2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Deaths in Cranbrook helicopter

accident

Hon. G.

Campbell

C. James

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Fair Ferries Act, 2008 (Bill

M210)

G. Coons

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Sullivan mine accident

Macdonald

Campaign to Control Cancer

Hawkins

Belmont Secondary School and

youth climate change Arctic voyage

Horgan

Nurses in B.C.

M. Polak

Hyack Festival in New Westminster

Puchmayr

Asian Heritage Month

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Government action on forest

industry

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Hon. G.

Campbell

Macdonald

Simpson

Routley

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail court case

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Farnworth

Health care on northern Vancouver

Island

Trevena

Hon. G.

Abbott

Petitions

C. Wyse

Second Reading of Bills

University Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 34) (continued)

Ralston

C. Wyse

Hon. M.

Coell

Protected Areas of British

Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Sather

G. Coons

Hon. B.

Penner

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Karagianis

Chudnovsky

Hon. B.

Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. M.

de Jong

Fraser

Horgan

Sather

Routley

[ Page 12407 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Statements

DEATHS IN CRANBROOK

HELICOPTER ACCIDENT

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise today on behalf of British

Columbians to offer our sincere condolences to the friends and loved ones of the

four victims of the helicopter crash yesterday in Cranbrook.

Four people perished in that incredible incident: B.C. Hydro

employees Dirk Bentley Rozenboom and Robert William Lehmann, pilot Edward

William Kyle Heeb and College of the Rockies student Isaiah Otieno of Kenya.

Their loss will be felt by their home communities, across the province and all

the way back to Kenya, I'm sure.

I know the thoughts and prayers of all British Columbians and all

members of this House go out to the families and friends of those four men. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that you send our condolences to them on behalf of the

House in British Columbia.

[1335]

C. James: As well, I add words of condolences from the

official opposition to the Premier's words to the families and to the

communities. We'll be watching and are sending our condolences as well.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two guests to introduce, Mr. Speaker. With

us here today are two former MLAs from this Legislature.

The first is Joan Sawicki, the former MLA for Burnaby-Willingdon

who was Speaker of the Legislature and Minister of Environment. Dave Zirnhelt is

the former MLA for Cariboo South, who was Minister of Forests, of Economic

Development, of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Aboriginal Affairs. Would the

House please make these two former MLAs very welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: Earlier in the week I introduced some

military police from CFB Esquimalt. They're actually here today, and I would

like to introduce them: LCdr. Lucie Tremblay, who is the provost marshal of

Pacific region and commanding officer of the military police at CFB Esquimalt,

Sergeant Kwiatkowski, Master Corporal Jodrey, Master Corporal Donohue, Corporal

Edwards and Corporal Pettinger. All are veterans of the war in Afghanistan.

They have been given the General Campaign Star for taking

part in

operations in the presence of an armed enemy while fighting the Taliban in that

country. Some have taken

part in NATO operations in the Balkans and wear medals

for those missions. The MPs even initiated a Boy Scout unit in Kosovo.

Others have been given the Special Service Medal for their service

in humanitarian operations in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Central America, assisting

those in dealing with natural disasters which have befallen them. They have

performed regular police duties and have assisted in the training of the

civilian police in Afghanistan.

All are dedicated, brave members of the Canadian Forces and

deserve our gratitude for their service. It is because of people like these and

others, who are willing to put themselves in harm's way, that we live in a

peaceful, free and wonderful country. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Coons: I'd like to recognize three people today who are

down here for the May 14 Cancer Day of Action and their proactive push toward an

interministerial cancer control strategy. Please recognize Jerry Cannon from

Vancouver and Cathie Wilson from Kelowna, with a special thank-you and

recognition of Sally Isaksen from Ocean Falls. It's not too often one of my

constituents comes down from the north coast and the central coast, so I'd like

to have a really special round of applause for Sally.

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the honour to make three sets of

introductions today.

Today at noon hour, members from both sides of the House were able

to gather in the rotunda to help celebrate National Nursing Week. It was our

opportunity to salute and say thank you to the over 40,000 nurses in British

Columbia who 365 days a year provide us with the best of care. You'll know them

in the gallery because they are wearing one of these beautiful boutonnieres,

just as I am. I'd like the House to make all of the nurses welcome.

As the member for North Coast noted, members are aware that

yesterday evening and today individuals from the Campaign to Control Cancer are

in the Legislature meeting with MLAs — a very impressive group of individuals

from across British Columbia, who raise awareness, advocate for continued

vigilance and also celebrate the good work of the B.C. Cancer Agency.

That's an agency that I'm sure all British Columbians are

enormously proud of. The B.C. Cancer Agency has made British Columbia the best

province for both cancer care and outcomes. Join me in welcoming to the

Legislature in particular Dr. Islam Mohamed, a radiation oncologist from

Kelowna, and Jane Akazuki from the Lower Mainland.

Finally, I also have the pleasure of introducing two individuals

from the Ministry of Health. In the Legislature today are two students pursuing

their doctor of pharmacy degrees. They are doing part of their rotations in

pharmacy practice at the Ministry of Health to fulfil their degree requirements.

Please, if all members would join in welcoming Joey Mattingly and Fong Huynh.

[1340]

[ Page 12408 ]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend

of my legislative assistant Angela Giuliano. Her name is Vida Jarman. She's from

Victoria. She's a retired Hospital Employees Union worker, and she's spending

her leisure time looking at us working here in the Legislature. Would you all

please make her very, very welcome.

R. Sultan: We are graced in the galleries today by John and

Elizabeth Burley, two friends from my riding. John started his career as a young

man being commissioned as a flight officer with the RAF, and he continues to be

very active in the RAF Club. He spent most of his career representing British

aerospace industry interests in Moscow, and for those services he was made an

officer of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II. Would the

House please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, rise to acknowledge a nurse who is in

the gallery today from my community regional hospital in New Westminster, Royal

Columbian Hospital. Please make Sarah Hudson extremely welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I have the pleasure, on behalf of my

colleagues from Prince George, to welcome a very special nurse to the precinct

today. Her name is LaDonna Fehr. LaDonna is one of the outstanding northern

nurses, who works in the regional cancer unit in Prince George. She was

recognized today for her significant contribution to health care in northern

British Columbia. Please join me in making LaDonna feel very welcome and thank

her for her work.

H. Bains: I am pleased to introduce to the House students

from Brookside Elementary, grade 4 and grade 5. They are accompanied by their

teachers Cindy Walker and Arlene MacDonald, and a number of parents are with

them. So please join me and extend a warm welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is my pleasure today…. It's not often I

get to do it. A nurse is visiting the Legislature today from Fort St. John, Barb

Marsh. I'd like to say thanks to her, and I'm sure she's as excited as I am

about the new hospital that will be built in Fort St. John within the next few

years.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine

who also happens to be a nurse and is here for National Nursing Week. That is

Roseanne Hampel. Would the House please make her most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to welcome three nurses

from the Victoria area, who are here to celebrate Nursing Week as well. They are

Donna Mears, who is a clinical nurse educator in medicine; Joanne Solomonson,

who is executive director of Luther Court; and Pat Hillis, who is a community

registered nurse. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is a constituent

of mine who is a University of Victoria student and has just safely returned

from down south, where he was a participant observer or a political tourist, if

you will, in North Carolina. It's wonderful to have Ben Johnson back among us.

Will the House please make him welcome.

J. McIntyre: I, too, am honoured to have this beautiful

corsage, this beautiful rose, on today as a symbol of the celebration of the

work that nurses do in our province each and every day.

I was hoping that the House would make one of the honourees at

lunchtime particularly welcome today. Her name is Janice Snowy. She's a

registered nurse, and she works at the Pemberton Health Centre in my

constituency. I was hoping the House would make her feel very welcome, along

with the other nurses who are here today.

K. Conroy: I, too, have a nurse here from my constituency.

Cheryl Brothers is here to celebrate National Nursing Week. I'd ask all members

to please join me in making her welcome.

[1345]

J. Yap: We have with us in the legislative precincts 35

grade 6 students from Ecole Elémentaire Tomekichi Homma in my riding. They're

here as part of their social studies and Legislative Assembly and parliamentary

procedures studies with five chaperones led by Mr. Don Allison, their teacher.

Mr. Allison invited me recently to go to their class to talk about

what it is like to be an MLA, and today they're here to see it in practice in

Victoria in our Legislative Assembly. Would the House please join me in

welcoming them.

S. Simpson: I am very pleased. We have here with us today a

Chinese parents group from Hastings Elementary School, and they're here visiting

for the first time in the Legislature.

We have Wai Liang Ru, Bill Yang, Kim Au, Idy Leung, Feng Qing

Huang, Sandy Yu, Shirley Sung, Ann Yu, Stella Fan, Sau Kin Dong, Jenny Thong,

Mai Li, Anita Li, Mona Ninh, Guan Huan Yan, Tammy Lew, Aliaa Al-Musawi and Betsy

Alkenbrack. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today we have my longtime friend

Jim Favaro, who is accompanied by Ashifa Hulda, Caroline Mcgillivray and Fiona

from the cancer clinic in Surrey. They are all here to advocate for cancer

control, and I would like the House to please join me in giving them a very

special welcome.

G. Gentner: In the gallery today is Donna Mears. I know the

Minister of Community Services has already recognized her. She is a nurse, and

she is not a constituent of mine. But I have to tell the House that she is also

my landlord, and the cheques are always on time.

Hon. B. Penner: I, too, have the privilege of introducing a

nurse from my constituency. His name is

[ Page 12409 ]

Sean Young, and he practises at the Agassiz community health centre. That is

a facility that opened about five years ago. While I don't attend there, my

constituency assistant does, and she tells me that Mr. Young provides just

excellent service. Would the House please make Mr. Young welcome.

I. Black: I'm not sure how many people are left to be

introduced, but three of them are friends of mine.

I had the pleasure of having lunch today with two delightful young

girls, Alysha Gillis and Adriana Corrado, who attend Hampton Park Elementary

School in the Westwood Plateau region of my riding. They're accompanied by their

diligent father George Gillis, who is a friend of mine. But more importantly, he

coaches with me in the North Coquitlam United Soccer Club. Would the House

please join me in making them feel most welcome here today.

Hon. K. Krueger: Joining us this afternoon in the chamber

is a registered nurse from Kamloops, Sue Janson. Our community is very grateful

to have Sue working at the Hillside Psychiatric Centre, one of many hard-working

registered nurses of the Interior Health Authority. The vital role she plays in

our community is very much appreciated. I'd like the House to, last but not

least, make her very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Well, not so fast, hon. Members. We do have

more people to be introduced.

Nurses from Vancouver who were receiving certificates today at the

150 years of nursing in British Columbia celebration were unable to make it for

the actual ceremony, but we are enormously proud of each of them for their

accomplishments.

