2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Spud Murphy

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Role of Canadian soldiers in liberation of the Netherlands

D. McRae

Canadian navy centennial

M. Karagianis

Youth baseball in Surrey

D. Hayer

Role of Canadian soldiers in liberation of the Netherlands

C. Trevena

Importance of mothers

N. Letnick

Roller derby

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Reappointment of Solicitor General

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

J. Kwan

Special prosecutor in investigation of former Solicitor General

D. Black

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Simpson

Investigation of election campaign for former Solicitor General

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

N. Macdonald

Petitions

M. Mungall

R. Fleming

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 (continued)

Hon. B. Lekstrom

J. Horgan

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

Hon. B. Penner

C. Trevena

M. Sather

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

Hon. J. Yap

K. Corrigan

M. Sather

N. Simons

Estimates: Other appropriations

[ Page 5237 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will lead us in prayer.

J. Kwan: Courage comes from the heart and speaks to the strength of the mind. To quote Nelson Mandela: "I learned that courage was not the absence of fear but the triumph over it. The brave is not one who does not feel afraid but one who conquers that fear."

This prayer today is for all the brave men and women who are participants of the domino kidney transplant initiative and a special prayer for the member for Kootenay West, who is embarking on this selfless act and will be preparing to undergo surgery this time next week. Because of her courage, she may be saving a life. Her journey is a demonstration of the best of our human spirit and what is core to our humanity. It is also a reminder that by becoming an organ donor, you can give that gift of life. To our friends, Ed Conroy and his better half: we send you our thoughts and best wishes for a successful procedure and speedy recovery.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: Today in the House I have a group of very special guests. I would like to introduce Gerry Karagianis and his partner, Michele Buchmann; Jack Karagianis; an old friend, Kurt Nielson, that I haven't seen in many years; and a very special gentleman, in the truest sense of the word, visiting here from Halifax today, Mr. Les Karagianis. Would we please give them all a very nice welcome.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions today. On behalf of yourself, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery. They are participating in a full day of parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1335]

My second group of guests: Jean Blake, who is the CEO of the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia; she's joined by Barbara Lindsay; the Lovicks are with us, Ed and Barb, who are part of the VIHA pilot project of First Link; Susan Sharp is the coordinator; and my dear friends Jim and Alice Mann. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me a great pleasure to introduce Mr. Balwinder Singh Fidda, Arjuna Award winner, national and international kabaddi champion and currently working as superintendent of police in Punjab. Mr. Harbhajan Singh Lakha is a former MP from Punjab, and they also have two other friends with them, Balvir Bains and Jagmal Singh. So please join me to welcome them all.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy School, one of the best schools in North America, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Joining them are their teachers Rick Bath and Grant Wirtz as well as 30 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to accompany their students and learn about the government, how the government functions. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the precincts is Wayne McCrory. Wayne is a renowned biologist in British Columbia. For years and years he's worked on conservation of grizzly bears and was instrumental in getting the Khutzeymateen reserve and many other conservation efforts in the province. Will members please join me in welcoming him.

R. Fleming: It's my pleasure to introduce a number of guests here today from the South Island Health Coalition, including a number of health care professionals that are employed at Mount Tolmie and Oak Bay Lodge residential care facilities.

With us in the House today are Jessica Van der Veen, Jenny Ewing, Bhajan Tathgar, his son Sunny Tathgar, Dan Rowe, Susanne Francoeur, Phil Lyons, Liz Belsten, Janice St. John, Tracey Gallant and Wendy Strong. Would the House please make all of these guests welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health, I'm sure this is a very important introduction.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you're right. This is a very important day for me. For the first time in this House I am joined by my lovely wife, Jessica. I'm also joined by our 3½-month-old daughter, Josephine, who is here today.

Maybe you can hold up Josephine.

I promise I'll behave myself in question period. So if I get any tough questions, I will be my usual diplomatic, thoughtful self.

I'm also joined by my father-in-law, Sanday Elliott, and another of his daughters, whom many in this House would know, Caroline Elliott, otherwise affectionately known as Boomer. They're all here today too. Will the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 5238 ]

H. Bains: Two very special friends are in the House: a friend of many on this side of the House, Bruce Ferguson, the president of Construction and Specialized Workers Union Local 1611; and along with him, Manuel Alvernaz. He is their chief organizer. They are both here. Please help me extend our warm welcome to the beautiful House here to both of them.

I'd also like to join with my friend from Burnaby-Edmonds, to all those folks that he introduced, but especially one person…. I spoke about his game last week in this House, about kabaddi. This person, Balwinder Fidda, can be compared to Wayne Gretzky. He's the Wayne Gretzky of kabaddi in Punjab, so he's so special. Please help me welcome him.

J. Kwan: Visiting us in the visitors gallery today is a good friend, a special friend, a mentor, someone who I say was responsible for getting me involved into electoral politics. For all the mistakes that I make, I don't blame him; I blame myself. But all the good things that I have done on behalf of the people that I represent are as a result of the guidance that he's provided me. I ask the House to please make very welcome Jim Green.

[1340]

Tributes

Spud murphy

Hon. M. de Jong: Every community represented in this chamber probably has someone that represents the living history of that community. In Abbotsford — and more particularly, what was formerly Matsqui — such a man was Spud Murphy.

Today hundreds will be gathered to remember Spud Murphy. They will remember how he grew up in what was then Matsqui; how he acquired his nickname on the bus to Matsqui Elementary; how he served his country in the Second World War; and how he served as reeve, mayor and on council through the '60s and into the '70s. They will remember a man who was gregarious, loved a good argument and never lost his sense of community duty.

I know that all members of the House send best wishes and condolences to Spud Murphy's family.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ROLE OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN

LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

D. McRae: How many visitors to Victoria hear the hourly chimes from the carillon tower in front of the Royal B.C. Museum and realize that the Netherlands Centennial Carillon is a gift from the B.C. Dutch community? When you hear the distinctive G note, it is in recognition of Canada's role in the liberation of the Netherlands during World War II.

After Canadian troops landed at Juno Beach on June 6, the Allies slowly pushed the German army back. Canadian soldiers fought bravely in France, Belgium and parts of Germany before Canada was tasked with playing a key role in freeing the Netherlands from Axis control.

For nine months Canadians fought to free the Dutch people. As the Canadian army slowly pushed the Germans back towards the sea in the northeast and towards Germany in the west, the Dutch people were suffering horribly. Five years of German occupation had left the population lacking the barest necessities.

The Canadian army stopped its advance in early April 1945 due to concern for the well-being of the citizens of the western Netherlands. With the population that had been weakened due to lack of adequate food for months, combined with a severe winter, it was decided that the risk of the German army opening the vital dikes and flooding the country was too much. On April 28 the Canadians negotiated a truce with German commanders, and much-needed relief supplies were able to enter the western Netherlands and save the lives of countless innocent civilians.

May 5 marks the official day when the Netherlands was liberated by the Allies. Over 7,600 Canadians died during the campaign, and the people of the Netherlands have never forgotten the sacrifice. On May 5 the Netherlands recognizes Canada and the Allies' role with a national moment of silence, and on May 6 there is a celebration of the liberation.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the Netherlands liberation, and this week our Premier is in Europe to recognize one of Canada's greatest military contributions to World War II. The Premier, along with our Prime Minister and other government leaders, is in Amsterdam to commemorate this historic event that has led to strong relations and a lasting friendship between Canada and the Netherlands.

I ask members of this Legislature for a moment of silence to recognize the sacrifice and contribution made by the Canadian servicemen and -women for their efforts in this historic endeavour.

Mr. Speaker: Please stand, Members.

Please be seated.

CANADIAN NAVY CENTENNIAL

M. Karagianis: This week marks the 100th anniversary of one of Canada's proudest, longest-serving and most important organizations. The Canadian navy was formed on May 4, 1910, to defend the longest coastline of any nation in the world.

[ Page 5239 ]

I'm proud to represent Esquimalt and MARPAC, the home of the Canadian Fleet Pacific of the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The naval tradition runs long and deep in my community, beginning with the Royal Navy in 1856.

The Canadian navy centennial is bringing enormous pride and celebration to our community. Yesterday thousands of Canadian Forces marched through the city as they proclaimed it the Freedom of the City Parade. It was the largest military parade Victoria has witnessed in more than 50 years. The community came together to watch, cheer and give thanks for 100 years of naval service.

Yesterday also marked the unveiling of The Homecoming statue, which portrays a joyous sailor returning from the sea to his family and community. Special events will continue in the weeks and months to come. Ships from as many as 25 navies in the Indo-Pacific region are expected to gather near Esquimalt Harbour as part of the celebration from June 9 through 14.

The Karagianis family has a long and proud history of service in the navy. Brothers Aubrey, Les and Jack were all navy career men. Aub was a lieutenant commander. Uncle Les, who I introduced just a few minutes ago, signed up in 1930. He was a supply lieutenant and was involved in numerous convoys in World War II, among many other events in his illustrious career.

[1345]

He also has an even more momentous tie to the navy, as he also this year celebrates his 100th birthday. So I wish all members…. [Applause.]

YOUTH BASEBALL IN SURREY

D. Hayer: I want to talk about the boys and girls of summer, our Surrey baseball players, and those who work so hard as role models to keep our children healthy and off the streets, out of gangs and on the path towards being contributing citizens.

Last month I was honoured, as I have been in the past many years, to be part of the season opener at the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association held at the Lionel Courchene Park in Surrey. All the baseball organizations, organizers and all volunteers provide an exceptional learning environment in athletics and ensure that Surrey's baseball parks are among the best maintained.

The organizations also encouraged parents to participate on the playing field and in keeping the fields, diamond and parks in top shape. Those great volunteer organizations are dedicated to promoting, teaching and perpetrating the game of baseball, developing sportsmanship and encouraging fair play while also teaching the need for mutual respect among players, officials and spectators.

I would like the House to join me in thanking the following, who have given a great amount of time in developing community spirit in Surrey: Brian Davis, Bob Petersen, Steve Cramer, Richard Lawrence, Lynn and Pierre Legris, Silvana Dodd, Karen McKearney, Frank Love, Trevor Haqq, Rob Masson, Don Schwartz, Kevin and Sandi Phelan, Roger Roy, Rick Hunter, Vito Mussio, Peggy Aulenback, Tony Nan, Cathy Farmer, Rose Kilpatrick, Tom Lowry, Pat McHugh and Al Taylor.

I also want to thank all the coaches, umpires and many other volunteers and parents and the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association for their great success and wonderful example of developing health, fitness and sportsmanship among the children. They do great work in Surrey and in British Columbia.

