2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Public Safety and Solicitor General

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 31)

Hon. J. Les

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2006

(Bill 27)

Hon. G. Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Carson Camaro project

K. Whittred

Hazards of atomic energy industry

K. Conroy

Provincial nominee program

I. Black

Impact of ferry sinking on shellfish

industry

G. Coons

Scleroderma Association of B.C.

V. Roddick

100 Mile House Lions Club

C. Wyse

Oral Questions

Closing of St. Mary's Hospital

C. Puchmayr

Hon. G. Abbott

Health care services in Fraser region

B. Ralston

Hon. G. Abbott

Staff morale in emergency rooms

D. Cubberley

Hon. G. Abbott

Health care services in Kootenay area

K. Conroy

Hon. G. Abbott

Federal-provincial child care

agreements

D. Thorne

Hon. L. Reid

Funding for rural schools

N. Macdonald

Hon. M. de

Jong

Michael Geoghegan and lobbyists code of

conduct

M. Karagianis

Hon. W. Oppal

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint an

Ombudsman

J. Rustad

L. Krog

Committee of the Whole House

Resort Timber Administration Act (Bill

24) (continued)

N. Simons

Hon. O. Ilich

M. Sather

B. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Resort Timber Administration Act (Bill

24)

Committee of the Whole House

Employment and Income Assistance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 21)

C. Trevena

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Kwan

N. Simons

M. Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

(continued)

C. Wyse

Hon. M. Coell

B. Simpson

C. Trevena

J. Kwan

J. Brar

B. Ralston

R. Fleming

Estimates: Ministry of Community

Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues

Hon. I. Chong

N. Macdonald

M. Sather

J. Horgan

S. Simpson

C. Wyse

B. Simpson

[ Page 4023 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It is my pleasure today to welcome members of Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation to this House. Joining us today are the Hon. Herb Dhaliwal, Chris Midmore, Laurie Tetarenko and Genesa Wheaton. They are here today to meet with MLAs on both sides of the House. I will be meeting with them later on this afternoon. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Lali: I, too, would like to join the hon. member in welcoming my good friend Herb Dhaliwal, the former federal Minister of Natural Resources Canada, who is here in the galleries today.

Also, I have two constituents: Evelyn Armstrong and Anne Chong. I guess her real name is Guek Cheng Pang, commonly known as Anne Chong. They're constituents of mine from Merritt. Would the House please make all three welcome.

[1405]

V. Roddick: In the gallery today are several members of the Scleroderma Association of British Columbia. Visiting from Delta South and the GVRD are founding president Jeannette Stach, current president Barbara Stanyer, vice-president Bob Buzza, secretary Joan Kelly and members of the fundraising committee, Jocelyn and Vic Barber, Rino and Kelly Mauro and John Lewis. Also attending from Victoria are Cookie Dubney, Chris Stayr and Joan Roberts. Would the House please welcome them all.

N. Simons: In the House today I'd like to welcome Louise Herle, an inspirational teacher from school district 46. It's a pleasure to have her here. I wish I was 20 years younger and still in elementary school. Would the House please make her welcome.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: About two months ago I had the opportunity to be flipping through a copy of the Times of London, and I came across an

article about UBC's dean of the Sauder school of business, Daniel Muzyka. It was a great

article talking about the tremendous job that he's done in leading that school and the great reputation that the Sauder school is developing around the world.

Dan was able to come to British Columbia because of our provincial nominee program. He was able to come as a landed immigrant to British Columbia and take up that very important post to lead our pre-eminent business school in this province. I know we'll be learning a little bit more about the PNP program in a few minutes, but I hope the House will join me in welcoming Daniel Muzyka to the Legislature today.

M. Sather: Joining us today is Janice Wycherley, who is a teacher at Hammond Elementary School in my constituency. Janice is here for the B.C. Teachers' Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. Would everyone join me in making her welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: This week we are saying farewell to someone who has been a valued part of our government and the Legislature since 2001. For almost five years, Delphi Hoodicoff has had the daunting task of making me and my fellow colleagues of the government and the Legislature look good on camera. Whether she's been interviewing MLAs….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Nobody's perfect, Mr. Speaker.

Whether she's been interviewing MLAs on video for their constituency reports or recording the Read On B.C literacy program with the Premier, Delphi has been an important part of how we communicate with British Columbians about the work we do on their behalf. I'm advised she will now be pursuing a new small business venture of her own in terms of video production in Crescent Valley in the Kootenays. Without question, the capital's loss will be a net gain for the constituents of the member for Nelson-Creston. It's possible that Delphi will be able to make even the member for Nelson-Creston look good.

I want to personally thank Delphi for her endless patience and professionalism behind the camera more times than I can remember. I know that all members of this House will join me in wishing Delphi all the best in her new home and her new business. I'm sure she will be a very bright light well into the future.

M. Farnworth: A couple of days ago I introduced a group of students and their teachers from Archbishop Carney School in my riding, who were visiting the Legislature. Well, they obviously had such a good time that the teachers decided to bring another group back here. So I would ask the House to please make welcome….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I don't wish to disappoint the hon. House Leader, but Bill has decided he is enjoying private life and will not be challenging the member at the next election.

In the gallery today are Mr. Jerome Francis, Mr. John Borizzilo, Mr. Brygide Reis, Mr. Charles Harris and the students of Archbishop Carney Secondary. Could the House please make them most welcome.

[1410]

S. Hawkins: In the gallery visiting us today are two members of the Massage Therapists Association of

[ Page 4024 ]

British Columbia. Damon Marchand is the president — that's his second term — and he's the newly re-elected president of the Canadian Massage Therapist Alliance. Bodhi Haraldsson is vice-president of the Massage Therapists Association of British Columbia and their director of research. I would ask that the members please help me make them welcome.

C. Trevena: I, too, will mention the member for Nelson-Creston, who earlier today met with teachers and students from Phoenix Alternative School on Saltspring Island and had a long conversation with them. They are now in the gallery. I hope the House could make them welcome. We have with us students Emily Timchuck, Geneva Lerner, Hauke Mackensen, Daniel Hoy and Alex Blanes. They are being accompanied by their teachers Stephen Berry and David Banks. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

D. Hayer: Today we have Brenda Locke, who's the executive director of the Massage Therapists Association of British Columbia and my constituent, good friend and a hard worker from Surrey, a former MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers and a former minister of mental health. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in the House today I'm pleased to welcome and introduce 15 teachers from across British Columbia who are participating in the Legislative Assembly's third B.C. Teachers' Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of both parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by four of their peers who are acting as facilitators. I trust many of you have had the opportunity to meet with them during the institute.

Accompanying them is Brad Hendrickson, deputy secretary from Washington State Senate, who is with us to learn from the neighbours to the north how to offer educational opportunities to their teachers. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to introduce amendments to several statutes that are administered by my ministry. These statutes that are to be amended are the Gaming Control Act; the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003; the Liquor Control and Licensing Act; and the Motor Vehicle Act.

The bill will strengthen our rules to ensure the integrity of the gaming industry. With this bill, government will be able to bring into effect the key measures introduced in 2003 to increase consumer choice and competition in the motor vehicle insurance industry. Public safety will be improved because we are streamlining the process for delegating authority to inspect liquor establishments to the police. This bill will help the commercial trucking industry by reducing red tape and paperwork and providing permanent trailer decals. Finally, the AirCare program will be able to utilize on-board diagnostic testing of vehicles when conducting emissions testing.

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 31, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, 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.

TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1415]

Hon. G. Abbott: On behalf of the Minister Responsible for Housing, I am pleased to rise and introduce Bill 27, which proposes amendments to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act.

These amendments will mean that residents in assisted-living and supportive housing facilities will be protected by existing tenancy legislation. Until now, landlords and tenants of these facilities had to deal with disputes themselves or resort to the courts. Costly and complex court procedures meant that complaints often went unheard and unresolved. This bill will ensure that there is a simple and inexpensive way to resolve their disputes using the existing mechanisms in the Residential Tenancy and Manufactured Home Park acts.

Bill 27 also adds new penalties for violating the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act. These penalties can be administered by the residential tenancy office rather than the courts, which means better accountability and more protection for tenants and landlords.

This act also amends the way residential tenancy office administrators are employed by the province.

[ Page 4025 ]

Currently, arbitrators work as part-time appointees for the ministry, earning an hourly wage. With these amendments, arbitrators can be hired to work as full-time ministry staff.

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

Bill 27, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, 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) CARSON CAMARO PROJECT

K. Whittred: High school students in the Carson Graham BCIT automotive technician training program have refurbished a classic 1981 Z28 Camaro and turned it into a sleek racing machine. In my community we affectionately call it the Carson Camaro.

Too often, we see and hear about the terribly tragic outcomes of street racing. Too many lives are lost and families destroyed because of speed by a few. Most street racers are youth. The Carson Camaro project aims to get the message to these youth that street racing is dangerous and deadly. Carson Camaro is part of an aggressive-driving, street-racing project that is based on the belief that youth listen to youth.

The project — a joint effort between the North Vancouver school district, the North Vancouver RCMP and a generous group of community sponsors — aims to take racing off the street and put it on the track. After all, if it's about racing, then let's get their attention through racing.

The Carson Camaro is built to compete at the B.C. high school motorsport association's drag racing competitions held at Mission Raceway.. Mission Raceway is a place where racing is promoted safely and legally. By getting the students involved in building this car, they have the opportunity to be leaders in their peer group and to show fellow students the merits of speed and racing in a controlled, safe and competitive environment.

Carson Camaro is the only one of its kind and will be used in many future presentations throughout the community. It's a great project. I encourage all of you to welcome Carson Camaro when it comes to your community.

HAZARDS OF ATOMIC ENERGY INDUSTRY

K. Conroy: Today, April 26, is the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Until that ill-fated day 20 years ago, Chernobyl's power plant was a success. Its energy output exceeded all expectations, and its safety record was unstained. The chief engineer who designed the Chernobyl reactor used to brag that this type of reactor was so safe, it could be built in Red Square in Moscow. However, the unthinkable happened. Due to a number of reasons, the reactor exploded, causing serious repercussions still felt today.

A young woman from Russia, Elena Filatova, sent a constituent of mine three documentaries and 250 of her photographs. She motorcycled through the Chernobyl area, capturing the haunting pictures of the ghost town Chernobyl 20 years later.

I had the opportunity to see some of these pictures at a meeting in Beaverdell on Monday, April 17. That night, Easter Monday, the community cleared out the firehall so that over 150 people could talk about their concerns about uranium mining. The story Elena tells with her pictures, one of which I keep with me, and the documentaries remind us all of the hazards of uranium mining.