Frances MacDougall is a registered nurse responsible for surgical

services at B.C.'s Children's Hospital. Connie Deugau is a registered nurse and

clinical nurse educator at Providence Health Care at St. Joseph's Hospital. Then

in my neighbourhood, Irene Goldstone is a registered nurse at Providence Health

Care at St. Paul's Hospital, and Linda Brazier is a nursing instructor at BCIT.

Finally, I have Alison Lafond, who is a registered nurse in

sub-acute medicine at Vancouver General Hospital. Would the House make all of

these ladies welcome.

[1350]

Finally, on behalf of my new colleagues in the ridings around

Prince George, I am also very proud to introduce Suzanne Johnson. Suzanne is the

vice-president of Northern Health Authority in Prince George and has been an

enormous help and ally in the work that we're doing at Baldy Hughes therapeutic

community.

Suzanne has been involved in therapeutic communities in other

parts of Canada and, in understanding that, has helped to bring us stability by

giving us a nurse clinician and a nurse practitioner and also by helping us with

some of the psychiatric needs of our clients.

We are very, very proud — all four of us from Prince George — to

welcome Suzanne to the precinct.

Mr. Speaker: If there are any other nurses that we failed

to recognize, welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FAIR FERRIES ACT, 2008

G. Coons presented a bill intituled Fair Ferries Act, 2008.

G. Coons: I move introduction of the Fair Ferries Act,

2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Coons: It gives me great pleasure today to be

introducing an important piece of legislation, the Fair Ferries Act, 2008. This

act amends the Coastal Ferry Act to provide ferry-dependent communities with

some hope in their struggle for a safe, reliable, accountable and affordable

ferry system.

The Fair Ferries Act increases the accountability of B.C. Ferries

to both the government and the public. As ferry fares head skyward and ferry

traffic drops below predictions, lost revenue must be made up, meaning even

greater fares in the long run. This act requires that the public interest be

taken into account when rates are charged.

The Fair Ferries Act will help mitigate the serious situation

facing ferry users in coastal communities in British Columbia. High fares have

forced residents and tourists to travel less, and they have significantly

impacted the cost of all goods and services. The cost of access to essential

service is becoming prohibitive for some island communities. The act requires

that fares on designated routes would be set with consideration of ridership,

the public good and limited options for transportation by some ferry-dependent

communities.

This act rolls back the salaries of directors to a more fair and

reasonable compensation and requires legislative approval of subsequent salary

increases. It also brings B.C. Ferry Services Inc. and the B.C. Ferry Authority

under the power of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and

the Ombudsman Act. The act requires the authority to report annually to the

minister responsible, where Members of the Legislative Assembly can scrutinize

their operations.

With this act, B.C. recognizes that ferries not only should serve

the public interest but should be accountable to both the government and the

public. After all, B.C. Ferries is our marine highway.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M210, Fair Ferries Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 12410 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT

N. Macdonald: It's approaching two years since Doug

Erickson, Bob Newcombe, Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier died in a small shed on

the site of Kimberley's Sullivan mine. The Legislature, at the time, expressed

sympathy to the families of those who died and recognized the impact of their

deaths on the communities of Kimberley and Cranbrook.

On July 9 of last year a coroner's inquest was held in Kimberley

to determine what happened and to make recommendations that would prevent such a

tragedy in the future. The families and community wanted this, and I'm hopeful

it has provided part of what the families needed. There is no question that it

was a difficult process for them.

Kimberley has consistently shown how special a community it is.

The people of Kimberley have looked out for the victims' families and joined

them not only in grieving but also in the search for truth about what happened.

The strength of the families has been truly amazing. They have been resolute and

incredibly articulate.

It's important to mention the paramedics union and the

Steelworkers union. They provided the legal support that allowed families to

fully participate in the inquest, and they also pushed for the inquest, as did

the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I want to thank the coroner's jury, the coroner and his staff, who

were very professional. I also want to take this time to thank the MLA for New

Westminster and the Minister of Labour for their work.

The inquest led to findings which have been put in front of this

House with the expectation that they will be acted on. That has only partially

happened. My commitment to the Sullivan mine families is to see that all

recommendations are acted on. The people have a right to expect those who go to

work to come back safely.

I know I speak for everyone here when I say that our thoughts are

with the families on what will again be a very difficult day.

[1355]

CAMPAIGN TO CONTROL CANCER

S. Hawkins: Today in six provinces, including B.C., the

Campaign to Control Cancer is holding a national day of action to control

cancer. Last evening we were welcomed by the B.C. Campaign to Control Cancer.

They held a reception for members of the Legislature. Today they're meeting with

all of us to share their ideas on how to achieve a shared goal, and that is

"More control, less cancer."

It is a fact that we have the most favourable cancer outcomes in

Canada, and we celebrate that. Women in B.C. have the lowest mortality rate and

the lowest incident rate for breast and colorectal cancer in the country and the

lowest overall mortality rate for cancers in Canada. B.C. men have the lowest

overall mortality rate for cancers in Canada; the lowest mortality rate for

prostate, colorectal and lung cancer; the lowest overall incident rates for

cancer in Canada; and the lowest incident rate for lung and colorectal cancers.

In 2007 the Cancer Advocacy Coalition reported that western

provinces, and B.C. in particular, have the best access to publicly funded

cancer drugs. Our B.C. Cancer Agency offers a comprehensive screening

mammography program free for all B.C. women aged 40 to 79.

B.C. has shown leadership in the cancer control area, and we have

much to celebrate. But there is more we can do. That is why I support the

Campaign to Control Cancer coming here today, sharing their knowledge, sharing

their ideas and putting strategies and proposals in front of us to think about

and act on if we can get there.

The Campaign to Control Cancer recognizes that there is more to

do, and their goal for "More control, less cancer" is certainly achievable. We

will be presented with proposals for discussion and ways to reduce the incidence

of cancer and cancer deaths.

Mr. Speaker, 20,000 people a year get diagnosed and about 9,000

people die every year from cancer. By all of us working together, I think we can

achieve the goal of "More control, less cancer." I, too, welcome the Campaign to

Control Cancer to the Legislature today.

BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL AND

YOUTH CLIMATE CHANGE ARCTIC VOYAGE

J. Horgan: Before the clock starts, I'd like to say how

delighted I am to be following the member for Kelowna-Mission today.

Things have certainly changed since we were in school. I can

remember that back in my days at Reynolds high school, an outstanding field trip

was a trip to the Royal B.C. Museum. How times have changed. For one student at

Belmont Secondary School from my community of Langford, the totally awesome

field trip this year will be an Arctic expedition as part of the youth climate

change Arctic voyage.

Students and staff at Belmont applied to the British Council

Canada and were one of 15 Canadian schools accepted to participate in an amazing

international adventure this coming September that will bring students, artists,

scientists and educators together for a trip through the Arctic. Their route

will take them from Reykjavik, Iceland, around Cape Farewell on the southern tip

of Greenland and along the coast of Baffin Island to Clyde River.

They will be travelling on the motor vessel Akademik Shokalskiy,

which I am told is a perfect vessel for education and entertainment. The vessel

is equipped with a lecture hall, a library, a lounge, a sauna, an open bridge,

kayaks and Zodiacs. It sounds like the Speaker's office, hon. Speaker.

The expedition will make almost daily stops for science and arts

projects and community visits, all of this focused on the impact of climate

change on the Canadian Arctic.

Belmont was the only school chosen from British Columbia — save

and except Carson Graham, which

[ Page 12411 ]

was a late entry. Their proposal was so integrated within the whole arts and

science curriculum at Belmont that the British Council Canada accepted that

proposal. The plan calls for Belmont students and staff to communicate its

project work not only with students within Belmont but with other schools in

Victoria and right across the province.

Early this summer, after several months of preparation, the

expedition organizers and school staff will select from the ground crew that one

student who will get to have the totally awesome Arctic adventure. The voyage

will equip young Canadians for all the challenges of the Arctic and will provide

them with the tools to be ambassadors for climate change.

Would the House please congratulate Belmont and that one student

who will be selected to be an ambassador for climate change in British Columbia.

[1400]

NURSES IN B.C.

M. Polak: Florence Nightingale, the lady with the lamp,

would have celebrated her 188th birthday had she still been alive this past

Monday, May 12.

In British Columbia we're celebrating 150 years of nursing in our

province, 150 years of caring that's dispensed by men and women who are far more

than health professionals. The very special role played by nurses across the

country is acknowledged this week during National Nursing Week.

It goes without saying that the nursing profession has undergone

tremendous change since the days of Miss Nightingale. There are now more than

41,000 men and women with a practising licence in B.C. These include not only

registered nurses but also nurse practitioners, licensed practical nurses and

registered psychiatric nurses.

Nursing is an exciting and growing profession in British Columbia,

with close to 5,000 new nurses joining the ranks since 2001 — almost 1,300 in

this past year alone. The theme of Nursing Week 2008 is: "Think you know

nursing? Take a closer look." It is intended to challenge our perceptions of the

role of nurses in our health care system. The diverse responsibilities they take

on are essential as we work to provide the best in health care for British

Columbians.

But by far the most important aspect of nursing is the same today

as it was in the days of Florence Nightingale. A famous news report of the day

described her this way: "She is a ministering angel, without any exaggeration,

in these hospitals, and as her slender form glides quietly along each corridor,

every poor fellow's face softens with gratitude at the sight of her. When all

the medical officers have retired for the night and silence and darkness have

settled down upon those miles of prostrate sick, she may be observed alone, with

a little lamp in her hand, making her solitary rounds."

I know my colleagues will join me in expressing our humble thanks

for the caring and dedicated nurses who give so much of themselves each and

every day.

HYACK FESTIVAL IN NEW WESTMINSTER

C. Puchmayr: This Saturday is the launch of the New

Westminster Hyack Festival. Hyack is a Coast Salish word meaning hurry

up, so I will hyack and tell you about this longstanding tradition in my

community.

Starting this Victoria Day, the Hyack Festival Association

presents dozens of free events to residents and visitors alike. From tournaments

of lacrosse, baseball, tennis, swimming, bowling and skateboarding to street

dancing, fireworks, pizza-eating contest, antique show, amusement rides and the

rapidly selling-out heritage home tour, the Hyack Festival truly has something

for everyone.

This Sunday at Queen's Park Stadium, join us in the ancient and

honourable Hyack anvil battery salute to Queen Victoria's birthday. This has

been a tradition in New Westminster since 1860.

Two anvils are placed together centred by an ounce and a half of

gunpowder and then set off with a long, hot poker. With a loud boom, the top

anvil, weighing almost 200 pounds, rockets into the air as car alarms go off and

neighbourhood dogs bark. This is repeated exactly 21 times.

Next Wednesday is the maypole dance and races with participants

from all of New Westminster's elementary schools. This is the longest-running

May dance in the Commonwealth. It dates back to 1870. On Saturday the 24th we

participate in the Hyack International Parade. With 140 entrants, this is the

largest international parade in British Columbia.

