2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, April 19, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Adult Guardianship and Planning

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 29)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Labour and Citizens' Services

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 25)

Hon. O.

Ilich

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 26)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Burnaby Festival of Volunteers

R. Lee

Caring Place programs in Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows

Sather

Chinese Canadian Military Museum

J. Yap

Carveth and Hammond hockey

brothers

Horgan

Friendship between seniors and

students in Kelowna

Hawkins

Issues for working women

Trevena

Oral Questions

Response of Premier to MLA

questions on actions of former Finance Deputy Minister

H. Lali

Hon. C.

Taylor

Terms of reference for KPMG

investigation into actions of former Finance Deputy Minister

L. Krog

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Farnworth

Fleming

Privacy Commissioner review of

lobbying activities of Ken Dobell

Karagianis

Hon. W.

Oppal

Call for removal of Ken Dobell

from 2010 Legacies Now board

H. Bains

Hon. S.

Hagen

Funding for Buy B.C. program

C. Evans

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ambulance service in Chilcotin

region

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Funding for child care in

Vancouver

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Point of Privilege

M. Karagianis

Motions without Notice

Powers and role of Crown

Corporations Committee

Powers and role of Finance and

Government Services Committee

Appointment of Special Committee

to Review the Personal Information Protection Act

Appointment of Special Committee

to Appoint a Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner

Hon. M.

de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

(continued)

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

C. Wyse

Trevena

[ Page 6921 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I have number of introductions that I'm really honoured to make. Today I had lunch with a wonderful group of people. Many of them are veterans and friends and members of the Chinese Canadian Military Museum. Here with us today in the gallery are Lt.-Col. Howe Lee, who is with the 12 Service Battalion — the honorary colonel; Lt.-Col. George Ing, retired, who is a constituent of mine; and also veterans Alex Louie, Willie Chong, Bing Wong, Frank Wong, Ed Lee, Paul Tsui and Kelly Kwong. From the veteran community in Victoria are Gordie Quon, Andy Wong, Paul Chan and Hank Lowe.

Accompanying them are Rosalyn Ing and Judy Maxwell — who, I might add, is a PhD student and historian and whose great-grandfather was one of the first Liberal federal cabinet ministers in the 1880s. Would the House please provide a warm greeting to these folks.

[1335]

Hon. C. Richmond: I have two introductions that I'm happy to make today. First is Dr. Terry Sullivan, visiting us from Kamloops. He's the superintendent of school district 73. On behalf of my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, Mr. John Harwood, the chairman of the board, and members of his family are visiting us from Clearwater. Please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Yesterday we had a number of guests from the UBCM executive. Today we are joined by even more who are here to watch question period. We have today Councillor Sharon Gaetz from Chilliwack, the UBCM director; Susie Gimse, Squamish-Lillooet regional district; and Erin Morrison, who is with UBCM staff. We also have UBCM executive member, past president of UBCM, Councillor Marvin Hunt from Surrey. As well, we have Mayor Joe Snopek from Creston. I hope the House would please make them all very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would like to introduce Stephanie Cadieux, director of marketing and public relations for the British Columbia Paraplegic Association. Would the House please join me in welcoming Stephanie to the House.

Hon. G. Hogg: We're joined in the House today by two couples, one who lives just outside the precincts here and has not been here to visit, and a second couple from Surrey–White Rock who have been longtime residents of the area and great contributors to the social and commercial environment of the area and have been negligent in not coming to this House previously. Would the House please welcome Larry and Maureen Hamblin and Pat and Steve Brown.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today has been proclaimed child abuse prevention day here in British Columbia. Over the noonhour we had an opportunity for a small event to launch two handbooks to assist professionals as well as the general public in identifying signs of child abuse or neglect and knowing what to do in terms of reporting those.

We're joined today in the gallery by number of people from different agencies who government works closely with in our communities on issues of abuse and neglect. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming these individuals. I'll just list them quickly.

We have Theresa Campbell, who is manager of Safe Schools for the Surrey school district; as well as Insp. John Charlton, the officer in charge of the detective division for the Saanich police; Annalynn Richardson, the president of Victoria Minor Hockey Association; and Rob Richardson, the vice president and head coach for Victoria Minor Hockey Association.

There's Adrienne Glen, who is with the child protection service unit at B.C.'s Children's Hospital; Suzanne Cole, youth and family services team leader with the Burnside Gorge Community Centre; Irene Rathbone, who is with public health nursing with the Vancouver Island Health Authority; as well as Susan Boyle, a public health nurse with the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

There's Paul Lecerte, who is the executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres; John Price, who is the public information officer with the Saanich police; as well as Barb Webber, the officer in charge with the Saanich police youth

section and child abuse team. Finally, there's Ron McQuarrie, the past president of the Saanich Lacrosse Association.

Each of the individuals, in the work that they do each day, works with children and youth and assists all of us in ensuring that children and youth are not experiencing abuse or neglect in the province of British Columbia. I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome to the House today.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to add my voice of welcome to Susie Gimse who, as the Minister of Community Services mentioned, was part of the UBCM delegation here in Victoria today. But Susie is an electoral area C rep in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district and a constituent of mine in Birken. I would ask the House again to welcome Susie Gimse.

A. Horning: Visiting us today from Kelowna is school trustee Wayne Horning and his wife Pat. I normally refer to Wayne as my little brother. Would you please make them welcome.

[1340]

C. Wyse: Likewise, I would like to add my welcome to the representatives from the UBCM and also acknowledge the breakfast that they put on for us this morning and recognize the service that the people from the UBCM and the people they represent provide for the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 6922 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PLANNING

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. The planning for future incapacity and ensuring that an effective safety net exists for incapable adults is extremely important. It's becoming increasingly important with our aging population.

Bill 29 clarifies and modernizes the laws governing how decisions are made for adults who are incapable of making decisions on their own. It will increase certainty and protection for adults when they are most vulnerable. Bill 29 will ensure that British Columbians have the best tools possible for making effective incapacity plans in the areas of health care, personal care and financial and legal affairs.

Bill 29 will also amend the Adult Guardianship Act to replace the Patients Property Act and reflect upon modern guardianship principles of individual autonomy and dignity. It will also provide appropriate protections for our aging population.

Last spring we introduced legislation similar to Bill 29. That legislation did not proceed, in order to allow additional work to be done related to advanced care directives. Further consultation has occurred over the past year — both broad public consultations and focused discussions with different groups and stakeholders — and this bill has benefited greatly from the input of many individuals and organizations.

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

Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. O. Ilich presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read now for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. O. Ilich: Bill 25 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Labour Relations Code as well as the Workers Compensation Act.

The amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act address recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the act and include a number of other changes and amendments that will clarify and update certain provisions. The amendments will enhance privacy protection and strengthen the act by improving disclosure processes and improving consistencies in the act. The amendments continue government's tradition of enhancing the FOIPPA Act — the privacy and access provisions thereof — to ensure that it remains the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada.

The change to the Workers Compensation Act provides that workers advisers and employers advisers will be appointed as employees of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services under the Public Service Act rather than by order-in-council.

[1345]

The change to the Labour Relations Code introduces a new requirement for the Labour Relations Board to make decisions on complaints or applications within time periods prescribed by regulation. This proposed amendment responds to concerns about LRB time lines that businesses, unions and employees have raised and will provide better accountability and improved service.

Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 25 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 26, entitled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to introduce this bill today. The Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, will amend three separate acts. First is the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act — to provide clear direction on the admission procedure and continued residence of adults in care facilities; apply the definition of a care facility to a broader range of facilities; provide protection for individuals and their

[ Page 6923 ]

families with a provincial standard guiding the admission or release of individuals in residential care facilities; and finally, in respect of this act, to provide a safe and clear framework to support care facilities, health authorities and individuals to make better choices in long-term care.

As well, the Health Emergency Act will be amended to transfer the B.C. HealthGuide program to the Emergency Health Services Commission to expand and strengthen the scope of its health information services. These amalgamated services will be called health line services B.C. and will better enhance and expand prehospital care, self-care and health system navigation service in the future. Under a single commission these linkages will continue in areas like patient transfers and referrals of non-emergency 911 calls.

Finally, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, will amend the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to allow electronic prescriptions to be recorded in the province's PharmaNet System and provide a new level of accountability to British Columbians' personal health information through the future provision for authorized on-line patient access to their own medication profile and access log.

This will clarify the types of information that must be recorded within PharmaNet. It will add new types of information that may be recorded within PharmaNet, such as over-the-counter medication.

The changes we're introducing today will also mandate how information can be used and will facilitate electronic prescribing through PharmaNet and direct patient access to PharmaNet. It will also add the sharing of information within PharmaNet with health information banks under the Health Act. Overall, the amendments support the development of the province's ambitious e-health initiatives.

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

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BURNABY FESTIVAL OF VOLUNTEERS

R. Lee: This is our country's National Volunteer Week to honour and recognize our hard-working citizens who donate energy and time to their communities. This Saturday the fourth Burnaby Festival of Volunteers will be held in Metrotown from 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. Many non-profit organizations will be displaying their services as well as getting opportunities to recruit volunteers.

As founding co-chair of this festival, I would like to invite all members of this House to this special event. You'll be entertained by a Bengal dance performance by Kanchan Lal; traditional Chinese dance by members of the Chen Ling Academy of Dance; the North Burnaby Retired Seniors Society; a youth orchestra by Kabok Strings and guitar solo by Kabok Guitar; and a kung fu performance by Dan Kun. You don't want to miss the opportunity to take

part in the hip-hop dance with Dianna David.

[1350]

Many groups have registered for this special day, including the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, Big Brothers of Greater Vancouver, Big Sisters of B.C.

Lower Mainland, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Burnaby Community Connections, Burnaby Hospice Society, Burnaby Metrotown Rotary, Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society, Burnaby village museum, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver, Down Syndrome Research Foundation, Girl Guides of Canada, Seton Villa, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House, Sunshine Dream for Kids, TB Vets Charitable Foundation, Urban Native Youth Association, Vancouver International Children's Festival, Vancouver Grandparents and Volunteers Now.