ROLE OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN

LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

C. Trevena: In Campbell River this evening and in communities across the country commemorations are taking place for a significant event, the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands.

It will be an emotional time for many. As the years pass, the memories of those who were there, Canadian soldiers and Dutch citizens alike, do not diminish. Canada is seen as a friend of the Netherlands, taking the role of family during the Second World War and as the country which ended the German occupation. It was on May 5, 1945, that the Canadian general, Charles Foulkes, and the German commander-in-chief, Johannes Blaskowitz, reached agreement on capitulation of the German forces.

But that was more than just a signature. For the people of the Netherlands it was the end of the Hunger Winter and a brutal war. Across villages, towns and cities, food had run out, there was no fuel, and thousands of people had died. As Canadian troops moved through the towns, those who made it through the bitter years came out to cheer. Many people painted "Thank you, Canadians" on their roofs for those pilots making the food drops and providing immediate relief.

The friendship that blossomed over the years is marked in many ways. In Ottawa there's the annual Tulip Festival, with thousands of bulbs donated by the Dutch. In Campbell River and other communities, there are sombre ceremonies at cenotaphs. It's important that we remember those times; that we continue to honour those who fought for freedom that we all enjoy; and that we remember those civilians who, caught up in the midst of war, lost their lives.

That's still the case for millions of people around the world — children and adults, the unhappy victims of conflict, forced from their home, forced out of school, forced out of work, people who don't have a Canada to come to rescue them. For their sakes, we need to do all we can to revive that Canadian spirit which searches for solutions to bring peace rather than conflict in our world.

[1350]

[ Page 5240 ]

IMPORTANCE OF MOTHERS

N. Letnick: All of us here, regardless of political beliefs, alliances or adversarial positions, have one thing very important in common: our mothers. We all have mothers that brought us into this world, the mother that raised us or a mother that influenced who we are today. In honour of all mothers in our lives and in the lives of everyone back home in our constituencies, I would like to speak to the importance of mothers.

Sunday, May 9 is a day to honour mothers and motherhood. Diana the Princess of Wales spoke of motherhood as: "A mother's arms are more comforting than anyone else's." Mothers are the founders of generations. They are the cornerstones of many family structures and beliefs.

Our mothers find the kind words at the right times, the comforting gestures and, at the same time, are a force to be reckoned with. Both their power and their gentle nature are reflected in the formidable emblem of motherhood: Mother Nature herself. I would like to thank all the mothers for those characteristics and for being the creators of the generations and the leaders to come.

Through their actions, whether they are our stay-at-home moms, work-away-from-home moms, single-parent moms or moms serving in our Armed Forces, we honour them all. In the words of Rev. Albert Baldeo, an icon back home: "My mother was a tower of strength. She was a source of inspiration, and what I am today is because of my mother's love and devotion. Mom, without you, there would be no me. Thank God for mothers."

ROLLER DERBY

M. Mungall: Since 1922 blockers and jammers have been whipping it. Since 1885 women have been racing on roller skates, and now you can watch a bout of roller derby in at least 12 countries around the world. The gals organize the leagues for this full-contact sport. Once the skates are on — plus the tutus, the tattoos, the makeup, the hair dye, the helmets and the elbow pads — these women athletes head out on the track with jammers looking to score points while the blockers look to block their opponents and assist their sister jammers, all at the same time.

The big moment comes when a jammer needs some extra help to pass the pack. The most powerful whip would have blockers on one team hold hands to form a chain and then grab the jammer's hand to create a whip that sends her flying fast on her skates. If it's your team doing the whipping and all goes well, you'll be cheering for some big points and athletic art.

I hope to catch a good whip this Saturday, May 8, when the Eves of Destruction meet up with the Taco Kickers at the Archie Browning arena in Esquimalt. Last time I went to a bout I stood with advance tickets in hand in a long line that stretched for a few kilometres, so now I know to get there early to find a good spot to watch the local girls smash their way to victory.

Of course, Salmo in my constituency couldn't be left out of the roller derby world with my friend Shelley Grice-Gold, who started the West Kootenay Women's Roller Derby. The team recently went to Armstrong to connect with B.C. roller girls, including the Okanagan-Shuswap league known better as the Raggedy Rollers.

Now with honed skills and the name Babes of Brutality, my neighbourhood team will be doing a demo at the Salmo Slamo on Saturday, May 15, at the Salmo Valley Youth and Community Centre. All are welcome to whip it and whip it good.

Oral Questions

REAPPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

L. Krog: Yesterday at 4:26 p.m. the special prosecutor, Terrence Robertson, sent a letter via fax to the Attorney General's ministry resigning his appointment. We learn today that the former Solicitor General was sworn back into cabinet at 8:15 p.m. last night. That was nearly four hours after the special prosecutor had resigned.

The government, the Premier, had nearly four hours to consider their ethical and moral responsibilities. Can the Attorney General explain why the government proceeded with the appointment despite knowing that the investigation was tainted?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the House will indulge me a moment to provide a chronology of what took place. I think most members know that back in January Mr. Robertson was appointed as a special prosecutor. At that time, I could advise the House, he was asked and confirmed that there were no circumstances or potential conflict issues that might compromise his ability to do his work.

[1355]

In early April the then Solicitor General became aware of the appointment of a special prosecutor and a day or two later tendered his resignation. He stepped aside when he became aware of a few more of the circumstances involving the work of the special prosecutor.

On May 3 of this week a criminal justice statement was released, disclosing that the special prosecutor was recommending charges against several individuals and making observations about the then member from Fraserview that there was no evidence that the member was involved or had any direct knowledge of the activities under investigation. Even with the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have known of those activities.

Yesterday at approximately four o'clock the member from Fraserview accepted an invitation from the Premier

[ Page 5241 ]

to retake his seat at the cabinet table, and that process began immediately, with the signing of the required order-in-council. Within a few moments of that process beginning, the document that the hon. member refers to became available publicly and to us for the first time.

This morning the member from Fraserview, having had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Premier, took the step that he took earlier in the month of April to preserve the integrity of his office and has stepped aside.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: We know that at 6:30 p.m. yesterday the Attorney General and the Premier spoke by phone. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for this province. He is the chief legal adviser to the Crown, to cabinet. What advice did the Attorney General give the Premier about the reappointment of the Solicitor General?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may have missed this part of my answer. The process of reinstating the Solicitor General had begun prior to the conversation he is referring to. In fact, the order-in-council, which is the key instrument in securing the reinstatement, had already been executed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General was sworn in at 8:15 p.m. This knowledge was before government, before the Premier, before the Attorney General. They knew about the tainted investigation at that point.

Can the Attorney General explain to this House why, with that knowledge, they proceeded with that appointment and allowed the Solicitor General to be sworn in at 8:15 p.m.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, I would have hoped that the hon. critic would have taken a moment to consider the circumstances in their entirety as they relate to what took place yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: They were, to be sure, extraordinary events. They were, to be sure, unusual in the sense that the member from Fraserview, the Premier, the government were relying upon a report that had been made public, a release that had been made public 24 hours previously, a report emanating from a process that is entirely independent of government, entirely independent of the Attorney General's office.

Yes, the decision was made to rely upon that report. And this morning, having had the time to consult with the Premier — who, I might add for the benefit of the House, is nine time zones away celebrating the very event that two members just spoke about, the liberation of the Netherlands….

[1400]

K. Corrigan: This scandal has its roots in a B.C. Liberal smear campaign, and it culminated last night with the Premier reappointing the Solicitor General despite a tainted election and a tainted investigation.

Again to the Attorney General, who spoke to the Premier last night: on what basis was this decision made?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, I hope, is purposely choosing to ignore certain facts and is not ignorant of them.

The independent special prosecutor process is deliberately conducted at arm's length from the Attorney General and from the political arm of government. That was the recommendation made by Stephen Owen in 1990, and that is the process that is in place today.

I don't mind saying in this chamber, as I said last night, that the process failed. The process failed, most importantly, the public; it failed the government; and it failed the member from Fraserview. He has responded…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …by doing the appropriate thing and protecting the integrity of the office of Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: By last night this whole investigation had been called into question, yet the government pushed ahead and reappointed their star candidate to the role of top cop. Can the Attorney General explain what this decision says about the ethics and morals of this government?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's clear and disappointing and perhaps a bit predictable that the member chooses to try and capitalize on the extraordinary circumstances….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to try and explain to this House how it is that someone was appointed

[ Page 5242 ]

as a special prosecutor in circumstances where their business had made a donation to the very campaign that was the subject of the investigation. There is actually no excuse for that, and to that extent, the process failed. But to suggest somehow that the member from Fraserview was part of some deliberate scheme to pervert the special prosecution service does a disservice to this House.

J. Kwan: The timeline speaks volumes. It is a total disregard of any moral and ethical conduct by this government. The Premier and the Attorney General knew that the investigative process of the Vancouver-Fraserview election campaign, smear campaign, was tainted by the former special prosecutor because of his issues of conflict. As such, the Attorney General ought to have known and should have accepted that the exoneration of the former Solicitor General is also tainted and therefore meaningless.

In spite of that, the government plowed ahead and went on to reappoint the member from Fraserview as the Solicitor General at 8 p.m. last night. What possible explanation could the Attorney General provide to British Columbians to justify the reappointment of the former Solicitor General — knowing this information four hours in advance of the swearing-in ceremony?

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: The problem with the thesis presented by the member and some of her colleagues is that it ignores the fact that the reinstatement process had actually begun hours earlier, with the signing of the appropriate OIC.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: Some of the members, hon. Speaker, seem to derive some pleasure or humour out of this circumstance, but I can tell you that the government views it very seriously. I view it very seriously. And yeah, I can tell you someone else that views it very seriously — a member of this chamber, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who did the right thing early in April and this morning did the right thing again because he believes in preserving the integrity of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: What the Attorney General described as "a few moments" was actually four hours. There's a time lapse of four hours for the government to take action. He says: "Oh no, but we couldn't have done that because things had started to roll."

Well, we live in a society at a time where there's technology. All the Attorney General needs to do is pick up the phone and contact the Premier and say: "Hold it. This has actually come in. You know what? We need to stand down, and the appointment cannot be made today." The Attorney General could have done that and stopped that, and he didn't.

So what we now have is a complete disgrace of an investigative process, the appointment and reappointment and resigning of the Solicitor General again and again. Will the Attorney General please tell this House and explain to British Columbians why he didn't do just that — tell the Premier that it is time to stand down and that it is not acceptable to reappoint the Solicitor General under this cloud?