So on behalf of the community that I call home, I invite everyone

to come and enjoy the events that all of our volunteers and community groups

have put together and provided for you, and see firsthand the community spirit

that has lived in my community for one year short of 150 years.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

R. Lee: Asian Canadians have a long and rich history in

Canada, and every May communities throughout the country celebrate Asian

Heritage Month. This is an opportunity for everyone to share in the history,

culture and contributions of the Asian community to our society.

While Asian Heritage Month has been celebrated in the United

States for almost 30 years, it's a relatively new celebration here in Canada,

in 2002, Asian Heritage Month continues to be an important opportunity to gain

people's understanding of the Asian community through music, literature, art,

film, dance and lectures.

[1405]

In Metro Vancouver the 12th annual explorAsian Festival celebrates

Asian Heritage Month with a month-long festival of events for the whole

community. Presented by the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society, their theme

of "Many cultures, many languages, one celebration" describes not only the

diversity of cultures in our society but also the diversity

[ Page 12412 ]

in the Asian community. In the spirit of cultural harmony and community

diversity, the festival promotes cross-cultural understanding.

This festival would not be possible without the hard work of the

volunteers and staff of the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society. I would like

to recognize executive director Don Montgomery, co-presidents Joy Lin Salzberg

and Dr. Jan Walls, and board members Brian Sullivan, Ayah Ouziel, Mo Dhaliwal,

Winnie Cheung and Sarah Kim for their efforts in organizing and coordinating the

many exciting events for this year's festival.

I would like to invite all the members of this House and all

British Columbians to celebrate Asian Heritage Month by taking

part in one of

the many events across the province this month.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: On Monday the Minister of Forests said that any

efforts to help B.C.'s forest workers in forest-dependent communities were just

false hope. Yesterday he said that workers and the communities will have to wait

until after the election. "Things will turn around," he said. "Trust me. No plan

— I don't plan to do anything. Just trust me."

Well, the people of British Columbia don't trust this minister. He

promised action in 2005, and he didn't deliver. Now he's making vague statements

about "wait until after the election, and everything will be fine" in order to

avoid taking action today. He hasn't got the job done. He's wasted years of

opportunity.

My question is to the Premier. He wouldn't answer yesterday, so

I'll try again today. Does the Premier have confidence in this Minister of

Forests?

Hon. R. Coleman: I recognize that the member opposite

doesn't actually want to read Hansard or look at the real quotes and

wants to paraphrase what may be said. That's entirely her prerogative in

question period, but I don't think that $129 million over three years is a small

amount of money to be investing in B.C.'s forest workers today.

Maybe the member opposite is just opposed. Maybe you're opposed

to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe you're opposed to $17.25 million

going to tuition for displaced forest workers so they can upgrade their skills

while an economic downturn is taking place. Maybe you don't believe that older

forest workers should have the opportunity to be able to bridge to pension with

an $85.5 million transition for an older worker fund. Maybe you don't believe

that $26.25 million should go into job opportunities and communities. Maybe you

don't believe in the other funds we're putting into forestry in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: Craig Campbell of PricewaterhouseCoopers said

last week that B.C. should expect more blood on the floor. He said: "There are

more closures to come. There will be more job losses. There will be no recovery

until at least after 2010."

That flies completely in the face of what the minister said

yesterday: "Just wait until after the election." The minister keeps tripping

over himself, and he refuses to admit that it's B.C. Liberal forest policies

that caused the problems we're seeing today.

It was this Liberal government that broke the tie between

communities and companies. It was this Liberal government that doubled raw log

exports. We can't afford to wait until 2009 or 2010. We can't afford to wait

until the next cabinet shuffle.

My question is to the Premier. Will he get rid of this minister

today?

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, to the member opposite…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: …10,000 jobs lost and 38 mills closed

during the tenure of the NDP in the 1990s — 10,000 jobs lost, 38 mills closed.

An Hon. Member: And that makes it right.

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn't make it right, hon. Member. But

I can tell you that when the forest changes came into place in British Columbia,

record capital investment went into our industry — $3 billion over a three-year

period into modernization of our mills so that we could compete with the rest of

Canada and North America on a level to be able to sustain our industry in the

future.

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

supplemental.

C. James: All we see from this minister is to point fingers

somewhere else and then try and take credit for money that has actually come

from the federal government, which has nothing to do with this government. The

$129 million is federal money. In fact, the minister won't even match it. The

only thing he's…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 12413 ]

C. James: …doing is actually messing up the entire aid

package. Now if workers want to get tuition, they will actually lose their EI.

They're going to become ineligible for that assistance.

To get that federal money, under this government, they're bounced

between the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Income Assistance and Service

Canada. If they find their way through the maze, they'll lose the benefits that

will actually help them pay their mortgages.

Time is running out for these workers. They're losing their

benefits already. My question is again to the Premier. This minister has bungled

the file from the start. Will he ask him to get out of the way?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no one in this House that doesn't

recognize the challenges that are being faced by forest families across British

Columbia. There's no one in this House that doesn't understand the challenges

faced in terms of communities in British Columbia that are directly dependent on

forestry.

So the government has taken a number of steps to try and not just

provide support for those workers but reach out to those communities and provide

them with a sense of commitment, not just for the short term but for the long

term. I want you to understand, Mr. Speaker, and I want the House to understand

that forests have a long-term exciting future in the province of British

Columbia.

This government has invested over $640 million in trying to secure

the long-term future of communities that are directly impacted by the pine

beetle by encouraging diversification of their economies. That supports workers

in the province of British Columbia.

This government has said clearly that when the taxpayers are

providing support for community development trusts, that will be supporting

forest workers in British Columbia, forest communities in British Columbia,

people who are retired or looking to their long-term future in British Columbia.

That's what this government is committed to, and it will remain committed to

that.

For those in British Columbia who are concerned about forestry

jobs, they understand that every forest job in the northwest of this province

would be closed down if we didn't have log exports in British Columbia. We are

going to protect forest jobs in the northwestern part of this province. Go to

Terrace. Go to Stewart.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Minister.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: If the members opposite don't understand

that those jobs in the northwest part of our province depend on log exports, I

can tell you that there are a lot of logging families and forestry families in

the northwest that are going to be disappointed.

[1415]

Finally, let me say this. I understand that all of us are

concerned about the forest industry in British Columbia. We have invested

hundreds of millions of dollars. We will continue to invest in forest families.

We will continue to invest in forest communities. We will continue to invest in

the future of forestry in this province, because that is the future of British

Columbia — a strong and vibrant forest industry in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: What every single person in British Columbia

knows is that this Premier and this government have destroyed the most important

industry in British Columbia.

This is a Premier…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …that came to power promising to increase the

number of jobs, but it is 46 mills gone and 20,000 jobs lost. It is abject

failure by any standard. Step one for a recovery plan is to fire that minister.

He asked us to have a look at Hansard . So let's go back and

see what he said yesterday. Yesterday in question period the Minister of Forests

said — and the Premier can judge the standard of his minister — that the

provincial government funded a $120 million aid package. That's not true. It is

all federal money. B.C. Liberals have done nothing — zero.

The minister said yesterday that we should direct a permanently

laid-off worker in Kamloops to access a tuition plan that's part of that federal

money. If the worker was to find that website, which is difficult, they would be

directed to Enquiry B.C. Enquiry B.C. refers them back to the website, which

then refers them back to Enquiry B.C. in some endless circle. So that's the

advice of the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member put the question, please.

Member, put the question, please.

N. Macdonald: The minister is wrong on two counts about the

eligibility. So the question is this. The government has failed. That minister

has failed. Step one is to fire that minister. When are you going to do it, Mr.

Premier?

Hon. R. Coleman: I like the way the member quotes. I wonder

if he would like to also quote that his colleagues yesterday were using a bovine

compliment

[ Page 12414 ]

towards me and suggesting that I be tasered as the Minister of Forests in

this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have a….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members. Members from both sides.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's interesting how excited they get when

you tell them the truth, so I'm going to tell them a bit more truth.

The truth of the matter is that yesterday I said to the media that

the international forest analysts said that as we came down this downturn,

B.C.'s forest industry would be one of the strongest in the world. That's the

truth.

The truth of the matter is that members opposite don't want to

recognize the economic downturn in the United States and don't want to recognize

the housing starts. What they also don't want to recognize is a significant

investment that's been made in forestry by the province of British Columbia —

$642 million to the mountain pine beetle epidemic in communities. That's in

community action coalitions to build an economic base for the future of forestry

and opportunities in those communities and additional investment all over the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The minister wants us to feel sorry for him.

The people that we are concerned about and that he is responsible for are

20,000…

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

N. Macdonald: …workers that have been displaced by B.C.

Liberal policies.

If we're talking about truth, yesterday in question period the

Minister of Forests very specifically said that the NDP should be referring an

older worker who wanted to retire to a plan that the minister said was in place.

The minister said there was a plan in place for transition to retirement.

[1420]

There is no plan ready. You go to the website, and the website

says that the details of the plan are still being worked out and will be

available in the months to come. In three paragraphs yesterday, three paragraphs

from Hansard , there were three factual errors from this minister.

It is well past time that that minister is fired. The Premier

should stand up and do that today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the point I was trying to make is

that you can call me whatever you want. I'm still going to do what's best for

the forest workers in the province of British Columbia.

Now, if the member opposite would like to do…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …a little research, he'll find out that

the website for all of those programs goes live tomorrow.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat. We're not

continuing until there's quiet.

B. Simpson: Every day, more and more forest workers in this

province are running out of their benefits. Many of them have already run out of

their medical benefits. More are running out of EI. They're being forced onto

income assistance.

They're in a position where their homes are threatened. They

cannot pay the mortgages, and they may have to leave the towns — and many have

already left the towns — that they wanted their children to grow up in. That's

the reality this minister is avoiding.

I went on that website. I spent yesterday morning and today

talking to people in Service Canada and talking to people in the Ministry of

Employment and Income Assistance. The Ministry of Employment and Income

Assistance has nothing on their intranet about how to provide this service to

those forest workers. Even if they did, it doesn't address the issue that they

cannot pay their mortgage and cannot keep their kids in the town they wanted

them to grow up in.

This minister is offering false hope. This minister is being

dishonest with the people of British Columbia, as he claims that we are.

My question is to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Cariboo North….

B. Simpson: I will withdraw the "dishonest" remark.

Yesterday the minister said to the Leader of the Opposition that

she could direct somebody to a website, as if it was live and active. We find

out today that it's not live till tomorrow. That was my point.

My question is to the Premier. The people of British Columbia have

lost confidence in this minister. The Premier was asked a specific question by

the Leader of the Opposition, and I note that he never mentioned the minister

once. He went on the same rhetoric as the minister.