[1420]

The facts presented of the health risks also laid bare the potential devastating repercussions: how the products of uranium have not only an incredibly long life — up to 4.5 billion years — but have proven to cause many cancers and blood diseases. Last week a new international report said that more than 93,000 people could still die as a result of the accident. This will be on top of the over 200,000 deaths that have already occurred.

The people at the meeting that night were a mix of the community and the region — ranchers, loggers, environmentalists and miners from Rock Creek to Beaverdell and retired folks who live in Kelowna but have property at the Big White Resort — all brought together for a common issue: the concern of uranium mining and its potential devastating effects to our area.

There is big money to be made in the atomic energy industry. The Blizzard deposit in the area next to Big White is said to contain ten million pounds of uranium, which at recent prices of $50 a pound is worth about half a billion dollars. However, we were told by an area rancher who is also in the mining industry that it is just not worth it.

Today on this 20th anniversary of Chernobyl….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, member.

PROVINCIAL NOMINEE PROGRAM

I. Black: With our booming economy, we have become increasingly aware that immigration of skilled and educated newcomers is vital to keep British Columbia strong and prosperous. Not only do immigrants enrich our cultural mosaic, they also bring skills, investment and more of the entrepreneurial spirit.

One plan to recruit skilled and in-demand immigrants to B.C. is the provincial nominee program, or the PNP. Since its inception in 2001, it has proven to be quite a success. In fact, over 1,750 skilled and business immigrants plus their dependents have made this province their home through the PNP. This creative, made-in-B.C. program approves applications in as little as four weeks, in comparison to the time frame for the traditional permanent resident status of as much as four years.

[ Page 4026 ]

This enables the PNP-approved professionals to come to Canada, to B.C., quickly and to immediately establish or continue their careers while the rest of the federal immigration process takes its natural course. It is an excellent tool for B.C.'s businesses, allowing them to fill crucial labour vacancies by identifying immigrants with an ability to immediately contribute to our province.

I would be remiss today if I didn't acknowledge one PNP applicant who has joined us in the gallery, who has made significant contributions to our province. American Dan Muzyka was nominated into the PNP in 2002 and, since settling in B.C. with his family, has made immeasurable contributions as both the dean of the prestigious Sauder school of business at UBC and as the chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

I am delighted to advise that he and his family have all applied for Canadian citizenships. I would ask members to join in thanking Dean Dan, as the students affectionately call him, for his many contributions towards education and also call on all of us to promote the provincial nominee program in order to allow British Columbia to continue in its historical prosperity.

IMPACT OF FERRY SINKING

ON SHELLFISH INDUSTRY

G. Coons: I was pleased that the Premier and the Environment Minister had the opportunity to visit the village of Hartley Bay, home of the Gitga'at Nation, and bestow upon them the first award for heroic achievement by a community. After the sinking of the Queen of the North , I spent three days in the village visiting the site, listening to the stories and witnessing the trepidation.

I was relieved to see and join with FNESS, the First Nations Emergency Social Services, as they were there to professionally debrief those in the village and especially those who were first on scene. I had the honour to join in the memorial feast that the Gitga'at prepared for the families and friends of the missing passengers. The donations of a rescue boat, a Polaris Seamaster, to the Hartley Bay division of the Coast Guard Auxiliary will definitely be put to good use, and any other equipment is more than welcome.

There is still a long haul to go. There's a major concern and a crisis about the long-term environmental impacts on the traditional shellfish harvesting grounds and the Gitga'at vital shoreline vegetation.

When I was in the village, the spouse of a hereditary chief wrote a story with her young granddaughter, entitled But I Never Tasted One . I would like to share that with you.

Today my teacher asked us how many of us had tasted abalone. I know that abalone was an animal that lived on the rocks in the water and that the shells were a beautiful rainbow colour. But I've never tasted one. My grandmother told me that long ago they used to be able to get abalone by the sackful, and they were delicious. But I've never tasted one. She said they were good raw, but if you're going to fry them that you had to pound them and then fry them and eat them with rice. But I've never tasted one. I don't know what happened to them all. I just know there aren't any anymore, and I've never tasted one.

What will happen in 2010 if my teacher asked us how many of us have tasted clams? I wonder what I will say. I hope that it won't be that I have never tasted one.

[1425]

As band councillor Cam Hill recently stated: "Our natural resources are everything we have. The best anyone could give back to us is what we had before the sinking — a clean environment."

SCLERODERMA ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

V. Roddick: This two-minute statement is to raise awareness of scleroderma, or hard skin, which is a chronic progressive vascular and autoimmune disease of the connective tissue, resulting in the hardening of skin and multiple internal organs. Scleroderma does not discriminate. It's found in all countries and ethnic groups and affects all ages, from infants to the elderly. It is estimated that there are approximately 36,000 Canadians living with scleroderma, which is often extremely difficult to diagnose. Tragically, there is no known cause or cure.

One of my constituents, Joan Kelly, introduced in the gallery today, provided me with information about her amazing support group, the Scleroderma Association of B.C., which was founded in 1984 by five patients — one of whom is Joan.

Joan went on to discover four other patients in the lower mainland with the disease. By the determination and perseverance of these five women, the association brought this rare disease to national attention and continues to provide support and information to patients right across our country.

This local association supports the B.C. scleroderma research clinic at St. Paul's Hospital and is attended by patients from all over B.C. I would like to thank Joan and her team for making and keeping us aware of this disease and for her group's strong support and efforts on behalf of us all. Lives lived in the shadows are now being illuminated with hope.

100 MILE HOUSE LIONS CLUB

C. Wyse: Recently 100 Mile House celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 100 Mile House Lions Club. It is indeed a major achievement for any service club to reach such a momentous birthday. Guests attended from all over North America.

The master of ceremonies, Ron Graves, recognized three charter members who were able to be in attendance on that evening: David Ainsworth, James Bruce and Charles MacLaren. This year's president, Mitch Campsall, introduced the evening's main speaker, Judge Ryan Stephenson of Calgary. Judge Stephenson is a past president of the international association of Lions Clubs.

Needless to say, the 100 Mile House Lions Club has served this community well over these 50 years. A few building projects it has supported over the years in-

[ Page 4027 ]

clude the construction of a health centre and two hospitals as well as two arenas. The Lions Club supported an untold number of individuals requiring financial support while also providing for the needs of many individuals by purchasing such items as wheelchairs and support lifts that were too expensive for the person to purchase on their own.

The final achievement I wish to advise the House of today involves the Lions Club's ability to provide for the service needs of the Cariboo in general. This club sponsored or assisted the formation of service clubs in Clinton, 108 Mile House, Interlakes, Forest Grove 94, Williams Lake, Highways 24 and Lac la Hache.

In closing, I request that the House not only recognize the achievements of the Lions Club and its celebration of its 50th birthday. I wish the House to extend best wishes as the 100 Mile House Lions Club moves towards 100 years of service to its community.

[1430]

Oral Questions

CLOSING OF ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL

C. Puchmayr: Yesterday the Minister of Health said that there was a crisis in the health care system. It was a long-overdue admission from a government that shut down long-term care beds. B.C.'s bed shortage has created a situation in ERs that more and more doctors are decrying as deplorable.

In New Westminster, at Royal Columbian Hospital, the hospital desperately needed more capacity, but instead we received less capacity. In fact, St. Mary's Hospital used to transfer one-third of their capacity to St. Mary's Hospital. Can the minister explain why this government closed St. Mary's Hospital and reduced capacity in acute care beds in a region that is expanding constantly?

Hon. G. Abbott: I suppose I should be used to having the members opposite take my comments out of context, but I will correct the record here. My comments were directly in relation to human resource challenges in the health care system and, in particular, in relation to the need for nursing positions, particularly in the emergency rooms of our province.

Again, I know members opposite don't like me to talk about this, but throughout the 1990s there was not a single nursing space added in our province's colleges and universities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Not a single space through the 1990s. The consequence of that is it wasn't until 2001-2002, when our government took office and began an addition of 2,511 spaces — a 62-percent increase in nursing spaces in this province…. Now we are starting to see those young nurses graduate, and we will be able to see the human resource needs met for the first time in a long time.

Mr. Speaker: Member for New Westminster has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: We saw how this government projects morale by tearing up collective agreements and eliminating workforce.

The crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital was designed by this government — 200 acute care beds in the region, and they closed St. Mary's Hospital despite serious warnings.

In 2002 an independent review panel submitted a report to the government that stated: "The most noticeable…result of the closure of St. Mary's will be the longer wait-lists for surgeries at other hospitals." The report went on: "The addition of surgical cases from St. Mary's will be an exacerbation."

Will the minister finally admit that it was a mistake to close St. Mary's and eliminate 20 percent of the region's acute care beds?

Hon. G. Abbott: Two important points. Again, the members opposite may not want to hear this, but this is a fact. During the 1990s we saw the largest-ever closures of acute care beds in this province. Over 3,300 acute care beds were closed in this province during the 1990s.

Apparently some of the members opposite have had a conversion on the road to Victoria. But they have to acknowledge the factual record, which was that during their term there were unprecedented closures of acute care beds in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: The minister doesn't get it. Royal Columbian Hospital's crisis was created by design. St. Mary's dealt with 35,000 patients a year — 11,000 surgical cases, including joint replacements. St. Mary's Hospital was critical to relieving the pressure at Royal Columbian.

In 2003 Dr. Michael Piper, an orthopedic surgeon, quoted: "St. Mary's relieves the Royal Columbian Hospital of considerable pressure. Without this safety valve, the Royal Columbian Hospital is going to become even more congested and unworkable."

The government ignored the doctor's warnings and shut down St. Mary's — with 71 acute care beds, seven operating rooms — and turned the hospital into rubble. Will the minister intervene to ensure that this capacity is reinstituted in an area that is growing at the levels that it is growing today?

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: We're certainly doing some designing. We're redesigning the disaster that was this former government's health care policies in the 1990s. That's the redesign work we're undertaking.

They were a government that closed over 3,300 acute care beds. They were a government that never

[ Page 4028 ]

made any investments in health human resources. They were a government that let surgical wait-lists grow in this province. They were a government that couldn't manage the system. In fact, what we are seeing under this government are improvements for the first time in a long time in respect of surgical wait-lists.

Let's talk about the facts, Mr. Speaker: cataract surgery wait time reduced from 12 weeks down to eight weeks, open-heart surgery reduced from 12 weeks down to ten weeks. We have the best cancer care in the nation, in North America and quite possibly the world — less than one week wait time for radiation therapy in this province. They should be proud of our health care system instead of constantly criticizing it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN FRASER REGION

B. Ralston: Unfortunately, on the other side of the House blustergate appears to be continuing. The minister prefers bluster to dispassionate analysis. Long-term care cuts put pressure on acute care spaces. Acute care cuts put pressure on surgical wait-lists. All three of these put strain on overflowing ERs.