I would like the House to join me in thanking the sponsors and the organizing committee members: Lee Faurot, Oscar Cruz, Amy Sundberg, John Renko, Ken Ryan, Cynthia Hendrix, Patrick Ng, Judy Chu and volunteers Jane Leah and students from the Alpha Secondary School for their time and energy to make this Burnaby Festival of Volunteers a success.

CARING PLACE PROGRAMS

IN MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS

M. Sather: The Caring Place has been a dedicated service provider in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows for many years. Under the auspices of the Salvation Army and with the guidance of Capt. Kathy Chiu, the Caring Place serves the needs of those struggling in their lives for a variety of reasons. The Caring Place runs an 18-plus-bed emergency shelter where people can stay for one to three weeks during transitional periods. They offer 30 additional cold-wet weather mats, which operated at 100-percent capacity this winter.

With an additional 19 transitional housing beds, people are able to live at the Caring Place for up to three years, where they receive counselling and participate in life skills programs through the healthy living program. Six of these beds are reserved for those with mental health and addictions issues. By working with partners in mental health and other local service groups, individuals are provided the services they require. With an excellent client advocacy service, many people have entered drug and alcohol treatment and found safer accommodation.

The community meal program at the centre offers dignity to individuals who are hungry in our community by allowing them to come in, sit down and be served a meal. The community meal program serves over 6,000 meals a month.

The dedicated staff at the Caring Place work tirelessly to meet the needs of those struggling in our

[ Page 6924 ]

communities. Their priority is to restore the dignity and self-respect of every person who enters their facility. Staff want clients to know that someone cares.

The work of the Caring Place reminds us all that more is needed in order to provide housing and health care for our most vulnerable citizens.

CHINESE CANADIAN MILITARY MUSEUM

J. Yap: Today I rise to speak about a very important cultural institution in British Columbia, the Chinese Canadian Military Museum. A non-profit organization since 1998, the museum is located in the heart of Vancouver's Chinatown. Howe Lee, the president and founder, had a vision to preserve, collect and bring to light the artifacts and memorabilia and, most importantly, the stories of the Chinese Canadian veterans that risked their lives in order to serve Canada during World War II, despite the blatant racism and indignities they faced at the time.

When war began in Europe in 1939, there was debate within the Chinese Canadian community as to whether or not they should participate and fight for a country that they felt treated them as second-class citizens. Even as many volunteered, most were rejected because of their ethnicity. But all of that changed when Japan entered the war, and many were recruited to help with undercover operations in Asia. Soon the Canadian military had Chinese Canadians serving in all areas of operations, fighting not only for freedom but for equality in their country.

At the war's end over 600 Chinese Canadians served, making them the largest ethnic group to serve the Canadian military. On returning home from war, many Chinese Canadians felt they had proven their loyalty and allegiance to Canada. Many in the community felt they had achieved their goal through the contributions to the war effort and gained the respect they had deserved for years. This new-found respect ultimately led to the provision of full rights of citizenship to Chinese Canadians with the repealing of the exclusion act by Canada's parliament in 1947.

[1355]

Under the guidance of Howe Lee and museum curator Larry Wong, the Chinese Canadian Military Museum proudly displays the stories of courage, sacrifice and patriotism of those who chose to fight for their country, Canada. I encourage everyone to visit the museum and learn about a widely unknown part of Canada's military history.

CARVETH AND HAMMOND

HOCKEY BROTHERS

J. Horgan: As we prepare to watch the Sedin brothers play hockey this evening, I want to advise the House about two brother combos in my constituency, both championship families. The first family is the Hammond family, and brothers Mike and Gary, who were on the Junior B provincial championship Victoria Cougars this is past spring. Both young men I've watched grow from children into not just good hockey players but outstanding individuals.

The second family is the Carveth family, again on the Junior B championship Cougars. Karl Carveth finished with an MVP performance in the championship this spring held at Esquimalt's Archie Browning arena. Karl finished his junior career filling the net, just as he did when he started.

The last brother. Although it's unique to have brothers on the same team winning championships, in the case of the Carveths we have two brothers on two different championship teams. The second brother, Ryan — or Fuzzy, as I've been calling him since he was about eight years old — was an integral part of the midget triple-A Juan de Fuca Grizzlies, provincial champions who, as they did in every tournament they played in, rolled over the provincial competition in Kelowna this past spring.

I have to just remind those who are watching at home, and in particular the Carveth family, that when I first had the occasion to be with Fuzzy, he was an eight-year-old skinny kid standing at the doorway ready to go on the floor for a Canadian championship game. He said: "Coach, my legs are shaking too much. I don't think that I can even skate." I remember picking him up by the shoulder pads, putting him on the floor and pushing him out and saying: "You'll be fine."

Well, he was fine then, and he's certainly fine now. So would the House please join me and join the families in Langford, the Carveths and the Hammonds, and congratulate B.C. champions in Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SENIORS

AND STUDENTS IN KELOWNA

S. Hawkins: Today I want to share with you a story about a friendship which developed into an award-winning love affair — a story I heard last Thursday night in Kelowna.

It started about a year ago when a group of young people vandalized a seniors' residence in Kelowna. The seniors of Fernbrae Manor were understandably quite upset at this frightening and senseless act and decided to do something unique. They sent a letter to local schools in the area to appeal to the kids and help them to understand the consequences of such

an act as vandalism in an effort to help them with ideas in how to prevent it from happening again.

They got only one response, but it was the best one they could have asked for. The students from Quigley Elementary School wanted to hear and learn from the seniors. A beautiful, loving friendship blossomed over the past year.

The students came to Fernbrae Manor, and they read books and played music and did fun activities with the seniors. They developed a mutually beneficial friendship. It proved so successful for both the kids and the seniors that both groups decided to adopt each other and make more of a long-term commitment. The plan is to continue this relationship with a new class partnering with Fernbrae Manor each year.

Last Thursday Quigley Elementary School and the seniors of Fernbrae Manor were honoured at the an-

[ Page 6925 ]

nual Kelowna civic awards. They received the Anita Tozer memorial award, an award given in recognition of outstanding community service. The love and care both groups shared for each other was very much evident.

The kids of Quigley Elementary want to encourage other schools to do the same, and I see students in the gallery. Those kids learned the lesson of caring, kindness and mutual respect from our seniors. What a great lesson to pass on. I want this House to honour those students and those seniors for setting such a great example for all of us.

ISSUES FOR WORKING WOMEN

C. Trevena: Recently I hosted a meeting for women in business in Campbell River. We did the usual round of introductions and expectations. I think a number of the participants were uncertain what they would get out of the afternoon discussion.

I'd like to give the House a flavour of the broad cross-section of women who attended. We had one who runs a multimedia business; one in her late 60s who started a catering company. Another publishes a news and advertising flyer. One runs a vacation rental business. One works in the aquaculture industry. One's a realtor.

[1400]

As the afternoon moved on and debate evolved, some common themes emerged. I wanted to share these with the House. One was child care. This was a disparate and non-partisan group that quickly discovered this common concern. One woman was able to juggle care because she works from home and her husband works weekends. Another spoke of a number of women at her workplace sharing one child care space. Another talked of the involvement that businesses could have in providing child care for their workers.

Waiting lists for child care and after-school care in Campbell River are long, as they are in other communities, and these women connected the dots between the lack of access to child care and economic problems. Women simply couldn't go to work because of a lack of child care.

The other theme which emerged was particularly troubling in the 21st century. It's a theme I've heard from women elsewhere. It is the financial, both access to financing and the value placed on women's work. Women at the table, these businesswomen, told me how there is still an expectation that they need to have a man, their husband, cosign a loan.

Women speak knowingly of undervaluing their own work, charging less than a man would because it's what they believe will be accepted. This is despite the fact that women own and operate 35 percent of small businesses in B.C.

Introductions by Members

C. Evans: Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to be the seventh…. I don't know if you noticed that while this was going on over the last ten minutes, there was all kinds of gossip because people noticed that the formerly hon. Lois Boone entered the room. Lois Boone — who could, of course, sit down here with us — is upstairs there with her husband Fred. I want everybody to make her welcome.

Welcome back.

Oral Questions

RESPONSE OF PREMIER TO

MLA QUESTIONS ON ACTIONS

OF FORMER FINANCE DEPUTY MINISTER

H. Lali: Last November I wrote to the Premier asking important questions regarding his former Deputy Minister of Finance and lobbyists connected to the B.C. Liberal Party. This serious situation brings into question the relationship between Mr. Paul Taylor, the Premier's handpicked former Deputy Minister of Finance, and principals at Pilothouse.

A very similar pattern is before the courts right now, so I would have thought that the Premier would have been extra cautious. But the Premier dismissed my concerns and waited until the story ran in the Globe and Mail to investigate the very questions I brought to his attention five months earlier.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why did the Premier and his deputy not immediately investigate this serious situation?

Hon. C. Taylor: Ten days before the Globe and Mail

article did appear, the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier were made aware of this particular e-mail. Immediately, the deputy minister did a review, found nothing wrong, but with extra caution decided to go to an outside firm, KPMG, and asked them to do a full review of the situation. When that review is completed, it will be made available after it's been checked for FOI issues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: Over five months went by between the time when I first raised these questions and the time when Jessica McDonald started her internal investigation into the relationship between the Premier's pal Mr. Taylor and Pilothouse.

Again to the Minister of Finance: during that time did the Premier's office have any communication with Mr. Taylor regarding his relationship with Pilothouse or with the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, ten days before the Globe and Mail

article was when the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier received a copy of this e-mail and the information that was included, and it led to the review which is now being conducted.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

[ Page 6926 ]

H. Lali: I just want the minister to put on the record again…. When I first wrote to the Premier, he hadn't even bothered to actually look into my questions. He brushed them off, actually. Since then, the Premier's deputy has conducted, as the minister says, an internal investigation. So it would seem like the government could now provide the answers.