[ Page 12415 ]

So my question to the Premier is this. Does he have confidence in

this minister? Is this the right person for the job at this critical juncture in

the forest industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the comments from the member

opposite are particularly disturbing to me, coming from that member, who

actually claims to have had some experience in the forest industry. He would

know about the cyclical nature of the industry. He would know about the

importance of markets to actually drive the benefit of jobs and opportunities

within the industry. To get up and try and make the comment that a government in

a market of four million people can control the North American market is quite

disingenuous to the people of the province of British Columbia.

We have invested $25 million in international marketing in China,

Korea, India and other countries so that we can expand the markets of British

Columbia. I don't know where the members opposite want to see….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess they're opposed to the fact that

$120 million has gone into mitigating the impact on roads in the mountain pine

beetle area so our people can continue to harvest and have a future in forestry

in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

B. Simpson: Does the Premier have confidence in this

minister?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the

minister who actually helped to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement that

brought $2 billion back to the province of British Columbia. This is the

minister who understands that that $2 billion is helping to create jobs in

forestry, investment in forestry and a long-term future for forestry in British

Columbia.

This is the minister who brought in the coastal revitalization

plan in the province of British Columbia. This is the minister who's expanding

foreign markets, which that opposition's government ignored for ten years, so

that forestry would have a future in our province. This is the minister who's

expanding our product line, creating billions and billions of dollars of

opportunities, and this is the minister who is working in community after

community after community to find a way that we can get through this difficult

time for forest families and for the future of our province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Routley: This is a Premier who stood by and watched

successive Forests ministers disable and break our industry. This is a Premier

who stood by while the forest policies of his successive Forests ministers have

closed 46 mills and lost 20,000 jobs — 3,000 of them in the last three weeks.

Mills with markets are being forced to close by that Premier and that Forests

Minister's policies — the loss of key infrastructure, the auction of thousands

of pieces of equipment, the bankruptcy of logging contractors.

Now a minister of this government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: …brags about job fairs — job fairs where

Alberta pulp mills are coming to recruit our workers. This is proof of failed

policy. This is proof of a failed minister.

Will that Premier stand up and fire that minister now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the government that attracted $3

billion in capital investment because of the changes that were made in the

forest sector. This is the government that made the changes that were necessary

to put our market in a position to compete in world markets long term. When the

downturn in the forest industry turns around, this will be the jurisdiction in

North America and the world that will be able to compete better than anybody

else because of those changes.

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: On May 28, 2007, this Premier spoke in this House

at length about the disclosure process in the B.C. Rail corruption

investigation. The Premier said at that time: "The Premier's office won't be

checked with on this." He was very clear and repeated this several times. "The

Premier's office won't be checked with on this."

[1430]

Now we know that this was not the case. Will the Premier admit

that his statement was incorrect, his office was checked with and the

investigation was tainted by this abuse of the process approved by the Supreme

Court of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought that that member would

know better by now. He's a lawyer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

[ Page 12416 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members, just….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet. Don't refer to

members' names, please.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member well knows that this matter is

before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The judge in that case will make

appropriate findings of fact. It is totally inappropriate for anyone in this

House to make any reference at all to what's going on in the Supreme Court of

British Columbia. I'm not going to comment on that. I've said before that it

would be totally improper for me or for any other member of this House to

comment on what's going on in a courtroom.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I'd remind the Attorney General that this matter

has been before the courts for four years. It was last spring, and the Premier

had no problem talking about it then, did he? He said last year right in this

House that the Premier's office would not be checked with to ensure "there be no

political interference," but the Premier's office was checked with.

Mr. Dobell has said publicly that he was under no obligation not

to disclose the substance of his discussions. Who did he talk with, and when did

he talk? Was the Premier made aware of the RCMP's concerns? Was Mr. Collins? Was

Ms. Reid? How far up did this interference go?

Hon. W. Oppal: We respect the independence of the courts,

and we will not comment on matters that are before the courts.

B. Ralston: Mr. Dobell, the Premier's Deputy Minister and

his alter ego, viewed and discussed critical documents in the B.C. Rail

corruption trial investigation — this despite the fact that he was not

authorized to do so under a protocol approved by the B.C. Supreme Court.

On May 28, 2007, the Premier in this House said: "The Premier's

office won't be checked with on this." After talking at length last year, the

Premier is now suddenly reluctant to explain this contradiction. Can the

Attorney General advise: was the Premier wrong to discuss this matter here in

this House last year?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, if there are contradictions, I'm sure

the judge is capable of dealing with them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: On November 24, 2004, the lawyer for the

Premier and cabinet, Mr. George Copley, QC, wrote a letter to Mr. Dobell. He

addressed it to "Ken Dobell, Deputy Minister to the Premier, Premier's office."

Mr. Copley confirmed that the two had met earlier to discuss documents that were

critical to the investigation — so critical, in fact, that the RCMP were

planning to interview Ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid about those very

documents.

Three weeks later, on December 14, Gary Collins abruptly resigned

and left politics. Can the Premier assure this House that there was no

connection between Mr. Dobell's viewing of those documents and Mr. Collins's

departure?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the same answer.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General stands in this House and

says he cannot comment, so I'd like him to try and answer the question once

again. The Premier has stood in this House and answered questions on the issue.

Mr. Dobell has stood outside the House and answered questions on this issue. Has

he given any advice whatsoever to the Premier not to comment, and has he given

any advice to Mr. Dobell whatsoever not to comment?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Premier understands that the judges are

independent of the Legislature. We don't comment on what they're doing.

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: My question, then, again to the Attorney

General, is: does he think it's appropriate for the Premier to comment in this

House on this issue, and does he think it's appropriate, then, for Mr. Dobell to

make comments on this matter outside this House, given his repeated statements

in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: What is really inappropriate here is an

opposition that has absolutely no respect for the courts. None.

HEALTH CARE ON

NORTHERN VANCOUVER ISLAND

C. Trevena: The crisis in health care in the north Island

is profound. Both Port Hardy and Port McNeill are short of doctors, and the

emergency rooms at those hospitals are open on alternate days. But instead of

trying to solve the problem, VIHA said doctors who are worried about trying to

make the system work are being unprofessional, and they threatened to stop the

doctors accessing remote first nations communities, where health care is vital.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health to tell this House who is

being unprofessional: doctors trying to serve people in remote communities or

the health authority, which is saying that the system isn't broken.

[ Page 12417 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: It's the opposition member that's being

unprofessional. I'm glad to answer that question right off the top.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority works tirelessly to recruit

physicians to the north end of Vancouver Island through Health Match B.C.,

through a variety of other initiatives, through the Family Physicians for B.C.

program and a range of other programs. VIHA and Health Match B.C. are working

tirelessly to recruit physicians to the north end of the Island. Similarly, the

physicians on the north end of the Island work tirelessly to provide the best of

services to the good people of the north end of the Island.

The people who failed are the people across the floor, who,

throughout the 1990s, failed to graduate enough physicians and nurses in this

province. We've doubled the number of physicians that we're graduating in the

province of British Columbia. We've doubled the number of nurses. It is the

opposition that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Wyse: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, 36 members of the Clinton and

District Cattlemen's Association support private member's Bill M202, to be

enacted as legislation in the province of British Columbia, the B.C. Rail

Corridor Safety Act, 2008.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second

reading debate on Bill 34, University Amendment Act, 2008, and in

Section A,

Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the

Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Second Reading of Bills

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 34, which is before the

House for second reading.

This bill creates a new definition of a "special purpose, teaching

university" and designates certain colleges as universities. In particular, the

former University College of the Fraser Valley becomes the University of the

Fraser Valley, Kwantlen University College becomes Kwantlen Polytechnic

University, and Malaspina University College becomes Vancouver Island

University. Capilano College becomes Capilano University, and the Emily Carr

Institute of Art and Design is renamed the Emily Carr University of Art and

Design.

[1440]

Now, it's perhaps not surprising and not a long step to a move

from calling an institution a university college to calling it a university. But

it appears that the minister and the government have agreed with the point of

view that I'm not sure merits the kind of support, publicly, that this bill

exhibits.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The post-secondary education system in British Columbia has, up

until recently, been an articulated and integrated system, and the colleges and

the universities each had their role to play. They worked together towards

providing a total system of post-secondary education. Probably, the first step

was taken with the redesignation of David Thompson university from Cariboo

College and the subsuming of Okanagan College into the University of British

Columbia Okanagan campus. Those steps have, I think, begun to move the whole

system in a different direction.

I think it's fair to say that the change in the first three —

Fraser Valley, Kwantlen and Malaspina — is probably understandable. Recently I

have met with the college board at Kwantlen and the president. The argument that

they put was more a matter of the name rather than…. At least, the plan was not

to change the functions of the institution. The reason was that the public —

some parents, and particularly those students who the institutions might draw

from overseas — was more confident of the designation "university" than they

were of "college."

If this argument has been accepted, it's perhaps a bit unfortunate

because the college designation for a post-secondary institution has a long and

venerable tradition. Indeed, there's nothing in the American experience that

would suggest that Americans hold the description of college in any disrepute.

When an undergraduate applies to Harvard for admission as an undergraduate

student, and if they're admitted, they're admitted to Harvard College. If a

student applies to Yale and they're accepted as an undergraduate, they're

admitted to Yale College.

Indeed the Premier himself, according to his biography on the

website, attended Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, which is a well-known and

well-regarded liberal arts college in New Hampshire.

The Minister of Health himself taught at Okanagan University

College. The Minister for ActNow has a master's degree from Antioch College, if

the website is accurate. The Minister of Education has an arts and science

diploma, according to the website, from the College of New Caledonia. The member

for Bulkley Valley–Stikine served on the board of the Northwest Community

College.

So there are connections among government members and colleges,

and there's certainly no reason to think

[ Page 12418 ]

less of the designation and of their efforts because of their association in

the past with colleges.

I understand the recommendation that Mr. Plant has made. I

understand the desire of the government to act upon it, at least as far as those

first three institutions are concerned, but it does seem to be really a matter

of opinion as to whether the term "college" carries less of a connotation, less

of an aura than the term "university." I would suggest that that opinion,

certainly, in the United States would be divided. It's a very common expression

to speak of students going to college, and the term university is far less

frequently used.

[1445]

That aside, I do have some specific concerns where it concerns the

Kwantlen institution. Kwantlen University College is to be renamed Kwantlen

Polytechnic University. It is the only one of the group to be given the term

"polytechnic university." I have been asked by those who teach and parents of

those who might attend there what the reason is for the addition of the term

"polytechnic."

Given the track record of the government in breaking its

three-year commitment on budgets for post-secondary education, which my

colleague from Victoria-Hillside has set out in some detail previous to me, I

guess the concern is: is that designation one which will in the long run attract

less funding? Is it somehow in a different category? There doesn't appear to be

any explanation as to why that was chosen.