That's not my analysis; that's the analysis of Dr. Les Vertesi, the Premier's brother-in-law. In 2005 he told the CBC all about the competing demands for beds — the result, in his own words: "Patients pile up."

Will the minister admit that his government's failure to build 5,000 additional long-term care beds as promised and acute care bed cuts have driven the health care system — in particular, in the Fraser health region — to the situation that physicians decry today?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I know the members opposite don't like to deal with the facts. Any time they hear a set of facts that isn't in accordance with their ideology, they have a tough time dealing with it, and they call it bluster.

The facts are the facts. We have substantially reduced wait times for cataracts. We've substantially reduced wait times for open-heart surgery. And we've reduced it for angioplasty and cancer care. In a whole range of areas we've reduced it. In addition, the one area where we have had a challenge in reducing wait times, which is in hip and knee replacements…. Very recently we announced a $60.5 million investment by this government to ensure that those who are waiting for hips and knees get timely service as well.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The minister talks about facts. Here is what the physicians at Royal Columbian say: "The current setting of severe bed shortage and lack of resources means patients will continue to suffer from our inability to see them in a safe and timely fashion."

That's a fact. That's what they said. That's what they're saying right now, not ten years ago. Yesterday the minister blamed the Royal Columbian crisis on a combination of population increase in the Fraser health region and an aging population.

St. Mary's Hospital, closed by his government, served a significant amount of the people the minister would call aging. According to Dr. Irwin Stewart, former chief of the medical staff at St. Mary's, that hospital was the most efficient surgical hospital in the region. On its closure, he stated: "Does it make sense? Not on your life."

If a growing and aging population is to blame, why did this shortsighted government take away critical tools the Fraser health region needed to meet growing demands?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I know the opposition members are always seeking simple solutions to complex problems. You know, when we look at issues around emergency rooms or hospitals or other challenges in this system, we try to look at the system as a whole and try to ensure that we add investments and resources where it's most appropriate.

[1440]

We have talked about health human resources and how important they are and how important training a sufficient number of doctors and nurses and health professionals is. It appears that the opposition may have had a conversion in respect of that.

Another area where I hope they will have a conversion is around the need for assisted living and residential care in this province. Our government has invested more than any government ever in assisted living and residential care. We have brought thousands of antiquated and older units up to standard for today. We are making unprecedented investments to ensure that the one-year wait time — one-year wait time — for residential care that existed under that former NDP government is now reduced to between 18 days and 88 days in this province.

STAFF MORALE IN EMERGENCY ROOMS

D. Cubberley: You know, it's always interesting to hear the minister opposite decry the closing of beds in the '90s but fail to take responsibility for closing one in five additional beds in this government's reign. Now why, if he says one is wrong, would two wrongs make a right? I mean, that's the question.

Earlier the minister was commenting on the staff shortages as being the reason for the crisis in emergency rooms — not bed cuts. So it's interesting how he doesn't want to listen to doctors.

What did doctors say yesterday? Dr. Glazer said the staffing problems are related to stress involved in doing emergency room work. Staff turnover is problematic. "We used to be considered one of the more desirable ERs to work in. In the past we poached several emergency physicians from VGH."

Now listen. "Now no one wants to work in the conditions we are forced to endure. Several emergency

[ Page 4029 ]

physicians have voiced concerns about leaving. Experienced nurses have also been leaving our department because of the working conditions. The situation has become very demoralizing."

My question to the minister: do you care about the decline in morale in hospital operating rooms across this province because of the bed cuts your government implemented?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to thank the opposition Health critic, first of all, for reading that long passage from the Vancouver Sun 's coverage this morning of this situation. I hadn't had time to read the newspaper, and I appreciate him doing all the research and bringing that very, very complex question forward. I had.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Whoa. Members from both sides.

Do you want to start again, minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. I understood that they had human resource challenges over in their QP preparation department, and I guess I have just seen some confirmation with respect to that.

I don't want to get into a complex philosophical argument with the member about whether two wrongs make a right. That's complex stuff that we really should reserve for something like estimates.

I am happy to say this. We need a range of health care professionals to make our system work properly. We need nurses; we've talked about that. We need doctors; we've doubled the numbers of doctors that we're educating in this province. We have tripled the number of international medical graduates, and we've created nurse practitioners to meet a very important need.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: I think we understand just how fact-averse the minister is. But you know, maybe the minister needs to sit down with his colleague the Minister of Income Assistance, because he knows that there's a crisis at the ER in Kamloops. In fact, he openly complained, and we quote: "We seem to be lurching from one crisis to another." We are in fact lurching from one crisis to another. Patients and doctors and nurses are tired of being lurched.

[1445]

I'd think a minister would actually want to take notice when doctors tell him about unacceptable conditions at public hospitals, but clearly he's not interested in what doctors think. He might show a bit of concern, go and learn something firsthand rather than just deny and dismiss.

Now we know that the minister doesn't care whether morale is in the dumper in hospital emergency rooms, but my question is…. The Conference Board says you have the lowest patient satisfaction in Canada. Does patient satisfaction with quality and timeliness of care that are deteriorating matter to you, minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's good we've moved from today's news over to the archives. I appreciate that.

I want to bring the member up to date on Royal Inland Hospital and the investments that have been done there — a $28 million investment in the emergency room alone at Royal Inland Hospital; tens of millions of dollars invested in a 44-bed neuropsychiatric centre, brand-new in Kamloops; millions more invested in assisted living and residential care in Kamloops.

All of those things, I think, are getting us on the right road again after a decade of neglect. I know the members for Kamloops can tell me about all of the broken promises that relate to Kamloops by the former government.

We actually make those investments. We don't just talk about what we're going to do. We actually make the investments that are going to make this system a better one in the long term for British Columbians.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN KOOTENAY AREA

K. Conroy: Today we've heard a lot about the crisis in New Westminster and the Fraser health region. Perhaps the minister needs a reminder of the ongoing crisis in the Kootenays and the Interior Health Authority.

This government forced drastic bed cuts in Nelson, Trail and Castlegar. The consequences were recently reported by the regional district's health care task force. In this report the task force states that both Trail and Nelson hospitals are chronically overloaded. Average occupancy is often over 100 percent, resulting in inappropriate, dangerous early discharges. Patients are backed up into halls and clogging emergency because no beds are available — more transfers out of area. This is a crisis.

Will the minister agree immediately to increase the number of beds in the Kootenays so patients can get safe and timely care?

Hon. G. Abbott: Negative, negative, negative. What is it that the opposition members don't like about the $31 million investment? In Cranbrook, in the Steepleview Care Centre, 47 beds; 25 assisted-living units at Joseph Creek Village. In Creston, 90 beds at Swan Valley Lodge; 21 assisted-living units at Orchard View Village; and another 20 residential care beds to open in 2007. What is it they don't like about that in Fernie-Sparwood, Rocky Mountain Village, 50 residential care and ten assisted-living units were added in July 2004?

The list, as they say, goes on and on. I'm sure the questions will go on and on, and I'm glad to pick it up after the next one.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: I'm glad to know the minister is willing to pick up the questions. However, people in this prov-

[ Page 4030 ]

ince and especially people in the Kootenays are incredibly frustrated about your lack of respect and responsibility to the people in that region.

This report was written by a task force of citizens, advocates and doctors in the regions. The minister can't just brush off their concerns with his bravado. This government cut 42 percent of all acute care beds in the West Kootenays.

Will the minister commit today that the ongoing review of the Kootenay Regional Hospital will examine the impact of all the bed cuts, and will he commit to add more capacity to get patients out of ER hallways?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: One would think from the comments that the member is disappointed to have a major regional hospital in Trail. Is that the case? I guess not. I guess the member is appreciative, actually, of the huge investment that has been made at Trail in the regional hospital.

I know that in Cranbrook they are very appreciative of the major investments that have been made at the regional hospital in Cranbrook. I understand that $8 million was expended in 2002 in the Cranbrook Hospital just to create heating, air-conditioning and ventilation to keep that hospital functioning.

What we have not seen under the former NDP government for that ten years was a reinvestment on the capital side that is so essential to keeping hospitals up to date. We are doing that. As I said yesterday, we've invested $100 million just in emergency rooms. We have budgeted another $1.8 billion for the next three years, again, to do a major capital reinvestment in those critical institutions in our province — the hospitals.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

CHILD CARE AGREEMENTS

D. Thorne: A report released today found that it costs an average of $166,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18. A second report, also released today, confirmed that under Prime Minister Harper's child care plan, families who need the most support will benefit the least. Now that the child care tax credit has been officially eliminated, it's estimated that a family with two working parents and a combined income of about $30,000 will actually get to keep about $199 of Harper's $1,200 a year.

Given the increasingly high cost of raising a child and these new concerns about the child care plan proposed by Prime Minister Harper, will this government finally take action? The question is to the Minister of State for Childcare. Will your government finally take action and ask the federal government to honour the five-year child care agreement that we reached with the federal government last year?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond to this question. Certainly we've canvassed these issues extensively in the estimates process — happy to put the comments back on the record.

We are indeed building a child care system in British Columbia and have been for a number of years. We have increased capital expenditure in British Columbia. We've increased operating expenditure in British Columbia. We will be looking with some detailed examination of the federal budget when it comes down, because at this point the member opposite's comments are sheer speculation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: In a very quick response to that comment, I rather think it's not speculation. After listening to the throne speech and hearing the comments from Ms. Finley and Mr. Harper, I think we know exactly where we are in this country, when the cheques are probably being printed already and are being delivered in July. So I think we know what the situation is. What we didn't know was that the.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: What we didn't know was that the child care tax credit was going to be eliminated when this plan was introduced. Now we know this officially. To say it's speculation is totally wrong. Four other provincial governments have protested and called for these agreements to be honoured.

In March our Premier went to speak to the Prime Minister. He outlined his five key areas of concern, his priorities. Shockingly, with a loss to this province of almost half a billion dollars, child care was not one of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question.

D. Thorne: Get to the question, yes.

I want to ask, once again, the Minister of State for Childcare: will her government reconsider these earlier decisions? Will they finally stand up to Prime Minister Harper and British Columbia families and insist that the federal government honour this plan and honour B.C. families?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1455]

Hon. L. Reid: The member will recall from the press — and it was abundant — that this province was the second province to the table to meet with the federal minister days after she was appointed to cabinet. Our advocacy in this area is, I think, unparalleled. We in fact have taken….

Interjections.

[ Page 4031 ]

Hon. L. Reid: The discussion underway in terms of….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We listened to the question. Let's listen to the answer.

The minister of state continues.

Hon. L. Reid: The family allowance piece is coming forward. The second piece of that is a commitment by the federal minister to collaborate with the provinces and the territories in terms of an extension of child care space in British Columbia and in the other jurisdictions in Canada. I intend to advocate fiercely for that second proposal.

