2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2007 (Bill 2)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 3)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Hon. B.

Penner

L. Krog

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands (continued)

Hon. P.

Bell

Simpson

Fraser

C. Evans

Sather

[ Page 5955 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call second reading on

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007. In Committee A, estimates

debate — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands.

Second Reading of Bills

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2007

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 2, Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2007, be read a second time.

Bill 2 amends 12 provincial statutes to implement a number of the

spending and tax measures that were announced in Budget 2007. The measures in

Bill 2 build on previous budgets and have the twofold objectives of

strengthening the provincial economy and improving the availability and

affordability of housing.

The changes amend several statutes to reduce housing costs. They

implement recommendations resulting from the PST review. They also create two

special accounts: one for funding innovation in affordable, social or supportive

housing, and one to help with the educational expenses of each child born in

British Columbia.

Finally, there are a number of measures to improve the fairness

and sustainability of the tax system. I have heard from British Columbians who

are concerned about soaring property values. While these rising values are

indicative of a buoyant economy and confidence in our prosperity, they can also

be a source of concern for many homeowners, especially families and seniors who

simply want a place to live.

Recognizing these valid concerns, Bill 2 contains changes to the

homeowner grant program, the first-time-homebuyers program and the property tax

deferment program to improve the affordability of home ownership.

For many years the British Columbia homeowner grant has helped to

keep home ownership affordable. Bill 2 amends the Home Owner Grant Act to

provide the grant to low-income seniors, certain veterans and disabled

individuals whose homes are above the grant threshold. This will ensure that

low-income seniors and other qualified individuals whose properties have

increased in value beyond the threshold, but who may face financial hardships,

do receive the homeowner grant.

[1005]

The booming real estate market has stretched to every corner of

the province. For that reason, Bill 2 also amends the Property Transfer Tax Act

to increase the threshold for the first-time-homebuyers program. The threshold

will now be set at $375,000 across the province. That ensures that there are

housing options eligible for the first-time-homebuyers program in all regions of

the province.

An amendment to the Land Tax Deferment Act provides a further

benefit to homeowners by lowering the age at which an owner may begin to defer

property taxes on their principal residence to age 55 from age 60. This change

supports those who are retiring early by giving them the option of staying in

their homes without the worry of rising property taxes.

Through the PST review process undertaken by the Ministry of Small

Business and Revenue we heard from businesses about various aspects of the

administration of the provincial sales tax. Bill 2 implements a number of the

recommendations arising from the PST review. These changes will benefit

businesses across the province by improving provincial sales tax administration

and reaffirms our commitment to an efficient and effective tax and regulatory

system.

The major changes in the bill relating to the PST review are as

follows. Amending the Social Service Tax Act to extend the date when taxes must

be remitted from the 15th to the 23rd of the month. This change provides

businesses with a longer period of time to remit the taxes, addressing a concern

raised during the PST review.

Amending the social service, hotel room, motor fuel, and tobacco

tax acts to reduce the audit assessment limitation period to four years from six

years to reduce impact on taxpayers. As well, the refund limitation period is

changed to maintain consistency with this new audit provision.

Relieving craftspersons, non-profit groups, and other small

businesses that make $10,000 or less gross annual sales and do not operate an

established business premise from the responsibility of collecting sales tax,

and simplifying the sales tax application to businesses that lease equipment.

To recognize the hard-working efforts of hospital foundations and

health care auxiliaries, we are also amending the Social Service Tax Act by

providing a PST refund for tax paid on purchases of medical equipment funded by

the these organizations.

Bill 2 amends the Financial Institutions Act and the Public

Service Benefit Plan Act to clarify that the credit union deposit insurance fund

and the long-term disability fund are considered trust funds for accounting

purposes.

The Transportation Act is also amended to remove the cap on

borrowings by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. We have now

established a declining debt-to-GDP ratio as an overall cap with specific debt

allocations for each sector, including transportation. These replace the

Transportation Financing Authority debt cap as a means for debt control.

Finally, amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and

Control Act create two special accounts, the housing endowment fund special

account and the children's education fund special account. The housing endowment

fund special account will leave a housing legacy by establishing sustainable

funding for

[ Page 5956 ]

innovation and affordable, social or supportive housing and in housing

development and management.

The children's education fund will provide benefits for future

learners. The investment through this fund will apply to children born on or

after January 1, 2007, who later enrol in British Columbia–based post-secondary

education programs.

Bill 2 also contains several other measures to improve the

fairness of our tax system. In

summary, Bill 2 includes amendments that will

implement many of the measures in Budget 2007 directed at improving housing

affordability and continuing to strengthen the provincial economy.

B. Ralston: This bundle of amendments seeks to implement

the government's budget, which was just tabled weeks ago. In general terms, the

housing measures that the government seeks to implement I think have been widely

criticized as being relatively timid and really more a disguised tax cut,

nominally called a housing budget. To that degree, the opposition regrets the

direction that the government has taken in composing this budget.

But dealing with the specifics of this particular bill, there are

two areas which give rise to some question which this side of the House will be

pursuing at the committee stage of this particular bill.

[1010]

The housing endowment fund is funded to the amount of $250

million, and in the legislation, is referred to in 9.3(3). Innovation will be

paid out: "(

a) innovation in the provision of affordable, social or supportive

housing, and (

b) innovation in housing development and management."

Now, "innovation" is one of those words that everyone wants to

support and no one wants to oppose. It's not at all clear what this fund will

do. Obviously, the government had an option of providing that money to B.C.

Housing, for example, to build social housing. There are a variety of ways in

which the housing stock of the province could be increased rather than simply

creating a fund. So the question that will be pursued is: is this the best

policy choice? Certainly, given the absence of detail, which will be pursued at

committee, it remains an open question.

There are approaches that have been made by various housing

advocacy groups. Is this money intended for research? If so, why has the

government chosen to fund this through this particular fund rather than through

the relevant part of the Ministry of Forests and Range and for housing? One of

the areas that it appears to be directed to is innovation in housing policy. Is

that what this fund will direct itself to? Does it seek to direct itself to

alternate financing mechanisms? Is it proposing to work with banks and credit

unions within the province to devise a program which will devise more innovative

— there's that word again — forms of finance?

There are programs which seek to assist first-time homebuyers in a

way that would qualify them for 100-percent financing. I'm aware of at least one

financial institution that has such a program. Is that the direction that this

fund seeks to go? Certainly, the government has that option, but given that it

is $250 million, it's not at all clear that this is the best policy choice. On

that basis, I do have questions about that special account and will be asking

some questions about it.

The other area this bill seeks to implement is the children's

education fund special account. This offers children born after January 1, 2007,

should they enrol in a post-secondary institution…. It's not clear to me,

although I may have skipped this in reading it, whether it's for the public

universities and colleges or for any post-secondary education institute, whether

that includes the private colleges and institutions in the province or not.

Perhaps that would be something that could be clarified by the minister at the

committee stage. I don't have a fixed position on that, but certainly it doesn't

appear to be clear.

But the question is: why, rather than taking the sum of money

that's allocated here…? It's allocated on the basis of an estimate of the number

of births and adoptions in any given year, money is then on that basis set

aside, and the eligibility is obviously many years hence before students could

draw on that. Why is the policy choice made to do that in that manner, rather

than fund scholarships and bursaries for those presently attending colleges or

universities in the province? Again, it's a policy choice.

It would appear that the kind of administration that will be

required to track recipients over a lengthy period of time will certainly, at

the margins, have some complicated administrative provisions. If someone is born

here, leaves the country or the province for 15 years and then returns and

enrols, presumably there will have to be some mechanism to recognize and track

that. It does have some of the elements of a pension plan in terms of tracking

eligibility.

[1015]

The other provision that seems to be…. And perhaps this is just

Ministry of Finance caution. It does seem to predicate itself on a relatively

low return. I believe it's probably a reasonable return, but whether the

financial projections for the return on the fund are reasonable or not I guess

is a question that, again, will be pursued at committee stage.

The other question — I guess, again to be pursued at committee

stage — which, in general terms, this fund raises is: what is the ability of the

individual, should they be eligible, to defer this? I expect that might be dealt

with by regulation. But if one is eligible at 18, how long would a potential

recipient be entitled to defer that? Sometimes people go back…. They are in the

labour force and sometimes return to, or begin, their education at a later time.

Then that raises further administrative complications, which the fund will have

to address.

The other, I suppose, more minor point is obviously that,

regrettably, some children will not live to receive the benefit. Is there an

issue there in terms of how that flows? Is it extinguished at that point, or is

there some entitlement of the estate?

Those are questions that we will pursue at committee stage, but

the policy question arises: why not sim-

[ Page 5957 ]

ply take the $42 million a year that this fund contemplates setting aside and

place it into the budget of the Advanced Education Ministry for either a

reduction in tuition fees or a needs-based scholarship?

The Finance Committee toured the province, and I think the Chair

of the committee will confirm that there was a very determined and spirited

lobby by student organizations and by professors and teachers at the college

level supporting such a change in the structure of funding for post-secondary

education, looking for a reduction in tuition fees of 10 percent and a

forgiveness of all fees on adult basic education. That was a policy option that

wasn't pursued, and there doesn't appear to be any explanation offered in this

policy choice.

These two funds involve a substantial financial commitment by the

government, and the policy basis appears to be questionable, given the other

choices that were available, certainly given what we heard in the Finance

Committee, and given the strong representations made across the province by a

number of groups about another mechanism of increasing access to post-secondary

education.

I appreciate that this is one of those policy initiatives that

perhaps flows uniquely from the Premier's office and from the Premier himself,

and that therefore there's an obligation to put that into action. Nonetheless,

it does appear to have serious limitations in terms of addressing the needs of

students now and in the immediate future as opposed to when they become eligible

to receive this benefit.

Those are the comments that I have on the bill at this stage.

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

Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move second reading of Bill 2, Budget

Measures Implementation Act, 2007.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 2 be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2007, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call for second reading, of Bill 3,

entitled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 3, Income Tax Amendment

Act, 2007, be read a second time.

[1020]

Bill 3 amends the Income Tax Act to implement income tax measures

announced in Budget 2007 as part of government's overall strategy for making

housing more affordable. In 2001 we lowered British Columbia income taxes by an

average of 25 percent. In 2005 we introduced the B.C. tax reduction. In this

bill we introduce a 10-percent tax cut for the first $100,000 in income.

With these tax reductions, about 250,000 people will no longer pay

B.C. personal income taxes. Taxes will be reduced by 30 to 35 percent for most

taxpayers, and B.C. will have the lowest provincial personal income taxes in the

country up to $108,000 in income.