Again to the Finance Minister — my question is simple: will the government release the results of the McDonald investigation as well?

[1405]

Hon. C. Taylor: The review is now being done by KPMG. As soon as it's completed — and obviously all of us would like it to be sooner rather than later — and goes through the FOI process, all of this information will be available in public.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR KPMG

INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIONS

OF FORMER FINANCE DEPUTY MINISTER

L. Krog: Yesterday we learned for the first time that the government has asked a firm with ties to the B.C. Liberal Party to investigate the dealings of the former Deputy Minister of Finance, now the chair of ICBC, Paul Taylor.

My question to the Minister of Finance is very simple. Will the minister release the terms of reference for the KPMG investigation?

Hon. C. Taylor: When this review is completed — and, again, we do hope that it will be fairly soon — we will release all of the information, including the terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Glen Ringdal, the vice-president of government relations for the New Car Dealers, told the Globe and Mail that he and Pilothouse principals lobbied Paul Taylor and Finance officials. However, this was never registered with the lobbyist registry.

My question to the Minister of Finance — very simple once again: do the terms of reference for the KPMG investigation include reviewing possible offences under the Lobbyists Registration Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a serious situation, and that's why we're doing a review. That is also why in fact a reputable firm like KPMG has been asked to come in as an independent outside party to look it. They have the broad authority to look at all the issues that this e-mail raises.

B. Ralston: I suggest it's not good enough to say that the terms of reference will be revealed later on. Without knowing the terms of reference of the KPMG study right now, how can British Columbians be confident that this investigation will be broad enough to get at the truth?

Pilothouse was a New Car Dealers lobbyist while Mr. Taylor was deputy to Gary Collins at Finance. Perhaps KPMG has been asked to investigate all of Pilothouse's lobbying activities and Mr. Taylor's involvement within the Ministry of Finance.

The New Car Dealers have interests that involve ICBC. Perhaps KPMG has been asked to investigate lobbying activities at ICBC.

Will the minister table in this House the terms of reference for the KPMG investigation so British Columbians can be confident that this investigation isn't part of a cover-up?

Hon. C. Taylor: The entire point of having a third party that is reputable conduct this investigation is because their reputation, as well as government's reputation, is on the line that this be done properly. The proof will be that all of the information, after it's gone through FOI, will be released.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, all we know at this point is that KPMG is investigating. If the minister won't tell us at this point what the terms of reference are, perhaps she can tell us which branch of KPMG is doing the investigations. Maybe it's the forensics investigation branch, which looks into allegations of fraud and misconduct. On their website they promise: "Our investigations service can help you (1) get control of a situation that may appear to be out of control and (2) find a way to limit damage." [Laughter.]

Can the minister tell me which arm of KPMG is conducting the investigation into Mr. Taylor's dealings with Pilothouse?

[1410]

Hon. C. Taylor: I think it's unfortunate that the members opposite think this is funny. It's not funny. We're not laughing, and we're not making fun of the company that has been chosen, KPMG, which has an incredible reputation in this community and elsewhere. We have asked this firm to do a full review of all the implications that are contained in that e-mail.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I can assure the minister that we take this very seriously. What we want to know and want the minister to tell this House is: what justification can she give for not tabling or not releasing those terms of reference today?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will just simply repeat this as many times as it takes. This is an important issue. It came to the attention of the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier ten days before the Globe and Mail article.

The Deputy Minister to the Premier looked at this and found no reason to have concern about the issue but thought that for the interest of all British Columbians it would be of benefit to have a third party — an independent party, a reputable firm — conduct an

[ Page 6927 ]

investigation as well. This firm has been asked to look at all of the broad implications of this e-mail.

When the review comes forward after it's gone through FOI, that plus all of the supporting materials you had mentioned — for instance, the terms of reference, if there are terms of reference — will be available to the government.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This is serious, and we will ask the question again. Why will the minister not release the terms of reference? The public deserves to know. If they're so concerned about openness and transparency, then release those terms of reference today.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Speaker, all of the relevant information will be made available after it's gone through the FOI process, as soon as the review is complete.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, based on previous examples, after going through the Liberal FOI process, this shouldn't be a very engaging read. That's what we're worried about here today. Again, the scope of the terms of reference is very important. Will the minister table those in the House today?

Hon. C. Taylor: All of the terms of reference and information that come from this review, which is being conducted by an outside independent party, will be released once it's been through the FOI process.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, I'm not sure what the government is afraid of now, because they're saying that they take this matter very seriously and that they don't want to deceive the public. Can they tell us: do the terms of reference in fact exist? Maybe that's the question that we can ask now. The minister has been asked over and over again to table the terms of reference for KPMG. Will she do it today, and will she confirm that KPMG has the terms of reference?

Hon. C. Taylor: The people of British Columbia elected us to do the business of this province. Anyone who is listening to the same question being asked over and over again, and to the same answer being given over and over again, must be thinking: aren't there some other issues that really have to be addressed in question period?

I will say that ten days before the Globe and Mail

article appeared, the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier received this e-mail. The Deputy Minister to the Premier did a review and found nothing incorrect, but to be extra sure called in an outside firm — a reputable firm, KPMG — and asked them to do a broad review of the implications of this e-mail.

When that review is completed, then it will be released along with the requirement for any information on terms of reference or instructions to KPMG as soon as it has been through the FOI process.

[1415]

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REVIEW OF

LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF KEN DOBELL

M. Karagianis: Well, I can assure the minister that we in fact do have some very important other questions to ask.

Yesterday the Attorney General stood here in the House and professed profound knowledge of the lobbyist registry act. But it turns out he was wrong again. The Privacy Commissioner's office later confirmed that they had no authority and that there was no authority in the legislation to investigate Ken Dobell or move forward with charges on that.

Today we've learned that the Attorney General has asked the commissioner to launch a fact-finding review into Mr. Dobell's lobbyist activities. We also learned that the Attorney General asked Mr. Dobell's permission to do the investigation.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will he commit today to table the review, unsevered, in this House as soon as it's finished? Or will he have to ask for Mr. Dobell's permission to do that as well?

Hon. W. Oppal: To correct the member opposite, I did not ask Mr. Dobell to take

part in the process. I would appreciate if the member opposite could get her facts right and do some research.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I know that research is a nasty word across the way, but I'll set the record straight. We had a conversation with the Privacy Commissioner, and I've been informed by the registrar that he will conduct a fact-finding review pursuant to his obligations under the act — that he's prepared to do that. He also advised me that he contacted Mr. Dobell, and Mr. Dobell is prepared to cooperate with him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: My question was actually whether or not the Attorney General would commit today to table the fact-finding report when it's finished, unsevered, in this House. Or will he just continue to protect the Premier's friends?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 6928 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: The last time I looked, the Privacy Commissioner was an officer of the Legislature.

CALL FOR REMOVAL OF KEN DOBELL

FROM 2010 LEGACIES NOW BOARD

H. Bains: The budget for the Vancouver Convention Centre boondoggle under the direction of Mr. Ken Dobell has skyrocketed — using the minister's own accounting system — to the range of over $800 million. Last Friday the government quietly shuffled Mr. Dobell out of the position as chair of the project.

Can the minister confirm that Ken Dobell will be removed from the 2010 Legacies Now board, a position that Mr. Dobell held by virtue of chairing the board of the Trade and Convention Centre? If not, why not?

Hon. S. Hagen: For some reason it feels like Groundhog Day. You know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. S. Hagen: What the NDP sees as a project that they don't like, we see as a project that we like. We think that it's a world-class project. We think it's a project that is going to draw hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity into this province. We see it as a project where there are 7,000 working people on that site right through the duration. We see it as a project that's going to generate 6,000 new jobs in this province.

You know, the NDP can dislike this project all they want, but the fact is that it's going to be completed. It's going to draw hundreds of millions of dollars into this province, and it's going to be a success.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: I think it is Groundhog Day, because when this minister stands up, it means no answer for six more weeks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Bains: The convention centre is already double the cost that was promised by this government — a promise made by this minister, the minister before him, the minister before him and the Premier. Can the minister tell us today: when will he stop protecting the friends of the Premier, Mr. Dobell, and come to the aid of the taxpayers and turf Mr. Dobell?

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Dobell has had a long and distinguished career in the public service of this province. You know, when I hear these speculations and allegations, they're totally inappropriate — certainly until the facts are known.

I think that any further attempts at character assassination of this public servant or any other public servant are not only a disgrace to this House but also a disgrace to every public servant who works for this province.

FUNDING FOR BUY B.C. PROGRAM

C. Evans: Members on this side might be kind of unhappy to learn that I kind of like it when the Minister of Tourism gets up and says that we spend money to make jobs and help business. It wasn't always that way, hon. Speaker.

In 2002 the government announced that it was ending funding for job creation and what it used to call subsidies to business. In rural B.C. where I live, this meant an ending of the funding for the program of Buy B.C., which was the branding program that had helped to identify B.C. food in the marketplace. The Buy B.C. program had cost the government two million bucks a year. According to the Investment Agriculture Foundation, it had made 1,900 new jobs in rural British Columbia.

Now we've just spent a whole week listening to the minister tell us that his $400 million cost overrun is justified because it makes jobs and it's good for business. Let's assume for a minute that we accept his argument. Investment Agriculture says that Buy B.C., too, made jobs and was good for business. With his cost overrun alone at the convention centre, we could have run Buy B.C. for 200 years, making jobs…

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

C. Evans: …and good for business.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that the policies appear to have turned around and we spend money to encourage business, will she restore funding to the highly successful Buy B.C. branding program for rural B.C.? Or does the new policy of assisting business and making jobs only apply to the town in which she and the Premier happen to live?