Hon. M. de Jong: You know, I think what really upsets the opposition is that they expected to come into question period today and pillory the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. He took the right step, and he protected the integrity of the office. I think that's what upsets the opposition.

Look, I am the first person to admit to this chamber, Mr. Speaker, that events unfolded very quickly last evening. I'm also the first person to alert the House, as I did in my first or second answer, that the Premier, representing the people of British Columbia at the liberation ceremonies in the Netherlands, was nine time zones away. It was three o'clock in the morning when this was unfolding.

That may not matter a whit to people who are interested in scoring political points, and it doesn't alter the fact that something went very wrong with this special prosecution, but what took place this morning does speak to the integrity of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN INVESTIGATION

OF FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

D. Black: Clearly, the Liberals knew that this investigation was tainted, just as the election in Fraserview had been tainted. The Liberal Party received tens of thousands of dollars from this law firm. In fact, the special prosecutor himself made a personal donation to the Liberal Party just last year.

[1410]

Can the Attorney General explain how this could happen and why no one — no one on that side of the House, no one in the leadership of the Liberal Party — raised a red flag? Why didn't someone on that side blow the whistle on this?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to recommend that the member for New Westminster leave this chamber and review the Crown Counsel Act. If after reviewing

[ Page 5243 ]

the manner in which an independent special prosecutor is appointed, if after reviewing the severe and absolute restrictions that exist on contact between the special prosecutor and the Attorney General's office and the Attorney General she still has that question, she can come back tomorrow and ask it again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Black: Clearly, the Attorney General, the Liberal Party, this government know well this law firm. They have a long history with them. In fact, this law firm has donated more than $50,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 1998, including a $1,000 contribution to the election campaign in Vancouver-Fraserview. The special prosecutor himself donated a thousand dollars just last year to the Liberal Party.

Again to the Attorney General: why didn't the Attorney General take the appropriate action to ensure the investigation would not be tainted? Did he really think that no one would notice this record of support for the Liberal Party from this law firm?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think when I listened to the submission and the question made by the member for New Westminster, she is in a not so veiled way attempting to suggest that I or some member of the government was aware of this before it became public yesterday. Since that seems to be a widely held view on the opposition benches, I will encourage them to step outside this chamber and make that assertion out in the hallway.

S. Simpson: What we know is that this law firm, Harper Grey, has given over $50,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party since 1998, including donations to the campaign of the member from Fraserview. We also know that Terrence Robertson, the special prosecutor, gave a thousand dollars. This Attorney General wants us to believe that nobody over there twigged to the fact that a major donor — a law firm, one of the senior members of which vets Liberal candidates — in fact had this responsibility as special prosecutor.

The question I have for the Attorney General is not, why didn't he talk to the special prosecutor, but why didn't he or somebody on that side call the criminal justice branch and say: "We have a problem"?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member for Vancouver-Hastings reveals much about what he either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand about the operation of the independent special prosecution branch and process in this province.

But I heard and saw the member thumping his desk as his colleague next to him made her assertion, made her allegation. If he is as confident of that allegation as he seems to be, then I encourage him to step out into the hall and make it absent the kind of protection that exists for members in this chamber.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What I understand is that the cover-up continues by the B.C. Liberals led by the Attorney General. That's what I understand.

There are two words to describe the sleazy tactics that led to the tainted election of the member from Fraserview. The first one is that it is unbelievable that the two most senior members of that campaign, now charged under the Criminal Code, could be behind this sleaze and that the candidate doesn't know. It's outrageous that this government allows the appointment of an insider law firm to, in fact, conduct the special prosecution.

How can the people of this province have any respect for this government or this minister?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not continuing. The members should take a minute or two to reflect on these last few minutes.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a prediction. In about 6½ minutes — but who's counting? — the member from Hastings will leave the chamber, and he will be approached by members of the media. He will be asked to repeat what he has just uttered in this chamber, and I predict that he will not. He will not, because it is not true.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Attorney. Just take your seat for a second.

INVESTIGATION OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN

FOR FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

M. Farnworth: What has been clear since the first emergence of allegations of dirty tricks and a smear campaign in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview last year was the fact that the B.C. Liberals and the Premier of this province have been in complete denial. Even when a former ministerial assistant to the Attorney General of British Columbia and campaign manager in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding is charged under the

[ Page 5244 ]

Criminal Code and the Elections Act, along with the financial agent — deny, deny, deny from the B.C. Liberal Party.

The only thing that mattered was "How fast can we get the former Solicitor General back into cabinet?" That's the only thing that mattered. No contrition, no apology, no remorse. So my question is to the Deputy Premier. Do what the Premier has not done. Apologize to the voters of British Columbia and, in particular, to the voters of Fraserview for the B.C. Liberal dirty tricks and smear campaign that took place during the election.

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have no hesitation in saying that I regret very much that an independent special prosecution process that was designed to ensure the integrity of a prosecution, designed to ensure that examinations and investigations could take place at arm's length from the political arm of government, did not operate as it is intended and did not operate in a way that instils confidence in the people of British Columbia. For that, I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: That answer just follows in the answer the Premier gave a couple of hours ago. He was interviewed in the media. He had the opportunity at that particular point in time to apologize to the people of this province and the voters of Fraserview for the dirty tricks and smear campaign that took place during the election. He chose not to. He didn't do the appropriate thing, demonstrating that not only is he out of touch, he's yesterday's man.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

M. Farnworth: The people of this province expect the Premier and the B.C. Liberal Party to be accountable. I will give the Deputy Premier one more chance to stand and do in this House what the Premier wouldn't do, and that is to apologize to the voters of Fraserview for the dirty tricks and smear campaign that the B.C. Liberals conducted in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

Hon. M. de Jong: Unfortunately, what the hon. member the Opposition House Leader has chosen to do — and I'm saddened by it — has been to predetermine the outcome of matters that are very much the subject of an investigation, the subject of a review by a special prosecutor.

An Hon. Member: People are charged.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says people are charged. Yeah, actually, they are. I don't know if the member has ever been before the court as a defendant. Maybe he has. Maybe he has been before the court as a defendant. Maybe he's before the court as a defendant right now, in fact. But on this side of the House, we will not be commenting on matters that are the subject of a trial.

We will not be commenting on matters that are before the court and will receive the proper consideration by an independent adjudicator of the facts, which is the court of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: Well, for half an hour….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

N. Macdonald: For almost a full 30 minutes the Attorney General has minimized what has happened here. Let's be clear what's gone on. We have an election that is tainted by vile — there are no other words to describe it — actions and possibly criminal acts by the B.C. Liberals. A supposedly independent investigation comprehensively undermined by B.C. Liberal insiders. Those are the facts. A Premier that is so out of touch that when he comments, he portrays the member for Vancouver-Fraserview as a victim in all of this. Those are the facts.

The question for this minister is: when is someone from that government…? Maybe the Deputy Premier could stand up and do this on behalf of the Premier. When are the B.C. Liberals going to stand up, take responsibility for what has gone on here, which every British Columbian feels is a complete disgrace, and apologize to the people of British Columbia?

Apologize for what has gone on. Apologize for what they've done to democracy here in British Columbia. Stand up and do that now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is an independent process that revolves around the appointment of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Member, withdraw that statement, please.

[ Page 5245 ]

N. Macdonald: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Unconditionally, please.

N. Macdonald: Unconditionally.

Hon. M. de Jong: ...a special prosecutor. That process did not operate as it should. It did not operate as the people of British Columbia are entitled to expect that it would. But to seize upon that and come into this chamber and cast the kind of aspersions, malign the character of individuals the way these opposition members have today speaks volumes about the regard that this opposition has for the justice system and that this opposition has for the notion of the rule of law.

We will let that process unfold as it should, independent of any interference by any member of this government.

[End of question period.]

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have a petition here signed by hundreds of people whose statement is: "We believe that seeking government support for a partnership that is working well makes more sense than the planned rent hike. Salmo Children's Centre should not be forced to choose between increasing the burden on families and eliminating the entire program."

R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Fleming: I have a petition here with 1,609 signatures from citizens of greater Victoria calling on the MLA of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and all MLAs to put a stop to the sell-off and privatization of publicly funded and owned seniors care facilities in our community and further calling on the Vancouver Island Health Authority to cease and desist with plans to sell off Oak Bay Lodge and Mount Tolmie hospital properties.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment continue — and, in this chamber, committee stage of Bill 16, the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and

After-Market Compartment

Control Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

section 1.

A. Dix: Most of the

definitions here are essentially

definitions in other legislation, but the key question is the question of after-market compartments. I guess the question we have here is that it's obviously addressed as a specific and difficult issue that often comes up, and we've seen it in very serious criminal cases recently — how the definition was developed.

Does the minister think the definition here is comprehensive in addressing the various problems that are developed by the placing of compartments, which generally would hide guns and other things? How is the definition developed? Is it consistent with the definition developed in other provinces, and does the minister think it's sufficient?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I agree with the member that insofar as

section 7 of the bill, this is the key phrase, the key term — and tricky in terms of getting the balance right because there are circumstances in which people will have valuables and want to tuck it in somewhere behind where people can't find it. Then the question is whether or not we have met the objective with the drafting.

The objective is to get at these elaborate compartments that are being installed and built in, not just behind a stereo system but by turning a button and opening the door and putting the radio station to a certain frequency. Then a secret compartment slides open. So there really is an installation quality to that.

I don't think the challenge here is whether it's sufficiently broad. The challenge is: is it too broad, and are you unintentionally capturing things that you don't want to capture? A certain amount of that will be answered in the application, but that, quite frankly, is more my concern — not whether it's broad enough but whether it's too broad.

A. Dix: The minister will know many people who play around with their cars. They do things. You know, they add custom material to their cars. This is not infrequent.

[ Page 5246 ]

I assume the message from the legislation…. To some degree, what the minister says in this House provides the direction required. We all know that a secret compartment that holds a handgun is consistent with this.

Has the minister heard anything from any other group — any concern about this? Presumably, most groups and most organizations of car lovers — car organizations, driver organizations, the CAA — would be supportive of this kind of measure. On that question of definition, has he heard from anyone who has expressed any concern about this? We certainly haven't on our side of the House. I just ask the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Three things I'll convey to the member. We too, in the development of this in this legislation, have not received specific concerns. We'll continue, obviously, to be in touch with relevant organizations through the implementation stage. There is, as a safeguard, a mechanism by which exemptions can be granted.

The third thing that the member asked in his first question…. We're not aware of a similar provision in other provinces, so there's a bit of new ground being tilled here.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Dix: This provision exempts people who have valid security worker licences, and so on, and peace officers from the provisions of the legislation, for obvious reasons.