In Great Britain there were a number of post-secondary educational

institutions which were called polytechnics. In fact, that was a term that was

used widely. Then, succumbing to some of the same pressures and temptations, I

suppose, as the minister has succumbed to in this bill, they were all

redesignated and renamed as universities.

I'm at a loss to understand the combination of university and

polytechnic. I'm sure that at committee stage, should we ever get there, the

minister will want to explain that, because there is some anxiety that that

means less funding in the long run.

One of the strengths of the university colleges and the college

system in general has been their ability to offer small classes in academic

subjects. The board at Kwantlen is justifiably proud of the fact that in the

university transfer program, those students who are educated in first and second

year at Kwantlen and who then are accepted at, for example, Simon Fraser

University, where their credentials and their accomplishments are recognized….

Their academic performance is as good as those students at SFU who took their

first and second year at Simon Fraser itself.

The classes are smaller. There are no big, lecture-type courses in

which there are 100 or 150 students in a first-year lecture. The teaching aspect

of the colleges has been something that I'm sure that the minister will want to

preserve.

The other thing about the colleges is that they do offer a broad

range of education. Just yesterday in the Committee on Public Accounts, the

committee was reviewing a report from the Auditor General about the progress of

the government in achieving literacy goals. Colleges, in some of the programs

that they have offered up till now, although there's financial pressure…. Some

of these very excellent programs are going to be forced to be closed by the

minister not keeping his three-year commitment on the budget.

There are a number of excellent programs which deal with and help

those adults who wish to improve their literacy skills, their ability to read

and write. What the report from the Auditor General said is that some 40 percent

of adults in British Columbia don't read and write at a level that's compatible

with the kinds of demands that we face in contemporary society. In other words,

they need some help in increasing their skills.

Colleges provide that kind of education. They also provide

education in a broad range of pre-trade courses, which prepare people for taking

a trade. They also prepare people for acquiring trade credentials, and some of

those programs are very successful.

Last year the Finance Committee visited briefly at the College of

the Rockies in Cranbrook. There were some welding courses there, which were

oversubscribed, where employers were looking to hire the graduates. Virtually as

they walked out the door on the last day of school, they walked into full-time

employment.

[1450]

These are very effective institutions in meeting some of the

demands that employers have and meeting the aspirations of students and their

families. The pressure to change to universities…. I suppose, again, the anxiety

is that…. Although they are designated teaching universities, the concern among

many of those who teach, some of those who attend and in the broader community

is that a university implies more of a focus, understandably, on academic

programs and less of a focus on the broad range of programs that the college

system in British Columbia so effectively offers. So it is to be regretted if

that is the intention and the direction that the government chooses to take.

I suppose one would ask from the perspective of those remaining

colleges, of which there are many: how is one to be viewed as a college that

continues with the title "college"? Of course, there are a number. I mentioned

the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook. I could mention Douglas College,

Langara College, the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, the North Island

College, Northern Lights College in Dawson Creek, Northwest Community College in

Terrace and Selkirk College in Castlegar.

How are these institutions going to be viewed in the future, when

the minister is moving some of those institutions in the direction of being

called teaching universities? Is there a stratification that's taking place? And

is a new tier of institution being created, which will attract the momentum for

its own funding that will be different and greater than those of the existing

colleges?

If the argument about colleges being held in less esteem is one to

which there's credence given…. How are those colleges to meet the challenge of

attracting students and continuing to offer the programs that they do if the

message that's being sent out, directly or indirectly,

[ Page 12419 ]

subtly or subconsciously, is that somehow they are institutions which are

inferior?

I note that my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge appears to

have an introduction to make. I will give way briefly for him to do that.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today up in the gallery, we have 30

grade 5 students from Panorama Park Elementary School in the Surrey–Panorama

Ridge riding. They're also accompanied by teachers and parents. I will ask the

members from both sides to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Ralston: The concern is that those institutions that

remain, of which there are many…. I haven't recited a complete list, but they

are set throughout the province. They're actively engaged in offering a wide

range of programs to citizens. They will be viewed in a different light, and

their task — in developing their curricula, in attracting students, in building

strong faculty and in satisfying the wishes of employers and the aspirations of

students — will be made more difficult by this stratification of institutions

that the minister is introducing.

Really, I suppose the crux of the concern is that with this new

designation comes no more money. It's ironic, indeed, as the member for

Victoria-Hillside has pointed out, that at a time when the minister has not

honoured his commitment of a three-year budget, there's no further money coming

to any of these institutions, despite the change of name.

The minister, in his response, always said: "Well, the budgets

have increased." Indeed they have, but the critical point for budget planning is

that there was a commitment made. There was a three-year expectation. A

three-year budget was set out, and the colleges and institutions and

universities were encouraged to believe — because they accepted what the

minister and his staff said — that that opportunity and their budget plans could

rest secure in the knowledge that that funding was forthcoming.

[1455]

Setting out a budget and creating a budget…. As all legislators

here know, and those who follow politics or those who have even done a budget in

the parent advisory committee or for the soccer team or anything like that,

setting out a budget is not always something that's easy and can be adjusted at

the snap of a finger.

Certainly, when you're trying to plan forward, it becomes very

difficult when your expectations of programs that you're going to offer are

confounded by a sudden and inexplicable reversal by the minister concerned.

That's the position that colleges and institutions have found themselves in this

spring, notwithstanding the commitment that was made previously.

I want to quote from a few people who are very knowledgable and

who are leaders in the field of education in the province, who make submissions

regularly to the Finance Committee and to the minister. For example, Robert

Clift, who works with the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, says:

"Given the funding cuts at this point, it sounds

to me like they're getting something in name as opposed to substance. The main

thing that would concern me is…. If the government wants to create new

universities, fine. They should be moving to create good, quality

universities. At this point in the game, it looks to be a bit more window

dressing than substantive."

That's a very measured response, as one might expect from someone in his

position, but it's certainly a profound disagreement with what the minister has

said and really, I suppose, a measure of disappointment at the direction that's

being taken here. He went on to say:

"We have a number of existing universities now

which have less money than they were supposed to. Not that the folks in these

communities don't deserve university education — they certainly do — but the

question is: are they going to get it under the current funding restrictions?"

I, in pursuit of my duties as a member of the Legislature, have

met with the senior officials, the president and the people responsible for

Simon Fraser University in Surrey. They have made the point that the student

body that has been attracted to the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser is at least 50

percent of students who live in Surrey.

When one looks at the statistics about participation in

post-secondary education, that particular geographic area south of the Fraser is

under-represented by students in post-secondary education. So there is a real

need for post-secondary education at the university level in the

south-of-the-Fraser region.

What experts confirm is that for lower-income students, for

working-class parents, for middle-class parents whose budgets are pinched, the

closer the institution is to the home of the student, the easier it is to attend

university and gain that education. It's much more difficult when it becomes

necessary to pay for a separate residence or to pay…. Particularly these days,

with the plethora of taxes on the cost of gasoline for commuting, the further

distance you have to travel, the more expensive it becomes.

At that point, participation by those students who are

under-represented in post-secondary education…. Certainly, the institutions have

expressed the concern that they don't participate at the same rate and are

anxious to attract them to post-secondary education. The absence of spaces at

that level becomes a problem.

Yet Simon Fraser University, SFU, is faced with the same kind of

budgetary tightening and restrictions. They've expressed this publicly. Mr.

Warren Gill, for example, who is a senior vice-president at Simon Fraser, has

expressed the concern that the breaking of the budgetary commitment of the

three-year time line is forcing Simon Fraser University to make those kinds of

cutbacks.

[1500]

The substitution of the university designation at Kwantlen, now

Polytechnic University…. Because there won't be any additional funding, there

won't be

[ Page 12420 ]

any new spaces. The programs will continue the same. They, too, are facing

the same 2.6 percent reduction of their anticipated funding. It will compound

the problem.

Indeed, business leaders south of the Fraser who have been anxious

and advocated…. SFU Surrey, originally a separate technical university, came

about because there was a citizens' movement, not only in that part of Surrey

but in the Fraser Valley, asking that a university be established there for all

the reasons that I've set out. There is a demand for it. There is community

support for it.

Unfortunately, the steps that the government is taking here are,

in the words of Mr. Clift; "more window dressing than substantive." So the

concern that I have is shared in the riding that I represent and in the Fraser

Valley, generally south of the river.

The other concern that I want to raise briefly before I close is

that, typically, in a university…. A university is an institution. The first

universities in Europe were established, I think, in Bologna in the 11th

century, in Paris in the 12th century and in Oxford and Cambridge probably

around the same time. I'm not sure of the time exactly, but they were medieval

institutions which possessed a high degree of autonomy.

That tradition continues in the sense that, even despite the

linkage with government and the funding that comes from government, there's a

certain measure of autonomy in governing their own affairs. One of perhaps the

symbolic acts of independence is the election of the chancellor, who is the

titular head of the university. But in this act, chancellors of these

universities — contrary to the tradition of virtually, I suppose, 1,000 years —

will be appointed rather than elected by the alumni, the faculty and the

students.

That may sound to some people as though it's a minor quibble or

it's really a matter of form and not substance, but it is symbolic in expressing

the manner in which these new universities are viewed by the government. It

really is, as Mr. Clift said, more about window dressing than substance. If they

were creating, indeed, high-quality universities in the tradition of

universities, that kind of step wouldn't be taken. That failure to permit

chancellors to be elected is really symbolic of the whole action of the

government in promulgating and putting forward this legislation.

So there are concerns that must be raised at committee stage —

particularly, in my case, why Kwantlen is being called Kwantlen Polytechnic

University. Is there is any significance to that in terms of the prospect of

future funding or the regard with which the institution is held by the

administration at the ministry or in the plans for its development or the range

of curricula that it will be able to offer in relation to others? It's the only

one in the group, and it's so far the only one in the province. Although I've

met regularly, at the invitation of the board and the president of Kwantlen over

the years…. I've never heard that particular name floated before. So I would, at

committee stage, like an answer to that.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this. I think

I've now concluded my remarks on this bill, and I will turn to any colleagues

who wish to add their comments to the debate.

[1505]

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to stand up here and

address the House on Bill 34, the University Amendment Act.

With what I did in a former life, education to me has always been

an enabling situation. It's an opportunity that has provided to individuals a

chance to open many doors for themselves right through their lives, at whatever

times in their lives they may decide to pursue various aspects.

With that in mind, I rise to speak to this particular bill because

of a concern I have. This is simply a bill that is rebranding existing

organizations and, in rebranding them, actually hasn't changed the situation at

all. In actual fact, it may have created a different set of compounding aspects

for education.

I would like to come back to my riding of Cariboo South, where the

minister and I have had a number of opportunities to discuss this particular

aspect of post-secondary education and its significance. We have had

conversations about the distinction between providing capital costs and

providing operating costs. It is the provision of the operating costs that

actually provides the programs, and it's the programs that are the enabling

aspect of this post-secondary education. When we look at operation versus

capital, we need to have a look at the operating funds — their limitation and

their availability.

