, strategic location on

the Pacific Rim and excellent quality of life make the province an attractive

investment destination. To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise:

what is the government's plan to maximize business investment immigration to

British Columbia?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: British Columbia is the location of choice for business immigration

and investment. Not only are we a globally competitive destination for

investment, as a result of the new-era commitments that we made to British

Columbia — most importantly, that we've kept to British Columbians — but

we're also the gateway to the world's largest markets: our friends, the United

States. Our government, led by the Premier, is committed to increasing business

immigration to British Columbia.

conjunction with our partners the federal government, we have three main

programs — namely, the investor program, the entrepreneur program and the

provincial nominee program. In the investor category, we currently have $40

million invested and under management in British Columbia. In the entrepreneur

category, approximately $80 million is invested each year in companies and

therefore job creation. The provincial nominee program for business investment

started in September of 2000, and we expect to generate more than $25 million in

new investment.

British

Columbia is open for business. Business immigrants are coming to British

Columbia. They're showing their confidence in British Columbia, in our

government, by making investments here and creating jobs throughout British

Columbia.

APPEAL OF MONETARY AWARDS TO

WOODWARDS BUILDING PROTESTERS

MacPhail: On November 7, 2002, the Supreme Court of B.C. awarded $100 to

each of the Woodwards protesters that appeared in court. The judge did this

because the Housing corporation discontinued con-

[ Page 6212 ]

tempt proceedings in court without notice. The 39 homeless people who

appeared in court were awarded this small sum for their inconvenience. It is my

understanding that the B.C. Housing corporation is appealing that decision,

trying to get their $100 back from these 39 homeless people.

Can the

housing minister say whether that is true? Can he explain, if so, why he's

wasting the court's time and money to get $100 back from a group of homeless

people? Can he tell us if it's costing taxpayers more than the $3,900 to appeal

this decision?

Hon. G.

Abbott: It is correct that we are appealing that decision. I know the member

may have some difficulty understanding this, because it is a point of principle,

but frankly, we don't believe it is appropriate to reward people for

lawbreaking. We think the decision was one we should appeal, and that is in fact

what we are going to do as a point of principle. Again, while…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Abbott: …the member may be a stranger to principle, this is a government

that is not.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

The member

for Victoria-Hillside was on her feet before the bell.

INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES

S. Orr:

My question is to the Minister for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. I

understand that in some communities across the province, including mine of

Victoria-Hillside, there is a shortage of affordable housing that offers

independent living with supports for seniors. For many seniors on fixed income,

the alternative private sector facilities are way, way too expensive. I ask the

minister to explain what she is doing to ensure that people on low incomes have

access to these services.

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition and the minister please come to

order so we may hear the answer from the Minister for Intermediate, Long Term

and Home Care.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I thank the member for her question. The member, in fact, is

correct. It's always been that only those people with high incomes could afford,

in fact, to live in independent living with supports. That is why we have

introduced the Independent Living B.C. program. This program is a partnership

between B.C. Housing, the federal government, the health authorities and, in

fact, either for-profit or not-for-profit providers. In that program we are

supplying 3,500 units that will be there for low- to moderate-income people.

They will offer not only housing but meals, services, housekeeping and personal

care.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Whittred: These units are affordable. No client, regardless of income, will

pay more than 70 percent of their income for that whole basket of services.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Manhas: I'd like to table a petition from 23 of my constituents regarding

aquaculture in the ALR.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Abbott: Today in the House I call committee stage debate on Bill 24. For the

information of members, that will be followed by debate on committee stage of

Bill 16, followed by estimates debate for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management.

Committee of the Whole House

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24, J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:39 p.m.

section

section 1.

Chong: I have a very quick question on

section 1. I'm wondering if the

minister could explain and clarify what quotation and trade reporting systems

are and the intent of adding that to this expanded definition.

[1440]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Quotation and reporting systems display market information but do

not perform all of the activities of a stock exchange. These amendments will

allow the commission to regulate participants in these systems in the same way

the commission regulates members of the exchanges. Currently, there are no

systems operating in British Columbia. There is a new one just starting in

Ontario. We are anticipating that an expansion could take place to British

Columbia, and what we're trying to do here is to be proactive.

The member

may look forward to

section 3 with respect to these quotation and trade

reporting systems.

[ Page 6213 ]

These amendments expand the commission's power to examine the registrants to

see if they are complying with the rules of a quotation and trade reporting

system. The commission currently has power to review registrant compliance with

the rules of self-regulatory organizations and exchanges.

Section 1,

section 1 approved.

section 2,

section 15.

Chong: On

section 2. It speaks to the expenditure of funds for educational

purposes. I'm just wondering about the purpose of having the use of those funds

and what kinds of educational purposes or educating securities those may be. If

the minister could just clarify that for me, I'd be most appreciative.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Just to make sure that we're clear on the record, the only funds

that would be permitted for educational purposes are not funds that are derived

from fees but, in fact, funds that are derived from fines that the commission

develops.

What we are

looking at here is to make sure that we have the opportunity to develop

educational systems for seniors. In the past throughout many jurisdictions,

including British Columbia and in certain communities throughout British

Columbia, sometimes seniors have been targeted by investor schemes and programs.

What we

want to do in British Columbia is ensure that we take a proactive approach and

get out into the communities, into the areas where we believe that some people

may be targeted, and perform an educational function for them and inform them of

some of the pitfalls that they may face.

We also

want to look at developing some basic programs on markets and financial matters

in conjunction with organizations like Junior Achievement, which the commission

currently works with, but also with students in our school system so that they

can have a better idea of how the money markets and financing work — in other

words, broadening their educational experiences.

Section

section 15, to

section 4,

section 40 inclusive approved.

section 5,

part 12.

Chong:

Section 5 deals with a matter that I think concerns many people and

that, I guess, of late has been highlighted with the default of some of the

corporations. That has to do with insider trading. I know I have received

concerns from constituents about insider trading.

I'm

curious regarding

section 5. I'm wondering if the minister can explain exactly

what this

section will do in terms of safeguarding against those kinds of

activities. How might insider trading be more curtailed in the future?

If he can

just provide an explanation as to how

section 5 is enabling this, I know my

constituents would be much relieved.

[1445]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Yes, this is a very, very important part of making sure that

insiders report all of their transactions. Some insiders use financial

instruments to hedge against any change in the value of the issue or securities

while retaining ownership of those securities and have not reported these

transactions. Although reporting them is in the spirit of the insider reporting

requirements, it is not clearly defined. This amendment would clearly define

those reporting requirements to make sure that insiders comply with an

increasing amount of declaration on their transactions. This amendment will

improve the transparency and will ensure that investors are receiving

increasingly more and more accurate information on insider issues.

Other

jurisdictions plan to introduce similar requirements by rule. We propose the act

amendment because we do not have the authority in British Columbia to do it by

rule, and these act amendments are less complex than the proposed rules.

Section 5,

part 12, to

section 15,

section 167 inclusive approved.

section

16,

section 183.

Chong: On

section 16. I'm reading this, and again I'm seeking more

clarification from the minister. It seems to be distinguishing that one segment

or one class of registrants should have rules that are different from another

class or segment of registrants. That's how it is stated. I'm just curious.

Again, what is the intent or the reasoning behind having those differences?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The act now contemplates an employer-employee relationship between

dealers and their salespersons. These amendments would allow salespersons to

incorporate or operate as independent contractors, and we do have additional

classes of those

definitions so that we can have a better handle on them,

creating some flexibility for a definition and also in assuring people they have

the choices and options they may want to pursue rather than just an

employer-employee relationship.

Section 16,

section 183, and

section 17 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 6214 ]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24,

Securities Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. L.

Reid: I call committee stage debate of Bill 16.

Committee of the Whole House

COALBED GAS ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; R. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:50 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: Most of my discussion is going to come under

definitions. I want

to start with a quote, if I may, from page 2 of the draft coalbed methane

guidelines in the Oil and Gas Commission. They're dated October 21, 2002. Here's

what it says:

"Coalbed

methane projects are usually characterized by high upfront capital

expenditures, relatively high operating costs and production rates that may be

lower than many conventional natural gas projects. Consequently, where

warranted and prudent, the commission will be flexible in accommodating

coalbed methane developments to recognize these unique characteristics.

"At

the same time, it is recognized that as coalbed methane projects go,

they can have significant implications for the environment, local community

and worker and public safety."

That's

out of the coalbed methane guidelines. It's around that I am going to explore

some issues with the minister.

Given that

— and that's out of the Oil and Gas Commission — why is the minister

pursuing coalbed methane production as vigorously as he is and, particularly,

trying to do it as vigorously as he is by sorting out land issues with this

legislation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: First, I'd like to introduce people that are with me: Barbara

Thomson, senior legislative analyst, and Steve Roberts, assistant deputy

minister of the new ventures branch.

