2005 Legislative Session: First 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)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Dean George Curtis

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Children's Commission Act (Bill M201)

A. Dix

World Trade University Canada

Establishment Act (Bill Pr401)

R. Hawes

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Rosa Parks

K. Whittred

Diwali

C. James

Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship

Foundation

H. Bloy

Nanaimo Area Land Trust

L. Krog

Ramadan

J. Nuraney

Island Aquathon

J. Horgan

Oral Questions

Toxic materials on Canada Petroleum

Corporation site in Abbotsford

C. James

Hon. B. Penner

S. Simpson

CN Rail train derailments

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

Terms of reference for child death

review

A. Dix

Hon. W. Oppal

M. Farnworth

Ownership of shipping terminal on

Ridley Island

G. Coons

Hon. K. Falcon

Terms of sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder

Morgan

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Status of coastal forest industry

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Worker safety in forest industry

C. Puchmayr

Hon. M. de

Jong

Government policy for child death

reviews

Hon. S. Hagen

Point of Privilege (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

H. Lali

C. Trevena

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

(continued)

G. Coons

Hon. K. Falcon

[ Page 1179 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Tributes

DEAN GEORGE CURTIS

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a bit of a sombre note today, on the weekend Dean George Curtis passed away at the age of 99. Dean Curtis was the founding dean of the University of British Columbia law school. Just to put his length of service in context for people, every single entering class at the University of British Columbia had a lecture from Dean Curtis from 1945 to 2005.

He was an exceptional individual. I actually was privileged as I was a next-door neighbour to Dean Curtis for a long time. I didn't think of him as Dean; I thought of him as Dr. Curtis. Believe me, we did whatever he told us to do, whenever he told us. He was also recognized across the country for his legal mind and for his contribution in building the legal frameworks in Canada and, certainly, in British Columbia. Over 7,000 people went through the law school that he founded and helped to create and nurture over the years.

[1405]

I would hope that the Legislature will not just show our respect to Dean Curtis and his family but will send our condolences to the family and thank him for his contribution. He's an Order of British Columbia recipient; he's an Order of Canada recipient. But most importantly, he is a citizen who always understood that his first responsibility was the community in which he lived. I hope the House will join me in sending their condolences to the Curtis family.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: I have some guests in the gallery today. Susan Briggs, who's the president of the Douglas College Faculty Association, is here. In another party of constituents I have Bruce McAndless-Davis, who is the minister of St. Aidan's Presbyterian Church, and his son Luke and their friend Matthew Monteith-Forsyth, who's visiting from Calgary. Please make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Two introductions. First, I would like to welcome Don and Pearl Dunn from Vernon, who are here in Victoria. The Dunns have been exceptional community activists, actively involved in the hospital auxiliary and other community activities.

But this is what's critical: they have come to Victoria to celebrate their 45th anniversary this Friday, and I hope that the House will send them our congratulations.

I know that all parties in the province are interested in engaging young people in the political process and actively involving them in shaping the future of the province. I am very pleased today that we have in the Legislature the University of Victoria B.C. Young Liberals, and I hope the House will make them welcome.

H. Bains: Today in the gallery is my cousin from Calgary, Sukh

Boparai, a very good friend, Pali Bedi, and their good friend from Victoria, Rick Nicholson, who are visiting us in the House today. Please join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

J. Rustad: Joining us in the House today are Jan Mastromatteo, a constituent and president of the Faculty Association of the College of New Caledonia in Prince George, and George Davison, the first vice-president of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C., also from the Faculty Association of CNC. They're visiting Victoria today for a day of dialogue in post-secondary education. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and thanking them both and their colleagues across this province for their hard work and dedication.

S. Fraser: I have several introductions to make today. On behalf of the House, it gives me great pleasure to introduce distinguished guests from the interior: from the Tsay Keh Dene First Nation, Grand Chief Gordon Pierre; from the Takla First Nation, Chief John Allan French; from the Kwadacha First Nation, councillors Mary

Hourie and Rene Benson; from the Gitxsan First Nation, Hereditary Chief Renna Benson and Hereditary Chief Gordon Sebastian; and from the

Tl'azt'en First Nation, Justa Monk and Dave Porter, also from the First Nations Summit. They are here today working on preventing the destruction of…

…which is a word which means "Mother Caribou," and it's also known as Duncan Lake. Would you join me in welcoming them.

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like the members to join me in welcoming two individuals in the House today representing the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia. Visiting the Legislature from my hometown of Courtenay is Bill McConnell, who's president of the Faculty Association of North Island College, and James Brennan, president of the Faculty Association of Malaspina University College. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

[1410]

H. Bains: I have another introduction to make from my hometown. Terri Van Steinburg, president of Kwantlen University Faculty Association, is in the House. Please extend a warm welcome to Terri.

G. Robertson: I just want to extend a warm welcome on behalf of the House to all the other post-secondary educators, faculty who are here visiting the House today. For all that they do in our post-secondary education system, we support them.

[ Page 1180 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

CHILDREN'S COMMISSION ACT

A. Dix presented a bill intituled Children's Commission Act.

A. Dix: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, the province has a special and fundamental role with respect to children in B.C., particularly with respect to children in care. The judge in the tragic Kayla John case described the role required of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to be that of a prudent parent.

No power currently held by the province is more fundamental than its obligation to support children, to protect children and to make choices with respect to children and families. That is why even in the best of circumstances, children need independent voices to protect their interests and government needs watchdogs to ensure that good decisions are made and that children are protected. And these are not the best of circumstances.

This bill, the Children's Commission Act, seeks to re-establish the British Columbia Children's Commission as a fully independent child welfare watchdog with the power to independently launch investigations, advocate on behalf of children and families, automatically review child deaths and critical injuries, and produce public reports and policy recommendations based on those reviews. Under the act, both the commissioner and deputy commissioners would be independent officers reporting directly to the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, B.C. needs an independent children's commissioner again. I ask all members to review and support this bill. 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 M201, Children's Commission Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

WORLD TRADE UNIVERSITY CANADA

ESTABLISHMENT ACT

R. Hawes presented a bill intituled World Trade University Canada Establishment Act.

R. Hawes: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: The World Trade University initiative was launched on the occasion of the third United Nations conference on least-developed countries, hosted by European Union headquarters at the European Parliament in May 2001, with the support of several agencies of the United Nations system as well as the World Trade Organization, the European Parliament and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

The global activities of the World Trade University initiative were recognized by the UN Secretary General, the General Assembly and a special memorandum with the United Nations conference on trade and development, as a global mechanism aimed at enhancing and expanding cooperation in international trade and human development in achieving the United Nations millennium development goals.

On February 8, 2005, our government — the government of British Columbia — signed a memorandum of understanding which indicated that it agreed to join efforts towards the establishment of the World Trade University global headquarters in British Columbia and that it is committed to providing technical assistance and support through the process of establishing the World Trade University as a not-for-profit organization in British Columbia.

[1415]

In fact, in our throne speech the words were read by the Lieutenant-Governor that went: "In expanding our range of educational opportunities, we must also look to expanding our reach and knowledge beyond our borders." This government will build its new Asia-Pacific gateway strategy in the marriage of advanced education and trade. It will work to establish British Columbia as the new global home for the World Trade University, to be located in Chilliwack.

This university will offer university education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in international trade, economics, business and related subjects, as well as offer certificates, diplomas and continuing education in these fields of study. It will also conduct applied research and development in these areas. For the Fraser Valley and all of British Columbia, this is wonderful news.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, World Trade University Canada Establishment Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ROSA PARKS

K. Whittred: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Rosa Parks, a person of great courage and inspiration behind the modern civil rights movement in the United States.

[ Page 1181 ]

In Montgomery, Alabama, 50 years ago Mrs. Parks boarded a bus and proceeded to sit down on a seat designated for whites only. Tired of being humiliated and discriminated against because of the colour of her skin, she refused to give up her seat when a bus driver demanded she move for a white passenger.

For her actions, Mrs. Parks was arrested and charged with violating the racial segregation statutes, better known as the Jim Crow laws. She was convicted of disorderly conduct, fined, and eventually lost her job. This injustice set off a wave of resentment and catapulted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. into the major civil rights leader of his time.

For the next 381 days Dr. King led a boycott against the Montgomery public transportation system. The boycott ended after the United States Supreme Court ruled that bus segregation was illegal. This decision was the catalyst that eventually led to the end of all racial segregation laws in the United States.

Mrs. Parks died yesterday at her home in Detroit. She was 92. Rosa Parks said that she wanted to be remembered as a person who wanted to be free and wanted others to be free. But she will be remembered for much more than this. Because of her courage against an unjust law, this soft-spoken woman not only changed the face of her country but also became a torch-bearer — worldwide, in the end — to fight prejudice.

DIWALI

C. James: I rise today in celebration of Diwali, the festival of lights. Originating in India, Diwali is celebrated through the exchange of gifts and sweets, the preparation of festive meals and the lighting of thousands of oil lamps for which this festival is named.

To some, it marks the beginning of a new year. On a deeper level, Diwali symbolizes the power of good. It serves as a reminder of our responsibility to live truthfully and with integrity and to bring those principles to bear on our daily lives.

Diwali is a joyous occasion. While it is rooted in the culture of India, Diwali has become a part of the diverse cultural fabric of British Columbia. This past weekend I was honoured to attend and participate in Diwali celebrations in the community of Burnaby. We enjoyed delicious food and were entertained by dancers, musicians and other performers of enormous talent.

Today I'd like to congratulate the board members and the volunteers of the VHP of British Columbia for organizing the annual Diwali cultural show once again this year. It was truly an event to remember.

Diwali celebrations are occurring all over our province. The celebration provides an opportunity for our diverse communities to come together in the spirit of friendship and peace. As we rejoice in each other's festivals and traditions, it gives us all a great sense of pride in the makeup of our multicultural province.

[1420]

I'm proud to have attended these festivals and to have had the opportunity to partake in Diwali. I look forward to celebrating it in the years to come, and I would like the House to please join with me today in recognizing and celebrating the festival of Diwali.

VANCOUVER KOREAN-CANADIAN

SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION

H. Bloy: It is no secret that British Columbia is enriched by our cultural diversity and strengthened by its many immigrant groups. In Burquitlam one of the fastest-growing segments of our population is the Korean community.

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending the announcement of this year's Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation winners. This foundation was founded in 1999 as a non-profit organization dedicated to providing scholarships for qualifying students with Korean heritage. Money for the scholarships is raised through sponsors. The foundation introduced these scholarships to assist in the well-being of both the Korean community and the Canadian society to foster stronger ties between the two countries. Since their inception, the foundation has awarded more than $185,000 in scholarships to 170 students. This year 34 lucky recipients were awarded.