The tax measures in Bill 3 build on the many tax cuts government

has introduced since 2001. These amendments reduce the personal income tax rates

for the first four tax brackets by 5 percent for 2007 and by a further 5 percent

for 2008 and subsequent tax years. In addition, the rate of reduction for the

B.C. tax reduction is reduced to ensure very low-income taxpayers receive a tax

cut of at least 10 percent. With these changes, there can be no doubt that

British Columbia is a competitive place to work and live.

Bill 3 also introduces an adoption expense tax credit effective

for 2007 and subsequent tax years. This credit will provide parents who adopt

children with a reduction in British Columbia personal income taxes payable

based on the amount of expenses they incur to complete an adoption. This credit

is harmonized with the federal expense tax credit.

Communities in the interior are in a transition period in dealing

with the impact of the mountain pine beetle and its effect on the forest sector.

To help with this transition, Bill 3 introduces an additional 10-percent credit

for qualified mining exploration expenses incurred in mountain pine

beetle–affected areas of the province. This will bring the total tax credit rate

to 30 percent for grass-roots mining exploration in the affected areas.

Bill 3 extends the very successful book publishing tax credit for

five more years to 2012. This credit was introduced in 2003 and has helped

B.C.'s book publishing industry compete both nationally and internationally.

Given this success, the government has decided to extend the credit for five

more years.

Bill 3 implements the B.C. training tax credit program to help

address the skill shortages in the province. The training tax credits are

effective January 1, 2007, and have three elements. First, the credits

complement the federal incentives for Red Seal apprenticeship training by

providing similar incentives for non–Red Seal apprenticeship programs.

Second, credits are provided that are based on completions of

levels 3 and higher for both Red Seal and non–Red Seal apprenticeship programs.

The completion credits will provide employers with up to $2,500 for each

apprentice that completes a level 3 and up to $3,000 for each apprentice that

completes level 4 or higher of an eligible apprenticeship program. Individual

apprentices can also receive completion credits of $2,000 for completing level 3

and $2,500 for completing a level 4 or higher of an eligible apprenticeship

program.

[ Page 5958 ]

Third, to encourage greater participation in the trades by first

nations and persons with disabilities, these training credits will be enhanced

by 50 percent when the apprentice is an eligible first nations individual or a

person with disabilities.

To provide businesses with certainty for their research and

development plans, Bill 3 extends the scientific research and experimental

development tax credit for five more years to 2014. In addition, effective

February 21, 2007, the credit will be extended to active corporate members of

partnerships that incur qualifying scientific research and experimental

developmental expenses in the province.

Bill 3 implements the previously announced elimination of the

royalty and deemed income rebate and implements an enhanced dividend tax credit.

The royalty and deemed income rebate was introduced in the '70s to provide

taxpayers in the resource sector with certain deductions in place of the federal

resource allowance. Now that the federal government has eliminated its resource

allowance, there is no longer any need for the royalty and deemed income rebate.

Industry has been consulted and is aware that these provisions are to be

repealed.

As announced in Budget 2006, the personal income tax enhanced

dividend tax credit will reduce the extent to which corporate income tax is

taxed at both the corporate and personal level. This credit parallels the

federal enhanced dividend tax credit and will be set to reflect the amount of

B.C. corporate income taxes paid on income received by shareholders as

dividends.

[1025]

Finally, Bill 3 makes two amendments to ensure taxpayers do not

have their B.C. sales tax credit reduced by the federal universal child care

benefit income and to prevent double taxation in cases where a taxpayer claims a

foreign tax credit and is subject to alternative minimum tax.

The amendments in Bill 3 build on our successes in making British

Columbia's tax system competitive for all individuals and families.

B. Ralston: The opposition supports this bill, just so that

it's clear, notwithstanding what's been said on the other side. But it is

noteworthy that the Finance Minister this fall at the second quarterly in

September spoke very alarmingly of a billion dollars in pressures on the health

care system, and at the quarterly report in December spoke of $4 billion of

pressure on the health care system.

Notwithstanding that talk of financial pressure and using a graph

in September, which projected — in my view, erroneously and falsely — health

care spending extending to 71 percent of the provincial budget by 2014, the

government has found the tax room to implement a personal income tax cut. One

really wonders how those two positions are reconciled.

On the one hand, health care costs are, according to the Finance

Minister in the fall, soaring out of control. One would, therefore, assume that

all the financial resources of the government ought to be focused on dealing

with this fiscal problem. Yet in the budget here a 10-percent personal income

tax cut is implemented and heralded as visionary and forward-looking.

So it seems to me that the Finance Minister is trying to have it

both ways in this particular approach to the fiscal matters in the province — on

one hand, to use projections in the fall as a battering ram against the health

authorities, and in the spring, no doubt as a result of a cabinet decision, to

tell us that there's adequate fiscal room to give a personal income tax cut,

which is costed at $500 million a year into the future, for a total of $1.5

billion over the three-year cycle of the cut.

The other point that one is obliged to note at this point is

that…. The reference is made by the Finance Minister to the government's fiscal

record going back to 2001. But to offset some of the personal income tax cuts,

it's noteworthy that there have been many other increases in fees that British

Columbians have been obliged to pay.

Medicare premiums increased by 50 percent in 2002. They're the

highest medicare premiums in Canada. Many provinces do not have a medicare

premium. Certainly, that's something that B.C. families have borne since 2002.

In the budget, after a number of missteps, I would say….

Certainly, on the Friday before the budget was tabled, the clean energy

innovation fund was not in the budget. By Monday it was in the budget, at least

prospectively in a certain form, and we found out after the budget was tabled

that it was going to be funded by a tax on hydro and natural gas bills to raise

money for the $25 million clean energy fund. So British Columbians will face a

tax on hydro and natural gas bills to pay for the clean energy fund.

Hydro rates, following the increase in the natural gas price, have

increased in recent years. For example, Pacific Natural Gas applied to BCUC on

January 21, 2006, and received a 21-percent increase in natural gas rates for

residential customers in the northwest. Terasen, on October 1, 2005, was granted

permission by BCUC to raise rates by 13.3 percent for the lower mainland, Fraser

Valley, interior, north and Kootenay customers.

[1030]

Tuition fees in British Columbia have doubled at B.C.'s colleges

and universities since 2001. That was the subject of a very determined and

spirited lobby by student organizations, professors and teachers before the

Finance Committee, all of which was not reflected in the budget and appears to

have been ignored. The tuition fees are returned. They had been abolished prior

to 2001 in adult basic education. These are people who return to education to

complete their high school qualification. They are charged fees that they

weren't before. That was again a subject of a lobby and a lot of representations

before the Finance Committee, and that isn't reflected in the budget.

The seniors who don't qualify for premium assistance on Pharmacare

are charged $25 a prescription, up to $275 a year. Those who do qualify for

premium assistance are charged $10 a prescription, up to $200 a year.

It's clear that the effect of many of the decisions or absence of

decisions or political will on the part of the Ministry of State for Childcare

will mean that the child

[ Page 5959 ]

care operating fund will be reduced by 27 percent. That will result in a

$2-to-$4-a-day increase for children in day care. For a family of four with two

children in full-time day care, this would mean additional costs of $80 to $160

a month.

Yet another area where fees have increased is recreation. These

may seem like small increases, but something that I hear about in my

constituency office is that when people go on a holiday, they often go camping.

There have been increased fees for camping, for hiking, for marine sites,

parking fees for day use and for firewood.

Significantly, for those who travel by ferry, since 2001 ferry

fares have risen in B.C. by 25 percent to 36 percent…. On the main routes, fares

have increased 36 percent since 2001; the northern route, 25 percent since 2001.

On minor routes such as Comox–Powell River, fares have increased 30 percent.

The gasoline tax was raised provincewide by 3.5 cents a litre in

2002. We heard the Minister of Transportation saying, in response to a consumer

protection bill introduced by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, that he

viewed that as a contradiction. In order to change behaviour, I presume…. He's

hinting at further tax increases for gasoline in order to — what he calls —

"change behaviour," although many people don't have the option of taking an

underfunded public transit system in order to get to work and back or to meet

their other personal obligations.

ICBC rates went up an average of 3.9 percent in 2004. Rates went

up again by 6.5 percent on February 1, 2006. The insurance premium tax was

increased by 0.4 percent in 2004. There are other fees in the area of railway

crossings, which have been canvassed in the House. People have been paying

electronic filing fees for…. Woodlot owners and ranchers have to hire

professionals to sign off on their forest range plans and then e-file them.

There is a personal tax decrease in this budget, but in our view,

for many people — indeed, most people — that has been offset by the increase in

fees. These are only some of the fees and other taxes that people have been

obliged to pay.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

Hon. B. Penner: I rise to make a few comments on second

reading of Bill 3, particularly in response to a few of the remarks I've just

heard from the Finance critic for the NDP opposition.

It seems to be typical conduct for this opposition to purport to

support things on the one hand but then, when it comes down to the reality of a

specific initiative, to be opposed to it. So we hear them say, for example, that

they support the tax cut. But then everything else you hear from their members

gives reasons for why they don't support it. They want to say things out of one

side of their mouth, but then the majority of their comments come from the other

side of their mouth.

[1035]

We heard the opposition critic just a few moments ago talk about

their party's opposition to charging people for the use of firewood in

campgrounds in provincial parks. Most environmental groups will tell you that is

a very good policy from an environmental perspective.

Once again, we hear the NDP opposition claiming that they support

environmental initiatives. But when it comes down to actually doing something

meaningful to help reduce the overuse of what used to be free firewood,

contributing to smoke and particulate matter in campgrounds and in many cases

irresponsible use of firewood, then they say that they're against it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you can't really have it both ways. As much as

the NDP opposition would like to think they can, at the end of the day you have

to make a decision about whether you really support environmental initiatives or

you don't.

Sometimes leadership is about making decisions where not everybody

is going to agree with you, and this is particularly true when it comes to the

environment. It's not always convenient to make decisions that are good for the

environment.

For example, the particular example that the member referred to —

charging people a small fee for using firewood — actually contributes to

conservation. It makes people think twice about how much firewood they're going

to use. It makes people think twice about whether they're going to build a

bonfire that poses a risk to other campers because of the potential risk for

wildfires getting out of control in our parks. That is, in my view, a very

progressive policy and in fact has been generally well received and supported by

environmental groups who know that it leads to conservation.

Similarly, we hear the opposition say that they would like to see

our government do more for green energy or alternative energy sources, even

though we have done far more than they ever thought about doing in their ten

years in government.

Currently we've got more than $3 billion on the books in terms of

clean energy projects as a result of B.C. Hydro's call for proposals just last

year. That's $3 billion with a "b." What do we hear from the opposition? They're

opposed when it comes to the specific individual projects.

On the one hand they say they support the kind of general concept

of clean energy, but when it comes down to making the actual decision about a

specific project, they're against it — whether it's the Ashlu river small hydro

project which today is under construction…. There are about 45 people working

there today starting with a wage of $18 and up. I'm told some people are making

more than $30 an hour today. They're working there.