Recently there was an announced reduction of 2.6 percent in the

operating funds that had been promised to the existing post-secondary education

facilities across the province. In Cariboo South that is a concern. The

long-term stability over three years, which is very important to providing for

programming, became jeopardized once more.

The community has been very appreciative of the support that the

minister has shown in the capital aspect in Williams Lake. However, that is

separate from establishing the population to fill those buildings, to make it

available. Now, this particular campus has the function of providing this

post-secondary training closer to home. Therefore, the costs become remarkably

reduced for the student — whether it be a single parent, whether it be a senior,

whether it be a recent graduate from high school.

Those are some of the aspects that I referred to earlier about the

enabling part. I become concerned because at this moment in time we do not know

yet the effect as a result of these funding cuts on the programs that will be

offered in the Williams Lake campus.

In speaking about this particular bill, I don't wish to leave the

impression that I'm here simply throwing some stones at a name change. But there

are other people that are also more directly connected with these facilities

likewise raising the same concern that I'm bringing forward here in the House

about the reduction of operating capital funds available.

[ Page 12421 ]

I would like to take a moment to share with you one of the

concerns from one of those individuals. This is from Mr. Nilson, the president

of Malaspina University College, who supports the bill but discusses the funding

aspect of it. "No funding came with this announcement, but what it does is it

allows us to compete and partner with other institutions in other ways that I

think is really going to provide us with some exciting opportunities." He

identifies the underlying aspect about the lack of funding that is accompanying

the name change.

[1510]

I'm from an area that has been experiencing what happens when the

programs are not funded. It doesn't allow that particular building to develop

and grow and satisfy and look after the needs of its community. The area that

I'm from — as you're very familiar with, Madam Speaker — is undergoing one of

the most traumatic social changes that it has experienced. It is undergoing

major challenges in the forest industry, which we have been debating time in and

time out in this House. It is that enabling retraining that has been referred to

as being crucial for re-empowering the people that are being affected by what is

happening in the forest industry.

How are we, here in this House, reconciling all of these

contradictions? On one hand, we say that we support these things being

available. Yet four weeks ago the funding was reduced. It is that lack of

consistency — the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing — that

concerns me.

It isn't the necessity of changing the names, but it's this aspect

of simply not providing the long-term stability and the operating funds so that

the programs become established and the communities know that they will exist

and be there on an ongoing basis and they, in turn, can do their planning around

staying and using those facilities in their own communities.

If we're not looking after the facilities that we already have in

place, if we're not funding them as per the plans set by the government and

treasury, how can we expect the communities to develop the stability to use

those facilities? That is why I'm here speaking on Bill 34, the University

Amendment Act.

Names changes in themselves are potentially harmless. However, if

in changing the names all we are doing is creating false security, if in

changing names all we're doing is rebranding, if in changing names all we're

doing is attempting to distract from what the left hand is doing — reducing

operating funds, from the community being able to understand what is really

happening in their post-secondary education…. It is those concerns that concern

me.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Minister of

Advanced Education. Earlier I acknowledged his efforts. Earlier I acknowledged

what he has done to this point in time. But I still do not see, nor am I

convinced, that this component around operating funds has been satisfactorily

addressed for my area and my constituency.

[1515]

It is with that, Madam Speaker, that I am here in front of you,

appreciating the opportunity that you have provided. I could talk about changes

to the independence of universities. Universities generally are independent and

work independently. That is something that has existed with those organizations

for a very, very long time, as long as we can go back in our culture. It has

been the practice that universities are run somewhat at arm's length from

government. I become concerned when I look at the bill and I see contained

within the bill that the chancellor now becomes an appointee of the government,

whoever the government may be.

The credibility of these particular organizations requires that

independence. That is how they develop and grow their reputations. That is how

they develop and strengthen their programs. To have the chancellor become an

extension or an appointee of any government, I would question.

I've appreciated this opportunity to stand in the House and raise

these concerns. I've raised them with the minister on the area of operating

funds. I would seek his assurances that those distinctions will be made, that

these communities, likewise, will not be misled, that this is not simply a

rebranding and meant to throw up some smoke on that significant part.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, I call on the

Minister of Advanced Education to conclude debate.

Hon. M. Coell: I can say that I am shocked and appalled by

the comments of the critic for Advanced Education. I have been in this House 12

years. I don't think I've ever seen anyone insult so many people in such a short

period of time.

The critic speaks for the NDP. He speaks for every one of those

members over there. When he calls the bill "hard to take seriously," "a bit of a

farce," "cheap political theatre," he's speaking for all the members over there.

I want to ask the member for Nanaimo: does he agree with his

critic that Nanaimo should not have a university? Well, on this side of the

House we believe Nanaimo deserves a university, and we're making sure they get

one. I can tell you that Nanaimo…. When a thousand people show up — the faculty,

the students, the board, the chambers of commerce…. The people of that city want

a university. They deserve a university. And this side of the House is going to

give them a university.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Coell: The member from Cowichan speaks. Would you

not like to have a university campus in Duncan? That's what you're going to get

— a university campus in Duncan.

The critic insults the entire community of Duncan, of Nanaimo. His

words will come back to haunt him. I guarantee it.

All I heard was opposed to the bill. As I said: "The bill can't be

taken seriously. It's a bit of a farce. It's cheap political theatre."

[ Page 12422 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'd ask the members from Surrey: do they not need a university in

Surrey? Do they not support a university in Surrey?

I don't know why the members would let the critic oppose a bill.

He spoke in opposition for over an hour, spoke in opposition to everything about

new universities. I have not seen anyone insult so many people.

When we went to the Fraser Valley, there were a thousand people

there — students, faculty members, members of the community. The critic, who

speaks for the NDP, says that it's hard to take them seriously? Well, if the

critic can't take the University College of the Fraser Valley seriously and he

can't have it being made into a university, I think that's a little hard to take

for the people of the valley.

[1520]

He said he just couldn't understand Capilano. Why would the member

from the Sunshine Coast actually sign the petition to have it become a

university? But it's not good enough for the critic. He insults that entire

community right up the North Shore to the Sunshine Coast, to Pemberton, to

Whistler. That member has insulted every member of that community, and I hope

the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will set him straight. I hope he'll

set him straight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: You know, one of the biggest insults…. A

couple of members of the opposition, who speak for all of the NDP, commented

about Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design. It's 83 years old, solely

degree-oriented, has produced some of the great artists in Canada, and they

don't think it should be a university. They speak in opposition. How could you

insult the entire arts community of British Columbia by saying that it can't be

taken seriously, that it's a bit of a farce, that it's cheap political theatre?

Maybe the member should check the Hansard and see what else

he said that might come back to haunt him, because I can't remember a time when

one member insulted more members in this House and more British Columbians….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Coell: Well, Members, I think the critic, who

speaks for the NDP, should go back and read Hansard …

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: …and just see how many people they insulted.

The thousands and thousands of people who showed up at these announcements

weren't there just for cheap political theatre. They weren't there for just no

reason. I think you should have been there.

In speaking in opposition, I hope they have the guts enough to

vote in opposition. It's one thing to sit there and say: "Oh, these aren't good

ideas. Oh, these people don't deserve universities in their regions, and the

arts community certainly doesn't deserve a university of Emily Carr."

I don't know what the members are talking about, but they

certainly weren't speaking in favour of this motion. This is a motion that

creates five new universities in the province of British Columbia, and the

communities want them. The individuals who attend them want them. I don't know

how he could insult the students in five of our institutions by saying they're

not worthy of having a university. How could he say that? I can't believe it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: The NDP can talk a bad lot….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Coell: The member, again, for Cowichan-Ladysmith

doesn't want to see a university college campus or a university campus in

Duncan? I would certainly hope he would.

I certainly hope you'd support the students in your riding. I'd

certainly hope you support the faculty and the staff who all want to see these

become universities.

Let's talk about funding. A 40 percent increase in my budget in

our term in government. A billion and a half dollars in infrastructure in my

ministry. The funny thing is that they all voted against that too. The NDP voted

against every bit of it. They talk against everything. They vote against

everything.

I said I was shocked and appalled at the comments of the critic,

the member for Victoria-Hillside, and the insults that he has made. Believe me,

they've been heard.

This is a great opportunity for British Columbia. We have a great

post-secondary education system in this province, and it's going to get better

in the years to come. I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Coell: I would move the bill be referred to

Committee of the Whole for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, University Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

S. Simpson: Leave to make an introduction?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[ Page 12423 ]

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased. I believe we've

been joined here by some students, I think 29 students, and five teachers and

adults from Our Lady of Sorrows School, who are here visiting us and enjoying

the lively debate of the Legislature. I hope you'll all make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call Bill 38, Protected Areas of

British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, for second

reading.

Second Reading of Bills

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

With Bill 38, the Protected Areas of British Columbia

(Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, our province is once again

demonstrating international leadership in the establishment of protected areas.

Bill 38 will add more than 990,000 hectares of British Columbia, an area

approximately twice the size of Prince Edward Island, to B.C.'s parks and

protected areas system, establishing 70 conservancies and 11 class A parks.

[1525]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

These amendments represent one of the largest single additions to

the parks and protected areas system in the history of British Columbia, both in

terms of the area and the number of sites. In fact, I believe that it is the

single largest number of protected areas established at one time.

These new conservancies and parks have, for the most part, been

identified through a multi-stakeholder land use planning process and extensive

government-to-government discussions with first nations in the plan areas. The

establishment of these new conservancies and parks is an outstanding example of

what can be achieved when individual citizens, environmental groups, resource

industries, first nations and local governments are committed to the task of

land use planning.

These amendments continue the implementation of land use decisions

for the central coast and north coast that the Premier announced in February

2006. Hon. Speaker, 24 new conservancies were designated in that year, and a

further 41 conservancies identified in the north coast and central coast land

use decisions were legally designated in 2007.

With these amendments that we're debating today, another 50 new

conservancies will be created as a result of those discussions, and two existing

conservancies will be expanded. These new conservancies and additions will cover

660,000 hectares. In addition, two existing protected areas established under

the Environment and Land Use Act will be converted to conservancies.

These conservancies, as with all conservancies, recognize the

importance of these areas to first nations by ensuring that they will be able to

use the resources in these areas to sustain their communities and their cultural

connections to the land.

These new conservancies also enhance the protection of the

environment and the opportunities for sustainable recreational uses, such as

wildlife viewing, for all British Columbians and people from around the world.

These areas include intact and functioning ecosystems, including old-growth

forests that support keystone species such as salmon and grizzly bears. There

are also features that draw interest for recreational activity, such as hot

springs and anchorages that provide safe havens for boaters.

Just to give the House a flavour of the outstanding natural,

recreational and cultural landscapes that are being protected in these new

conservancies, I would now like to read a few descriptions of some of these

special places. This is a part of my legislative duties that I face with some

trepidation every year, as I seek to make my best efforts in accurately

pronouncing a number of the terms and names in the legislation. So please bear

with me. I ask for the members' forgiveness in advance.