FUNDING FOR RURAL SCHOOLS

N. Macdonald: This is a question for the Minister of Finance. Tracey Connery is a parent of a student in Martin Morigeau Elementary School in Canal Flats. This is a small rural school. She has written to the Minister of Education: "Our teachers do an outstanding job. However, they juggle three grade splits. There's no librarian. There's no music program. There is an inadequate special needs program."

Now, the mayor and council of Canal Flats have passed a motion asking the government to address the issue of educational funding formulas and how they discriminate against small rural schools. This is not a new issue to the Minister of Education, but nothing is changing.

The question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will she commit to investigating the issue? Will she understand it? And will she fix it, so that small rural schools get the funding they need?

Hon. M. de Jong: I would like to thank the member for the question. I'll take it on notice for the Minister of Education.

MICHAEL GEOGHEGAN

AND LOBBYISTS CODE OF CONDUCT

M. Karagianis: Michael Geoghegan Consulting, on his website, makes the claim that he enjoys "a high level of access to decision-makers and opinion leaders within the government." Next to that statement is a picture of Mr. Geoghegan with the Premier. Mr. Geoghegan goes on to say: "We use this access not just to get our client meetings with key decision-makers but to get results. And we get results that others can't."

Mr. Geoghegan has quite a few pictures of himself with the Premier and other cabinet ministers in the government. But it is funny that Mr. Geoghegan is not listed anywhere on the lobbyists registry, although he is obviously selling access to the Premier and other key decision-makers.

My question to the Attorney General is: how can Mr. Geoghegan guarantee access within the registry without being part of the lobbyist registry?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Lobbyist Registration Act and the registry were brought in by this government, and they are important tools in ensuring openness and transparency. I note that the hon. member who asked the question was a ministerial assistant in the previous government, and I wonder out loud why this legislation wasn't brought in by that government when they were in power. I mean, if this is so important, I wonder why they didn't bring it in.

If the member has information or evidence relating to any transgression of the law and the failure to register, then obviously it's her duty to report that to the appropriate authorities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I do, hon. Speaker. Yes.

The Basi-Virk scandal has clearly shown us the shortcomings with the lobbyists registry. The federal government has recently tightened up the ethics code for their lobbyists registry, and their code was extensive and thorough. Here in British Columbia we have no code of conduct for lobbyists. Mr. Geoghegan, however, does have a code of conduct on his website.

Again to the Attorney General, I'd like to ask: are we left to rely on those selling access to this government to set the ethics bar for government?

[1500]

Hon. W. Oppal: Is this the Mr. Geoghegan who is a former ministerial assistant to the NDP? Just a rhetorical question.

If Mr. Geoghegan is in breach of the regulations and the law and the act, then that's a matter that ought to be brought to the attention of the appropriate authority, the Commissioner of Information and Privacy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Rustad: I have the honour to present a report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsman. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Rustad: I move that the report be adopted. This report constitutes the committee's unanimous recom-

[ Page 4032 ]

mendation for the appointment of the fifth Ombudsman of British Columbia. During our selection process we received 84 applications, many from eminently qualified individuals. Our job was to choose one that stood out above the rest.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, can we have some quiet. It's hard to hear what the member for Prince George–Omineca is reading.

Continue, member.

J. Rustad: Our job was to choose the one that stood out above the rest, and it's that individual we are recommending to you today. The committee is very pleased to recommend Ms. Kim Carter to the House. Kim Carter has over 20 years' experience in administrative law, criminal law, policy development and public administration. She has most recently served as chief military judge of the Canadian Forces. During her career, she also served as a director of military prosecutions; deputy judge advocate general, litigation; senior counsel for the Canadian Forces before the Somalia Commission of Inquiry; and director of international law for the Canadian Forces.

All members of the committee are confident that Ms. Carter's expertise, commitment to fairness and balanced approach will allow her to build upon the strong foundations established by her predecessor, Mr. Howard Kushner. Ms. Carter was not able to be here today, as she is in Ottawa wrapping up her responsibilities there. I'm sure that I'll soon have the opportunity to introduce her to the House.

L. Krog: As one of the members of the committee and co-Chair, I simply want to express the thanks of all members of the committee to this Legislature for the trust reposed in us in doing this important work. I must say I am absolutely confident, as we all are on that committee, that we have selected an outstanding candidate who will prove to be one of the best appointments to any office in this province.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Ms. Kim Carter as Ombudsman for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

J. Rustad: I move that this House recommend to Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Ms. Kim Carter as the statutory officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Ombudsman for the province of British Columbia pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, RSBC, 1996,

chapter 340.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 24, the Resort Timber Administration Act, and in

Section A, continued estimates debate. For the information of members, it's the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1505]

Committee of the Whole House

RESORT TIMBER ADMINISTRATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

section 1 (continued).

N. Simons: I guess we'll just start off where we ended yesterday after that lengthy debate. For the purposes of those in the gallery, we're continuing the debate on Bill 24. I'm trying to find out, in

section 1, a bit about the

definitions. I'll wait until the Chair has resolved a question.

All is well; all right. Carrying on. Yesterday I asked the question if the minister specifically could describe to the House the process used to establish recreation areas, whether or not that was in policy or in legislation and what the involvement of the public was.

My question, to follow up. Many land use decisions involve a public procedure and require public involvement before a government decision is made. Is the process that establishes CRAs, in fact, a public one?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to outline for the members opposite — because I think there's some confusion as to what we're trying to do here with this act — what it is that gets you to a controlled recreation area.

The process is a lengthy one. The average time it takes is about 96 months to get through. That's the average time. We have some longer ones, which the members opposite are aware of — such as Jumbo, which has now, I think, been in the process for 14 years. But I'm just going to outline all the steps that it takes. As I said, 96 months is an average time for this to go through. It is a policy that has been in the government, and that the government has been using, for 25 years — the commercial alpine ski policy. I'd just like to go through the various steps for the resort approval and consultation requirements to get us to a controlled recreation area.

Stage one is the proposal process. Proponents submit an expression of interest to the ministry, a written statement of interest outlining the resort development concept. Key agencies and first nations are contacted at this stage to determine if there are any significant issues that would prevent a formal proposal from being

[ Page 4033 ]

considered. Expressions of interest are advertised in local newspapers to determine public opinion.

Stage two is the review of the formal proposal, and that's if it gets to the formal proposal. This is a more detailed conceptual development plan that provides a technical assessment of the area to be developed, a statement of the business case, an assessment of environmental and land use issues, and proposed mitigation measures.

[1510]

If the review of the expression of interest finds that the project can move forward to the next stage, a formal proposal is requested. Referrals to first nations, relevant provincial and federal government agencies, local government and other stakeholders are made at that stage as well.

An interagency review team is established to review formal proposals and provide input into the land use decisions. Public meetings are held to solicit input into the land use proposal. The formal proposal is evaluated, and if acceptable, an interim agreement is signed between the ministry and the proponent. The interim agreement allows the proponent to conduct investigative studies and requires the proponent to prepare a resort master plan.

This leads us to the next stage — the environmental assessment review process. If the process is reviewable under the act, then the review occurs during the term of the interim agreement.

In general, the environmental assessment contains four main elements: opportunities for all interested parties, including first nations and neighbouring jurisdictions, to identify issues and provide input; technical studies of the relevant environmental, social, economic, heritage and health effects of the proposed project are determined and done; identification of ways to prevent or minimize undesirable effects and to enhance desirable effects are taken into consideration; and consideration of the input of all interested parties in compiling the assessment findings and making recommendations about project acceptability.

We then move to stage four, if it gets past that stage, which is a review of the resort master plan. The resort master plan is a detailed plan that sets out the phased and orderly recreation and real estate development, if any, if that is to occur within the controlled recreation area. It provides technical and management information necessary to support the sustainable development of the resort.

The proponent prepares the resort master plan based on conditions and requirements identified from the earlier environmental assessment certificate, from first nations consultation, from agency recommendations and from investigative studies that have been done — for instance, as to wildlife, water, sewer, erosion, land stability, wildfires, socioeconomic assessments, etc., which have all been taken into consideration.

A draft resort master plan is submitted to the ministry to ensure identified issues are addressed. The resort master plan is reviewed again by an interagency review team. An open house is held for public review and input. The resort master plan is posted on the website for additional public input. First nations consultation and accommodation discussion is completed at that stage.

The resort master plan is the legal component of the agreement that sets out the phased and orderly development of the resort, and the master development agreement then actually establishes the controlled recreation area. Local government officials will also sometimes come into play at that point.

This process has been in place for 25 years under the commercial alpine ski policy. As I said earlier, it takes an average of 96 months to complete. There are many opportunities for public review and stakeholder inputs.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for the explanation. Can the minister explain whether this is in legislation or regulation?

Hon. O. Ilich: The enabling legislation is the Land Act under the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

[1515]

N. Simons: The alpine ski or alpine resort policy, I understand, was slated to be replaced. I'm wondering if there's any guarantee that the stringent regulations as described will be carried forward in any new regulation or policy.

Hon. O. Ilich: The commercial alpine ski policy, as I said, has been in force and effect for 25 years. It is something that is taking 96 months for us, on average, to approve with all of the public inputs that I previously talked about. We are looking at ways at this moment to streamline that policy, and this current legislation is part of that.

We have had a task force to look at what we can do to streamline that. At the moment, resorts are $2 billion of our $10 billion tourism industry. There are 25 existing resorts that contribute much to our economy, and we are looking at ways to streamline that. This current legislation in front of you is part of that process.

N. Simons: Is it possible that controlled recreation areas could be designated within any provincial parks?

Hon. O. Ilich: No, not with this legislation.

N. Simons: My concern isn't so much with whether it's possible under this legislation. But is there any policy that prohibits the inclusion of parks in an area that would be under consideration for controlled recreation areas?

[ Page 4034 ]

Hon. O. Ilich: This legislation does not contemplate actually creating any controlled recreation areas. The controlled recreation areas are created by the process that I just outlined. These are policies, and we concern ourselves with policies that are outside of parks and under the Land Act. We don't have any intention to do anything with this legislation under the Park Act.

N. Simons: Can the minister let the House know how many square kilometres are currently designated as controlled recreation areas in B.C.?

Hon. O. Ilich: We do currently have a list of 25 controlled recreation areas. We don't have it in square miles, but we do have it in hectares. I can give you that if you would like. I can give you the complete list. If somebody with a calculator wants to add it up and figure out how many kilometres that is, then we can do that.

[1520]

The areas, generally, are Crystal Mountain ski resort, 2,884 hectares; Kicking Horse, 1,697 hectares; Whitewater Resort, 1,314 hectares; Big White, 3,525 hectares; Silver Star, 3,264 hectares; Apex Mountain, 732 hectares; Fernie Alpine Resort, 1,103 hectares; Panorama Mountain Village, 3,438 hectares; Powder King Mountain Resort, 2,027 hectares; Sun Peaks Mountain Resort, 4,108 hectares; Whistler Resort, 3,700 hectares; Blackcomb, 2,076; Mount Mackenzie, 5,160 hectares; and Canoe Mountain Resort, 2,196.