If the NDP opposition had their way, those people — including

members of the Squamish First Nation who are employed today on that project —

would not have a job. That is the difference between that side of the House and

this side of the House. We actually mean what we say, and we're creating clean

energy projects and putting people to work in British Columbia, who are paying

taxes and contributing greatly to environmental advancement for British

Columbia. That is leadership. We're doing what we say, unlike the NDP

opposition.

[ Page 5960 ]

My last observation. The critic also criticized our innovative

clean energy fund. He says: "How dare the government consider a small surcharge

on energy bills to help fund innovative and clean technology?" On the one hand,

again they claim to support clean energy. But when we come forward with a

specific policy that will create funds to help generate new technologies in

British Columbia to solve our own energy challenges here — in no small

part

created by the NDP's lack of leadership in the '90s when they didn't build new

generation for British Columbia, resulting in us being a net importer in

electricity….

So we do come forward with a new policy and a new funding

mechanism. They're against it. It's another example of them claiming to support

something. But when it comes to an opportunity to actually get behind something

specifically, to put their shoulder to the wheel, to show leadership, to make a

bold and decisive decision, they're against it. They can't quite bring

themselves to show that kind of leadership.

It's interesting that they would criticize the concept of a small,

less than 1-percent surcharge which would encourage conservation and

environmentally responsible use of energy sources. Most environmental groups

will tell you that we need to think more carefully about our use of energy if

we're really going to combat global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. That

is not always convenient. Clearly, it's not convenient for the NDP opposition to

actually put two and two together and realize that if we're going to get serious

about combatting global warming, we actually have to do something. We can't just

keep carrying on the way we did in the past.

[1040]

For example, in the 1990s, did the NDP actually get serious about

creating clean energy projects? No. The record is clear. There's nothing there.

We became a net importer of electricity in the 1990s. We are making decisions,

Mr. Speaker.

You will find individuals who will say: "It's not convenient for

this project to be in my back yard. Can't you please put it somewhere else?" So

we have the members from the West Kootenays opposed to the Cascade heritage

hydro project — despite the fact that Washington State's Department of Ecology

has said that project would actually have the potential to be good for fish over

what's currently taking place, despite the fact that it went through a Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act review and was determined to have no significant

environmental consequences, despite the fact that it went through a B.C.

Environmental Assessment Act review.

And what does the NDP opposition say? They're against it. Clean

energy, new power sources for British Columbia so we don't have to import as

much coal-fired electricity from Alberta or the United States — they're against

it.

Here's what they can't seem to understand. When it comes to

climate change, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, it doesn't matter

where those emissions are created in terms of their effect on the global climate

and atmosphere. It will have the same result whether that coal is being burned

in Idaho or Washington State or Oregon or British Columbia. When we bring

forward specific policies to help foster clean energy production, that helps

offset and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduces our need to import

electricity from outside the province.

And what is the NDP's position on that? They're against it. It

takes a little bit of leadership to stand up and help educate the public that if

we're serious about combatting climate change, we have to overcome our

inclination to say: "Please, this isn't convenient. Couldn't you just put this

somewhere else?" We have great potential in British Columbia, but that potential

will never be realized if we listen to the opposition's position, which is:

"Please, it's not convenient. Let's do clean energy, but somewhere else where we

won't hear a single person complain about it."

We've now got over $3 billion of clean energy projects on the

books in British Columbia. As I mentioned, the Ashlu river project is under

construction today. There are people working there today. The Squamish-Lillooet

regional district has issued the temporary use permits for that project, and the

Squamish First Nation is firmly behind it.

When I spoke to Chief Gibby Jacob just a few days ago, he told me

he believes that is the single biggest economic development project that the

Squamish First Nation is involved in. Yet the NDP opposition, including their

Environment critic, is against that project.

We support clean energy. We support efforts to encourage

conservation, to encourage innovation, and we're going to get it done even if

the NDP opposition votes against it every step of the way.

L. Krog: I must compliment the Minister of Environment

again on giving once more in this House an Oscar-winning performance. Only a

government this arrogant could possibly believe that the public is so stupid to

accept that when you raise fees, it's not a tax increase. In their minds, a tax

increase is only a tax increase if we call it a tax increase, but if we raise

fees, it's not a tax increase.

The minister waxed eloquently about the fee for firewood in

campgrounds as a way of discouraging the creation of greenhouse gases. Well, the

minister may be right, and it's a very valid point. But I guess I have to ask:

what does an MSP premium increase do? Is that to encourage good health in

British Columbia? Does that somehow create a healthier body politic in this

province?

The fact is that this government simply can't handle criticism.

They expect this opposition to stand idly by and let legislation come through

this chamber, slide through like a letter through a postbox, without one word of

comment or criticism. It's a rather arrogant and unbecoming attitude, and we

hear it over and over again in debate in this House.

The fact is that it is entirely appropriate for the opposition to

scrutinize and criticize every single piece of legislation that comes before

this House and to criticize every regulation that does and every act of this gov-

[ Page 5961 ]

ernment. If we didn't do it, we wouldn't be doing our job.

I'm shocked that the Minister of Environment finds it so difficult

to accept that the opposition is here to do something. Thirty-three of us did

not get elected on this side of the House to sit idly by while this government

made it harder and harder for working people to get by day after day in this

province. They didn't elect us to stand idly by while working people paid

increased MSP premiums, while they have to pay fees and licences now for

services that were formerly properly delivered by government without any expense

to them, while they have attacked universal programs across this province, while

they have refused to participate appropriately in the construction of public

housing so needed for the thousands of homeless British Columbians who sleep on

our streets every night.

[1045]

So I say to the hon. member and to the government that this

opposition will continue to do its job as we are rightfully elected to do, and

we hope to do it effectively so that in 2009 we'll be sitting on that side of

the House instead of them.

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

Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill

3, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 3, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call second reading of Bill 6, Public

Inquiry Act.

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

The purpose of the Public Inquiry Act is to replace the existing

Inquiry Act with a modern statute. The existing act has been in place since

1927. In fact,

part 1 of that act came into effect in 1897. Thus, it is time to

modernize that act and to draw upon the principles of the Administrative

Tribunals Act of 2004, which establishes a standard for administrative justice

and clarity.

The new act would provide for the powers and duties necessary for

commissions of inquiry to carry out their functions in a manner that is

independent and effective, and which would protect the rights of those who may

be affected by an inquiry. An important aspect of the new act is that it would

set out the powers and duties under the act as clearly as possible in order to

provide guidance to the subject of the act and to reduce the potential for

uncertainty and vagueness.

A commission of inquiry would be able to control its own process,

its own proceedings and determine what information ought to be considered in the

circumstances. A commission would be able to determine who may participate based

upon a consideration of how a person's interests may be affected by the inquiry

and on the contribution that a person's participation would make to the inquiry.

It would have the power to inspect public premises as well as private premises

with permission.

The new act would provide for appropriate protections for those

who are participants in an inquiry. Participants would be able to participate on

their own behalf or to be represented by counsel. A person against whom a

commission intends to make a finding of misconduct, a finding of fault, must be

given a reasonable notice of any allegations and a reasonable opportunity to be

heard. Witnesses before a commission would have the same protections as

witnesses in a court of law.

The act would require oral hearings to be open to the public,

subject to the commission's determination that protection of a personal or

public interest requires that the evidence may, in appropriate circumstances, be

heard in confidence.

The act would provide for two distinct types of commissions of

inquiry, which may be established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

according to the particular purpose and the objective of the inquiry. There

would be study commissions, and there would be hearing commissions.

Study commissions are designed for the distinctive purpose of

being appropriate vehicles to examine, research and provide advice on

appropriate issues concerning public policy. Study commissions would be able to

retain the services of expert witnesses and expert advisers, hold consultations

and public meetings, and receive oral or written submissions.

[1050]

Hearing commissions, by contrast, would be more investigative in

nature. They are designed to undertake investigations into matters in which

there may be a possibility of wrongdoing or there may be a possibility of fault.

Accordingly, hearing commissions are authorized to inspect, to hold hearings, to

receive submissions and evidence under oath or under affirmation, to make

findings of misconduct, to compel testimony and production of information, and

to apply to a court for orders to enforce those powers to authorize inspection

of private places and find persons in contempt if necessary.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would be able to designate a

commission as one or both types as it deems appropriate for the purposes or the

intent of the inquiry.

This act also incorporates the amendments of which I gave notice

respecting Bill 23 in the last session — that final reports of the commissions

of inquiry will always be released to the Legislative Assembly. The provisions

of the protection of personal privacy and public interest have been clarified by

direct reference to

[ Page 5962 ]

provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I

pause here to note that our province, this legislation, is the only one in

Canada which mandates that the report be made public through the filing in the

Legislative Assembly.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

These provisions should ensure that the release of reports will

always be consistent with the adequate protection of those interests. To further

strengthen openness, it is expressly provided that the provisions in the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act respecting cabinet confidences will

not be a ground on which a portion of the report may be withheld.

In

summary, the Public Inquiry Act would provide the modern

statutory framework necessary in modern times to ensure that commissions of

inquiry are independent, fair as well as effective and efficient. Consequential

amendments will replace references to the existing Inquiry Act with references

to the new act, the Administrative Tribunals Act, or in some circumstances to

modern power authorities specific to and necessary for the affected entity in

the circumstances of the case.

L. Krog: The sweet and moderate tones of the Attorney

General this morning in describing this modest reform hardly do justice to the

Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6. I find it quite astonishing that he would talk about

it, making it a modern statute, as if somehow modernizing must always be good,

as if modernizing suggests by the very term that this is somehow an improvement.

He says that it follows a path, if you will, started by the

changes to administrative tribunals in the province, an area which certainly

required reform. He pointedly refers to it as, I think, alleviating uncertainty

and vagueness — that it will provide for public participation — and talks about

these two types of commissions. Well, when the Attorney General says it will

always be released to the public, as if this was some new-found and profound

change and reform, it is really quite astonishing.

I want to take the members of this House back a bit. We hear day

after day after day in this House about the 1990s. The members in the government

benches go on and wax eloquently about the 1990s as if they were the bad old

days. Well, hon. Speaker, let's go back to the 1890s this morning and talk about

a little fundamental justice in the principles of law.

We are celebrating this year the 100th anniversary of the public

inquiries act in British Columbia — the 100th anniversary of the passage of that

legislation in the wild and dirty rough old days of frontier British Columbia.

When politicians were pocketing money, when gold rushes were being undertaken,

when lawlessness reigned in many parts of this province, the Legislature was

able to pass a public inquiries act.