The answer

to the question is that we're, in fact, pursuing coalbed methane in the province

because it's a huge untapped resource. There's estimated to be about 90 trillion

cubic feet of coalbed methane in the province, almost equal to what's assumed to

be in the province in conventional natural gas of about 115 trillion cubic feet.

The member

is right when she reads from the book that there are some serious issues we have

to deal with as we deal with coalbed methane — the same as we deal with the

extraction of any other natural resource, specifically conventional natural gas

or oil. That's why we are developing and are using the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Act to make sure we do it in the safest possible manner, moving forward for all

involved.

MacPhail: Good. Those are some of the things I want to explore with the

minister here. It says from the draft guidelines, again, of the Oil and Gas

Commission: "Since coalbed methane development is new to the province and

coalbed methane wells have uncertain lives and gas production profiles, all

project applications submitted before December 31, 2003, may be approved as

experimental schemes." That's at page 6.

Then it

goes on to say: "An experimental scheme is one that uses 'methods that are

untried or unproved.' Experimental schemes offer the benefits of flexible well

spacing and an extended period for confidentiality of well data."

[1455]

Conventional

wells, as I understand it, are spaced about one per square mile, and I think the

Oil and Gas Commission by this is suggesting that up to eight wells could be

drilled per square mile. I understand that recently the minister has said he

will only allow for four per square mile. Who will decide the density of wells?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: An experimental project will be something where a company will be

able to go and drill a number of wells, the spacing of which may not be what we

will have when we have production wells. That's simply so they can find out if

there is a commercial amount of coalbed methane in the coal seams. There will be

smaller spacing for those small schemes, wherever they happen to be. At the end

of the day, the spacing for actual producing wells will be on a much larger

basis, and that will be decided taking into account what has historically been

done in British Columbia — one natural gas well per section, 640 acres.

There's also the ability to have one oilwell on every 160 acres.

MacPhail: I understand from the minister's meeting last week in Hudson's

Hope that he said that it would be one per 160. Now, I'm — what is it the

minister likes to call me? — an urban socialist, but I think 160 acres means a

quarter mile, doesn't it, so that means there could be four per square mile. Yet

Ben Jones, who owns the drilling company that will be doing this, admits the

density would have to increase. What does the minister say to that?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: If she's spoken to Ben Jones, that's fine, and she puts that on the

record. What I said in Hudson's Hope was that obviously the company will have to

do a project, and that means they're going to have to do a number of wells in an

area that may have more dense spacing than one per 160 acres. At the end of the

day, Mr. Jones has told us that he feels one well per 160 acres for production

purposes would be sufficient. I committed to that in Hudson's Hope for that

area. Remember, that is for farmland that's privately

[ Page 6215 ]

held or farmland that's presently leased. That does not deal with Crown land.

On Crown land we may make some other determinations at the end of the day, but

we'll make that determination as the time comes along.

MacPhail: Why does the minister distinguish between Crown land and private

land?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Simply because it's private land, and the people that were at the

meeting and actually in the whole northeast, farmers, are used to having four

wells per

section — not always — depending on whether there's oil on their

land or not. So what I said was that it's one well per 160 acres, and it has to

do with agricultural land. Of course, what happens is that people say:

"Well, the land is cleared, and it's farmland. We don't want to make it so

we can't farm anymore. We understand that activity can take place and it can

take place safely, but we don't want to have so many wells that we can't

farm." To give them some assurance, what I said is one well per quarter on

private and leased farmland.

MacPhail: So there is the potential that there would be a different standard

for Crown land.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes.

MacPhail: And I gather that different standard would be a greater density.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Until we find out what's there, we don't know.

[1500]

MacPhail: During debate at second reading of this bill, the member for

Cariboo South, from his position as then chair of the Government Caucus

Committee on Natural Resources, said a couple of things. First, the member for

Cariboo South said — and this was at second reading on this piece of

legislation: "The member for North Vancouver–Seymour reminded me to

comment to the people who might be listening to this debate tonight and who may

be wondering why so few government members rise to debate Bill 16 and many other

important bills at the House. I guess my comment is that the main reason behind

that is the government side of the House talks through the subject at many, many

caucus meetings."

appreciate that frankness, but this is the time when we actually — the public

— get to see what the parliamentary debate is, and the legislative process

ensures parliamentary democracy. But everybody in caucus, I guess, gets to stand

up and raise their views in a confidential meeting, and then perhaps there's no

need, as far as the Liberal MLAs see, to explain to the House or to the citizens

who elected us to the House just what it is the government is doing and why it's

doing it.

So I'm

wondering, in the caucus discussions that the member for Cariboo South talked

about, whether the issue about standards of private land versus public land was

discussed. And was the issue around proceeding with coalbed methane production

at the expedited rate discussed?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We've had some discussions in our committees in regard to the

development of coalbed methane. It was announced — in fact, when I did my

second open cabinet meeting — that we would move forward with it in a very

public way and that we wanted to do it in a safe manner. But we wanted to have

that opportunity in the province to develop this resource.

We've also,

through the ministry, had a committee go out — not of MLAs but of people

within the ministry. In fact, I think they visited eight communities around the

province to talk about issues surrounding coalbed methane and mineral extraction

to have people feel a little bit more comfortable with it.

I think

it's a good move. It's a move that government should have made a long time ago,

but I decided within the ministry that it's time we went out and started talking

to people about how we do use this product, how it is positive, how it can

create economic development, how it can be done safely and that it can provide

long-term, well-paying jobs for people.

So that's

the process we've taken to talk to people. I've talked about it across the whole

province. I've talked about it in open cabinet. I've had different speaking

occasions where I've talked about it in different places in the province, so it

certainly hasn't been a secret. It's been out there for quite a while, and in

fact, coalbed methane development started before…. Actually, there were some

wells drilled before we even got into government. It had happened before.

MacPhail: Well, did the government caucus make a report on their findings,

and would the minister release that?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, I think the member is quite well aware of the processes

around the government caucus committee.

If you're

trying to say that the government caucus doesn't care or doesn't know, that's

unfair. The members that are on the Natural Resources committee actually have

had a number of presentations made to them. People in our caucus are, I would

say, relatively comfortable. We make sure that happens within our caucus.

No, I don't

have a report that they went out and made. We have a direction that this

government took that we want to actually develop our natural resources in an

environmentally sound way so that we can actually benefit in the province and

can continue to have health care and education well into the future.

MacPhail: Well, I'm not sure why the minister gave such a rhetorical answer.

Was it to avoid answering the question? It was the then chair of the Natural

Resources committee that brought up the fact in this

[ Page 6216 ]

House on the public record that there's been many, many caucus meetings on

this. The minister in response said that the government caucus committee —

government caucus committee — went out and held hearings on this.

[1505]

Either tell

us what happened in caucus or release the report of these government caucus

committee hearings. Tax dollars are used to travel the province to hear these

matters. I'm not quite sure why the minister suggested any intent other than I'd

like to see the report from the government caucus. Will he release it?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Let's not confuse it. I don't have any problem releasing to the

member the minutes that were kept or the notes that were kept from the eight or

so meetings that we had around the province. You're exactly right. That costs

the taxpayers money. I think it was a useful process. I don't have that

information with me today, but we will get that information to the member.

MacPhail: Thank you, and that's why debate is so good in this House. All the

government caucus committee meetings minutes I will expect, and I thank the

minister for…

Hon. R.

Neufeld: You're misinterpreting.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. You said…. Just a second. The minister said: "I

don't have any trouble giving the minutes of the eight or so meetings that the

government caucus" — public hearings that the government caucus —

"had." Well, luckily it's recorded.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It is lucky that it is recorded. First off, there are two

processes. We have processes within our caucus and within our caucus committees

where we discussed these things. We had another process besides that, where we

went to eight communities — not MLAs, but staff. People from the Ministry of

Energy and Mines went around to eight communities in the province to deliver

some of our proposals — what we would like to do not just in coalbed methane

but in mineral development and oil and gas development around the province. They

were informative sessions. That's exactly what I said I would give to the

member. That's not a government caucus committee. That is a group of people who

work for Ministry of Energy and Mines, from my ministry, who actually went out

and had those eight meetings around the province. I will get that information

for the member. The government caucus committees — I'm sorry, no.

MacPhail: I guess the minister can understand my confusion. My question was

have the government caucus meeting record? It's made with tax dollars. They're

meetings. We can't have the caucus meetings. Why are those minutes or activities

secret?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: They're no more secret than when she was in government. I can't

remember…. Let's see. I was in here in 1991, elected along with her, and I

cannot remember for the life of me one time when that government distributed any

kind of a report out of their caucus. There were a few leaked. There was one

leaked to us that said you were going to sell B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail and you

name it. That was leaked to us by someone from their own caucus, but she knows

as well as I do that those discussions are in caucus with caucus members talking

about these issues. They've got nothing to do with what we're talking about

today. In fact, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we should get back to the bill

— to what we're talking about in the bill, which is ownership of coalbed

methane.