Those are the resorts currently operating with master development agreements. There are 14 of them. In addition to that, there are some that are working under resort operating agreements, which are a little bit different but also have controlled recreation areas. Would you like me to list those as well? They're a bit smaller — some of them.

N. Simons: Perhaps I'll get a list of those later, when I can use my BlackBerry and do the calculations.

That is a significant amount of land, I understand, and I just want to make sure…. The purpose of this process and the reason I'm asking these questions should be taken with the understanding that it's important to vet these issues, as this is part of the process of establishing legislation. In no way am I attempting to criticize or to otherwise denigrate the plan, but I do want to make sure that the policy and the legislation are good policy and good legislation. In particular, there are always areas seen from other sets of eyes that could use some help.

My question is: could there be controlled recreation areas designated for lands that have been included in the new conservancy areas that we've just heard about earlier today and proposed by the Minister of Environment?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is no.

N. Simons: Does the legislation allow for, or does it specifically exclude the authority of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts to make decisions about harvesting of timber around resorts in parks?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is no.

N. Simons: One concern that's been raised about the establishment of commercial recreation areas is that it could reduce the amount of the province's annual allowable cut, which could, of course, have an impact on harvesting on tenure holders. What assurances can the minister give to stakeholders concerned with this possibility?

A. Dix: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: I wanted to welcome and introduce students, parents and teachers from Norquay Elementary School in my constituency, who are visiting us here in the precincts today. They're going to have the opportunity to listen to a very important debate involving the Ministry of Tourism, and I want to wish them welcome on behalf of all members of the House.

[1525]

Debate Continued

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a further question, just to clarify on the issue of parks. My understanding is — and if I'm incorrect about this, I'm sure the minister will correct me — that the minister has said unequivocally that this legislation will not be used in any way to facilitate the development of resorts in parks.

That is not the perception that the public has at this point, and that needs to be clarified. For example, a recent headline in one of my local papers said, with respect to this legislation: "Province simplifies resort development in parks." The first line says: "By May it could be much easier for alpine resort developers to begin building in provincial parks like Golden Ears."

If I am correct in understanding that that is unequivocally incorrect and that this legislation in no way will be used to facilitate development in parks, could the minister commit to getting that word out to the public so that is clearly understood?

Hon. O. Ilich: This legislation is only to transfer the rights that the Forests Ministry has at the moment to

[ Page 4035 ]

cut down trees in controlled recreation areas, which is Crown land administered currently by the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Parks are outside our jurisdiction, and we will not be using this legislation in any way to deal with any trees in parks.

N. Simons: One question that might actually alleviate some concerns is whether or not this legislation really simply applies to alpine and downhill skiing — alpine resorts — or if it applies to all forms of wilderness recreation or back-country recreation.

Hon. O. Ilich: This legislation applies only to controlled recreation areas that are currently operating under master development agreements with the ministry, and that is all. It specifically says that in one of the sections, which I think we're going to look at in a few minutes.

N. Simons: When we get there, I'm sure all our minds will be put at ease. Some stakeholders have asked if the lands covered by the legislation have to be associated with a specific facility or a facility for accommodation. In other words, could a recreation area like the one we've just talked about a lot refer, for example, to a river landing for rafters or a helicopter landing pad, fuel storage sites, wilderness access roads or wilderness campgrounds? The list goes on. I'm just curious about how this legislation may or may not impact on those.

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is no. The intent of this legislation is to transfer and streamline what we currently do when we have trees that are in a development area, in the controlled recreation area and the controlled recreation area only. The current process is that we have to send people to the Forests and Range Ministry to ask them to cut down a tree that is on a ski hill.

What the resort task force has asked for is that we streamline it so that they have one-stop shopping, one-window shopping, for their approvals. That is the intent of this. This legislation restricts itself to controlled recreation areas within approved master development areas that are operating with an approved master development agreement and have a plan attached to it.

N. Simons: I guess that doesn't seem to be clear to the stakeholders who have expressed their concerns to us that it has perhaps been described as a couple of trees on the ski hill. Many resorts, and many situated within a controlled recreation area, may consider expansion and various numbers of things that may or may not be covered under the master agreement, which is regulated by regulation as opposed to legislation.

[1530]

The possibility always exists that changes in regulation will open the door wide. So the question that I'm trying to have answered — and through this process, perhaps it will be — is: are those fears unwarranted?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, those fears would be unfounded. The intent of this legislation is to deal only with ski hills that are intensively used at the moment. I think the only exception to that would be Valemount, which is Canoe Mountain.

N. Simons: I'm just wondering why that wouldn't be included in the legislation if that's in fact the intent, because wilderness and back country and all sorts of recreation is such an important part of our provincial economy and one that we want to encourage. I know the laudable goal of doubling tourism by 2015 is one that we agree with. I just think that it's important to do it with careful and due consideration.

Is there a particular reason…? For example, all-seasons resort. Could the minister elaborate on this definition? Could it possibly include in the future — whether it does now or not — such resorts that cater to back-country skiing or fishing or hiking or snowmobiling or ATVing or campgrounds or horseback riding or wilderness lodges, which could potentially be part of a controlled recreation area?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I have stated before, the intent is to deal with controlled recreation areas. The controlled recreation areas — and we've defined that in the legislation — are the subject of those many, many steps that I talked about earlier. I can tell you that it's not something that's going to be used for very small enterprises. These are major resort developments.

As I said earlier, we've only got 25 of them in the province right now. We are looking to help them with the administration of the trees within their recreation areas right now. But we will not be using such a lengthy process to approve small campsites or trails and such smaller ventures.

N. Simons: My concern is that the intent of the legislation is one thing, but what it could lead to under a less benevolent regime in the future is abuses of legislation. I'm not suggesting that will ever happen, of course, as my hon. friends across….

Interjection.

N. Simons: No.

Ultimately, the concern that we have is that if…. I should correct the minister, if I'm not incorrect myself, that what a controlled recreation area is, in fact, is not defined under legislation. It's defined under regulation. Regulation does not require the scrutiny of legislators in order to make changes.

[1535]

So in the future, should the purpose of controlled recreation areas be expanded to include such things as river rafting or back-country snowmobiling — which I might enjoy quite a bit myself, I might add — or any other activity that takes up large areas and tenures that include many hectares, this is what we're anticipating to be a potential problem. We're talking about controlled recreation areas in the back country, large possibilities for forestry to take place, and the conflicts that exist in that area.

[ Page 4036 ]

To repeat, I'm not specifically referring to little campgrounds or tenting sites or what have you, but the land included in the recreation areas in the future could in fact be thousands of hectares. Consequently, the timber harvesting that occurs in those areas could possibly be large-scale projects.

Hon. O. Ilich: The controlled recreation area is legally defined in a resort master agreement, which has a plan attached to it. That is what we have the long process to get to. It is designated by regulation, but at this moment I can't see changing regulations that we have under the Land Act. There is enabling legislation which allows us to create controlled recreation areas. I can't imagine us going through this long process for other types of recreational pursuits on Crown land.

N. Simons: Just a little clarification for me. Do all the existing facilities captured in the

definitions of "resort" have controlled recreation areas around them — the 25 that were mentioned by the minister earlier?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, they do.

M. Sather: A question for the minister on the specified enactment. It says that the designation of such a provision as a specified enactment transfers duties under the provision from the relevant officials of the Ministry of Forests and Range to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

I know the minister explained earlier, in some respect, that there's a multifaceted process that it has to go through here with regard to the duties that would be carried out. But could you explain to me: if the minister is now responsible for the actual duties of the forestry officials, how is that different than it would have been before? What authority does the minister have, in fact? Or are the Ministry of Forests people still coming in and doing work as they would before? How does that work on the ground?

[1540]

Hon. O. Ilich: In answer to your question, the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts will be issuing the licence to cut. However, we will be doing so pursuant to a memorandum of understanding that we have with the Ministry of Forests and Range. They will still be responsible for the collection of stumpage and for enforcement and compliance and for managing forest health within their forestry area.

N. Simons: To the minister: you mentioned yesterday that numerous stakeholders have expressed concern about what appears to be a large amount of discretion left to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts over decisions that were previously, as the minister mentioned, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests and Range.

Decisions around issues such as roadbuilding, wildlife habitat, water diversion and culverts, not to mention reforestation, waste disposal, etc., will be left to employees of the Tourism Ministry, whose mandate it is to assist government in achieving its goal of doubling tourism by 2015 — which the tourism industry knows that I support. Can the minister outline what safeguards around these important issues will remain in place?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I outlined earlier, the proposal process for commercial alpine ski areas is a lengthy one. All of the things that you were just asking about are dealt with during that lengthy process.

The controlled recreation area is defined, as I said a minute ago, in the resort master plan, which has already dealt with all of those issues usually under an Environmental Assessment Act review. As I said earlier, it does take, on average, 96 months to get through that process, which is a very lengthy time period during which all of those issues can be fully investigated and we can make sure that we're not doing anything we wouldn't want to do environmentally for any of our Crown land.

N. Simons: I just wanted to make sure that when we're talking about the master plans which are established before the establishment of the resort…. But this legislation could impact after the establishment of the resort while, as the minister might have mentioned, cutting down some trees in order to rehabilitate the particular alpine ski hill. That would presumably not require another 96-month process in order to change the master plan in order to allow timber harvesting.

There's the process that takes place before the master agreement has been signed and then the process once the controlled recreation area has already been established and may be in existence for ten, 15 or 20 years. That's, I think, where some concern might remain.

[1545]

Hon. O. Ilich: I should make the members opposite aware that the master development agreement itself contains all sorts of conditions to regulate what goes on in the controlled recreation areas, including all things that would concern themselves with the environment, health, the operation of the agreement, safety. All of the local land use and governmental regulations apply, and the Forest Act still would apply, so it does not circumvent in any way all of the laws of the land that would normally apply.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

N. Simons: Under this

section the minister can delegate powers and duties under this act to an employee of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Can the minister name two or three of the job classifications or titles of ministry employees to whom this authority may be delegated?

[ Page 4037 ]

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer to the question would be that the powers could be delegated to the director of resort development for that area or to the major project manager.

N. Simons: Is there any requirement, notwithstanding the MOU, which we haven't seen, that these individuals have any knowledge or experience working in their areas of wildlife management or hydrology or forestry?

Hon. O. Ilich: Some of the staff that we currently have in the ministry are professional agrologists and professional foresters, and they have that professional designation. We are going to be hiring a timber technician. In addition, all of the rules and regulations of the Forest and Range Practices Act still apply, and under the memorandum of understanding, we will still be dealing with the staff there.

