2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Volunteer firefighters in Cariboo area

D. Barnett

Bridges for Women Society

C. James

Aging and society

G. Hogg

Centennial of Port Coquitlam

M. Farnworth

Work and philanthropy of business leaders Joe Segal and Peter Legge

H. Bloy

Seabird College

G. O'Mahony

Oral Questions

Government response to allegations regarding wood innovation centre bidding process

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

D. Donaldson

M. Karagianis

Correspondence from Northern Development Initiative Trust to Jobs Minister

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

Jobs Minister's interaction with Northern Development Initiative Trust

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

Independent investigation into wood innovation centre bidding process

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

L. Krog

Government response to closing of Kitsilano Coast Guard station

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

M. Farnworth

Petitions

K. Conroy

Tabling Documents

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2012

Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C., Annual Report 2011-2012

B.C. Utilities Commission, 2011-2012 Annual Report

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2012

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2013

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Ralston

B. Simpson

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013 (continued)

D. Donaldson

Hon. T. Lake

B. Simpson

C. Trevena

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Sather

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013

H. Lali

Hon. B. Bennett

S. Chandra Herbert

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Destination BC Corp. Act

Hon. P. Bell

S. Chandra Herbert

B. Simpson

[ Page 13331 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2013

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm proud to announce today, first of all, that the member for Chilliwack has not had another grandchild.

However, in the press gallery Jonathan Fowlie and his wife, Jaime Matten, had a nine-pound boy on Monday named Lucas Cohen Matten-Fowlie. I'd like the House to make Lucas welcome.

J. Horgan: The opposition would like to join with the government. I guess we've noticed over the past number of days that the Vancouver Sun hasn't been as interesting, and that's because Jonathan has been busy with his fathering responsibilities. Jaime Matten, the proud mother, was, of course, a significant part of the official opposition and now is a pillar in the mayor's office here in Victoria.

Certainly, on behalf of the opposition, we wish Jaime and Jonathan and Lucas Cohen Matten-Fowlie the best of luck in this year and every year that follows.

R. Howard: Joining us in the House today is a very distinguished Canadian, Mr. Ferry de Kerckhove. Ferry is the former Ambassador of Canada to Indonesia, Egypt, and former high commissioner to Pakistan. He's also Canada's former chief air negotiator. Would the House please make him welcome.

C. James: I know our time is short, so I will not introduce the 20 women who are here with Bridges for Women Society — staff, board members and volunteers. But I would like to introduce some of the graduates from the program, if I may: Donna Bilsborough; Eileen Henry, who is Coast Salish; Rose Henry, Sliammon Nation; Colleen Kerr; Hilary Marks; Nancy Murphy; Deanna Pulido; Tara Timmers; and Jodi Williams. Would the House please make all of our guests very welcome.

D. Barnett: I would like the House to help me welcome two special guests from the pine beetle coalitions, who were here this morning with a group meeting with members of cabinet. With us are Kerry Cook, mayor of Williams Lake and chair of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition; and Dave Majcher, the manager. Please welcome them to the House.

D. Donaldson: I would like to have the House to make welcome Scott Ellis and Mark Werner from the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., who are joining us in the precinct and perhaps in the gallery today with other members of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. We had a wonderful breakfast meeting with them this morning. They're valuable small business people to rural communities and stewards of the land. I'd like to ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I had the pleasure today to join at lunch with a group of B.C. Young Liberals. These are young people who are very interested in politics and, in some cases, in political science. They are here to learn of that great, dignified and refined exchange of perspectives that we call question period.

Among them are Nicole Paul, Allie Valiente, Eric Servais, Sebastian Zein, Clark Assenheimer, Simrath Grewal, Conner McConkey, Andrew Reeve, Carly Aasen, Brody McDonald, Scott Jaroszuk, Zoe Ferry, Blake Hodson and JJ MacLean. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a former constituent. Actually, to be truthful, she was a former constituent of my husband, but she's since moved to the Cowichan Valley. She's here with her husband — Sandra and Rene Goth. Sandra works for the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks, and it was great to see her today. Could the House please join me in making her welcome.

[1340]

Hon. M. Polak: We are visited today by a grade 11 civics class from the King's School in Langley, led by their teacher, Laurena Hensel. I want to introduce the students. I'm going to apologize ahead of time, because I'm sure I'm going to mess up some names: Saria Ashfield, Tia Beard, Chloe Heuchert, Dahae Kim, Nahae Kim, Naeun Kim, Jesse Land, Dean Li, Adrene Linton, Trisha Reid and Isaiah Wooding. Would this House please make them welcome.

N. Macdonald: Just to add to the introductions from the beetle action coalition by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, we also have with us Rhona Martin, Grace McGregor, Chief Judy Wilson, Gerry Thiessen, Don Bassermann and Sharon Tower as well as the guests that were already introduced. The House could join us in welcoming all the members of the beetle action coalitions that are here.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm delighted to see in the gallery my constituency assistants Matt Dolmage and Julia Keifer. They are here to watch question period.

I want to just say that Matt, who works in my office,

[ Page 13332 ]

has been with me for almost five years. Not only is he an exceptional constituency assistant; he excels in carpentry. I've seen him build his own guitar. He is a gifted musician. One day I know he's going to be an outstanding lawyer.

Julia, who I have only recently been acquainted with, is new to my office and has joined us. She is as delightful as she is intelligent. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

R. Fleming: I see in the gallery a couple of constituents of mine who are with the Bridges for Women group here today, and I wanted to recognize them. One of them is Colleen Kasting, who is just a tremendous resource for the housing community in my constituency, helping both tenants and landlords and the housing providers in the capital region do a better job. Colleen, it's great to have you here.

I want to recognize Hilary Marks as well, who brings a tremendous passion to social work and will have many accomplishments to come as a social worker here in the capital region.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd also like to join the member for Stikine in welcoming the representatives from the Guide Outfitters Association here today. Mark Werner and Scott Ellis have been introduced, but also joining them are David Beranek, director from Cranbrook; Michael Young, a director from Smithers; Marc Hubbard, a regional president from Penticton, and his wife, Marcella Hubbard; Joyce Sword from Cranbrook; and Jeana Schuurman, their director of policy and communications assistant with the Guide Outfitters.

As was mentioned, they do a great job in representing families and businesses all across British Columbia. But probably the most important person that's along with them today is Reid Werner, who is the son of Mark Werner. He's a grade 5 student at Beaverly Elementary School in Prince George, studying B.C. politics in class right now, so he's here to watch question period — a future guide-outfitter in British Columbia.

H. Lali: We have three people visiting us here in the galleries today. One is Valerie Adrian, who is a director on the B.C. School Trustees Association and from Gold Trail school district number 74; Sherri Moore-Arbour, who is a communications director for the B.C. School Trustees Association; and Gordon Swan, from my hometown of Merritt, who is a director of the B.C. School Trustees Association, from the Nicola-Similkameen school district. Would the House please make all of my guests welcome.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the precinct today for an important announcement on the prevention of elder abuse were Joe Scaletta, a board member with the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks; Martha Jane Lewis, executive director of the B.C. Centre for Elder Advocacy; and Susan Brice, representative for the Victoria Silver Threads and a district councillor for the Saanich municipality. Would the House please make them all welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome students and teachers from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They're here — a number of social studies classes. They're accompanied by their vice-principal, Jim Rutley; social studies teachers Autumn Lum and Bonnie Burnell; and also volunteers Dan Kramer, Leyla O'Shea, Christina O'Neil, Katherine Olson; and a student teacher, Adam Melnyk. I would ask everyone to please make them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of misses in the gallery still. From the Guide Outfitters Association, I should say Mark Werner is a constituent of mine in Prince George. It's an honour. I have three constituents in the precincts today. In addition, Michael Schneider has not yet been introduced. Michael is from Prince George, a constituent and a member of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.

Also joining us earlier on today from the BACs, but missed in the earlier introductions, is Her Worship Mayor Stephanie Killam from the district of Mackenzie. Would the House please make all of those folks very welcome.

J. Horgan: Also joining us in the gallery today is the former chair of the school district 63 board of education — MaryLynne Rimer. She's a good friend of mine, and I know she's going to enjoy question period today.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have a delegation of six leaders from China's Hubei province, the federation of overseas Chinese, led by Lepei Li Pung and Lau Lin Yun. They are accompanied by David Choi, national chair of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians. Mr. Li is a former Hubei province CPPCC member and director of its external affairs.

Hubei is a province of national strategic importance in central China with a population of 61 million. Its GDP is increasing from $250 billion in 2011 to a target of $400 billion in 2015. Hubei is experiencing over 10 percent annual economic growth. Like B.C., it's strategic in the intermodal transportation hub and an ever-rising regional economic force. Hubei also marked the start of Dr. Sun Yat-sen's national revolution.

Would the House please join me in giving the delegates a warm welcome over there.

[ Page 13333 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

IN CARIBOO AREA

D. Barnett: Today I am paying tribute to the volunteer firefighters in my riding. There are 18 fire departments in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, two of which have full-time paid chiefs. Most of the others are volunteers. These men and women are professionals in other fields, who work steady. Most have families and give their time helping others, whether a fire, a rescue, a community parade or raising funds to buy equipment for their departments.

Emergency events do not distinguish between career or volunteer responders, and training for both is very similar. Firefighting can be a very dangerous occupation, whether as a volunteer or a professional. Firefighters take a major risk every time they enter a burning building or other dangerous situations where they are needed.

Sometimes their willingness to put themselves on the line in order to help others can even cost them their lives. It takes a very special person to do this. In my riding, since 1999, there have been three fallen firefighters in the line of duty. To all the volunteer firefighters and their families: thank you.

BRIDGES FOR WOMEN SOCIETY

C. James: The five mothers who founded Bridges for Women Society 25 years ago were determined to create an environment where women felt safe enough to take on the challenges of changing their lives, realizing their dreams and claiming their rightful places in society. Their foresight and courage built the foundation into a place of transformation, healing and love. The society's employment training and support programs help women impacted by violence, abuse, trauma and neglect to reclaim their lives.

Each year Bridges for Women provides services to more than 500 women through classroom programs, counselling and coaching sessions and its innovative on-line programs for women. Today the legacy of their work runs deep through our community, in the lives of women and families who have been profoundly touched and changed.

[1350]

These amazing women have rediscovered their self-worth and value, and they are living healthier, safer and more fulfilling days. All are leaders themselves now, paying forward with gratitude all that was given to them. In the words of one Bridges graduate: "I learned I did deserve an education, a good job and mutually respectful relationships." Another said: "The spectrum of experiences I have learned began with trauma and ended with self-definition of being an educated woman."