[1425]

Hon. C. Taylor: I can't believe that I've been given this opportunity to talk about our relationship with the economy, what we've done for the economy, what we believe….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, would you sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. C. Taylor: Indeed, when the B.C. Liberals came into government, we were in a situation with the

[ Page 6929 ]

economy in this province that was really negative. We had a high corporate tax rate — 16.5 percent. We had the highest marginal tax rate for personal income tax in the '90s of any place in Canada. We were losing people, we were losing businesses, and unfortunately, we lost head offices that will never come back.

As a result of the turnaround which this government has brought by reducing the corporate tax rate from 16½ percent to 12 percent, by increasing the threshold for small business owners from $200,000, first of all, to $300,000 and then to $400,000, we have made it better for small business to work in B.C.

We have the lowest unemployment in 30 years at 3.9 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Taylor: As a result, what we do every single year — and I will include the suggestion from the member opposite — is consider every option that we have going forward, looking at ways to help business in B.C. and help the economy.

AMBULANCE SERVICE IN

CHILCOTIN REGION

C. Wyse: Near Alexis Creek last Saturday a 16-year-old girl was shot through the shoulder and the lungs. The nearest ambulance station, Alexis Creek, happened to be closed.

Once more, so everyone understands the situation, the Alexis Creek paramedic station is scheduled to be closed 15 days in the month of April. It requires more than an hour added travel time to go from Williams Lake to provide service to this woman who required that care.

The minister has been aware of the effect of the closures upon the Chilcotin for at least two years since I've been here. My question to the minister: today will he confirm for the people of the Chilcotin that the Alexis Creek station and the Anahim Lake station will now be open on a regular basis to provide services to those residents of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: Ambulance service is extremely important to this government. We place the highest priority on having quality ambulance service and timely ambulance service across the province. I'm pleased to note that response times in both rural and urban areas have been good. It can be a challenge in some rural, remote locations like Alexis Creek at times, but even in those locations we have seen improved response times.

In terms of the ongoing challenge of out-of-service hours in the Alexis Creek ambulance station, I do first of all want to acknowledge that as a rural and remote station it does have challenges at times securing paramedics to provide service.

[1430]

We have made progress in that regard. I want to note, for example, comparing September of 2001 with September of 2006…. In 2001, 324 hours out of service at Alexis Creek. That was 45 percent of the time. In 2006 it had been improved to 121 hours, or 17 percent of the time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: No more time for rhetoric; no more time for excuses. This accident took place on first nations reserve. The chiefs of the Tsilhqot'in National Government have written requesting and bringing their concerns to the minister's attention.

Once more I request to the minister: when will the people of Chilcotin be provided with the needed ambulance care services so they do not have to wait for hours for additional service to be provided for them?

Hon. G. Abbott: We place the highest priority on ambulance service not only in the Chilcotin but right across British Columbia. That is why we have seen over the past five years the budget for the Ambulance Service move from $176 million to $276 million. We've seen the number of ambulances in the province move from 463 to 503. That's why we see hundreds more ambulance paramedics in this province than there have ever been before. We have a record number of ambulances, stations and paramedics in this province — more than ever before in the history of British Columbia.

That is why…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …I'd be happy to share this list with the member. If you look at virtually any interior rural B.C. community, you will see substantial improvements approximating 20 to 25 percent improvement in ambulance service across this province.

FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE

IN VANCOUVER

C. Trevena: The impacts of cuts to child care are starting to be felt by communities around the province. Ten neighbourhood resource centres in Vancouver alone are shutting, and the staff is going to drop from 11 to four. The provincial service, west coast, can't backfill, because it's lost all of its $800,000 funding.

I would like to ask the Minister of State for Childcare to explain how one site operating with four staff can assist the more than 68,000 children and families in Vancouver dependent upon it.

Hon. L. Reid: I am more than happy to take this opportunity to talk about the child care gains in British

[ Page 6930 ]

Columbia, of which there are many. The budget in British Columbia for child care in this previous year is $203 million. I am happy to tell this House that the spending will likely exceed $260 million in this coming year.

This government has placed an incredible priority on children who require specialized supports, on families who require subsidy and on spaces in British Columbia. That vision is clear. We are going forward. We are delivering the best possible child care programs to the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege with regard to comments made by the Attorney General today in this House.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move four motions relating to the charging of select standing committees and special committees. I've taken the liberty of providing my friend the Opposition House Leader with copies of the motions.

Leave granted.

Motions without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: The first. By leave, I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations be appointed to review the annual reports and service plans of British Columbia Crown Corporations.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[1435]

I wonder if we might deal with them individually.

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF FINANCE AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the pre-budget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with

section 2 of the

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2007 on the results of those consultations; and

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

i) Auditor General

ii) Chief Electoral Officer

iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

v) Merit Commissioner

vi) Ombudsman

vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

viii) Representative for Children and Youth; and,

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2(

a) above.

3. That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the

Auditor General Act and that the performance report in

section 22 of the

Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

[ Page 6931 ]

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE PERSONAL INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: Thirdly, by leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act be appointed to examine in accordance with

section 59 of the

Personal Information Protection Act (SBC 2003, c.63) and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations.

The Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, but no later than one year after the adoption of this motion, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL

COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: Lastly, with leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee to Appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Commissioner, pursuant to

section 14 of the

Members' Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996, c.287) and that the said Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee (but to deal with matters in the order in which the Committee has been authorized to deal with them);

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber second reading debate on Bill 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued estimates on the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 18 be read a second time now.

Bill 18 proposes amendments to five forest statutes that will enable this government to achieve a number of throne speech commitments. Those commitments focused on forest stewardship, addressing interface fire risk and encouraging the better utilization of beetle-kill timber.

The bill delivers on this government's ongoing work to revitalize and strengthen the forest sector through opening up new opportunities through streamlining and regulatory reform. Amendments to this bill provide important advances in government's ability to meet its goal of sustainable environmental management and strengthen government's ability to take action in cases where individuals have caused damage to the environment that adversely affects an ecosystem.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

We already prohibit damage to the environment through the Forest and Range Practices Act. We have hundreds of Forests officials whose job it is to enforce this act. The proposed amendment gives our staff the ability to enforce these environmental protection rules against any person doing any unauthorized activity that adversely harms an ecosystem.

Those who cause adverse damage to an ecosystem face penalties of up to $100,000 and also may face prosecution in the criminal courts, which carries a maximum fine of up to $100,000, up to one year in jail or both. We hope that this provision will be a deterrent to those individuals who damage the environment through mud-bogging or recklessly driving ATVs through sensitive alpine terrain or rangelands.

The bill also supports stewardship and sustainability objectives by enabling more timely and responsive

[ Page 6932 ]

adjustments to the allowable annual cuts when the area of a tree farm licence or timber supply area changes. It builds on government's ability to recover costs and gain compensation for costs and damages from person-caused fires. The amendment enables government to recover costs when a fire caused by a person destroys recently reforested areas. This provision will help re-establish those plantations damaged by wildfire.

[1440]

This bill provides important improvements to enable communities to continue to work on reducing the risk of urban interface fires. Amendments to the Forest Act made changes to the forest licence to cut. Last year we gave local governments the ability to get forestry licence to cut to reduce the fuel loading in forests around the communities' homes. That was restricted to activities in commercial or merchantable timber.

These amendments clarify that non-commercial fuels may also be removed and disposed of. This amendment provides clarity to communities that are taking interface fire risks seriously and are conducting treatments such as thinning, pruning, brushing and prescribed burns.

Bill 18 supports improvements in our relationship with first nations. It will allow the ministry to adjust the volume or area in a number of licences directly awarded to first nations. It also streamlines a process of awarding community forest agreements and various new licences to first nations once an enabling agreement has been met. First nations will have quicker access to timber, which is important to deal with the mountain pine beetle–attacked timber.

These changes strengthen the new relationship that our government is building with first nations. An amendment to the Forest Act strengthens government's ability to prevent an unjustifiable infringement of potential aboriginal rights or title in forest activities.

The new provisions enable government to stop forest activities from being conducted by timber sale licence holders, an ability we have now for other forms of forest tenure. Changes are being made to the Forest Act to enable simpler and more effective administration. Woodlot licence holders will be able to own processing facilities without having to apply to the ministry. Operators will be able to respond and pursue value-added market opportunities when they arise.

A second amendment allows woodlot licence holders to restart their cut control period so that they can adjust the harvesting plans to take advantage of market trends and conditions. These amendments emphasize government's commitment to a diversified forest sector and to creating more opportunities for small tenure holders, including woodlots and community forests.

Recovering as much economic value as possible from beetle timber remains a ministry focus. To that end, we're creating new measures to facilitate the harvest of mountain pine beetle timber. A new

section allows us to postpone the harvest of healthy green timber within a cutting permit. This means companies can focus on beetle wood without worrying that their green timber permits will expire in the interim.

We're also making it more economically feasible for operators to harvest salvage-type timber, including beetle wood, that isn't being cut by major licensees. Amendments will increase the maximum volume that can be harvested in these situations.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, these proposed amendments allow government to continue to protect and manage B.C.'s most important resource on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's opening comments, because some of the comments in there are questions that I will have during the next phase of the debate on this bill.

I find this an interesting process. This is my third opportunity to table quite a substantive set of forestry amendments. When a bill is tabled in the House, the bill comes — for those who don't have a life and listen to Hansard or read it later on — to all of us as a two-sided document. On the left-hand page are the explanatory notes. On the right-hand page is the actual change in legislation.

For illustration purposes,

section 27 of this bill amends

section 47.8 of the Forest Act, and it just simply reads: "

Section 47.8 (

c) is amended by adding 'or (3)' after 'section 47.6 (2)' . " That one little clause of simply adding "or" after a

section in the explanatory notes says that this amendment allows the minister to make available for disposition to a person, other than the holder of a forestry licence to cut, the portion of Crown timber on Crown land that is subject to a forestry licence to cut related to B.C. timber sales and that was reduced under the Forestry Revitalization Act or in respect of which an attribution was made by order of the minister under that act. So an "or" becomes a fairly substantive change in the minister's ability to address the allocation of timber under a licence.