MacPhail: I'm actually debating issues that were brought up by his members

at second reading, and this is the place to explore them. I'm not absolutely

sure why the minister is somehow suggesting that government caucus committee

hearings using tax dollars are secretive. It was the Premier himself that made a

commitment to a new way of doing business. That's why the government caucus

chairs are paid out of vote 1 — the actual legislative chamber vote. That's

why the Premier turns to these every time he possibly can to say: "I've got

government caucus committees out there being open and accountable." This

minister stands up and tells me how dare I ask for the activities of the

government caucus committee.

Let's be

clear. Government caucus committees are a creation of this government. It's the

first and only time public resources from vote 1 have been used for private

government caucus activities. Even Alberta doesn't do that. Even Alberta pays

for its government caucus committees out of its own pocket and releases their

report. It's only this government that keeps the activities secret.

[1510]

Let me

quote again from the member for Cariboo South — what he went on to say in

second reading: "As chair of the Natural Resources committee, my committee

and I have had many meetings with ministry staff — the experts in the field of

methane gas — and they've been under question many, many times. It is my

belief that the government caucus is well aware of the exploration procedures,

and its liabilities are well documented."

Maybe I can

ask the minister this. He committed to releasing the minutes and the

recommendations of the hearings and the consultation his ministry staff did.

Does it also, then, mean he'll release the consultations his ministry staff did

with the government caucus committee?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, I'm going to say they're two separate, distinct things.

Ministry staff have met with those interested in the House about coalbed

methane. That's kind of not a bad process. I think if there is some interest

shown, we should actually have the experts deliver that information. In fact,

we've of-

[ Page 6217 ]

fered a number of times to make presentations to the Leader of the Opposition

on different things, even on this bill. That's what I'm talking about. We've

done that.

I don't

know what this has to do with ownership of coalbed methane, to be perfectly

honest. What we do is that we will have meetings, and people can come and ask

some questions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They can ask all

the questions they want, and we don't keep a written record of all of those

questions and those meetings, the same as I'm sure the member didn't in her

caucus committee when she was in government.

She knows

full well what I'm saying. She's just trying to do I'm not exactly sure what,

but we'll carry on with the questioning.

The

Chair: It is the Chair's hope that we will return to debate over

section 1

of Bill 16.

MacPhail: In fact, we're talking about coalbed gas, we're talking about

disposition, we're talking about natural gas, we're talking about natural gas

tenure, we're talking about parcel, and we're talking about surface owner. Could

everybody just settle down? My questions are relevant.

I'll tell

you something. This minister…. I love it. I love it again. I don't know how

many times, but it actually is sinking in. This minister excels at this. He

goes: "Well, we're no worse than the previous government." That's what

his refuge is in terms of his response. He campaigned over and over and over

again on a new era and saying things would be so much better.

In fact,

the previous government didn't have secret government caucus committees paid by

the public purse. They didn't. If meetings were held where ministry staff

attended, there were written presentations that were made public. That's what

the thing was. I'm sorry. I think the minister has been hoisted on his own

petard. First of all, he says: "Oh no, government caucus meeting

discussions aren't going to be released, but my ministry staff's consultations

are going to be released." Then, when it turns out the ministry staff have

had consultations with the government caucus, he says: "Oh no, I didn't

mean that."

Interjection.

MacPhail: The Minister of Deregulation over there is finally contributing to

the debate. I didn't think he was still with us in a way that means…. I know

he's always been present in the House, but it's nice to see that he actually has

an opinion on something. It doesn't actually have to be a helpful opinion, but

he's got something on that.

Again, here

we have a secretive government. Now, I do know that the member for Cariboo South

has been removed as chair of the Government Caucus Committee on Natural

Resources. I hope it didn't have anything to do with what I thought was a frank

and honest contribution to the debate at second reading.

Can the

minister elaborate on just what the liabilities are for coalbed methane

extraction?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Can I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave

granted.

[1515]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: Today I have the pleasure of introducing students from Boundary Park

Elementary School in the great riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. They are

accompanied by their teacher Ms. Rosenthal, Alex Dewar, Sherry Crippen, Garry

Jones, Kelly Jowett and Christina Unrau. These constituents of mine are in

grades 5 and 6 and show a keen interest in the democratic process. I wish them

well in their studies and anticipate some of them may run for a public office

one day. Hopefully, they will wait until I'm ready to give up my seat. Would the

House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There are some environmental aspects around conventional natural

gas, conventional oil, coalbed methane — almost any natural resource

extraction. We have environmental impacts just driving our cars to work, driving

to the Legislature or flying an airplane back and forth from Vancouver to here.

What we're saying is that there are, in fact, some impacts environmentally. The

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which has been in place in the province for quite

a long time, will actually govern how we drill for coalbed methane.

MacPhail: The member for Cariboo South also noted that Hat Creek coalfield

is in his riding, that one of the reasons for this bill is B.C. Hydro has

ownership of the Hat Creek coalfield and that a lack of certainty about the

ownership of the methane in the coalfield has hindered development of that

methane. How will this bill assist in ensuring a definition that will ensure the

development of the Hat Creek site?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, across the whole province, not just across Hat Creek,

what we are doing is putting into legislation what has been policy for some 25

years — that coalbed gas is natural gas and not part of the coal. What this

does is establish ownership for coalbed methane in legislation.

MacPhail: My next question is a historical question. Does Suncor still hold

mining or drilling rights at Hat Creek?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We'll research that. I don't know whether Suncor still has any

rights that are available to

[ Page 6218 ]

them in Hat Creek. There is a sunset clause to those rights when they do buy

them where they expire.

MacPhail: I noted in my research that Suncor had drilling plans in 1998, so

that's why I'm asking the questions about whether those are still alive.

Has the

minister met with the Bonaparte Indian band regarding the extraction of coalbed

methane on their traditional territory?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the ministry has contacted all the first nations in the area

of the Hat Creek.

MacPhail: What was the Bonaparte Indian band's position on extraction of

coalbed methane?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There were numerous meetings held with bands. At the end of the

day, I don't have that information with me — how they felt about it. We can

find out what that is. They may have wanted us to keep that confidential. I'm

not sure.

[1520]

MacPhail: No, they don't. They made it public that their long-term plan for

coalbed methane is to leave it in the ground. The reason why I'm asking these

questions is because this bill is supposed to bring clarity and certainty to

land use for coalbed methane extraction. That's why I was asking about Suncor.

These arose out of points that the member for Cariboo South made. That's why I

asked about Suncor, and that's why I asked about how it could possibly bring

certainty when indeed the Bonaparte Indian band — Hat Creek is on their

traditional territory — say they're not going to allow extraction of coalbed

methane. Has the minister met with ranchers in the Hat Creek area?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the ministry people have met with the ranchers in the Hat

Creek area also.

The purpose

of the bill is to establish ownership, which used to be in policy. We're putting

it into legislation. That is not to get certainty on the land base all the time.

Obviously, with first nations there are treaties. The member knows quite well

there are treaties to be done all over British Columbia. We move forward in a

lot of areas in the province with natural resource extraction taking into

account, consulting with and working with first nations. Those that want to

produce the coalbed methane would have an obligation to consult with first

nations also, as does the government. What this does is bring clarity to the

ownership of it, and that has been part of the problem up until now.

MacPhail: Yes, and that's why we're discussing this. That's why we're having

this debate. What was the response to this type of land use by the ranchers in

the Hat Creek area?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: No different than the landowners in Hudson's Hope or the landowners

in northeastern British Columbia north of Fort St. John or around Fort Nelson or

Dawson Creek. They want to know what impact it will obviously have on their land

base. The ministry people are continuing to work with those people to make sure

that we take into account their concerns and that we try to deal with them in

the fairest manner possible, remembering that we want to extract the coalbed

methane so that those same people can continue to enjoy health care and

education in British Columbia.

MacPhail: The ranchers in Hat Creek raised some of the same concerns as the

people of Hudson's Hope?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm not sure. I wasn't in Hat Creek. I was in Hudson's Hope. There

were staff who went to Hat Creek.

MacPhail: Yes, I know, and that's why staff are with the minister. Could he

consult with them and answer my question, please?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I assume they had many of the same concerns, such as spacing and

how you deal with water. Those are two of the major concerns regardless of where

you go in the province. They would have those concerns.