[1435]

There is subsection (d), which suggests "a person who is exempt under the regulations." How does the minister envision that? Does he have regulations in mind now that would provide an exemption to any other groups other than those listed in the legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Some examples might come to mind. I tend to think of this in terms of "armoured" as it relates to guns. Another circumstance that might arise where an armoured vehicle is deemed appropriate would be one located near a blast zone in a mine development area. That could be an armoured vehicle within the meaning of the act.

I don't pretend to have thought through, nor do I think the ministry has thought through, all of the possible examples of that sort — and therefore the means by which we can deal with them if and when they present themselves.

A. Dix: So the minister doesn't have any regulations ready to go ahead. This would be an open process in those circumstances. Well, the minister is nodding his head. We'll take that as a yes and pass the section.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Dix: In terms of the application for an armoured vehicle permit here, when we dealt with the body armour legislation — I think it was in the fall — at that point there were regulations on the sale of body armour, people who could sell body armour. I think that was the case.

Can the minister just explain the difference in approach here — why in this case it seems to be a control on the user of the vehicle but no control on the sale of the vehicle? Is there any purpose for that? Is it because the concern is adaptions after the fact — in other words, that one transforms a vehicle into an armoured vehicle? Or is this just seen as the more efficient regulatory tool?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's probably a combination of both. The relative value is significant. There's the fact that motor vehicles themselves are regulated by the Motor Vehicle Act and ICBC. Purposely, the intention is to focus on the people that are purporting to get behind the wheel. We think there is value in requiring anyone who seeks the right to operate one of these vehicles to be subjected to the kind of review contemplated in the act, recognizing that for certain people the review will be perfunctory — peace officers and security personnel.

A. Dix: I just want to ask a question because, of course, the definition of armoured vehicles that we passed deals with vehicles that are sold as armoured vehicles but also with vehicles that are adapted as armoured vehicles. Has it been the case that the issue is often one of adapting existing vehicles to become armoured vehicles?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I think that is the case.

Section 3 approved.

[1440]

section 4.

A. Dix: I just wanted to ask the minister about any appeal process here, what the appeal process would be of decisions further to the refusal of an armoured vehicle permit. What would the process be? Maybe he could just take us through what would happen. The permit would be refused under the conditions we see here, under one of the explanations here. What would be the process subsequent to that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can refer the member to

section 17, dealing with reconsideration. There is a formal mechanism for a review of the decision.

[ Page 5247 ]

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

A. Dix: With respect to this, there is, I guess, a process here by which an individual could install an after-market compartment. Can the minister just tell us under what circumstances that would make sense, that there would be an exemption provided?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the first thing I'll confess to the member is

section 7…. I spent most of my time reviewing

section 7, because it's one of those provisions where, like the definition, the concern is not whether or not the provisions are too narrow. It's whether or not they're too broad. And are they enforceable, and under what circumstances are they enforceable? Again, I confess this is somewhat new territory, and we will undoubtedly learn some things relating to the enforcement.

What's contemplated in terms of possible exemptions: businesses involved in the transportation of medical goods, pharmaceuticals, registered firearms by definition. Now, whether or not that needs to be a hidden compartment or just a secure compartment is probably a valid point for discussion. Cash and financial instruments for businesses — again, my thinking is the preference would be to seek a secured storage area as opposed, necessarily, to a secret, hidden area, but there's a range of possible areas where the

section might be applicable.

A. Dix: I guess because it's a little bit ambiguous — in a sense, we're touching on new ground — presumably an alternative regulatory approach would be to send the message out to people that: "You are installing after-market compartments. You should think twice." Presumably, that's a little bit of the message on the side of those whose business it might be to install such a compartment. I assume it would be probably too difficult for me to install one. I just know that for a fact.

So is there a message out to the people whose work it might be to install such a compartment? Is there going to be an effort to say to people: "Look, let's just not do this"? And that if you are doing it, that process might also presumably allow people who do install compartments for what one would describe as legitimate purposes, such as the one…. These aren't really hidden compartments at all. If you have a compartment that's going to keep pharmaceuticals or prescription drugs cold, for example, we already have…. That's not a hidden compartment. That's not what we're talking about. That's the original purpose of what a vehicle was sold for in that case.

[1445]

Is there any discussion in terms of getting information out to those who might install? Presumably, there's a very small industry of people who do this. Presumably, the government knows a little bit about that, whether there are kits available or whatever. Have the minister and the government thought about regulating this on the supply side as opposed to just on the user side?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes, and a reflection of that is in 7(2) where actually the positive obligation accrues to the individual or the business that is involved in this. Probably the best trapline of information for the folks that might be involved in this business lies with the policing agencies. Our expectation is that that's where we'd derive the best information for providing notification of this legal obligation which, if you fail to abide by it, does constitute an offence later in the act.

Sections 7 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

A. Dix: In terms of the transition, the coming into force of the legislation, can the minister just explain why 90 days? I presume what he's doing here is giving people the opportunity to correct what might not be illegal behaviour now but will become illegal behaviour. What actions in the next 90 days is the government going to take?

Obviously, there's been interest around the legislation, and there was publicity on the tabling of the legislation. Are there any actions that the government will be taking in the interim period to inform people about the changes in the law? There may be, as the minister has suggested in our discussion of whether the law is too broad or not, some people who in an unintended way are violating the law.

I don't think for a second that the police or others who have lots of things to do are going to be looking around for people who have compartments that are legitimately used. Nonetheless, what actions are going to happen in the next 90 days, given that that's probably the period where you're trying to inform people, let people know what's going on?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. There are a range of issues wrapped up in the member's question.

First of all, enactment of course occurs via regulation, and there is the body of regulations that will occur first. So it will not necessarily take effect immediately upon royal assent here.

[1450]

I might do this in reverse. I know what we're not planning to do. There won't be an advertising campaign of the sort we saw with the hand-held electronic devices and a warning period. We don't think the numbers warrant that kind of broad publicity campaign.

In a circumstance where someone is genuinely innocently driving along in an armoured vehicle contrary to this act without a permit, once it takes effect they will

[ Page 5248 ]

expose themselves to the violation ticket and the possibility of seizure. These are generally valuable vehicles. They will have an opportunity to retrieve their vehicle. Some of that will be tied to whether or not the Crown believes there is a civil forfeiture action that they wish to pursue. They can dispute the ticket. As they say, ignorance of the law will not be a defence for that, so they will be exposed to that liability.

My sense is that amongst those for whom operating an armoured vehicle is an important feature in their life, word will get out reasonably quickly. I don't think I have an entirely satisfactory answer for the member. We're not looking to advertise widely that if you have an armoured vehicle, be careful. We think the word will get out, though.

A. Dix: I misspoke. The minister is quite right. The regulations come into force. They have 90 days to get into compliance, and the argument there is that it may not be widely known immediately that the regulations have come into force. You're giving people a lead period, and then you better not be operating a vehicle after 90 days.

Presumably, what will happen is, at least on the security side — because that's one — there will be some communication with industries that might be connected. It will be not a general campaign or an advertising campaign — the minister is right; it wouldn't make sense — but a focused campaign. Is that right?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. There will certainly be communication with the professional bodies that are subject to the standardized exemptions here.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

A. Dix: Just quickly. The minister is developing regulations. When might we see the regulations published and the law come into effect?

Hon. M. de Jong: July is the target date.

Section 27 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and

After-Market Compartment

Control Act

Bill 16, Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 8.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources Statutes

Amendment Act, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; L. Reid the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

section 22 (continued) .

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just before we begin, I would like to introduce my staff. Joining me is Mike Lambert, who is the executive director of the oil and gas division in the ministry, as well as Barbara Thomson, who is the director for marketing and aboriginal community relations.

J. Horgan: It seems like an eternity since we were here going clause by clause through Bill 8. I won't remind those at home that our purpose here today is to make amendments to a bill that was passed but not brought into force by closure two years ago. The minister is well aware of that. I think we canvassed that fairly thoroughly last time we were here.

I know my colleague from Delta South has a number of questions on subsequent sections. In the interests of keeping current with each clause, I'll ask the minister again, although I'm certain he responded to

section 22 last time. I'm not going to compare what he says today to what he said a month ago, so he can have some licence to explain to this Legislature and to British Columbians why this amendment was necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Speaking to

section 22. This

section actually removes reference to fees in the act, as they will be dealt with by regulation. Subsection (8) allows the landowner to determine to allow access onto the land earlier than the 15 days, which is contained in the

[ Page 5249 ]

permit. That would be at the discretion of the landowner only, though.

J. Horgan: Does this amendment increase or decrease any fees that will be brought forward in regulation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, it does not.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

J. Horgan: As we get into the groove and the rhythm, we have some people in the gallery who are probably going to be wondering what the heck we're doing. I certainly know that those ten or 20 people across British Columbia watching on their television set will want some sense of why we're going through clause by clause.

[1500]

Just for the members present who were not here for the riveting debate some weeks ago, we're amending two acts with this bill: the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act — which I now have a hard copy of and don't have to refer to my right to the bound statutes — as well as the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Those are two fairly weighty and substantial pieces of legislation that were designed to bring together a whole host of what were considered to be archaic laws and regulations around the oil and gas sector predominantly located in the minister's constituency. I know he has a particular interest in ensuring that there's a thorough and complete and comprehensive discussion of these amendments.

With that in mind, can the minister advise this House why, through

section 23 of Bill 8, we are repealing subsection (2) of a previous act? It says here in the

definitions that it's made redundant. Again, it's a reference to fees. Can the minister explain why this is necessary?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Subsection (2), as you've referred to, refers to fees. We are removing all references to fees, and that will be done by regulation.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

V. Huntington: I'm wondering if

section 34 that was repealed contained the same right of the specified permit holder to expropriate private land.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The previous

section 34 had the same right.

V. Huntington: I could go on at length why I think this is not a good thing to have in any law within the province. I feel you're elevating a permit holder, a private company, to the status of the Crown.

Why any permit holder would be allowed to expropriate is beyond me. So I'll ask if there are consequential amendments intended for the Expropriation Act. Is the specified permit holder intended to be an approving authority under the act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hopefully, I can help clear up your concern somewhat. What we're talking about has been in British Columbia statutes for about 55 years now. What this

section does is actually…. Expropriation used to be dealt with….

A pipeline, from the Pipeline Act. When expropriation took place, it was done by the Railway Act. This is bringing it into line. That type of discussion and movement would be dealt with under the Expropriation Act today.