I'd like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Bridges for Women Society on its 25th anniversary. As we mark International Women's Day this Friday, it's a particularly fitting time to acknowledge the exceptional contributions of the inspiring women at the society. I'm so grateful for their years of service and dedication to our community and for making such a difference in the lives of so many women and so many families. On behalf of all of us, I offer them congratulations on their 25th anniversary.

AGING AND SOCIETY

G. Hogg: Statisticians now tell us that our life expectancy is rising by about five hours per day or nearly three months each year — not for all of us. This is a startling statistic and one that is set to transform everything from employment to welfare and the norms of family life. Our traditional assumptions about aging and getting older are fundamentally flawed.

Moving beyond chronology as a way of understanding age will be a key shift as we move to an older society, and we need to innovate to enable us to adapt to the aging population, including re-creating our social institutions and creating new ways for us to care for each other, to help each other, to harness the opportunities of an aging society and enable us all to age better.

We are all aging, but not in the same way. Our socioeconomic status is a stronger determinant of how we age than our chronological age, and understanding the diversity and dynamics of aging is vital to the innovation needed to successfully transition to an older society.

There is a gap between our current approaches to aging and what people say they want. Research in what older people want and the factors contributing to their lives suggest a vision that includes having a purpose, having a sense of well-being and feeling at home and connected with others — not a surprise, and not at variance with what most people want throughout their whole life.

Our life expectancy is rising by five hours today. May we use some of those to focus on the factors and needs of our future — a future of an aging society that requires new perspectives, new thinking and new approaches.

CENTENNIAL OF PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: It's with great pride that I rise in the House today to speak about an event of great significance to me in the community where I live and grew up. That is, tomorrow will be the centennial of the city of Port Coquitlam in British Columbia. The land where Port Coquitlam now sits was the traditional territory and still is the traditional territory of the Kwikwetlem Nation, which has been there since time immemorial. In the mid-1800s, with the coming of settlements on the coast of British Columbia, it was explored by Colonel Moody and was, for a brief time, considered to be almost a good location for the first capital of British Columbia. Oh, what

[ Page 13334 ]

might have been.

But with the coming of the CPR and the creation of the spur line to New Westminster, a community called Westminster Junction grew up, and industrial activity took place. In 1913 the community separated at that time from the district of Coquitlam, with the reeve of Coquitlam becoming the first mayor of Port Coquitlam — one James Mars.

Since that time, Port Coquitlam has grown from an agricultural-industrial community of around 1,200 people to the community of some 55,000 today. The railway is still an important part of that, as are many of the families that helped to found Port Coquitlam — names like Gillespies and Wingroves and, in fact, Routleys, one of whose descendants sits in this House today.

Some interesting facts about Port Coquitlam. The first woman alderman in British Columbia to be elected to local government was from Port Coquitlam, in 1934. Her name was Jane Kilmer. She served for 34 years. We're the hometown of Terry Fox, Canada's greatest hero. We're also the home where the first NDP Premier of British Columbia, Dave Barrett, resided — not East Vancouver, but Port Coquitlam.

Some other interesting facts. What community in the Lower Mainland has the greatest park space of anywhere in Metro? Port Coquitlam. Join me in wishing Port Coquitlam a happy centennial.

[1355]

WORK AND PHILANTHROPY OF BUSINESS

LEADERS JOE SEGAL AND PETER LEGGE

H. Bloy: It is my pleasure to pay tribute today to two successful British Columbians who work tirelessly to give back to their community.

Joe Segal. Joe is a legend in British Columbia, known for his real estate ventures and sole ownership of such stores as Fields, Zellers and the Bay. Joe has built a far-reaching empire. His generosity is well known. Many organizations have benefited from his guidance and his ability as a leader and a fundraiser. At 87, Joe still goes to work every day with a smile on his face.

Peter Legge is co-founder of Canada Wide Media, the largest privately owned magazine publishing company in western Canada. He is internationally renowned as a motivational speaker and a best-selling author whose success is matched only by his philanthropy. Peter has served as co-host of the Variety Club telethon, the children's charity, for the past 30 years. In that time he has helped to raise more than $150 million towards the cause. But what sets these two men apart is not their success but that they have used their success to give back.

In 2002 Peter suffered a stroke during a speech to the American Mental Health Association. His experience led him to volunteer even more time with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, encouraging men to take control of their health and pay attention to the warning signs.

The same with Joe. He suffered a stroke in 2009. In 2010 he and his wife, Rosalie, donated $12 million to Vancouver General Hospital and the UBC Hospital Foundation — one of the biggest personal donations ever in the history of British Columbia.

These two men measure success not by wealth but by the ability to inspire, encourage and help others. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for everything they've done for British Columbia.

SEABIRD COLLEGE

G. O'Mahony: British Columbia is facing a skills shortage. Roughly 80 percent of all jobs in the next five to ten years will require some form of post-secondary education. Seabird College is an example of how one creative First Nations community in the Chilliwack-Hope riding is preparing to meet the challenge of skills training and literacy by offering the B.C. adult Dogwood along with trade or vocational training.

It began first as a vision. In 1971 Chief Archie Charles envisioned local education, from kindergarten to college, available right within the community of Seabird Island. These houses of learning would be a place where students could receive their education, taught from a Stó:lô value perspective. It was an ambitious dream, but in 2009, under the leadership of Chief Clem Seymour, Seabird College officially opened. It was considered the greatest goal of band manager Daryl McNeil and council.

Today there are roughly 198 full-time students enrolled in 16 different programs. I had the honour of attending the graduation ceremony class of 2012, and I'll never forget the testimony of one young man who completed his grade 12 in a pipe-laying program. He recalled how he felt going into the program, racked with a sense of dread that he would not be able to complete the course work, especially the math.

This young man was jubilant as he recalled, with genuine gratitude, how with the assistance of his instructors and support staff he was able to attain his goal. In fact, he was guaranteed employment even before completing his course work. Seabird College had given him the tools to do just that. But his story and the countless others were more than simple acceptance speeches. What is happening at Seabird College is a life-transforming experience.

I raise my hands to Chief Clem Seymour; the leadership of Diane Janzen, Diane Parkinson and Daryl McNeil; the council; the education and college committee; the instructors; and the students.

[ Page 13335 ]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING WOOD INNOVATION CENTRE

BIDDING PROCESS

N. Macdonald: Last week the opposition raised questions in the House related to a complaint by two Prince George business owners about the actions of two ministers in the assembly of property for the wood innovation and design centre. Now, the government asserted at the time that the fairness adviser had exonerated the two ministers of any wrongdoing, but British Columbians are going to need proof to back up that assertion.

[1400]

The question for the Justice Minister is this. Will she release today the full report of the fairness adviser, including all records and correspondence between the government, the complainants and all other interested parties?

Hon. P. Bell: I was clear about this answer last week. I'll repeat it for the member opposite. All documents will be released when the contract is awarded. I'm led to believe by the project board that that will be in the next week or two.

I do have a letter from the fairness adviser that articulates, I think, the answer to the member opposite's question. The fairness adviser refers to the letter to her regarding the procurement process for the wood innovation and design centre, including the allegations that there were promises made. In the letter it says: "I reviewed the matter and subsequently reported to the project board that I was satisfied the evaluation process had not been compromised and that the WIDC procurement had been handled appropriately to date."

The remainder of the materials, of course, will be released, as I said, when the contract's awarded.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Clearly, selectively reading elements out of the report is not going to be satisfactory in any way. The allegations are incredibly serious.

I'll just read what one of the local business people said, and this is on the record. It's a direct quote here, speaking about the Jobs Minister. "The Jobs Minister committed to me that if I would do that, purchase the land off Dan McLaren, that he would make sure we got shortlisted, and then you could have what they call an alternative method in the bid. He absolutely promised me that he would get me shortlisted."

There have been eight days since the allegations were published in the media. What steps has the Justice Minister taken to investigate what are very serious charges?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I answered that question last week. Those allegations are false. If the member would like to repeat those allegations outside of this House, I would encourage him to do so.

D. Donaldson: These are serious allegations, and they're public allegations. They are, in fact, the allegations of a longtime B.C. Liberal donor and well-established northern business owner. This business owner said the Jobs Minister was eventually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: This business owner said the Jobs Minister was eventually apologetic but that he would continue to try to make the deal work in his donor's favour. "He tried to amend Partnerships B.C. proposal structure, for sure," the business owner alleges. Another quote: "He had his fingers way too close into it." It's simply not good enough for the Liberal government to ignore these very serious allegations.

Again, to the Justice Minister, what steps has she taken to address the allegations of impropriety by the Jobs Minister?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm certain that the member opposite will have an opportunity to answer this question in his supplemental. I would just ask the member opposite if he would confirm whether or not Mr. Fehr, who is the individual that he's referring to, has made a significant donation to the NDP in the last 12 or 13 months through either himself or one of his companies.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: While this is question period, we're asking the questions. If the minister waits long enough, he'll get his chance on this side to ask questions.

Last week the Jobs Minister claimed that he was….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Last week the Jobs Minister claimed that he was completely hands-off from the decision-making and the land deal at the heart of these allegations. Yet the public record showed something different.

[1405]

A briefing note for decision prepared by the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, Janine North,

[ Page 13336 ]

says that both the Jobs Minister and the Justice Minister were part of discussions about the location of the wood innovation and design centre.

Ms. North said: "I have had discussions during September 2009 with the Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and the vice-chair of the Treasury Board, who have all clearly articulated the strong interest of having UNBC's wood innovation and design centre located in downtown Prince George." She then adds: "The government is aware of the land assembly opportunity."

Now, given the discrepancy between what the Jobs Minister says and what is on the public record from the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, what is the Justice Minister doing to investigate these ongoing allegations?

Hon. P. Bell: I challenged the member opposite to disclose whether or not Mr. Fehr, through any of his companies, had made a significant donation to the NDP.

Perhaps the member doesn't know that last February, February of 2012, Mr. Fehr, through one of his companies, wrote a cheque to the NDP for $50,000. Perhaps the member opposite doesn't know that Mr. Fehr had one of his employees go and pick up the Leader of the Opposition, show him around Prince George for a day and helped to start organize the NDP campaign in Prince George. Perhaps the member opposite doesn't know that this is the same Mr. Fehr that has been attending and helped organize different events for the NDP throughout Prince George and in the forestry industry.

This member refuses to repeat the allegations outside the chamber that he has raised inside the chamber. I'd encourage him, if he has the conviction of his beliefs, to do that outside.