MacPhail: An update prepared by a geologist in the Ministry of Energy and

Mines in June of 2001 noted that in the Hat Creek coalfield, "the low rank

of the coal means that the generation of thermogenic methane will be small to

nil, and the ability of the coal to absorb methane will also be low."

I guess

what the report also said was that the good thing about this coalfield is that

it's so large, the small concentration of gas is offset by the size of the

coalbed. Can the minister tell the House just how many wells would have to be

drilled to recover the necessary amount of gas to make exploration economically

viable in Hat Creek?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: If the whole basin were totally developed on 160-acre spacing, it

would have actually 250 wells.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Was that the basin of Hat Creek? The minister is

nodding yes.

The member

for Victoria–Beacon Hill also entered the debate at second reading to claim

that the development of coalbed methane on Vancouver Island will be a big

creator of jobs. How many jobs does the minister anticipate to be created with

any development of coalbed methane on Vancouver Island? Of course, Vancouver

Island is one of the areas where certainty of ownership is promoted by this

bill.

[1525]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: As in Hat Creek, in Hudson's Hope or on Vancouver Island, until the

companies get some sense of being able to drill some wells and get some sense of

how much coalbed methane is actually

[ Page 6219 ]

in the coal seams, it's hard to put an estimate on that. I can tell the

member that the communities of Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, to a degree, and

the communities of Taylor and Fort Nelson actually have thousands of jobs in

those communities that are related to the extraction of conventional natural gas

and oil.

Our economy

in the northeast is actually doing fairly well because of the activity of the

oil and gas industry. Of course, that isn't to say that the activity of the

agricultural industry and the forest industry aren't important, because they are

just as important. To put the number of jobs on it, I can't…. I'm not going to

stand in the House and take a wild guess at it until we even know what's there.

At the end

of the day, they may drill it and find out there's not enough there to produce.

It's exactly the same as conventional natural gas. Companies buy the right to

drill in different areas. They don't know how much is going to be there, but

they'll go out and drill it and find out whether it's actually commercially

viable. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

MacPhail: That's fair enough. I understand what the minister is saying. I

was just wondering why the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill would make the

claim that coalbed methane will be a big creator of jobs on Vancouver Island. I

was wondering on what he was basing that, because I agree with what the minister

is saying.

The

minister and many in his caucus, including the member for Victoria–Beacon

Hill, have claimed that coalbed methane is an alternate fuel because it burns

cleaner than natural gas. I'm wondering whether the minister can tell the House

if the burning of methane, whether it be coalbed or natural gas, contributes to

the accumulation of greenhouse gas. If it does, is there a difference in how the

two contribute to the accumulation of greenhouse gas?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Coalbed methane and natural gas will both put into the atmosphere

the same kinds of greenhouse gases, yes.

MacPhail: I expect that what the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill meant to

say was that coalbed methane is a cleaner fuel because it is a natural gas. It's

not an alternate fuel. What I understand alternate fuels to mean is those that

are typically alternative to fossil fuels, but he probably meant a cleaner fuel.

The

minister says this bill is about getting certainty on Vancouver Island, about

who owns the coalbed methane. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill made some

grand statements about job and wealth creation from coalbed methane on the

Island, but I'm sure the minister will know of the estimates of the potential

coalbed methane. Those estimates are about 90 trillion cubic feet for the whole

province.

He will

also know from his own reports that about 20 percent of that amount will

actually be recoverable, and he will probably also know that of that 90 trillion

cubic feet, 74 percent is in the Peace River. Can the minister tell the House

just how much coalbed methane there is estimated to be on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I didn't finish that last question as thoroughly as I should have.

I think the member was talking about it as cleaner because it doesn't have H2S

in it. Conventional natural gas has lots of H2S in it that has to be stripped

out of the natural gas. I'm sure he was referring to that, because that is not

in coalbed methane.

Vancouver Island, the estimates are 1.2 trillion cubic feet of CBM.

[1530]

MacPhail: That's about 1.4 percent of the total in the province, and it

looks like only about 200 billion cubic feet are actually recoverable. As I

understand it, much of this coalbed methane gas is situated directly under the

cities of Nanaimo and Comox and may, for that reason, not be recoverable.

Before we

conclude with this section, I just wanted to note that by comparison, the Duke

Energy main line moves about 1.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day from

northeast B.C. to the border at Sumas.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the Duke Energy pipeline from the northeast part of the

province delivers 1.1 trillion cubic feet of conventional natural gas on a

yearly basis.

Sections

1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MacPhail:

Section 5 is entitled "Minister may issue natural gas tenure

of coalbed gas rights." It reads: "Under

section 72 (2) of the

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the minister may issue a natural gas tenure of

coalbed gas rights to any person with respect to specified coal deposits

underlying a parcel."

Under

section 5, how does this bill address subsurface ownership issues on Vancouver

Island? I'm thinking specifically on the old Esquimalt and Nanaimo lands —

E&N.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member is correct. There are a lot of titles on Vancouver

Island, and in fact, there are titles to the ownership of minerals, petroleum

and natural gas, specifically, on the railroad grant lands and some of the land

that was granted prior to the 1900s.

What you

have to do is actually research the titles. The ministry is researching titles

on Vancouver Island. It's a fairly extensive job, but they are researching it to

try and determine where actual ownership is, whether it's with the province or

with the landowner. Or it could be with the proponent that's purchased the right

to drill in some part of the province.

MacPhail: Do we know who owns the subsurface rights on the old E&N

lands?

[ Page 6220 ]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, I'm advised that…. I mean, we're talking about 100 years

of history and some records not being as good as others. If you determine that

the surface owner owns the coal, they don't own the coalbed gas.

MacPhail: Yes, I understand that, except the minister is saying this bill

will bring certainty to those kinds of questions. In fact, that's the purpose of

this bill.

[1535]

I can

understand this government wanting to send a symbol to the mining industry that

the province is open for business, but what I'm trying to find out is exactly

what this bill does to alleviate existing claims on Vancouver Island.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We are trying to establish clarity to the ownership of coalbed gas

across the whole province, not just on Vancouver Island. The E&N Railway

grants obviously make it a little more difficult on Vancouver Island, and there

are also some in the Kootenays. But it's a component of clearing up titles on

Vancouver Island and who owns what. At the end of the day, if someone owns the

natural gas rights, they own the coalbed gas. If they just own the coal, they

don't own the coalbed gas.

MacPhail: I'm aware that land ownership issues around Vancouver Island

certainly require certainty, but what other areas of the province will be

affected by this legislation?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The entire province.

MacPhail: Are there other issues that are as contentious as Vancouver

Island?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, the most, shall I say, difficult places would be

Vancouver Island and the coal lands in the Kootenays, because of the CPR land

grants at the turn of the century.

MacPhail: Under

section 5, the

section we're debating — "Minister may

issue natural gas tenure of coalbed gas rights" — does the minister have

a duty to report to the public, either through the local newspaper or by the

erection of a sign, the disposition of that land?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: All the land sales are published monthly in the Gazette .

MacPhail: I'm aware that in 1986 the Social Credit government passed the

Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act, and that act

required public reporting of disposition to the local community. Is that still

in effect?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: As I'm told, the act is still in effect. In fact, it has only been

used for two parcels, and that was for British Petroleum — I believe the

member is right — in 1986. That was brought forward, and the act was used to

say they had the rights to drill for the natural gas.

Section 5

approved.

[1540]

On

section

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Let me just read the title of this section. It

says, "No compensation or right of action" — basically the principle

this government is taking on pretty much everything. It says: "A person has

no right of action and must not commence or maintain proceedings, as a result of

the enactment of this Act or the exercise by the minister of powers referred to

section 5 or 7, (

a) to claim damages or compensation of any kind from the

government, or (

b) to obtain a declaration that damages or compensation are

payable by the government."

It's

becoming a standard clause. This clause really protects the government from a

person who may seek compensation due to disposition of tenure or as a result of

methane venting. It is what I have referred to in debate as a CYA clause. What's

the purpose of this section?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm informed…. It's not expropriation. We're just confirming and

defining to say that that coalbed methane is a natural gas. If someone out there

has and can confirm with the government that they actually own the petroleum and

natural gas rights, this doesn't take anything away from them. They actually own

it. But all it does is confirm what's been the practice and what's been policy

for the past 25 years. So what it says is, to the coal owner: "You don't

own the coalbed gas."

MacPhail: Then let me ask this question. What protection does an individual

landowner have if their property is damaged as a result of coalbed methane

extraction or exploration?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There's actually a process that has to happen when rights are sold

and a company purchases those rights to drill for coalbed methane. We'll use

that as an example. That doesn't mean they can just go out and start drilling

for coalbed methane. There's a process that is put in place. In fact, on the

title, when they bid for the right, there will be rules and regulations put on,

caveats, maybe some special things that are on there, so they know it basically

in a broad sense before they buy it.