Personally, as someone who encourages post-secondary education, it has been my privilege to sponsor a scholarship to the tune of $1,000. I would like to congratulate Ms. Ray Kang, a UBC student in microbiology, who was awarded the scholarship in my name this year. Please join me in thanking the Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation for their ongoing commitment in providing young British Columbians with an opportunity to further their education.

NANAIMO AREA LAND TRUST

L. Krog: I rise today to ask the House to help me mark the tenth anniversary of the receipt of charitable tax status by a wonderful organization in Nanaimo, the Nanaimo Area Land Trust. This organization, which is run by a volunteer board with a wonderful executive director, Gail Adrienne, worked vigorously and long and hard to secure the purchase of what is known in Nanaimo as the Linley Valley — 145 acres of private land, which has created a city park.

This organization's mission is to promote and protect the natural values of land in the Nanaimo area. It has done that through acquisitions, through public education and through covenants. It promotes stewardship of property in the community, in conjunction with private land owners, and has worked extremely hard most recently with the Coalition to Save Mount Benson. For those who know Nanaimo, that is the mountain you see when you come into Nanaimo. NALT has been working vigorously with the private owner to attempt to secure its acquisition for public purposes.

This organization is an organization that deserves support in the Nanaimo community. It has received wonderful cooperation from various levels of government from time to time. It is this kind of community organization that devotes itself to good works and that

[ Page 1182 ]

I think is particularly deserving of honour by this House.

RAMADAN

J. Nuraney: I am very, very pleased that this afternoon in the House we have seen statements from private members reflective of the diversity that we are celebrating in British Columbia.

Muslims around the world are presently observing the month of Ramadan. During this month, we fast from dawn to dusk. Apart from the abstinence from food and drinks, it is also the time for spiritual reflection. The concept is that of discipline — physical, moral and spiritual. Bad actions, immoral thoughts and unwarranted actions are avoided, and strict discipline of prayers is observed.

This week, which is the third week of abstinence, is of particular importance. It is believed that it was during the last ten days of the month of Ramadan that the holy Koran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed S.A.S. — may peace be upon him. There will be prayers offered throughout the night. It is considered to be an occasion of special reward.

[1425]

The month of Ramadan is, therefore, a month of true discipline and reflection of the spirit of Islam, the religion of peace and harmony. It is a month of peace with God, oneself, others and the environment that we live in.

May I offer my brothers and sisters in Islam, Ramadan Mubarak.

ISLAND AQUATHON

J. Horgan: I rise today to inform this House about a unique individual in my community of Langford, an ordinary man who consistently does extraordinary things. He has competed in triathlons and Ironman competitions. He has walked across India and climbed within 300 metres of the summit of Everest. In 1996 he became the first person to swim the 35-kilometre ferry route between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen, but that was just a warmup.

On June 30 of this year, Rob Dyke entered the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Clover Point and began a three-month odyssey to swim the 1,400 kilometres around Vancouver Island. Averaging 20 kilometres a day, Rob braved stinging jellyfish, frigid waters, large waves and the odd hostile sea mammal to raise awareness about water safety. It takes a certain kind of motivation to spend five or six hours a day swimming kilometre after kilometre, but Rob and his Island aquatic team embarked on this daunting trek to raise money and awareness for the Canadian Red Cross swimming and boating programs.

Each year over 400 Canadians drown, and countless more are injured in recreational water activities. The aim of the Island aquatic trek was to draw attention to our many exceptional swimming and boating programs offered by the Canadian Red Cross in communities right across this country. Donations to Island Aquathon will help set up new community-based education programs for youth, and these programs will provide young people with the practical skills and leadership capabilities they will need to reduce water-related tragedies.

One of Rob's goals is to institute basic water safety programs in our public schools here in British Columbia, and I'm going to be supporting him in that endeavour. To find out more about this incredible Canadian, I invite those viewing and those in this House to visit their local Red Cross office and see what more they can find out about water safety programs. I want to thank Rob for his drive, his commitment and for showing us that anything is possible.

Oral Questions

TOXIC MATERIALS ON

CANADA PETROLEUM CORPORATION

SITE IN ABBOTSFORD

C. James: Can the Minister of Environment confirm that evidence of hoses leading directly into the municipal sewer system was discovered during the recent cleanup of the Canada Petroleum Corp.'s Abbotsford Industrial Avenue site?

Hon. B. Penner: I am pleased to announce that that cleanup has now been complete. The officials from the Ministry of Environment worked diligently throughout the summer and into September with good cooperation from local officials from the city of Abbotsford. There is an ongoing investigation that's taking place. I cannot confirm the question of the Leader of the Opposition at this time, but an ongoing investigation is underway, and additional charges may arise.

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

C. James: I'm certainly pleased to hear the cleanup is going on. I thank the minister for that. But I continue to be concerned about how long this issue has taken for the cleanup to occur. I don't believe this question will be related to the court case. I think it's possible for the minister to give this response.

Could you confirm that in 2003 we had Environment Ministry officials, conservation officers visiting the site with the property owner to gather information?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have those precise dates in front of me. I can confirm that the ministry did act and did investigate. I think more than 11 charges were laid against CPC since this matter came to the attention of the ministry. Convictions were obtained. We pursued the matter through the courts. A fine was levied by the Provincial Court of British Columbia. As I've indicated, additional charges are possible.

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

C. James: This goes further, in fact. I'd like to ask a question about concerns for all of the public of British

[ Page 1183 ]

Columbia, which are related to the toxins that were on that site.

[1430]

Records show that between 1998 and 2004, over 16 million litres and over one million kilograms of toxic waste went into the site, but only a fraction can now be accounted for. Can the Minister of Environment please tell the public what happened to ten million litres and almost half a million kilograms of toxic waste that now appear to be missing?

Hon. B. Penner: I have asked the staff in the ministry to expedite work about possible changes to the regulatory framework so that we put businesses like CPC out of business before they ever get started, so they're not in a position to receive waste. That may take the form of an accreditation process or procedure, but that remains to be seen. The work has been expedited in the ministry, is ongoing and is something I'm very interested in.

I can confirm that CPC was fined $10,000 by the Provincial Court this summer. As you know, I issued an emergency order this summer, in August, to expedite the cleanup process. We mobilized crews. They worked throughout the weekends and throughout the hot months of the summer to deal with that site. In terms of where some of the materials may have gone, that is a matter of an ongoing investigation.

S. Simpson: The minister has known about this situation for at least seven months since it was reported in the media, including being made aware of the more than ten million litres of missing toxic materials. While the government has cleaned the site up, the minister has remained silent on the question of where those materials went. Is the minister telling us today that he has done nothing over the last seven months to determine where those toxic materials went and whether they were dumped down the sewer in Abbotsford?

Hon. B. Penner: I will just remind the critic that I was actually not appointed minister until June 16 of this year. This matter did come to my attention shortly after being appointed to the Ministry of Environment. I did sign the emergency order in August. The staff moved quickly. We've cleaned up the site.

I'm relieved, and I think all of us should take some pride in the fact that no people were injured or became ill as a result of this toxic site in Abbotsford. Clearly, as the courts have already confirmed, it was operating in violation of British Columbia's environmental laws. There is an ongoing investigation, and more charges may arise.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: If the minister is saying that he didn't get appointed until May, so consequently we can't hold the government and him accountable for something prior to that, I don't think that's good enough. Ten million litres of lost toxics and every indication that the ministry was aware of the problems of potential dumping of these toxics into the sewer system since 2003, and you did nothing about it until May of 2005. This raises serious questions about the confidence British Columbians can have in this ministry's ability to deal with these types of situations.

My question to the minister: can the minister assure British Columbians that there are no more similar sites percolating a toxic brew in this province and threatening communities across B.C.? If not, what is he going to do to make sure this doesn't occur again?

Hon. B. Penner: Since the hon. member is talking about some of the history of this case, I think it is important to point out that CPC went into business when the NDP government was running British Columbia. They started operating, unfortunately, in, I think, late 1994 or early 1995, and my information indicates they were never once investigated by the NDP. It was the B.C. Liberal government that investigated, laid charges, prosecuted, obtained convictions and then cleaned up that site.

[1435]

CN RAIL TRAIN DERAILMENTS

D. Chudnovsky: Yesterday we learned of yet another CN derailment near the Cheakamus Canyon. That's ten CN derailments in the last three months: Squamish, Cheam View, Hixon, Boston Bar, two in the Cheakamus Canyon.

In August I asked the minister to intervene with his federal counterpart to ask him to bring forward a ministerial order limiting the length and weight of CN trains along the stretch of track near the Cheakamus Canyon and in other high-risk areas.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Has he requested such a ministerial order from the federal Minister of Transport?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I want to say that I share that member's concern. In fact, today my office contacted CN. I will be meeting, as soon as we can arrange it, with the vice-president of CN to let them know that this province and this government remain concerned anytime you have a cluster of derailments, as that member mentioned.

The challenge I would have with the member's question, though, is that the member apparently has already concluded what the result of the derailment or the causal effect of the derailment was. One thing we know for sure is that it is being investigated by several federal agencies, including the federal Transportation Safety Board. I think it's incumbent upon us…. Until they complete the investigation and we actually see what the evidence suggested caused the derailment, it's not particularly helpful to speculate on what may or may not be the cause of the derailment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Concern is not enough at this point. What British Columbians want is action. What

[ Page 1184 ]

British Columbians want is action, and they want it now. We have obtained a copy of a rail safety advisory letter from the Transportation Safety Board recommending that Transport Canada assess CN's equipment handling, train length and tonnage instructions to ensure they're adequate for safe train operation. Will the minister now take action and ask his federal counterpart to issue a ministerial order limiting CN train weight and length pending further action by Transport Canada?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think, actually, the letter or the notice that the member refers to is very appropriate. That's exactly what the federal Transportation Safety Board does. They review these things on an ongoing basis. They review the specifics of a derailment, and they make recommendations coming out of that situation so that the railways can be guided going forward to ensure that they minimize these types of derailments happening in the future. That is exactly what they're doing; that's exactly what they should do.

I can assure you that we are looking forward with great expectation to the conclusion of that investigation, so that we can all share that information publicly and make sure that CN acts in accordance with the recommendations.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

CHILD DEATH REVIEW

A. Dix: My question is to the Attorney General. The minister is statutorily responsible for directing the child and youth officer.