Lucy Islands conservancy is in the north coast planning area. This

conservancy contains a number of small islands and rocky islets located in

Chatham Sound. There's a quiet lagoon enclosed by sandy beaches, and many reefs

and wooded lands. Lucy Islands and the surrounding rocky islets provide prime

seabird colony habitat. An estimated 50,000 birds use the area, including

something known as the rhinoceros auklet and black oystercatcher colonies.

The shallows south of the islands offer excellent fishing, making

the Lucy Islands a popular destination for Prince Rupert residents. These

islands are also frequented by kayakers crossing from Prince Rupert to the

Melville and Dundas islands.

This conservancy is an important area for first nation

resource-gathering and is within the asserted traditional territories of the

Coast Tsimshian First Nation.

The Ksgaxl–Stephens Island conservancy, at 14,018 hectares in

size, is in the north coast planning area. The large, sheltered marine inlets of

this conservancy are important wetland habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl,

including many red-listed and blue-listed species.

Recreation opportunities in this conservancy include camping,

kayaking, fishing and diving. The conservancy is also an important area for

traditional gathering. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional

territory of the Coast Tsimshian First Nation.

The Upper Kimsquit River conservancy is being established pursuant

to the land use decision for the central coast planning area. The Upper Kimsquit

River conservancy is the highest-ranked watershed for

[ Page 12424 ]

biodiversity on the central coast. This conservancy will protect the unique

grizzly bear habitat feature not found anywhere else in British Columbia.

After spawning in Kimsquit Lake, adult sockeye salmon carcasses

often freeze in the lake in winter. As they thaw in the spring, they become an

important source of protein for grizzly bears as they emerge from hibernation.

This is in the area of the Kitlope, Fiordland and Tweedsmuir areas, and the

bears gather in the Upper Kimsquit River area to take advantage of this feeding

opportunity.

[1530]

The Upper Kimsquit also receives extensive use by deer and

mountain goat populations and is one of the few coastal drainages that support a

resident moose population. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional

territories of the Nuxalk and Heiltsuk First Nations.

The Gitxaala Nii Luutiksm–Kitkatla conservancy, located

approximately 30 kilometres southwest of Prince Rupert, is being expanded by

1,489 hectares. This addition includes a key recreational anchorage at Welcome

Harbour and important cultural and heritage uses in the Henry Island and Dancey

Island areas. The total area of the conservancy will be 29,539 hectares.

In addition, this bill will complete the implementation of new

protected areas identified in these historic land use decisions. Overall,

approximately 1.9 million hectares of spectacular and ecologically rich land in

the world's largest intact temperate rain forest will now be protected for the

enjoyment of this generation and future generations.

In addition to completing the implementation of the central coast

and north coast land use decisions, Bill 38 implements the protected areas

arising from the Morice land and resource management plan. These amendments

establish six new class A parks and seven new conservancies, totalling more than

132,000 hectares in the Morice plan area north of Tweedsmuir Provincial Park.

The Morice LRMP is a result of the province's collaborative

partnerships with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, the Lake Babine Nation, the

Nedo'ats hereditary chiefs and the Yekooche First Nation, as well as industry

and local communities.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

These new conservancies and parks protect important recreation

sites on Babine Lakes — areas that are important first nation cultural values —

and representative forest communities, wetlands and river ecosystems.

Through these amendments our government is also beginning the

implementation of the Sea to Sky and Haida Gwaii land use plans. In the Sea to

Sky land use planning area, which encompasses over one million hectares around

the communities of Pemberton, Squamish and Whistler, nine new conservancies are

being established, and two existing class A provincial parks are being expanded

with these amendments. The nine new conservancies account for over 44,000

hectares of new protected area.

In addition, 627 hectares are being added to Birkenhead Lake

Provincial Park. This addition further protects important habitat for a variety

of wildlife, including spotted owl, mountain goat and grizzly bears. The total

area of the park will be 10,441 hectares or, translating it to a term that other

people may better identify with, about 26,000 acres.

Another 1,953 hectares are being added to Duffey Lake Provincial

Park to further protect wildlife habitat for mountain goats and bears. This

addition virtually doubles the size of the existing park. This area is

culturally important to first nations and provides important resource-gathering

and harvesting opportunities. The total area of the park will be 4,048 hectares.

Once again, the participation of first nations in

government-to-government discussions was a critical element of the process

leading to identification of the new protected areas. The Lil'wat, the

In-SHUCK-ch, the Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish Nation all worked with this

government to complete this land use plan, building on the recommendations of

the public planning table submitted in 2004.

Two new conservancies are also being established in these

amendments as a result of the Haida Gwaii land use agreement with the Haida

Nation. Together, the Duu Guusd and the Yaaguun Suu conservancies encompass over

147,000 hectares in Haida Gwaii to protect ecosystems, resources of cultural

importance to the Haida — particularly cedar — and support tourism opportunities

on the islands.

These amendments also continue the implementation of the Okanagan

and Shuswap land and resource management plan by establishing four class A parks

and converting one existing Environment and Land Use Act protected area to class

A park status. The four new class A parks were identified as special feature

sites by the land use planning table.

Implementation of these sites was dependent on the resolution of

outstanding land use issues, such as road access. These issues have been

resolved, and I'm pleased to now legally establish these areas, according to the

wishes of the planning tables, and of course assuming support from the

Legislature.

The class A parks being established are Wap Creek, Eagle River,

Denison-Bonneau and Mara Meadows. Each of these was identified by the planning

table because they contain rare or special values that were worthy of permanent

protection as a class A provincial park.

[1535]

Denison-Bonneau, for example, contains high-elevation lakes known

for their trout fishery. Eagle River protects part of the riparian zone on the

Eagle River, which contains important spawning and rearing habitat for sockeye,

coho and chinook salmon. Mara Meadows protects a major portion of Mara Creek and

complements protections of rare plant communities in adjacent ecological

reserves. Wap Creek contains important salmon and moose habitat and first

nations cultural and spiritual values.

The existing Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park is being expanded by

adding 2,223 hectares of land that

[ Page 12425 ]

are currently designated as a protected area under the Environment and Land

Use Act. Adding these lands to the park enhances protection of spawning and

rearing habitat for kokanee and dry open Interior Douglas fir upland forest

habitats that support a range of provincially listed species. The total area of

the park will be 3,218 hectares.

Another class A provincial park being established on the central

coast is this time the result of a private land acquisition. The government has

partnered with the B.C. Marine Parks Forever Society and the Land Conservancy of

British Columbia to purchase 88 hectares of private property at Allison Harbour

near Cape Caution. The province has added a foreshore component to the park for

a total of 132 hectares.

This harbour is the last safe anchorage for northbound boaters

making the voyage around Cape Caution. This park will also provide habitat for

grey whales in the summer and is within the traditional territory of the

Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nation.

We are also expanding two marine parks off the east coast of

Vancouver Island by adding a foreshore component. So 27 hectares of land and 310

hectares of foreshore are being added to Jedediah Island Marine Park. This

expansion surrounds Jedediah Island and includes a number of small islands

nearby. This addition protects the rich marine biodiversity of the sensitive

ecosystem and increases the amount of rare and endangered plant habitat and

seabird nest sites within the province's system of protected areas. The total

area of the park will be 603 hectares — 293 hectares of upland and 310 hectares

of foreshore.

Sabine Channel Marine Park is also being expanded by 69 hectares

of upland and 2,090 hectares of foreshore. This expansion surrounds Jervis and

Bunny islands, Finnerty islands, and Fegan and Larsen islets in Tucker Bay on

Lasqueti Island. This addition will protect one of the least modified and

developed areas in the Strait of Georgia. The total area of the park will be

2,254 hectares, and that's 164 hectares of upland and 2,090 hectares of

foreshore. These parks are both popular destinations for kayakers.

Finally, the amendments in Bill 38 contain several boundary

changes of an administrative or housekeeping nature that are part of the regular

business of protected areas management. For example, we are shifting the

descriptions of two ecological reserves, Vladimir J. Krajina and Lepas Bay, from

schedule B of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to

schedule A of the

act.

We're doing this because official map plans have now been prepared

for these ecological reserves,

whereas the ecological reserves in

schedule B are

those which are described by reference to the original orders-in-council that

created them. No land is being added to or removed from these ecological

reserves.

Similarly, we are including Silver Star Provincial Park in

schedule C of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Silver Star was

established by order-in-council and has not been included in the schedules to

the act before because of a pending land transaction. That transaction, I'm

advised, has now been completed, and so it's appropriate to include Silver Star

in

schedule C of the legislation. This means that land cannot be removed from

the park without

an act of the Legislature.

Also, the boundaries of six provincial parks and two conservancies

are being modified to remove pre-existing Forest Service roads and mineral

claims, correct errors in earlier boundary descriptions and enable highway

improvements. The net effect of these changes is to remove 253 hectares from

these eight areas.

The largest of these is the removal of approximately 100 hectares

from Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to remove the right-of-way for Highway 113

from within the park's boundaries. This will enable the Ministry of

Transportation to manage the right-of-way and to conduct necessary maintenance

works without affecting the park.

[1540]

These amendments are the culmination of working partnerships

between first nations, conservation groups, industry, communities and this

government to find solutions that keep everybody's interests in mind while

building a province that is prosperous and a world leader in protecting our

environment. I look forward to other comments that members may wish to make at

this time.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join the

debate on Bill 38, the Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and

Parks) Amendment Act, 2008.

As the minister said in his comments, this is a bill that does

bring forward a number of conservancies. I believe there are about 70

conservancies and 11 new class A parks. It does, in large part, complete the

commitment around conservancies in the central coast and north coast LRMPs,

better known by some as the Great Bear.

It is a package. There are some questions about that, and I will

get at some of those questions in the next few minutes. Essentially, the bill is

a bill that we will support. We will have some questions now, and we certainly

will be looking for some clarification when we get to committee stage.

The bill certainly goes ahead and does much of the work that I

know there was some anxiety around among some of the environmental or

conservation groups that had done work around the Great Bear to see these

conservancies brought in. I know they are pleased to see that, but I also know

there is some concern in this package.

What we don't have here is a set of maps. We don't have maps

available to give us specifics of the boundaries there. I'm sure those maps will

become available, but we haven't been able to tie down the maps for the large

range of conservancies.

Of course, determining what those boundaries are is an important

part of this work, and we look forward to seeing those. Hopefully, those maps

will be available before we get to committee stage of the review of the bill so

that if there are questions around specific boundaries of the specific

conservancies or parks that

[ Page 12426 ]

are identified, we'll be able to have that discussion and we'll be able to

reference — as will the minister — those maps.

