2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Marjorie Docherty

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act

Hon. S. Bond

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Luso Club in Kitimat

R. Austin

4-H Club

D. Barnett

Morden Colliery Park proposal

D. Routley

ARIEL research project at TRIUMF

R. Lee

Events in Kootenay West constituency

K. Conroy

Concussion injuries and return-to-play guidelines for young athletes

M. Stilwell

Oral Questions

Executive compensation at B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries and CLBC

A. Dix

Hon. R. Coleman

C. James

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Hon. S. Cadieux

Kitwanga mill status and log export policy

D. Donaldson

Hon. C. Clark

Forest industry jobs and log export policy

N. Macdonald

Hon. C. Clark

Government handling of personal information privacy breaches

D. Routley

Hon. M. Polak

Investigation of election campaign for member for Vancouver-Fraserview

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Access to information on seniors care facilities

K. Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011 (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Teachers Act

Hon. G. Abbott

R. Austin

V. Huntington

Reporting of Bills

Bill 12 — Teachers Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Teachers Act

[ Page 8563 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Les: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce some very special guests who are joining us today. They're in the gallery this afternoon. First of all, I would like to introduce the Ambassador of Turkey, His Excellency Rafet Akgünay, who I had the pleasure of meeting with this morning, and Madam Akgünay, who is accompanying him today.

As well, today in the Speaker's gallery I'd like to acknowledge the Consular Corps of British Columbia, led by the dean of the Consular Corps and consul general for El Salvador, Ms. Rosa Elena Moreno.

The Consular Corps, based mainly in Vancouver, is the official body comprising all consular officers resident in the province of British Columbia. The corps comprises 30 career consular posts staffed by foreign officers and 54 consular posts staffed by honorary consular officers. In total, therefore, 79 countries are based here in the province of British Columbia.

This afternoon my ministerial colleagues will have the opportunity to brief the members of the Consular Corps who have been able to join us today. I would ask members of the House to please make them all very welcome.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the opposition, I want to join with the member for Chilliwack in acknowledging and recognizing the Consular Corps who are with us here today in the precincts.

My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the Finance critic, the member for Surrey-Whalley, are well known to the corps. As Lower Mainland MLAs, they work tirelessly with government members and with the corps to advance trade and economic development and prosperity not just here but around the world. Would the House join the opposition in making the Consular Corps very welcome.

[1335]

Todd is the recipient of a Queen's Jubilee medal in 2003 and the recipient of the Canada youth award in July of 2002. He also researched and wrote a monthly youth column in the Langley Times newspaper from '01 to '03. Over and above all of his volunteer, advocacy and work obligations, he still finds time to work on his BA with a major in political science and a minor in communications at the University of the Fraser Valley. Would the House please make Todd very welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a group of people that are here with the B.C. Health Coalition. It includes Alice Edge, Dr. Nora Etches, Len Cohen, Kathleen Kyle, Susanne Francoeur, Carla Dempsey, Carolyn Unsworth, Adam Lynes-Ford, Marian Cohen and Lesley Cockrell. They're all here to talk about their report card on seniors health, and I'd like the House to join me in making them most welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the gallery today is the newest member of the Ministry of Social Development. Rayael Michalski is my new administrative assistant, and she's joining for the first time today to see how question period is. I know that we're all very happy to have her. It's been a few weeks without somebody in the position, and we're all taking a breath of relaxation today now that she's here. So would everybody please make her welcome.

J. Yap: I have two introductions. In the gallery today for his first visit in a long time is a good friend, constituent and supporter, Trevor Wick, who's here with his eight-year-old son Vaughan. Vaughan just had his birthday this past weekend, and as part of his birthday present, his dad decided to bring him to Victoria to spend the day here watching us here in the Legislature in action and also taking in the sights of Victoria. So would the members of the House please join me in giving a warm welcome to Trevor and Vaughan Wick from Richmond-Steveston.

Hon. S. Bond: Today in the gallery are a number of business, municipal and police representatives. They and the organizations they represent are helping us to further public safety by working to curb metal theft.

I would like to ask my colleagues in the House to welcome Dave Cunningham, the vice-president of government relations at TELUS; Shawn Hall, the senior communications manager at TELUS; Dana Adams, the director of security at TELUS; Bob Herriman, the chief security officer at B.C. Hydro; Bob Downie, deputy chief constable with the Saanich police department, and he is representing the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police today; Bill Storie, bylaw enforcement manager at the township of Langley; and Sgt. Rick Burns with the Langley RCMP. Would the House join me in making all of our guests welcome.

[ Page 8564 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I won't repeat all of their names — I am obliged to the member for Kootenay West, who named them individually earlier — but I, too, would like to welcome the members of the B.C. Health Coalition, with whom I had a very fruitful and interesting discussion earlier today. Some of them have travelled some distance to be here, and all of them are most welcome in the precincts. I know that members will reinforce that.

Tributes

marjorie docherty

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Continuing with the health theme, I ask the House to join me in congratulating Dr. Marjorie Docherty of Kelowna. She's been chosen as B.C.'s Family Physician of the Year.

I would also like to mention that this week is Family Doctor Week in Canada. I'd like you all to join me in the House in congratulating Dr. Docherty, as well as thanking family doctors across B.C. for the compassionate and excellent work they do on all of our behalf every day.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to announce several guests who are visiting the House today from the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, along with a couple of members of what they call their prodigy group, which is the group of young professionals that acts as an adjunct to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce and introduces young professionals into the networking opportunities available through that organization.

I would ask the House to welcome Bruce Carter, John Jurisic, Janell Karst, Jesse Szcepanowski and Dan MacLaren, who's here from Prince George. Would the House please make them all welcome.

[1340]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — METAL DEALERS

and

recyclers act

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased today to introduce the Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act, 2011. This legislation fulfils the throne speech commitment to introduce a law to curb metal theft and the serious public safety concerns that it raises.

Metal theft has become a serious public safety concern in British Columbia. When metal is stolen, the resulting downed cables, ungrounded power lines, exposed live wires and undermined structures pose an immediate public safety risk to citizens and the workers who repair them.

The costs associated with metals stolen from the province's infrastructure are substantial. This year to date, for example, TELUS has reported 325 incidents of their live cables being stolen — each incident cutting off service, including 911, for customers. Surrey RCMP indicates that on average they receive at least one report of wire theft every 12 hours. The city of Surrey has estimated their costs associated with wire theft from light standards as over $2 million. A single incident of wire theft in Langley on October 23 resulted in a loss of phone, Internet, cable and 911 services for over 20,000 customers.

As the majority of stolen metal ends up at a scrap metal yard, provincial legislation is aimed at closing the market for stolen metal through the regulation of the transaction of scrap metal. This bill draws from successful municipal scrap metal bylaws and makes it provincewide in its application.

The proposed legislation establishes a provincial registry for metal dealers and recyclers who trade in selected metals which are known to be the target of thefts, notably copper. This legislation will deter copper thieves, protect 911 emergency services, prevent theft-related power outages and save millions of dollars for taxpayers every year.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LUSO CLUB IN KITIMAT

R. Austin: This past Saturday, the 29th of October, I was honoured to attend a wonderful celebratory dinner dance in Kitimat. It was the 50th anniversary of the Luso Club, representing the large Portuguese community in town.

The guest of honour was the consul general of Portugal, Mr. Carlos de Sousa Amaro, who is responsible for looking after the interests of all Portuguese citizens in western

[ Page 8565 ]

Canada. In his speech he acknowledged the movement of so many people over the last 50 years who left their lives, families and culture to come from the Azores, as well as mainland Portugal, to create new lives in a far-off community that was just developing around a new industry — aluminum.

The transition from an agricultural economy practised in the warm eastern Atlantic sun to a heavy industry in northern B.C. was not an easy one. Nevertheless, these hard-working Portuguese immigrants succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have raised families that have mostly gone on to further education while always maintaining their strong cultural ties to their old country.

A wonderful band, Starlight, was flown in from Toronto to play fado music, and over 250 people in attendance enjoyed a wonderful meal all cooked by the volunteers of the Luso women's auxiliary.

The club started with 20 members in December of 1961 in order to maintain links to Portuguese culture, and to this day numbers nearly 300. They donate time and money to the Relay for Life, the telethon, scholarships and soccer teams. Of course, they take time each year to celebrate their great poet, Luís Vaz de Camões.

I would like to thank Anna Cabral, Luso president; Eddie Abreu; and all the volunteers for a wonderful evening of sharing great memories, music and wonderful food. Here's to the next 50 years of further success and keeping these Portuguese cultural ties intact.

[1345]

4-H CLUB

D. Barnett: November is 4-H Month in British Columbia, and 4-H stands for head, heart, hands and health. The 4-H program is a vital link between youth and agriculture, which contributes to the future of farming in B.C.

The B.C. 4-H program has been developing young British Columbians for more than 95 years. More than 2,200 young British Columbians between six and 21 years old participate in B.C. in 4-H. Earlier this year the province provided B.C. 4-H with an $85,000 grant. The funding is being used to manage the 4-H program and encourage young British Columbians to consider working in the agriculture sector.

Many 4-H kids are part of a larger network of farm families. Nine in ten B.C. farms are family owned and operated. The 4-H kids learn respect for animals and people and about the work that goes on in producing food. Participants can choose between 24 diverse programs, including agroforestry, aquaculture, beef, environment and photography.

The 4-H program has a pledge that states: "I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, my health to better living, for my club, my community and my country." The 4-H program also has a motto that rings true to the way we do things in my area of the province, and that is "Learn by doing." I ask that all members in this House join me in recognizing this worthwhile and meaningful program helping train and support many young British Columbians.

MORDEN COLLIERY PARK PROPOSAL

D. Routley: I rise to speak of Morden Colliery Park. How do we tell the story of a young province? How do we capture the essence of early newcomer history in British Columbia? Forestry, fishing, mining and agriculture were foundation stones of our province. There are no Parthenons or pyramids to remind us. We in the rain forest have few physical reminders of what our past looked like or how it felt.

In the Ladysmith-Nanaimo region our communities were built on coal. A history of hard work, tragedy and labour struggle played out in the mines and the communities they supported. Little is left to remind us. The beaches at Ladysmith are still a mixture of sand, rocks and lumps of coal from the loading of ships in the harbour. Otherwise, like the people who did the work, the artifacts of this industry have slipped away in the sands of time.

Morden Colliery is one notable exception. Morden was built to service what was expected to be a profitable mine by Pacific Coast Colliery. One of a kind in its day, Morden was essentially an elevator from which coal would be loaded into railcars below it. Built during a strike while the mines were idle, the six-storey concrete structure stood tall over the landscape and alone in its pioneering use of reinforced concrete technology.