[1055]

I just want to read a surprising bit of that act into the record

this morning, because the Attorney General may not be familiar with that

particular statute. I make reference in particular to

section 10, which says:

" The commissioners appointed to conduct any inquiry under

this act shall, so soon as conveniently may be after such appointment, proceed

to carry out and complete the inquiry entrusted to them and for such purposes

may from time to time hold such meetings as they deem necessary and shall report

to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council what they find with reference to the

matters comprised within such inquiry."

Then it goes on, in subsection (2) — and this will come as

the greatest surprise to the Attorney General in light of his commitment here

today that this act will require the disclosure of this to the public.

Surprisingly, it says: "Every report" — I repeat, every report —

"which such commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this

act shall" — shall, not may and not after a lengthy review — "be laid before the

Legislative Assembly" — not at some unlimited time period in the future —

"within" — wait for it — "15 days after such report is made if the assembly be

then sitting, or if not, then within 15 days next after the opening of the next

session of the Legislative Assembly."

Isn't that remarkable? A hundred years ago this Legislature, in

its wisdom, had the brains, the intelligence and the foresight to recognize that

the results of a public inquiry should in fact go to the public. Lest any

government wish to sit on the results of a public inquiry that might be damaging

to them, the statute compelled its presentation to the assembly within 15 days

after the report was made if the House was sitting and within 15 days after the

commencement of the sitting if it wasn't sitting.

They were a little tougher in those days.

Section 12 went on to

provide that:

"No person shall be excused from answering any question put

to him by such commissioners on the ground of any privilege or on the ground

that the answer to such question will tend to incriminate such person, provided

always that no statement made by any person in answer to any question put by

such commissioners shall, except in cases of indictment for perjury committed in

such answers, be admissible in evidence in any action, trial, suit or

proceeding, civil or criminal."

That was a pretty tough road. You got called in front of those

inquiries, and you actually had to disclose what you did.

Now we've moved into a more principled era, if you will — an era

in which we respect the rights to not incriminate yourself in public proceedings

of this nature. But I want to emphasize that 100 years ago, what the inquiry

found got out into the public, and it got out Johnny-quick.

Where are we now? Well, we're not in the 1890s. That's for sure.

The Attorney General is going to modernize us. He's submitted a bill to this

Legislature which enables the government to essentially sit on the results of a

public inquiry for as long as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council chooses to do

so.

G. Gentner: It's a brave new world.

L. Krog: My friend from Delta says it's a brave new world.

It is always wonderful to hear reference made to

[ Page 5963 ]

great works of literature. It is indeed a brave new world under the Liberal

government in British Columbia. I know someone is going to yell out 1984

soon, but I just wanted to jump the gun and steal their thunder, if I could, to

prove that I too attended high school in British Columbia.

You know, calling Bill 6 the Public Inquiry Act is really an

example of something that arises out of what I had a discussion with members of

the press gallery about earlier this morning. It must be a slow day. They were

talking about their favourite TV shows when they were children. Many mentioned

Walt Disney. Some talked about The Ed Sullivan Show .

[1100]

I didn't bother mentioning it, but it might be Mr. Dressup .

We're going to dress up this act, when it was previously called and is now the

Inquiry Act, as the Public Inquiry Act, as if somehow the public is going to get

a greater right to the results of the inquiries that taxpayers' dollars pay for.

In fact, it is just the opposite. So here we are playing Mr. Dressup in 2007

when the show isn't even on TV anymore.

If one compares the sections of the existing statute with Bill 6,

which is before the Legislature, some dramatic differences are readily apparent.

I come back to my point about the Attorney General referring to this as a modern

statute, that it's "time to modernize, reduce uncertainty and vagueness."

Anything but.

A document entitled A Public Inquiries Act Issues Paper

published in 2003 by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada…. Those Uniform Law

Conferences, I understand, aren't terribly liked by Conservative governments, or

perhaps Liberal governments who call themselves Liberals but are actually

Conservatives. The key recommendations of that report were very clear. Indeed,

the current chairperson, as I understand it, of the Uniform Law Conference — or

certainly was a while ago — is the distinguished British Columbia public servant

Russell Getz, currently serving as legal counsel in the BCAG's office.

What were the key recommendations of that report? "It seems

fundamental that once established, an inquiry should have sufficient

independence to freely conduct its activities and proceedings and deliver its

report for public release."

Cabinet is going to set some fascinating terms of reference for

public inquiries under this new Public Inquiry Act. Cabinet is going to lay the

road, and the commissioners will not be able to step outside that. The concept

of a free-ranging public inquiry that might actually produce information and

results and recommendations important to the public of British Columbia is going

to be constrained by this statute.

Another key recommendation of that report was: "Once transmitted,

inquiry reports should be tabled in the Legislature within a specified time." My

goodness. There's a recommendation for reform. Here in British Columbia we'd

already done that back in the 1890s. A hundred years ago this Legislature, as I

said earlier, said very clearly that those reports would go to the Legislature,

not within a month or six months or a year or towards the end of a governing

term or in perpetuity somewhere down the road, but within 15 days.

I quote again another key recommendation: "A commission of inquiry

should have the discretion to determine who may participate in the inquiry and

the manner of participation."

Now, the Attorney General suggests that by implication, the

existing statute allows a little too much freedom, a little too much leeway for

commissions of inquiry. Surely, if there is a public inquiry into the conduct of

the government, one would want that commission of inquiry to have as much

discretion and leeway as is possible to determine all of the facts to get to the

bottom of the matter to determine the truth and to release it to the public.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission, back in 1992, in its document

entitled Report on Public Inquiries , said in its two key points that the

independence of public inquiries from the executive and the Legislature should

be recognized and protected. Again, I repeat — that the independence of public

inquiries from the executive and the Legislature should be recognized and

protected.

[1105]

Cabinet is going to set the terms of reference. Cabinet is going

to get the document. Then cabinet gets to sever it. I just can't figure out for

the life of me how that fits in with a key recommendation of the Ontario Law

Reform Commission on the issue of public inquiries.

Another key recommendation is that reports of public inquiries

should be tabled in the Legislature or before a relevant legislative committee.

The Attorney General assures us that the new statute does exactly that. When I

get more into the body of this and my further remarks, I'm going to suggest

quite politely to the Attorney General that this particular piece of legislation

is so utterly retrograde, so utterly backward that the very recommendations of

law reform commissions in this country will in fact be reversed — will not be

applied. We will end up with a situation in this province where the results of

public inquiries will be buried.

I would remind this Legislature that it was this government which

surprisingly closed down a commission of inquiry into a matter of great public

importance in this province and of great public interest, and we will never find

out why that happened.

If you compare the existing statutes, there are differences that

are quite dramatic.

Section 1 of the existing Inquiry Act says:

"The minister presiding over any ministry of the public

service…may…under authority…of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, appoint one

or more commissioners to inquire into and to report on (

a) the state and

management of the business, or any part of the business, of that ministry, or of

any branch or institution of the executive government of British Columbia named

in the order, whether inside or outside that ministry, and (

b) the conduct of

any person in the service of that ministry or of the branch or institution

named, so far as it relates to the person's official duties."

I think there is a growing hunger in this province to have

a public inquiry into the issue of the sale of British Columbia Rail.

Section 8

of the existing statute says:

[ Page 5964 ]

"Whenever the Lieutenant Governor in Council thinks it

expedient, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by commission titled in the

matter of this Act, and issued under the Great Seal, appoint commissioners to

inquire into the following: (

a) any matter relating to the election of any

member or former member of the Legislative Assembly; (

b) any matter connected

with the good government of British Columbia, or the conduct of any part of the

public business of it, including all matters municipal, or the administration of

justice in British Columbia; (

c) payments or contributions for campaign or other

political purposes, or for the purpose of obtaining legislation, or obtaining

influence and support for franchises, charters, or any other rights or

privileges" — sounds like B.C. Rail to me — "from the Legislature or the

government by any person or corporation or by any of the promoters, directors or

contractors of that corporation, or by any other person in any way connected

with, representing or acting for or on behalf of that corporation or any of the

promoters, directors or contractors."

Now, what does Bill 6 have to say? Bill 6 simply says, in

section 2: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, establish a

commission to inquire into and report on a matter that the Lieutenant Governor

in Council considers to be of public interest." That's a pretty broad statement.

I'm not sure what it means. I'm not sure the Attorney General would understand

necessarily what it means. I don't mean that in a critical sense — that the

Attorney General isn't a learned person of the law, a former judge in the

highest court of this province.

[1110]

Subsection (2) goes on to say: "In an order made under subsection

(1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council must do the following: (

a) define the

purposes of the commission; (

b) set the terms of reference of the inquiry." So

instead of the language now that would, once a commission got rolling, enable it

to inquire into all of the matters enumerated in sections 1 and 8 of the act, we

are now going to give that power by Bill 6 to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

For those of you listening at home who don't understand what that

means, that is cabinet. That is the government of British Columbia. That is not

the Legislative Assembly. That is cabinet — the people who, in most respects,

would arguably be the persons most affected by the results of public inquiries

into the conduct of government, ministers or employees.

I would submit that in fact Bill 6 allows a narrowing of the focus

of public inquiries, and it is aimed directly at destroying the independence of

the public inquiry process that has existed in this province for 100 years. It

is a shocking step backwards.

Section 15 allows this.

Section 15(1) says:

"A commission may, by order, prohibit or restrict a person

or a class of persons, or the public, from attending all or part of a meeting or

hearing, or from accessing all or part of any information provided to or held by

the commission, (

a) if the government asserts privilege or immunity over the

information under

section 29… (

b) for any reason for which information could or

must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1 [privacy rights, business interests and public interest] of the

Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or (

c) if the commission has

reason to believe that the order is necessary for the effective and efficient

fulfillment of the commission's terms of reference."

I would argue that what comes into this House under the

guise of modernization and reform, in fact will now do something that is not

provided for in the legislation which has existed in this province since 1897.

It will allow, in essence, for a star chamber.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

It gives the commissioner power to prohibit a person or class of

persons or the public. The public is us, hon. Speaker. It is every British

Columbian who would wish to participate in, attend or hear what was going on in

the conduct of a commission of public inquiry which the taxpayers of British

Columbia pay for.

It is a shocking change from what exists now under British

Columbia law. It is a gross restriction on the public's right to know. One would

have to question why we are bringing in a statute that is attempting to

modernize, supposedly, the law or the state of the law around public inquiries

when it now gives a commissioner the powers to restrict public participation in

a way that has never existed before.

Now, there have been some significant public inquiries in Canada,

generally in the last few years, which have expended a great deal of taxpayers'

money. One can think of the Krever inquiry. One can think of other inquiries —

well, around that terrible bit of Liberal shenanigans in the federal government

and all of those terrible things when taxpayers' dollars were squandered in all

sorts of schemes.