The intent of this legislation is that we will be doing this a little bit more quickly. We will be focusing on the trees in the controlled recreation area, because it is a priority for us, and it's not as much of a priority for the people that work for the Ministry of Forests.

N. Simons: Can the minister let the House know what role the forestry technician will play in relation to that MOU and whether that is an advisory role, a decision-making role or what.

[1550]

Hon. O. Ilich: They will be in an advisory capacity. They're going to be doing field inspections. The resort developer would normally do things like timber cruises. They will inspect the timber cruises and help arrange for timber cruises. They're going to look for and protect any special values, and they're going to continue to liaise with the forestry officers that will continue to operate under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear on a couple of points here. First off, the basic intent of this act is to expedite the process for removal of timber and so on in a defined recreation area and to give those who have a defined recreation area and a resort one window to come to, so they don't have to go to the Ministry of Forests and Range? Is that correct? It expedites the process and allows them to come to the ministry as opposed to going to the Ministry of Forests and Range?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes. Exactly. That's exactly what we're trying to do — and just to expedite the process.

B. Simpson: If I understood the answers to the last questions correctly, the work is still going to be done under the Forest Act by Ministry of Forests and Range staff. They're still going to do the approval process. They're still going to go through all of the activities they would normally carry on if this was going through their offices. Is that correct?

Hon. O. Ilich: It is the intent that our staff will be performing those functions, but they will be continuing to liaise with the Ministry of Forests and Range staff, and the Ministry of Forests and Range staff will be doing the enforcement and compliance until we get up to speed on that.

B. Simpson: What's the nature of the MOU with MOFR for the functions that they're going to conduct? I'm confused now, because before, the minister indicated that the normal functional responsibilities were going to be conducted by MOFR staff under an MOU with the Ministry of Tourism. Now the minister is saying that her staff is going to conduct the normal MOFR functions. Therefore, what is the nature of the MOU?

[1555]

Hon. O. Ilich: The memorandum of understanding between our ministry and the Ministry of Forests and Range does set out who is responsible for what within the controlled recreation area. The Forests Ministry continues to be responsible for forest health, forest protection and forestry tenures that might be within a controlled recreation area. We would be happy to provide the members opposite with a full copy of the memorandum of understanding once it's signed off.

B. Simpson: Again, one of the points that the minister made was that the Ministry of Forests and Range doesn't have, as a priority for them, the kind of activities that need to be conducted on a defined recreation area. It's slow in the queue. They've got a whole bunch of other things on the go, but if they're going to continue to have residual responsibilities — particularly if it's in somebody's TFL, if there's an FSP over the area or if there are fire or health requirements, whatever the case may be — then MOFR must still be in the process. I'll stop there and make sure that this is correct before I proceed.

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes. That would be correct.

B. Simpson: If I understand it correctly, then, the process would be: I come to the Ministry of Tourism, and I have to deal with new people — who are going to be assigned to do the stuff that the Ministry of Tourism wants to do in a defined recreation area. They're now going to have to turn around and go to MOFR on my behalf to deal with them, then maybe come back to me to get further clarification.

[1600]

Haven't we just, then, created a situation where, instead of one window, all we've done is put another layer in the approval process? We have two agencies, then, that would potentially have competing interests on the land base and that would have to reconcile their interests on the land base in order to serve the client.

If that's the case, why not leave it with the Ministry of Forests and Range, as it is, and find a mechanism to expedite the MOFR process? To the minister: as I understand it, she hasn't finalized negotiations of the

[ Page 4038 ]

MOU, but it seems to me that this is passing the delegated authority to the minister without the functional capabilities on the ground to actually expedite the process. How will that be reconciled?

The Chair: Member, I must ask if you could explain to the House how your question relates, if it's relevant, to

section 2 that's being questioned.

B. Simpson: Madam Chair,

section 2 delegates the powers and responsibilities from the minister to an employee. The employee will then have to act on that. If the employee is constrained by activities that are still done by the Ministry of Forests and Range, we need to understand what the nature of that employee's work is.

The Chair: Member, could you explain to the House how your question is relevant to this

section on "minister may delegate powers and duties" — in

section 2 — to an employee in her ministry?

B. Simpson: I tried to explain, and I'll explain again. This is a delegation of the Tourism Minister's powers to an explicit employee in the ministry. We're trying to understand the nature of that employee's functionality. If that employee is going to be responsible for expediting permitting and approval processes, we need to know what remains with the Ministry of Forests and Range and what comes over to the Ministry of Tourism, so that we understand what the nature of this employee's responsibilities are.

Hon. O. Ilich: What will come to the Ministry of Tourism is a request for an occupant licence to cut, and that is what we will be approving.

B. Simpson: To the minister: is it an occupant licence to cut or a master licence to cut?

Hon. O. Ilich: It's an occupant licence to cut.

N. Simons: I'm just curious about this delegation. Will it be an ongoing delegation? In other words, will the authority be given to an employee for one-time approvals? Will this be a permanent position or a new role for that employee?

Hon. O. Ilich: It will be a delegated authority to whoever holds that position, until he does not hold that position any longer.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

N. Simons:

Section 3(1) reads: "In relation to a controlled recreation area or an all seasons resort in a controlled recreation area, the tourism minister, instead of any official referred to in a specified enactment," has the power, etc. I'm wondering what is meant by "any official referred to in a specified enactment."

[1605]

[J. Yap in the chair.]

Hon. O. Ilich: The Forest Act currently has in it that the regional manager or district manager may enter into a forestry licence to cut. That will be transferred…. This

section says that whatever they are now authorized to issue, we will be allowed to issue in the Ministry of Tourism.

B. Simpson: Again, the delegation and transfer of powers over to the Tourism Minister is an area that — I know the minister is well aware — has raised concerns even within the forest sector. We need to be very clear on what is transferred and, also, clear with respect to the desire to expedite the approval process. We need to get a little bit of clarity on this.

With respect to normal functions under the Ministry of Forests and Range that would occur within this specified recreation area — some of the work that's being done on allowable cut determinations under DFAM, for example…. If a licensee has a TFL within the area and there is some DFAM activity underway, will that still continue within the Ministry of Forests and Range?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is yes.

B. Simpson: If, then, the Ministry of Forests and Range has some explicit activities ongoing in that area with respect to forest health, salvage activities or silvicultural prescriptions — things like that — will that remain within the domain of the Ministry of Forests and Range?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, it will. It will stay with Forests and Range.

B. Simpson: What exactly, then, are the powers that are being conferred on the Tourism Minister that will expedite the activities that the ministry wishes to expedite? If I understand it correctly, the person gets an occupant licence to cut. Is that actually transferred to the Ministry of Tourism to issue that occupant licence to cut? Is that the only thing that's being conferred here on the minister's watch?

[1610]

Hon. O. Ilich: The act will be used to grant the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts the power to issue an occupant licence to cut to a resort developer or an operator under

section 47.4 of the Forest Act or a forestry licence to cut to authorize timber harvesting by persons other than the resort operator under

section 47.6 of the Forest Act. The other forestry licence to cut will be when there has been an existing forest licence to cut where we would perhaps be negotiating a transfer or making some sort of compensation, but it's all within a controlled recreation area.

B. Simpson: Again, my struggle is with where the efficiencies come from in this. In order to issue those licences, all of the other work has to be done around

[ Page 4039 ]

impacts — for example, the impacts on allowable cut, forest health, fire and silviculture — on existing licensees. In order to issue an occupant licence to cut, the Ministry of Tourism staff, if I understand it correctly, will then have to do all that due diligence with the Ministry of Forests and Range staff,

whereas before the person used to be able to go to the Ministry of Forests and Range directly and have the work done and engage them directly in that conversation.

Once again to the minister: how is this not simply putting another party in between the proponent and the Ministry of Forests and Range? How is this going to get us efficiencies or expedite the process?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the answer to the question is that most of the timber values would have already been dealt with and all of the issues related to the forests on the land would have been dealt with under the long process that we have to get to the controlled recreation area under the master development agreement, which sets out what's going to happen on the plan. At the moment we would be dealing with two separate applications. We're going to be dealing with an application to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and also a separate application to the Ministry of Forests and Range.

[1615]

What we're looking at, for the most part, are areas where there has already been a determination. It's already been looked at, and we would be allowed to issue that licence to cut.

B. Simpson: If that's the case, if it's only that explicit one issuance of the occupant licence to cut, why isn't it just made explicit here that that's what's being transferred, as opposed to what in both this

section and the

section to come are the full responsibilities under the Ministry of Forests and Range being transferred over to the minister?

Again, what we have, as the member before me spoke to, is that there is some intention here, and then there is what the legislation allows. Conceivably, as we go into the future and as we've already seen, there is some question around what constitutes this defined recreation area, and there is a looseness there. The minister is talking about a long process now, but conceivably, that process could be shortened, in which case a lot of this work hasn't been done.

What this legislation allows, then, is a full transfer of responsibilities for a lot of that other work to the Ministry of Tourism. For a licensee, is it not possible then…? If I'm a licensee not doing the application, now I've got two ministries that I have to deal with.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would just like to say one more time that this is not a loose process. To get to a controlled recreation area, again, is a long, long process — something where, by the time we get to it, a lot of the values have been determined. What we are looking at here is enabling legislation, which will allow us by regulation to take a look at those sections of the Forest Act that need to be transferred in order to expedite the process to allow a developer to cut down trees on a ski hill or within an area that they believe they can develop for condos.

It is part of their master plan, subject to the agreement. All of the normal rules, regulations and laws will continue to apply.

[1620]

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point. It's a long process to get there, but this will also be giving the minister powers over a defined area of the land base, and the land base doesn't stay static. The land base changes. The land base is subjected to pests, climate change; it's subjected to all kinds of things that will impact the master plan post its approval. This has implications for other users, who then have to be engaged in processes and decision-making with respect to timber.

What this does is pass all of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Forests and Range, not just the issuance of the occupant licence to cut but all of the responsibilities under the enactment, to the minister. So the question is: if I'm a licensee who has done a negotiation in the early process and now we've got a change and something has to change, who am I negotiating with? Do I do it with the Ministry of Forests and Range now? Do I do it with the Ministry of Tourism? Or am I stuck doing it with both of them?

It's not the one with the resort but the other people who will be impacted. Just so the minister has a frame of reference for this, because it is in the next section, the next

section does allow the minister authority to change the boundaries post that long process. My question to the minister is…. Within the delegation of powers in this section, all of the powers and responsibilities have come over. Can the minister guarantee to me that other users and people with legal rights within the defined recreation area don't end up going to two ministries now, so you've served one interest and then burdened the rest of the interests with more bureaucracy?