Harvey Charlie is the grandfather of the child who died on September 4, 2002, in Port Alberni. Mr. Charlie has written directly to the Attorney General twice — on October 6 and again yesterday — requesting that the terms of reference for the reviews into his granddaughter's death be expanded to include the failure of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to protect the brother of the victim for five months after his sister's death. Will the Attorney General, who is the responsible minister in this matter, change his terms of reference for the review in response to the heartfelt wish of the family?

Hon. W. Oppal: The terms of reference for the child and youth officer were expanded, and it's our view that they're comprehensive enough to give the officer a full ambit and full discretion to determine all of the relevant details that will apprise this House as to the cause of death.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1440]

A. Dix: Well, with great respect, that wasn't the question to the Attorney General. The Ministry of Children and Family Development allowed the brother of the victim to live for five months under the lie that he had killed his sister. His grandfather is asking that answers be given. There are five reviews underway. None of them are allowed to address that fundamental question.

Will the Attorney General even deign to meet with the family, and will he change the terms of reference — his responsibility, not anyone else's — today?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue that the hon. member refers to has to be explained in this particular way. During the course of the time the child was living there, the matter was still under investigation. The police were investigating at that time, and for that reason the child was there. I should also apprise the hon. member that what has happened is that the matter was before the courts at that time. Subsequently charges were laid, and a conviction was obtained.

M. Farnworth: I want to put the question to the Attorney General again. Will the Attorney General, who is responsible for the case, respect the wishes of the grandfather and have the terms of reference expanded so that their concerns are taken into account in the investigation? It's a very simple matter for the Attorney General to do, and he should indicate positively.

Hon. W. Oppal: As the member well knows, there is a process in place now. The government has asked Judge Gove, amongst others, to be involved in the process, as is a member of the opposition.

OWNERSHIP OF SHIPPING TERMINAL

ON RIDLEY ISLAND

G. Coons: Last week, when questioned about Ridley Terminals, the Minister of Transportation said that this government was concerned about fair and open access to all users of Ridley. With the latest information about the inferior, low bid from an out-of-province company, lower than at least two others, I'm wondering why this government is not again concerned about the secrecy of the federal government and the selling-off of this public asset.

Can the minister please answer my question: did the province approach the federal government intending to buy Ridley Terminals?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what happened was that in 2003, the federal government undertook a request for proposals to begin the process of disengaging from Ridley Terminals. At that point they were well along the path. Our government expressed the concern that we wanted to ensure, as that process unfolded, that in fact fair-and-open-access provisions would be part of that. We did intervene with the federal government. We indicated that we would look at the option of acquiring it, if that's what it took to protect the principle of fair and open access.

As a result of our due diligence — which was very, very extensive and which involved a third-party investigation of the assets, risks, liabilities, and annual and monthly losses in operating that thing — we made a

[ Page 1185 ]

decision that we were not the best people to operate it but that what we would do as a province is ensure there are fair-and-open-access provisions for whoever is accessing Ridley. That is an assurance we received from the federal government. That is an assurance we will ensure is in place for the benefit of British Columbians.

G. Coons: Last week the minister also, as he knows, said that he is satisfied that the plan will work. The Vancouver Sun says that this sell-off makes no business sense, has no public policy purpose and makes no apparent benefit to Canadians. It doesn't make sense that this government is backing the bid by an independent company, Fortune Minerals, a junior mining company from Ontario, and not backing the group of B.C. companies wanting to purchase the terminal.

What made the minister change his mind on retaining open access to the port, and when was this decision made?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I am a little surprised. I mean, here we've got some investment that is looking to be made into British Columbia. This member appears to disparage that potential investment. There was actually a fair and open bidding process available. That was open to British Columbia companies. That was open to Ontario companies. That was open to companies right across this country.

[1445]

I think that member…. I'm certain he is not suggesting that when you have fair and impartial bidding process, the government's role is to interfere with that and undermine that process. I'm quite certain that's not what that member is suggesting.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have done is this. We think it is very important for British Columbia's interests that there be fair and open access with whoever is operating Ridley Terminals. We have received assurance from the federal government that that will be the case, and we're continuing to work with the federal government to ensure that the language reflects the fact that there will be fair and open access for all users of Ridley Terminals.

TERMS OF SALE OF TERASEN GAS

TO KINDER MORGAN

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I think you'll remember that a couple of weeks ago I stood up here and asked a question of the Minister of Forests. I was asking him if there might not be some linkage between the sale of Terasen Gas and the softwood issue. The Minister of Forests kind of denigrated my position and said that I didn't really know what I was talking about and that he was involved in the big leagues and that he had back-channel negotiations that might be denigrated by my intervention.

Now, it isn't me, the member for Nelson-Creston. It would be the Prime Minister of Canada having discussions about linkage between energy and softwood. So my question is for the Minister of Forests: now that it's the Prime Minister of Canada, does the minister…? I'm just wondering if the minister agrees with the position of the Prime Minister of Canada that there might be linkage between energy and softwood.

Hon. R. Coleman: I hardly think my comments denigrated the member for Nelson-Creston at the time. If they did, I apologize. I thought we were having a healthy discussion about softwood at the time.

Just so the member knows, I believe that the trade file, which is a federal trade file…. If the Prime Minister chooses, with his advisers, to make linkages, that's part of the equation. The equation we have to be involved in, though, is seeing if we can get Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and other forest-producing provinces across the country to a national position that we could offer up, should negotiations ever begin.

I said at the time — and I still believe — in our discussions, in trying to get to a national position that might work for our producers and give us economic stability, a long-term agreement that would obviously not bring on Lumber 5…. I don't think linkage is healthy, because I think it's important that we as provinces put forward a position on softwood and not muddy the waters on other NAFTA issues so that we can get a long-term solution quicker for the members of our forest industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I accept the minister's apology. I certainly didn't mean he denigrated me. I thought he was denigrating my ideas, actually.

Moving on from the minister's apology to the issues of the day, I'm thrilled that the minister should answer the question that he thinks the Prime Minister should do the Prime Minister's job, and he accepts his position.

Now we have a situation where this minister might be the single most important cabinet minister in Canada at this moment in history because of a lovely accident of timing. Even if we think it is a good idea to sell Terasen, British Columbia's cabinet will get to sign off on that decision. If this minister — even if he thinks it's a good idea — were to have a show of good faith with the Americans and say to his cabinet, "Could we postpone any decision for 90 days to allow our friends south of the border to solve the softwood dispute before we answer this question?" he would be a hero. Hon. Speaker, he'd be my hero.

There are 60,000 woodworkers in British Columbia, there are half a dozen provinces and there's an entire country waiting for his answer. Will the minister ask his cabinet for a 90-day delay on Terasen to allow the Americans to solve softwood?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: At the risk of starting out very softly, like the other member did, about my re-

[ Page 1186 ]

sponse…. Cabinet decisions, as the member knows, come before cabinet with recommendations, and they come before cabinet in confidentiality. As a cabinet minister, I would never predetermine what the decision of a cabinet of any province would be, particularly mine. I think we have healthy discussions around these issues in cabinet, and we make our decisions based on the information in front of us.

[1450]

But through to the member, I was shivering slightly when you were intimating that you and I might be on the same page on too many issues, because that also would take away some of the healthy debate we have in the House.

STATUS OF COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY

B. Simpson: I would caution the member who started singing on the other side. We have a history here of the lights going out when people sing.

This was the second week in a row that a delegation from our forest sector went to the federal government for assistance. Last week a number of senior forestry executives asked for help for what they called "a perfect storm." This week a representative from the Coast Forest Products Association was in Ottawa because, according to him, the coastal forest industry is in crisis. Two weeks in a row we've had delegations go to Ottawa to get help for an industry in crisis.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: what is it that the province is not doing so that these delegations have to go to Ottawa independently of the leadership of the province on this issue?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nothing. But we do encourage our producers to have a conversation with Ottawa with regards to the issues that face them from time to time. The Coast Forest Products Association has two advocacy areas they take on a regular basis. One is federal; the other one is provincial.

If the member was listening to the debates earlier with the member for Surrey-Newton, he would have noticed that I did mention to the member that I had received a number of things inputted to me from the Coast Forest Products Association and other companies on the coast. I was taking that into account with a number of other issues. I've asked them to provide us with information on what they think might be a short-term fix, what might be a medium-term thing that we could do for the Coast Forest Products and also what the long-term fix is and to make sure that it's healthy long term.

We know that we're facing a crisis. The member and I have both discussed that in estimates. We know that the crisis faces us and that there are some things that government can do. I have directed staff to take those ideas, to get to work on them and to find quick solutions so that we can move forward on what we can do to help the Coast Forest Products on our coast to find long-term sustainable solutions for forestry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I'm glad to see that the minister has evolved in his thinking that we do have a crisis now. Now I'm wondering whether or not the minister actually sees that a big part of the crisis on the coast is this government's revitalization strategy. It's implicated by all of the parties on the coast as one of the reasons we have the crisis. Since 2001, 16 sawmills have shut down on the coast. We've had communities that have seen corporations leave, workers lose their jobs, contractors lose their jobs. That's what I'd call, over that four-year period, a dismal half-decade.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: will the minister admit that the restructuring strategy has not worked, and therefore they have to go back to the drawing board and rethink their strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: I find it interesting coming from a member who recently said that corporations don't create jobs. Now he makes a comment that corporations evidently do create jobs. I would direct the member's attention to the Pearse report that was done a couple of years ago with regards to forestry in British Columbia, particularly the coast. That outlined to us that we would be facing some mill closures in British Columbia because of a number of items that face us. One is that the mills are older. Some of them do not cut the same lumber that the markets are buying today. Therefore, there has to be an adjustment within the marketplace.

I would also point him to the fact that part of that restructuring has to be that companies need to make investments. That's why we need to find solutions with the Coast Forest Products Association and the companies I've been sitting down with to find those short- and long-term solutions for forestry on the coast.

[1455]

I'd also remind the member that the coast was very productive and very profitable, and so was the rest of B.C.'s forest industry, when we had a 64-cent dollar. Today it's in the 80s. These are all aspects that affect forestry. There's not just one panacea answer.

WORKER SAFETY IN FOREST INDUSTRY

C. Puchmayr: Since we last discussed forest safety in the House in September, there have been five more fatalities in the forest industry. The government would agree with me that the total of now 32 is way too many. One is way too many.

Over a month ago the report released from the Western Fallers Association detailed reasons for the deaths in the forest industry. When the Minister of Labour was asked by the opposition what he would do to stop this trend, his answer was: "We are going to convene the B.C. Forest Safety Council. I'm going to suggest to them that we set some very specific objectives that we can measure over the course of the next weeks and months and attack this in detail."