Those commissions went on for a very long time and they cost a

great deal of money. Sometimes, during the course of those proceedings, court

proceedings were started that attempted to stop the commission or restrict

information or deal with all sorts of fine legal points that might affect the

rights of individuals involved in those commissions. From a general public

perspective, I can understand why some people would say: "You know, we've got to

put a stop to that. We really don't want people running off to courts and

pursuing their rights. It's costly."

[1115]

Yes, hon. Speaker, it is costly. The pursuit of truth and justice

is a costly exercise. It always has been, and I suspect it always will be. But

it is the hallmark of a free, open and democratic society.

What does

section 19 of the act say? It says in

section 19(1): "A

commission has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all

matters and questions of fact and law arising or required to be determined under

this Act and to make any order it is permitted to make." Not unreasonable. The

commission wants to set up, in accordance with practice, how it conducts itself.

But then 19(2) goes on to say — and this is a dramatic change: "An

order of a commission under this Act or its terms of reference on a matter in

respect of which the commission has exclusive jurisdiction is final

[ Page 5965 ]

and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court."

This is a blatant restriction of the rights of British Columbia's

citizens. This is a dramatic change from what is the existing law now. I would

suggest that it is anything but progressive. It has to do with a penny-pinching

attitude about the price of justice more than it has to do with the pursuit of

justice.

Lest the Attorney General think I'm critical of every

section of

the bill, there is something to be said for having the two types of commissions,

the study and the hearing commissions. It may provide the government with — how

shall I say? — a Chev instead of a Cadillac when it comes to determining some

issue, and that may be just fine. That may, in fact, represent some progress.

But it is the other sections of this act that are extremely

troubling.

Section 27 requires and says in 27(1): "If required by the

commission's terms of reference, a commission must make an interim report to the

minister at the times and on the matters stated in the terms of reference."

It seems kind of innocuous. The commissioner, partway through, has

got to make a report. It's kind of like taking your term paper to the prof and

getting him to look it over before you hand it in for final grading. On the face

of it, it doesn't appear very troubling, except that you have to read the

language and listen very carefully to what the language says. The devil, as they

say, is always in the details.

"If required by the commission's terms of reference, a commission

must make an interim report…." So cabinet decides there's going to be a

commission into a particularly nasty bit of politics, if you will. The sale of

B.C. Rail could be an example. Anything that might embarrass the government in

terms of its results.

What this statute says is that by the very terms of reference for

the commission — which are set out by the very government, some part of which

may be under investigation under the inquiry…. What it means is that the

commission must report to cabinet. So we get a little sense of where the

commission is going. Cabinet has an opportunity to see firsthand where it's in

trouble. Cabinet has an opportunity to consider its position.

With great respect to cabinets and governments, governments are

fairly leaky ships. I have no confidence whatsoever that the information which

might have an impact on the behaviour or the keeping of records or the

completion of a proper public inquiry might not, in fact, slip out to

individuals or governments or ministers or anyone who might be impacted by the

commission's good work.

[1120]

This is again a dramatic change from the existing statute. This is

the heads-up. This is one member of the gang riding into town and saying: "Boys,

the sheriff is on his way. We better skedaddle out of here." That's exactly what

this

section does.

Indeed, subsection (2) says that a commissioner "may make an

interim report to the minister on any matter relevant to the commission's terms

of reference at any time before the commission makes its final report." That's

almost like the soother after subsection (1). In other words, we're making it

sound like it's a good thing. You know, the commissioner might want to make a

report, so let's give him, her or them that specific power. But in fact, the

terms of reference that require an interim report to the minister, I submit,

create a possibility of mischief that has not existed in the previous statutes

or versions of this act.

Now, the Attorney General talked about the fact that results of

commissions will have to be given to the Legislature. I've talked a fair bit

about that this morning, and I'm going to continue to say a few words because

this is such an almost repulsive aspect of this bill. Under the guise of

modernization, under the guise of reform, the government is saying through Bill

6 that the public interest is going to be protected because the report must be

given to and filed with the Legislative Assembly.

Section 28 says: "A commission must make its final report to the

minister in writing, setting out…any findings of fact made by the commission

that are relevant to the commission's terms of reference, and the reasons for

those findings, and…if required by the commission's terms of reference, any

recommendations of the commission."

Subsection (2) says, quite appropriately, that the minister must

submit the report to the Executive Council at its next meeting. So cabinet gets

to look at it. We'll all get a heads-up and see how good or bad the report is.

Then a new power, sub (3): "On receiving the report…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

L. Krog: Yes, I am.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Continue, please.

L. Krog: "On receiving the report, the Executive Council

may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for

which information could" — not will, could — "or must be withheld by a public

body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1 [privacy rights, business

interests and public interest] of the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act ."

We on this side of the House are very proud of that statute. We

brought it in when we were government. It was probably the most progressive

piece of legislation of its time anywhere in the world around the freedom of

information and protection of privacy. Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 run some

three-and-a-half full pages of, essentially, various exceptions.

I commend members of this chamber to actually take a look at some

of those sections. There are a lot of escape clauses. I'd suggest we might want

to consider tightening up this act a bit, because it gives a fairly broad

discretion to the head of a public body to refuse to disclose information to an

applicant if the disclosure could be reasonably expected to…. And it has all

kinds of exceptions, some of which seem quite sensible and others of which may

seem, to the average British Columbian, a bit obscure.

[ Page 5966 ]

But we are now, by Bill 6, giving the power not to some

professional public servant, the head of a public body. We are giving it to the

politicians. We are giving it to cabinet, the executive council.

[1125]

So we can follow this process. The commission makes its report to

the minister. The minister submits it to the executive council at its next

meeting. Oh, and let me guess, hon. Speaker. I'm just going to guess that won't

be one of those funny open cabinet meetings that this government always talks

about. I don't think the public will be watching that one on the noon news hour.

On receiving that report, the executive council in its political

wisdom and judgment — and that's what you elect politicians for — is going to

decide what parts of the report will be withheld. How one can possibly describe

this as reform is almost beyond my comprehension.

It then goes on to say in subsection (4) — and these words are the

very heart of why this legislation should be withdrawn from this Legislature:

"Following review of the report, the Executive Council must direct the minister

to lay the report, except any portion directed to be withheld under subsection

(3), before the Legislative Assembly."

After the minister has had a look at it and cabinet has chopped it

up and taken out the nasty bits, cabinet gets to review it. Then it directs the

minister that he must lay the report before the Legislative Assembly.

Surprisingly — and let's go back to the wording that I referred to

earlier of the initial Inquiry Act of 1897 — it said that every report which

such commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this act

shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days next after such

report is made if the assembly be then sitting or, if not, then within 15 days

next after the opening of the next session of the Legislative Assembly. That's

what this Legislature decided in its wisdom in 1897.

The Inquiry Act as it exists now says: "A report made to the

Lieutenant Governor in Council under this Part must be laid before the

Legislative Assembly within 15 days after the report is made, if the Legislative

Assembly is then sitting, or if not, then within 15 days after the opening of

the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

I heard not one word from the Attorney General this morning that

provided one ounce of justification, not one ounce of good reason or commonsense

justification for why this bill would change that 100-year-old provision that

guaranteed that the public and the taxpayers of this province, who paid for the

inquiry, would be able to get it. I haven't heard one justification today for

why that should be changed.

Subsection (5) says:

"On receiving direction under subsection (4), the minister

must (

a) remove any portions to be withheld, (

b) in the report, identify any

withheld portions and," — this is wonderful language — "to the extent possible,

summarize them, and (

c) either (

i) if the Legislative Assembly is in session or

will be within ten days of receiving the direction, promptly lay the report

before the Legislative Assembly or (ii) in any other case, promptly file the

report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly."

This is the same old wolf from last fall in different

clothing. We have a slightly different sheepskin on it this time. Under the

guise of suggesting that we're now reducing the 15-day period to ten days, this

government is telling us it's a reform. In fact, we know full well it is

anything but a reform, because the ten-day period is not a ten-day period. The

ten-day period plus the time that cabinet wishes to spend reviewing the

legislation…. There is no — I repeat: no — time limit whatsoever on that review

process.

[1130]

In theory, the cabinet of this province, the government of British

Columbia, can sit on a damning report until after the next election, should it

be so lucky to get re-elected. That's what this legislation means. This is about

secrecy. This is not about transparency. This is not about modernization. This

is about secrecy. This is shameful legislation, and I am shocked and astonished

that the Attorney General would talk about it as being somehow modern.

This government through the chief minister of this province, the

Premier himself, always talks about, and has talked on so many occasions about,

transparent, accountable government. In a letter of July 22, 1998, to the B.C.

Freedom of Information Association he said: "Open government is the hallmark of

free and democratic societies." There is not one member of this House who would

disagree with that statement — not one member. And if they do, they don't

deserve to be re-elected to sit in this privileged place.

He said further: "Access to government information helps us, the

official opposition" — as he then was — "and others to hold the government to

account, and accountability enhances democracy." Now, I'm still having a little

trouble understanding how allowing cabinet to withhold the results of a public

inquiry in perpetuity works with that kind of a bold — I say honest — statement

from the Premier of this province when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

"The fundamental principle must be this: government information

belongs to the people, not to government." Gosh, I wish I'd created those words

myself. They are wonderful words. They go to the heart of everything that is

important that takes place in this chamber.

"This means, among other things, that all citizens must have

timely, effective and affordable access to the documents which governments make

and keep. Governments should facilitate access, not obstruct it." Well, if

giving cabinet the right to examine this in perpetuity isn't obstructive, I

don't know what is.

In the famous New Era document of 2001, these words: "It's

time for a new era of accountability. Our plan will deliver transparent,

accountable government. B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top

to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in

Canada." Again, I just can't figure out how Bill 6 is going to assist in the

creation of

[ Page 5967 ]

this brave new world of open and accountable government. I just can't quite

put it together.

I'm sure that at some point the hon. members opposite are going to

stand up and explain to me, because I'm just a simple country lawyer, how that

works — how this legislation represents the attainment and achievement of the

very goal set out by this government that it pledged to the people of British

Columbia in 2001, when it won the election and the privilege and right to sit on

that side of the House. I look forward to that opportunity.

On victory night 2001, when my party was punished — punished in a

way that no party has been punished in decades in this province, politically….

[Applause.]

Wait for it, hon. Members. Wait for it.

The Premier of this province, ready to be sworn in, said: "We will

bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada." [Applause.]

Wait for it, Members. Wait for it.

"I know some people will say we'll soon forget about that, but I

promise we won't."

[1135]

My, oh my, oh my. And here we are on the 100th anniversary of the

public inquiries act, giving cabinet authority that it hasn't had in a hundred

years of free and open democratic government in the province of British

Columbia.

He said in his swearing-in speech in 2001: "This cabinet is

founded on two fundamental principles: political accountability and improved

public access."

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just one moment.