Once the strike ended, mines reopened. Morden never made money. However, in its role representing a disappeared culture, the Morden mine still stands as an impressive structure.

Friends of the Morden Mine are trying to raise funds to save the deteriorating minehead structure. Time is short before the ravages of weather and age take this singular piece of our history. Standing near existing trail systems, Morden Colliery, if saved, will be an attraction for tourists from the new Nanaimo cruise ship terminal nearby.

I invite all members to visit Morden Colliery Park in Extension, in Ladysmith, to view this impressive piece of history. I implore the provincial government to invest in the restoration of this site. An economic opportunity for the Morden mine may still lie in its future if we can save its past.

ariel RESEARCH PROJECT AT TRIUMF

R. Lee: This morning I was at TRIUMF, Canada's national lab for particle and nuclear physics. I was there for the groundbreaking ceremony for a new project at

[ Page 8566 ]

the lab, called ARIEL, which stands for advanced rare isotope laboratory.

[1350]

This $72.9 million project is partly funded by a provincial government investment of $30.7 million, an investment which will maintain B.C.'s position as a world leader in particle and nuclear physics. This investment will bring other benefits as well. ARIEL will help address the issue of shortages of medical isotopes, which are critical in treating heart and cancer patients. ARIEL is the next-generation linear accelerator. Underground beam tunnels and labs will make it possible for TRIUMF to perform cutting-edge experiments in medical isotopes, demonstrate new technology for producing them and broaden their research into particle and nuclear physics as well as materials science.

ARIEL will also create jobs. During the next 18 months of construction it will create 90 person-years of employment. Once ARIEL is open, it will provide 160 permanent jobs in the private sector, universities and at other research agencies. ARIEL will even lead to technologies which will reduce pollution from coal-fired plants and produce fertilizers from chimney flue gases.

I wish to congratulate Nigel Lockyer, director of TRIUMF, on this exciting new

chapter in their history, and I look forward to learning what they discover in the future.

EVENTS IN

KOOTENAY WEST CONSTITUENCY

K. Conroy: There have been a number of activities in my constituency that I would like to have acknowledged with a statement in the House — so many it was hard to pick just one. For instance, the community of Glade had a hundred-year celebration in July with three days of events. On September 4 the village of Slocan celebrated its 110th birthday with activities from sun-up to sundown, including a parade and giant birthday cake.

August 26 to 28 the Vallican Whole celebrated its 40th anniversary with a weekend of events, including the much-celebrated locavore potluck dinner — locally grown dishes from the abundant gardens of the area.

We also had the Pass Creek fall fair, the Rossland fall fair, the Slocan Valley fall fair, the Nakusp fall fair and the 19th annual Hills Garlic Festival, a festival all about — you got it — garlic. It attracts about 6,000 people to the community of New Denver — people of all ages — with lively music, great food, children's entertainment and old-fashioned community fun. It is one of the ten best garlic festivals in the world.

From August 16 to 20 this year the B.C. Seniors Games were hosted in the West Kootenays. Over 3,500 participants, plus their support people, made our area a very busy place. What was unique about these seniors games was a collaboration amongst the three cities of Trail, Castlegar and Nelson. Not only did they work in partnership to pull off one of the most successful games in the history of the seniors games; they managed to do it with only a year's lead time to organize — an incredible feat accomplished by an amazing and dedicated group of over 2,000 volunteers.

I must admit that the thrill for me, even though I put over 180 medals on people's necks that weekend, was putting the gold medal on the neck of the winner of the 80-plus golf, my 83-year-old dad, Ben Thor-Larsen. To everyone who volunteers and participates in all of these events in our region, I want to thank everyone for what you do.

CONCUSSION INJURIES AND

RETURN-TO-PLAY GUIDELINES

FOR YOUNG ATHLETES

M. Stilwell: The 21st century is poised to be the era of the brain. Only now are we beginning to understand how it develops and functions and, importantly, how to keep it healthy.

The most common brain injury is a concussion caused when the head is jostled back and forth, causing the brain to shift and bruise delicate brain matter. Most concussions occur without loss of consciousness and often are overlooked, with potentially serious consequence. Concussions can cause memory impairment, inability to concentrate, irregular sleep, headaches, nausea, dizziness and sensitivity to light or noise and can result in permanent damage.

Young athletes are particularly susceptible to concussions. In fact, the majority of sport-related head injuries occur in individuals younger than 20 years old. Young athletes, their parents and coaches need to be aware of the risks that a second concussion can have if a previous concussion has yet to heal, and not feel pressured to hide their injuries or return to play prematurely.

We can prevent brain injuries due to multiple concussions to young athletes by following return-to-play protocols and increasing education and awareness for coaches, parents and athletes. In other jurisdictions governments have acted by passing return-to-play legislation outlining guidelines for concussion management. Brain research has influenced government policy regarding early childhood brain development. It is time that we take the next step and use it to protect those minds. I think we can all agree that a healthy brain is a happy mind.

[1355]

Oral Questions

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AT

B.C. HYDRO, B.C. FERRIES AND CLBC

A. Dix: B.C. Hydro executives are receiving millions in bonuses while creating what the Auditor General

[ Page 8567 ]

has called "the appearance of profitability where none actually exists." B.C. Ferries executives are receiving millions in bonuses as they cut ferry services and ferry users pay more and more. CLBC executives have been pocketing large bonuses as the system they run lurches from crisis to crisis and vulnerable people suffer. At least the minister responsible has said: "No more bonuses."

My question to the Premier is simple. Will she intervene to put a stop to runaway bonuses at B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I invite the member to go look at the B.C. Hydro business plan and find out how bonuses are paid and why. I'd also like to remind the member opposite that the people that work at B.C. Hydro in the executive level are paid in the lower 25 percent of people that work for utilities in this country. In actual fact, one of the challenges is attracting people and keeping people.

I want to make sure that the member opposite knows it is not based solely on profit.

I want him to know that the other factors that determine performance pay include worker safety, measured by the number of days lost on the job to injury and frequent injuries; the reliability of power, measured by the length of power outages, frequency of power outages and how often the same customers experience an outage; reliability of power supply, which is measured by how much generation is available over the winter when we need the electricity the most; customer satisfaction, measured by year-by-year-round surveys of ratepayers; billing accuracy and resolving customer issues on the first phone call; success in achieving conservation goals; and also achieving climate change targets by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

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

A. Dix: Again, to the Premier. The government appears to have a no-executive-left-behind program here. The Auditor General raised the issue of the government's use, B.C. Hydro's use, of deferred accounts. Ten years ago they had one $200 million account. Now they have $2.2 billion in multiple accounts. It's about to climb to $5 billion. They used the deferral accounts to move a loss, a $249 million loss, into a $402 million profit. As a result, people were paid bonuses.

The government surely can't be this out of touch. Doesn't the Premier think it's time to end out-of-control bonuses at B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Coleman: The only person out of touch in this Legislature is the Leader of the Opposition. I get that the opposition doesn't believe people should be paid for doing good work. I get that the opposition wants to see spikes in rates, so the spike rates can jump up 50 percent one year and drop off another, because we don't have deferral accounts and we can't shape the cost to the consumer.

I also get, though, that the Leader of the Opposition is refusing to remember a couple things. One, in the 1990s they froze rates, took away the revenue from B.C. Hydro to modernize and upgrade the system, which we've been investing in for the last ten years, which allows for a stable B.C. Hydro in the future.

They also never want to talk about that they flushed a personal cheque to every ratepayer at the beginning of the last election to try and buy votes in 2001, which took money right out of B.C. Hydro's account which could have been invested in infrastructure that would keep the system modern and capable.

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

A. Dix: We know that the authors of Bill 29 are happy to give $5.9 million — this is just the top five executives at CLBC, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro — over the past four years. That's $5.9 million in bonuses to just those people. They don't count millions of dollars in other bonuses elsewhere.

[1400]

I mean, they surely have to understand that B.C. Hydro ratepayers and B.C. Ferries users are the ones paying the price for this. Surely they understand that. It's time that this changed. This policy is out of touch.

Now, the minister responsible for CLBC, unlike the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, if he's the one designated to answer the questions today…. She listened, and she said: "No more bonuses."

So does the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro agree with the minister responsible for CLBC? Does the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries agree with the minister responsible for CLBC? Does the Premier agree with the minister responsible for CLBC? And are they going to take action to put a stop to these out-of-control bonuses today?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's the old class warrior coming out in the Leader of the Opposition here today. The reason the members can even talk about bonuses in this Legislature is because we actually changed the law in 2007 that these would be disclosed, which you never did when you were government.

I think that it's actually reasonable to have a measurement that says: can our workers be safe? We don't lose them to injury or death because we actually put a performance measure in place for people who are in the management of B.C. Hydro. I think the reliability of power that British Columbians should be able to rely upon when they flip a switch — and it comes on, and their TV works or their freezer or their fridge or whatever works — is an important piece of the performance at B.C. Hydro.

[ Page 8568 ]

I know you don't agree with that. I know you don't care about customer satisfaction and the relationship we have with our customers. I know you don't like to be accurate. I know you don't care….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: When the yelling gets louder, Mr. Speaker, I know I've touched a nerve.

You also don't care about climate action, and you don't care about conservation, because you don't believe that this company should have performance measures that its people should be responsible to and should actually, at some point, be rewarded for, for achieving them.

C. James: I heard the minister talk about customer satisfaction. Well, let's take a look at B.C. Ferries for a minute. B.C. Ferries has seen fares skyrocket and ridership drop. The company has plunged $20 million into deficit, but the four top executives at B.C. Ferries received more than $1 million in bonuses. That's double what the B.C. Hydro executives raked in.

My question is to the Premier. When will she put an end to these outrageous bonuses that are being paid across her government?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much to the member for the question. I think the member is well aware that under Bill 20, which we dealt with in this House, when it came to salaries and benefits for the executives at B.C. Ferries, we dealt with that. We shared the concerns not only with the opposition but with the members of the public. We brought forward that they would be reflective under other public sector Crown corporations only.

So for the member to ask the question…. I know she knows the answer. We're here in theatre today, called question period, but the answer is quite simple. We've dealt with that under Bill 20. We're looking forward. I think we have a wonderful, incredible ferry system, a world-class ferry system.

The issue I hear about is the affordability and the sustainability issue, and I know that the independent commissioner has engaged the public on that and is doing great work. I'm looking forward to the report that he brings forward for all of our consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: To the minister, to the Premier, to this government on the other side: if they wanted to look at affordability, they'd end those executive bonuses today and put that money into services. Half a billion dollars in bonuses paid at B.C. Hydro for running what is actually a deficit. More than $1 million in bonuses to just the top four executives at B.C. Ferries.