[ Page 1187 ]

Can the minister please tell this House what measurable objectives he's set for reducing worker fatalities since that meeting? What are his time lines for achieving them?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. The numbers were bad then, as he's mentioned. They've gotten worse. The task force has begun its work in response to the meeting we had shortly after the member raised the question. I'm anticipating receipt of a preliminary report that will set some specific objectives, as we discussed earlier.

With respect to the last part of the member's question: the sooner the better.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: A memo sent from a reviewing law firm to the head of the Forest Safety Council states quite clearly: "The existing provision of the act and the regulations are, quite frankly, a mess."

The memo continues to identify the mess as ambiguities and inconsistencies that do not fit the current realities of the forest sector. Clearly, the regulatory reform the government undertook overlooked major loopholes in forest worker safety provisions.

Will the minister commit to reform and harmonization of these regulations with the current forest legislation so that workers are not exposed to life-threatening practices in our forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought the fallers report that the member and I discussed in this House not so long ago was valuable for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because it pointed out in great detail and effectively that there is no single answer here. To the extent that some of this may require some regulatory change, the government is committed to doing that. We told the task force that when the Minister of Forests and I met with them, and I can tell the member that here today.

There are other issues relating to the pine beetle, the amount of traffic on the road and some of the logging practices that are being employed in certain coastal areas, so there is a whole series and variety of issues that need to be considered by all of the partners involved. We're going to do that. I'm appreciative of the fact that the member is remaining abreast, and I'll endeavour to ensure that he remains abreast of the situation.

[End of question period.]

GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR

CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

Hon. S. Hagen: Yesterday I took the following question on notice. "Can the Minister of Children and Family Development confirm that in July of 2005, the ministry changed its process for case reviews of death and critical injuries of children in care? Can he confirm that his new policy eliminates the right of independent reviewers to make recommendations?"

I now take this opportunity to provide the member with an answer to that question. There is absolutely no substance to the allegations made by the member opposite. A policy paper was delivered in July of 2005 entitled Improving Case Reviews and Audits . It provides the provincial director and/or the regional executive director an opportunity to add additional recommendations to a case review. They have ten days following the finalization of the review to make those recommendations.

In examining this policy, it took me back to the year 1998 when the reviewer actually was precluded from working on the recommendations. This government changed that, corrected that omission in 2003 and added the reviewer to the recommendation process.

To help the member out, I'll actually table those three documents now, and he can have a look at them.

[1500]

Point of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise to respond to the matter of privilege advanced by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca earlier today. He had earlier reserved his right to raise the matter of privilege — yesterday, October 24 — and at that time indicated, I think, to the House that his submissions would relate to an exchange in question period that took place in this chamber on October 19.

I hope the member and all members appreciate that I take the suggestion that I or anyone else would intentionally make a misleading statement in this House very seriously. The rules and conventions of this place have evolved over the centuries, and this Legislature's ability to operate effectively and do the people's business is dependent upon those rules and conventions being respected by all members.

The member alleges that on October 19, I breached the privilege enjoyed by members in the House by misleading him and the House with respect to the role and mandate of Mr. Vince Ready in matters relating to his appointment as an industrial inquiry commissioner and to an ongoing labour dispute. I must say in passing that it struck me as an interesting submission from the member, given that he had consistently refused to defend the integrity of this parliament by telling his political allies to obey the law passed by this House. Nonetheless….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will say with respect to the point he has raised…. Firstly, I should observe that our rules do call for such matters to be raised at the earliest opportunity. I only point that out insofar as that would

[ Page 1188 ]

have been first thing Monday. Nonetheless, the House and the Chair are, I'm sure, aware of previous Speaker Schroeder's rulings as it relates to the timing and the procedural matters involved.

With respect, more importantly, to the substance of the allegation, I will take a moment to repeat the statement. I am relying on the transcript of the Hansard Blues , so hopefully I've got this correct. The statements that the member has cited in support of his submission to the Chair…. There are five of them.

The first — these are quotes attributable to me on the day in question: "I hope they didn't learn yesterday, because the appointment was made on October 6. He is fulfilling a role as an industrial inquiry commissioner, under the Labour Code." That's the first statement. The second: "Let me take a moment, though, to alert the Leader of the Opposition that on October 6, Mr. Ready was asked to do the following." Then I read the terms of reference. Number three: "To the extent that Mr.

Ready, an eminent labour mediator — one of the country's leading labour mediators — has a task to do and he must complete that task by December 31 of this year, I'm pleased that he's seen fit to begin that exercise now."

The fourth statement: "…particularly when you consider that the terms of reference under which Mr. Ready is operating were laid before the public in this chamber on October 6." I should say with respect to that fourth statement that there may have been some confusion, because my recollection is that that was my answer in response to, actually, nine questions that the member put in rapid succession. If there was confusion, I accept responsibility for adding to it, but it would be helpful if there were one question as opposed to nine when we are engaged in the question period process.

Then finally, fifth: "It would take far too much time during this question period to read that. But I will, through the Clerks, now send the member a copy of the two pages which lay out, and have since October 6, the terms of reference by which Mr. Ready is operating."

The established practice in this chamber, as I recall it, is that the threshold necessary to establish that prima facie case for striking a committee to examine the conduct of a member is based on two tests — one, that the statement complained about was misleading and, secondly, that it was deliberately so. I'm going to suggest to you that, in fact, the submission by the hon. member fails in both respects.

I will again refer the Chair to the terms of reference. I'll table the document. Although I have done so previously, I'll do it as part of this submission and point out that it sets out precisely what Mr. Ready was asked to do.

On the final page of that two-page document it confirms that "the industrial inquiry commission shall determine the persons it will consult on any or all of these matters in addition to the BCPSEA and BCTF." Lastly: "The industrial inquiry commission shall determine its own procedures as it deems necessary and advisable for the proper and efficient carrying out of its mandate and shall make every effort to report its findings to the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services by no later than December 31, 2005."

[1505]

I think you heard this submission from the hon. member earlier today, Mr. Speaker, but I would again alert you to page 2 of Mr. Ready's report — that report which was released last week and the first paragraph which reads:

On October 10, 2005, I was appointed as an Industrial Inquiry Commission. I accede to facilitate the next round of collective bargaining between the B.C. Teachers Federation and B.C. Public School Employers Association. On October 17, my mandate was expanded to include facilitating a return to work, in order to proceed with the other terms of reference of the IIC.

The date that I can't account for in that paragraph is the first one, October 10. I think members will know I am relying upon the date October 6, which appears on the document — the original terms of reference as it relates to the work that Mr. Ready had commenced.

The member, I think, has made submissions of a sort that suggest he sees an inconsistency. I do not. I would suggest and submit to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that the statements — each of the five of them — are accurate statements. They are not misleading and certainly not deliberately so in any way, shape or form.

I think the Chair is aware of previous rulings in the House on this matter and the fact that even as recently as March 23, 2004, a ruling from your predecessor on a similar privilege motion, the Chair pointed out in its decision, reported on pages 9553 of the Journals for March 23, 2004:

The point raised by the then Leader of the Opposition is much more a matter of debate than it is one of privilege or contempt. Indeed, there must be some prima facie evidence that the minister deliberately misled the House. This requirement of evidence that the House has been deliberately misled is articulated with Erskine May's

Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, on page 1-1 and Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,

page 224.

In that decision, Mr. Speaker, it was found that there was absolutely no evidence in possession of the Chair upon which to entertain the motion that the member at that time sought tabling in this chamber.

[1510]

I'm going to suggest to you that notwithstanding the differences that obviously characterized the debate over the past two weeks and perhaps the differences that characterized how the government approached the matter versus the opposition's supposed approach, there was no misrepresentation to the House, no intent to mislead the House. And for that reason, the hon. member's application should fail.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, on the Ministry of Forests estimates, Committee of Supply. In the Douglas Fir Committee

[ Page 1189 ]

Room, continued estimates, for the information of members, of the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

(continued)

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

The committee met at 3:12 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $418,644,000 (continued) .

B. Simpson: I'd like to pursue some questions on the ministry's service plan with respect to first nations — specifically, the ministry's objective six, which states, "Increase first nations opportunities in the forest sector while respecting first nations interests," and the deliverables that are contained on page 45.

First question. Under the ministry's objectives, there are two parts of the objective: "Increase first nations opportunities in the forest sector"; and the second part, "while respecting first nations interests." However, the performance measure only measures the increase in first nations opportunities by measuring the number of agreements. Why was there not a measure for the satisfaction or something to do with respecting the first nations interests while conducting those agreements?

Hon. R. Coleman: In getting to an agreement, we need to respect the first nations to begin with. Secondly, we need to consult with them and meet their interests in order to get to an agreement. That's why we think it's a fairly good measurable to get to an agreement.

In addition to that, there are additional accommodations and standards that have to be met in relationship with first nations contained in the agreements. In order for it to be an ongoing process or agreement with them, that activity takes place.

[1515]

The next part of that, of course, is that on other aspects of the forest industry, we have to — and we do — meet the standards as required by law on consultation and accommodation. It is an ongoing process all over the province with regards to all kinds of activities on the land base. Our measurement for measuring whether we're building a relationship with them is reaching agreements and meeting them with accommodation, then continuing to make those agreements work because we're respecting the agreements and respecting the accommodation, and then listening to them coming back with any concerns they may have with regards to those.

B. Simpson: I'm not quite sure there's a direct correlation. I guess I respectfully disagree with the minister that there's a direct correlation between signing an agreement, as a quantitative measure, and the quality of the process that got you to that agreement.

Now, the ministry does have qualitative measures. On page 49, it measures the public trust in the B.C. Forest Service as a qualitative measure. My question is: given — as the minister's already pointed out — that there are lots of factors involved in getting to first nations agreements and that the measure of the number of forest license or FRA agreements made is a quantitative measure, would it not, also, be of benefit to the public and to the ministry to measure the qualitative nature of the process? As the minister is well aware and as we will take a look at, there are some qualitative concerns around the process that's being undertaken.

Hon. R. Coleman: I would be curious to know how the member would think we would measure that. For us, if we enter into an agreement with somebody, that means we have two parties at the table that have actually agreed to do something. In getting to that agreement, we have a consultative process. We meet their interest. We accommodate. To give us a measurement of where we're actually providing stability on the land base and for first nations participation in the forest sector…. It's actually a pretty good measurement to ensure our operations respect first nations interests on the land base. We feel that our ministry is very good at that and continues to be so.