[1445]

It's one of the things I find interesting about how the government puts out press releases. This is not partisan. I think it's just how governments do their business. They choose to emphasize explicit aspects of the bill and de-emphasize others. In this case, as I've spent time trying to understand this bill, there are significant changes in this bill not emphasized by government that I want to explore for a few minutes here. But there are also aspects of the bill that have been emphasized by government that really do not address issues that are on the land base or don't address adequately the issues that they're supposed to address.

The government's press release actually targets one thing: "Mud-bogging, Interface Fires Targeted in Bill." The whole front end of the press release is that it's about mud-bogging and, as the minister indicated, strengthening government's ability to deal with people who damage our forests or range resources.

What the bill actually does is simply give the compliance enforcement under the Ministry of Forests and Range the ability to give penalties to non–licence holders or people who are not authorized to be on the land base under Ministry of Forests regulations but who are out there and who do damage.

[ Page 6933 ]

That's a good thing. It's a good thing that we have that ability to do that, because sometimes these things fall through the cracks. I know range holders, for example, who get tired of mud-boggers. If a range holder is out on a range with an ATV and happens to tear up his property, he gets all kinds of trouble from the Ministry of Forests and Range or Ministry of Environment compliance folks. If an individual is out there running around with an ATV and creates all kinds of damage, there is a gap in the legislation that makes it difficult to get to those people.

The difficulty I have with this is, again, that it's a change in legislation that's much touted as a major significant shift, and we're going to be able to get all these mud-boggers. But if you look at the Ministry of Forests and Range service plan, the compliance and enforcement budget and personnel are flatlined. So there are no additional resources put to this, and this is a significant issue. I'm not sure — and I'll ask in questioning of the act — whether or not there actually would be additional training around this, whether or not there will be additional opportunities for compliance and enforcement officers to be out on the ground around this.

The issue on the land base is that we don't have enough eyes and ears. Wherever I go around the province I hear that. We don't have enough eyes and ears on the ground just now as it is. Adding an additional burden to these folks without the resources simply means that while we may have the legislation, we may not have the authority to do anything about it because we don't have the people out there to catch these individuals.

The other thing is, as the minister indicated, that it enables local government to reduce the threat of interface wildfires to their communities through changes to the forest licence to cut. As the minister well knows, on March 31 of last year UBCM and the strategic wildfire prevention initiative gave notice to the government that there were significant hindrances to local governments conducting their interface plans on the ground.

Those hindrances were, for example, the right to work on lands not within their jurisdiction, legal responsibilities assumed by working on those lands that are not in your jurisdiction — for example, Crown lands and in some cases private or first nations lands — the allocation of local tax dollars for work outside of a local jurisdiction and, in the case of regional districts, the inability to collect that.

There are also issues about stumpage. There are issues about whether or not it's appropriate for local governments to pick up the responsibilities associated with what was a Crown obligation to that point. Again, there are some changes in here that will assist local governments, but the act doesn't go far enough. It doesn't address all of the issues being addressed to the ministry.

In fact, the disappointment I have in this act — it is a theme that I would suggest permeates my review of the act — is that it simply doesn't go far enough. There are a number of asks of the government around legislation that are not addressed in this act, that are not addressed in these amendments.

[1450]

In 2003, when the government made the sweeping changes that it made to the Forest Act, brought in a new results-based code and a new Wildfire Act — all of the things they've done in terms of legislation since 2003…. There has been a lot of collateral damage as a result of that. I think that happens whenever any government brings in legislation, because you can't think through all of the computations and permutations and impacts of the legislation at the time. However, we've had four years, and in those four years we've had enough substantive time to understand what the implications of those Forest Act changes are and to know that we needed more in this act than what's in it.

For example, there's nothing in this act that restores the social contract. There's nothing in this act that once again makes sure that communities benefit from our public resources. In 2003 appurtenancy was cut. The mill closure review was taken away. That's not addressed in here.

I know that there are a number of people around the province, including members of large corporations, who have said that there was always an explicit understanding with government that while the large corporate entities got what they needed through those Forest Act changes, the government would take care of the communities and the workers affected by that. This act doesn't address those issues.

There is significant issue on the land base, and we're canvassing this in estimates just now, around tenure and around the formation of these — the word of the session — oligopolies and monopolies. Again, this act doesn't redress that, although there is one

section of the act I must say I'm happy to see in there.

That's a

section in the act that once again restores to the minister the ability to decide on some other economic drivers for the allocation of timber rights. I'm looking forward to exploring that and to seeing what's on the minister's mind and what his staff are saying we need to do to direct that fibre to grow our value-added business or independent business and so on. But that's redressing one aspect of the collateral damage that occurred from 2003.

One other major concern I have is that the government has been given substantive advice about the Forest and Range Practices Act, the so-called results-based code. That advice comes from the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. It comes from the environmental groups. It comes from community groups. The Horsefly Ratepayers Association in my riding has given all kinds of advice to government around that results-based code and what does not work for them.

In particular, the Forest Practices Board gave a substantive report to the government suggesting changes that needed to be made. In fact, the minister's own advisory group suggested to the government and to the minister directly that some values needed to be added to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The Forest and Range Practices Act explicitly states values that must be in what are called forest stewardship plans. But what has happened as a result of them being explicitly stated is that the forest stewardship

[ Page 6934 ]

plans have become legal documents that are minimum-expectations documents, so they only meet the minimum objectives. In other words, they become what we would say are butt-covering exercises as opposed to forest stewardship exercises.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Simpson: My apologies, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Withdraw that comment, please.

B. Simpson: They become an exercise in covering legal liability.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please withdraw that comment.

B. Simpson: Sorry, I withdraw my comment.

They become an exercise in covering legal liability as opposed to forest stewardship. That's the general buzz that's out in the forest sector. The Forest Practices Board has pointed out that they are minimalist plans. As a result, within the Forest and Range Practices Act there is a

section that basically restricts what licensees have put in as values to adhere to.

The minister's own advisory group recommended to the minister, for example — this is the minister's Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council — the need for an objective set by government and a change to the Forest and Range Practices Act in

section 149, an objective for forest worker safety.

As everyone in this House knows, forest worker safety is an issue that we have addressed on many occasions. We've had a fortunate year and a bit where those numbers have been reduced. However, one of the concerns that people have is that because it's not an explicit objective under the Forest and Range Practices Act, then we can let that slip again. That was recommended to the minister. That doesn't find its way into this amendment act.

[1455]

There's another area of concern. Again, it's within the area of interface fire. While this act does address some issues around interface fire, it doesn't address fire itself as a value under the results-based code. Not only was the minister advised by staff to put fire in as a legal objective, but the Forest Practices Board gave substantive advice to the government in a document about the risk of fire on the land base and interface, and it needed to be addressed. The fact that we're not adding fire as a value to forest range practices, I think, is an oversight.

There's another significant oversight, however. As a result of the changes that occurred in 2003, the ministry attempted to shift all aspects of inventory and forest health to the major licensees and to licensees in general. Under a program called "defined forest area management," or DFAM, they tried to make sure that the licensees picked up all of the forest health initiatives and picked up inventory.

The quid pro quo for the licensees was that they could come back to the ministry and say: "Because we're doing such a good job on the land base, we deserve an uplift in our annual allowable cut." Well, that program has failed, and it has failed abysmally. There are a few areas where people did attempt to do it, but the majority of licensees did not pick up this responsibility.

Again, the minister was counselled in the run-up to this legislative session that that shift in obligation to the licensees and its failure created a gap in our forestry legislation. A recommendation was made to the minister to add a new

section to the Forest and Range Practices Act explicitly to address forest health issues in forest stewardship plans.

That hasn't been done in this act, and again that is an unfortunate oversight because, as anybody who has been awake for the last couple of years knows, we have a significant forest health issue. The mountain pine beetle is only the leading edge of that, and the failure to add that value into this act is problematic.

There are some sections of the act that I'm unsure as to whether or not we can achieve that objective a different way, and I look forward to the committee stage to see if that's possible, but the general sense is that this act did not go far enough, particularly in those areas.

One area that is very curious to me — the minister mentioned it in his speech, and we're going to have to explore it — is the implications of the change in annual allowable cut determination. I think I understand what the ministry is trying to do in this — because we've done takebacks, reapportionments and all kinds of things on the land base. The normal practice would be for the chief forester in an annual allowable cut review to do a full review, and that takes time. It takes a year, a year and a half sometimes, to do that.

There needs to be a faster way of doing the determination, but there are huge implications about how an annual allowable cut is determined. It has financial and stewardship implications, and it also has social and community implications. That change in annual allowable cut determination permeates this act, and I'll be very curious in committee stage as to what the implications are of that.

Another area is redressing, I think, some oversight in the 2003 forestry legislative changes. There are significant changes here to the role of the district manager. There is more authority given to the district manager — in the case, as the minister pointed out, of first nations — to protect first nations rights and for the issuance of community forests.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In particular — I know I've had a lot of questions addressed to me around this — is the district manager's ability to cancel cutting permits or road permits. In order to get to a cutting permit or a road permit, a lot of work has to be done to get up to that point. The planning work has to be done — block layouts and long-term planning. There are significant costs associ-

[ Page 6935 ]

ated with getting to the level of a cutting permit or a road permit.

[1500]

There is some concern out there that giving the district manager the ability to cancel or reject a cutting permit or a road permit at that stage means that the companies or the licensees absorb a lot of costs and that the district manager holds a big axe. The district manager can cut them off at the point that they're going to action and do that operation.

It's interesting that that's not part of the government's press release, but it is a significant part of this act, and we need to explore it. We also need to explore what that derivative authority is for the district managers. If the district manager is given authority to make decisions independent of the minister — that delegated authority — on substantive issues like protecting first nations rights in this case, like issuing community forest licences and cancelling cutting permits and road permits….