V. Huntington: Just to satisfy my obvious lack of knowledge in this area, what type of firm are we looking at? One of the transnational pipeline firms that has the status within something like the Railway Act?

[1505]

Is it a specified type of firm? Are there any regulations around which they may move to expropriate if they haven't reached an agreement with the landowner?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This would be for any company that is covered under the Pipeline Act. Most times they will try and reach agreement. They go out on the land base. They negotiate with the landowner. The vast majority of times agreement is reached. When that can't take place, they will now go through the Expropriation Act to reach agreement — or, I guess, would not reach agreement — to try and reach a parcel of land for the pipeline to be put in subsurface.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I'll just say one last word from my own perspective on this section. I must say that whether it's been in place for 55 years or not, I have a philosophical problem with a private entity being entitled to expropriate, especially when they're not mentioned, as I understand it, in the Expropriation Act as an approving authority. I would far rather see a

section like this where the government could expropriate on behalf of the entity rather than elevate the entity to the status of Crown. That's my opinion on the section.

J. Horgan: Further to

section 24, I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House how the now called or will be called surface rights board…. We did spend some time on that catchy title to replace what is known today, I suppose, as the mediation and arbitration board. What rights are relinquished or given to surface rights holders as a result of

section 24 of this act?

[ Page 5250 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, this does not take any rights away from the landowner. What this says is that the operator or the pipeline company, in the case that we're talking about, has to have consent from the landowner in order to access their land to come on to it. So no rights are taken away. Failing that, that's when you would go into an expropriation discussion and also based on whether it's a gathering line or not. There are two

definitions there.

J. Horgan: Again, I know that the minister will easily get my colleague from Delta South and me into a place of comfort on this. But we spent some time, at the last opportunity to debate this clause by clause, on the merits and the activities at the mediation and arbitration board, soon to be called the surface rights board.

I'm wondering if perhaps, to ease our concerns and for the record and for those who will potentially use this debate to determine what the government's intent is with this clause, he would explain at what stage in the process expropriation or availing oneself of the Expropriation Act supersedes the rights of the surface rights holder and the operator or the oil and gas company that can't be done at the mediation and arbitration board. At what point do we leave that process and get into this process?

[1510]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: For a pipeline that is not a flow line, the negotiations would take place with the landowner and the company. If they couldn't reach an agreement under the Pipeline Act, they would then go to the Expropriation Act to deal with that.

If it was a flow line, which is a different form of pipeline…. Really, I refer to them as a gathering line — ones that will bring wellheads together into a main pipeline. If they can't reach an agreement on that, then the mediation-arbitration, which will soon be the surface rights board, would deal with that

section rather than the Expropriation Act.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his explanation. I appreciate there's a distinction between a gathering line and a flow line, but I don't know why there would be a distinction in the act when it comes to the rights of the landowner or the surface rights holder. In my consultation with members of your constituency on this issue, it's been brought to my attention that from their perspective, it's intrusion by industrial activity on what is, in most cases, agricultural activity.

Whether it's a small pipe or a big pipe or multiple pipes, it's still an intrusion. Reverting to arbitration prior to, or instead of, going through the traditional or the more common mediation-arbitration process between the company and the landowner…. Why not have that process open to both pipes, and as a last resort, expropriation with some direction from the mediation-arbitration board or the new-named board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: A pipeline that we're speaking about and the two differences…. I do want to go back. I said that I refer to a flow line as a gathering line. They're one and the same. A pipeline is different.

A pipeline is more permanent in nature. It wouldn't be a gathering system. So you would have a larger pipeline that may take a facility, gas…. Everything is flowed into the facility through gathering into a main-line flow. It's traditionally a larger pipeline, more permanent in nature. It certainly has a longer history, traditionally, than a gathering line that would be from a wellhead that may flow for a number of years.

That's the difference. It has been that way, as I said, for I think it is 55 to 60 years in British Columbia. We thought that it was important that as we move forward, we bring it up to date — into the Expropriation Act, for example, under pipelines — which is the reason for this.

J. Horgan: I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on that because we've got a lot of work to do this afternoon. But I just want to read into the record for those who don't have access and for those in the gallery who don't have access to the clauses…. As my colleague from Delta South pointed out, for the uninitiated, this is draconian and stark.

I'll just read it. It goes as follows. This is

section 24, which is amending

section 34(3). It goes: "Subject to subsection (4), if a specified permit holder has failed to obtain an entry agreement" — that being entry onto private property for those of us who don't own or hold subsurface rights — "the specified permit holder may expropriate, in accordance with the Expropriation Act, as much of the land or interests in it of any person as may be necessary for constructing and operating the pipeline authorized by the permit."

The next

section says: "The land that may be expropriated under subsection (3) must not exceed 18 m in breadth."

[1515]

That sounds draconian, and it carries on. "On application by a specified permit holder, the commission may authorize, on any conditions the commission considers appropriate" — any conditions — "an expropriation, in accordance with the Expropriation Act, that exceeds the breadth specified in subsection (4)."

I appreciate that the people in the Peace country have been living with this activity for a considerable period of time. People adapt. The legislation does need to be updated so there's a clear understanding of what the intent is so that landowners understand their rights and permit holders understand their obligations.

Again, the minister must appreciate and his staff must appreciate that for the uninitiated, that sounds horrific

[ Page 5251 ]

for those who assume that the land they own doesn't include just the grass on it but the rocks beneath it. I understand that's not the case. But for the benefit of those in the gallery, for the benefit of those watching at home and most importantly for the benefit of myself and my colleague from Delta South, can we go through that one more time? Why is this an improvement over previous practice?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This really is about bringing it up to date into this act, actually, as I said. I have watched, and I know the member has spoken to people in my region. This has operated for the better part of 55 years. Again, we should talk about what the intent of this act is, which I think is really to try and bring a greater balance to the landowner. I've certainly heard that for the years I've grown up there. I think it does that.

There is no intent to take anything away from landowners in this — just the opposite, to be honest with you. But it is a very technical bill, without question. As the member has said, there is lot of culmination of work in this bill and a lot of discussion with the people in the northeast.

On the issue of subsurface, I want to go on record. There are very few British Columbians that hold subsurface rights. That has been the case since…. Even post-war, I think, is when some actually were granted some subsurface rights. This is really just a gathering and bringing into the bill as we've pulled it together and a continuation of what we've been doing for 55 years.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

J. Horgan: I'll just throw a comment on the previous

section as we move on. I know that as we go toward budget estimates in the next number of days, I'll be able to speak about subsurface rights with, I think, the fourth Minister of State for Mining since I've been the critic over these past four years. I'm looking forward to seeing if we get a new answer to some of those questions now that we have a new minister.

With respect to

section 25, the explanatory note says that it replaces an undefined term with a term defined in

section 1 of the act. What's disconcerting is that we're striking out "measures" and substituting "environmental measures" and striking out "for the protection and effective management of the environment." And we're not substituting.

Can the minister ease the concerns of those who are concerned that we're removing these measures? What's the purpose, and why are we doing it?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we're doing is striking out "measures" and, as he said, substituting "environmental measures." Environmental measures are defined, which will actually deal with the protection and effective management of the environment in

section 1, as he pointed out.

J. Horgan: As I read

section 1, it's

section 15 where we have the specific definition for "environmental measure." It says it "means an action a person must take or refrain from taking for the protection or effective management of the environment."

[1520]

As I read that definition and then read

section 25…. The definition says that you must take or must not take. I'm wondering how you can do both. If it's only one, which one is it with respect to this clause? If it's both, how do you do that?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason it says that…. It will either say "allowed" or "not allowed," but it will be determined under

section 104 of OGAA. What will take place there…. There are three different ministries that could be involved. The Minister of Environment, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands or the Minister of Forests and Range could determine the environmental measures.

The question you asked. It will have to say what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You knew OGAA? The member from Fort Langley knew what we were talking about — didn't need a sheet to follow along.

As I look at the Oil and Gas Activities Act,

section 104…. Again, the challenge for dealing with complex amendments to complex bills is that the

section strikes out terms and makes reference to another bill. So

section 104, "Authorizations respecting environmental protection and management," is the

section that's being amended.

I'm wondering if the minister could, again, give an explanation as to why these changes are being made at this time. As I read

section 104, it seems fairly clear to me what the intent is, and I'm curious as to why these amendments are being brought forward now.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason this is being dealt with is that we are changing the word "measures" to "environmental measures," and then we are putting definition to "environmental measures."

[ Page 5252 ]

J. Horgan: Then, "measures" was not sufficient to describe "measures." We want to now describe them as "environmental measures." That's an additional word that gives additional meaning, I assume. So what was lost in that definition prior to the amendment?

[1525]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It really can be summed up as partially a housekeeping measure, to be honest with you. The work that the ministers were involved in, in this was primarily environmental measures, so rather than leaving the term broadly reflecting measures, we have fine-tuned it to reflect environmental measures, which more closely reflects the duty of what takes place here.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

J. Horgan: We're now discussing

section 38 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. It will be repealed, and a new section, under "Records, reports and plans," will be added. I just want Mr. Lambert and Ms. Thomson to know that I appreciate the work they've done, and I'm going to guess that the amendment here is to remove the "may" from former

section 38(2) and replace it with "must." That's a good thing, inasmuch as the commission "must disclose records, reports and plans to the public in accordance with the regulations."

Am I correct in assuming that the current minister has more interest in openness and transparency than the previous minister?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: With all due respect to my critic, the previous minister, a friend of mine, I think did a tremendous job for us. I know that the critic does his job well and has delved into this. Precisely. This is a vast improvement — "may" versus "must." We have changed it to "must."

J. Horgan: Just for the record, for those members on the opposite side, I did get a Christmas card from the hon. senator. I'm not certain, after the last debate, that I'll get another one. I just wanted to seal that with making the reference.

I'm pleased that I am correct and that the current minister wants more transparency for residents than was previously available through this section, which the previous minister brought forward.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

J. Horgan:

Section 27 — again, another consequential amendment to the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Could the minister explain the necessity for this amendment?

[1530]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this refers to is…. It is a cross-reference. There is a new section, 34(2)(b), which makes a new reference to an authorization, and that is in the Oil and Gas Activities Act. This cleans that up to make the cross-reference match.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

J. Horgan: In this

section we’re now back to the Oil and Gas Activities Act, amending

section 41 of the previous act. "Certificate of restoration" is the heading for that section. Again, as with the many clauses that we'll be discussing over the next number of hours, I'm wondering if the minister could advise: what is the purpose of this amendment at this time, and will it have an impact on the rights of surface land owners?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No. This goes back to a similar answer I gave the member. We have removed reference to fees in the act itself. This has no impact whatsoever on the landowner.