I think it would be very difficult to put a global measurable in place. The member would know that the capacity of different first nations is different. Community sizes are different. Needs one community might have as far as what their economic measures would be in an FRA versus others are actually quite adaptable as we work with first nations going through it.

We have, I think, a pretty good measurable here in that since 2003 we've signed over 50 agreements with first nations for forest and range agreements. That's a pretty effective standard. If the member knows or people understand how much work goes into the front end of an FRA on the whole aspect of accommodation and consultation, meeting with the first nations and negotiating with and then accommodating them, and doing that within the balance so that we don't put anybody's treaty rights or future discussions with government with regards to treaty at risk…. That has to be balanced off.

[1520]

There is, frankly, a concern within many first nations communities that they be given the opportunity for the economic measure under forest and range agreements or arrangements with different ministries, while not being caught up in the treaty process at the same time so they can't actually bring those economic measures and benefits to their communities.

We think and have felt for some time that forest and range agreements have been a pretty good middle balance on that issue for them. Given that 50 communities have signed on with us, I think we have something that seems to be working. Whether there will be ad-

[ Page 1190 ]

justments to it, as different court decisions come down or whatever with regards to whether there have to be different clauses added to these agreements over time, that's something we deal with all the time, because we are dealing with an evolution of a relationship.

I also believe that as we move forward over the next number of months and as the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation comes forward with objectives for ministries under the new relationship, you will see those become additional measures within future service plans, as that is defined by that ministry as they work cross-government with the rest of us.

B. Simpson: You already measure the percentage of British Columbians who agree that the Forest Service can be trusted to protect and manage our public forests. You already measure the percentage of British Columbians who feel the Forest Service effectively protects and manages our public forests. Those are qualitative measures. It doesn't strike me as that odd or that difficult to have a measure in here that measures how much first nations trust the process by which they sign these agreements. That's the point that I'm making.

For the minister's edification, is the minister aware of one example of this: Chief Patrick Michell of the Stellat'en First Nation's comments when he signed a forest and range agreement? He was explicit, and he was deliberate, and he wanted his comment on the record. Is the minister aware of what that comment was?

Hon. R. Coleman: We may have the context, but we don't have the actual comment in front of us. I would be hesitant to comment on it without having it in front of me. I'm certainly glad to look at it, if the member wants to provide it for me, or we'll look it up and get the information and maybe pass comment or not, depending on whether we think we're being provocative in a discussion with a first nation at that point.

We do that measurement by polling, as I understand it. If the member's aware, for polling you need a cross-section sample. To break out one particular group in polling would, I suppose, be interesting. Would we also have to break out other groups within the polling, as well, as far as the measurement of the Forest Service? That measurable, as to how people feel about the Forest Service, is global for British Columbia. We would have to get more specific in our samples to go any further than that.

B. Simpson: For the minister, directly from Chief Patrick Michell, his comments were that he signed his FRA out of desperation.

Is the minister aware of the situation at Takla Lake First Nation? It had a forest licence of 80,000 cubic metres under the Takla Development Corporation, a forest license which was managed with due diligence and in full compliance, a forest license which was not renewed, because under forest range agreements now, the Takla Lake First Nation must be…. The words they used with me were that they were forced to enter into an FRA. It's the only thing that they've been pigeonholed into. That FRA is only 18,000 cubic metres.

[1525]

The Chief of the Takla Lake First Nation says that they have now been relegated to first nations status because of the formula the government uses to determine FRAs and a funding formula and that it is, in fact, an extinguishment of their rights. By signing an FRA, they cannot legally challenge Ministry of Forests and Range administrative decisions. Chief Patrick Michell is saying he signed it out of desperation.

The Takla Lake First Nation is refusing to sign, because if they do sign and go down to 18,000 cubic metres, that is insufficient for them to assist their communities to reach what is, under the new relationship, the goal of achieving the economic self-sufficiency in making first nations a strong economic partner.

There are two first nations. Both of them feel that the FRA puts them under duress and extinguishes their rights. Those are the kinds of things that first nations want a voice in and want to see reflected in the service plan. Would the minister please comment on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's nothing in a forest and range agreement that extinguishes anybody's rights. The comment from the particular individual that the member refers to is unfortunate. I don't have the history of who signed and who negotiated that agreement. If they felt they were under duress, that's highly unfortunate, because that's certainly not how this ministry operates with regards to forest and range agreements.

Under the new relationship, we are actually the first government in Canada to engage in economic measures with first nations. As a matter of fact, in this year's budget, $40 million will go into economic measures for forest and range agreements with first nations. These were introduced in 2003. As all agreements do, they're going to evolve, as is the new relationship with the leadership of first nations and the communities.

The member well knows that this is an ongoing, very complex piece of work. I am, frankly, honoured to be part of a government that is prepared to step up to the plate outside of the box in a new relationship with first nations.

I'm proud of the fact that the Premier of this province has gone across the country, meeting with Premiers to explain to them how we're trying to create the economic measures and build a new relationship with first nations, both inside and outside the treaty process, so that we can share the revenue and provide for things like economic stability through workable accommodation, greater certainty for the forest and range industry and improved investor confidence on both sides of the coin.

The uncertainty on the land base hurts both first nations and non–first nations communities alike. To build stronger relationships with first nations through reconciliation and recognition, without first nations having to prove rights and title through the legal system…. That's important when it comes to the forest and range agreements. We're not trying to tie them into

[ Page 1191 ]

giving up some other right, extinguishing any rights. We're trying to provide for those economic opportunities and economic social conditions by enabling economic diversification while they're in other processes so that they have the opportunity to be able to work and get confidence and trust in the government — and the province, basically.

[1530]

Also, this could obviously be a building block to expediting some treaties, maybe. We don't know. Certainly, if you build that new relationship and inside that new relationship you evolve your agreements so that you can meet the concerns of individual first nations communities as you come through, you can adapt to court decisions that may have some relevance to them.

The fact is we need a flexible approach to first nation concerns around the condition of the agreement in term, tenure, opportunity and volume allocation. I will also undertake with the member to review the 80,000-cubic-metres issue that he brought to my ministry through to that community to see what the background is on it, because I think it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on all of that. I do find it's better to go and find the information itself.

At the same time, we've had a first nations summit with regard to the pine beetle up in Prince George. We've agreed to fund that through, so they can work out their plan and work out what they can do on the land base as a result of pine beetle. They're going to have that plan ready by spring, and we're funding them to do that. We're involving the first nations in the beetle action plan by having someone from the first nations come on board. We're waiting for the leadership of the first nations to give us the names that we would interview to make that selection.

I think, overall, having known many first nations people all my life — and some of them are still friends of mine — that objective six is very important. I think the only way we could measure it in the interim is by seeing whether we get successful agreements. At the same time, as we work through the new relationship, I think government is going to set additional goals and performance measures for all ministries in the new relationship as we move forward. I think that's an exceptional step forward to work with these communities.

B. Simpson: I think the minister's opinion of what's going on is one thing. The opinion of the first nations may be altogether another thing, and that's the point I'm getting at. What is the mechanism by which first nations voices — not the ministers' voices — are heard in this?

Again, I go back to the Takla Lake First Nation, where they stated…. I'm happy to hear the minister say that he will review that particular situation. The chief of that first nation stated: "The band cannot survive on this new relationship. Is the minister aware that forest and range agreements are signed under a form of duress? I'm told by first nations communities that they're told: 'If you don't sign, you go to the bottom of the pile.'"

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have a case where somebody has put it that way to a first nation. I can certainly say that if a first nation isn't interested, there's not going to be any pressure put on them. We might say that we'll move on to the ones that want to negotiate and make a forest and range agreement rather than waste your time.

I can tell you that when I was in Prince George and in the Okanagan, I had a number of first nations come up to me and thank me for the process of the forest and range agreements. I didn't express any of my previous comments as being my own personal view of what the outlook was on the ground. My comments related to the new relationship and how proud I am with regard to the fact that we as a government are trying to do something new which will bring economic measures and stability to first nations communities.

[1535]

I think we all as British Columbians, any one of us who's ever been in a first nation community that is suffering through excessive high unemployment and those issues, feel that we have a responsibility to work on the land base with those first nations to create opportunities if we can and to build capacity. That's what the new relationship is about. I think it's something that is pretty important to all of us.

There will be, as we go along, I guess, anecdotal stories of somebody who is unhappy. We try and deal with those when we find out about them. I assure the member that everything we do with first nations is with the utmost of respect, the utmost of understanding for their own positions on some issues. We try and work with those who want to use the forest and range agreements, because they see it as an important tool. Others may have something else that's an important tool for them. Through other ministries and through a new relationship, we will try and work to facilitate those tools as well.

B. Simpson: The minister said that the forest and range agreements with first nations are "a flexible approach." Are FRAs for first nations not based on a formula?

Hon. R. Coleman: We build in flexibility wherever possible. Obviously, we have a formula on revenue based on our capacity in any given year by budget, so we try and give our people some direction with regards to those formulas for what's available. The first nations bring issues around planning, around other possibilities and other uses of the land within the FRA to the table when we have these discussions.

We're working with the tools we have today. The tools we have today are FRAs. We measure those tools today. We do expect, as a new relationship develops with first nations and with the first nations communities and the first nations leadership through the ministry, that we will find additional tools that we can add

[ Page 1192 ]

into…. We can do other economic measures with first nations. We don't know what they are today, so we have no way of measuring them today. I'm sure we'll come through a very healthy process with first nations to get there.

I welcome that. I welcome any idea that provides for us to be able to work with first nations and create economic opportunities on the land base for them, because that's what the new relationship is about. When we started forest and range agreements — back when we talked to the first nations about those — it was them and us talking about how we would like to have a tool to get on the land base that doesn't get caught in the treaty process so that we can never get there.

What can we do that will not extinguish rights, that will not put them in a situation where their treaty rights or their land claims rights are extinguished, by actually working with them on opportunities on the existing land base in the meantime? That's what these forest and range agreements are trying to accomplish without putting those other legal aspects in any jeopardy.

[1540]

B. Simpson: Well, I guess the courts also disagree with that

interpretation. It is my understanding — and I'm not a lawyer, so the minister has ample opportunity to disabuse me of this — that on May 10, 2005, the B.C. Supreme Court rejected the forest and range agreement program as unconstitutional. In the findings of that court, it specifically said that the decision sends the Ministry of Forests back to the drawing board. I quote:

To fail to consider at all the strength of the claim or degree of infringement represents a complete failure of consultation based on the criteria that are constitutionally required for meaningful consultation. While a population-based approach —

And that was what I was talking about in terms of a constrained approach.