Under the results-based code, part of the big challenge we have is trying to understand what professional reliance is and what the professional liability is. I look forward to exploring that with the minister and his staff, because these district managers not only gain that delegated authority, but they also potentially gain the liability that comes associated with that.

The liability issue, as the minister and his staff well know, is a significant issue within the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, which governs the profession and of which the district managers are members. That area, again…. It's one or two paragraphs in this large act, but it is a substantive change.

Another area that begs further exploration is the requirements for management plans for tree farm licences. Again, it's one of those sections that have little changes in wording. Management plans and tree farm licences are a part of the ongoing planning for what are called area-based tenures, where a licensee has control over a certain area and has a requirement to put in an annual report and to edit and create their management plan.

When tenure changes, it looks like in this act, the management plan process changes as well. The minister has some authority for approval. It seems to be removing the chief forester. Again, I am not clear on what the implications of that are, and I look forward to exploring that. It's another area that does require some significant exploration.

The final comment I'll make…. I'm not sure if this is going to happen now or later on, but I know that the minister was counselled by his own staff. I know that the Forest Practices Board gave a report on the fact that we need a resource road act. This bill we have in front of us does not address the issue of what's happening on forest roads.

It's becoming a very significant issue. I had the luxury, when I worked in the industry, of working in both B.C. and Alberta. In Alberta, because of years of experience with the oil and gas industry, the forest industry and the oil and gas industry had found a way to manage their access to the land base through these resource roads. They worked in very close cooperation.

Unfortunately, as the Forest Practices Board reported out in December 2005, we don't have that here and we need to fix it. According to their own documentation, there are currently between 400,000 and 550,000 kilometres of resource roads in British Columbia. By comparison, the provincial highway system covers only 45,000 kilometres. So we have a set of roads out there that is ten times greater than our provincial highway system, that isn't governed by a unified act and isn't governed by unified regulations.

The Forest Practices Board recommended that we needed a set of laws and that the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry of Agriculture needed to address this issue as quickly as possible. Well, that was December 7, 2005. We're now in April 2007.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who think that if we don't address this issue, not only are we creating greater conflict, particularly as we grow the oil and gas industry — greater conflict potential — greater animosity between resource groups that are out there using the land base, but it also is a safety issue. It's a forest stewardship issue. As our land base shifts and as we're working in droughts, it is a fire safety issue.

[1505]

I won't be able to ask those questions because it's not in the act, but it is an area where I want it on the record that we would support a forest resource roads act coming forward very quickly to address this issue. We would support it coming forward with substantive changes to the regulations and legislation that already exist, and we would hope that it would be governed by an independent body that would make sure that our forest resource roads are managed properly, safely and with stewardship and public safety in mind.

With that, I'll close my comments.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Forests and Range closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: When I hear the member three times in his remarks say that I've been counselled by my staff on certain issues, I want to run back and see if my office is bugged. I've never seen the member opposite at any of the briefings I've had with my ministry, so I don't know how he can determine what was said in a meeting other than that. It's just a bit of humour for me as much as anything.

I did actually have a bit of a chuckle as the member was describing the word "or" in his remarks with regards to the description on the pages beside. Welcome, to the member, to drafting legislation. It is an interesting breed of people that are authors of legislation, and they are authors. They are a group of people that actually do this. They write this stuff, they write legislation, and then they can explain to you how this connects to a law and how that law connects to another law and how a Charter challenge can be affected in another area with regards to constitutional stuff and everything else. They do a pretty good job.

Before a bill ever gets here, of course, it gets drafted, it goes through committees, and it goes

[ Page 6936 ]

through a legislative review. It comes through the minister. You've got to ask questions about it and go through it before it gets to the House. So it's a very interesting bit of work, and it's a lot of work for the individuals who do the work. The drafters have been around government, some of them…. I think some of them have probably been here for 30 years. They are a group of people that do a pretty significant process for us in government when they draft legislation. It is interesting how the coining of a word in a piece of law can have an impact sometimes, and quite interesting.

The big thing about this for me, hon. Speaker, is that we're trying to do a number of things for communities, for interface fire, for those that want to destroy the land base through mud-bogging and allow some things that woodlot operators have asked to take place — those types of things. This is the type of bill that you actually don't spend hours in debate on at second reading. You spend more time probably at the committee stage of this, because quite frankly, it's one of those bills that covers a plethora of issues when it's an amendment act to a number of statutes and a number of sections, where usually your discussions and debates are around committee stage.

I have had a number of pieces of communication from different communities across British Columbia, particularly around the mud-bogging piece of this legislation and particularly in the Kootenays. B.C. Nature, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, have also written me with regards to that, thinking that it's well overdue and time to deal with that.

I do know that the member for East Kootenay, who lives in Cranbrook…. He was not available and wasn't able to be in the House today to have a discussion with regards to his opportunity on second reading. I'll hear from him, I'm sure, in committee. He did want to pass on his support with regards to this, because his constituents have been very, very vocal with him over a number of years. He has been an advocate with regards to trying to deal with this issue for some time.

I think that it's good, because we're going to do more to let communities do more with less red tape, so they can go after the interface fire and those sorts of things. We will have an interesting discussion, I'm sure, at committee stage of this bill.

Having said that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, 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. C. Richmond: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range.

[1510]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:12 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $489,876,000 (continued).

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, we would like to take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 3:13 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

On Vote 33 (continued) .

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the House is a member of my staff, Jillian Rousselle from the operations division of the ministry. I'd like to introduce her to the House. She'll be here for a little while.

B. Simpson: We closed off with the minister referencing a UBC report with respect to the value-added sector and some comments with respect to where fibre shortage came for them in the order of priorities. My question to the minister is: what was the date of that report? How was that report conducted? Is it available publicly?

Hon. R. Coleman: They were both UBC reports on the secondary wood sector. One was A Current Assessment of the Canadian Secondary Wood Sector in a Global Context , Cohen, Delong and Kozac, July 2005. The other one is The Canadian Secondary Wood Products Sector: Competitive Success Factors and Current Status , Delong, Cohen and Kozac, March 2005.

B. Simpson: I have difficulty with those reports in the context of what we're discussing just now because, as the minister should be well aware, the issue of the critical log shortage has been growing over the last little while. Did those reports at that time break out British Columbia's value-added sector as a separate entity so that we could look at that data separately?

Hon. R. Coleman: The one report was done on 618 respondents from firms across Canada. The B.C. Economic Forum and B.C. Wood both confirmed that these reports were reflective of the situation in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: When the Competition Council did its report, did it address the value-added sector in that report?

Hon. R. Coleman: It wasn't the focus of the Competition Council report. The Competition Council report

[ Page 6937 ]

went everywhere from B.C.'s ten-year transition plan to timber pricing, position of the Competition Council on issues, mountain pine beetle action plan, rationalization, consolidation, reducing lumber costs. Some had to do with values and getting stuff out of values, but it didn't focus on the value-added sector.

B. Simpson: The reason I raised the question is because the value-added sector thought that was a gross oversight. If you look back at the language of the forest revitalization strategy, it was explicitly to grow the value-added sector, not to grow the dimension lumber sector. It actually makes explicit statements about the fact that previous tenure changes always seemed to default to the lowest common denominator, pulp and/or solid wood, and that the value-added sector kept getting shortchanged.

[1525]

In the fall of 2005 estimates, the minister references a value-added strategy at that time. My recollection was that the minister indicated that the ministry or the provincial government was working on a value-added strategy. Do we have a value-added strategy in the works in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: The strategy has been ongoing. However, we are close to moving it up another level, which we should be in a position to deal with in the next few weeks. We've reached an agreement with B.C. Wood on that strategy, as well as with other producers on how the dollars to be applied there are basically now being finalized.

We should note, though, that FII has very much had an interest in the value-product mix. In providing funding to other organizations, FII has historically dedicated about a quarter of its available funds to the promotion of value-added products.

With respect to activities of the FII staff, about half of the relevant expenditures relate to primary products and half to value-added products. We've been building a very good relationship with B.C. Wood as we take this thing to try and move it to the next level.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear, before I go on to the next question, on the minister's answer there. Is there or is there not a definitive value-added strategy forthcoming for the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely, Madam Chair.

B. Simpson: Who will be involved in the construction of that strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: A number of groups, but the primary group we've been working with is B.C. Wood.

B. Simpson: Will the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association be involved in the strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: Any company in B.C. can get access to the program through B.C. Wood. B.C. Wood is the organization that we've worked with on the strategy, because it represents a number of those companies in a market sense and has a good handle on the thing.

[1530]

That organization seems to have the horsepower in order to basically deliver on some goals in cooperation with government. That's the organization that we spent most of the time with, with regards to strategy.

B. Simpson: I think it's important just to explore this a little bit, because the minister mentioned the individual, who is the president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association, as someone who appeared to be problematic. That was the discussion that the minister had in this House. The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association and other associations felt that they were not engaged in the coastal recovery process, and that they were trying to fight their way into that process.

What will be the communications strategy in the invitation that will go out through B.C. Wood so that as many people will be engaged as possible and they won't find out by happenstance that something is either in the works or, as in the case of the work that Mr. Dobell did, already done? What would that communication strategy be, and what is the requirement of B.C. Wood or the government to do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's quite a bit of overlap between these organizations, and B.C. Wood would communicate that. Any independent remanner or value-added operator in British Columbia can contact B.C. Wood or the ministry about value-added. We're happy to share the information with them. When the strategy comes out — basically, the horsepower dollars; how it's going to be handled and where they can apply is put together — they'll all be made aware of it and how they can participate.