Section 28 approved.

section 29.

J. Horgan: So we're now moving to amendments of

section 44, which is, again,

definitions of the previous act. "Section 44 is amended by repealing the definition of 'surface lease' and substituting the following: 'surface lease' means…." I'm wondering why this definition change was not placed at the front of the bill. Can we anticipate further

definitions throughout the legislation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason this definition is here is that it applies only to this section, that being orphan sites. You did ask if this will appear in any other areas of the act. Yes, it will. As we go through it, I'm sure the member will either ask the same question, and we can give that answer. But the reason it's here is that under

section 44, the definition only refers to orphan site sections of this bill.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

J. Horgan: This section, I think, is of interest to many members of the House. It certainly was of interest to the Auditor General, recently, in a report outlining the potential impact to the treasury of orphan wells and the reclamation and rehabilitation of those sites.

As I look at

section 30, we are repealing sections of the Oil and Gas Activities Act under the heading of

[ Page 5253 ]

"Reclamation of orphan sites." "The commission may restore orphan sites." And it goes on. Can the minister, with his staff, advise the House of the necessity of these changes? And what, if any, impact will it have on the treasury in terms of addressing orphan wells in the future?

[1535]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This

section actually is a significant benefit, I think, certainly to the environment. What this does is it expands the right of the orphan well fund to be utilized for more than just an orphan well site. If it is determined that a piece of property is contaminated by the oil and gas activity, the fund can be utilized to clean that up as well, so it is a very positive step.

J. Horgan: Can the minister direct either myself or other members to who will be making the decision as to whether resources from the orphan well fund will be used for other purposes? I think the minister will agree that the establishment of the orphan well fund was for that purpose. If I read him correctly, hon. Chair, this

section amends that purpose.

I'm wondering: although I don't disagree that having access to resources to remediate environmental challenges brought about by the industry is a good thing, will the fund be replenished by the industry? Are we planning on keeping the costs to industry at the same levels, or are we going to increase them? And if so, can I find those sections in the act, or can he direct me to them?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll first give an example of the expansion of what this is. For example, we talked about the orphan well site before. An example could be the contamination to land resulting from an illegal dump that may take place and that is found. Previously, the orphan well fund wasn't allowed to be utilized to do that cleanup. Under this amendment it will.

Is the fund going to be replenished? Yes, it is, on an ongoing basis. Should that fund not be sufficient to meet the needs as the Oil and Gas Commission would see fit, the government has the ability under

section 47(2) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act to raise that tax that is in place today.

J. Horgan: Well, prior to the amendment of the Oil and Gas Activities Act

section 45, "Reclamation of orphan sites," if a scenario as the minister put before us did occur, what recourse did the Crown have in terms of remediation of that contamination, and where would those funds have come from before you had access to the orphan well fund?

[1540]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Previously what would take place…. I can speak to this. This actually was an incident that took place in my riding of Peace River South. There was an illegal dump that took place, and the treasury of the province of British Columbia had to fund that. The reason you wouldn't fund it is, of course, if the RCMP or an investigation found out who was responsible. In the case where you can't find that out, what we're saying now is that it makes sense. It's an oil and gas activity. It would fall under the orphan well fund.

J. Horgan: I don't know if, through regulation or other sections as we proceed, the minister contemplates an increase in the levy to permit holders to not just replenish the fund but to provide additional resources for the very situations that the minister suggests.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We believe that right now, when you look at the orphan well fund with the tax rate that is set, the money is sufficient to meet the demands on this fund. Should it not be sufficient as we move forward — if, for some reason, we find out there is more money being consumed out there — we have the ability to reset that tax rate, but because it's a tax rate, it would be by statute.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

J. Horgan: Can the minister advise what the purpose of this amendment is and how it will affect the Oil and Gas Activities Act in a positive way for the people of his constituency?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know that people are tied to their television, watching this riveting discussion. This is an amendment that's being made. It's really a housekeeping amendment in nature. The current terminology is not grammatically correct, and we're ensuring that it will be.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

J. Horgan: Now we're entering into….

Section 32 "authorizes the commission to make orders of a technical nature relating to specific locations." These are technical orders, and a following

section is added. I won't read it out. I know members now who are seized of this debate are racing to their computers and downloading this bill so that they can follow along.

For those who aren't able to do that, perhaps the minister could advise the purpose of this amendment, and if he could give me some scenarios, one or two, where technical orders would be issued.

[1545]

[ Page 5254 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: These technical orders are dealt with today under the act by regulation, I believe it is. This is a day-to-day operation. It's a very technical part. These orders are made by reservoir engineers who determine different geological formations. We have different zones which you drill into. It was felt that, certainly, it was better dealt with this way, because it is really a day-to-day activity made by these professionals, who are reservoir engineers. That's the reason for this section.

J. Horgan: As I read

section 32, "Technical orders," it's an amendment to

section 49.1 of the previous bill, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I accept the minister's explanation, but as I read subsection (4).... It goes as follows: "Subject to subsection (3), if a regulation is made concerning a matter with respect to which an order has been made under subsection (1) (c), the order, if it has not been rescinded, is no longer valid to the extent of any inconsistency between the order and the regulation."

I'm tempted to go on at some length, and I know those in the gallery would wish me to do so with respect to potential inconsistencies between orders and regulations. If I understand what the minister said, what you're trying to do with this amendment is take out of regulation and put into statutes these very issues. But as I read that, I'm wondering which inconsistency we're correcting with that subsection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will refer the member to 49.1(

c) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. When we're talking about the inconsistency between an order and a regulation, the regulation would trump the order in this case. I will read 49.1(c). It refers to: "control and regulate the production of petroleum, natural gas and water by restriction, proration or prohibition." So the regulation would actually trump an order under this act.

J. Horgan: So these technical orders by statutes supersede regulations when it comes to that prescribed list — "production of petroleum, natural gas and water by restriction, proration, or prohibition." I'm repeating it back to the minister because I think that's what he said. I just want to make sure that I understood it completely. Orders written under this

section are designed to supersede regulations that are already in existence?

[1550]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Speaking to this, it is a technical issue. There is still a regulation under the act, 49.1(c). What we're saying is that regulation under 49.1(

c) would trump any order in this act. So it would be the control — the regulation — because there is regulation-making authority under 49.1(c).

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

J. Horgan: I know that members are desperate to dive into this debate. Never have a minister and a critic smiled so much through the deliberations in this chamber. We often say, hon. Chair, as you know, the minister and I, that we want to set a new tone — Happy 1 and Happy 2 — here as we proceed through this important piece of legislation.

We're on to

section 33. In the explanatory notes it says that

section 57 "requires certain persons to provide officials entering land under the act with the means and assistance necessary for the purposes of the entry." Could the minister explain how this will affect surface rights holders?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this is really directed at is the permit holder and the official. If an official needs to go and inspect a site, for example, and the only way to get to that site would be by helicopter, for example, it would be up to the permit holder — and in this case the permit holder being the oil and gas company — to provide that access and transportation to get the official there.

J. Horgan: Those officials would be only representatives of the Oil and Gas Commission, or would there be other officials that could be contemplated in this section?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under this act other government officials can be named as officials. If it was — I'm trying to think — maybe a member of the Ministry of Environment, for example, that needed to go out there, that's how that would operate.

J. Horgan: I know that the minister used one example, but I'm assuming that it's open-ended. An official could be a federal government official. Would that be contemplated in this act, or would it only pertain to provincial government officials?

[1555]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The official has to be named by the commissioner under this act, and that is dealt with under

section 7(5). What we're referring to here is a provincial public servant — Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forests, somebody from the commission — to go out and deal with this.

No, I would not envision that we would be dealing with a federal employee here.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

section 35.

[ Page 5255 ]

J. Horgan: I know the minister's disappointed that I didn't give him an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of

section 34, but perhaps, if we have more time, we can come back to that later on.

Within

section 35 we are striking out the word "commission" and substituting "board." I'm to assume that's the surface rights board, and the commission being the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is not a real exciting change. It was a typo in the original act. The board that's being referred to is the board of the commission. It shouldn't have referred to "commission." It should have referred to "board." The board they're referring to is the board of the Oil and Gas Commission.

J. Horgan: I'm looking at "Lieutenant Governor in Council…." This is the Oil and Gas Activities Act, sections 74 and 75. We're amending

section 75, but

section 74 is, "Lieutenant Governor in Council may order extension of pipeline," and then

section 75 is "Special projects."

So we have in that section,

section 75, the commission on its own in

section 75(1). We have another reference to the commission at the start of subsection (2), and the

section that we're amending here refers to the commission under subsection (4), if I'm not mistaken. We're amending 75(4). It says, "For the purposes of a special project or of special projects generally, the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the commission may each, in exercising a regulation…" etc.

So if we have the word "commission" referred to multiple times in

section 75, why are we only amending the word "commission" in

section 75(4)?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason the other sections are not being changed is that all operational issues are dealt with by the commission. All regulations can only be dealt with by the board. That's the difference under 75(4).

Section 35 approved.

section 36.

J. Horgan: We're going to need to spice it up, Minister. The galleries are emptying.

With respect to

section 36, the explanatory note says it "establishes that orders or approvals made under

section 76 of the act prevail over regulations made respecting the

section to the extent of any inconsistency between the two."

Can the minister explain the purpose of that amendment?

[1600]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under

section 99 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, government has the ability to make regulation. That is a broad authority. What we're dealing with here under 76(6) is that an OIC can be made, which would actually trump the regulation under

section 99 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. For example, it may be that a cost is incurred, and the OIC can incur that cost on the company, which may be more direct and more specified than what the broader regulation in

section 99 from the Oil and Gas Activities Act wanted.

J. Horgan: As I read

section 99(m), the specific

section that's being amended: "...the order or approval prevails to the extent of the inconsistency." As I read that section, it strikes me that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or order-in-council would amend prescribed works, activities and distances for the purposes of

section 76, which we have to go back to.

It's those distances that cause concern, as the minister knows, to residents in his region — the proximity of the industrial activity to their home, to their farm, to their barn, to their livestock. Again, this is one of those examples that I think, with his experience in the sector and in the region, would benefit from perhaps an anecdotal explanation as to why an order should be superior to a regulation in this instance.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This does not deal with setbacks. I think that's what the member is referring to. This actually is about costs related to moving a pipeline; that's what we're dealing with here. I know we've had discussion on setbacks, and I certainly have had numerous discussions in my region with the people I represent. I think we're making some very good progress on that. I know that when we do make changes that are upcoming, the member is going to be very happy with that as well.