— may be a quick and easy response to the duty to accommodate, it fails to take into account the individual nature of the HFN claim. The government acted incorrectly and must begin anew a proper consultation process based upon consideration of appropriate criteria. The court characterized the province's conduct towards the Huu-ay-aht as 'intransigent' and found that the government failed to accord the Huu-ay-aht the honourable treatment that the Crown is constitutionally obligated to provide….

So you have a court decision which calls into question the forest and range agreement program. You have individual bands and first nations who have called the agreement into question. Yet there's no mechanism for the ministry to report on those kinds of findings. What will the minister do now that the court has made a decision on May 10 of this year that the forest and range agreement program is, as I understand it, unconstitutional? The ministry has to go back to the drawing board. That's more than evolution. That's a start-over.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Huu-ay-aht First Nation has successfully taken the ministry to court regarding the inadequacy of these agreements. The question of the member, I guess, is: how can this program continue given this judgment?

First of all, the member should be aware that the province is continuing discussion with the Huu-ay-aht. The province is also appealing this decision on this particular court case based on a number of questions of law. We feel that we have a good ground for appeal with regards to that, so the matter on that side is beyond the court.

The court did not state that the agreements were inadequate. It indicated that the Crown cannot impose overall policies upon first nations, but to substantially address first nation concerns, communication must be unique to each first nation, which goes back to my earlier discussion about measurements. Signing onto a forest and range agreement is a voluntary process, and since the May 10 decision the Ministry of Forests and Range has successfully negotiated agreements with four first nations — the Kaska, Osoyoos, Comox and Westbank.

B. Simpson: Again, the minister's comments about first nations signing on are different from the qualitative nature of the process by which they sign on. If I'm only allowed to get a forest and range agreement by one process, I don't have lots of options available to me. The court ruling was explicit that it was a complete failure of consultation. It wasn't a rejig-your-program; it was that the program did not work and that the government acted incorrectly and, I quote: "…must begin anew a proper consultation process."

I also find it intriguing that the minister says they're going to appeal this decision when the Premier, as a preface to the new relationship, said: "The new relationship will get us out of this cycle of litigation." We're perpetuating the cycle of litigation. We're not looking at these forest and range agreements from a qualitative, process-oriented approach. I fail to understand how, if you've created a box that you fit all first nations in — it's the only avenue for them to get access to the land base now and to get money — that that is, in itself, sufficient as a measure of quality.

Where's the room for first nations in this measure to give feedback to the Crown that the process isn't working? I've given a number of illustrations of that already.

Again to the minister: instead of litigating yet again, why doesn't the Ministry of Forests and Range, with the new relationship in mind, sit down with first nations as part of their strategic operations and find out how to change the forest and range agreement program?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: That's exactly what goes on. The first nations are represented by a variety of groups, all of which the ministry meets with on a regular basis, as well as this government — like the First Nations Summit. We meet with the leadership. We meet with separate band councils. We meet with organizations that represent specific areas of first nations. All of that is always ongoing.

[ Page 1193 ]

I hope the member isn't thinking that there's a panacea here, that the forest and range agreement should disappear because of a court decision that the province is appealing under a number of questions of law, under the advice of its solicitors. I hope he's not indicating that there is something that's all of a sudden going to remove all litigation out of the whole aspect of how first nations interact with the province and the country with regards to land claims and treaty negotiations.

What we've tried to do with forest and range agreements is to have something for first nations to give them some economic stability through a workable accommodation that doesn't compromise those other aspects. The other aspects of law, of negotiation, can continue on in parallel at the same time that we're creating greater certainty for people in first nations communities on an economic measure.

The member makes his own argument with regards to each first nation being different. Obviously, the four — the Kaska, the Osoyoos, the Comox and the Westbank — that have signed on since May 10 felt that there was a good reason for them to enter into a forest and range agreement.

Do we expect that we will review the agreements and look at clauses that accommodate certain aspects of law once the courts have dealt with them, as we move forward? Absolutely. Every agreement that the government deals with deals with that, in that regard. That is not uncommon.

Even as we go to interim measures on treaties and to agreements-in-principle to getting us closer and closer to treaty, there is an evolving process of changes, consultation, economic measures and identifying parcels of land and all of those things that specifically take place in each one of those areas. The forest and range agreements are specifically to be able to have an interim measure going on that does not put at jeopardy any of those other processes.

Like I said in my comments earlier, the court on the Huu-ay-aht decision didn't state the agreements were inadequate. It indicated the Crown cannot impose overall policies upon first nations. That's not our intent with forest and range agreements — to impose anything on a first nation. That's why it's a voluntary process. It will continue to be a voluntary process.

Some folks have made comment that they didn't think it was…. As the member said earlier on the one quote, well, I think that's really unfortunate, and we'll look into that. But I do believe that there is…. I was here during other debates in this House with regards to treaties, on both sides of this House, and I do know that this is a very complex aspect of not just my ministry but every ministry of government that has to do with the land base and relationships with first nations.

That is why the Premier has created the Ministry of Reconciliation that he has so that we can have that focus with the leadership of first nations. The New Relationship document is probably also an evolution taking place, but I think it's pretty great that many leaders, significant leaders, in first nations communities have signed on to it. I saw it myself in the relationship even with me as the forest minister and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in the meeting in Prince George and the work that was done there and how that's evolving.

I think that we need to be mindful of that evolution. As we come across problems along the way, we'll deal with those, but I'm quite comfortable that the measure on forest and range agreements is a voluntary economic measure for first nations to participate in while we go through these other processes.

[1550]

Is it going to change? I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'd be very surprised if we didn't see an evolution take place in a very positive way with regards to the relationship with first nations, how we accommodate, how we build the treaty process and how we build those relationships long term for them and for us so that we can have that accommodation and reconciliation that is absolutely necessary for the future of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: To the minister, again, so that I'm not misunderstood: it's the minister's impression that I'm looking for a panacea, or as he said in the morning's discussions, a flick of a switch. None of my questions are intended to look for a flick-of-the-switch solution or a panacea. The minister himself has indicated that we need to evolve these things.

What I'm looking for today is a mechanism whereby the public can understand the degree of concern within first nations communities about the process by which these forest and range agreements have been negotiated. Again, I remind the minister that the court decision — and this is a direct quote from the court — was, "The government acted incorrectly and must begin anew a proper consultation process based upon consideration of appropriate criteria," and that has implications for the entire forest and range agreement program.

Be that as it may, even when agreements are in place, it does not mean that the first nations get what they want out of the agreement, and the minister had a letter written to him on September 12 of this year by the Kitkatla First Nation, who have signed an agreement but cannot get that agreement fulfilled. I quote directly from that letter, which the minister has: "Because of our frustration in meeting a fair and good-faith agreement with your ministry in finalizing these operations," they are writing to him as the minister, "it is our position that the Ministry of Forests and B.C.

Timber Sales have not completed their obligation as it relates to the spirit and intent of the forest and range agreement for the establishment of a forest tenure for the Kitselas nation."

It goes on to say that there is insufficient chart area available to execute the first nations FRA, and then it goes on: "We need the province of British Columbia to honour its obligations in implementing this agreement." To the minister, there's a comment in here that I think is quite telling, given what we went through last week. It states: "For your information, since signing our

[ Page 1194 ]

FRA, we have had in excess of 80 meetings and correspondence with the Ministry of Forests and B.C. Timber Sales management and staff and have made no progress on determining where our operating areas will be."

In an earlier debate in this House, 35 failed negotiations between the teachers and their employers were called a broken collective bargaining system. Madam Chair, 80 meetings, I would suggest, is a broken bargaining system, even when you do have a forest and range agreement in place. So, again, to the minister: what avenue do first nations have to get fair mediation when they have a forest and range agreement in place and the intent of the forest and range agreement is not fulfilled?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that within the last week, we have reached an agreement on an operating area with the Kitkatla, we're moving forward with the agreement, and the parties are satisfied. That's happened in the last week or so, and I will confirm that for the member, but that's the advice that I've received.

B. Simpson: I'm glad to hear that that's the case, but again, it goes to the process issue that I raised earlier. It took a letter to the minister, and according to their own count, it took 80 meetings and letters in order to get due diligence paid to their concerns. So we have concerns on the front end of forest and range agreements, we have concerns about the process of forest and range agreements, and we have concerns by the court that forest and range agreements are unconstitutional and abrogate the requirement to consult. We then have examples, and this is only one of a number of examples of forest and range agreements that are brought under question even after they're signed.

[1555]

Again to the minister. He has qualitative measures inside the ministry service plan now. Why not add a qualitative measure in here and hold the government accountable? Because that's what Ministry of Forests service plans are about: holding the government accountable to measures, holding the government accountable to due process, fair process and a qualitative measure of process, not just whether the agreements are signed or not. I think that's fair, and I think it's a fair dealing on the part of first nations.

Hon. R. Coleman: In actual fact, the 80 meetings and correspondence may actually point to good due process and a relationship with the first nation in getting there, because as we identify an operating area, there are other interests on the land that are affected. It may be somebody's tenure area. It may be a TSA. It may be a TFL. That work has to be done. There has to be a consultation process with the first nations and discussion as to whether that particular operating area has the fibre or the economic measure they're looking for in the forest and range agreement. There's other public that has to be consulted through that process.

The process of getting to the signature on a forest and range agreement and then getting it up and running is a significantly complicated process and requires a pretty good working relationship between the parties to get there. That's why I think it's a good measure. If the member has an opinion otherwise about it, I'm happy to sit here this afternoon and let him read into the record every negative comment in a letter that he wishes to. If he wants to do it all at once, then I'll comment on them all at once. That's fine.

That process isn't going to get us where we are today. We have The New Relationship document with first nations. We've done more in four years in building a relationship with first nations than any government that I ever watched in British Columbia. We are building on that as a group of people who actually believe in economic measures for folks, and not compromising the other rights and title that they have on the land and the treaty process. We are trying to take that leadership not only in British Columbia, but across the country, and that's an evolving process.

If the member wants to know how the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is going to measure that, bring it up with the minister in that particular ministry.

We measure our relationship because we have meetings with all of the parties in the first nations on a regular basis. We deal with the communities one-on-one on these agreements, with extensive consultation and work, and we work together. If you weren't getting on the land base and you weren't getting through your consultation process and you weren't having any successes, then I would gladly stand here and let the members say that we aren't actually measuring our relationship with first nations.

But when I see the number go up each and every year of offers to first nations and signed agreements with first nations on forest and range agreements, I think we're making progress. At the same time, so does the public.