M. Karagianis: These are very serious allegations against a minister of the Crown.

That briefing note for decision was a well-considered document drafted by the CEO of a trust that is now under the purview of that minister. It was presented to the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust by Ms. North, the CEO.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: The note was presented to the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust by Ms. North, the CEO. Her purpose was to convince the board to lend a considerable amount of money to Commonwealth Campus for a public project.

After clearly saying that the Jobs Minister and the Justice Minister had thrown their political weight behind a specific purchase of land, she made the recommendation that "a term sheet be developed to enable Northern Initiative Development Trust to provide a secured loan to the Commonwealth Campus Corp." The term sheet would be subject to a Treasury Board decision which approved sufficient capital budget for the construction of the wood innovation centre.

Again, to the Justice Minister. This contradicts what the Jobs Minister has been saying and supports the allegations made by two Prince George developers. So what steps is the Justice Minister taking to get to the bottom of these allegations?

Hon. P. Bell: It's interesting to me that one of the individuals that's making the allegations has donated a significant amount of money to the NDP about a year ago. Of course, we don't have any more current records than that, so it would be interesting to see what additional donations have been made by these parties to the opposition during that point in time. It certainly brings into question, for me, what is going on here.

I know that research doesn't fall in the long suit of the opposition, but I would like to raise something for the member opposite that would be readily available, actually, on the racks over in the corner. It's the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act that was passed in this House. I actually think members on both sides supported it when it went through.

[1410]

If the members check

section 2, they will note that the responsibility of the Northern Development Initiative Trust is to establish regional advisory committees. Who sits on those regional advisory committees? All of the mayors of each of the municipalities within the region that have a population greater than 500; the chairs of the regional district that is, in part or in whole, within the region; and Members of the Legislative Assembly.

It is our responsibility to advise Northern Development Initiative Trust, not to make the decisions — to advise. That's exactly what that note says. Of course we would be advocating for projects in our community. That's our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Earlier this week we learned that the Jobs Minister and the former Finance Minister met with the mayor of Prince George and the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust in the spring of 2012. They met to discuss the wood innovation centre.

But the mayor of Prince George, Shari Green, is on the record as saying that the Jobs Minister, after all of the encouragement to assemble this land and encouragement for these developers to make their submission, suggested that the Northern Development Initiative Trust, after

[ Page 13337 ]

having loaned them the money, foreclose on the loan to Mr. McLaren — a loan assured by the lands involved in the wood innovation centre.

Six months later, and quite suddenly, the trust did exactly that. Now these two business owners are out hundreds of thousands of dollars and are alleging impropriety at the hands of the Jobs Minister.

So to the Justice Minister: these are very serious allegations — not to be taken lightly, not to be brushed off by the Jobs Minister. What is the Justice Minister doing to get to the bottom of these allegations?

Hon. P. Bell: If the member opposite were to read the entire clip that she just referred to, she would note that the mayor of Prince George noted that she thought I was speaking in jest and that I was not serious when I suggested that. That's actually what the full clip says.

But I would point out to the member opposite — and again, I'm happy to provide a copy of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act for her if she is unable to source that document — that subsection 5(3) of the act says: "The Northern Development Initiative Trust is not an agent of the government."

Decisions are made by the board. It is the responsibility of local MLAs, local mayors and local regional district chairs to advise the board on good projects. We do exactly that. I'm sure the member opposite would do that if she had that opportunity as well.

CORRESPONDENCE FROM NORTHERN

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE TRUST

TO JOBS MINISTER

J. Horgan: Will the Jobs Minister advise this House if he received correspondence in March of 2010 from the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't know what correspondence the member is referring to. I'll take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental, but different.

JOBS MINISTER'S INTERACTION

WITH NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

INITIATIVE TRUST

J. Horgan: The minister was referring to sections of the act whereby the advisory committees offer advice. I have a document signed by Janine North, the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, that says as follows: "We have acted as the lender, financing 75 percent of the property acquisition costs of the following lots at the request of the two local ministers of the Crown and the interest expressed by the mayor and council of the city of Prince George."

My question is to the minister. When does requesting by the person who appoints the CEO or person who appoints the board…? When does that request become coercion? Will he answer that question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite usually comes better prepared for question period than he has today, clearly. I think that he has just crossed a line, and that is an interesting comment would it be made outside the House.

Clearly, the member opposite just read something, and I don't have a copy of that document in front of me. I don't know what he's referring to. But I recall him saying in his words that the mayor and council of Prince George were also involved in that.

[1415]

Northern Development Initiative Trust is an independent body. The province of British Columbia appoints five of 13 members to that board. The board is controlled by mayors throughout the Northern Development Initiative Trust area, not by this provincial government. That's the way it was set up in the first place. The Auditor General has continued to confirm that this is an arm's-length organization. They make decisions on their own. The member opposite should do his homework.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO

WOOD INNOVATION CENTRE

BIDDING PROCESS

J. Horgan: Now, serious allegations have been swirling around the wood innovation and design centre in Prince George — serious allegations. The document prepared by the CEO of the Northern Trust says that moneys were lent — public moneys were lent — to private individuals to assemble land at the request of the Minister of Jobs and the Attorney General.

Clearly, the Attorney General can't investigate herself. My question is to the Premier. Isn't it past time that an independent body is appointed to investigate the scandal swirling around the wood innovation and design centre? Isn't it about time?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, in about 14 or so minutes, maybe 15, that member opposite is going to have a chance to walk through those doors and make that same statement outside. That would be outside the protection that is offered to that member when he's inside this House.

You know what? There was actually an interesting interview by a gentleman who is a reporter in Prince George to-

[ Page 13338 ]

day, who has actually been on this file since last November. The member opposite should read the transcript. You know what it says, Mr. Speaker? They've dug as deep as they can on this, and there's nothing there. It's that simple. If the member opposite has any evidence, any evidence to the contrary, I'd encourage him to step outside and provide that evidence publicly.

L. Krog: It's most interesting. Now the standard of public inquiry in this province has devolved down to investigative reporters being relied on to give proof of allegations to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, these allegations are not allegations made by the opposition pulled out of thin air. These are serious allegations made in written submissions to the fairness adviser and corroborated by statements on the public record and written documents by public officials. When such serious allegations are made, and when they're levied against cabinet ministers, it's vital — I would trust and hope — and clear to all that the public interest be protected. That requires that the Attorney General get to the bottom of it.

Will the Attorney General, in her role today, commit to a thorough independent investigation to get to the bottom of the allegations around the wood innovation and design centre and land assembly?

Hon. P. Bell: I find it a little tough to take from a member from Nanaimo, the only party in this House that actually has had an organized kickback scheme from charities to help fund their political party — to make such accusations, particularly for the member for Nanaimo to raise that.

Ms. Shackell has thoroughly reviewed this matter. She'll be releasing her full report. I've already read into the record the key comments she's made to the board that is carrying this project forward. The decisions are being made independently at arm's length from me. It's going to be a great project. It's going to advance wood technologies in British Columbia. It's a long time coming, and it's going to really yield benefits for British Columbians well into the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: If the minister has any allegations to make about my association, or lack thereof, with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, let him take it outside.

We've heard denials from ministers of the Crown, but they fly in the face of what's on the public record. Ms. Shackell herself indicated she had no jurisdiction to investigate. The minister is suggesting an investigative reporter has some jurisdiction to investigate.

[1420]

So the issue becomes very much one of public trust. The only way you can ensure that trust is if there's an investigation.

I would remind the Attorney General that she sits at a cabinet table enjoying a very important role, a dual role. She is not just a member of cabinet. She is the Attorney General. It's a tough call for her to make, but I'm suggesting to her today what the appropriate thing to do is: to advise the House that she's going to order an independent investigation into this matter and clear the air once and for all. If this government has nothing to hide, then let it be investigated appropriately.

Hon. P. Bell: You know, it's interesting to me that that member would ask this question for a couple of reasons. One is that he's from Nanaimo, but the other is that he actually sits on one of the advisory boards, for the Island Coastal Economic Trust. I bet that he has gone and advocated for projects to that particular trust in his community. I am almost certain of that. Perhaps the member opposite could tell us what projects he has been advocating for in his community.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Burnaby–Deer Lake.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CLOSING OF

KITSILANO COAST GUARD STATION

K. Corrigan: This morning we woke up to news of a near tragedy in the waters off Point Grey. At 5:15 a.m. a mayday call came in from a fishing boat, and two men were rescued. This is just days after another near miss when a sailboat ran aground off Jericho Beach with two people on board.

When the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was suddenly closed just over two weeks ago, the Premier told us that she would fight to save it. On February 20 she told media: "If you think the fight is over, it ain't over." Well, the Coast Guard signs are now gone, and the dock has been hauled away.

We know that the Premier intended to press the federal government on this issue. We heard that the Attorney General would write a strongly worded letter and that the Premier intended to make phone calls. Will the Premier tell us: what were the results of this action?

Hon. S. Bond: Thankfully, today there was a fortunate response. In fact, the two individuals that were potentially at risk were actually rescued, and I'm grateful to the men and women who helped participate in that.

Both the Premier and I have been very clear about the role that we've taken. Not only have we written specific letters about this issue over the past number of months, but in fact in the last week or so I spoke directly with Minister Ashfield and laid out very clearly British Columbia's concerns. The Premier has also had contact

[ Page 13339 ]

directly with the federal government. We've been clear about this, along with the non-partisan reaction that has taken place across British Columbia. It is unacceptable. This is a matter of public safety, and we continue to urge the federal government to change their position.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Last May this government turned down an offer from the official opposition leader to protest the federal government's Coast Guard cuts through a unified strategy between our parties. We proposed a motion of support, a joint committee and a trip to Ottawa presenting a united front. This government turned us down flat.

When a strong bipartisan action was required, this government played politics. Will the Premier please tell us why she turned down an offer of support from other elected representatives on an issue that is so vitally important to British Columbians?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite hasn't heard my clips in the media. In every single interview that I do, I point out that this is not a partisan issue. So while the member opposite may want to be hung up on the fact that she wasn't invited to go to Ottawa, I went to Ottawa on more than one occasion, spoke directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Minister Ashfield. The Premier of British Columbia has actually had meetings and phone calls. In every one of those discussions I pointed out that, in fact, this was a non-partisan issue, that we've had politicians of virtually every political stripe, including mayors and MLAs and others, stand up and say: "Not acceptable."

We actually understand the importance of making very difficult budget decisions. We've just gone through a process. But we've made it clear that when it's a matter of public safety, that's not acceptable, and we have asked the federal government to change their position.