J. Horgan: If it's not setbacks that we're referring to when we talk about prescribed works, activities and distances for the purposes of

section 76 respecting how costs incurred by a person to whom an approval is given under

section 76 of a pipeline permit holder referred to…. So if that's not a setback, what are we doing?

[1605]

Hon. B. Lekstrom:

Section 99(

m) deals with more than costs. When we talk setbacks, in this case we're talking…. The member is referring to setbacks of a pipeline, what a permitted use is. And 76(6) is only costs on pipeline relocation. So an example would be a road being built and an OIC is issued to tell a company, for example: "You may have to move that pipeline in order for the Crown to relocate a road." That relocation cost would be at the company's expense.

Section 36 approved.

[ Page 5256 ]

section 37.

J. Horgan: We're now looking again at regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, general power to make regulation,

section 94. This section, this amendment, adds the following: "with or without directions on how the delegated power is to be exercised."

Again, just for the benefit of the scholars in the gallery watching the debate today, "(

a) delegate a matter to a person" is the start of the clause, and it's completed with: "with or without directions on how the delegated power is to be exercised." Can the minister advise on the purpose of this amendment?

[1610]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is allow the government to give someone the authority — an official, obviously — under this act. But it also gives them the ability to limit that. It may be a clear direction that says, "You may want to consider the impact of the environment based on this," for example. So it actually allows clearer direction in that.

J. Horgan: The following section,

section (b), adds a subsection to the regulations under

section 94, and it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations establishing criteria that a person must use when exercising a discretionary or delegated power conferred on the person by a regulation under this Division."

So this is, I think, redundant when you look at what we just discussed in additions to…. As I read it, the addition to section (2)(

a) makes the addition of section (2.1) unnecessary, but I might be wrong. Maybe the minister could tell me why he and the Leg. counsel believe this is necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: An example I will give you under

section 94, the first one we talked about, would be a specific direction. I'll use one that is relevant to the area and the region. You may speak to the issue of noise, and you may set a set decibel level that must be considered in that. The other one is a criterion where the direction is given that you must take noise into consideration. Very similar — one is more specific; one is broader.

J. Horgan: Well, again, if we're looking at the power to make regulations, usually regulations are specific. Using the minister's example, if a decibel level is prescribed under WorkSafe, that's covered somewhere else, or we would be looking at consequential amendments. So I don't know if that's the best example.

[1615]

Maybe if the minister could use the benefit of his staff to find another that would give me some comfort that this clause is not nefarious but is in fact in the interests of peace, order and good government.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll try this one more time. The member knows it's a technical amendment, to a degree. I will go back to the noise issue, and I'll try and make reference to what takes place now.

The first one would be more specific. For example, and I'll just use it as an analogy, in determining the noise level that would be allowed — and we'll use, for the sake of this explanation, within one kilometre of your home — the noise level will not exceed X decibels. That's under the first

section we have talked about.

The next one would refer to when looking at this, it may be beyond one kilometre. But we're still directing you that noise is something you have to take into consideration and mitigate. Because it's outside of the direct one kilometre analogy I'm using, it would be broader in its context but still have to be taken into consideration.

[1620]

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

section 39.

J. Horgan: Again, I know we're keeping track here.

Section 39 provides "regulation-making authority respecting the definition of 'pipeline' in

section 1, surveying and information for the purposes of

section 77 of the act." Again, the act referred to, I'm assuming, is the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Although I know this bill we're debating today amends two acts, I believe we're still on Oil and Gas Activities Act. I'm getting a head shake. Thank you for that.

So under that

section 99, we are repealing and substituting. Can the minister explain the rationale for the repeal and the substitution?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We changed or expanded the definition of "pipeline" in 15(

g) of Bill 8. That really deals with what a pipeline can carry. As a result, we have to deal with

section 99 and amend it to reflect that change in 15(

g) of Bill 8.

J. Horgan: Again, since many of the amendments we're making are to sections that are not yet brought into force, it's important that we ensure that we get it right this time. I know the Chair will indulge me on this for a moment.

Section 39, the definition makes reference to

section 99 in the existing act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I look at

section 99, and we're talking about regulations, the ability to make regulations.

But in the explanatory note it says: "surveying…for the purposes of

section 77 of the act." So when I go to

section 77 of the act, it says: "Registry. The commission must maintain a registry containing…." So I'm not clear. Am I looking at the wrong

section 77?

Interjection.

[ Page 5257 ]

J. Horgan: I'm looking at the right

section 77. Well, if that's the case, I don't get what we're doing here. Maybe the minister could enlighten me.

[1625]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The first

section we were talking about was (a), and when I referred to

section 15(g), it was of Bill 8. I think the member has moved on to (b), which refers to a change.

Section 77 that he's looking at there is in reference to the Oil and Gas Activities Act, not Bill 8. Hopefully that clarifies that.

J. Horgan: I'm looking at

section 77. We're dealing with

section 99 initially, and an explanatory note refers back to

section 77, same act, the existing Oil and Gas Activities Act. What I have in front of me is: "The commission must maintain a registry containing the prescribed information about oil and gas activities." Then we move to

section 78.

So when I read

section 77, we're maintaining a registry — good. How does this amendment affect that? If it doesn't affect it, then perhaps we should remove

section 77 from the explanatory note. As I see, we're dealing with the ability to make regulation and maintaining a registry, and I can't reconcile the two.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm going to go through this again, if the member will indulge me. We're dealing with 99(b)(p). That's what the member is referring to here. This will prescribe information that the Oil and Gas Commission must keep with respect to an activity. The authority was previously held by the Oil and Gas Commission board.

[1630]

We are now transferring that authority to the government, which is in the broader public interest — okay?

J. Horgan: Well, I helped myself a little bit by turning to page 10 and found that

section 77 is referred to as (o). So that follows the (

m) that exists, with an (

o) and an (p).

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's before the (p), isn't it?

J. Horgan: Yes, before the (

p) that we're dealing with. So I'll accept that as a sufficient explanation for

section

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

J. Horgan: On

section 40, we are now dealing with

section 103 of the existing act, and we're expanding "the list of subjects about which environmental measures may be taken and provides regulation-making authority respecting the government's environmental objectives." How are we determining environmental objectives?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The environmental objectives are being recommended by a multiministry committee, and then they will be approved by government through OIC.

J. Horgan: As I look at what we're doing with

section 40, we're amending

section 103 of the existing act. As we move down, in

section 41 we're amending

section 104. But I'm curious if the minister…. I mean, all of these objectives are positive and useful and good, and certainly, I support them.

I'm wondering what led to amending "scenic features" to be "scenic areas, as established under

section 104." We could have just made a longer list, put it in one

section and called it a day. But in the interests of, I assume, certainty, we have now gone across sections.

So we had "scenic features," which is nebulous. I can appreciate that we want to clear that up, so "scenic areas." That's better. But rather than just defining the scenic areas in that section, we're moving to another

section in the existing act. I know that the objective of legislative counsel is to streamline and smooth these things over so that there's a better understanding by the public. Certainly, those watching, as we've said a number of times over the course of the afternoon, are riveted.

However, the objectives I have no quarrel with. As I read the previous sections, I had no difficulty. I supported sections 103 and 104 as they were. Now we're amending them, and I'm confused. Can the minister explain why we couldn't have perhaps, in the interests of simple language, put those two together and called it a day?

[1635]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The first question regarding scenic features. The term "scenic features" is also being changed to "scenic areas" for consistency with the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is being empowered to name these. That's that part.

You talked about sections 103 and 104 as well.

Section 103 is a general regulation,

whereas

section 104 is specific to a confined space or a specific species.

J. Horgan: Ungulate winter range is as broad in subsection 103(v)…. Well, the amendment is 40(a)(v), "ungulate winter ranges, as established" in 104. I don't see us in

section 104 specifying which ungulates. They are, as you know, numerous in the region. I appreciate that I should have conceded the point to the minister and accepted his rationale.

Again, I understand that we need consistency across legislation. That's the objective. But I don't see how we're clarifying issues here. It strikes me that we're just adding another

section unnecessarily.

[1640]

[ Page 5258 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will try this one more time. Under

section 104 — and I'll try and cover this — the Minister of Environment could set an ungulate winter range, for example. Under

section 103, he could actually deal with the general regulation under that, which would encompass all winter ungulate ranges.

Also under 104 — I know this is somewhat confusing; I'm trying to do my best to explain it — he could actually be specific to the individual winter ungulate range, whether it be something within that winter ungulate range or a species specific to that winter ungulate range.

V. Huntington: The multiministry committee that is developing the environmental objectives…. Do you anticipate those objectives going out to the public for consultation in any way before they end up with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The objectives are part of the environmental protection and management regulations under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and there have been various stakeholders engaged over the last two years — NEEMAC, for example, the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee, located in the Peace. The Provincial Environmental Forum also has had input, as well as local government.

V. Huntington: Well, you could see my concern if it's an industry-led discussion on environmental objectives within the oil and gas framework. I'm really concerned to hear that, and I would hope that those objectives that are being developed would be able to be discussed in a much broader public forum.

These are terribly important subjects that are affected here, and I think that the public would deserve to be involved in setting those objectives.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I may be able to bring some comfort to the member. Actually, the public is heavily involved. This is not industry led. Actually, as I indicated…. The Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee, for example, is ranchers, farmers. We have individuals on there.

[1645]

Also, the Provincial Environmental Forum is environmental groups that have the opportunity to bring issues and discuss with the ministry themselves, as well as local government. We have broadened this out to deal with the exact concern the member has raised.

V. Huntington: Chair, just let me say that now you will understand why I haven't stood up too often. I'm learning a lot from both of my colleagues.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I want to take the opportunity. To the member: you know, this is a very technical bill. I think that was a very good question. Through our ability to have that dialogue and have people ask questions, the people that are watching this and that will read the transcripts I think can learn a great deal. I appreciate the questions, and there is no bad question. So thank you for that.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

J. Horgan: I'll be very brief on this, because I was hopeful that we were canvassing 40 and 41 together because of the synergies between sections 103 and 104 in the existing act.

I want to ask the minister if he could assist me with the explanatory note for this section, which "authorizes the imposition of conditions on exemptions granted under the

section and authorizes regulations respecting the consultations and notification required before a minister exercises" a delegated authority.