Can I remind the member for Cariboo South that no comment should

be made unless you're in your assigned seat.

L. Krog: How can one possibly argue that improved public

access occurs when what was formerly required by law to be delivered within 15

days to the Legislature can now, and I emphasize again, be delivered to this

Legislature after the next election even?

In the estimates in 2001, the Premier said: "We think openness

beats hiddenness every time, and we want to be sure that people can see what's

taking place." How the Attorney General can stand in this House and suggest that

this bill is progress, is modernization, is almost insulting to the intelligence

of members on this side of the House and the people of British Columbia who

elected each and every one of us to represent them in this hallowed place.

This government through this statute is going to attempt to

diminish, and I would argue almost destroy, a process that has existed for a

hundred years in this province — the right of the public to have results of

public inquiries conducted by independent commissioners. What this bill does is

create terms of reference that will give the government a break, because the

government's going to determine the terms of reference. It gives them a heads-up

part way through the process, because the commissioner, if the terms of

reference require it, will have to deliver an interim report to the government.

Then, when the final report is delivered, cabinet will get to

review it. Cabinet will get to sever it, and then cabinet can sit on it until

the cows come home. That is why this bill should be withdrawn. It's not just in

humour that there is a motion standing in the order paper in my name asking that

the name of this statute be changed to the secret inquiry act, because that is

exactly what this government is attempting to do with Bill 6.

It is attempting to turn into a secret process a process which the

public of British Columbia has had confidence in for decades. It is a process

that has enabled unscrupulous individuals to be exposed, has enabled

unscrupulous practices to be exposed, has enabled reform to take place as a

result of those public inquiries, has enabled British Columbians to have a sense

of trust in their government and, most importantly, some sense of trust in the

democratic process.

An important tool that has enabled British Columbians to discovery

the truth about their government and about its conduct is now being smashed in

this chamber. It is being destroyed, and I say to the Attorney General: if this

government has any interest in reversing the declining trust of the citizens of

this province in government and in politics — which I still regard as the most

honourable of professions….

[1140]

If this government has any interest in that, then this government

should go back and review the words of the leader of the Liberal Party, the now

Premier of British Columbia when he was Leader of the Opposition on this side of

the House and when he was becoming Premier. They should go back and review those

words, go back into their caucus and go back into their cabinet chamber and look

over those promises and commitments that were made to the people to induce them

to vote and support the election of a Liberal majority in this place.

They should go back and look through those and then look at Bill 6

and come back into this House and justify, if they can, why this government

should introduce this bill and call it reform in this House. You can clap now.

If they can come back with straight faces and pure hearts and tell

this opposition and the people of British Columbia that this is reform and

believe it and justify it, well, hon. Speaker, I will stand up in this House,

and I will apologize for my unkind remarks about the government today. I will

sincerely do so.

But as sure as the grass will continue to grow, as the prophet

Elijah says, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, I guarantee I will not

have to stand in this place and apologize to the government or the members of

the cabinet or the members of the government benches about anything I've said

here today, because you don't have to have gone very far in grade school to read

Bill 6 and not figure out pretty quickly for yourself exactly what it is. It is

not progress. It is false to call

[ Page 5968 ]

it a Public Inquiry Act. It is anything but. It is not reform; it is a

retrograde step.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, I ask but one thing of this Attorney General, who I

believe to be a man of great character, credit, honesty and integrity: withdraw

this bill. Say you're sorry. Say to the people of British Columbia that this

government is not going to go down the path that it promised in so many ways and

in so many terms never to do. It promised open and accountable government. This

is not open and accountable government. This is anything but.

I ask them to withdraw the bill. Do the right thing. They still

have that opportunity. They did it last session. They did the right thing then.

They can still do the right thing now. It's too late. Withdraw the bill.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak against Bill 6, Public

Inquiry Act. My concern, in particular, is with one part of the act. It's

section 28. The B.C. Liberals and the Premier and the member that preceded me

laid out many of the comments that the Premier made and many things that the

B.C. Liberals promised when they came to government.

Amongst the most consistent promise was to create the most open

and accountable government in Canada. These things are important. Openness and

accountability are things that we shouldn't take for granted. I think there are

many members that have lived in other countries in the world. I've lived for six

years in Africa. These are things that should not be taken for granted. I think

openness and accountability are things that can incrementally, in small ways,

drift away.

This is an institution that evolved. It continues to evolve, and

we need to make sure that it evolves in a way that is going to work not only in

the short term and not only for the interests of this government, but that it is

going to work over a long period of time.

Now,

section 28 is the area that I have the most difficulty with,

and I'll just explain exactly why. There has been, in my view, a steady erosion

of the tools that the public has to hold this government to account. This

legislation, because of

section 28, is a piece of legislation that the people of

the province should pay attention to and that they should be concerned about.

In our parliamentary system governments come and go. The legacy

they leave is the standard that they choose to set when they're in power. This

bill is another step that this Premier has taken in undermining the tools to

hold the government to account.

[1145]

The bill was essentially introduced for the first time last year.

It was dropped when the bill did not pass last spring and when we had the fall

session cancelled. It was strongly opposed by the NDP at the time, and very

credibly done by the critic. It was also opposed by the B.C. Freedom of

Information and Privacy Association. It was opposed by the B.C. Civil Liberties

Association and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and it was opposed for very

good reasons.

The bill has had some changes, but

section 28 remains as an

unacceptable part of any bill. For that reason alone, Bill 6 should be defeated.

It is an erosion of the public's ability to hold the government accountable, and

that is never a direction that we should be moving in. It's certainly the reason

that I am going to vote against this bill.

In our parliamentary system the need for close scrutiny has been

recognized. We all publicly make statements about that importance. It is clearly

in the public interest to hold the government to account.

Obviously, with the controversial sale of B.C. Rail and the

ongoing mismanagement of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project,

there are possibly going to be public inquiries that this government will want

to bury, facts that they do not want to come forward.

Section 28 changes fundamentally the way a report from a public

inquiry is presented. At present it comes to the Legislature, with the law as it

exists now, within a set and limited period of time. With that it is immediately

open for the opposition to use, for the media and for the wider public. That can

be something the government — any government, perhaps — is uncomfortable with,

but it is certainly in the public interest that that be the case.

If you look at

section 28(4), it does two things that British

Columbians should find troubling. Rather than being presented to the Legislature

— as has been the case since, I believe the critic said, 1897 — instead

section

28(4) sends it to cabinet. In there, there's just one word, really — "review."

"Following review of the report." It gives the opportunity for the cabinet to

review the report.

The problem with that is that the review is of an indeterminate

time. As my colleague said, that can be for as long as cabinet wants to review

it, which means a report that would previously come at a fixed and limited

period of time before the public will now sit as long as cabinet wants it to be

kept from the public. That is a fundamental change, and I cannot imagine that

anyone could argue that as an improvement.

Now, there's an arrogance in any government — I would argue this

one in particular — the feeling that they will be in positions of power forever,

but it will not be the case. They, too, will fall, and what they will leave

behind is a set pattern of how things are done. Is this the legacy the

government members want to leave — put power in place for a cabinet to sit on

reports and deny the public access to them? I would argue that nobody who really

believes in the democratic process would say that's acceptable.

The question is: in the short term will this government use every

trick possible to keep things hidden? In my short time here I would say that

clearly there's a pattern that that is the case. There's a quote here from

Vaughn Palmer: "The government exploits every technicality in the information

law to minimize embarrassment." From my view, I see every tool that the

government has to keep embarrassing information locked away from us used, and I

think others who watch would see the same thing.

[ Page 5969 ]

In my time here I'll just highlight a few things that I've seen.

The manipulation of the appointment of the Auditor General: playing with rules

to do something that breaks precedence and that British Columbians, if they

followed it closely, would find unacceptable. The arbitrary cancelling of the

fall sitting was something people didn't like. They found that it interfered

with the accountability that they wanted the government to be held to.

Unilateral changes, most recently in the hours that the House sits. That breaks

precedent. It sets a new lower standard for how things are done in the House.

All of these should concern everyone who sits in the House.

[1150]

We see the changing of the reporting procedures, and we know that

they have a fundamental impact. For the Attorney General, I'll just use an

example that he would remember. It's an example I use when I go to classes to

speak. What I'm talking about is the need to do things in it a certain way and

the importance of certain principles that, when you come to the House, it takes

a while to recognize.

I think that the Attorney General shared an experience with me. We

learned at the same time, he in a more direct way…. I bring the Attorney General

back to September 21, 2005. Now, we all know that the B.C. Liberal government in

its first term broke its commitment to protect children. One of those things was

to get rid of the children's commissioner. The children's commissioner reported

directly to the Legislature. She was replaced by another position, and that

position essentially reported to cabinet, not unlike what we're doing here.

In my first week here I remember questions from the critic for

Children and Families to the Attorney General basically asking that this

government put back in place a children's commissioner that would report to the

Legislature. The Attorney General, perhaps unclear about how this place worked,

said that fundamentally there was no difference in the two positions.

The children's commissioner reported to the Legislature. What's

the difference with somebody who reports to cabinet? He was quite correctly

called to task, not only by the opposition, but I remember when he went outside

and the media scrummed him. Vaughn Palmer and others immediately jumped on the

point that, no, there is a fundamental difference.

How I use that in class is that I say: "Here is someone who is

eminent in all ways, who comes with tremendous intelligence and grace, but it

takes a period of time before you fully understand how this place works."

Now he learned the lesson in a much more public and difficult way

about the difference between reporting to the Legislature and to cabinet. I

learned it through him that, yeah, there's a difference there. It's an important

difference. If it comes to the Legislature, it is public. It is public

knowledge. If it stays in cabinet, it remains secret, because cabinet meetings

are secret, and there is a strong political interest in keeping it secret if

they are able to.

This section, with the innocuous word to "review" with an

indeterminate time, means that it stays secret until it is politically opportune

to release it. That is the first problem, and people in British Columbia should

be deeply concerned about that. It is not the direction ordinary British

Columbians want to go.

That's problem number one. Problem number two comes with the

ability to vet — the ability to take pieces out. Instead of the way that it

currently is, where the full report would be put in front of the public, we now

have a system where the government can remove pieces. They do not have to put

the full report in front of the public. I cannot understand how anyone here can

explain how that is in the public interest.

The Attorney General, I have no doubts, will explain that the

scope for the removal of information is really narrow, but I don't see it that

way. It talks about a term like "public interest." Well, that to me is a very

nebulous and wide term that is subjective, open to the expedient interests of

government. They can define as openly as possible what is in the public

interest. Therefore, they can sit on a report — part one. Secondly, when they

put it in front of us, they can have cleaned off all of the things that are

potentially embarrassing.