M. Farnworth: Well, the minister actually made a very interesting point, and that was budget decisions. The federal government said that they are closing the Coast Guard station for budgetary reasons, to "save money."

Well, since that decision, we have now learned that the oil spill response boat that was based at the Kits Coast Guard station, which fitted at the Kits Coast Guard station, will not fit at the new Sea Island base where it's supposed to be based. The federal government says, "Oh, we're doing it to save money," but now we find out that the boat won't fit at the Sea Island base, so they're going to have to spend money to extend the dock so that the oil spill response boat can fit there.

What kind of budgetary saving is that? They're closing it down to save money, and they're going to have to spend more money to make the boat fit. Never mind, never mind….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I find it really interesting that I'm not criticizing the minister, yet they want to heckle because I'm pointing out the stupidity of the federal government's decision.

So, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Calm down." Well, this kind of waste does make people's blood boil. It certainly got the public of British Columbia upset, and it should get every member of this chamber upset.

Given that it does not make sense to shut the Coast Guard station down to "save money" and then have to spend money to renovate the Sea Island base, will the minister not recognize that now, more than ever, is the time to put together a bipartisan approach to let Ottawa know, in no uncertain terms, how their decision to cut the Coast Guard station, to close it, does not make sense, budgetary or otherwise?

Hon. S. Bond: It's rare that we have heated agreement in this Legislature. I think that's exactly what we have.

We have made it clear and, as I've said in my previous answers, at no time did I stand or discuss with ministers this issue without reflecting the fact that it is a non-partisan issue — that leaders across this province have said clearly that it is unacceptable — and that we need to urge the federal government today to consider looking at this decision.

The only thing that I'm worried about is the fact that that sounded like a question that would be far better asked in the federal parliament. I'm wondering if the member opposite has other career aspirations he hasn't let his colleagues know about.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: I have a petition from over 2,000 residents requesting the House pass legislation that mandates seniors in care facilities in the province must be checked on and accounted for on a daily basis.

[ Page 13340 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the following reports: the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012; the Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C. Annual Report 2011-2012 ; the B.C. Utilities Commission 2011-2012 Annual Report ; and the annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 13, to be followed in due course by committee stage on Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1), 2013

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31 of 2013. Bill 13 will provide interim supply until the completion of the 2013 election and the formation of a post-election government.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is based on the voted expenses as presented in the 2013-14 estimates. The interim supply period for these appropriations has been set at six months. This will ensure the continuation of government services until after the election and gives the government the full range of time contemplated in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act for preparation and tabling of a post-election budget.

Interim supply for financing transaction requirements is based on two-thirds of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2013-14 estimates. These disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Additional appropriation is required to accommodate project timing.

Schedule E of the 2013-14 estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt resulting from

schedule E financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities outlined in the 2013-14 estimates. They are not outside the scrutiny of Committee of Supply. The final supply bill for 2013-14 to be passed by the next Legislature will incorporate these amounts to ensure the estimates reflect the total voted appropriation to be given to the government in 2013-14.

Those are my remarks at this stage.

B. Ralston: I rise briefly to speak to the bill, to just make the following comments.

Section 1 authorizes the expenditure of six-twelfths of the total amount of the main estimates, which, by my rough calculation, takes the expenditure to the last week of September 2013. That is in accordance with the practice that has evolved here in the previous elections in 2005 and 2009.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules says: "Interim supply provides the government with money to meet its obligations during the time before the main estimates are approved." It's also clear in parliamentary practice that "approval of interim supply does not authorize spending by the government on new programs. It only authorizes spending in accordance with the main estimates."

[1435]

Perhaps the only further point I would note is that the minister has made reference, quite properly, to

section 2. It refers to capital expenditures. He referred, perhaps somewhat obliquely, to timing. This authorizes two-thirds of the total voted amounts, and that is to accommodate construction. Typically, construction in British Columbia would begin in the late spring and be going full tilt in the summer and perhaps being completed in the fall. But relatively few construction projects would be initiated in the winter. So that's designed to accommodate the construction

schedule of capital projects that the government intends to proceed with.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Just for those members of the public who may be concerned, our support for this bill does not mean that in any way we support the budget. This is simply the legislative and statutory mechanism to continue government spending until the Legislature has an opportunity to consider the estimates in their entirety. Given the election timing, that will only take place after the election takes place and a new Legislature is contemplated.

With those brief remarks, I would conclude my comments.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister….

B. Simpson: No, I'm going to speak.

My humble apologies to the Speaker. I was on a teleconference with a silviculture conference in Kamloops, and we were watching to see when this debate would come up. I thank you for your indulgence.

I want to thank the government that we have a six-month interim supply. I know that there was some debate as to whether that would be three months, four months, five months or six months. It is six months, as it ought to be.

[ Page 13341 ]

For people who aren't aware of what that means, it means that after the election whoever forms government gets a six-month period of time to revisit the budget, to allow MLAs to settle in — we're going to have a lot of new faces and a lot of new people in this chamber — and to allow ministers to get their heads around their portfolios.

The idea of going to three months' interim supply didn't even advantage the government, because they might even actually have half of their cabinet who were new who would have to defend service plans that they'd just got dumped on their desks. Having three-month interim supply would also have meant that if there is a change in government there would have had to be special warrants, which would have got that government off on the wrong foot.

After the 2005 election the government reconvened September 12, and I would imagine that's around the time that we're going to do that now. In 2005 it was a six-month interim supply. In 2009 the government reconvened the Legislature August 29, so again, it does give that time.

I believe that what interim supply in this case means is that we need to understand clearly the problems associated with a fixed spring election date. I want to take some time here — to give notice to the Speaker — to talk about why we need to change that date. It's because with interim supply we trigger two things: No. 1, the budget triggers cynicism, and No. 2, the interim supply triggers uncertainty in government.

That uncertainty in government is patently unfair to the ministries that depend on government for a budget and for a budget cycle that occurs every four years the same way, that gives the government — government ministries, agencies that depend on government financing — a budget, gives them what they need in the way of certainty of their operating. If we continue on this vein, if we continue to have these fixed election dates in the spring, it means every four years we build in this uncertainty to the provincial government functions. We build in this uncertainty to the workings of not-for-profit organizations and trust funds, etc. that depend on government for their base funding.

[1440]

We also create, if you will, a hiatus in government. And in this case, that hiatus is fundamentally different than what the government has experienced before.

I would argue that in 2005 we had a situation where the government was expected to be the same governing party. In 2009 the expected government, the most likely outcome, was the same governing party. So at a minimum, governing agencies could determine what their budgets might be based on the budget that was tabled prior to the election.

In this case, that's simply not the case. The government agencies and dependent organizations don't have a clue what the budget is going to be. As of the end of the fiscal year, March 31, there will be no sense on the part of ministries what their go-forward budget is, other than the minimum operating that they've got, which this bill allows us to do.

It allows us to keep the minimum operations of government going. It allows us to give them the ability to pay their employees. It allows them to do things that they've committed to do. But what it doesn't allow are those entities to understand what any of the strategic initiatives might be, where there's strategic funding.

As a classic example, the Minister of FLNRO has indicated a certain amount of money is going to be put to inventory work. That's a laudable promise. But in this budget will that inventory work actually commence or not, because now we're just going to be living on interim finance for six months?

What is it, if we are going to change government, that the NDP would do with that file? Would they dramatically change that? Would they increase it? Would they decline it? We need inventory work done now, so we need a budget passed now — not having to have government live on interim supply.

Every year that we have a budget we get interim supply. I want the audience or whoever is reading this to understand that interim supply is a normal function of government.

When you get a non–election year budget, the government introduces a three-month interim supply. That three-month interim supply allows us to operate past March 31 — for April, May and June. The reason for that is that this Legislature is sitting, this Legislature is debating the budget, and this Legislature acts on the basis that the budget tabled will in fact be passed. That's fundamentally different than what's happening now.

When we have a normal budget cycle, we are in a situation where the signals have already been given. The work of Treasury Board, the work with all of those ministries is all incorporated into the budget. The leaders of those various ministries — the deputy ministers, the assistant deputy ministers — can signal to their employees out in the field and in their various offices what it's going to look like.

In this case, they can't do that. At the end of the budget cycle in a normal budget year, when we pass the budget at the end of May, there's a period of time when we operate under interim finance, and then letters go out. Spending authority letters go out to the various ministries, and the various initiatives and the promises made in the budget start to get action.

In a fixed–election year budget — so this year — that doesn't happen. For six months now post–March 31, from April through until September, government agencies are going to be in the unenviable position of not knowing what it is they're supposed to be doing other than deliver basic government services.

I've heard field officers, conservation officers, told

[ Page 13342 ]

to stay in their office and Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations compliance and enforcement officers, "Stay in your office," because they don't know what the budgets are. They don't know what it is they're going to do.

What you get into is a cost management. You start reducing the costs of all of those operations in order to wait it out, if you will.

This year we're going to wait it out, and we have an untenable situation in which the opposition party hasn't even tabled what their intentions are. This interim finance bill gets passed, as it should — and, correctly, for six months. But at the end of passing the bill at the end of this session, we are then going to institute six months of uncertainty — deep, deep uncertainty.

[1445]

What we have indicated as independents, as part of a six-point democratic reform agenda that we have put forward, is that we have a unique opportunity right now. It is very unique.

We have a government that proved it could not, even by spending $25,000 of taxpayer money to get an independent economic assessment of their budget, move the public cynicism of that budget forward at all. They couldn't do it. It didn't move the dial. People don't believe this is a real budget. We're compounding that now with the uncertainty in government.

We think we have an ideal opportunity. If we change the election date now…. We could do it in five minutes if the government was so inclined and if MLAs were so inclined. Today we sent out a challenge to MLAs, asking them to work within their caucuses to make this change now.

What would happen is we would bring a bill into this House — the government can bring that bill in — introduce it, and by leave of this House we can do all three readings in one time. In five minutes we could make the next election date….

I want to clarify this. My staff are having angst right now, because we get hit in Twitter that I want to give the current government a few more months at the helm. That's not the case. This election would still occur on May 14. But the next election would occur the first week of October in 2017. We would fix the problem.

Yes, that means if the current opposition forms government, as some government MLAs have told me, that "the socialist hordes would get an extra eight months of government." But we felt it was fairest, recognizing the tradition in British Columbia of a five-year mandate — up until such time as it was a fixed election, government could sit for a full five years and govern for a full five years — to pull it back to 4½ years, not 3½. We didn't feel that 3½ years was fair if the government does changes hands.