Worst of all, this Liberal government actually paid bonuses to executives at Community Living to cut back on services for the most vulnerable. Now, as we've heard, the minister said that bonuses were wrong at Community Living, but there's still no guarantee that that money won't be rolled into salaries.

[1405]

My question is to the Premier. Isn't it time today to stand up, say no to bonuses and put those dollars into services and supports for people in British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm pleased to give the answer that I gave before, relating to the situation of variable pay or incentive plans at CLBC. When it came to my attention that that was the practice at CLBC, I thought that was the wrong policy for that organization, given that it was serving people with disabilities and providing for their supports.

I had a conversation with the board chair, who indeed agreed with me and has agreed to end that system. I am waiting for her to come forward with the plan for how they would like to address the compensation going forward.

KITWANGA MILL STATUS

AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

D. Donaldson: In July the Premier took

part in a flashy photo opportunity to reopen the Kitwanga mill in my constituency. On October 7 the mill shut down indefinitely, partly because they can't get wood. Meanwhile, raw logs are being shipped out of the country right along the highway in front of the mill.

Since the Liberals were there for the photo opportunity and to claim credit for the mill's reopening, will the Premier now take responsibility for those workers losing their livelihoods in Kitwanga indefinitely?

Hon. C. Clark: Twenty-seven mills have reopened in British Columbia as a result of the work that the government has done in opening new trade relationships in Asia. That's been the work of some very, very focused effort that the government put in, in making sure that we are maximizing our trade presence and working cooperatively with people in the industry.

It was timely that the government went ahead and did that. We had no idea how timely it would turn out to be at the time, given what has since happened in the American economy, our largest trading partner to the south.

We intend to continue to make sure we stay focused on bringing home jobs for British Columbians. That's why on Friday I'm travelling to China and India — because we are going to spend our time opening up new

[ Page 8569 ]

trade relationships with China and India for our manufactured wood.

One of the things that the members opposite don't understand is that if you don't have customers, if you don't create a thriving economy, you don't have jobs here at home. That's what the trip is going to be about.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: The Premier got the photo opportunity, and the workers got pink slips. That's this government's job action plan in action.

The millworkers know the indefinite shutdown is, in part, due to raw log exports. Millworkers like Randy Good. He has worked at the mill for 35 years. Now he's looking at moving to Alberta in order to find a job to support his family.

We know that the Premier and her party are good at cutting ribbons, but when will the Liberals get serious about problems facing forestry and ensure B.C. logs for B.C. jobs?

Hon. C. Clark: The thing that we have to do as a government if we are going to bring home jobs for the province of British Columbia, if we're going to make sure the people in Kitwanga and people across the province in rural communities are working, is that we're going to have to work hard to find customers for our wood.

Now, those customers aren't in abundance south of the border, like they once were. As a result of the work that the government has been doing through FII and some of the trade work that we've been doing in China, in some months we have seen more softwood go to China than it has to the United States for the very first time in history.

We have to continue to build those relationships. We have to make sure that we are finding customers for our wood so that we can put British Columbians to work in this province, and that's where it begins.

[1410]

You cannot support the valued social programs that people depend on if you don't have a thriving economy. You can't have people going to work if you don't have a thriving economy. You cannot make sure that rural communities are thriving if you're building up debt and you're undermining confidence in our economy.

The very worst thing that could happen to British Columbia is that we go back to where this group of people took us in the 1990s. Instead, we're going forward. We're going to Asia. We're going to China, and we're bringing home jobs for British Columbians.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS

AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

N. Macdonald: Here are a few facts that get in the way of the rhetoric. There have been five permanent closures. There have been 18 temporary closures, including Kitwanga, in the period that the Premier talks about. She constantly talks about 27 mills. There have been 24 reopenings. Those are the facts.

The minister and the Premier, when they go around, misrepresent reality. If the Premier wants to see B.C. logs used in manufacturing, she's headed to the right place. She's headed to China, where 80 mills have opened using our raw logs.

I tell you what people in British Columbia believe. They believe that B.C. logs should be for B.C. jobs. When is the minister going to get it? When is the minister going to step away from the photo ops that produce nothing and produce jobs here in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: We saw the NDP's plan for creating jobs in forestry in British Columbia. It was called the jobs and timber accord. It promised 21,000 new jobs, and 13,000 jobs disappeared. That's what happened. That's what happens when the folks on the other side are in government and they reduce the economy to a simple slogan.

Instead of doing that; instead of devastating our trade presence, as they did in Asia; instead of fundamentally misunderstanding what drives our economy; instead of raising taxes and driving up debt and potentially putting British Columbia in the same kind of position that we see many other countries in the world struggling with today, our government is focused on reaching out.

We're focused on finding customers for what B.C. produces, and when we find those customers, when we make those deals, we will bring home jobs for British Columbians. That is what will make British Columbia the place to invest around the world, and it will mean not only do we remain a safe harbour for investments but we lead Canada in terms of job growth.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: None of that is real. None of that is based in reality. That does nothing to help people in Kitwanga. I mean, the fact of the matter is that since this B.C. Liberal government has taken over, we have lost 34,000 family-supporting jobs. That is the reality. The so-called Jobs Minister, when he was Minister of Forests, lost 17,000 jobs. Those are the facts. Those are indisputable. So it has been an unprecedented failure.

At the same time, right now in the same period as last year we have a 207 percent increase in raw log exports. That is the reality that is there for the Premier.

So the question is this. When is this government going to do the right thing? Take the resource that we have collectively, and put it to use so that we create jobs here in British Columbia — good, family-supporting jobs. When is that going to happen?

[ Page 8570 ]

Hon. C. Clark: The jobs and timber accord; 13,000 jobs disappeared. We had the Forest Practices Code, which added a billion dollars to the costs of doing forestry in British Columbia. We had a Forest Practices Code that was 70 feet of paper at its height, and that member will stand there and lecture members on this side of the House about how to make sure our forest industry is thriving.

[1415]

We lost 13,000 jobs in the forestry industry in British Columbia at a time when the American economy was booming — the biggest expansion of the economy in North American history. British Columbia became a have-not province. Why? Largely because members on that side of the House did everything that they could to put their foot on the neck of the forest industry in British Columbia.

We are going to do it differently, and we have been. The proof is in the pudding in the last five years, where the government has put a singular focus on trying to open up markets in Asia and making sure we bring home those jobs for British Columbians by diversifying our markets and by finding customers for our manufactured woods. That is how we will make sure there are jobs for British Columbians — not just in the Lower Mainland, not just in the south Island but in rural communities all across British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF PERSONAL

INFORMATION PRIVACY BREACHES

D. Routley: The B.C. Liberal government has been responsible for numerous privacy breaches since 2001, and the problem has only now become worse. Last week reports of a loss of medical records for 450 B.C. surgical patients when a laptop was lost at a Toronto airport. This week it's news of private client data from the Ministry of Children and Families being thrown in a dumpster. Two CTV News reports a week apart show that this government is letting private data walk and dragging their heels to clean up the mess.

To the Minister of Citizens' Services: how could private information be left in airports and dumpsters, and what immediate steps is this government taking to ensure there won't be another such report next week?

Hon. M. Polak: Far from dragging its heels, I'm advised that the ministry received the documents in question from the Saanich police on Friday afternoon and immediately set about to contact those individuals who had been affected. However, contrary to what has been reported, we are advised by the Saanich police that the bulk of the materials were training manuals. There were only a very small number of individuals who were affected. They have already been contacted, save one, who has not been able to be located.

In fact, with respect to future action, those employees of the Ministry of Children and Family Development have been reminded once again not to take private materials or materials containing private information home. But in this case the vast majority of the documents were simply training manuals and did not contain any personal information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: "Never again" is what they said the time before. This government should have been sensitive to the issue after the first incident, but when the second occurred, the government's initial reaction was to deny that private data was included in the documents. Clearly, that was not the case. This government will protect their own private interests. They'll shell out $6 million to shut down the B.C. Rail trial, but for some reason, when it comes to the public's privacy, it all ends up in a dumpster.

Again to the minister: why didn't this government immediately look into the apparent breach of policy, and why didn't they immediately identify and notify the people whose privacy may have been breached?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm surprised at the member's line of questioning. I took the opportunity to walk the member through the timeline with respect to our receiving of the information from the Saanich police.

The member well knows, as I advised him, that the Saanich police initially advised the ministry that they had shredded all the documentation and that in fact none of it — none of it — contained personal, private information. It was subsequent to that that the Saanich police then informed the Ministry of Children and Family Development that in fact they hadn't shredded the documents.

The ministry then retrieved them from the Saanich police, and as a result of working together with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well as the information officer with MCFD, they determined that there were, in fact, less than five — I'm prohibited from giving the precise number, but fewer than five — individuals.

They were historic. They were not children in care. They happened to be limited amounts of information with respect to child care subsidy, and those people were immediately informed, save one family, who have moved out of British Columbia. We have not been able to locate them.

[1420]

INVESTIGATION OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN

FOR MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER-FRASERVIEW

K. Corrigan: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has been found guilty of violating the Election Act and

[ Page 8571 ]

has been fined $11,000. Now there are new allegations of up to $40,000 more in unreported spending.

My question to the Premier: does the Premier intend to allow the Liberal member for Vancouver-Fraserview to remain in the government caucus?

Hon. S. Bond: We canvassed this question yesterday in the Legislature, and the member opposite knows well that there has been a lengthy police investigation. There has been a special prosecutor that the process has worked through. That work has been completed. If the member opposite has any additional concerns that she would like to bring to the attention of the police — or anyone else, for that matter — she should do just that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: These are new allegations, and Elections B.C. is looking into them, so there is new material. Clearly, there's tension in the government caucus when it comes to the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. The charges, violations and fines all centre around illegal activity in the Vancouver-Fraserview Liberal campaign. Illegal activity has been proven, and now there are allegations from one of those involved that even more violations occurred.

The Premier is also the leader of the Liberal Party. What inquiries has the Premier made to find out exactly what level of illegal activity her party was involved in during the last election?

Mr. Speaker: I'm just going to remind the member to be very, very careful where she's going.

Hon. R. Coleman: I would submit to you that this is not about a ministerial responsibility and that this line of questioning is completely out of order in this House.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON SENIORS CARE FACILITIEs

K. Conroy: Yesterday in the Legislature we heard the Health Minister trying to explain away his government's poor record on accessing information about seniors facilities. He said: "The government has taken significant steps to ensure…a far broader source of information."

So how is it that a spouse can't even get information about her husband's seniors facility? Kathleen Kyle is relying on a freedom-of-information request to find rules about Vancouver Island seniors facilities — policies, procedures, standards or guidelines. Families filing freedom-of-information requests — is that what the minister means by a "broader source of information"?