Frankly, I think the public believes that the new relationship is a good idea. I think that they believe The New Relationship document, the work we do with the first nations' leadership and how we process through this are good ideas. I think it's good for people to try to get there, and that's all we're doing. In the meantime, we're giving people opportunities for economic measures on the land base that don't compromise any of those other values that they may have, whether it be legal or otherwise. I think that's important.

[1600]

I think the measurement we have is adequate. The member may disagree, and I'm okay with that. If there are people that are unhappy with forest and range agreements and how the process works…. I know and we know and the member probably knows, having been around the industry, that sometimes it's very frustrating, the process we have to go through to get on to the land base — particularly when it involves a number of parties, not just a bipartisan relationship. Sometimes it's actually competing interests between two first nations in the same land base, plus other communities, plus other people that may have tenures that all have

[ Page 1195 ]

to be reconciled in order to get to the success of creating a forest and range agreement.

This is not a simple process. The agreement may look like a document that has sort of boilerplate sections and stuff, but I can tell you that, to be successful, the work that goes into getting there is staggering. If you weren't able to achieve that with these first nations, obviously you'd be concerned about your relationship, but we are having successes — prior to and since the Huu-ay-aht decision.

At the same time, I'm not going to comment, and I'm not going to debate the comments of a judgment in the courts that's being appealed by the province, because our counsel tells us that they think there are some errors in law here. That's their job. Our job is not to do that part of the business of government. Our job is to find opportunities on the land base through forest and range agreements under extensive consultation and accommodation to get economic measures on the ground without compromising their treaty rights, their land title rights, or any other legal opportunities they may have available to them.

We want to be able to have this as a measure in between so that we're not actually saying we'll wait until that whole process is complete on some treaty before we actually do something with a first nation that benefits the people in the communities.

B. Simpson: I take it as a no — that there won't be a qualitative measure. Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on that. The minister should, as I'm sure he expects me to, be a focal point for a lot of the concerns. That's why those concerns are being read into the record. It's not an exercise for the sake of an exercise. It's an exercise in my role and capacity as an opposition member to bring voices into this Legislature that feel they have not been heard. That is my role in the parliamentary process.

I wish to correct something that the minister had indicated earlier on, where he said, again, twisting my words, that if I think there will be an end to litigation, then I'm kidding myself. What I read into the record was the Premier's comment that the new relationship was intended to: "Get us out of this cycle of litigation." Those were the Premier's words, not mine. If anybody's words are being brought into question about an end to litigation, then the minister should take it up with the leader of his party.

Let me come to a couple of other things. I have a question around the numbers that are being bandied about. In the Liberal platform it states that there were 93 forestry agreements with first nations. In the measure that was delivered in the service plan, it's only 47. What's the discrepancy?

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: A clarification to the member. Since September 2002, the Ministry of Forests and Range has signed agreements with 94 first nations to provide access to over 15.2 million cubic metres of timber and to share forest revenues of over $106 million. These agreements are two-fold.

Forest and range agreements. These agreements introduced in 2003 provide for revenue-sharing and forest tenure opportunities. The tenure volume comes from unlogged timber from existing forest licences, and basically, that would also be made available from the re-allocation process of the takeback.

In addition to that, a May 2002 amendment to the Forest Act allows a Minister of Forests to invite first nations to apply for forest licences without competition. Between the two, there are 94 agreements signed with first nations.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification. Is the minister aware of first nations' opposition to the Ainsworth and CH Anderson licences in the Prince George–Vanderhoof area?

Hon. R. Coleman: There has been a very extensive consultation process on both of those licences, and I'm sure the member is aware of that. There is still some concern with some first nations with regards to that, and we're working with them to solve those concerns.

B. Simpson: Well, again, perception is reality. The perception and the reason for the opposition among the first nations is, in fact, that there has been no consultation. What the Chiefs there are telling me…. The phrase they use is "a failure to consult" — not in the southern part. In the southern part, I am being told by the Nazko band and others, that there has been due diligence and consultation. I'm talking explicitly and specifically about the Prince George–Vanderhoof licensees.

Again, these are not my words; these are the words given to me by the representatives of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council and by the Stellat'en that it's been a failure to consult and "there will be significant negative ramifications if the ministry proceeds with these licences."

Hon. R. Coleman: There's been very extensive consultation both in the north and the area. We are aware of some concerns with some of the first nations with regards to that. Government has a responsibility to make the effort to consult and accommodate under the law. Before we would award a licence, we would be comfortable with our legal position relative to whether we have consulted under the legal parameters of what consultation would include.

We have been through that process. That in itself, to be fair, is also an evolving process, because when the courts brought forward the whole notion of consultation and accommodation, they didn't define it. So we've been defining it as we move on the land base, frankly, as different court cases take place, because it's not clearly defined.

I am advised that we've had extensive consultation on this. I am also advised by the deputy minister that if we are allowed to, if we don't think there's anything of any proprietary nature that has to be protected by

[ Page 1196 ]

freedom of information, we're more than happy to give a copy of that consultation process to the member.

[1610]

B. Simpson: I would appreciate that. As the minister can imagine, in my role ignorance is not bliss. It's very helpful if I am informed, because then I can do my job better. So I would appreciate that and look forward to that.

I'll turn the opportunity to question the minister over to one of my colleagues.

H. Lali: Before I begin, I'd like to take this opportunity to actually say hello to the staff members who are there with the minister. I recognize some faces from the past, when I was an MLA before. It's good to see you folks again. And I think the hon. minister across the way wants to trade ties with me afterwards.

I want to begin by just making a comment, actually. I think the minister made a comment earlier that this present government has done more for aboriginal people in terms of economics than any other government in the history of British Columbia. I think that's a statement that can be successfully challenged. But anyway, having said that, I'm not going to actually talk and ask questions about the aboriginal issues that the forestry critic raised earlier.

Rather, I want to ask the minister in terms of the cutbacks that took place in the four years the Liberal government has been in office and with the closure of a number of forestry offices or departments in the regions…. I just want to point out that at one point in time in the Merritt TSA…. It was combined into one under the NDP. Lillooet and Merritt became one timber supply area. In 2001 there were 109 folks who worked for the forestry department in that TSA, looking after the land base and the forestry of the area.

After the cuts that came into existence under the Liberal government, it was down at one point to, I think, 46 folks. I'd like the minister to tell me: how many people work for the Ministry of Forests in the Merritt timber supply area in 2005?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, through to the members in this House, the member wasn't referring to me as the person that had designs on his tie. It was another member in the chamber. It just wouldn't go with this.

With regards to first nations, I think you couched it a little bit differently than I said it. But I do believe the new relationship is a huge step forward. I do believe a government taking that step and getting the sign-on by the leadership of first nations is an incredible step in the evolution of a very important relationship to the future of British Columbia.

With regards to the member's question, the member might be noticing the odd e-mail going out, and we will endeavour to get the exact number for the member. I don't have it at my fingertips.

H. Lali: I'll wait for those numbers. The numbers that I've got are the ones for 2004. They were down to — I believe it was — the high 40s from a high of 109 in 2001. Obviously, the staff in the Ministry of Forests at the local level feel that they have extra pressures because there aren't the number of hands available to actually do the forestry prescriptions and all the work that needs to be done, not only on the administrative side but also in terms of looking after and being the stewards of our forestry land base. So the reductions in the numbers of staff obviously have had a negative impact in terms of how the job is actually going to be done.

[1615]

Now with the onslaught, obviously, of the pine beetle that's moving in a big way into the southern interior region, I would like the minister to tell me how those staff reductions and the cuts to the Ministry of Forests at the local level would have had an effect in terms of battling the onslaught of the pine beetle infestation.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we could have had 20,000 people on staff in that area of the province, and we wouldn't have been able to stop the mountain pine beetle. So the reality there is that…. I can go back in history, but I don't think I will, with regard to the historical perspective of this particular blight on our forest.

In addition to that, what we do is, as we've done uplift with regard to the beetle activity in the interior…. We've also received an uplift in order to add staff to handle the increased volume. However, I should have the member understand that most of the work is done by the licensees who do the forest plans on the ground. They're the actual ones who do the harvest and the reforestation. Our folks deal with the process side and then the audit to make sure that they're doing their job on the land base.

As a result of lift, I would imagine that the licensees have also added additional foresters and staff in order for them to be able to handle the significant increase in the annual allowable cut that's been through that area.

H. Lali: Getting back to the issue of the closure of the forestry office in Lillooet, could the minister provide me with some information as to what the rationale was for actually closing down the Lillooet office in terms of the delivery of service? What would the rationale be, and how would the replacement for the delivery of service in that neck of the woods — out of Merritt, or even out of the Kamloops office — replace the service that was available there?

I guess it's a two-pointed question. One is the rationale, and two is what the replacement delivery mechanism is.

[1620]

Hon. R. Coleman: In 2001 every ministry was challenged to find certain cost savings and efficiencies in order to get the financial house of government in order. This ministry was no different. They were tasked with how they would look at their offices, their efficiencies,

[ Page 1197 ]

their consolidations, driving distances. I guess at the time recommendations would have been made to the minister through that process, and decisions were made to deal with the changes in the layout of where those offices were and how they were staffed. Then the ministry and its ministry staff did, frankly, a good job of adjusting.

H. Lali: It doesn't really answer my question. I'm going to rephrase it in a different way for the minister. Could the minister tell me: was cost the only driver in terms of the reduction that took place or actually the removal of the office out of Lillooet? If it was, then I would like the minister to state so. What kind of savings did they realize as a result of shutting down the office there?

Hon. R. Coleman: A number of things drove this. First of all, cost efficiencies. Were we delivering with the right number of people for the right volume of cut or business in particular areas of the province, or were there consolidations that should take place?

I can't tell the member today what the numbers and the savings were, but we will get them to him, because frankly, that happened in 2001. We wouldn't have that data with us in estimates today, because we're basically dealing with the estimates of this year's budget and the service plan, etc. I will undertake to the member to get that — whatever we want to call it — cost-benefit analysis or whatever it is. We will get the numbers that were asked for and get them to the member.

H. Lali: I'd like to thank the minister for committing to provide those figures, the cost-benefit analysis, to me at a later date.

In terms of the service for the Ministry of Forests, that is being provided for the Lillooet half of what was the Lillooet TSA. I would like to ask the minister: what mechanism is in place? Where do people drive up from? Are they all from Merritt, or are there some people that come in from Kamloops and area and go out to the Lillooet TSA to deliver the service on behalf of the Ministry of Forests that they once did?