You still end up in a situation where that fourth budget cannot be a pre-election budget. It can't be a budget that doesn't have credibility. It can't be a fake budget, if you will, a promissory note to British Columbians that "If you elect us, you will get this" — which they don't buy.

What it would be is a budget that gets scrutinized, gets passed, gets verified and looked at by two independent officers of the Legislature. Then both parties would go to the election in the fall of 2017 on the basis of that budget. It would stop all of this uncertainty. It would stop feeding this cynicism. Together with the other independent MLAs, we're asking MLAs to assert themselves in their caucuses and ask for the change to be done.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if we don't do it now, the likelihood of it getting done is very diminished post-election. The government party in power will not pass legislation that will appear to be self-serving. Quite frankly, they wouldn't mind going into an election with a pre-election budget in the same circumstances, where they can put forward a promissory note and go to the electorate.

I thank the government that this is a six-month interim supply bill. That's the right thing to do. But let's not have to do this in another election year. Let's allow government to operate every year on a passed budget, on the government actually funding the operations of government more fully.

With that, I thank you again for your indulgence in letting me start today.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the members who contributed to the debate. I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 5 committee stage debate, Protected Areas of B.C. Amendment Act.

[1450]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.

[ Page 13343 ]

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Chair, if the committee would indulge me, I'm required elsewhere about the time when

section 6 may be considered. So I'd like to move that sections 3 to 5 be stood down to accommodate me in order to enter the debate on the aforementioned section.

If I could move we could stand down on sections 4 and 5 so I can enter the debate on

section 6. Then we'll return to

section 4 after that.

The Chair: Hon. Members,

section 3 carried yesterday.

D. Donaldson: What I'm asking is, if you would indulge me…. I'm required elsewhere when

section 6 is coming up. I have asked that we may consider that

section now. So I would move that sections 4 and 5 be stood down to accommodate me, and then I'll enter the debate on

section 6. Then we'll return to 4 and 5 after that.

The Chair: Is it the wish of the House to move to

section 6 for consideration and then return to 4 and 5?

Sections 4 and 5 stood down.

section 6.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for the indulgence of the House and the members on the other side and the independents. I requested this because

section 6 deals with the Hanna-Tintina conservancy, which is entirely within the constituency of Stikine. So I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this conservancy at this time. This conservancy is 23,702 hectares.

I would like to start by congratulating not only the Ministry of Environment but the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Gitanyow, because this conservancy is an integral part of the Gitanyow Huwlip recognition and reconciliation agreement as well as the Nass River south resource management plan. So congratulations to those involved in this conservancy.

I would like to describe one concern, though. The Highway 37 corridor bisects the Hanna-Tintina, and the Gitanyow are very concerned about the potential for wildlife fatalities along that corridor due to the increased industrial traffic along Highway 37. This area was set aside not only due to high salmon values but also high grizzly bear values. There are moose crossing that corridor as well.

[1455]

I note in the budget, under the B.C. Parks section, stewardship activities and compliance and enforcement activities are part of the responsibility here. My question around this particular

section is whether there would be…. The budget is flatlined on that part of the responsibilities. I'm wondering if there would be additional resources to ensure that the concerns of the Gitanyow are alleviated around the corridor and the potential for wildlife fatalities.

Hon. T. Lake: The highway itself is not in the park, although it bisects the park, essentially. So the establishment of the park really has no bearing on the road and its industrial use. In other words, if the park wasn't there, that road would still be used and would still run the risk of increased wildlife fatalities due to the increased use due to industrial activity.

However, of course, we will certainly work with the Gitanyow and with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to look at strategies if, in fact, wildlife fatalities do pose a risk. Anywhere in the province where this occurs, and certainly in my part of the province, this is a concern in certain corridors. And there are strategies that are employed by the Ministry of Transportation — reflectors and, at times, fencing.

But you know, we would have to look at those strategies if, in fact, that turned out to be a concern. I'm certainly willing to work with the Gitanyow to address those concerns should they be realized.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. My other question is in regards to this particular conservancy. This particular

section outlines five mineral claims that are excluded from the conservancy. Could the minister inform the House where…? I've looked at the maps a few times. I had them spread out on the floor of the Clerk's office, and they were quite accommodating for that. It wasn't apparent where the mineral claims are in the conservancy. So if the minister could explain where these five mineral claims are and what the nature of the claims are.

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Tynehead seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade five students visiting from my constituency, from a school, the Surrey Christian Middle School. It is one of the best schools in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are joined here by their three teachers — Mr. Eric Fernhout, Miss Karina Wiebenga and Ms. Kathleen Janzen — and 20 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany the students.

Some of these students maybe plan to run for MLA or Member of Parliament or be a Premier or a Prime Minister or a mayor or councillor. Would the House please make them very welcome to learn about the government.

[ Page 13344 ]

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Lake: The mineral tenures in the Hanna-Tintina conservancy are actually not in the conservancy. They've been excluded, so they are on the periphery of the conservancy. In the Ne’āh' conservancy there are five placer claims that will be expropriated. But in the Hanna-Tintina conservancy these existing claims are not included in the boundary of the conservancy.

Section 6 approved on division.

The Chair: Returning to consideration of

section 4.

section 4 (continued) .

[1500]

B. Simpson: I want to thank the minister's staff for both the briefing note and them taking some time with me the other morning to walk me through the maps associated with some parks that are going to be new parks, for Cariboo North particularly.

However, as the minister knows, that dialogue wasn't on the public record. There are some things I want to put on the public record. Hence, I will ask some of those questions now.

I guess the struggle that I have is a struggle of communication. It's going to be very interesting when the press release goes out into the Cariboo-Chilcotin — if this bill passes — that 17 new parks are going to be formed and five new class A parks are going to be expanded, when the Timber Supply Committee has just been through the area.

One of the questions that was in that dialogue was: can we lift constraints from the land base? Can we make more of the land base available for timber that is currently constrained? Of course, there was a debate within that committee at one point about whether existing parks would be on the table or not. That had to be clarified. There was some discussion about the possibility of Tweedsmuir being encroached upon in order to get access to more timber.

I wonder if the minister, just at a macro level, could answer the question of why now when we have a lot of issues spinning out there about cumulative impact. We have a lot of issues spinning about the future of the timber supply, the future of the land base. Why now? Why, in the 11th hour of this government, in a short five-week session, are we getting this act and going to be having new parks established in the Quesnel area and throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin — 17 new class A parks and five additions to existing class A parks?

Maybe the minister could just give us a context for why this should be done now when all those questions are out there.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to assure the member that it's not the 11th hour of this government. This is maybe hour 3 of this government.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan was approved in October of 1994. Direction was provided. The goal 2 areas would be identified through further planning at the local level. So this process has been going on for a very long time. Of course, the mandate of the Ministry of Environment and B.C. Parks is to look for opportunities to provide conservation and recreational opportunities throughout British Columbia. That's why these land use management plans are created and, generally speaking, I would say, widely accepted.

In this case, extensive consultation…. First of all, identification of proposed areas was done by the general public, by stakeholder groups and by the ministry. We had evaluations by local, regional protected area teams to determine the regional significance of the natural, cultural or recreational values present, and extensive consultation with First Nations, stakeholder groups and local government.

Establishing these goal 2 areas is integral to maintaining the balance of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan objectives and meeting the expectations of First Nations in treaty negotiations and, of course, speaks to the Auditor General and his recommendations around conservation values through B.C. Parks.

While I appreciate the member's point about the timber supply and the concern with mountain pine beetle and the mid-term timber supply challenges that we face, I would say that we have looked at these areas and made determinations based on recreational values, conservation values. My understanding from talking to staff is that there are not high timber values in the areas that are designated.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about timber values. As I looked at the area and once I saw the maps…. I know where those areas are. But I think there is a position. I take the minister's point. It's a little presumptive of me about the outcome of the election. Who knows who will form government — whether there will be a fundamental change in circumstances, just now?

[1505]

I think the point that remains is that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was very much vested in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use planning process. To say that that was a hot environment is an understatement. I was involved on the periphery, because I was a founding member of the Fraser Basin Management Council and was asked to sit in on a number of the meetings that took place leading up to the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan.

At that time, the mountain pine beetle wasn't on the horizon. At that time, we didn't have the kind of understanding of climate change implications that we have now. At that time, we hadn't experienced some of the catas-

[ Page 13345 ]

trophic fire events that we have now.

And at that time, there was a concern that there was an encroachment on the land base, a significant encroachment on the land base, that would exclude a whole bunch of other values, to the point that I was actually hired as a result of the burning in effigy of Stephen Owen in Williams Lake, when he attempted to present the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan in Williams Lake. I was asked to facilitate the Quesnel version of that and found myself squarely in the hot seat as an independent, neutral facilitator trying to get Mr. Owen his voice to speak to that plan.

Nevertheless, I would argue that plan has taken root. Again, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin can speak to it herself, but it has taken root. There is some ownership of that plan.

But what was uncovered during the timber supply review process — and I'm sure the Minister of FLNRO could speak to this himself — is that people weren't sure what the status of that plan was. So while we have a piece of legislation in front of us just now that is going to attempt to finish that plan off, if you will, to add the additional park areas, there are questions out there about whether the other values, the other protections, the other set-aside areas, the viewscapes, the mineral reserves…. There's a huge issue in the Horsefly area, whether mineral reserve areas are actually open for mineral extraction.

What the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry articulated to the government in advance of the Timber Supply Committee work was that they needed the capacity to go back and visit the plan writ large. Not just the parks, but the entire plan.

Where are we at on actually achieving visual qualities, actually achieving habitat restrictions, actually achieving mineral reserves? Where are we at with all of the values that are there, including the old-growth management zones, some of which are by regulation and some of which the FLNRO staff are free to move.

My question to the minister is…. This is almost 20 years. It's 20 years in the making. It is very close to an election. We didn't have a fall session, so this couldn't be done in the fall session, but we've had a long period of time.

I see nothing in the briefing document that gives me indication that there was something imminent or recent to catalyze this into having to happen now — within the context of not understanding what's happening with the whole Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan writ large.

So my question to the minister is this. Has there been a comprehensive assessment of the status of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan that has been done as a context for completing the parks

section of the plan? Do we know what's happened with the rest of the areas that are in that plan? Has it been updated? And does a status report exist in his ministry or in FLNRO about the status of CCLUP?

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: As the member knows, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry is responsible for the land use plans. These goal 2 areas were a recommendation from the land use plan, which the member described and I also described in terms of the extensive consultation that is carried out. The land use plan tries to balance the needs of the area in terms of conservation values, forestry values and mining values. That lens is put on it.