Following on the questions from my colleague from Delta South, that consultation and notification — would that be with NEEMAC? Would that be with regional districts? Would that be with other government agencies? Can you give a comprehensive list for the House, please?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The process will be defined in reg, but the intent is similar to what I've just talked about. It will be a broad range, whether it be local government, residents, industry. We want to be all-inclusive, to go out and have that discussion.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

J. Horgan: We have a consequential amendment of a definition. Again, this is for those who are paying attention in the galleries and those at home that are still tuned in. We've had environmental measures defined in the

definitions. I raised this a moment ago in an earlier section, one of the sections between

section 22 and this one. The minister suggested that we would see

definitions sprinkled throughout.

I'm wondering. We're repealing and substituting again with a definition that's at the front of the bill, and as we are going through we are going to see it a number of additional times. Can the minister explain the rationale for this repealing and substituting?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is one that I touched on earlier in the

definitions. This actually is changing the term "measure" to "environmental measure," the same as what we've done in the previous sections.

[ Page 5259 ]

Section 42 approved.

The Chair: The committee shall recess for five minutes for a break.

The committee recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

section 43.

J. Horgan: We're now back into amendments of

section 106 of the previous act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. We've got "Regulations of the Board" as the heading in that previous act. We're authorizing "the board, in making a regulation under

part 10 of the act, to delegate a matter, confer a discretion and make different regulations for different persons, places, things, decisions, transactions or activities," which strikes me as fairly comprehensive.

[1655]

I'm wondering if we have any challenges with board and commission in this amendment. In addition to that, can the minister explain the necessity of this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This deals with the same changes to the delegation authority that we saw for OICs in

section 94, which would be

section 37 of Bill 8. The

section refers to regulations of the board here.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that explanation. We're repealing an entire

section and replacing it with a larger

section that adds, I believe, the powers that the minister suggests. There are exemptions contemplated in

section 106(3), and I'm wondering if the minister could explain what those exemptions might be.

[1700]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This one, as the member has read and recognized, they did have the ability to exempt before. What we're doing is adding the ability for the board of the commission to add conditions to that exemption. For example, it may be an exemption on a record to indicate that you don't need that record or it's not necessary, but if this changes, you will have to do that. That's the authority we're granting here.

J. Horgan: On the example the minister cited, what type of record would you contemplate?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I guess what I would say is a record such as a well log. We're going to multi-well pads now, which is very good in the sense that it is less footprint on the land base, but for instance, before you had a well log, a single lease had a single well on it. Multi-well pads now — you may have ten. You wouldn't need ten of the same records, for example. They're identical, so that's the example I'm using here when we talk about this.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response, but when I look at how we've broadened the

definitions to include decisions…. It says: "make different regulations for different persons, places, things, decisions, transactions or activities."

[1705]

We had all of the things referred to with the exception of decisions in the previous act. I'm wondering what decisions are contemplated with this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is really about allowing the board the ability to have the decisions…. I'll give an example. It could be related to flaring, for example. If you are within a set distance of a residence in an area, the board may make regulation regarding that decision.

[1710]

If you're within a distance further than that, there may be something else. What this is doing is allowing the decision to be made and the regulation to be set by the board.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate, I think, what the minister is saying here. But if the board has the ability to make regulations, they have it. Well, had this

section been brought into force, they would have had it. Were we not to pass this bill that we're debating today, Bill 8 — and had the previous Bill 20, the Oil and Gas Activities Act, been brought into force — the ability to make that regulation would still exist in, more or less, the form the minister just suggested. That's why I draw attention to the word "decisions." Every time you make a regulation you're deciding to do that.

I know I'm quibbling a little bit here, but it strikes me that…. I know leg. counsel, and I know your able staff. This word was deliberately inserted, and I'd like to have a better explanation as to why this word was chosen in this place at this time.

[1715]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The board's authority was not as broad as that in the OIC authority. This actually is trying to broaden this out to allow the flexibility for regulations based on decisions. I can't think of one. I'm trying to, I guess, bring an analogy based on a flaring issue, where it could be that the setback is 1.25 kilometres from a residence, for example, or a set distance from a gathering pipeline or a flow line.

We wanted the flexibility for the board to be able to make regulations regarding decisions, and those decisions may be different in site-specific circumstances. It is a technical issue, but I'm sorry I can't give something

[ Page 5260 ]

broader. It really is about flexibility for the board, and that's where this one goes.

J. Horgan: If we don't have a clear definition of decisions, perhaps it would have been useful to put that in the

definitions at the front end so that we had a better understanding of just where we were going with that.

I'll accept the minister at that and see if we can get a good definition.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

section 45.

J. Horgan:

Section 45 authorizes the board to make regulations requiring permit holders, rather than just producers, to pay a levy to the government, and it's repealing

section 110 of the existing act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Can the minister explain the rationale for this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This deals with a drafting error made in the original

section 110 which made reference to a "producer" paying the levy instead of the broader term "permit holder," to whom the act applies. All permit holders are subject to the regulatory environment need to contribute towards the administrative cost of the commission as well.

J. Horgan: I see that in the amendment we've carried over the requirement that this is subject to approval of Treasury Board. Again, we've got…. Of course, Treasury Board is capital-T, capital-B, so we won't be confusing that with the "board" reference at the front of the section, I'm hopeful. Is that the minister's intent?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes.

Section 45 approved.

section 46.

J. Horgan: Again, we are into what I'm sure the minister is going to say is housekeeping, but there are significant amendments to various subsections of the existing act,

section 111, which is defined as oil and gas activities. Again, if the minister — for the benefit of members here and others in the future who will be using this debate to understand the intentions of government with respect to this act — could walk through sections 46(

a) through (

i) and justify each of those.

[1720]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is a very technical portion. I will start and give the member that

section 111 empowers the board to create operational regulations to address the technical and safety matters for all oil and gas activities. The changes to this

section are identified by subsections (

a) through (i). I can read each of them, Member. It may take a little time just because of the technical, if he so wishes, but I think that the intent is really safety on this.

Section 46 approved.

section 47.

J. Horgan: Again, we're onto safety with

section 47, which will be amending the existing

section 112 of the act. I want at this time to table an amendment to

section 47,

section 47(c)(d.3).

[ Amend

section 47 of Bill 8 Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act 2010 by adding the following subsection(s):

47. c (d.3.) requiring that records of preventative maintenance regarding quality of equipment, such as regular ultra-sound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings, and regular infra-red testing to detect leaks be made mandatory and;

(d.4.) that the records in

section 47.c(d.3.) be reported regularly to the commission and held for public inspection.]

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: The minister will have had an opportunity to review the

section that I'm proposing.

This is a friendly amendment designed to address the issues that the minister referred to in

section 46. Rather than read those into the record the minister quite rightly said that the motivation and the focus here is safety for people in the region and people working in the sector.

In my consultation with residents and interested parties in the area, some have suggested to me that the amendment that I'm proposing, what will be 47(c)(d.3), is consistent with, I believe, the thrust and intent of the minister and his government to ensure safety in the sector.

The proposal is that we require that records of preventative maintenance regarding quality of equipment such as regular ultrasound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings and regular infrared testing to detect leaks be made mandatory, and that the records in

section 47(

c) be reported regularly to the commission and held for public inspection.

Now, the intent here is to ensure that the catastrophic event of last November can perhaps be avoided in the future with the addition of these preventative maintenance records being available to the public — ultrasound testing and infrared testing.

[1725]

The minister will know that corrosion was the likely cause or the suggested cause of the rupture in his community back in November. Members of his community have suggested this amendment to me, and I put it before the House for consideration now.

[ Page 5261 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: With all due respect, I will speak against this, not for the fact of the intent but because of the reason that the authority already exists. It exists today under

section 111(1)(

e) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, which deals with your amendment for (d.3).

For (d.4) it already exists under

section 112(1)(d), and the commission already, by pipeline regulation, follows the CSA standard Z662, which addresses the concerns — but very legitimate concerns relating back to the issue that the people just outside of Pouce Coupe dealt with when the pipeline ruptured.

J. Horgan: I was furiously trying to note the sections that the minister suggested this amendment refers to, and I don't see in

section 111 any reference to regular ultrasound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings and regular infrared testing to detect leaks being made mandatory. Perhaps the minister could repeat those clauses again, but I don't see ultrasound testing or infrared testing anywhere in the existing act.

[1730]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What sections 111(1)(

e) and 112(1)(

d) do is allow the drafting of regulation. The regulation, actually, is drafted and utilizes the CSA standard Z662. I certainly will endeavour, if the member would like a more detailed briefing on this, on how we can actually accomplish that and what Z662 entails — that it's there…. It doesn't have to be encapsulated the way the member has put forward the amendment to this bill.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's attempt to comfort me in this regard, but again, I look at those two sections in the existing bill, and I don't see a reference to that. The regulation Z662 I don't have at my disposal. Perhaps if the minister has a copy at his disposal, or some of his staff that may be in the other room as we debate this bill might be able to draw it to my attention.

As I understand the intent of the amendment at

section 47, it's designed for increased transparency with respect to the activities being reported and records delivered to the commission for public review. I mean, we're specifying specific ungulate wintering areas in one

section of the act and then broadening that in another

section of the act.

It strikes me that these specific safety measures would not go astray to be directly recognized in the legislation, and it strikes me that this is the appropriate

section for that to happen. If the regulation Z662 makes reference to efforts on behalf of permit holders or producers to do regular ultrasound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings or regular infrared testing to detect leaks, then I would be satisfied. But if the language is not consistent with the amendment, I would suggest we have an impasse, and we would probably have to put that to a vote, hon. Chair.

[1735]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will do this one more time, because I think, without question, we both are pursuing the same issue, and that's safety. The issue that you have raised is one that if it wasn't available today and utilized, I think would be a worthy issue to be debating. But I'm going to try this. Sections 111(1)(

e) as well as (h) — one deals with wells; one deals with pipelines — under that, as well as

section 112(1)(

d) under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, allow for the establishment of regulation. The commission has set the regulation to be the CSA Z662 standard, which sets the integrity management requirements for pipelines. The new pipeline regulations — once this is adopted, this bill, we get through it — will be utilized to cover that.

The Z662 — we talk sometimes in funny language, I think, for the population to follow — is the Canadian Standards Association, which is used across the country, and that is what we follow here in British Columbia as well for the integrity management requirement for pipelines.

J. Horgan: Certainly, I don't have the expertise to challenge the Canadian Standards Association, and I don't propose to do that. But in my consultation on this bill…. And the minister would have heard these issues before. It's not new to him that I put this. It's new that he sees it today in the form of an amendment, but these issues have been discussed as recently as this spring in his community. I'm bringing them forward at the request of those that live in th