Hon. O. Ilich: Anybody else who is wanting to do anything within a controlled recreation area is going to continue to have to deal with the Ministry of Forests and Range. We will only be issuing a forest licence to cut to the occupant.

B. Simpson: Again, I understand the point. The intent is for the issuance of the occupant licence to cut. But the transfer of responsibilities here is more of an omnibus transfer of responsibilities to the ministry. The concerns expressed around that are, therefore, from the other users.

[1625]

I understand the intent. What we're talking about is what the legislation allows, and it's different from the intent.

Let's do an explicit example that had been given to me. If, as we'll see shortly, the Ministry of Tourism

[ Page 4040 ]

engages with a resort operator to extend the boundaries of a resort and that impacts a tree farm licence holder or someone with a forestry licence that already exists — and may, then, impact their allowable cut — what agency will negotiate that process with the other licence holders? Right now it looks as if the Ministry of Tourism has the authority delegated to them to do what would normally be done by the Ministry of Forests and Range.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the member opposite is asking what happens if there's a boundary change. If there is a boundary change, that's a new land use designation for that area, and that will go through that whole, entire, extensive process that I outlined earlier.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister. I guess we can explore that a little bit in the next section.

Let me ask as simple a question as I can. Rather than all powers — because it says, "all powers…." It may just be me not understanding it: "(

a) has all the powers pertaining to a discretion, function or duty referred to in the specified enactment, and (

b) is charged with all the responsibilities pertaining to that discretion, function or duty." If I understand, "the specified enactment" means a provision of the Forests and Range Ministry statutes. If that specified enactment is only the occupancy licence to cut, why isn't that enactment named in here so that everybody understands that all the ministry is doing is issuing the occupancy licence to cut to the resort holder?

[1630]

Hon. O. Ilich: It is the intention at the moment to grant to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts the power to issue an occupant licence to cut to a resort developer under

section 47.4 of the Forest Act — or the forestry licence to cut — and there is the provision that perhaps there may be other powers added later — all to do with the administration of the resort under a master agreement in a controlled recreation area.

I would like to add that it is obviously not in the best interests of a resort developer to cut down all the trees and not pay attention to the aesthetics of a development. Resort developers need to cut down trees that are on ski hills and trees around areas that they want to develop, but all of this is subject to the development agreement that they're working under. Obviously, it is not in their interest to clearcut the area of a controlled recreation area and thereby deny people the enjoyment that they've come to the resort for.

I'd like to also add that we have had significant and lengthy consultation with the resort development task group, which is the resort development constituency in the province, and they are all in favour of this. It's had extensive consultation with them, and they continue to be in favour of this.

While you were talking about some of the stakeholders — that you're interested in — as being concerned, I think that the stakeholders we've been talking to, who have been resort developers, are very much in favour of this,. They have very much been asking for this, because it comes at the end of a very lengthy process where they have to go and ask for a licence to cut down trees that are in the way of their resort development. That's the intent. I don't think it's the intent to be clearcutting controlled recreation areas.

B. Simpson: My apologies if I ever gave the sense that what I believed was going to happen here was rampant clearcutting. I understand the nature of that. The minister talked about who was consulted on this. Was the Council of Forest Industries or were any of the forest agencies consulted on this? Were ENGOs consulted? Were communities in resort areas consulted? How far did the consultation process go beyond the resort holders who want this passed?

Hon. O. Ilich: The Coast Forest Products Association was consulted, and the Council of Forest Industries was also consulted.

B. Simpson: What was the nature of their concerns?

Hon. O. Ilich: The nature of their concern was very similar. They asked very similar questions to what the member opposite has been asking. We were able to assure them of the intent of the legislation, and I think they were completely satisfied with the answers that they got.

B. Simpson: I'm not sure "complete" would be a word that I would use with respect to their satisfaction. Were ENGOs or communities consulted?

[1635]

Hon. O. Ilich: We did not think that there was a requirement to consult with municipalities and other NGOs as a matter of course. This is simply a transfer, technically, from who issues the licence internally from the Ministry of Tourism, and this is something that the Resort Task Force has been interested in seeing done.

We did consult with COFI and the other group that I mentioned earlier. Those are the only groups that we've talked to. All of the decisions as to what trees are cut, and when and how, are done as part of the resort master planning process, which all affected stakeholders do have a lot of input into.

B. Simpson: On that last comment, then, does that mean there will never be a change to the master plan for the resort or that there wasn't an intent to open up a face, an intent to go higher in the reaches of whatever the resort area is? In which case, if I understand the minister correctly, if there's a change to the master resort licence, then all of the other processes all come back into play again? Let me just make sure that I'm clear on that. If a new slope was to be opened that wasn't in the original specifications in the master agreement, would that then go through the whole lands process and the consultation process yet again?

[ Page 4041 ]

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, that would. It would go through the whole process all over again.

B. Simpson: Are the occupants licences to cut only ever going to be derivatives of the master plan?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes.

B. Simpson: Then why not do them through Ministry of Forests and Range? It makes no sense that if they're only derivatives of the master agreement…. The master agreement is this long-winded process that's all signed off and everybody's consulted with, and the occupant licence to cut is merely a derivative of that.

Why set up another group of people that have to issue all those permits and so on? Why not find a different way to streamline it through the existing agency of the Ministry of Forests and Range that has all of the expertise, that has an understanding of the new regulations, and just do it that way? Again, I fail to understand how this streamlines the process.

[1640]

Hon. O. Ilich: The development of a resort is something that takes a long time, and resort developers are not going to want to cut down trees in an area that they're not going to be using for a while. Once there is a master development agreement in place and they are developing in accordance with that agreement, there will be phases. As they move through those phases, they would prefer to continue to work with the people at the Ministry of Tourism that they have been dealing with all along rather than go back and make new applications to the Ministry of Forests again.

We actually have a long project chart which shows what the various steps are. This does cut out a number of the steps that would be required.

I say again that it is something that the Resort Task Force, working people that are developing resorts, has been asking for, for some time. It makes sense to them and continues to make sense to them. They continue to ask for streamlining of resort development. It makes sense to us, too, if you actually see the number of different steps that are required to have a resort approved.

At the end of this long process, we are asking that we be the people…. It is the intent that we be the ones that say: yes, you can now cut down the trees. That is something that will have been determined during that long process, and once they have the agreement, it's still going to take a considerable length of time to fully develop a resort.

B. Simpson: Again, I don't dispute that the group that the minister worked with wanted this. I don't dispute that they want some efficiencies in this. However, as I said before, the land base doesn't stay static. First nations are gaining greater capacity to understand what their historical relationships with the land base were. For example, they could find, as a result of some new information, that an area contained within a resort has culturally modified trees or is an area of interest to them now when it may not have been an area of interest to them during the resort development process.

So the fact that the resort holders want efficiencies to just go cut when they want to go cut doesn't take into consideration that things do change. The group most engaged in watching what happens on the land base and understanding the implications for fire and pests and the first nations negotiations under the New Relationship is the Ministry of Forests and Range, not the Ministry of Tourism and a couple of staff that can write an occupant licence to cut.

By cutting out the Ministry of Forests and Range, you cut out all of that expertise when it comes time to issue the occupant licence to cut, if indeed, that area has been impacted by significant changes. Under the current process, you may not, actually, want to issue that occupant licence to cut, but the Ministry of Tourism, because of a predisposition to wanting to issue it, to streamline it, may very well do that.

Again, from our perspective, it's more than resort people that count here. It's the first nations. It's the ENGOs. It's the other operators on the land base, who still have a right to talk about what's going on, on that land as the lands changes.

I understand the efficiencies from that side. But, as an example, what happens if a first nations community gains some capacity, learns that an area that they gave up in a resort is now an area that may have culturally modified trees or an interest for them? Who are they talking to? Are they talking to the Ministry of Tourism? Or are they talking to the Ministry of Forests and Range, in that case, before a licence to cut is issued?

[1645]

Hon. O. Ilich: I guess I'd like to dispute the fact, or the thought, that we're going to be marching Paul Bunyan–like into the controlled recreation areas and cutting down trees without thought to heritage values or first nations concerns. We in the Ministry of Tourism have responsibility for all of those things and take all of those matters very seriously.

I will agree that things on the land change, that situations do change. We will be governed by all of those same considerations that the Ministry of Forests now has.

B. Simpson: I'm too short for a Paul Bunyan kind of quip, so I won't rise to that.

Interjection.

B. Simpson: Anyway, I'll leave that one alone.

One tree in an ecosystem is important. You don't have to go in and clearcut. You can remove one tree here; you can remove one tree there. How you impact the age classification is important. What you do on the ground is important. The removal of one tree could have significant — either ecosystem or wildlife management — impacts. So, again, I'm not talking about clearcutting. I'm talking about the removal of even one tree.

[ Page 4042 ]

Let's go back to what the minister just said with respect to her staff being apprised of all of the Forests and Range requirements. The Ministry of Forests and Range staff are having difficulty keeping abreast of the changes to FRPA and the continuous amendments and what the implications of FRPA are on the ground. The Ministry of Forests and Range staff are struggling with passing FSPs, for example.

If the Ministry of Forests and Range staff, who do this on a daily basis, are struggling to stay on top of what's happening under forest regulation, then passing the occupant licence to cut, again, to Ministry of Tourism staff who are not living that on a day-to-day basis, seems to me to be an inefficiency, not an efficiency.

Through to the minister: how many staff, total, does she see having to ramp up in order to carry out these functions? How will those staff be trained on forestry legislation and regulation?

[1650]

Hon. O. Ilich: In answer to the question from the member opposite, we will be hiring more professional staff, professionally accredited and highly trained, to carry out this work. That is in addition to the staff that we already have who are also professionally accredited and trained to deal with these kinds of issues.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for her patience in answering these questions. I think it's important to vet these questions. It's important for the confidence of the public that their interests are being protected, and I appreciate that this process is sometimes a little bit draining.

However, with that in mind, I think it's important just to continue. Just a few more questions on this section. Will the bill result in the Tourism Minister being responsible for reviewing the forest stewardship plans and, specifically, for administering the resort's tenure and compliance with the act that governs that? I'm not sure if that was completely vetted already, but I'll ask it again, just in case.

Hon. O. Ilich: The forest stewardship plans will continue to be administered by the Minister of Forests and Range.

N. Simons: I kind of figured that part. I'm just wondering what the relationship will be and whether the Ministry of Tourism will have any involvement in how that responsibility is shared.

Hon. O. Ilich: Under the memorandum of understanding that's going to be negotiated and will be signed shortly, the officials of both ministries will continue to work closely together to make sure that proper stewardship of the forest will continue.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for that answer. When is the MOU slated to be completed, and will anything take place before the MOU is actually signed off?

Hon. O. Ilich: The MOU is slated to be complete in about two weeks. Nothing is going to happen until then.