What the member, I think, is getting at is that the plan has taken a long time to get to this stage. The member is, I guess, recommending that we not go forward with this important step of the plan because things have changed in that time — things related to the mountain pine beetle, which can be correlated to climate change. I guess I would say, from a ministry point of view, that to me it's more important than ever that we consider ecological integrity and climate change mitigation when we are looking at land use planning and the way we use the land base across British Columbia.

Rather than start at the beginning again and 20 years later wonder if we're still going to get these parks put in to complete the land use plan — I think that would be seen as a bit frustrating for many people in that area. I guess the member is advocating that we start from square one, and I would argue that the importance of establishing certainty on the land base and providing for the ecological integrity of the area is more important than ever.

B. Simpson: Just as the minister indicated that maybe I was being presumptive of the election outcome, I think the minister is being presumptive of what it is I'm trying to do here. The question I asked the minister is: was he given an update on the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan writ large?

I'm not saying that we go back and start a brand-new table and start a brand-new process. Okay? That's not what I'm saying. But there are lots of questions out there, and they were asked through FLNRO staff. The minister is not wrong about that, but surely we can end this. It's not my responsibility — finger-pointing. That's under FLNRO. It's not me.

If we're going to add parks that are part of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, it seems prudent to me that the question is asked by the minister of a fellow colleague in cabinet: what's the status of the plan writ large? If the minister is arguing that biodiversity protection and certainty on the land base — all of the things that that plan was supposed to achieve — are still important today, I would think that you would want an answer to the question of where we're at with the rest of the plan.

As the briefing document I was provided with…. And as the minister is correctly stating, this is 0.25 percent of the planning land base. It's a small sliver. I've looked at the maps. They aren't major timber-harvesting areas. That's not the issue, and I'll get into some of the questions.

[ Page 13346 ]

The question is, though, that that whole area has massive questions about the status of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan writ large. To make an announcement at this juncture with those questions spinning, with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations managers trying to get resources to revisit the plan writ large and with the Timber Supply Committee having just been through that area saying, "Can we unencumber the land base?" — that's where the struggle will come from. There's a communications part of this.

My question straight-up to the minister was: is he aware — yes or no — of whether we have actually revisited and updated the status of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan whole?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member acknowledged, this is a very small part of the land base, 0.25 percent, so we're not talking about sterilizing large areas of economic activity — quite the contrary. The member seems to imply that there has been no consultation or no discussion about this process for a long time, when in fact extensive consultation with local communities, stakeholders and First Nations occurred from 2000 right through until 2012, which is fairly recent.

[1515]

Stakeholder consultations occurred on the goal 2 candidate areas through the subregional sustainable resource management plans and through communications at the Cariboo Chilcotin Regional Resource Committee. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations chairs the environment and land use committee, of which I am the vice-chair, and these goal 2 additions were fully discussed at the environment and land use committee, so they've been fully canvassed with the ministry he is referring to.

B. Simpson: I'll answer my own question that I asked the minister. The answer to the question is: no, there hasn't been an update in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. Quite frankly, that work needs to get done. There has not been that work done.

Let's come to this extensive consultation. The minister is indicating in the briefing, and the briefing note indicates, extensive consultations up through 2012. Have there been any public meetings at all with the maps for these areas?

For example, one of the proposed areas is a bunch of foreshore areas in Quesnel Lake. Has the community of Likely been given that map, has the community of Likely been invited to a town hall meeting to look at those foreshore areas, and has the community of Likely had any input into whether those are the right areas, implications for those areas, whatever? Has there been a meeting in Likely with that map put up on a wall, inviting feedback from the people of Likely?

Hon. T. Lake: The opportunity for the public to provide comment was through local newspaper advertisements in January of 2011. Notices were placed in newspapers — 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel. Public comment period was 30 days from the date of publication, until March 14. Maps were available for all those members of the public that wanted to view them — in fact, were mailed out to people who requested.

I can't say whether there was a town hall meeting, if that's what the member is asking, in the town of Likely, but the media in these centres, I believe, cover that region. So the public were notified, and if they wanted more information, including the maps, those were made available.

B. Simpson: This is the same kind of public consultation that's proposed in Bill 8. It's called passive public consultation. Maps are made available. In the case of what we're going to see later on, you don't even have to advertise that it's out there.

One of the things I noted and raised with the minister's staff is that the reference point in the briefing note to where these parks are is all Quesnel and Williams Lake. Yet there are distinct communities where these parks are going to be.

As I noted to staff in the case of Titetown park, which is one of the proposed parks — which we'll get to in a minute because, of course, the Nazko First Nation have questions about that park — there's actually a Cariboo regional district subdivision in the middle of nowhere, Titetown, that I informed your staff is the subdivision that would not evacuate a couple of years ago when there was a fire encroaching on them. The park that is being proposed is directly across from them, and the community of Nazko is right in that area.

I think this has been, even in my riding, a kind of an urban-centric notification-advertisement process that didn't engage the communities at all. I would look forward to working with whoever is in government next to make sure the maps and that are brought out to the appropriate communities — Likely, Beaver Valley, Big Lake, the Nazko, etc. — to show them what the maps are of these new parks, because it will impact all of those communities. I think they also have input — and I'll get into this in a minute — as to the best utilization of that.

So the extensive consultation, as I see it, in the briefing note and in the minister's words, is predominantly either in-house consultation with government staff or some of the sub-regional planning consultation that is going on.

[1520]

There wasn't really the community consultation where these pieces of land are going to be turned into parks, and I think that's a shortcoming of the process. It doesn't mean it can't be fixed and can't be rectified, but it is a shortcoming in the process.

For clarification — and I did go into this with staff —

[ Page 13347 ]

why introduce it in a bill? The government could do this by order-in-council. It could do class A parks by order-in-council. Why introduce it as a bill? What is the twist, if you will — for the public record — that introducing it as a

schedule D addition, I believe it is, gets us in the Cariboo a freedom that we wouldn't get otherwise?

Hon. T. Lake: Staff has generously provided me with an explanation of the Byzantine workings of government. There are two ways to establish class A parks. One is through placing the park in a

schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, and one, as the member mentioned, is by order-in-council under the Park Act.

We are going through the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act in the legislative process here. The reason for that is that the majority of the sites being established in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan's goal 2 process have grazing activity. They're being placed in

schedule D of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act so that the enabling provisions of

section 30 of the act apply, to allow continuation of those grazing activities. If we were to use the OIC process, those grazing activities would not be allowed to continue.

B. Simpson: I was deliberate in asking the question that way. The same explanation was given to me by staff of why not by order-in-council, why we're doing it this way. Again, just by way of free advice to the minister, the reason I raised it is because I know the biggest push-back we will get in those areas is on whether or not grazing leases have been extinguished.

It would be good if part of the communication really highlights that, because it will save the government a lot of grief in having to deal with questions about whether grazing has been extinguished or not. That's the reason for raising that and getting it on the public record.

The other area…. The minister was asked some questions around mineral claims here. Of course, the Cariboo-Chilcotin region, the Cariboo in particular, has the highest concentration of placer mining in British Columbia. I've already asked some questions in question period about some issues around Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Energy and Mines and the application of the law relative to placer. But my understanding is that in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan there were areas that were for free mining and that were open for placer along streams, etc.

For the minister: I want to come down to Cariboo North in a minute here, but are any of the parks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area — any of those 17 new parks and the extension of the five — going to extinguish any mineral claims, or do they encumber or preclude any placer activities that currently are allowed?

Hon. T. Lake: The short answer is no. There are no mineral tenures that are within the boundaries. We've excluded existing mineral tenures from the boundaries of the protected areas. Now, when mineral tenures cease to exist under the Mineral Tenure Act, the province may look to include that land within the boundaries. But at this time if there's an existing tenure, they are not included in the boundaries of the parks. And all of the sites have no-registration reserves under the Mineral Tenure Act in place to prevent additional staking.

[1525]

B. Simpson: Again, this is an area, I think, of communications to that area so that there isn't a big backlash. As the minister is probably well aware, there's hypersensitivity about small claims mining, placer mining in that area. The communications around the establishment of these parks should address that.

With that in mind, I want to be crystal-clear. Again, because I use the public record, I know there was a bit of back-and-forth there between the ministers about me asking questions I already know the answers to — or think I do. It's because I can use the minister's statements to then communicate back to the Cariboo Mining Association or the Cattlemen's Association what they're already going to ask me.

With that in mind, I do need a clarification on placer specifically. Will this encumber or restrict placer over and above any of the freedoms that they have just now? Will it add another portion of the land base that they're restricted from that they might otherwise be able to get to if these parks did not exist?

Hon. T. Lake: I do appreciate, actually, the member's questions and getting it on the record. I also thank him for his advice in terms of counteracting some of the concerns that are unnecessarily raised when something like this occurs. Staff will be certain to include that in our communications around what we're doing here.

To the member's question, the only restriction is that there will be no new staking allowed in the boundaries of the park, but in terms of the existing claims that are on the peripheries of the park, those will be unaffected.

B. Simpson: Just finishing these general questions, has staff or the minister's office had any direct communications with the Cariboo Mining Association or any of the cattlemen's associations in the area where these parks will be established?

Hon. T. Lake: Through the land use planning process, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was in contact with organizations representing grazing interests and mining interests. I'm sorry I can't answer whether or not those specific organizations were part of those consultations, but I'm told that organizations representing grazing interests and mining interests were part of the planning process through Forests,

[ Page 13348 ]

Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

B. Simpson: Again, if the minister wants to take us up on it, we have a pretty extensive stakeholders list, so we could help with some of the communications to the smaller organizations.

Often in that area there's a disconnect between the kind of umbrella organizations and the splinter organizations in the South Cariboo area. For example, there's the Cariboo Cattlemen's Association, but there's the Rose Lake Livestock Association, and there's the Horsefly livestock association, etc. Sometimes the communication isn't that clean, so I'd be happy to help with any of the communications forward on this to clarify those two particular points.

By way of a general question, what resources come with class A park designation? The minister knows there are questions out there about whether or not we're putting adequate resources into the existing parks system.

I will say, and for the public record, when I paddled the Bowron Lake this fall on my annual paddle around there with my buddies, I was thrilled to see the new shelters that went in there. They are brilliant; they're gorgeous.

[1530]

I know that that was a significant capital investment in the park and is much appreciated. But I think the minister would also say that things are tight, so I think it's important — for me, at least — to be able to communicate to people what it means when we designate these parks. The general answer to that question is important when we get to things like the new Quesnel Lake park or the Dragon Mountain park. I will have specific questions about that.

Will the class A park designation come with some resources to do some tourism or recreational development on the physical land that's designated as a park?