Will the minister admit his government has failed to give seniors and families the full range of information about the treatment of their family members?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I indicated earlier, I had an opportunity to meet with the B.C. Health Coalition — Ms. Kyle. We had a good discussion, actually, about the progress that has been made and some of the challenges that remain.

I will say to the member and members of this House the same thing I said to the coalition. The objective for the government, the objective for me, is to ensure that residents, patients and their families have ready access to the broadest possible ambit of information so that they can make informed decisions about the homes and the facilities that their loved ones are living in.

That remains the objective. We're making progress, and we intend to continue making progress.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: The Ombudsperson was very clear about the need for full disclosure, and it's been two full years since that report came out. She said that the residents and their families need to have access to all information about what's happening in B.C. seniors facilities.

As the minister has said, he did meet with the B.C. Health Coalition, and they gave the Liberal government a failing grade on this issue.

Again, when will the minister finally take this matter seriously and give families the information they need to make fully informed decisions about the care of their loved ones?

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: I will tell the member this, and I'm not sure that I said it to the coalition when I met with them. I actually applaud any organization that sees the merit in issuing report cards on matters….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: It wouldn't be the first time in my life that I disagreed with one of the marks.

The coalition recognizes that by enshrining legislatively a residents bill of rights, we have taken a crucially important step. We have said legislatively that family councils should exist, that there should be involvement at that level in guiding the affairs at care facilities. We have legislatively stated that an adult person in care or their families should have ready access to copies of the laws, the rules and the policies, access to inspection reports.

I want to say this to the member, because she raised this yesterday as well. Not just routine inspections. They should also have access to information derived from inspections relating to substantiated complaints. That is something that residents and their family members are entitled to and something that they will have.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 8572 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon we'll continue with committee stage of Bill 6, intituled the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. Should we finish that, we would then move to committee stage — members should be aware — of Bill 12, intituled the Teachers Act.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations Statutes

Amendment Act, 2011

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

section 5 (continued) .

B. Simpson: I'm trying to understand, with

section 5, really what it is we're being asked to agree to here and what the government's intention is. If you read

section 5, it basically indicates that an eligible bioenergy application, which we've canvassed before…. That's somebody who has got a B.C. Hydro agreement to provide bioenergy.

[1430]

Bioenergy is defined as "from Crown timber." It appears as if the first

section of

section 5,

section (a), is saying that if — and I'm looking to the minister to see if I'm understanding correctly what's going on — for some reason the non-renewable timber licence is not being issued in a timely manner, to give the bioenergy applicant the opportunity to get fibre to begin to produce energy from that fibre, the minister is being enabled with an alternate tool here under the fibre supply agreement to give them a fibre supply agreement while they go through the process of getting a non-renewable timber licence.

Is that what I'm understanding? This is a stopgap measure, because the actual licence that they are waiting for is not available for them to fibre up the production of bioenergy.

Hon. S. Thomson:

Section 13.1 of the act provides for the award of a licence for a bioenergy plant under a successful call or a successful proponent for the bioenergy operation. And it's not stopgap. What this does is — because the legislation says that you can't provide the non-replaceable forest licence until they've reached commercial operation — provide the opportunity to provide the fibre to that operation as it tests the facility to make sure it can do the appropriate work leading up to being in commercial operation, at which time you can issue the non-replaceable forest licence.

B. Simpson: That's interesting. I appreciate the minister's answer. I wasn't aware that was the intention of this. So let's go to: have any of these been issued?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, none of these licences that we're talking about here have been issued. The successful proponents to the call are in the process of developing their operations, so we haven't got to the point where we would be issuing any non-replaceable forest licences. We haven't yet got to the point where we're issuing any of these particular licences that are provided for here either.

B. Simpson: The

section states that the applicant of an eligible bioenergy application approved under a previous section, "if the licence is a fibre supply licence to cut and, in the opinion of the minister, Crown timber is required for the purpose of (

i) achieving the commercial operation date as set out in the…supply contract…(ii) supplying Crown timber to the power plant described in the bioenergy supply contract associated with the application until timber is obtained under the forest licence…."

If I'm understanding the minister correctly…. And I'm curious why the language "in the opinion of the minister…." Again, we have this language that it's not by regulation. It's discretionary. But in this case, I guess, a case has to be made to the minister.

[1435]

Is the minister saying that all this licence will do is allow a new enterprise that's supposed to produce bioenergy, give the government the capacity to slip them some wood to test in the pilot phase and the startup phase, get that going, so that they actually do the ramp-up, and then they'll get a non-renewable timber licence to go cut logs to then fibre up the mill. So it's an interim capacity that the government has to make sure fibre is available in the absence of a licence being available at that time. Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. S. Thomson: The process is that there's a successful applicant, and the fibre supply licence to cut is supplied to them to test the facility, to bring it up to the point of commercial operation. That's the point at which the…. They enter this process knowing that they're going to be given a non-replaceable forest licence. But the way it has been designed is that that licence isn't provided until they've got the plant functioning at commercial scale, and then the energy supply contract is provided. So this fibre supply licence to cut is to get it to that point.

It also means that this is still a possibility for a bridging as well, because there may be a period of time even

[ Page 8573 ]

after the non-replaceable forest licence is provided to them that they will still continue to need access to fibre till they get to the point where all the activity is taking place under their non-replaceable forest licence. This fibre supply licence to cut can be continued through that time period.

B. Simpson: Could I just get clarification again, based on yesterday's discussion around this? Now, the fibre supply licence to cut — we're talking logging residuals, if I understood the minister correctly yesterday. It wouldn't be for cutting timber. It would be logging residuals,

whereas the non-replaceable forest licence….

The opposition critic has already pointed out that those are problematic because they don't meet the intended public policy purpose the government had of moving into that waste material to produce bioenergy. You actually go into the same operating areas that sawmills and others are operating in.

But just to clarify for the minister. The fibre supply licence to cut is different than a non-renewable timber licence in that the fibre supply licence to cut is simply for logging residuals. That's what we're granting access to.

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct.

B. Simpson: So we're really asking these entities to take what could effectively be some of the most expensive materials that are out there, go back out there and get that material and bring it back in again, versus under a non-renewable licence.

[1440]

But the other aspect of that: have the issues associated with going back out to an already logged land base been addressed under this fibre supply licence to cut, where the licensee that logged in that area holds residual liabilities under the Wildfire Act; residual liabilities potentially for the roads and infrastructure that are there, including maintenance; and residual liabilities under silviculture?

Does a fibre supply licence to cut address those residual liabilities for other licensees that were in that operating area and actually created the waste?

Hon. S. Thomson: To the member opposite, he identifies the issue that we've been working through in developing the implementation and the regulation for this in terms of addressing those overlapping liabilities and responsibilities. As I indicated earlier, we feel that we're to the point where we're resolving those implementation issues for this licence and that we will be able to do that in the near future.

The other option, obviously, is to continue to promote the business-to-business relationships on it so that it comes out at the beginning in one pass. That's where we would obviously encourage it, and that's why we say in the legislation "in the opinion of the minister." If there is, it leaves us the option to say that we think there is a better solution here — to encourage that business-to-business relationship.

If in the opinion of the minister, that hasn't taken place, then we don't necessarily need to issue that direct fibre supply licence to cut if we think there's another way to achieve it that would address some of the cost issues and things like that.

That's obviously our first choice, but what we wanted to do was make sure that we had a tool in place where we could direct-award that fibre for those operations, in the event that it was needed in order to be able to get their operations through to that commercial level of operation.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister. I think that was a very important explanation, because one of the concerns that people have out there is that these entities may not be successful without those business-to-business relationships, that they won't be successful as stand-alone. The minister's explanation of "in the opinion of the minister" is actually a stronger sense to that, if that's the driver, to try and drive the business-to-business relationships and improve the success of these.

Just one more question on the text of this and then a couple of questions about where it's going to end up. As the minister has already indicated, to a certain degree, this is a stopgap, and it may be a stopgap for a little bit longer.

Why ten years? Ten years seems like an awfully long time if what you're doing is helping to fibre up a plant through the pilot phase, through the testing phase, getting to the commercial level. Ten years seems like an awfully long time to be in that phase for one of these plants. Can the minister explain why that time duration is necessary?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, fair point. We would certainly hope that it never would take ten years. The way the fibre supply licence to cut can be awarded, we can do it for a year or two years, up to five years, and extend it during that process. The maximum currently is five years.

What we've added in is some additional flexibility, I guess, or additional time in the event that there were some circumstances where, for some reason, there were challenges in financing, challenges in getting…. If it took close to the five years to be able to get to that commercial level, we need to extend it there, beyond that five years. We wanted to be able to do that. We just put an outer limit on it, but one that gave us a fair amount of margin. We would certainly never hope that it would take up to ten years, but we did need to put a maximum in there.

[ Page 8574 ]

B. Simpson: Just for clarification purposes again, does the minister expect that there'll be more than four? The four, I believe, have come out of two calls by B.C. Hydro. Will there be further calls? Will there be more than four? Or is this simply a change in the act to enable the four successful bidders to date to get the fibre that they need?

Hon. S. Thomson: At this point this tool or policy is being developed for the successful applicants that are in the call, that have been successful. As far as future potential calls or anything, that is to be determined. At this point there is not a specific plan for another call, but we want to make sure that we provide the tool to ensure maximum opportunity and success for the four that have been successful proponents.

B. Simpson: For the public record, I don't believe the minister was in the House when it was projected that British Columbia could produce as many as four Site Cs from bioenergy production, from wood waste. A predecessor of his put forward not only here but on Voice of B.C. that that's the order of magnitude of what we're dealing with. Quite frankly, the fact that it's only four, the fact that it is small production of power and the fact that the interim measure is the residuals and that the long-term fibre is a traditional non-renewable forest licence speak volumes to the dramatic failure of this government's bioenergy policy and bioenergy program.

That's not this minister's fault by any stretch of the imagination, but it does speak to that grandiose promise that you often get in this Legislature and out in the public, and then no accountability mechanisms for when that failure is realized.

To the minister, with respect to what is in his portfolio: is the ministry capable of analyzing and providing to the minister's counterpart what the actual biomass is that would be available? I mean, my preference, as the minister has already indicated, is to get to one pass. One pass simply means that you go out to the bush, you log, you bring in the sawlog, you bring in the pulp log, you bring in all the residual materials into a marshalling zone, and then you facilitate full utilization of that, notwithstanding leaving some raw materials in the forest for proper ecosystem management. That's what we mean by one pass.