B. Simpson: I'll make sure that Mr. Cameron is apprised of that and looks for that.

The minister's comments around FII though, and I made mention of this before we recessed for lunch …. I'm being told by B.C. Wood and others that there are not substantive problems on the market side. There may be some innovation issues and so on, and it's nice to see the breakdown in FII. We'll look at some of that later on. But it's not the product side, and it's not the market side; it's the supply side.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Mr. Cameron, in the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association's submission to Mr. Dobell, states on behalf of his association: "The fact is that most of our recent problems have been created by our own governments. The result is that we face increased difficulty obtaining supply, we have less access to our biggest market" — that's through the softwood lumber agreement — "and we are considerably less agile." The

[ Page 6938 ]

report goes on to say: "The problems of the independents can generally be categorized as supply, supply and supply."

The issue is of supply. In the forestry revitalization strategy it states as an explicit action that: "Policy changes designed to promote the freer flow of timber will provide B.C.'s value-added manufacturers with more access to timber. These policy changes include reallocation of tenure to market loggers and removing timber-processing restrictions. As well, the value-added sector will be able to bid on the increased volume of wood sold at auction through reallocation." We're going to get into the bid part when we get into B.C. Timber Sales.

My question to the minister is this: has the ministry ever done an evaluation of the impacts of the Forestry Revitalization Act and all of the changes that occurred there, with respect to both the fibre and log flow to the value-added sector? The government's own policies, as Mr. Cameron states, are in the way and creating the problems. Has that been evaluated in response to those concerns?

[1535]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the fact is that there are four million cubic metres more out there for open bid than there was before the forestry revitalization plan. We'll obviously have those discussions about BCTS later. There's lots of wood in the interior of B.C., as the member knows. At the same time, I've talked to the value-added sector, who tell me that it's not about the log for a lot of them; it's about the relationship they build with the other manufacturers.

For instance, I was through a hardwood mill recently where they were taking out certain clear pieces so they could go to somebody and make a specific product out of it. They get more value for that, because they can sell it upstream to somebody who is making more of a product out of it. The person that finishes that doesn't want a raw log. They actually want something that's coming out of a primary operation.

Part of the value-added sector is the building of that relationship as well. We'll continue to do that, and we'll do that with B.C. Wood and those companies and people who want to work with us. We'll try and accomplish that. I think that Mr. Cameron's description of just those three words is disingenuous to a number of his members who have other issues in front of them.

B. Simpson: I take it that no evaluation was done then. In the case of the softwood lumber agreement…. The minister is correct. Some of these remanufacturers don't need logs; they need fibre from the primaries. I'm not sure if the minister is aware of how it used to work, because you went out, you bid for a sale on the logs in order to trade the logs for that fibre. Now under the softwood lumber agreement, many of those independents that did that, the remanufacturers in particular, had to give up those tenures in order to qualify for first-mill price. We've canvassed that already.

There's a double whammy for those independents in particular, where they are in a restricted fibre market to begin with. They are also now not able to go and get a sale and hold a sale and trade logs for that fibre.

The minister talks about the increase and the uplift and so on, but the minister should also be aware that not all of that uplift volume is out, and we'll canvass that. Some are constrained in my area with six licences that are amounting to a hill of beans. Much of the fibre is necessary because of the falldown in the bush. We've got lots of waste in the bush, because it's harder and harder to get a sawlog. You may have a large volume there, but you have a very small and smaller usable volume.

The issue that I'm being told about by everybody is it's fibre, fibre, fibre or logs, logs logs. Here's another example: January 15, 2007. Is the minister aware of the shake and shingle industry coalition's concerns with respect to fibre? Has that been brought to his attention?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, they came to see me, actually. Their issue isn't around cedar. As the member knows, in B.C. there has been a high-grading of cedar for a long time, but the level and amount of cedar available has probably dropped a bit.

The member's own member stood in the House yesterday and brought up Hammond Cedar in his community with regards to saying that the issue was that there wasn't enough cedar for the mill because of the things that we had done. Interfor immediately came out and said that's absolutely not true.

[1540]

They actually did a press release immediately after — it's in the local media in the member's riding — saying the reason was that they had a tough logging season, starting with the weather in November and right through the winter. They didn't get enough out this winter. On that particular case, if Hammond Cedar — because Interfor has some cedar — is having difficulties, obviously there'd be others.

The thing about the shake and shingle guys is that we talked about how we could work with them and work with the primaries to try to get that fibre to them. We committed to continue to work with them on that.

In addition to that, the other thing they brought to me was that they wanted to make sure that we would maintain…. Their biggest concern at the beginning of the meeting, quite frankly, was the comment in the Wright-Dumont report about the fact that cedar could ever be exported off Crown lands. I made it very clear to him that was one recommendation that under no condition would I consider — we would continue a complete ban, a restriction, of any cedar off Crown lands. That actually made them feel better, to be honest with you. That was their major concern coming into the meeting.

They also told me that they're experimenting with other woods to see if they can make shakes out that and treat them, and other types of fibre. They're recognizing that there may be a falldown in the amount of cedar over the next number of years that will have even more effect on their ability to continue in that

[ Page 6939 ]

particular singular fibre basket as far as the product they're going to deliver.

B. Simpson: The minister has answered one question that I was going to ask, and that is their concern with respect to what may happen if the Wright-Dumont report is acted on with respect to cedar. I'm glad that the minister has communicated that to those folks.

Effectively, the information that I've been given and documentation on its experience on the ground is that that log supply issue still needs to be addressed. I want to look at that whole issue within the domain of B.C. Timber Sales. But there's one area of the revitalization strategy that I do need to canvass, and that's the issue of salvage operations.

The revitalization strategy explicitly stated that it would support small-scale salvage. As the minister is well aware, he and I have gone head to head on this issue in the press, particularly up in my neck of the woods in the central Cariboo forest region where small-scale salvage is hot, and in the Merritt region and Kamloops, and so on.

The forestry revitalization strategy stated that a salvage-based, non-replaceable forest licence, which will not require registration with B.C. Timber Sales and which will be awarded for longer terms than past licences, would in fact be conceptualized, put together and put out for bid. Were community salvage licences put together?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: One thing, a clarification before I move on to answer the next question. B.C. Wood does work with Mr. Cameron of the ILRA in the development of the value-added strategy, so if he doesn't know about it, then he's not paying attention on behalf of his own members. In fact, a member of the ILRA board, just so we're clear, also sits on the board of B.C. Wood, and B.C. Wood's board is made up of all sectors of the value-added industry, including the reman industry — just so we're clear on that. I think they're pretty well engaged.

The small-scale salvage issue has a number of dynamics to it, as the member knows. Salvage originally was to go get salvage, to basically take out some wood that wasn't going to be harvested, or whatever the case may be. It grew, particularly in the interior of B.C., as a result of some of the issues around mountain pine beetle.

I did make some changes as a minister about six months into my term — somewhere in there; I don't have the dates here handy — where I said that we're going to have to see if we have to ramp this thing back because we were being left with a certain amount of liability on the land by the people who were doing small-scale salvage. They were doing larger areas than they were allowed to do, so we sort of ramped it back.

At the same time as we did that, we started to create community salvage licences. We did do a non-replaceable forest licence salvage opportunity up in the interior. We have intermediate salvage, which is basically 20- to 5,000-cubic-metre competitive bids or sales now that are being piloted in six interior districts, so we can see how those work and if we can work those so people will bid on them and get competitive.

I saw something across my desk here, actually, when I was doing my reading in the last few days. One of the complaints now coming from the salvage industry is that they say it's not competitive for them anymore because we charge them $2 per cubic metre for silviculture and ecosystem restoration. They don't like that, because I guess they want everything for free and not have to be worried about the land base.

I'm not prepared to moderate that too much, because I really do think that part of it has to be in balance with the land base. I don't think those liabilities should either flow to the Crown by itself or to the licensee who actually owns the licence in a particular area.

We are trying to come up with some solutions to small-scale salvage forest licences to cut so that we can do a bit more. We do know that the demand has decreased. Part of that may be anecdotal, because I don't have any stats due to the saturated log-purchasing market in the last year or so. Even if they go salvage it, where are they going to sell it? There is so much of it out there, particularly in the interior.

That's the best answer I can give to the member's question. If he has other specific issues in and around it, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

B. Simpson: Quite frankly, I think the minister's comments about Mr. Cameron are completely inappropriate. The man is not here to defend himself, and I never suggested once that he was ignorant of anything. I asked a question as to whether or not his organization would be apprised. The minister didn't have the answer at the time, and when he did get the answer, all he had to say was, "Yes, that association is associated with B.C. Wood," and that would have been sufficient.

If this is the way the minister treats the president of a major association in this province — who he refuses to meet with and then has the audacity in this House, where he cannot defend himself against the minister's comments, to make those kinds of comments — I think that's inappropriate.

Onto the salvage issue. I asked an explicit question: do we have such a thing as a non-replaceable salvage licence, a community salvage licence? The minister referenced one in my area. Does that one actually exist, or was it withdrawn?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: So I can clarify the record, I only made the comment with regards to Mr. Cameron because at the time the member was quoting from the letter, and I thought he was quoting from the letter as part of his conversation.

Frankly, I have no problem with Mr. Cameron. I don't find that he's particularly positive on some issues for his members, but that's entirely up to him. That's his choice. I have no problem with him. I have spoken to him over the years, and he's actually known one of my staff for many years because they were in the

[ Page 6940 ]

industry at the time and knew each other. I think they may even have gone to school together.

That's neither here nor there. You can say that I besmirched the man's reputation, which I didn't do. I was just maybe taking out of context something the member said. If that's the case, then I withdraw that piece of the comment.

Basically, on small-scale salvage, we have forest licence to cut, which is really the small-scale salvagers' thing. So that's the small-scale salvage. Then we have the SNRFLs, the salvage non-replaceable forest licences, which can go anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: They're called SNRFLs, yes. If you were the minister of this ministry, you would know that one of the first books you probably get is the book of acronyms, so you can read your briefing notes in a different language. I'd like to learn to speak another language. I'd prefer that it wasn't the language of acronyms.

Then we have the community salvage licence, which we did try. They really didn't work that well, so we're not issuing any more. There is still one in operation in the north. We're not doing any more of those. We have moved to some other competitive smaller-tenure opportunities for folks.