The other questions. This is a question that has been raised to me

by a number of people who have looked at this piece of legislation. They are

people who in large part are in support of the legislation, but they do have

concerns. Their concerns revolve around the question of implementation as well.

If you look at the commencement

section of the legislation, it

provides for commencement with specific sections being identified as

commencement not occurring until regulations are put in place by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by cabinet — on sections 5, 7 and 9 to 11. What

those sections do is identify the bulk of the conservancies that are in this

piece of legislation.

So while the bill comes through and will pass and be in place, it

leaves a lot of questions unanswered that potentially are answered through

regulation by the cabinet. That's an area where we certainly will want to have

some discussion when we get to committee stage — about why that is and what the

intention of that is.

Particularly for the 51-odd conservancies that fall within what is

known as the Great Bear, there's some question about whether there is any

potential for changes on what the commitments to those boundaries are. I'm very

hopeful that the commitment is to the boundaries as they were originally

identified. The Minister of Agriculture and Lands, who had responsibility for

much of the negotiation around those land use agreements, has stated recently

that that would be his intention. It was to confirm that they would hold to

those boundaries.

We'll be looking to be very clear about that and specific — that

in fact those boundaries, as they were identified back in 2006, continue to be

the boundaries in play when the maps become available. So we'll be looking for

that information.

There are also issues that have been raised around some of the

very specific conservancies here. We've seen some of those concerns. You'll know

that there's been a great deal of discussion at different times around private

power projects and their relationship in some of these conservancies.

[1545]

We know there are at least five significant projects or packages

of projects that are aimed at in a number of the conservancies: the Klinaklini,

Europa, Cascade-Sutslem, plus two that have already been legislated, Banks

Island and Crab.

They're all conservancies where there is discussion continuing

about the notion of private power, other activity, resource development

activity. So the question here will be: what is the government's intention in

relation to that? Once these conservancies are legislated, will the boundaries

stay true? Will there be changes within those boundaries? Is that part of the

reason why commencement is being held back for a number of these?

I know there's a reference made here to further discussions with

first nations, which I understand and appreciate, but I may well be looking to

get some clarification about how long we are holding back this commencement.

There's been some suggestion that it's for 30 days. Is it for 30 days? Is it for

a longer period of time? What is the intention, and what commitments can we get

out of the minister as to when, in fact, that commencement will happen so that

those boundaries will be locked in?

When we look at some of these issues, we also know there are

questions related to…. There's been a lot of mail back and forth and a lot of

discussion back and forth in particular around one of the areas, and that is the

entire area of the Klinaklini conservancy. Now, it's been put in

schedule F, and

schedule F provides the lowest level of protection of all the opportunities that

are available under legislation.

Because it does open up that conservancy for activity, the total

of some 37,000 hectares is potentially there for road use or to accommodate

resource activities. We also know there is a major private power project

interested in the area. To be fair, we expect there would need to be a boundary

change to allow that to occur, but all of that activity is looked at.

So we're going to need to have some discussion with the minister,

particularly when we get to committee stage. We'll be looking to have more

detailed discussion about what exactly the government's thinking is around the

Klinaklini area. Why did they put it into

schedule F? Why have those protections

not been provided — the full protection that's expected on a number of the other

conservancies? We'll be looking forward to having the minister tell us what

protections will be there, what the expectations are around that particular

conservancy area and what will happen there.

We'll be asking questions even when we move away from those areas.

We know that in the Sea to Sky LRMP, a release that came out in April certainly

talked about the wildlands zones, where mineral development and tourism are

permitted, and where maintaining cultural, recreational and wilderness values is

the focus. We'll be looking for a little bit of clarification from the minister

about what the expectations are, about what activities will in fact be allowed

in the Sea to Sky LRMP and what he expects in terms of those areas and what will

occur there.

Why has this additional step been put in, and will the minister be

able to clarify in committee why this additional step was put in to delay

commencement on the bulk of the conservancies here? Is the government making

firm commitments around how it will deal with potential applications around

boundary changes? What is it going to tell us about that process?

We know we were through the process at Pinecone Burke Park. What

will the process be, particularly for those conservancies and those areas where

we know the question of private power projects is in play?

We'll certainly be asking questions about why all of the

Klinaklini is in

schedule F and looking for some assurances from the government,

from the minister, that the ecological integrity of this conservancy will be

maintained over time. That will be a serious question for us around that

particular piece.

[1550]

[ Page 12427 ]

As these issues move forward, particularly around the area where

the bulk of this work has been done — where the bulk of the conservancies rest —

we know that up around the central and north coast, we'll also be looking for an

opportunity…. We may find this in committee, or we may have to find this through

debate here.

I believe it was in the minister's comments, in his introduction

of the bill, where he talked about this. I would agree, substantively completing

the work in terms of the designation of the conservancies for the central and

north coast LRMPs.

What we do know, though, is that there are still questions to be

asked around those conservancies. The dedication of those conservancies

certainly doesn't complete the work. We'll be looking for information about when

and how we might expect the management plans for those conservancies will be

developed. There's a requirement for management plans for all of those

conservancies to be developed, and we'll be looking for information on that.

We know there's probably almost another 300,000 hectares of

biodiversity areas which have an increased level of protection within some of

those areas. We'll be looking for some information about the commitments on

those 300,000 hectares of biodiversity areas. That will be an important question

for us that we'll be looking at trying to deal with.

I know this is an issue that is of concern to a number of the

conservancy organizations that the minister referenced in his comments, which

have been participants around the Great Bear and the work that has been going on

around ecosystem-based management and other things. There are regional plan

expectations for the conservancies, particularly for those parts of the

conservancies that are outside the protected areas. There's a commitment to

regional planning that has not been completed.

The expectation, I know, of those organizations — I know it's the

expectation of a number of the first nations, and it certainly is reflected in

the comments that were made at the introduction of this in 2006 — is around the

question of whether those regional plans will be completed by March of next

year, which is the expectation in terms of the framework that's been agreed to

around the LRMPs. We don't know what the intention will be around that, but we

will be looking for further information.

We will be supporting the bill at second reading, but we are

hopeful that we will soon see maps so that we can confirm all of these

conservancies, and that we will get answers to the questions around why there is

a delay in the commencement of the majority of these conservancies and what that

delay is likely to be and what the rationale for it is, with a little more

explanation than "consultation with first nations." We'll be looking for a bit

more explanation than that.

We'll be looking at some of the key issues around what the

government is and isn't thinking around the allowances for resource development,

whether it be private power projects or other resource development and road

development in the conservancies — what the expectations are there and how those

areas that are believed to be and desired to be protected areas will be

protected.

Then, of course, there's the whole question around the management

of these conservancies — how they're going to be managed and getting those

management plans in place. We know that will be such an integral part of the

success of the conservancies.

You designate the land, and that's all a very good thing. Or you

designate the marine areas, and that's all a very good thing. But you need to

put management plans in place that work for everybody, which get sign-off from

all the legitimate interests — the first nations and other community interests

that are there — and be able to move forward with those. And absolutely, the

regional planning we know is expected to be completed by March of next year.

I know there's concern that the work hasn't been fulfilled on

that. It's my understanding that the federal government, as a participant,

contributed about $30 million to this process. There was an expectation that the

provincial government would be matching those dollars to create the pot of money

that would allow the planning that needs to go on to occur.

Those regional plans would deal with a whole array of issues

including some of the management issues, resource management issues. That

planning hasn't been done. We know it's a long way from being complete based on

conversations we've had with parties that reasonably expect to be participants

in that planning process.

[1555]

They certainly feel there's an awful lot of work to be done in a

very short period of time to get those plans in place. It's very important that

those plans do get in place, particularly if we're going to put in the kind of

management structures around resource management that we expect. So we'll be

looking for that to occur.

I'm sure I have colleagues here who are looking to speak to this

bill, and with that, I will take my place and leave it to my colleagues.

M. Sather: I rise to speak to Bill 38, Protected Areas of

British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008. I certainly

support the creation of the conservancy areas and the parks — and I know there

has been a lot of work done to bring this about from various groups within the

province — most notably and well known, the Great Bear rain forest area, which

is part of this agreement.

While I am pleased to see conservancies and parks come into being,

these in particular, I have a lot of problems with Bill 38. To start off, the

member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned there are no maps on the government

website where one can view these conservancies and, therefore, provide any

intelligent comment on them.

Hon. B. Penner: Wrong. They're on the website.

M. Sather: The minister says, "Wrong," but I can tell you

that I went through some considerable difficulty.

[ Page 12428 ]

Finally, I had to go through the Legislative Library and get them to produce

a map of some substance. The map that the minister raises in the air is

certainly not one that shows any definitive boundaries of the conservancies.

Hon. B. Penner: And the legal maps are in the Clerk's

office, as they are every year. All you have to do is go down the hall.

M. Sather: The legal maps are in the Clerk's office, the

minister says. Well, all I know is that I didn't see that. I went to the

library, and they weren't aware of it, so it certainly hasn't been very easily

available.

Hon. B. Penner: Last year your caucus got them from the

Clerk's office.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

M. Sather: I know the minister is very keen to speak, Madam

Speaker, and I'm sure he'll get another opportunity.

I want to talk about the issue of independent power producers

being within conservancies, which I think is unforgivable, quite frankly. In

particular, I want to talk about the proposal by Kleena Power to put a

megaproject, actually, on the Klinaklini River. The Klinaklini River is in one

of the conservancies that's been set forth by this legislation.

If one looks — and I did look considerably at this, including with

topographical maps — the intake for this power project which is, by the way,

well on its way…. As is so often the case, other than with the Upper Pitt,

there's virtually no input from the public on this project. When I look at it, I

see that the intake for the diversion on this project will be within the

conservancy. That's how it looks to me. If not, for certain, the head pond above

that intake will be well within the conservancy — four kilometres or further, I

estimate, within a conservancy.

This project is, as I said, a large project. There will be 16

kilometres of tunnel, this tunnel being over 27 feet in diameter. So it's a huge

project. They're going to have what is euphemistically called a weir, which will

be between 40 to 60 feet high. This is not a little project, a little weir, by

any means.

[1600]

There are 150 kilometres of power line to be associated with this

project. There will be a concrete plant near the powerhouse along the Klinaklini

River. There will be a construction camp of 800 people to work on this project,

should it go through, part of which is in a conservancy.

Hon. K. Krueger: Sounds like family-supporting jobs to me.

M. Sather: Family-supporting jobs, the minister says. Well,

family-supporting jobs from….

An Hon. Member: There have been very few in the last seven

years.

M. Sather: Yeah, I know. We're not talking about the

Forests Ministry here, obviously.

Clearly, this government talks green, but I'm not so sure when we

look at some of their actions, as we saw in the Upper Pitt, that they were green

at all. We're seeing, again, here….

There will be a new road into the intake site for this project

that, as I say, by my calculations, is within the conservancy itself. However, I

guess the proponents perhaps have some insight or knowledge into what is going

to hap