[1450]

Right now we've got perfect sawlogs, basically, being taken out and everything else, including what in the past used to be regarded as perfect sawlogs, accumulating. Contrary to the government's climate change initiatives, we put a match to it and burn it. The bioenergy strategy was supposed to be the way to address that. It's quite clear from this — and, again, not the minister's fault — that it is an abject failure.

Is the minister doing work in this area, the fibre supply agreements, etc., to actually quantify for future considerations what might be available under these fibre supply agreements for future biomass calls in the province of British Columbia? Is there some quantification going on of the residuals that might be available for future calls?

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, the short answer to that is yes, that work continues. To assess that, we have a committee working on it, looking at how we advance the bioenergy economy. We are continuing to look at other tools that are available — for example, the reseeding licence concept and others — to make that fibre available. We have continued to have advancements in the sector in technology. We've got significant increases in pellet production underway. So all that work continues.

I think it's fair to say that we need to look at the suite of tools that we have. Are they working together in advancing it? I think it's fair to say that, ultimately, the concept or the approach that the member opposite has outlined is what we'd like to get to. We have to make sure the suite of policies and tools that we have available work together to do that. This particular bill here is specific to the fibre supply licence to cut — to provide that opportunity for those successful proponents.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

N. Macdonald:

Section 6 is basically around the master licence to cut. This is, as the minister knows, a particular type of licence that deals with things…. I think originally it was with B.C. Hydro. Now it deals with other areas — oil and gas, things like that — where a specific part of the public land has the forest cover removed and for an extended period of time.

Now, there are a couple of changes here. The first one basically changes the references from the regional manager or district manager or forest officer to the minister. This is a similar sort of change that we've seen with a lot of legislation. But just to put it on the record, could the minister explain the changes in 6(a), please?

Hon. S. Thomson: This change is in a couple of places in the bill. It's simply to provide the delegation authority for the minister to the appropriate official within the ministry in dealing with it, rather than….

[1455]

Because of the restructuring of the ministry and the changes in names and designations and with regional directors and the regionalization of the ministry under our approach, it's to provide that flexibility to be able to delegate authority to the appropriate individual without having to name all of those within the legislation and limiting that delegation matrix that would be in place.

So it's just simply to recognize that the ministry has been restructured and that we would provide for that

[ Page 8575 ]

delegation authority directly to the appropriate official within the ministry.

N. Macdonald: So in terms of who would deal with this, who currently would be anticipated to deal with this sort of an application? Who would be dealing with it now?

N. Macdonald: Just to get a sense…. And here we're starting to go into (b), where we're talking about the limitation that exists to five years and doubling that to ten years. I understand that's for the purpose of alignment.

But just for some context, how much land are we talking about that is currently covered by the master licence to cut? How many hectares are being administered, based on this licence?

Hon. S. Thomson: The master licences to cut, as you know, are area-based. So they cover a broader area. It doesn't mean that underneath that master licence to cut, that means the total area covered by that master licence to cut. They're an umbrella licence provided through, as we said, the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1500]

Then there are cutting permits within those master licences to cut for the seismic line or for the well area, under the kinds of areas that are allowed to be cut under the master licence to cut. In terms of the total area, it would be based on an umbrella number. We would have to do a little bit of further work to be able to get you that number — the area that's covered by the current master licences to cut.

N. Macdonald: The minister can correct me just to make sure I understand that. We're moving from five years to ten years, and the minister is saying that the master licence to cut is for an area far larger than the minister would anticipate cutting taking place. So it's a bigger area, and part of it is anticipated to be cut — for instance, if it's oil and gas, then it will be cutting for various lines.

I guess the question is…. A lot of this will be concentrated in the northeast of the province. Is the land that's actually cut and removed part of AAC considerations? Is that considered? Is that information taken into account when an AAC is set?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that is taken into consideration in the determination of the AAC. The Oil and Gas Commission reports those numbers to the chief forester, and that is taken into consideration in those AAC determinations.

B. Routley: Well, we've had some other surprises, so I'd be interested in whether we…. Do we collect stumpage under the master licence to cut? Is that collected as a line item somewhere? The Minister of Forests, who I'm sure is diligent and concerned about the public interest and the value to the Crown…. Somewhere in the ministry there is somebody worrying about such things. I'd like to hear exactly how much we're collecting and what line item I might find that in.

Hon. S. Thomson: The process here is that the…. With respect to this master licence to cut, there is what's called a clearing rate for that sector, the northeast sector, because this is specific to the oil and gas sector.

The way it works is there are three categories of assessment. One is called full assessment, and it is based on width. So if it's a certain width, 4.25 metres wide, then you're charged the full rate of category 1. If you can do it with a narrower width, then it's called category 2, which is half the clearing rate. If you can keep the width even narrower, then you're charged what is called category 3 at one-third the rate. Then the billing is based on the gross area over that rate.

It's assessed by the Oil and Gas Commission, and it flows to the province in terms of revenue. There isn't a specific line item for it. It would be included in the overall stumpage revenue.

[1505]

B. Routley: Well, this is an interesting job. I get to learn something new every day.

This new three-category system — is there any kind of check-scaling or…? Who is ensuring that this is being done correctly? I would worry that people out in the field might be trying to categorize something as the lowest category. It's almost like we've got a large volume of timber in the province of British Columbia only collecting 25 cents a cubic metre. I don't know if we're getting full value.

I'm concerned about that issue of value. Now that we've got this new system, who monitors that and reviews it? Is there any kind of checks-and-balances system in place to ensure that the Crown is getting fair value, and who is responsible for that?

Now that we've done away with the regional offices and district offices — about half of them — maybe it's something you could consider contracting out to Tim Hortons or Wendy's. You could kind of drive through and get your licence to cut at the same time. I mean, it sounds like that's where we're headed. It's kind of a…. We're extending this for a longer period of time.

I've got a further, more serious question on this, but this one interests me about the new category, so I'd like to hear who is monitoring this category of rate class.

Hon. S. Thomson: This rate and assessment is managed by the Oil and Gas Commission. They provide the

[ Page 8576 ]

oversight on it. As you mentioned, it's not scaled. This is area-based, so it's based on the width and the area of the lines or the area that's cleared under this master licence to cut. That's where the oversight is provided.

It's important to recognize that this is a policy that helps streamline things and helps support the tremendous development of the oil and gas sector, providing those tremendous revenues for the province.

I did want to reference…. When you talked about drive-through permits, I noted that my colleague from Prince George was concerned that you didn't mention the opportunity of one other particular drive-through operation, if we were going to get into that kind of business, which we're certainly not.

B. Routley: The issue of extending this from five years to ten years — for this licence under (b). I assume there's some issue here beyond just lining up. Maybe it is just lining this up. I'd be interested in how…. Is it an expensive process? Is it an onerous process?

What's the problem we're trying to fix? I mean, surely we're trying to fix some problem. We're not just doing this because we can extend it from five years to ten years. So if there is a clear problem that we're trying to fix….

I assume it has something to do with the notion that you were going to have one-stop shopping for permits, and you were going to try to line things up so you've got all of the different ministries having a similar expiry date. It's kind of cloudy, I must say, what it is that you're trying to solve.

[1510]

Could you explain a little bit more what the benefit is to the Crown of going from five years to ten years rather than from five years to, say, six or seven or eight or nine. What's the magic in ten, and is there anything we can do about it if we think it has gone on too long?

Hon. S. Thomson: Without overcomplicating this, this is about alignment of terms. So under the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the terms there for up to ten years…. What we were finding is that our master licences to cut — as they are currently limited to five years — would then have to come in and be reapplied for, extended and a new master licence to cut provided.

So it is simply about aligning the terms — to align our terms for both the master licence to cut and under the free use permits with the current permits under the Oil and Gas Activities Act so that we don't have to issue another permit again for the same activity and under the same permit that's granted by the Oil and Gas Activities.

It is about reducing workload and time for staff, reducing costs and saving the applicants time and money in doing it. And it is a recognition of the overall objective of our ministry — moving to an integrated project, aligning permit terms where they make sense to do so, to streamline that process and reduce duplication where it is a process of simply coming in and having to get a new licence to comply with the ongoing term under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

So it is, quite simply, just about aligning those terms.

B. Routley: Just to have some idea of what we're talking about here in terms of the magnitude of the licence to cut, how many licences to cut do we have out right now in the province of British Columbia in all of the various categories? I assume we've got oil and gas, as well as hydro. I don't know whether you have them out in transmission lines as well. But do you have a total number? I assume that if it's licensing, somebody is responsible for giving out the licences and collecting the money.

While we're at it, I wouldn't mind knowing what it costs. What does someone pay for a master licence to cut?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that the total number is 670 master licences to cut. There is currently not a fee for that licence. But the cost saving and the time saving is both in terms of our staff and staff processing times and things like that. As you know, we're working to try to do things more efficiently, more effectively. It's also a time saving to the applicant. But it's 670 licences.

[1515]

B. Routley: Yes, thank you for that. So 670 — that is quite a lot. Do you have an idea of the total area they would be? I assume they draw lines on a map and have their area base. So do we have an idea, maybe an approximate, of the kind of area we're talking about here?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated earlier, the master licence to cut is area-based, a broader area-based licence. Cutting permits are then issued underneath the master licence to cut. Those cutting permits, which are managed by the Oil and Gas Commission…. Those numbers are reported through to the chief forester so that he can take that into the AAC determination so that the fees can be applied against those cutting permits — width and length.

I don't have the specific number with me in terms of the total, but it is a number that, with some work, we would be able to provide. But just to be clear, the master licences to cut are area-based and cover a broader area, and then the activity under that master licence to cut is specific. It is seismic lines and well areas and things that are underneath that where specific cutting permits are applied for underneath that master licence to cut.

B. Routley: I assume I heard there the minister offering to dig in and get some more information at some point about these. I'm very interested in ensuring that the Crown is getting our full value. I mean, after all,

[ Page 8577 ]

these are huge projects that are going on all over the province of British Columbia.

Now that I know there is a different kind of scheme for calculating the value of the timber, I would also like the minister at some point…. Maybe I'm wrongly assuming that you don't have it here today. But if you don't have it here today, at some point I'd like to know more about these three categories and what percentage of the total volume harvested in the province is in all of the three categories.

You talked about a wide category, a narrow category, and, it sounded like, a really narrow or something — No. 3. One, two and three, anyway. Whatever these rate classes are, I'd be very interested in what percentages are being paid out in the various categories and exactly what the Crown is collecting for the good people of British Columbia out of these projects.

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite indicated, we'll undertake to provide that overall number that comes through what we call the clearing rate process.