The second

part is that they would have to go to the Oil and Gas Commission to get

permission to get a well licence to go out and drill. Part of that process is

that the Oil and Gas Commission and the proponent have to deal with first

nations issues. They also have to deal with the landowner issues and actually go

to the landowner and make some kind of deal. This is commonly done all over

northeastern B.C. where we do conventional natural gas and oil well drilling. In

fact, I

[ Page 6221 ]

believe most people that have gas wells on their land get probably an average

of $6,000 a year — somewhere in that neighbourhood — for the right to use

that small portion of land, although it may be larger in some areas, depending

on how the private land owner can deal with the proponent.

MacPhail: So given that, will the Oil and Gas Commission be in charge of

regulating this, or will it be an industry-led practices regime?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's all regulated through the Oil and Gas Commission.

MacPhail: Now, I'm wondering…. We did discuss in estimates the Oil and Gas

Commission's record of compliance for 2002. The minister and I debated that.

There was a 44 percent increase in non-compliance of water regulations, and

investigations had fallen by two-thirds. The minister did explain that. But I'm

looking to the minister now to see what guarantees are there in regard to the

safety of landowners and the environment.

[1545]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The Oil and Gas Commission, as the regulator, has the

responsibility to regulate the industry. There is a set of regulations, and as I

said, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act applies. They also have the

responsibility to make sure that the environment is being monitored and that all

the things that are on the permit are actually being adhered to. As the member

noted, in some cases it isn't so.

I guess

it's like getting a speeding ticket once in a while. You have made a mistake.

There are actually regulations within the ministry that if it is a serious

mistake. They can shut the operation down, carte blanche — that quick. If it's

not serious, if it's minor in some way — what they call "determined

minor" — they will ask for compliance to actually make sure that whatever

was being done wrong is actually looked after in a satisfactory way to the Oil

and Gas Commission. There are some pretty stringent rules.

I just want

to go back to the oil and gas compliance review. Actually, this was a compliance

review done with Water, Land and Air Protection, Sustainable Resource

Management, the Oil and Gas Commission and the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

What they did and what they do is go across the whole northeast, because that's

where the drilling takes place, and they actually go to different places and see

if they're living up to what they should be living up to.

I just want

to say a few things into the record. Stream crossings were 93 percent

compliance; 96 percent compliance with well sites; specialty wastes, 100 percent

compliant; forestry, 96 percent compliant; gravel, 100 percent compliant.

The major

problems — and the member is right and, rightfully so, should bring them

forward — were identified for two activities. One was sewage management and

disposal, 62 percent. That's definitely not acceptable, and the Oil and Gas

Commission has clamped down on that. The second one is water usage by camp rigs

and seismic, 56 percent. It didn't have to do with water disposal. I'm not

trying to say what they did was right, but it didn't have to do with water

disposal or any of those kinds of things.

I don't

want to get people to think that the companies weren't adhering to what they had

to do with water that was produced from wells. Actually, I read the whole

report. There were quite a few places where the water hauler for the rig —

that means the truck that goes out and loads water in some river or something

and hauls it to the rig, because they use a fair amount of water when they're

drilling for natural gas — didn't have the permit with him or her in the

truck.

That's a

minor infraction. Another one, which is more serious, is that they were going to

a place where they were taking water out of creeks that had beaver dams on them.

That's a no-no. The industry knows that. What they had done was actually drained

some beaver dams. That was taken care of, and you can't do that anymore.

It ranges

from those kinds of things. A lot of it was: "I don't have a permit in the

truck," or "I didn't have a permit to actually go get the water."

MacPhail: What's the view of the minister on surface owners being at risk

and/or surface owners having to absorb risk?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Risk is a pretty broad definition. Maybe she could define it a

little bit more. What do you mean by risk?

MacPhail: Sure, I'd be happy to. For instance, does the Oil and Gas

Commission collect a security deposit from the owner of the rights to coalbed

methane that perhaps would cover cleanup of the land, environmental impacts —

something like that?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the Oil and Gas Commission collects a fee for every well

drilled. I believe it's $7,800 a well. Part of that goes to first nations to

help with capacity-building to deal with issues in regard to oil and gas, and

the other portion is held within the Oil and Gas Commission to actually operate

the commission and to look after the operations of the commission.

[1550]

MacPhail: As I understand it, we're entering new territory here as a

province where the surface rights and the subsurface rights are being separated,

or the coalbed rights and the coalbed methane rights are being separated.

There's different ownership. I'm wondering whether there's any sort of security

deposit taken from the coalbed methane operators that will save the surface

landowners harmless from cleanup costs or environmental impact costs.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member is right: there are times when oil and gas companies

actually don't live

[ Page 6222 ]

up to their responsibilities and their agreements with landowners and with

the province. There are, I believe, one dozen wells that are what we call orphan

wells in the province. It's actually the responsibility of the Oil and Gas

Commission and the government to make sure those orphan wells are looked after

in a proper way if they are to be, as they say, put to bed or the land

reclaimed. Part of the permit is that the land has to be reclaimed to the same

condition it was prior to the drilling. Those kinds of things are in place. Part

of the $7,500 goes to that.

We're

actually developing, prior to it getting to be a problem in the province, an

orphan well fund so that we can actually have that fund paid for by the oil and

gas industry to make sure we have that funding moving forward to look after any

places where there may be some damage that hasn't been looked after properly.

But at the end of the day, the province is held liable for those 12 sites today.

Section 6

approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 7 is entitled "Exception for safety reasons." It

says: "If the minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for

safety reasons, the minister, may, by regulation, authorize coal owners or the

holders of crown coal dispositions to vent or dispose of coal bed gas as

directed."

understand that this clause is permissive, but I've also, in my research and

talking to people and receiving correspondence from people…. People are very

concerned about methane venting. How frequently does the minister expect this

clause to be utilized?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, this is for underground coalmines. We actually have, I

believe, one in the province today. That's in Strathcona Park — Quinsam. What

they have to do is vent the coalbed methane so they don't have an explosion in

the mine and kill miners down below. That's the safety reason. Actually, coal

methane, or the gas, is lighter than air, so it vents up fairly quickly.

MacPhail: I assume by the minister's treatment of my question…. Methane

venting is controversial, isn't it? The reason I say that is I would expect that

the ministry would try to use or permit a minimum amount of methane venting.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member is correct. The ministry doesn't, I'm informed, want to

just have all of it vented. If there is some other way of capturing the gas and

removing it out of the underground mine rather than just venting it to the

airshed, that's preferred. That all depends on, I guess, how much gas is

actually in the coal.

[1555]

MacPhail: This

section allows for the minister to do this by regulation, so

how will those regulations occur? What process is the minister going to engage

to make regulations for methane venting?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm informed that would be in the mine health and safety code. And

actually, maybe a little further to that, it's been there for quite a long time,

so it's not…. Quinsam has been operating for a while, and there have been

other underground coalmines over the years in the province, so there was a need

for it. But as I said earlier, we don't want to vent all of it if we can

possibly capture it.

MacPhail: So the regulations for methane venting are already in place, and

they're the ones that will stand?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The answer is yes, and from here, we're not trying that the

minister takes that away from the mine health and safety code. It's for some

other reasons.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just missed that last….

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This section, I'm informed, is really not to take anything away —

the minister taking any right away from what's actually already in place with

the mine health and safety code. What it does is it doesn't prevent someone with

ownership from not having to deal with the venting of coalbed gas.

MacPhail: I'm just hoping, and what I'll be watching for is to see whether

the regulations that have been in place forever are modern enough to deal with

an expansion of methane coal production. That's where I was coming from on it.

The

minister said in second reading of this act that he's learned from the

experience of the United States. Venting is quite frequent in the United States,

and that's where I got my feeling, my bent, that it was controversial. How will

he apply what he's learned from the United States to protect against the

destruction that occurs where venting occurs? That's what I meant when I wanted

him to explore with me how he's modernizing the methane venting regulations.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I might not have been as clear on this as I should have been. This

is not to develop a set of regulations around the venting of coalbed gas. What

it does say, by regulation, is that the minister can say to someone that the

mine health and safety code must be abided by when you're venting gas from coal,

because they don't own the gas. What we have to do is tell them that they can

actually vent it or collect it, whichever makes good sense.

[1600]

MacPhail: Okay. So this

section doesn't apply to the new producers of

coalbed methane.

I don't

think the minister and I are talking at cross-purposes, but I want to be clear

on this. My under-

[ Page 6223 ]

standing is that methane venting should be minimized or avoided as much as

possible, and that if anything's to be learned from the U.S. experience, it's

that. The minister said he learned from the U.S. experience, but that U.S.

experience has taken place — we've learned from that — since those

regulations were made to which the minister refers.