Do they do that? Well, yeah, they do it all the time. We put an

FOI for the booklet from the Minister of Small Business and Revenue. They get a

binder for estimates that gives them advice on answers to questions, and we are

allowed to use the Freedom of Information Act to get that information. The

government has the right to go through and lift out certain things. It's

supposed to be very narrow what they can lift out. We get a binder that's empty

— a binder that even removes the great goals. That's secret too.

[1155]

So is the government going to do it? Yeah. They're going to use

every trick that they have at their disposal to hide things. I know that happens

with this government. If I was absolutely fair, I would say that happens with

every government. You set up the tools for people to hide things, and they will.

The problem with this legislation is that it takes the democratic

institution and in a small, incremental way makes it less open, less democratic.

That is expedient for government. You're in government now, so members think:

"Well, that's fine." But in the long term, you have left this institution

slightly, slightly less than when you came here. It's not what you came here to

do.

This is a bad piece of legislation. It is a bad piece of

legislation in my view because of

section 28. I think that you will not be able

to stand up and defend that section. You do have the numbers to sneak it

through, but this is something that all who look at it and really study it

should oppose.

If that section's in there with Bill 6, I will vote against it. I

urge all others members to do the same thing. What the critic said…. Of the

points that he listed, the one that hit strongest was that

section 28 should be

removed. It has to be removed. I will vote against it, and I would encourage all

other members to join with me in demanding that that change.

C. Wyse: Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we

adjourn debate, and I reserve the right to pick up my point later.

[ Page 5970 ]

C. Wyse moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned till 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND LANDS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $114,062,000 (continued).

Hon. P. Bell: Maybe I'll just open by saying we concluded a

line of questioning yesterday that referred to the establishment of higher-level

plans being legally required objectives under the new Forest and Range Practices

Act. I gave it a 98-percent level of certainty that we were correct about that.

I can now confirm to the members opposite that I have a 100-percent level of

certainty and that high-level plans were in fact grandfathered under the Forest

and Range Practices Act.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister, although I think the

minister is being a little presumptive that we concluded the line of questioning

yesterday, because we just got started.

I would like to just give the minister notice of what this morning

may look like. I do need to go back. I took the minister's advice and made a

phone call yesterday around invasive plants, so I need to go back and canvass

the minister around what my findings were on that. Back to the higher-level

plans. Then some discussion around private managed forest land and the

ministry's association with the activities on private managed forest land. And

climate change. That's our intention under the Lands regime today. Then

individual members will have pieces of that as we go through the day.

Back to invasive plants. As I indicated yesterday, one aspect of

the Chutter panel report from 2005 was the statement that the provincial

government has not met its legal obligation under the Weed Control Act.

The minister did a product placement ad yesterday for the CRD, so

I called the CRD. Their version of reality is different from the minister's

version. They don't believe that everything is right with respect to invasive

plants. They agree more with my contention that we have serious issues on

secondary and tertiary roads. They believe Highway 97 is okay. We have inventory

and control mechanisms in place — but not on those other highways, as I had

stated yesterday.

They also inform me that the funding is not sufficient and that

they have made repeated requests to government for additional funding. This

year, in fact, they've been told they need to take a $35,000 decrease in funding

through the Ministry of Transportation, in this case, where they're asking for a

$200,000 lift in funding to particularly address secondary and tertiary roads.

[1010]

My question to the minister again is this: who has that

overarching responsibility? If we get this disagreement on the ground where the

CRD is saying, "If we're going to do this, we need $200,000 more," and the

Ministry of Transportation is saying, "You've got to do it with $35,000 less,"

who is actually making sure that the government is in compliance with the Weed

Control Act and that invasive plants are being treated in a due-diligence

fashion?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to clarify the member's comments

earlier, when I was referring the member to the phone number, name and so on for

the Cariboo regional district, the question was: who would I call if I had a

challenge with weeds in my area on a secondary or tertiary highway? I referred

the member to the weed committee for the region, which is chaired and managed

through the Cariboo regional district. That was the response and why I gave him

that response.

In terms of the management of invasives, again, the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands chairs the Interagency Management Committee that manages

weeds throughout the province. The Ministry of Transportation has responsibility

for corridors. The Ministry of Environment has responsibility for land inside

parks. Those would be two examples of areas where other ministries have

responsibility for specific management of lands. However, the Weed Control Act,

which is the act that regulates all of these areas, is held under my ministry,

the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. We work with the other ministries in

order to ensure that they accomplish their responsibilities and meet the needs

of the individual communities in the regions.

B. Simpson: In this case, what I'm trying to clarify…. When

we first canvassed this back in the fall of 2005, I think the minister, with a

bit of a blush on his face, admitted that he was the minister responsible for

[ Page 5971 ]

the Weed Control Act. So I understand that part of it. In the case where a

regional district…. And they are not alone. We're hearing from many other areas

of the province that we are not on top of invasive plants at all, that we don't

have a proper inventory for it — not only on the corridors but on Crown lands in

particular — and that we don't have a sufficiently robust eradication strategy.

[1015]

Again, my contention is that we are still not in compliance with

the Weed Control Act. When the CRD cannot get a response from the Ministry of

Transportation, or gets a response from the Ministry of Transportation that MOT

wants them to cut by $35,000 and they are asking for a lift of $200,000, who

mediates that? Is there an opportunity for the Cariboo regional district to come

to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and say this isn't right? Because the

minister has the fiduciary responsibility for the act, can that be mediated

through the minister's office?

Hon. P. Bell: I think it would be a two-step process for

someone like the Cariboo regional district, if they had a specific concern. My

recommendation would be to first bring it up with the regional Interagency

Management Committee, which we chair as the integrated land management bureau.

There would be an Interagency Management Committee based out of

Williams Lake, so they would be able to deal directly at that level initially.

If they felt they were unable to resolve their concerns at that level, they

would elevate it to the interministry management committee, which would be based

out of Victoria and would be led by one of the deputies, associate deputies or

assistant deputies.

I should introduce Larry Pedersen. I've already introduced,

yesterday, my deputy minister and my associate deputy minister responsible for

the integrated land management bureau, Mike Lambert, as well.

Finally, if I can add — perhaps understanding another question

that may arise — that I mentioned yesterday that a significant amount of money

last year was spent building the appropriate data sets to understand what is

happening with weeds on the provincial land base. That information will be

available later on this year and then be able to be updated on a regular basis,

so we will be able to monitor at a provincial level what sort of activity is

happening on the land base with regard to weeds, whether the weed issue is

getting worse or better and at what level.

B. Simpson: I really like it when ministers put their ESP

into gear and answer questions in advance of my asking them, because it makes me

seem a lot smarter — that I actually have advance questions.

With respect to what the minister has just said…. I guess what I

struggle with, with that answer, is that this is a government that prides itself

on reducing regulation and streamlining processes and everything else. I'm

bringing forward a concern from one area of the province that says that they are

already in a dispute with a line agency. The line agency wants them to reduce a

program by $35,000. The regional district is saying: "No, we need an extra

$200,000." I'm raising it with the minister just now. Would the minister

undertake to examine that issue rather than having the CRD go through the ILMB,

then go through the interagency and then finally run it up?

This is an issue that has been going on for some time. There have

been resolutions passed. There has been correspondence back and forth, and it's

not being resolved. I don't necessarily like to put people on the spot, but in

this case, I would like to, because they need it addressed. We need the weeds

controlled out in the Cariboo region and other regions of the province.

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, we'd be happy to do that. We'll

follow up in the next week or so with the Cariboo regional district to try and

get a good grasp of where they stand.

[1020]

This government does pride itself as well, though, on trying to

move decision-making processes closer to where they are impacted on the ground.

That's why we have established the Interagency Management Committee, chaired by

the local executive member or director of the integrated land management bureau.

The notion of being able to interact at a local level is far more

effective and produces timely results than if an issue is forced up to Victoria

and then back down to the front line at the same time. So we think that by

perforating the ministries and creating this Interagency Management Committee

where the managers meet on a regular basis and talk about the challenges and the

crossing jurisdictional issues they are faced with, we'll be able to provide a

better level of service at a constituency level.

That's largely what the integrated land management bureau is all

about. It's trying to bring together all of the various groups that have

responsibility for some form of land use or land management in the province in

one room and manage it in an effective way for constituents, understanding that

the impacts of mining, energy, agriculture, tourism, forestry — all of the

various land uses — impact the way we have to manage the land base.

The notion of the Interagency Management Committee is very

effective, and we encourage groups to work at a local level first, where they

can, because we think we can be far more reactive in dealing with the issues.

But if a community doesn't feel like they're getting results, we certainly are

happy to deal with it.

I have not heard the member say that there was contact made with

the integrated land management bureau to try to funnel it into the committee.

What I think I heard was that the Cariboo regional district had been working

specifically with the Ministry of Transportation. If that's the case, I'd

encourage the member to consider canvassing that with the Minister of

Transportation, because he would have a far better understanding of his specific

budget accountabilities.

B. Simpson: I will follow up with the Cariboo regional

district about approaching the local ILMB —

[ Page 5972 ]

that due process as the minister has outlined it. I will canvass this with

the Minister of Transportation in particular. Mostly, again, what I'm trying to

understand is: who has got that overarching responsibility?

One of the difficulties with a dispersed approach…. While it may

help facilitate decision-making, sometimes you lose the big picture because

you're just getting these one-offs, or a resolution, and you don't roll it up.

The issue here on invasive plants for the province is the big-picture issue.

Let me move into another area. We canvassed yesterday the issue of

CN and the transfer from B.C. Rail to CN, and a lot of issues that have been

raised around concern for that. I didn't get a chance to canvass fences

yesterday, so I want to do that now and then come back to invasive plants.

What is the status of that? I know the minister has had people

write to him and ask him explicitly who has that responsibility now. We've

certainly been lobbied very hard in our area around it. Nobody seems to know who

is responsible for fencing along the rights-of-way and who is responsible for

the cow movements and all that. So if the minister could, on the record, clarify

his thinking on that, it would be helpful.

Hon. P. Bell: This was an issue that there was a tremendous

amount of activity on — about a year ago, I think. I don't kind of remember

exactly the time frame under which conversations went back and forth. I

communicated personally, direct, with the Minister of Transportation on this

issue, and there was a significant amount of communication back and forth at a

staff level.

[1025]

I am going to enter a somewhat dangerous area here, because I

don't have responsibility for this specific area. I am simply going to try to

reiterate my recollection of the discussion and the outcomes of the discussion.

But I certainly would encourage the member to canvass this with the Minister of

Transportation as well, because he will be able to more fully answer the

questions.

My recollection of the issue is that B.C. Rail used to, on a

voluntary basis, provide for fencing on the rail line to ranchers and farmers.

When the rail line was leased by CN, there was some confusion about that. CN's

policy was somewhat different than B.C. Rail's policy had been in the past. I

understand that they landed on a place eventually where they would provide

fencing on properties where the railway bisected the property after the property

had original ownership, but if an individual bought property adjacent to the

railway after the railway was there, they would not provide fencing.