B. Simpson: Again, thanks to the minister for bearing with the questions on this. I guess I'll put my own bias on the table right away. I think these are a blunt instrument. I think they served a purpose at one point, but now with the accruing questions around cumulative impact, particularly of the oil and gas industry in the Peace, my preference would be that rather than extend them for administrative purposes, extend them and commit to a review. I've had a discussion of that sort with the minister.

[1520]

I just want to check a couple of facts first, before I get into a couple of questions surrounding these. Am I understanding it correctly that both the master licence to cut and the cutting permits under the master licence to cut are issued by the Oil and Gas Commission, not the Ministry of Forests, that both the master licence to cut and the cutting permit are issued by the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: Correct.

B. Simpson: Now we're into the tennis match. The Chair's going to get a crick in her neck.

With respect to that, where could I find the forest stewardship obligations and forest stewardship policy of the Oil and Gas Commission? Where would I be able to find that?

Hon. S. Thomson: For all the cutting activity under the master licence to cut, the regulation of that is under the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the regulation under that. Those regulations align with the Forest Act. But for this purpose, specifically for the oil and gas sector, those regulations are provided for in the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

B. Simpson: How many foresters are under the employ of the Oil and Gas Commission that actually go out and manage these master licence to cut and cutting permits?

Hon. S. Thomson: I don't have a specific number of foresters. I do know that many of the employees in the Oil and Gas Commission are foresters. In fact, a number of those employees were previously employed by the ministry in that area.

What I do know is that the oil and gas staff, the Oil and Gas Commission, take their responsibilities, in terms of managing the regulation and their responsibilities under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, very seriously. As I said, the regulations align with the Forest Act, and we're confident that those regulations are administered carefully and responsibly by the Oil and Gas Commission.

B. Simpson: I know the minister is getting advice from staff, and there is a political answer to these questions. But I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the B.C. Oil and Gas Task Force from 2006, which basically targeted these master licences to cut as a vehicle for the government to essentially be undermining forest stewardship in the area of operations for oil and gas in the Peace directly.

It points out that there are inherent contradictions, as there are for water and various other things, with the Oil and Gas Commission, in undertaking the facilitation of the expansion of oil and gas and the permitting of removing Crown timber. It indicates that the Oil and Gas Commission did not take into consideration, for example, wildlife tree patches when they put in their seismic lines or their roads.

[1525]

When they were challenged by the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals about the stewardship aspect of that, the Oil and Gas Commission said: "Don't worry. Be happy. You can move wildlife tree patches around as you see fit." The professional foresters association indicated that's not the case. They're specifically there for a reason — because they have inherent value. And again, the Oil and Gas Commission, as the minister has indicated, because of administrative efficiencies, just says: "Don't worry. Be happy. You can blow through wildlife tree patches."

The reforestation requirements are minimalistic under master licences to cut. In fact, the Oil and Gas Commission has no documentation or requirements for reforestation under master licence to cut or cutting permits — which then calls into question the whole characterization of these as normative forest stewardship practices. Because good forest stewardship would at least require reforestation.

[ Page 8578 ]

I want to get to something that the minister indicated before, where in response to a question from the critic, he indicated that all of the volume that's removed under the cutting permits under a master licence to cut is duly reported and that the chief forester takes all of that into account when he does the AAC determination.

I want to read into the public record from the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission task force report. This is a direct quote. "The overall concept of volume control or even, in contrast, an area control annual allowable cut to promote forest sustainability is not practised or enforced by the Oil and Gas Commission upon oil and gas licensees." This forces the chief forester to…. It says, for example: "Access roads and wellsites were not included in the calculation. Therefore, the chief forester came up with a proportional estimate to come up with a total net loss of the timber harvesting land base due to oil and gas activities."

This proportional estimate has actually been challenged on both sides, as either too low or too high. According to the report that I'm reading, which is a UBC study, it states: "It is impossible to determine if the harvest rates of provincial forest districts that share the land with oil and gas activities are sustainable or not."

I'm wondering if the minister can clarify for the public record. Under the cutting permits for the oil and gas under a master licence to cut, is the exact volume measured, cruised, appraised? Is that exact volume reported to the Oil and Gas Commission, and the Oil and Gas Commission reports that to the Ministry of Forests — yes or no? Are we talking exact volumes or estimates?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said earlier, the areas under the cutting permits and under the master-licence-to-cut umbrella licences are not scaled, so they are not exact volumes. They are based on a conversion factor, based on the area. That's what is reported to the chief forester, and he takes those factors into his AAC determination, but they are not exact volumes.

B. Simpson: Hence why the chief forester has to do estimates in that area, and the billing is also based on estimates. As I understand, the minister has indicated three classes, but it's an estimation of what volume is removed. Regardless of how wide or how narrow you go, you're estimating the volume of Crown timber that's taken down.

[1530]

One of the issues under master licence to cut that I want to just be clear on, again, from a factual perspective…. There are multiple companies operating in the same area. Those companies need to put their own seismic lines down. Often they put their own roads down, their own well pads down. Can a master licence to cut be issued over an area repeatedly? Can there be multiple master licences to cut over a specific area of Crown land?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. By the nature of the master licences to cut, which are broad and area-based, they can overlap. Obviously, the cutting permits issued under those don't. So those are what are reported in terms of getting the estimates and the volumes that are cut under the overall umbrellas and under the cutting permits. That's what is reported to the chief forester. That's how he makes his determinations in terms of AAC in those timber supply areas. But, as the member opposite points out, they do overlap.

B. Simpson: Forest stewardship plans overlap and so on. That is part of what's going on, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the activities of the oil and gas companies do longitudinal fractures to the land base — their seismic lines, their roads, their 3-D lines, all of those things.

In the report from UBC…. I should mention the young woman's name: Dr. Valerie LeMay, under George Hoberg's supervision at UBC.

The clearing activity of exploration and oil and gas development disturbs wildlife during sensitive breeding, nesting or overwintering periods; displaces wildlife temporarily or permanently from adjacent lands; fragments and alters the habitat on or along rights-of-way; improves hunter or predator access to remote wildlife populations; introduces noxious weeds in the area.

The disruption of the vegetation can increase potential for erosion, blowdown damage, fragmentation of habitat and reduced biodiversity, and limit the area's ability to regenerate naturally.

These are significant implications and beg the question of who has overall forest stewardship responsibilities. So my question to the minister is this. The Oil and Gas Commission is the issuer, and this bill is going to facilitate them issuing once in ten years instead of once in five years. I'm not sure that a one-time-in-ten versus a one-time-in-five is a huge workload issue for the Oil and Gas Commission. Nonetheless, all it's intended to do is facilitate some kind of reduction in workload.

Who is actually managing the landscape level in that area? Who has the broad-scale maps? Who's putting all of the cutting permits down, all of the roads down? Who's looking and saying that all of this activity is having this impact on these species or on this watershed? Who is responsible for that landscape-level stewardship of that Crown resource in the Peace region?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is referencing a report from a number of years ago. It's important to point out that since that report we've had the Oil and

[ Page 8579 ]

Gas Activities Act and the environmental protection and management regulation under that. That is providing for the overall environmental management and regulation protection of activities under the Oil and Gas Activities Act and is administered by the Oil and Gas Commission. It's important to recognize that.

In terms of the overall landscape level, I think this is an issue around addressing overall cumulative effects or cumulative impacts. Work is underway in that area, and work continues in that area. Again, it's important to recognize that the cutting permits are authorized by the activities under the permit. You don't get a cutting permit under the master licence to cut unless you've got the permit under the oil and gas activities. That doesn't happen unless you've got the other permits.

This is simply a process of aligning the permit and the permitting terms and timelines to provide more efficient operation for our staff, for our operations and for the activities in the field. The larger discussion around cumulative effects is ongoing.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister is seeing this as a simple extension, five to ten years. As he well knows, often the area that is brought forward is an area for canvass. I think this is one that needs to be looked at carefully.

There is accumulating evidence that even under the forest stewardship plans, a glaring omission under the forest stewardship plan is who is managing the landscape level. Who is taking care of that? So under master licence to cut, that's the same.

The minister mentioned the oil and gas act and so on. But as the minister probably knows, a lot of the regulations for those have not been finished yet either — in fact, even the emergency response regulations under the new oil and gas act have not been completed. I would be curious to know the state of anything relating to forest stewardship.

I think, on balance, that the master licence to cut is not a stewardship-based way to deal with forestry. That's why it's handed to the Oil and Gas Commission, and that's why they issue the permits and so on.

My question to the minister is this. Is there any appetite on the part of government to actually spend time…? This was done in 1998. It wasn't this government that facilitated the Oil and Gas Commission having this capacity. The same language was used in 1998 for administrative efficiencies as the minister is using just now.

I don't agree that it should be turned over to tenures. We'll vote against the clause as a result. Would the minister commit to actually looking at whether or not this is the right tool from a forest stewardship perspective and from a cumulative impact assessment? That's in the minister's responsibility as the main political entity for the stewardship of Crown resources.

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think that the answer to this is generally yes, in terms of addressing the overall work that's underway, in terms of cumulative impacts and cumulative effects. That work, as I mentioned, is underway.

As part of that, the tool with a master licence to cut, I think, is the appropriate tool under the current policy in terms of the permits and aligning the terms. But as I mentioned, the overall look…. I think it is part of our responsibility in the ministry to do so, to look at how this all works in terms of the overall look at cumulative effects. That work is underway, and obviously, some of the policies and tools that you have under that would be part of that look.

Section 6 approved on division.

section 7.

N. Macdonald: Here again we have an extension of an existing type of permit — the free use permit. It's been extended with

section 7 from one to five years. To begin with, maybe the minister can explain in general terms the free use permit and then the explanation for the extension from one to five years.

Hon. S. Thomson: The free use permits are permits that are issued for very minor activities. Firewood is an example, and Christmas trees are an example — short permits in order to deal with removal of trees for very minor things. What this does is simply allows the holder of a coal licence or a mineral title to be issued that permit for five years instead of one year.

This is, again, a process around not having to have multiple permits and to continue…. So it is part of streamlining the operations, of reducing the nature of multiple permits for these by extending it for up to five years.

B. Simpson: I'm actually standing for a purpose on this, because I've stood in contradiction to the government up to this point. I do think this is in response to years of requests to address this issue. For the most part, these are very small operators, as I understand. It is a small portion of the land base. It's a few trees here and there.

For a representative from an area that has many, many placer miners…. This is something they've been calling on for years. I know it's paid close attention to by the ministry staff as they go and look and make sure that, whether it's one year or five years, it's not abused. I'm comforted that ministry staff pay close attention to the removal of these trees under these permits.

So I wanted to stand to thank the government and the minister for responding to this. I know you have made a lot of the placer miners in our area quite happy that they'll only have to do this every five years.