What I'm

looking for is reassurance that whatever regulations are in place around venting

are modern enough and have been modernized enough to learn from the adverse

experiences of the United States around this issue.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult either. We actually do want to do it

in the best fashion we can, as we learned from the U.S. The mine health and

safety code regulations will be updated all the time so that we actually use the

best technology and the best available advice we can — up to date all the

time.

I agree

with the member. We're not wanting to say you can vent at any time. We want to

make sure it's done in a safe manner.

MacPhail: Yes, and one of the issues that occurs with methane venting is an

exacerbation of greenhouse gas. Has the minister consulted with the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection on trying to get agreement on what's an

acceptable level of methane venting?

[G.

Trumper in the chair.]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Venting, as it's talked about in

section 7, has to do with

underground coalmines. We only have one underground coalmine in the province,

and that's, as I said earlier, Quinsam on Vancouver Island. They are already

regulated under that mine health and safety code. I'm not exactly sure how much

they vent at the present time, but the ministry could certainly get that

information for the member.

That's what

this is to deal with, not with the production of coalbed methane. The production

of coalbed methane is not to vent it. It's actually to capture it and sell it.

MacPhail: Yes, but it's also my understanding — and I could be off base

— that even in the production of coalbed methane, there's venting as well. Am

I off base on that?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually not. It's flaring. There is a certain amount of flaring

that takes place in the production or in the early stages of trying to find out,

in a project, how much coalbed methane you actually have. So that's flared; it's

not vented.

MacPhail: Okay. Is there regulation around flaring and limits to flaring? Or

will there be?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes. In the Oil and Gas Commission, there are regulations around

flaring — how much you can flare, where you can flare and for how long. All

those are in place, because there's flaring that happens in other conventional

and oil extraction.

Section 7

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:04 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16,

Coalbed Gas Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Can we call the Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management?

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; G. Trumper in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:05 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(continued)

The

Chair: We'd like to declare a ten-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[G.

Trumper in the chair.]

On vote 37:

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

[1620]

Hon. S.

Hagen: This morning the member asked for a lot of information that I didn't

have at the time, and I apologize for that. However, I do now have the

information. I'm going to just read it into the record.

I want to

start with a correction. The correct number for the forest investment account,

the amount of money we're spending on inventory collection, has been corrected

to $22 million. The rest of these are questions raised during the debate.

The number

of relocations this past year of salmon farms is one. The number relocated since

1999 is five. Which sites are relocated? The Stolt farm from Eden Island to

Humphrey Rock, and the tenure at Eden Island

[ Page 6224 ]

is no longer in place. I think I mentioned that this morning. How many in

Broughton will be relocated? Two currently in progress/completed; five not yet

started.

Ocean Falls

record of consultation: the aboriginal interest assessment was completed. The

agency followed the aboriginal interest assessment procedures that were in place

at the time, which I'm filing.

Omega has

applied to a conversion of their existing licence of occupation for the fish

hatchery site to a lease. This request has been referred to the Heiltsuk first

nation and will be assessed in accordance with the new provincial consultation

policy that was released in October of 2002.

The

Humphrey Rock–Gilford Island record of consultation — if you'll forgive me

for not listing the names. Eden Island was identified for relocation due to

being within one kilometre of a first nation reserve and being subject to severe

weather patterns. Referrals for the Humphrey Rock site were sent to all of the

first nations in the area and the tribal council, the MTTC, on April 10, 2001.

Responses were received from all. An open house to discuss siting impacts was

offered via the MTTC. This was declined. A public open house was held in Alert

Bay on June 20, 2001. Many of the MTTC hereditary chiefs did attend. Department

of Fisheries and Oceans staff were in attendance. All information relating to

Land Act tenure siting was considered during the adjudication. All information

gathered through the open house process was shared with provincial and federal

agencies.

It is our

understanding that after the Land Act offer for tenure, DFO conducted separate

first nation consultations via the CEAA process. This included meeting or

attempting to meet with the Gilford band on Gilford Island. The CEAA process is

complete, and a positive result was given.

I am also

giving the member opposite the aboriginal interest assessment, to say that that

was completed, and also a copy of the siting requirements — which I think you

may have had, because they're on our website — the coordinated compliance and

enforcement agreement, and the consultation guidelines.

I also have

some numbers with regard to the scientific positions, and I'll also give this

sheet to the member. In scientific positions at the end of '02-03, we had 388

positions. The reductions that took place were 54, which is a 14 percent

reduction. In '03-05, we now have 334 scientific positions, and it's broken down

to LSOs, hydrologists, biologists and scientific technical officers. I'm pleased

to give all of these over to the member.

[1625]

MacPhail: Thank you very much. I appreciate those, and I'll examine them

when we adjourn for today.

While we're

still on the issue of tenure, I want to talk about the effects of the

government's decisions as they relate to how they consult. As I understand it,

there are several methods by which this government consults local governments,

first nations and citizens. I want to explore the situation that's been reported

of a citizen and the issue of tenure. I'm referring to the land and forest

situation…. No, no, I'm sorry. That's second.

I want to

go over, first of all, the situation in May of 2002, when a local businessman in

Victoria was told that he must vacate a piece of land on Victoria's harbour. The

business was located in this spot for 18 years before Land and Water B.C.

decided to sell the land. It is reported that Land and Water B.C. never asked if

the man wished to buy the land, nor was he informed when he renewed his tenure

earlier in the year that Land and Water B.C. was negotiating to sell the piece

of property. That's one situation. I want to ask how that matter had been

resolved. It was reported publicly very recently.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm not aware of the details of this piece of property, but

apparently the file is fairly old. I'm more than happy to give the member a

detailed briefing note on that. My understanding is that any of the deals that

Land and Water B.C. does are subject to the ombudsman's review, and if there was

anything that wasn't done properly, I'm sure that would have come to light. I'm

more than happy to provide a very detailed briefing note on the file.

MacPhail: Yes. The report on it was May 25, 2002 — the Les Leyne column

out of the Times Colonist . There hadn't been any update in the last three

or four months on this matter. Is the minister saying that the man has the right

to go to the ombudsman, or is it at the ombudsman?

Hon. S.

Hagen: He has the right to go to the ombudsman.

MacPhail: I also want to explore the situation of Lannan forest. The Lannan

forest is a 16-hectare property alongside Crown Isle Golf Course in the

minister's riding. It was recently sold to Crown Isle to develop either golf

holes or residential housing. In the process of the sale it is reported that

Land and Water B.C. did not consult the community, the Comox Indian band or the

municipal government. I want to just explore that particular one in terms of how

efficiency also meets the test of transparency. I also want to put to the test

whether new tenure policies mean faster access for the few at the expense of the

environment.

I know the

minister has stated in a public written question and then a public written

answer that the sale of Lannan forest did not represent a significant threat to

the environment and that the government considers all possible options before

deciding a course of action. I just want to go through this. The public written

question to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was from Jim Abram,

regional district of Comox-Strathcona. I think the question was put on the

record in the last week or certainly in the last couple of weeks. He asked the

hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, regarding the minister's

responsibility for Land and Water B.C., the following question: "As the

minister responsible for Land and Water B.C. Inc.,

[ Page 6225 ]

why have you allowed an agreement to sell the Lannan Crown forest to a

private company to be signed without consulting local government, first nations

or local community groups?"

[1630]

The public

written answer to the public written question was submitted to the Speaker and

went on the books this week: "Thank you for your public written question

submitted to the Speaker." The answer is from the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management, and I want to break it down. He says: "I have been

informed by Land and Water B.C. Inc. that they consulted with the city of

Courtenay commencing in the spring of 2002 and with the Comox-Strathcona

regional district commencing in the fall of 2002. The Comox-Strathcona regional

district had been advised in the spring of 2002 that Land and Water B.C. was

reviewing options for the 16-hectare Lannan Road property."

I just want

to pause there for a minute and offer the minister this. According to a

Courtenay councillor, Land and Water B.C. never consulted with the city until

the sale was final, and a director in the Comox-Strathcona regional district,

Barbara Price, claims the district only found out about the sale of the property

in February of 2003.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Those two statements by two politicians are inaccurate. I'll read

from a text of the letter that was sent to Her Worship Mayor Starr Winchester

and councillors, city of Courtenay, dated April 7, 2003. This is a paragraph

from page 3: "Land and Water British Columbia Inc. advised the city of

Courtenay of its intention in April of 2002 and advised the regional district of

the negotiation with Crown Isle in November of 2002. The regional district had

previously advised that LWBC was considering options for the land and property

and that LWBC did not support the transfer of the land to the regional district

as a park."

MacPhail: But that's a letter from…. Who is that letter from?

Hon. S.