B. Simpson: The other comment that the minister made was about salvage operators and the $2 charge, and so on. My understanding is that salvage operators actually engage in that process of trying to figure out how they could pick up some of the responsibilities for silviculture, and so on. They didn't necessarily want to be charged for it. They wanted to grow their capacity to actually do it and to work with the government so that they could be certified to do that.

There have been conversations with the government about some kind of registration and certification process, as far as I'm aware, particularly in the Horsefly area. There have been attempts, as far as I've been made aware, maybe at the district level, for the salvage operators to figure out a way to take on more responsibilities on the land base and not just be charged for any of the liabilities that they leave behind.

The other issue — and I know, again, from working with this….

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: Was that a question…?

B. Simpson: I can leave it as a statement if you want.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to give you an answer.

B. Simpson: Okay.

Hon. R. Coleman: Talking to my ADM and my deputy, there was some discussion about groupings for small-scale salvagers. We're not aware of any serious proposal with regards to the silviculture description that the member describes. That's why I wanted to get an answer for him.

We're quite happy to see those types of proposals done, but it is, and I'm sure that the member is… By nature of the independence of the salvagers, they don't group together very often. They actually work as independents, and on a very small level.

We're not aware of anything in the wind. If we hear something, I'd certainly make the member aware of it. I think it is important to note that there is a concern among salvagers that the $2-cubic-metre levy for silviculture and ecosystem restoration is to them…. They say that makes it unviable for them to salvage.

When they're doing some of the scales they are, that's something that we think is important because everybody else on the land base that does a larger taking of the land has to have some cost to them too. We haven't made any decisions to mitigate that. I know the member didn't ask me that, but that's what that's about.

B. Simpson: I don't dispute the comment that they would indicate they were struggling with the $2. It was just the way it was characterized.

My understanding is that the salvagers in the Horsefly area, who are organized…. They have a standing organization. I've met with them on a number of occasions. An ex–Ministry of Forests staffer who ran the salvage program out of the Horsefly office is actually a significant player in that group.

They have spoken — and I believe that it must just be, then, at the district level — about finding some kind of arrangements where the salvagers have the opportunity to take on some more responsibilities. As the deputy minister will know, we've had a conversation about concerns that I have about post-beetle. With post-beetle we are not well-positioned with the logging contractors that we currently have. They are heavily capitalized. They depend on large areas and efficiencies of scale.

Once the mountain pine beetle falldown comes, which we'll explore because we don't know when that is…. I'm curious about what the government's data is suggesting. When that comes, one of the things that I think is not on the radar is that the land base is also fractured.

The residual cut will be fractured throughout the timber supply areas. They'll be in small pockets here and there and everywhere. Those large-scale contractors, which the licensees have forced to heavily capitalize to get to the most mechanized and efficient way possible, simply will not have the efficiencies of scale, in my experience and from talking to others.

[1600]

The reason that I'm canvassing this salvage issue is because I believe there's a group of people there whose skill set we are going to need in order to have a viable harvesting sector, particularly in the interior around the mountain pine beetle area.

Does the minister have any idea of how many salvage operators there are working? Is there a registration process they have to go…? Is it a set of numbers that the ministry can quickly put together?

[ Page 6941 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are hundreds of them out there, as the member knows. We don't have a provincial registry for them, so we would have to ask each regional office, because they actually issue those licences to the small-scale salvagers.

We're not even sure, frankly — and we'll probably have some discussion after estimates — about the utility of the registry, because they really are in the situation of a local relationship with the local office. It's just so we know who's out on the land base. A lot of these folks come and go in and out of the business, and I understand there's quite a bit of turnover in some cases.

Basically, we issue the licence, and we keep files on it. We'd be able to go office to office and have a pretty good idea of how many small-scale salvagers there are. If the member wants us to have our staff do that work — and I'm hoping he doesn't — I could arrange that, but I don't know that there'd be much utility to it. I think probably when he's in an area where he knows the manager — for instance, in his area — I'm sure he'd be able to give an idea of how many small–scale salvager licences there are.

B. Simpson: No, there's no need to collect that data. I was just asking if the minister and his staff had a sense of how many.

In the Williams Lake area one number that I heard bandied about was in the neighbourhood of 300 people that are employed at one time. It's between 300 and 350. In my discussions with the district manager in that area when there were issues with respect to the salvage program, that's equivalent to a fairly large-sized mill.

There would be a whole lot of noise if we were taking a mill down with that number of people working, yet there we were. There were threats to those people being employed because of issues around small-scale salvage.

Because they are dispersed, because they're independents — in the minister's characterization, a group of people who sort of come and go and do it part-time — we lose the fact that they do generate a lot of economic activity in the regions that they work in. They buy their equipment and their gas locally, and they spend most of their money locally.

[1605]

It's one of those things where you have a bunch of smaller operators who have a much bigger impact, in many cases, on the local economy than some of the larger operators, who can buy from international providers and suppliers who have supply arrangements with North American producers, and so on. So the local economic impact of these small-scale salvagers and small operators of the independent mills that may only employ half-a-dozen people is, in many cases, much larger now than some of the large corporations that have global purchases and a reduced workforce on a per-thousand-cubic-metre basis.

That's why I'm raising the issue, because I do think it's important that this sector gets the attention that it deserves, not only for the future consideration of what will happen on the land base but also, if we are going to diversify those economies, that's exactly how you keep dollars local — through supporting those smaller operators and salvage operators.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

There was discussion at one point about restricting all of the activities in district offices. I believe there was actually a letter to this effect out into the district offices about restricting the activities for small-scale salvage and, I think, some other smaller licences, to a maximum of 1.5 FTEs in the office. Is that the case? Was a letter or direction of that kind issued to the district offices?

[L. Mayencourt in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: We operate in our regions on the operating basis of a three-year strategic salvage plan in each region. Each district manager gets together a plan for this portion of the industry. That is a rolling plan, so it rolls over to the next year on the three-year strategic.

There are some areas that salvagers need to be targeted to and others where they don't need to because majors are taking the majority of the salvage. So we do try and target salvagers to areas where they can have the most benefit to the land base.

[1610]

With regards to the budget and the FTEs, Treasury Board gives us a budget, and we identify within our budget a certain amount for particular programs. I think the letter the member refers to is one that basically says: "This is how much we have to manage the small-scale salvage program." In some areas that may be 1.5 FTEs, and others can vary elsewhere across the province.

We try and be as efficient as possible to accommodate these folks within the budget that we have. I know that there were some waits and what have you about a year ago. That issue, in talking to salvagers the last time I was through the area, seems to have died down with local councils.

There are a couple of local councillors that are very vocal up in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They keep me apprised of whether there are delays in licences and stuff. That seems to have died down with some of the efficiencies that maybe some of the regional or district managers put in place.

It's really not somebody saying that it's 1.5 FTEs. We have a budget that has to manage everything, as the member knows, from pretty diverse aspects on the land base in British Columbia. So we target a certain resource to this plan and try and build efficiencies around it so we can perform.

B. Simpson: I think it has died down a bit. My understanding is that some of it is the spruce beetle outbreak that we've got, which we're now into doing some salvage with, and some fir beetle and so on.

I guess one of the questions that always comes up is: what is the calculation of net economic benefit that's taken into consideration with the Ministry of Forests and Range staff allocation? The problem, as people see it, is that you have this restricted FTE, and you have all

[ Page 6942 ]

of these different small licences, and they look like a pain to the Ministry of Forests and Range.

If you can issue one big salvage licence to a licensee, you get it off your desk. They have more horsepower to do it properly. They get the permits in, in an appropriate time and so on, and the ministry can facilitate getting that out the door very quickly.

When you've got a whole bunch of people putting in individual permits and individual plans, it looks like a pain. But again, as I indicated, there is a distinct economic benefit to the local community for that happening.

My question to the minister is more of an open question. How is that calculated with the allocation of FTEs to the work? And for the gallery: that's full-time equivalents or individual people working in the ministry offices. Is the economic benefit taken into account for local communities when that work is allocated?

If you restrict the full-time equivalents too much, you basically extinguish the program. There is a big hit to the local economy that goes quietly away. Is that taken into consideration on some of the calculations on how to allocate resources to programs?

Hon. R. Coleman: It definitely is taken into account, because if it was just on the basis of what it costs the ministry to administer for the small amount of volume that is taken out and that we actually receive any revenue out of, the cost-benefit analysis would show that we shouldn't be doing it at all. So we certainly take into account the value of the small-scale salvager to the land base, which is outside of the value of what it actually costs the ministry to deliver the program.

B. Simpson: The minister has challenged me on a number of occasions to come forward and be positive and proactive and propose things. So if I could, I would propose, then, that in the case of the small-scale salvage operators, it may be time for us to look seriously at some kind of certification training program for them.

I firmly believe that there are areas of the province that are going to need their skill set. And who knows? It may be five years from now; it may be less. So is it possible for us?

In the conversations I've had with some of these folks who have long, land-based experience, they are very familiar with what happens out on the land base. Many of them are interested in some kind of expansion of their business opportunities.

[1615]

If they are in an area doing salvage within, say, a large salvage area, can their skill set be grown so they do forest health activities, so they do ecosystem restoration activities? Is it possible and is it time for us to look at small-scale salvage differently now, with a view towards the future?

On the coast, as an example — and we're going to get into this shortly with the B.C. Timber Sales stuff — are the storms and the impact of the storms. There is a different skill set there that we may have to use, because those are very dangerous circumstances that we have to ask people to go in and address.

If people think of Stanley Park or the West Coast Trail, that's happened in our entire coastal forest. I'm being told by some of the operators that some of the district staff fly over, look at these things and try to think about how to do salvage or deal with downed trees, and so on. The liability and safety implications are too large. Well, maybe we do an intervention, and we train up some people who have the capacity to do that.

From the perspective of