[ Page 8580 ]

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

[1545]

N. Macdonald: Maybe just as a starting point for this, will the minister explain the changes that are proposed here in

section 10?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section sets out the procedure to calculate the amount of stumpage an agreement holder must pay to the government for Crown timber they have harvested. The amount payable is the product of the volume or quantity of the Crown timber harvested and the stumpage rate.

This amendment is consequential to proposed amendments in

section 106 of the act which require the information be reported to the government for cruise-based cutting authorities. That is, instead of stating the volume of timber is "calculated under

section 106," it states the volume is "calculated using the information required to be submitted to the government under

section 106...."

This amendment is needed to ensure that

section 103 properly describes the process by which the amount of timber is calculated for the purposes of determining the stumpage payable for cruise-based cutting authorities.

B. Routley: In this amendment under the Forest Act, does this cruise option apply to the entire province, or are we talking specific regions of the province? Are there limitations thought about for regulation? Or how are you going to go about that?

Hon. S. Thomson: The availability or the utilization of cruise-based timber or cruise-based assessment is available throughout the province in all areas of the province. The policies are set out in the appraisal manuals. There is specific direction in the Interior appraisal manual for dead pine that sets out the specific requirements. But it is an approach and a policy that is available throughout all of the province.

B. Routley: Wow. It's shocking to me that this would be available for the entire province, particularly the coastal region. As I'm sure the minister is aware, there are huge differences in timber values from the coast to the north and the Interior, in that in the same stand on the coast you can have a tremendous range of values from our spruce and old-growth cedar, for example, as compared to a hemlock or balsam stand. You can have just about everything in one hectare of land and huge differences in values.

I do want to comment at the outset that

section 10 is actually consequential to

section 11. Because it comes first, I think we need to canvass all of the issues in 11. Because 10…. To get our head around this, we have to have a conversation about it as kind of a package. At least that's the approach that I'm taking.

[1550]

I want to say at the outset that I think that's really bad policy for the people of British Columbia. I've heard in the past the idea or the notion that, I think, 35 percent of a stand that has dead pine can be cruised and not scaled or graded properly, and that a timber cruise is essentially taking a hectare of land and applying a cruise to it. A lot of our provincial harvestable land has been cruised, and a lot of it is older information.

I think, as I've said before in this Legislature, it's true. I've talked to graders and scalers down on a dry land sort who will tell you that if a timber cruiser out in the woods says there are 600 or 800 cubic metres per hectare…. Then they scale and grade the timber, and of course they get a totally different outcome in terms of values. When you're actually looking at every single log to determine the value of that log, the Crown is going to extract a lot higher value doing the grading and scaling, as they do examining it on a dry land sort, piece by piece, log by log, in the very up-close-and-personal way that's going on.

The notion that the province is going to somehow get the best value for the Crown by running around using cruise information is really quite frightening indeed. I definitely want to get that off my chest. I think it's a bad idea. It's bad for the province, and we ought to be…. Really, part of the minister's job, when you read the details of Minister of Forests, is to be extracting value for the people of B.C.

I worry that we have a minister of permits. We're spending a lot of time focusing on: how on earth do we get permits out the door? And that's not the right focus, I would suggest. We had dropping timber values. They've gone through the basement. We're actually collecting less money as a province from our forests than what we're spending. That's, again, a bad notion — for the province of British Columbia to be in a situation where we've gone from billions of dollars being brought in for the Crown.

Then I hear this news about…. No wonder I didn't know anything about these various licences to cut, because they were under oil and gas and I'm from the forest industry. So go figure. You know, only this government.

I just can't resist. It's jiggery-pokery at its best — jiggery-pokery at its best to come up with the idea that you're going to take a forestry issue and give it to oil and gas. This is it in a nutshell: "Forget the forest. Let's give it to oil and gas to give out permits to cut our timber." Vast tracts of timber, so vast and so hard for the minister to figure out that they're going to have to go back to the shop and look at the map to come back with some kind of report on exactly what is going on.

I'm terrified to think that we're giving away our valuable resource at bargain basement prices. That's unacceptable

[ Page 8581 ]

to the people of B.C. I mean, it's bad enough that we have to watch truckload after truckload going right through the middle of town, being shipped out of the province, and now we've got the oil and gas people running around doing bargain basement deals.

The Chair: Member. Member.

B. Routley: The question that I have is: what is the potential loss to the Crown? Think about this. We know what we've done in the past. We've got a history in this province. So what is the potential loss to the Crown by not grading and scaling timber? Do you have any idea?

Surely, in a province where we're concerned about the public interest, somebody in the shop over there is worried about the actual value and the grading and scaling and the value that we collect. We've got years and years of history. I have seen those. They're complicated documents to report scaling and grading that goes on.

[1555]

There was a big scandal in Shoal Islands years ago. I remember when BCFP…. Boy, there were spotlights on the dryland sort in a major way because there was some kind of…. They thought they were cheating the province of British Columbia by not doing proper scaling and grading. Now we've got a situation where it's: turn a blind eye; get the licences out the door, fella; create an oil and gas sector that's giving licences out like they're candy. I mean, it's unbelievable that these kinds of things are going on.

So I think the province needs to know if there has been any kind of analysis done on the potential loss to the Crown by not grading and scaling the timber versus just having cruise.

Hon. S. Thomson: I wondered how long it would take to get around to the jiggery-pokery.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, we knew it was there somewhere. That's right.

Just to be clear, the amendment we're discussing here is not a discussion about whether we use cruise-based assessment or not. This policy has been in place since 1978 — the ability to do the cruise-based instead of scale.

What the amendments to the legislation do are two things. One is to ensure that when it is done — if you move forward to

section 11 — we can set and get the information required to ensure that the cruise-based approach is strict, that we're getting the proper assessment on it and to make sure that all the information that we require is provided to us. So it's to strengthen the cruise-based system.

So the amendment and the process here is not about whether or not to use the approach. The amendments are to ensure that we can set and get the information required to make sure that we're getting the full information.

B. Routley: Could you give us some idea of the number of test sites or plots where you actually attempted to use the cruise in an area where you hadn't used cruise before? And how did you determine…? Did you actually use the cruise numbers to start with? You know, determine a value and then go out and actually scale it and grade it and come back with a number that gave you some comfort that the Crown was extracting the full value.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Member. Is this on

section 10 or

section 11?

B. Routley:

Section 10 is consequential to 11, so it's both.

The Chair: Okay, Member.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, again, I want to reiterate the point that what we're talking about here within the amendment is to address the provision of information on a policy that has been in place for many, many years. But there is ongoing comparison or ongoing assessment between cruise-based assessments and scaled assessments.

Those comparisons are made by region, by cutting permit and can be made by a company. For the amount — with thousands of scaled assessments done versus hundreds of cruise-based assessments — the ratios are, to the greatest extent, 1 to 1. The cruise-based assessments provide the same information out of the scale-based assessment.

B. Routley: Well, we're talking about the same information. Now, I assume you're talking about volumes, but I was asking a question about values. This is the second time the minister has referred to the notion that this is somehow a practice that's been in place a long time.

I would like the minister to describe to what extent in the province of British Columbia — of the entire timber base on the coast, let's say…. What percentage of the entire timber base on the coast has been cruised? One question at a time. Let's start there.

It's been asserted that timber cruising is done since the '70s, so what percentage of the volume of the coast of British Columbia has been assessed under timber cruising?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: So just to confirm. I think that what the member opposite is looking for is: on the basis where stumpage is paid based on the cruise, it is estimated to be 10 to 15 percent.

[ Page 8582 ]

B. Routley: And I'm assuming that's on the coast — that that's referred. So are we talking about a primarily low-value hemlock region?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Member. Could you explain to the Chair the relevance of your question to

section 10?

B. Routley:

Section 10 is actually consequential to the next. In item 11 you'll see that it refers to…. Number 10 refers to

section 106(2), and item 11 is amending 106. So in order to deal…. It's actually consequential. It should be, in a way, No. 12, but it isn't here as No. 12. It's here as No. 10, so I'm speaking of them as a package.

If you would like to get by it…. I don't know if anyone else wants to speak to 10, but I can sit down, and we can move past 10, to 11.

The Chair: I would prefer that.

B. Routley: Okay. Well, let's do that, then.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

B. Routley: Yeah, so I'm still waiting for the answer on the low-cost hemlock — the percentage of the coast that was determined by cruise. I'm interested in whether that was just low-value hemlock, or was that applied to an area of mixed species on the coast of British Columbia?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, generally, it does target the lower-quality hemlock stands. The region has procedures and processes in place to do that. There's a higher sampling intensity when we know that the payment is going to be based on cruise-based assessment. That helps reduce the risk to the province. But it's generally targeted at the lower-quality stands.

B. Routley: Timber cruising gives the province only approximate volumes of timber on a given timber base. Really, only through scaling and log grading can we definitively determine the exact timber volumes and grades — particularly the grades.

How will the province be assured that we're getting fair value for our logs for the province by only timber cruising? This is clearly…. It sounds like a shift. You're bringing in legislation that can be, by your own admission, applied throughout the province, and this potentially has serious detrimental impact to the values of timber that should be extracted for the Crown.

Will the province be assured of getting fair value? If so, how?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, I want to make it clear…. The member opposite made an assertion that we're bringing in legislation to provide for cruise-based assessment. I want to state again that that is not the case. This is a policy that has been in place for significant periods of time. But to be clear, the cruise-based assessment is targeting the lower-quality stands. It is targeting where there is a lower financial risk.

In terms of using the cruise-based assessment for billing, it does target lower-quality stands. It is looking primarily at the dead pine stands. In the Interior is the other area where it's used. Where there is value, then there is the cruise-based assessment at the front end and scaling on the back end to ensure that the province gets the value for the timber that is there.

N. Macdonald: The minister would agree — I think most people would agree — that the cruising is an estimate,

whereas the scaling and the methods that are often in place make sure that a more accurate idea of the value of the timber is actually there. The minister is saying that it is only in the most low-grade areas that this method would be used.

It is, nevertheless, legislatively available to any part of the province. Is the minister contemplating moving into stands that might be slightly higher grade? What are some of the places that cruising could be used? The minister talks about cruising and then a check with scaling. Is that on everything, or would it be just sample scaling?

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, this is not signalling a policy change. This is not meant to mean that we are proposing to do more cruise-based billing on higher-value stands. The cruise is an estimate. We do have the procedures, as we said, targeted at the lower-quality, lower-value stands, where it's used for billing.

In terms of scaling, that is based on a scale process where the logs are scaled. Again, that is not every single log.

To be clear, we're not signalling a change here in going towards, necessarily, more cruise-based billing. What we are doing with this amendment is ensuring that where it is used, we have the provisions in place within the legislation to be able to ensure that we get the full information required in order to do that assessment.