Hagen: That letter is signed by Bill Valentine, the CEO of Land and Water

B.C.

MacPhail: And it's dated this week. Well, don't we just have…? How does

that make the minister correct? We have a dispute of fact. I'm not sure why the

minister…. I'm sure he was using in the most positive sense — "two

politicians." I'm not quite sure how the minister uses — in defence or to

say that these people are wrong — a reiteration of Land and Water B.C.'s

original position with which these councillors disagree. So we have a dispute of

fact, and no matter how many times Land and Water B.C. try to say that they

think they're right, I guess there's got to be some sort of substance, some

sorts of tangibles that we can put our hands on — minutes of meetings or

correspondence — that prove that the CSRD was consulted or the city of

Courtenay. But a letter from Land and Water B.C. just restating what they

already did doesn't do that.

The

minister's answer to the question goes on to say: "Where public

consultation processes already exist, such as public rezoning hearings, Land and

Water B.C. would prefer to use such opportunities. Land and Water B.C. reviewed

available information about aboriginal rights and title and treaty concerns in

accordance with established provincial practices as part of its decision to make

the Crown land available to stimulate employment and investment in the Comox

Valley." That's the minister's response. I just pause for a moment. It's an

interesting use of words: "Land and Water B.C. reviewed available

information." Well, what is that information? The facts are that the Comox

Indian band was neither told nor consulted on the sale, despite established

provincial practices to carry out full consultation with first nations before

removing the land from the treaty negotiating table. So in his reply, reviewed

what available information?

[1635]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The first obligation that Land and Water B.C. has is to review all

the information pertaining to the particular piece of property and from that,

and following the consultation guidelines of the day, make a decision whether or

not they consult with the local first nations band. In this case, they did not

feel the information they had was something they would do that for under the

guidelines.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. The minister didn't think this qualified for

consultation?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Not all sales qualify for consultation.

MacPhail: How does the minister respond to, from the Comox Indian band:

"We are objecting to the alienation of the 16 hectares of Crown lands, on

land and road, in the Comox Valley until our member nations have been fully

consulted"? So the minister disagrees that they have a right to be

consulted?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Can I ask when that statement was made?

MacPhail: Sure, I can get it for you. I can certainly get it, but it's

recent.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The reason I asked for the date is that it may have happened after

the sale.

MacPhail: It may have, but how does that take away from the statement they

made? The issue here is that the city, the regional district and the Comox

Indian band feel like this was done in secret — that the sale of this land was

done secretly. Was there any notice of intention placed on the property? I'm

told not.

Hon. S.

Hagen: There was no sign placed on the property, I'm told, but as I

mentioned before, the city of

[ Page 6226 ]

Courtenay was advised in April 2002 and the regional district in November

MacPhail: Yes, okay. Well, it would be easy…. How did that advice occur?

Wouldn't it be easy to just produce the letters of that advice rather than

reading another letter from Land and Water B.C. dated April 7? We can solve this

right now by showing what the advice was.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The consulting that took place between the regional district and the

city took place through meetings between staff of the city and the regional

district and staff of Land and Water B.C. and is documented.

MacPhail: Was that documentation included to accompany the letter of April 7

that Land and Water B.C. sent to the regional district?

Hon. S.

Hagen: In answer to the member's question, it's not included in the letter,

but when Land and Water B.C. senior staff met with the city of Courtenay last

week, they reviewed the file with the city. The city of Courtenay now, I think,

understands that there was, in fact, consultation that took place.

MacPhail: So the chair of the regional district of Comox-Strathcona

shouldn't have asked this question, then? Is that what he's saying? By the way,

the statement made by the Comox Indian band was March 6 of this year. Is it the

minister's view that this has all been cleared up? My information is different

and fresh.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The sale, I'm told, is conditional upon the city of Courtenay

bringing it inside the city boundaries of the city of Courtenay and conditional

on the city of Courtenay zoning the property.

[1640]

MacPhail: I'm sorry. That seemed to be a little bit of a non sequitur, but

it may not be. Was that an answer that this matter has been resolved?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I believe the matter has been resolved, yes.

MacPhail: My information is different, so I'll pursue this matter. There was

no notice of intention placed on the property. The chair of the regional

district of Comox-Strathcona would dispute the minister saying that they were

notified. Then we have a councillor, as well, disputing that. There was no

intention placed on the property. Was a survey of the land done?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, a survey of the property was done.

MacPhail: Where was that published? My information is that there wasn't a

survey done. Where was it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I am advised that there is, in fact, an actual survey of the

property.

MacPhail: We can clear up a lot of this stuff by the minister just producing

all these documents — it will be good news — and not documents from Land and

Water B.C. saying we did do this, Land and Water B.C. producing documents

showing that the events actually did occur.

This

particular site wasn't listed as a property for sale on the Land and Water B.C.

website. Why was that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Only 10 to 15 percent of the properties available for sale by LWBC

are listed on the website. I'm told that we have a total of about 1,500

properties that are available for sale.

MacPhail: Well, then what are the criteria for not listing?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told that one of the criteria for listing is when there is seen

to be an active market interest in the property.

MacPhail: It certainly seems that there was a lot of active concern after

this sale was made. Active market — some of that might be, if people actually

knew it was up for sale.

understand the value of the timber in land and forests is estimated at between

$1 million and $2 million. Did the government receive fair compensation for the

land?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The information that Land and Water B.C. has indicates that the value

of the forest on the property is about $40,000 net.

MacPhail: Does the minister have a timber survey to prove that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, we do.

MacPhail: He'll release that?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The land deal has not closed yet. I'm not sure of the legalities of

releasing that, because no prices have been released.

MacPhail: Okay. It's the minister's riding, and openness and transparency

will only affect him. What other offers were considered?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There were no other offers. There was no other interest. LWBC was

working through the local government to maximize, through their zoning, the

value of the property.

MacPhail: My understanding is that the regional district attempted to

purchase the land in both January 2002 and August 2002.

[ Page 6227 ]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The regional district wanted the land as a free Crown grant.

[1645]

MacPhail: The minister has some record of that? There must be a file on all

of this — right? This is important land —16 hectares. The range of value of

the timber goes from $40,000 by the ministry to $1 million to $2 million. Isn't

there a document, a file of all this being recorded? Why is there so much

confusion? The regional district, who are listening now, say they attempted to

purchase the land in January 2002 and August 2002.

Hon. S.

Hagen: There's a big file on this with lots of information, but the contents

of that agreement relative to the purchase price and appraisal and everything

else will not be released until after the sale has closed.

MacPhail: Okay, but the minister is asserting that the regional district

wanted it free, and they're asserting that they wanted to purchase it. I guess

there's a huge gulf here, is there?

Hon. S.

Hagen: There is no offer from the regional district to purchase.

MacPhail: Was an environmental assessment performed on the land? I just want

to ask if it was Crown Isle that purchased this. Was it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The purchaser of the property is the Silverado Land Corp.

MacPhail: Is that in any relationship with Crown Isle?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I believe they are related.

MacPhail: God forbid openness and transparency, though — eh?

understanding is actually that the regional district first asked for a free

Crown grant. That was declined, and then they made an offer to purchase.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm told that if there was an offer to purchase, and I don't know

that there was, it would have been made after the agreement was signed with

Silverado.

I also

wanted to answer…. The member asked a question with regard to environmental

assessment. I'll just read you a paragraph here:

"In

late 2001 our organization began a review of certain parcels of Crown land

to determine how best to achieve the objectives of our mandate. This

property and several others in the Comox Valley underwent an independent

technical development evaluation and an environmental review. The

environmental study of the property on land and road identified no sensitive

ecosystems. The development evaluation concluded: 'The only way the property

is going to be developed in the short term is if it is annexed to the city

of Courtenay and coordinated with the Crown Isle development.'"

That's

a letter from Land and Water British Columbia to the editor of the Comox

Valley Record .

MacPhail: Dated?

Hon. S.

Hagen: April 7.

MacPhail: I appreciate that I have to ask every single question in order to

put this in context, but I'm not sure that it's going to wash with local

citizens, Indian bands, the regional district and the city of Courtenay if the

minister keeps putting forward justification of arguments made by Land and Water

B.C. who were the ones being charged with the secret sale here. I think what the

people who are concerned about this are looking for is some openness and

transparency and some independence of decision-making.

Was the

land and forest part of a greenbelt before its sale?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I understand it was not part of the greenbelt. It was part of the

provincial forest.

[1650]

MacPhail: I've heard that a representative from Land and Water B.C. recently

said that a golf course represents green space. Of course, Crown Isle and

Silverado, who I understand are integrally linked, own a golf course or want to

develop a golf course. I think the minister knows them quite well. Is that true?