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member's willingness to assist in communicating with constituents about how the actions of government may affect them. Thank you for that.

As the member mentioned, we've made some tremendous investments in parks throughout British Columbia. The capital program actually received a 27 percent increase in the budget this prior year. That will continue on for future years. The Bowron Lake investment is a good example of that.

I just want to take the opportunity to remind the member that of all the parks and protected areas we have, only 2 percent of those areas actually have a human footprint on them. While we're adding large areas, the actual use on a regular basis by visitors is fairly small.

Having said that, for a class A park, before infrastructure is put into the park there would be a management plan, consulting with the local communities. I believe that around Quesnel Lake area there are five different areas.

There would be consultations to look at what would make sense for high-value recreation areas — where a boat launch may be feasible, where camping sites may be located — versus other areas that would be left for a more conservation-minded approach to the park. That's done through the management plans, which are very much a public process, and we look forward to conducting those for these parks that we're adding.

B. Simpson: Hopefully, in that level of consultation — and I raised this with the staff — the local communities are actually not Quesnel and Williams Lake; they're the local communities, because they're the ones that will give you the best insight.

With that in mind, I'd like to deal with some questions around the specific parks. There are five new parks in the Cariboo North riding. The first one I want to deal with — and I guess I'm dealing with them in alphabetical order, as staff had presented them to me — is the Beaver Valley park. That's a small area that's in what is a chain of streams and lakes.

I just want to be clear, again on the public record, that the Beaver Valley park is not in the proposed Williams Lake and Williams Lake Indian Band community forest that is currently working its way through the process. I see the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations smile with me as we try and stickhandle that thing.

Is that park in the boundaries of the proposed Williams Lake and Williams Lake Indian Band community forest — yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: No.

B. Simpson: Let's go to the Dragon Mountain park, again for clarification. I had indicated to your staff — and for the minister's edification — that Dragon Mountain is in the viewscape of most of the upper subdivisions in the Quesnel area. It has long been an area of concern for residents.

I was actually involved back in '92-93, I think, as a facilitator for a potential community forest over that area. The dispute around that, even in the preliminary stages, was so hot that we were having a meeting at the local high school and I had so many phone calls going into the meeting that I went into their theatre room and got a World War II flak jacket and helmet to come out and facilitate the meeting.

[1535]

That's just to give you context. That is in everybody's viewscape, and it is a hot area for people's concern. I think the designation of that area is the right area in terms of where that's situated, from looking at the map. The back side of the mountain, I think, is going to be asked for, for a community forest by the city of Quesnel. That's in due process just now. Where it is located, there's not high

[ Page 13349 ]

timber value, and it is the lion's share of the viewscape.

The thing I want to raise for the minister, though, in that case — and I want it on the record — is that that is also a heavy-use mountain bike area already. The road is used to go up to the repeat towers, the cell towers, as the mountain bikers go up there. Previously, they used to go down the back side, so it wouldn't be in the park. But now what they've developed are trails off that road. I'd let the minister speak to the status of the road in the park. That should be clarified on the public record.

And then, what would happen to the trails that are there once this gets a park designation? There is a pretty sophisticated network of mountain bike trails already developed in there. What would happen to those? The minister should know that there's sensitivity in that area because of a situation that occurred in Williams Lake where FLNRO decommissioned a lot of mountain bike trails that a lot of time and energy and community effort had been put into. It caused a huge uproar.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I would hate to see a similar situation occur just because of a park designation here. So could the minister clarify the status of the road and what might happen to those trails once the park designation occurs?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm very well aware of the type of issue the member describes, coming from the mountain-biking capital of the world — Kamloops, British Columbia — where we experience similar clashes between mountain bike use and other use. It can be controversial, for sure.

Just to clarify about the road, the road is not in the park. It's excluded from the park.

In terms of existing trails and how the park would be used, that's where the park management planning process comes in. We would consult with the local community. Of course, mountain biking is a very popular recreational activity that brings a lot of people into parks. Kenna Cartwright Park in Kamloops is one that I'm very familiar with and, I think, in many ways resembles Dragon Mountain park in its use and its viewscapes.

There would be a planning process to look at what activities would be appropriate for the park. High recreational values like mountain biking would be taken into account in that planning process. I'm hopeful that the community would come together with Parks to decide on how those existing trails would be used, if there are other opportunities for mountain biking or if there are areas that should be off-limits to mountain biking to preserve other qualities. But that's very much a consultative process through the planning of the park management plan.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that. I think the minister is right. There is a similarity to the park in the Kamloops area — both viewscape and heavy use. Of course, we know from experience that if mountain bike trails are not done well, they can cause significant erosion. The nature of that land base lends itself to that, so it is absolutely appropriate that planning be done and that some constraints be put on where those trails are built and to what standards.

That's great, but it raises a question. The minister has indicated, twice now, a planning process. What does the minister see as the time frame for when this next level of planning would occur? In the case of Dragon Mountain park, for example, the community would be engaged in the planning for that park. I'm assuming designation occurs after this act becomes law — in which case, then, when do we actually get into some kind of planning process?

[1540]

Hon. T. Lake: There will be sort of a priority to the process of conducting the management plan. Those parks that are closer to population centres, that have a higher use, that have a history, as the member has indicated, of conflict of use, those that may require more capital investment in terms of infrastructure would be higher up the list to get to the management plans earlier. That should be about a six- to 12-month process, starting in early summer.

B. Simpson: For what it's worth, my pitch on the five that we've got in the Quesnel area would be Dragon Mountain and Quesnel Lake — those two. And we'll talk about Quesnel Lake in a minute. The others, I think, would not have the same kind of focus those two would have.

Let's move on to Long Creek park. Staff clarified for me, because that's in the middle of nowhere…. I think it's off a road we call Ditch Road that connects Horsefly and Likely together. My understanding is that it's got a caribou habitat saltlick in that area that I wasn't aware of. So it's kind of interesting that there's a protection there for that.

Let's go to Quesnel Lake park. In both the case of Long Creek park and Quesnel Lake park there are the explicit exclusions of existing mineral titles, and the maps are drawn around that. I think that's going to be helpful to explain that to people. With respect to Quesnel Lake park, as I indicated to staff during the briefing, Quesnel Lake has become a hypersensitive area. That, I think, is important for the minister to understand.

Above Quesnel Lake is the proposed Spanish Mountain Gold. There are a couple of small lakes up there that are potential targets for the tailings ponds, but there is concern about the leachate and the drawdown into Quesnel Lake. Mount Polley has an amendment to their effluent permit that would see some overflow go into a creek that goes into Quesnel Lake.

There is a proposal by an IPP to put forward…. I don't

[ Page 13350 ]

understand what they are talking about, but they would draw out of Quesnel Lake, put water up into the higher lakes and then run it down a tube back through a turbine, back into Quesnel Lake.

As a consequence of all of that activity, there is a hypersensitivity around Quesnel Lake, and I do think the community of Likely needs to be consulted about this as quickly as possible.

There's another reason for that, and that is that Likely is trying to expand its opportunities for tourism. The minister may know there's a class C park — Cedar Creek park — in Likely that is actually managed by the community. So that community has a very good track record of managing a class C park. They know how to do it. They know both how to manage it and make money off of it.

Where the foreshore parts of this are, it looks to me, are strategic areas that would allow that community to develop a kayaking and canoeing adventure circuit. The lake is a Y-shape. As it stands just now, most people go to a small lake that is at the split. They camp there, and then they daytrip out of there, up the two arms. The way that these parks are designated, it actually looks like you could create a circuit around the whole lake if it's developed well.

[1545]

My only comment on this — I know it's a long-winded one — to the minister on the public record is: I think there is a great partnership there with the community of Likely. They can use their community forest money — and they do — for co-development projects. They have an annual festival now that has really grown — a canoe and kayak festival in September. I think it would be an ideal opportunity for another area of our province with small parcels of land as are in this park to develop a lot of economic activity.

If I could, on the record, just have the minister indicate that he'd be willing to have staff go to that community on a priority basis and have a conversation with them about the options.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is quite right to point out the strategic locations of the foreshore areas of these five parcels on Quesnel Lake. I think it's a testament to the planning process that has been taking quite a while, but now we're finally at the culmination here today.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the volunteer members of the management board of Cedar Creek park and the residents of the Likely area, because it really is volunteers that make B.C. parks what they are. We have volunteers across the province that do an endless amount of work protecting the ecosystems and working on trails. We've just developed a volunteer strategy to support those volunteers.

Yes, in fact, the member is quite correct. This could be a Bowron Lake kind of adventure, where you could do a canoe expedition and touch on all the five areas of the different parks in the Quesnel Lake area. As mentioned, this would be one of our higher-priority parks in terms of getting to the management plan earlier rather than later.

B. Simpson: The last park, I think, is the most difficult one of the ones that are in Cariboo North. I think the park is in an interesting spot. As I told staff, as an avid kayaker, I wasn't aware that that lake actually did what it did in terms of going into streams and bigger openings, etc. I got chastised by one of your staff for being presumptive that my wife and I would do a trip there this summer, but I think we will.

The problem, of course, with Titetown is the Nazko First Nations have expressed concerns about the positioning of that park. I'd like, again on the public record, the minister to speak to the nature of the consultations that the government has had with Nazko, the status of those consultations and what further communications are going to occur with Nazko about their expressed concerns.

Hon. T. Lake: Between May of 2010 and March of 2011 eight letters or e-mails requesting input or providing information regarding the Titetown proposal were sent to the Nazko First Nation. Also an invitation was sent to Nazko representatives for a site visit to the Titetown area with B.C. Parks staff. At that time, there was limited response but no opposition to the area moving forward as a park.

We have received a letter of concern from Nazko. I understand they have a new chief and council. We are very interested in working with the Nazko First Nations to develop a collaborative management approach to the park. So certainly interested and have shared interests with the Nazko on this park and would be more than willing to sit down with the First Nation on a collaborative management strategy.

[1550]

B. Simpson: The minister sort of alluded to it, but during the recent time that this communication has occurred, as the minister has already indicated, there was some pretty significant restructuring going on within the Nazko Band and council — a change in the chief administrative officer and various other things. They've also got a lot on the go because they're heavy into the treaty process. In fact, I was just talking to the Minister of MARR about waiting for a Treasury Board completion of an offer of land and cash to them to advance that to an AIP.

I would hate to see anything with this small parcel of land interfere with the progress that we're making with Nazko. You know, we can't take it out of the bill. I don't want to put forward an amendment saying that this one may have to sort of be put aside for a little bit. But I'm heartened by the minister's comments, and I think it is important to communicate with the Nazko over that.