B. Routley: Well, it's being asserted again here that it has not changed. As I understand it, the pine beetle…. There is a larger area of the province that's now cruise-based than was the case in the past. That's based on, as I recall, 35 percent of the stand or more beetle-killed, and you're applying the cruise-based method.

I just want to be certain if that's the case. Could the minister comment on the number of scalers and graders that have lost their jobs in the province of British Columbia

[ Page 8583 ]

as a result of both the pine beetle and the change in the model from a more heavily based reliance on the cruise model rather than on grading and scaling?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, it's related to

section 106(1)(b), where we said: "must, in the circumstances provided for in the policies and procedures referred to in section…" etc. That was a provision that was put in place specifically to move towards cruise-based billing in the low-value dead pine stands.

Again, this amendment and this approach here are not about a wholesale shift in cruising policy or where we may do the cruise-based billing assessments. This is about ensuring that where it is currently being done in targeting those low-quality stands under that approach, we have the provisions to ensure that we can set and get the information we require — that we're getting the proper information in order to be able to do the billing assessments and to collect the stumpage.

[1620]

Section 11 approved on division.

section 12.

N. Macdonald: Now we're moving into some of the changes to the Foresters Act, and we're going to be moving along a bit quicker here with many of these sections.

So then we go to

section 12. This change to the Foresters Act…. Just one question: what was the process of consultation with professional foresters on this change?

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of bringing these amendments forward with respect to the Foresters Act, we had a very extensive and close consultation with the professional foresters association. They communicated with their membership. We worked with them in terms of bringing these amendments forward, and they're supported by the association.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

N. Macdonald: So on

section 13, when and why were subsections 2(4) and 11(2) created, and what occupation groups were exempted from this act? Why was this power given to the association that represents forest professionals?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section and the

section that is being deleted was in reference to maybe where there was a

section or time frame allowed for the transition period for forest technologists, who, through the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians association of British Columbia, were required to become members of the Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals. There was a time period put in place to allow that to happen. That has now been completed. That provision was December 2005. So that

section has been completed that allowed for that time frame. That process is now completed, and that

section is no longer needed.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

N. Macdonald:

Section 14 is changes to the objects of the association. I guess the question is…. It creates mandatory standards where previously they had been voluntary. Could the minister explain why there was the need to do that.

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section was amended to strengthen the process of the certification schemes for the occupations that are under the association.

The previous section, which talked about voluntary certification schemes was — in the view of the association, and we supported it in discussions with them — to strengthen their schemes to make sure that they can cover off their responsibilities and obligations in ensuring that the people who are practising professional forestry are part of those schemes and that it simply isn't voluntary.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

N. Macdonald: I look for clarification on

section 15, because in reading it, it looks like, to me…. I know we went through a briefing on this, so it should have been clear in my mind. But when I read it again, it looks like some of the changes here….

It goes on into

section 17 and

section 18, where…. The way the professional organization that represents foresters would work is that rather than the current method for establishing membership rates being set with the general membership, this seems to put it into the council. Now, it could be that I misunderstood that, because after the briefing colleagues were talking about that.

Is that a correct understanding? Does this change the current way? And it allows membership fees that previously had been set as a bylaw by council and then ratified by a vote of 50 percent of the membership…. Is it now that the membership fees are set by resolution of the council and do not need to be ratified by the membership? Am I correct in understanding? Or if that's not the case, can the minister please explain how that works.

[ Page 8584 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: This needs to be referenced back to

section 9, which is for the bylaw process. What has been undertaken here is for quality assurance programs in areas other than continuing education…. Peer practice review has been moved out of bylaws into resolutions so that they can bring in these quality programs and requirements by resolution.

The annual membership fees have been moved out of the bylaw process and into the resolution process, which allows the elected council to set the membership fees. Currently that is the way it is essentially operating, because by resolution, they currently have the ability to set special levies. They've been utilizing that process to levy to run the programs. So it was viewed by the association to move membership fees overall into the elected council process.

This is consistent with a number of other professional associations and assures that the association can fund the necessary certification programs and makes sure that they can deal with foresters who are entitled to practise in the province due to labour mobility legislation.

[1630]

N. Macdonald: Just to understand, the bylaws, which need to be passed by two-thirds…. Previously that's been removed, and it goes to resolution. Resolution is a lower bar if it goes to general membership. But you're also saying that for the fees, it doesn't go to general membership. It only stays within the council. Fees are set.

Now, clearly, there's a story here. In the past, I would presume, there's been an attempt to raise membership fees, and that hasn't been successful. There's been an attempt, possibly, to set standards, and that hasn't been successful. So there's been a request at some level for a change. I know that in the past we had debates on the engineers, where a similar sort of thing was put in place.

Maybe the minister can just give us the story that is behind this initiative, because it must come from somewhere. It is a significant change, so what's the story behind it?

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to this provision, I think the important thing to recognize here is that, with changes in the industry, there are increasing responsibilities on the part of the association of professional foresters — increasing obligations dealing with labour mobility, in bringing technologists and forest professionals in; increasing pressures in terms of providing the development programs; and increasing responsibilities around discipline in terms of the growing professional reliance to make sure of all of those.

That obviously puts great responsibilities on the part of the association, puts significant requirements on them for which they need funds, membership fees, to be able to do. So in consultation with the association, this was the recommendation.

As we said, it brings them into line with a number of other professional associations. This was supported in the consultation process we had with the council and, I think, will allow them to undertake their responsibilities and ensure that the management and obligations of professional foresters are maintained.

I think it is true — and it's probably reflected in the number of other associations that have taken membership fee proposals forward that aren't successful — that there are increasing responsibilities, and it is the responsibility of an elected council to set those fees.

Presumably, if the broadest base of the membership doesn't support the decisions that are made by their elected council by resolution, they have the opportunity to change that. So we're comfortable with moving it from a bylaw to a resolution process, as requested by the association.

[1635]

N. Macdonald: We won't spend a tremendous amount of time on this. Essentially, what has happened…. Legislative changes have changed, as the minister said, what the professional body is responsible for. Those legislative changes have a cost attached to them. It's pretty clear that the membership as a whole has resisted paying for that. Essentially, what this does is change the rules.

Now, from my perspective, just in the organization that I would have belonged to as a teacher and a principal, I would always, as a member, participate either as a delegate to an annual general meeting or in some sort of wider consultation in some of these important things. Essentially, we are fundamentally changing how fees are set and how this organization works and putting a lot more power into the council. When the minister talks about these initiatives being supported by the membership of this professional association, I think what he's talking about is the council.

So this isn't an initiative that we support. We understand the history. But when we talked about the professional engineers, I think we had members here that were members of that organization, and a fairly similar thrust was resisted by those individuals. Like I say, I see where the minister is going, and I see where it comes from, but I think it's an area that we won't be supporting.

B. Routley: I definitely want to add that I come from a long history of belonging to a democratic organization, and in fact, to change bylaws and go to a two-thirds requirement from 50 percent plus one would require a two-thirds vote of the membership.

I was wondering if the minister had seen, at the professional association meeting…? Does he have a copy of the people who were attending that convention and the resolution that was passed by a two-thirds majority to

[ Page 8585 ]

move to this, to request this potential change? To not do so would be, I think, to push against the democratic wishes of part of the organization.

Quite frankly, I find it strange. Obviously, there's a lot of history here on why these professional organizations…. I understand that there are other organizations that do, like professional…. I think it's engineers who have the same or some kind of similar situation, where there's legislation dealing with how their democratic processes work. But I find it highly unusual that this legislation would be called upon to change the democratic principles that apply to an organization that….

I guess my simple question is: why don't they do it themselves? Any organization I've ever been part of that's truly democratic doesn't need somebody else to hold their hand to come up with a process that's truly democratic. And if this hasn't been passed at a professional foresters…. Or maybe there is no requirement to pass it at a professional foresters convention. At least, I'd like to know that, on the record — that it's not a requirement and all of the business of that group somehow is tinkered with by the Legislature of the province of British Columbia.

I find it quite amazing that all of us are here today, using our valuable time talking about an organization that really could manage their own democratic decisions, from my point of view, in determining whether or not it's 50 percent plus one or a two-thirds majority. So yeah, I'll definitely be voting against something that's trying to tinker with somebody else's democratic rights.

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: To reiterate, the proposed changes here were developed in close consultation with the association, with their council. This is one that they see as important in order to be able to ensure that they can continue to meet the obligations and the responsibilities, particularly the additional responsibilities, and to have a more streamlined process — to be able to do it through a membership fee, as opposed to a fee and a continued process of special levies.

I reiterate that the council is an elected council. If the elected council moves in a direction that is not supported by the membership, then the process to deal with it would be through election of the council.

Section 15 approved on division.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

N. Macdonald:

Section 21, then, authorizes the council to "cancel a person's certification of accreditation if the person fails to pay fees or other charges." So I guess the question is: is this a new power that the council has? Maybe the minister can just elaborate on exactly what existed previously and also, I suppose, the rationale for the need to change this.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is an amendment that simply…. Through the provisions of the amendments here, we're creating a position or a certification program related to a certificate holder. This is simply adding that certificate holder to the requirements that were already there previously for a registered member, an enrolled member, a special permit holder. It's just simply adding that certificate holder to already existing policies that they had within their association.

Sections 21 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

N. Macdonald: We're into a bill that I was here for the creation of, the Resort Timber Administration Act, and what was put forward as necessary not that long ago has been found to be unnecessary. Can the minister just explain the rationale for pulling this back into the ministry and explain the

definitions "Crown timber" and "private land" and why it would be necessary in this act to have those two

definitions?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to explain the overall rationale for this change in these amendments. As you know, the Resort Timber Administration Act…. We're moving to create the one project, one process to ensure that all the administration is within that single process. That responsibility now lies under this ministry, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. We need to remove the references to the Tourism Minister in the current legislation.

Bringing in the two

definitions, "Crown timber" and "private land." If you move forward to

section 34, we talk about the making of regulations: "designating as a controlled recreation area an area that consists of one or both of the following: (

i) Crown land; (ii) private land on which Crown timber is located."

It's a reference to provide the ability in that

section to undertake those obligations and to provide a definition so that it's the same meaning as in the Forest Act, and "Crown timber" meaning timber reserved for the government.

Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

N. Macdonald: Just to reference what the minister was saying about

section 31. He pointed to

section 34, and I guess the question is: where in B.C. is there Crown timber on private land? Where in the province is Crown

[ Page 8586 ]

land used in this way? If there are a number of these sites, the minister can just give me examples so that I understand what has taken place, presumably, since 2006.

Then a further question is: what compensation does the government get for this