Does Land and Water B.C. see that a golf course represents green space?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Well, what I just read into the record was the technical report,

which says that the only way this property is going to be developed in the short

term is if it is annexed to the city of Courtenay and coordinated with the Crown

Isle development. I believe the property is next door to the Crown Isle

development.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I asked a question about a golf course. A Land and

Water B.C. representative is reputed to say — alleged — that a golf course

represents green space. Annexing could mean that it stays as a forest, or it

could be expanded to be a golf course. Does a golf course represent green space?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm not going to respond to a comment that the member thinks she

might have heard or might have read. If she wants to show me the comment in

writing, I'll respond to it.

MacPhail: Okay. Does a golf course represent green space according to the

minister?

Hon. S.

Hagen: That certainly would depend on what the local zoning is.

MacPhail: This government doesn't have any determination about land use,

golf courses — that kind of thing?

[ Page 6228 ]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm trying to figure out what the question is. That's why Land and

Water B.C. works with local government. In this case, they came to an

understanding and a conclusion that the best use for this property would be to

have it brought into the city of Courtenay and sold to Silverado.

MacPhail: I'm sure it will be interesting to see on record the minister's

views on green space and golf courses.

Land and

Water B.C. makes a number of assumptions in its service plan. Included in these

is the assertion that the public and business community want a more open,

accountable and transparent Crown land and water allocation process. How do you

think that went with the allocation and the sale of Lannan forest?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Certainly, with the use of the website and other means, we're

continuing to make the processes that are followed more transparent. There are

always improvements that can be made. I know the corporation is always looking

at how to improve the system it has in place. Certainly, on the number of

transactions that are carried out a year by Land and Water B.C., whether they be

land or water tenures or sales, the number of complaints is extremely small.

[1655]

MacPhail: The reason why I ask the question about greenspace is because the

regional area plan designates this property as greenspace. I'm told that the

Land and Water B.C. representative said a golf course would qualify for that.

That's why I asked the minister's own view of this. This is in his own back

yard. I have to say it is an issue that was brought to the opposition's

attention by not one, not two, not five but lots of people in the area. I expect

that they will judge whether the minister's answers are satisfactory or not.

Certainly, I think the people may say that there are still some questions left

to be answered, but we'll have time to do that when we get back in a couple of

weeks as well.

I'm going

to move to the LRMP process. What's the status of the Central Coast land and

resource management plan?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The Central Coast LRMP is proceeding extremely well. The table, as I

think I mentioned in my last estimates, has been reduced to about 17

individuals, six of whom are first nations. The first nations are totally

engaged in the process.

We have a

coast information team doing the science to back that up. The science is taking

a little longer than we projected, so I've postponed the final date for the

completion of the LRMP to December 31 of '03.

At the same

time, we're commencing government-to-government consultations and negotiations

with first nations with the science that we have available. We'll have the

science available, I think, as we need it. The first nations have agreed to

this, and we're proceeding.

MacPhail: Yes, I did check Estimates from last year, and it was

actually a performance measure of this ministry to complete the Central Coast

LRMP by the end of '02-03.

The

minister has extended the deadline for a specific reason. Was that the reason

why he didn't meet his performance measure? Is there a performance measure

concerning this in this year's plan?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I explained to the member, the reason the time line was extended

was that the scientific information that we need to back up the plan was not

ready. We wanted to give the scientists and the coast information team the time

to give us the science. If we don't have the science, the plan isn't worth much.

We have to have that science.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

MacPhail: Yes, I understand what the minister is saying. I'm asking him why.

What happened to delay the completion of the scientific information? It was a

performance measure. I would imagine this would be taken fairly seriously.

I'll be

asking the Premier, in his estimates, about all performance measures and the

value and meaning of them. A performance measure for this ministry was that the

Central Coast LRMP would be completed by '02-03. There's no performance measure

that I can find this year in the minister's service plan. I'll be questioning

the Premier about how valuable these performance measures are.

What

delayed the scientific evidence?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I'm sure the member opposite knows, the Central Coast is a very

complex area of our province. The coast information team has been working very,

very hard to gather the information they needed, but they would not be able to

guarantee that they could complete that information by March 31 or June 30.

In order to

keep the process moving ahead, we've engaged with first nations, who have agreed

with us. As a matter of fact, I think we have a protocol now to move on with

government-to-government negotiations with first nations. All of the three

things will come to a completion by December 31.

MacPhail: When was that discovered?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I was advised by the chair of the table in December of '02 and met

with the first nations involved in February of '03 and came to an agreement with

them at that time to extend the deadline until the end of the year.

[1700]

MacPhail: Where is the performance measure altered in the service plan?

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's in the new service plan.

[ Page 6229 ]

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could I have the page, please?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Page 14, in the right-hand column.

MacPhail: Is the minister on track for interim planning measures by June 30?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes, we are.

MacPhail: What other LRMP completion deadlines have been altered this year?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The only other one that's been altered is the Lillooet land use plan.

MacPhail: What's the status of the North Coast land and resource management

plan?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The North Coast is on target to be completed March 31, 2004.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I forgot to ask what the value is of the resources that

the ministry is putting into the Central Coast LRMP and then also for the North

Coast LRMP.

Hon. S.

Hagen: If you'd like to make note of these numbers. Central coast

information team funding is $700,000; $700,000 from the forest investment

account; $250,000 from the ministry; and in planning on the central coast,

approximately $1 million.

MacPhail: That's a commitment of almost $2 million in government resources.

For the North Coast LRMP…. I'm actually going to ask these details of each

land use planning mechanism. I'll just tell the minister this. I'd like to know

the status of the…. These are the plans that in the performance targets need

to be completed by this fiscal year: Queen Charlotte Islands LRMP, Sea to Sky

LRMP and the Morice LRMP.

[1705]

Hon. S.

Hagen: The only one that we're not going to make our target on is the Queen

Charlotte Islands one, which is going to go until June '04. The rest, we think,

are on target.

MacPhail: And the costs, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: The total cost of all of the LRMPs underway is about $9 million.

MacPhail: Could the minister put on record the reasons for the change in the

deadline for the Queen Charlotte Islands LRMP?

Hon. S.

Hagen: At the February meeting that I had with the first nations, Guujaaw,

the Chief of the Haida, asked if we would defer starting the land use planning

process in the Queen Charlottes, and I agreed to that.

MacPhail: What reason did Guujaaw give?

Hon. S.

Hagen: We needed to complete a framework agreement that we had with Land and

Water British Columbia, and the Chief needed more time to consult with his

people.

MacPhail: What's the status of the Lillooet land and resource management

plan and the Southern Chilcotin Mountains park?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The status is that for the first time in the history of British

Columbia, we've engaged with the Lillooet first nations. That has taken a lot of

work on my behalf and my staff's behalf, but we're progressing extremely well.

We've had several meetings, going back as far as September of last year. I'm

very, very pleased to be able to say that we now do have or will have an

agreement signed with them. We want to make sure that they are fully consulted

and accommodated as we proceed with this plan.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could expand on this new wrinkle, because a

decision was expected in March of 2002. He knew about the Lillooet first nations

then. He said the decision was going to come in July of 2002, then October of

2002. When will it be ready, and what effect does this — what the minister

calls for the first time consultation with the Lillooet first nations — have

to do with the decision?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Good question and an important question. The fact of the matter is

that when the Lillooet land use plan was released by the former government in

April or May of 2001, there had been no consultation with first nations. We were

starting from square one, and it took us a while to start building the

relationships of trust and respect that it takes. We've been doing this in the

central coast. We're doing it on the north coast. We're doing it in the Queen

Charlottes–Haida Gwaii. We're doing it in Sea to Sky. We're doing it in the

Morice, and now we're doing it in Lillooet.

[1710]

MacPhail: I'm sure that will come as a surprise to a lot of people that the

Lillooet first nations weren't consulted in the five-year process that led to

the land use decision of April 2001. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to a

huge amount of people that the five-year process didn't involve Lillooet first

nations. Is that what the minister is suggesting?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The first nations were not at the table.

MacPhail: I think that's probably a convenient

interpretation of this

minister's failure to deliver on his commitment to the mining industry. This is

very interesting. When did the minister announce this wrinkle?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I think it was in Kamloops in the fall of 2002.

[ Page 6230 ]

MacPhail: Sorry. Did the minister announce it was because of the Lillooet

first nation that he was revisiting this whole issue?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Yes.

MacPhail: I expect that will come as a big surprise to a lot of people — a

lot of people. I'm sure it will come as a surprise that the minister is now

advocating this position as a delay in putting forward a five-year process in

which communities reached a decision — including first nations. The minister

is now relying on using first nations as a reason why he's not proceeding with

making a decision or enforcing the decision that was made in that five-year

process.

Is the

South Chilcotin Mountains park st