Could you tell me how many people, and if it's on a regular basis? Is it weekly, or is it daily? What kind of presence is there in terms of looking after the day-to-day and week-to-week interests of the Ministry of Forests on behalf of the people?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a field office in Lillooet. It's also serviced by folks from Kamloops and from Merritt, and also by staff from B.C. Timber Sales and field operations. This particular area has always had some service from Kamloops, with staff, with regards to the processes over there.

I couldn't tell the member, and I don't think we could today tell the member, who's gone in there on any given day in the last six months, because we don't have that information available to us. We do have 3,400 employees. However, I can tell the member that they're serviced in that manner. If he wants further detail, maybe he could get to me what detail he would like, and we'll endeavour to get that information for him.

[1625]

H. Lali: I'm just going to switch here. I want to talk briefly about the small operators, often referred to as the gyppo operators, folks who do salvage work and the small family-run, value-added operations. They exist in pretty well every community in rural British Columbia. There are dozens and dozens of them all throughout the province. These folks, obviously in terms of employing the number of people or the amount of wood that they have to work with, are actually significantly higher than the majors and the breakdown facilities in the number of jobs that are created.

Everywhere I go in the province these small operators are all complaining that they're not getting an adequate supply of wood from the ministry, whether they're looking for salvage wood or even any kind of a direct award of any sort to feed their operations to keep those jobs alive. Obviously, the big companies also refuse to actually sell them some of the wood, even if they're willing to pay a premium for purchasing that wood.

I'd like the minister to explain what this government and this minister are doing to remedy the situation so that these small operators, these family-run operators, can stay in existence and continue to make money and provide jobs to so many of the small rural communities in the province, where often there is no major company or a larger breakdown forest facility in their particular locale or even in their town. Rather, some of these communities actually depend on these value-added operations and these small operators.

I'd like the minister to tell me what this government is doing to put more wood into their hands, and what this minister is doing as well.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to give him some figures here, but even once that is said, there are some small operators who, if they had a certain type of tender, would still need to trade logs with other people to get the fibre they would want for their particular product line. Some people are into different…. Like, one cutblock might not include enough of a certain type of log for their use.

Having said that, and before I go forward, in the Cascades forest district, which is the Merritt and Lillooet area, there are 47 people in the district office in Merritt. In field offices in Princeton, there are four. In Lillooet, there are five. In addition to that, there are another 14 B.C. Timber Sales personnel, for a total of 70 staff in the region. Then there are the folks that come in from Kamloops as well.

[1630]

B.C. Timber Sales has increased sales each year since 2001, moving from 9 million to over 15 million cubic metres this fiscal year. This volume will be sold in about 600 different sales ranging from as low as 2,500 cubic metres to over 100,000 cubic metres. That's because we want the size of the sale to reflect the dif-

[ Page 1198 ]

ferent opportunities that different operators may want to bid on, on the land base. Of the 600 total sales, 225 are planned to under 15,000 cubic metres, and over 100 are under 10,000 cubic metres.

At the same time, we do have a satisfactory small-scale salvage program to address mainly beetle- and fire-killed timber. The goals of the small-scale salvage program include the harvesting and utilization of dead or damaged timber. Also included in those goals is to help reduce the spread of additional disease in Crown timber stands.

As the name suggests, the program is focused on smaller operations and volumes of timber that would otherwise go unharvested. There have been some movements on some of that. The program itself is used dramatically today versus what it might have been five years ago. During the 2004-2005 period, approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of timber was sold under these licences.

H. Lali: The minister started off by actually talking about some of these small operators who have tenure they can trade. I'm not worried about that; that's not where the problem lies. If they already have some tenure, some allotment of wood, obviously, it's understandable that they're going to trade. That's not the issue here.

The issue is when they don't have the tenure or they run out and they can't get a replacement and they're looking to actually purchase whatever wood they need to feed their value-added facility. They will go to the ministry to see if they can't pick something up — and obviously they can't, whether it's from the pine beetle or elsewhere.

But to the point where they want to purchase from some of the majors who have tenure — and they're willing to pay a fair dollar to pick up that timber so they can feed their operations and keep those jobs alive in those small communities — those big operations refuse to do so. Rather, they'll sell that wood at a lower price, whether they ship it off to the United States or Japan or elsewhere. They're not willing to feed those small operations for a hefty price, to keep those operations alive.

That's where the problem lies, and that's where I'm directing my question. What are the minister and this government doing to make sure that that situation is alleviated so that these small operations in these small communities where they employ a considerable number of people will not die?

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: In most cases, businesses make business decisions. The licensee that has the logs makes decisions on how they sort, what they'll sell, and that sort of thing. From time to time, though, we do come across situations where that isn't necessarily working, or we're made aware of them. When we do that, I usually…. What I do is ask the officials within the ministry to take a look at it to see if there's another solution to that concern. If the member has specific ones he could give me, he could either drop me a line or just tell me later who they are, and I will have our guys look into specific ones.

[1635]

For the most part, the commercial business decision side works. There are some times when the size of the sort may not be economically viable for the people that have got the logs versus the small amount of fibre that somebody wants for a specialty product, and we've managed on a number of occasions to work through those problems. If the member has some of those, I'm more than happy to look at them.

H. Lali: I will take the minister up on the offer, aside from estimates, to be able to do that. First I'll have to get permission from a lot of these small operators, because most of them are morbidly afraid to speak up, whether it is to complain about the ministry or to complain about the majors. They're afraid that they will be punished in the future when they try to access some opportunities for more fibre, whether from the ministry or from these local large-scale operators in their riding. That's a big problem. It's a big problem all over rural British Columbia, especially up in the north.

You might be familiar…. As a matter of fact, it was one of the Liberal executives from one of the constituency associations in the Prince George area almost a year ago who bitterly complained that he was totally dissatisfied with the policy of this Liberal government in not looking after the interests of the small operators and also the family-run operations — that all of the timber was being concentrated in the hands of these big major companies.

In 1991, when the NDP took office in this chamber, the small business forest enterprise program was…. Somewhere near 10 percent of the wood of our fibre supply was going into the hands of the small operators. A decade later, by the time we left office, it was creeping up towards — I think it was — the 18-percent, 19-percent level. We had put in place a policy where…. When the major breakdown facilities were channelling and trading more wood with the small operators, it obviously put them in the good books of the ministry, so access for the majors to timber for fibre in the future became that much better for them, because they were now supplying some wood to the small operators.

So we've gone from a situation in the early '90s of almost 10 percent of the amount of wood going to the small operators, creeping up towards the 20-percent mark, and now it's back down and creeping closer to the 10-percent mark again. That's a shift that has gone backwards.

A number of these operations have gone out of business. These small communities have lost a number of jobs all throughout rural British Columbia. Yes, I know they're not the union-scale $25-an-hour job, but in a number of these communities they're paying up to $16, $17 an hour. It's enough for a starter job for a lot of these young men and women who want to access these opportunities in small communities so that the youth

[ Page 1199 ]

don't end up leaving for Victoria or Vancouver or some of the other centres.

It is a big problem. I would like the minister to take a long, hard look at this policy. What else is happening is that a number of these operators are saying that even wood in the form of raw wood — and it may not be a raw log but something that has been four-sided — is being shipped off illegally to the United States. The ministry is even aware that it's crossing the border, but the ministry refuses to do anything to try to enforce the illegal shipment of this wood to the United States at lower prices than could be made available to these small operators who are willing to pay a higher price in order to keep their operations alive and keep jobs in these small communities alive.

I'd like the minister to comment on that and tell me what he is doing to make sure that wood is not being illegally shipped across the border against ministry guidelines.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, this ministry doesn't turn a blind eye to illegal action. If this member is aware of illegal activity, we want to know about it, and we will investigate it tomorrow. To couch it that something is going across the border illegally…. I would like the member to provide the information so that the investigation can take place and we can deal with it. This ministry does not turn a blind eye to illegal activity, either on the import-export or on the land base itself. My officials are at a loss to know what illegal activity the member is actually referring to.

[1640]

Now, in dealing with the issue…. What we're talking about now is moving into the value-added sector. My understanding was to deal with logs that would be sorted at a mill for some value-added opportunity in some locations. That's one issue; I've addressed that.

The second one I do know. I actually toured the plant where the individual talks about the value added in Prince George. That is a finger-jointing plant. The member uses mill ends to basically build finger-jointed lumber and then ships it to the United States, for the main part. That individual has actually been expanding his operation, has recently bought two others and is planning to build another and has a very, very positive outlook on the future of forestry in that he's actually building a mill — and he doesn't have a TSA or a TFL — that he's going to put in place in Prince George.

A challenge that faces them isn't just the access to the ends, which he's been working through with some of the local suppliers. I have had some conversation with some majors with regards to that particular subject and will continue to do so, because if it's something that I think needs to be addressed, I won't hesitate to address it directly to a licensee. At the same time as doing that, I don't think they need to feel that they can't be open and honest with this minister or this ministry with regards to their concerns because there will be repercussions. That's not how I operate and certainly not how I would expect my ministry to operate.

The next portion of what the member talks about is to do with some of the value-added stuff, and there are some other significant issues in that area. I was recently talking to — and I won't mention the company — the owner of a company in British Columbia that does value-added product, who told me this: "It's not the stumpage; it's not the fibre; it's not the shipping.

Even if it were the countervail and if I were treated as a first mill on pricing, I'd be okay." But the problem that that individual has is that he makes a specific product, for which, when it hits the border, its countervailed duty is not at the price of the first mill cost — as we would normally, under the Chicago index, say is X number of dollars per thousand. He actually gets charged on the added value at the border, so his duty is on top of duty. He's taxed on top of tax.

For the value-added sector to expand…. Most of the ones that I've spoken to on this say: "We can work around a lot of our problems, but we also have an economic problem, and that is with this softwood thing." I think we should recognize that we have a value-added strategy in B.C. I've read it; it's a very good one. It's got sound basis in business principles, and it has sound supports for it. In order to see that grow again, we actually need to get access to a marketplace for that product where it is not being punitively taxed because it actually has value.

It's just incredible to me that someone takes a waste product, makes it more valuable, and actually gets taxed at a border by the U.S. at a higher level because they did the work and they created the jobs. The member's right. There are a number of those operators that actually create a very large number of jobs per production, and I'm a big fan of them. If we can find solutions for them, we're going to.

I can tell you that as we go through this softwood thing, one of the things that is clearly going to be, as we recognized through our negotiations…. I made this really clear to every single resource leader across the province and some Premiers of provinces that are in