[1655]

N. Simons: My question on the MOU will be: can this side of the House be provided with a copy? I think we've already asked that.

Can the minister outline who was consulted in the development of the MOU and who was consulted in development of the legislation? At what point did that consultation take place?

Hon. O. Ilich: The MOU was actually asked for by the Resort Task Force, and consultation was carried out with the Canada West Ski Areas Association, the Coast Forest Products Association and the Council of Forest Industries.

N. Simons: Were there any resort owners on the list you just mentioned?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to say that this is something that was asked for by the Resort Task Force, so they are well aware that we are doing this. I also want to add that we just had some communication from the president and CEO of the Canada West Ski Areas Association, and this is what he is saying to us.

He's congratulating us on introducing Bill 24, and he's stating once again: "To have a streamlined system of dealing with timber licences to cut will be of the greatest assistance to the ski resort industry. The present system is extremely laborious and time-wasting and is an added barrier to an operator working within a very short building time scale, which in the mountains averages only four months between seasons."

This is something that they have been consulted on, and it is something that goes on right now as far as cutting of trees. What we're trying to do is streamline the process with this and not change the process in any other way.

N. Simons: Really, the question is much more than just cutting a few trees on a ski hill, and I think it doesn't do this process any good by trying to minimize. Essentially, what is happening is that there's a pseudo-streamlining of the process. Unless there is regulatory change, unless there is a change in the process that people have to go through in order to get the licences to cut, what is the point of this legislation if, in fact, it's all the same and it's just with a new ministry?

[1700]

Unless there are changes to the regulations, unless there is less oversight on the part of professionals or of public input…. So I'm trying to find out…. Yes, I'm glad that there are stakeholders that are pleased with the changes, and of course, there are conflicting views on this as well. If it were so easy, it would have happened a long time ago. The reason it didn't happen a long time ago is because we have concern over the

[ Page 4043 ]

competing values that exist in these communities, in these resorts and on the land base.

I recognize that there are people who want this to happen and want it to happen quickly, but we're trying to find out what the impact of the legislation is going to be. We need to know. I understand that it's not going to be implemented in a way that's going to be harmful. That doesn't mean it never can be. The legislation should be sound, so it doesn't allow for abuses to take place.

I don't want to be seen as being against streamlining, but I'd like it to be real…. If it's streamlining, make sure that we still account for the competing values. In this particular case, it's difficult to see, after the answers we've heard provided to the member for Cariboo North, where the streamlining takes place, if it's not in the simple reduction of environmental or of first nations community oversight.

What can this side of the House be told that will show that the process is, in fact, streamlining but not sacrificing the important regulatory framework that protects the other values?

Hon. O. Ilich: I understand the frustration of the member opposite, because it is confusing. What I can tell him is that there is going to be no impact as to the regulations. The same regulations will apply. There is one application, and there is one person or one group that will be dealing with these applications, and there's one authorization.

The Ministry of Tourism is the group that actively manages the resort. By the time we get to a licence to cut, we have been through the lengthy process that I outlined earlier — all with the Ministry of Tourism but with extensive consultation from all of those groups that I outlined earlier.

I don't know if it is possible to enter into the record a visual, but I have a visual here of what we currently go through. There are nine steps for our process, under the Ministry of Tourism process, to get to the stage after we've already talked about getting to a controlled recreation area. After that, there are a further nine processes that are required under the Ministry of Forests. What we're going to talk about is streamlining that down from something that takes about four months now to something that will take about four weeks.

Most, if not all, of the determinations of values will have been done in the earlier stages in that lengthy process we talked about to get to the controlled recreation area. That's what's going to create the streamlining — that you are dealing with one person who will be allowed to issue the licence — but all of the rules and regulations that previously applied will still apply.

N. Simons: Thank you for noticing my frustration.

My question has to do with…. I wonder now whether there is any government program that rewards employees for saving money. I would suggest that this could have been accomplished by designating somebody in the Ministry of Forests with the sole responsibility of expediting the applications from the resort industry. Why wouldn't that be considered?

[1705]

Hon. O. Ilich: Part of the lengthy process that I went through right at the beginning with the Ministry of Tourism is a land tenure agreement, which we still have to do. That's something that the Ministry of Forests would not have been able to do, and we can do both of those at the same time.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

N. Simons:

Section 4 raises a few concerns that I hope to just vet. Cabinet can decide, without legislation to guide them, not only what land but how much land can be included in a controlled recreation area. It is clearly outlined in

section 4. Can the minister describe what safeguards exist in those situations to protect the public interest?

Hon. O. Ilich: If the land area of the controlled recreation area or the boundary changes, we're going to go through that same lengthy process for any extension or change in that boundary that we talked about earlier, which I don't think you want me to read out again.

N. Simons: Thanks to the minister for giving me the option. I appreciate that. It's on record.

Maybe disabuse me of the fear that it doesn't really give us the same kind of regulatory oversight. Subsection (2) of

section 4 reads: "Without limiting…." Sub-subsection (2)(a), the cabinet can designate "Crown land as a controlled recreation area, cancelling such a designation or amending the boundaries of a controlled recreation area…."

It doesn't say anything about adhering to regulation in that particular section, subject to this or subject to that. It says simply that, essentially, controlled recreation areas can be decreed, almost. That doesn't seem like the regulatory framework to protect the public interest.

The Chair: Member, was there a question?

Interjection.

Hon. O. Ilich: Right now, the cabinet has the authority to create controlled recreational areas under the alpine ski policy. That is what I outlined earlier, and those are the powers that we currently have listed with or allowed by cabinet — so no change without going through all of that lengthy process.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

N. Simons: The commercial alpine ski policy is apparently going to be the basis for the all-season re-

[ Page 4044 ]

sort policy, which was supposed to be released before the end of 2005 but at this point I don't believe has been made public. The government does have an all-season resort strategy, and I'm just wondering if that will become the basis of their policy.

[1710]

Hon. O. Ilich: In answer to the question, the commercial alpine ski policy, as I said earlier, has been in effect for 25 years. We are looking at the moment at ways to modernize that and streamline that. What we're trying to do here is part of that, and we will probably have other ways to modernize that in the future.

N. Simons: This section, I understand, is intended to facilitate the approval process for resort operators to harvest small amounts of timber. I understand that is the expressed intent of the minister in explaining this legislation. The concerns raised are not about a resort's ability to conduct business and attract tourism to the province.

My concern is really about legislation, the efficiency of legislation and the impact of legislation. I believe this bill has the potential to allow for a lot more to take place than simply the harvesting of small amounts of timber.

I'm just wondering if there is any sort of limit. I know the answer will be that all of this is decided beforehand, but I can see big gaps in oversight. I'm wondering if there will be limits on not only what land but on how much land can be included in a controlled recreation area, for example.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think what the member opposite is looking for is in

section 4(3).

Section 4(3) actually provides the safeguard that the transfer of power to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts must be necessary or desirable for resort development or operation purposes.

N. Simons: Necessary and desirable, I think, is in the eye of the beholder. The bill restricts the minister to considering "the planning, development, construction, operation or maintenance of an all seasons resort in a controlled recreation area" in all decisions related to this proposed law. Does this mean there will be no considering of first nations considerations or public consultation or even environmental values?

Hon. O. Ilich: All of those values listed by the member opposite are already dealt with in the master development agreement, and there won't be any impact on those in what we're contemplating here.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain how this bill will accommodate higher-level land use values established through land resource management plans? I apologize if the minister has already answered this. It's just that specifically higher-level land use planning isn't mentioned in the act, so I'm just wondering if we can have some clarification.

[1715]

Hon. O. Ilich: Our resort development agreements and the land use plans would be consistent with those higher-level plans in the first place.

N. Simons: How might this

section apply should the government change the way in which it designates recreation areas, which is potentially what will happen in the foreseeable future?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think I'd like to point out to the member opposite that getting a designation of controlled recreation area under the master development agreement with that plan attached is a long and arduous process. Once you are a controlled recreation area, I think that land use designation is made and probably will not change. I don't think smaller recreation areas will want to go through that long process in order to get an approval to enjoy recreational pursuits on Crown land.

N. Simons: What restricts cabinet from arbitrarily designating any piece of Crown land as a controlled recreation area?

Hon. O. Ilich: The cabinet is guided by the commercial alpine ski policy in designating commercial recreation areas, and we are looking at streamlining that. But we will still be operating under all of the principles that we have been, which would require extensive consultation with all stakeholders.

N. Simons: This is just one of the government's planned deregulating of legislation and streamlining and getting rid of what would be considered some burdensome procedural processes?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, there is no deregulation applied to this. What we're trying to do is gain some efficiencies by combining the tenure agreement with the licence to cut. It's just a transfer of authority for the forest licence to cut, but there's no deregulation in this process. All of the same rules and regulations continue to apply.

N. Simons: It is simply a transfer of authority without the transfer of the same number of FTEs from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Essentially, there will be fewer people doing the same job in a ministry that doesn't have the capacity to do what the Ministry of Forests did. Am I correct?

[1720]

Hon. O. Ilich: We will be using the existing people that we have in the ministry, who administer the tenures. We will be adding some new staff that will be trained and accredited.

[ Page 4045 ]

One of the reasons for the efficiencies is obviously that they will be focused on this job, the resort administration, as opposed to the Ministry of Forests where they have many, many more things to pay attention to.

N. Simons: I remember that being answered before. That's what prompted me to suggest that maybe someone designated in the Ministry of Forests could be specifically assigned to the issuance of permits to resort developers — that way maintaining the integrity of that ministry and not adding yet another somewhat incongruous regulatory jurisdiction to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

That was my question, so I'll take my seat.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

N. Simons: This

section makes changes in the Forest Act, I suppose. For example

section 47.6 gives the regional manager or the district manager authority to enter into a licence to cut. Can the minister explain: what is the effect of removing the word "or" in

section 47.6(2)(b)?

Hon. O. Ilich: Removing that word allows us to add sub-subsection (d), which says: "to authorize the harvesting of timber for prescribed purposes or in a prescribed circumstance."

N. Simons: Can the minister elaborate on what prescribed purposes or prescribed circumstances could mean?

Hon. O. Ilich: This could be used for purposes and circumstances related to the Resort Timber Administration Act and essentially allows for the creation of a new type of forestry licence to cut to be used by our officials.

[1725]

The creation of this new category of forestry licence to cut is necessary to provide the means for our officials to authorize the harvesting of timber within the resort administration by persons other than the resort operator — for instance, within the controlled recreation area, if there's a third party that has a licence where, as I previously said, we want to negotiate another area away from where the occupant licence to cut would be.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain to the House what the effect of the changes proposed in

section 6 is — or are, as the case may be?

Hon. O. Ilich: Forestry licences to cut generally have small cuts associated with them, and we just want to be sure that when we