But I would encourage the member to canvass that with the Minister

of Transportation because we don't have responsibility for it, although we did

communicate extensively about it about a year ago.

B. Simpson: Again, I will canvass that, and I appreciate

the minister's advice on that.

On CN, though, with respect to invasive plants, to come back to

that…. We did canvass it a little bit yesterday. The update that I got from

talking to some people about this is that CN has refused to participate in any

discussions about weed control along their rights-of-way. Despite repeated

attempts to get them to come to the table and participate, they simply won't.

Again, because the minister has responsibility for overarching

weed control in the province, I'm asking the minister again today if he would

intervene with CN on this matter and get them to — at least in one area of the

province, with the Cariboo regional district — come to the table and tell the

Cariboo district what their plans are for weed control.

Hon. P. Bell: I think I alluded to this briefly yesterday.

We are, in fact, in the process of reviewing the legislation and all of the

forms of tenures on different rights-of-way, including railways, gas lines,

power lines, telephone lines, cable — all of the various rights-of-way that are

in the province.

We're in the process of reviewing all of the tenures and the

specific responsibilities of each tenure holder, and we're actually in

discussion with some of the tenure holders about how we can continue to more

effectively manage that. CN would of course be included in that group of

monitoring their responsibilities and enforcing what is their fiduciary

responsibility under their tenure.

B. Simpson: As the minister knows, the issue of invasive

plants…. Every season that we go through and these seeds go is a lost

opportunity and becomes an incremental cost to government and to — particularly,

the trouble that is expressed to us — the private landowners who have to stay on

top of this, bear the costs and so on. Then they watch it not being dealt with

either on Crown area responsibility or on something like CN.

In terms of timeliness, how timely would this review of the

regulations legislation be relative to another season of weeds? If it's not

going to be done before there is another season, would the minister intervene

with CN just now to get them to come to the table and tell them what their plans

are — and get the weed control done?

[1030]

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: We should be able to have that work completed

within two months. We're very cognizant of the time frames of having it

completed prior to this weed season and ensuring that everyone is in full

compliance.

I am advised that over the last number of years there have been a

few compliance requirements of railways, so it's not unusual. We do have the

ability to do that. If the member wanted to provide us at some point with the

specific areas, if he's aware of some, we'd be happy to get on that right away

and deal with that issue for him.

B. Simpson: With respect to compliance, it raises the issue

of enforcement. Who enforces the Weed Control Act? How is that done, and what's

the budget for that?

[ Page 5973 ]

Hon. P. Bell: In many cases local governments have

delegated authority already to issue letters to groups that they feel are not

appropriately managing invasives. Rail lines are different. That's managed

through the ministry. The budget line the member passed for the amount of money

budgeted to this is within the $4 million–plus budget for invasives. It's

contained within that budget line. We have about four staff dedicated to this

issue, as well, around the province.

Each of the respective letters that would go to an individual

organization or to someone who needed to look after an invasive issue is not

actually a notice per se. The actual notice would be issued by me as minister in

the event of having to get to that level of compliance.

What we find, though, is that normally that can be dealt with at a

local level through the manager and sending various letters and requiring a

compliance through that model.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear on something that the

minister commented on when he talks about CN Rail and the responsibility for

compliance and enforcement. He said "through the ministry." I just want to be

clear that's the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and not the Ministry of

Transportation.

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct, and I should also indicate

that I can delegate the authority to a senior individual to file notices as

well.

B. Simpson: Then the four staff involved in this…. Have any

of them actually gone down the rail lines and investigated where CN is with

respect to weed control?

[1035]

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the four staff I mentioned earlier,

who have primary responsibility for invasives, are out on the ground for much of

their working time each week. They do cover off railroads as part of their

responsibilities. It would be hard for me to say they did cover this specific

kilometre of rail line, but it is one of the areas that they do actively engage

in monitoring.

B. Simpson: Have there been any written orders against CN

under the Weed Control Act?

Hon. P. Bell: Staff advise me that they believe there have

been some, but we don't have that level of detail here with us. We will provide

that detail to the member within two weeks.

B. Simpson: I thank the minister for the offers of

following up in a timely fashion.

With respect to the written orders, what are the requirements for

follow-up? Is it a time-based written order? Is there specific work that needs

to be conducted? When CN gets a written order against them, what is it they're

actually required to do?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll read the

section of the Weed Control

Act, which is "Notice to control noxious weeds." I think that will largely

answer the member's question. It's

section 4: "

(1) An inspector may serve a

notice directing an occupier, in accordance with the notice, to control noxious

weeds growing or located on land, premises or property occupied by the occupier.

(2) If a notice is served on an occupier the occupier must promptly bring the

notice to the attention of the owner of the land, premises or property that is

the subject of the notice."

So "promptly" would be an expectation of the occupier dealing with

the issue immediately. There are follow-up consequences, should the individual

not do that.

B. Simpson: Has the Ministry of Transportation had any

written orders against it?

Hon. P. Bell: Not that we are aware of with the limited

resources we have with us today. Certainly, we are in constant communication

with the Ministry of Transportation, identifying any specific issues we feel

they need to follow through on.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear. On the CN–B.C. Rail issue,

that land base technically is owned by the Crown and leased to CN. There are

written orders against CN, as far as we know, for not doing control. In many

secondary and tertiary roads, the weeds grow full-blown — eight feet high, as I

said yesterday — and on many occasions they become a public safety hazard,

period, just because of the ingrowth and height. Yet the ministry of highways

doesn't get written up for not complying with the Weed Control Act.

[1040]

There seems to be either a double standard or a failure in the

system of getting a Crown agency to actually meet and comply with the Weed

Control Act. Does the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands have the capacity to

write an order against the Ministry of Transportation if the Ministry of

Transportation is not in compliance?

Hon. P. Bell: I momentarily felt the powerful hand of ADM

Daphne Stancil as I was about to leap to my feet and respond. It was a good

thing I waited for a second, because now I have a clearer understanding of the

issue.

In fact, as the invasives issue has evolved over the last number

of years, particularly with the mountain pine beetle infestation, it has been

unclear whether or not the ministry, through the Weed Control Act, has the

ability to write notices on Ministry of Transportation corridors. We're

currently in consultation with the Attorney General to determine the current

regulatory regime around that and whether or not we have that authority.

So I'm unable to give a clear yes or no answer to the member on

this, but simply that we are currently in discussions with the AG's office to

get that answer. I'm guessing that the member would like to know if I would

provide that answer to him once we have that, and I would be pleased to provide

that answer to him once we have that answer.

[ Page 5974 ]

B. Simpson: Thank you. I'm going to have to put on a better

poker face.

I need to clarify one more layer on this, and then we do need to

move on to other things. The other layer is — and we're sort of coming full

circle here — the Ministry of Transportation contracts, in the case of the

Cariboo regional district, with the Cariboo regional district. The Cariboo

regional district then takes on the responsibility for inventory eradication

programs on the ministry of highways corridors. Do they then incur the liability

of weeds for that whole area through the contract?

Hon. P. Bell: I need clarity. Is the member asking: does

the Cariboo regional district acquire that liability?

B. Simpson: Yes. Does the Cariboo regional district incur

liability under the Weed Control Act if they fail to control and eradicate weeds

in their area?

[1045]

Hon. P. Bell: The legal responsibility for weed control in

the described circumstances would still remain with the Ministry of

Transportation, unless in the contract with the Cariboo regional district —

which I have not seen — they had accepted legal responsibility for that. I have

not seen the contract, but unless there is something specific within the

contract that assigned the legal responsibility to the Cariboo regional

district, it would remain with the Ministry of Transportation.

B. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

Second-to-last question on invasive plants. The Invasive Plant Council — we

talked about it yesterday. It's my understanding that they are looking at a

budget shortfall this year. I'm curious whether the minister is aware of that.

Who is actually responsible for coordinating with them around

their budget and what their needs are and making sure they have sufficient

resources to do the important job that they do?

Hon. P. Bell: There are ongoing discussions with the

Invasive Plant Council. I am advised by my deputy that last year they were able

to find a positive resolution to their fiscal requirements for the year and that

it operated efficiently. I'm also advised that there are ongoing discussions at

this point, as well, for the '07-08 fiscal year.

B. Simpson: To wrap up the invasive plants component, I

think from yesterday and the minister's enthusiasm for where we were at and what

was going on — you know, more good news and everything's good…. We've been able

to explore it a little bit and realize there are still issues around resourcing

for invasive plant eradication and inventorying on the ground.

There are issues around compliance and enforcement. There are

issues around the sustainability of the Invasive Plant Council, and there are

still serious questions about whether or not the government is actually in

compliance with the Weed Control Act.

My final question to the minister on this is: will the minister

release to the public the Chutter panel report? I don't see any reason for not

releasing it now, because it captures all of this and would hold the government

to account to their own MLAs on what needed to be done. They can determine for

themselves whether or not appropriate action has been taken.

Hon. P. Bell: In the spirit of ActNow and energy and

enthusiasm, I'd also like to advise the member that there have been some other

interesting projects around invasives which haven't yet been canvassed,

including one that we're working on with the Solicitor General's office to

develop the utilization of inmates to control invasives. There is actually a lot

of good and interesting work.

[1050]

As I mentioned to the member earlier, the budget has lifted from

about a $2 million level during the 1990s — or actually under $2 million most

years — to about $4 million for the previous three years — last fiscal close to

$6 million. We continue to invest heavily in the control of invasives.

The member has been quoting from, I gather, a copy…. I don't know

what copy it is, because I've seen the copy the member has of a report that he

refers to as the Chutter panel report. Clearly, I guess there must be some

copies of something out there somewhere. But the report is a cabinet document

and as such would be inappropriate for release. It would set a dangerous

precedent. I'm glad he has something that appears to be somewhat of a copy of

that so that he can continue to ask productive and useful questions about

invasive plants in the province.

B. Simpson: I'm glad my questions are productive and

useful. I guess we're going to have to canvass this a little bit more in the

public inquiry debate that's going to occur, because I'm not quite sure what the

purpose is of sending out a bunch of MLAs to find out what is on the minds of

British Columbians and then keep it as a secret cabinet document at the end.

We have to move on. I would like to come back to land use plans

and higher-level planning as promised. The minister indicated that he's now got

100-percent certainty around the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. The question I

was asking about was whether or not it had a legal standing under the Forest and

Range Practices Act.

Could the minister clarify for me what the term "grandfathered"

means in this case? And were all land use plans that were completed at the time

of FRPA coming into play grandfathered? So clarification of grandfathered and

what plans were grandfathered.

Hon. P. Bell: The definition of grandfather is: somewhat

older than t