[ Page 13351 ]

The other thing, of course, as I indicated to staff, is that there is a small subdivision there with people who face directly to that park. My office would be happy to help to communicate to that group of individuals, because we didn't know a subdivision existed there until the fire happened. We can communicate there.

With that, Madam Speaker, my last question to the minister. Is the Titetown area that's proposed…? Is the minister aware of whether or not that's in the land proposal area that's before MARR and, supposedly, going to Treasury Board? Are the two of them the same?

Hon. T. Lake: Although I'm not part of that process, my understanding is that it has been raised as an area of interest. It's not unusual, actually, when we do incremental treaty agreements involving land, that there would be some parks or conservancies that formed part of that package. Certainly, it could be an opportunity, but I don't know if this particular park has been involved in those discussions. Certainly, there is that potential.

[1555-1600]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67

Thomson

Yap

Sultan

Stilwell

Yamamoto

Chong

Lake

Letnick

Stewart

Abbott

Barnett

Lee

McNeil

Hawes

Lekstrom

Bloy

Krueger

Cantelon

McIntyre

Reid

Cadieux

Polak

Bell

de Jong

Clark

Coleman

Bond

MacDiarmid

McRae

Bennett

Hansen

Horne

Thornthwaite

Dalton

Hogg

Hayer

Les

Howard

Corrigan

Horgan

Farnworth

Lali

Popham

Austin

Conroy

Brar

D. Routley

Huntington

Pimm

Foster

Hammell

Trevena

Elmore

Mungall

Chandra Herbert

Krog

Trasolini

Simons

O'Mahony

Macdonald

Coons

Chouhan

B. Simpson

Coell

Thorne

Gentner

Sather

NAYS — 1

Rustad

section 5.

C. Trevena: It's always good to see a new park established. I would like to ask the minister a few questions about the Denman Island park being established, obviously, on Denman Island, which is just south of the islands that I represent.

[1605]

I wondered if the minister could explain a little just on how this park was put together. I understand that it was a result of private land acquisition and land transfers.

I was very interested to hear from the minister how the process went. As the minister knows — not just for this park, but for other parks that we're trying to establish in the province, including on Quadra Island — we're looking at land acquisition and just seeing how it has worked for Denman Island.

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, she and I have discussed this before, because I know the member is keenly interested in this, as well as other park initiatives in her constituency.

This was a very interesting assembly and process that we went through to establish this park. In fact, it was the recipient of the Premier's Innovation Award in 2011, with parks staff working with private landowners, with conservation organizations and, also, carbon offset companies like ERA and the Forest Carbon Group.

So the 552 hectares were assembled through a public-private partnership that did involve land donations, Crown land transfers and the transfer of local development rights, as well as, as I mentioned, carbon sequestration.

So 492 hectares of private land was acquired. Four hundred hectares are included in the new park, and 152 hectares of Crown land will also be included in the park. The remaining 92 hectares of private lands were acquired, and they're proposed to be established as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act. Associated with this land assembly initiative, the administration of 52 hectares of Crown land has been transferred to B.C. Parks to be added, also, to Boyle Point Park.

This was, I think, one of these interesting, innovative mechanisms of bringing people together that have shared interests, where we can see the new, emerging market of the value of carbon sequestration, adding value to allow us to establish a park for conservation purposes. As I mentioned, it was recognized with the Premier's award in 2011.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister a little bit more about the carbon offset program — how that actually worked. I know it's quite a new idea for establishing parks. It seems a very sensible idea for establishing parks — that you can put companies' carbon offsets against the parks that then are going to be protected. It has worked here; it isn't working in other areas.

I'd just like to know how the minister made sure it

[ Page 13352 ]

could work here, when we are having trouble in other areas — specifically, as I understand it, the Small Inlet–Waiatt Bay park up on Quadra.

Hon. T. Lake: The use of carbon offsets is relatively new, as the member knows, through our carbon-neutral government initiative. The Pacific Carbon Trust is in the business of purchasing offsets for the amount of greenhouse gases that are left at the end of efforts to reduce GHGs in the public sector. There are different means of acquiring those offsets, one of which is through carbon sequestration through forestry initiatives. In other words, instead of removing forest timber, we can preserve it. Then the carbon that is incrementally sequestered by that initiative is counted against the carbon offset.

[1610]

So in this case we relied on ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. and the Forest Carbon Group to verify that this met the criteria of additionality that is required for the carbon offset program. So these are third-party verifiers that look at the plan and assess whether or not this meets the test of additionality. Then that money can be put towards the purchase of the land, which occurred in this case.

The member mentioned Waiatt Bay and Small Inlet Park on Quadra. That certainly is in discussion as part of the piece of the puzzle for putting that land assembly together as well. It is a relatively small portion, as the member probably appreciates. At probably an average price of $10 to $12 a tonne over a 100-year period, it will not create, on a small tract of land, a large enough amount of money to make that purchase easily accomplished at this time.

We are continuing with that initiative, looking for partners, using carbon offsets as a small piece of the puzzle of assembly of that land as well.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for this. This is obviously…. The Denman Island park was the first time that the carbon offsets have been used for the acquisition of a park. No, the minister is shaking his head.

What I'm wondering is if there is now a sort of structure in place that can be used for the possibility of other parks, other conservation areas — for how the ministry would like to proceed using carbon offsets.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it is, I think, a tool that we have in our toolbox. The member may be aware of the Darkwoods initiative, which essentially was private land in the Kootenays that was preserved from forestry operations through the use of carbon offsets. The coastal First Nations certainly have been looking at initiatives around carbon offsets and the Great Bear rainforest. We've heard a lot about that, and that represents, I think, a large opportunity around carbon offsets through changing forest practices.

So yes, it is, I think, an emerging way of financing preservation of the ecological base in British Columbia either through private lands that are managed by trusts, by public land that is either in conservancies or even in parks.

C. Trevena: Part of the parcel of the land was Crown land and land transfers. I wonder if the minister could say…. I think he mentioned 152 hectares of Crown land. I just wanted confirmation on that. When we're doing Crown land transfers — was the ministry looking at acre for acre or the equivalent values in the different areas of forest?

Hon. T. Lake: Just to clarify. This isn't a Crown land transfer. It simply is moving Crown land into the park, so there's no exchange of values. It's essentially moving from the purview of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations into our ministry through inclusion in the park.

C. Trevena: So there has been no exchange of private lands for Crown lands elsewhere. It's just the transfer of Crown lands into the park. Again, I'm just using the example of trying to put together a little piece of the puzzle that we're seeing up on Quadra, where we're trying to do a bit of a land exchange with private lands and with Crown land — getting that involved as well. So I just wanted to see the comparison and where that land is coming from.

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, in this situation there was no transfer of land from the Crown to private land holder in exchange. However, that is a tool that can be used and, in fact, in the case of Quadra Island, one that is being looked at. If a private land owner donates or exchanges land that can be put into a park, then other pieces of Crown land elsewhere that may be of value to that private land owner would be considered as part of the exchange. That is a mechanism that can be used and will be looked at in the Quadra Island situation.

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister could give me a sense of how long it took to get together the pieces of land for the park. Obviously it is quite complex, and there are lots of different aspects of bringing in different people and different players, so just how long it has taken to get from idea to completion?

Hon. T. Lake: I believe the process in this case started around 2007. The land was acquired in 2010, and here we are today, 2013, culminating with the inclusion in the park. I think the point the member is perhaps trying to make is that it can take a long time to get some of these deals done. The more complicated they are, and the less resources available to government, sometimes the longer the journey is.

[ Page 13353 ]

In the case of Quadra, it has been, I understand, the better part of a decade or more. It is a little bit more complicated. Again, with the resources of government challenged in the particular fiscal period we find ourselves, it does make it more of a challenge, because then you have to look for those other opportunities involving things like Crown land transfers, which are always a lot more complicated than outright purchases.

C. Trevena: I think the people on the island can read into it that it has taken six years for this one to come from start to finish, and it's at least 16 years for the Small Inlet–Waiatt Bay one. We're still working on it.

One of the questions I have for the minister is what the cost of putting together this park was. How much is it?

Hon. T. Lake: As part of this package, we were looking at the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, which was almost 20 years in the making. It sometimes does take a while to get these complicated land use plans finished.

The purchase price of the private lands was $6.7 million. The private land owner donated $1.4 million worth of land. The provincial government made a $232,000 cash contribution and transferred land development rights on parcels of Crown land, and those were valued at $3.9 million, to the company for future residential development elsewhere. And $1.2 million was provided to North Denman Lands Inc. through a third-party carbon offsets agreement, as I mentioned, with ERA Carbon Offsets and the Forest Carbon Group. The total price was $6.7 million.

[1620]

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister: what proportion of that came from local fundraising?

Hon. T. Lake: In this particular instance, the private landowner donated $1.4 million worth of land, but there was no sort of community-organized contribution raising money. The member knows that on Quadra Island there has been considerable community effort to raise money in that effort. That certainly is very helpful.

As is often the case in any type of land purchase or infrastructure contribution, if the local community is very invested, government always is more interested in making that happen, because it meets the needs of the local community. We certainly thank the people that have been contributing to the Quadra Island effort.

C. Trevena: I mean, the people of Quadra have managed to raise an extraordinary $200,000 for the park. It's not out of the desire, so much, to help add to the coffers of the provincial government and carry on assisting by — as well as paying their now-increased ferry fares and their increased MSP and everything else — then volunteering money up to help fund a park. They were asked to raise the money. They were told that they couldn't get the park without making substantial contributions.

I'd like to ask the minister: how come the people of Denman Island weren't asked, similarly, to make a similar contribution? Or could the minister conceive of looking at the money from Quadra as…? Basically, why did one have to donate and the other didn't have to donate?

Hon. T. Lake: Each land acquisition is different. There's not a one-size-fits-all approach. In this particular instance, the provincial government cash donation was $232,000 — I would say a very, very good deal for the taxpayer. There was a private landowner that donated $1.4 million. That's a significant contribution by any measure. When these projects are examined, certainly, if there is a contribution, either through an individual or a community group, it helps the process — particularly at times when the government is challenged in terms of the revenues that the taxpayers send to it.

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule about who pays what. It's a matter of local interest and the contribution that the taxpayers can afford to make on behalf of government. In this case we had a significant single contribution, and in the case of Quadra, a significant community contribution. Both are important.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver Island North.

C. Trevena: Almost, Madam Chair. That's federal, but that's okay. Your former colleague Catherine.

The Chair: Sorry, M