2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Aboriginal language preservation

Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents

Elections B.C., Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 39th Provincial General Election and Referendum on Electoral Reform, May 12, 2009

Office of the the Auditor General, report No. 11, 2009-10, Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Accomplishments of youth in Burnaby

R. Lee

Shelbourne Community Celebration

R. Fleming

Ethel Tibbits Awards

L. Reid

UN convention on rights of persons with disabilities

S. Hammell

Vaisakhi

D. Hayer

Crisis line services in Tri-Cities area

D. Thorne

Oral Questions

Impact of harmonized sales tax on families

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

Impact of harmonized sales tax on community social services sector

S. Simpson

Hon. C. Hansen

Campsite and park fees

R. Fleming

Hon. C. Hansen

B.C. Hydro rates

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

Supported child development program

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

Foreign workers and Esquimalt graving dock project

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Stilwell

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

M. Sather

V. Huntington

D. Donaldson

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010

Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 6 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 3 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2010

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (continued)

Hon. K. Krueger

S. Herbert

[ Page 3939 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to welcome three representatives from the B.C. and Yukon Catholic Women's League. Joining us today are Marianna Caldwell, the president, from Aldergrove; Nancy Simms, president-elect, from Kamloops; and Sandra Stajduhar, resolutions chair, from Trail. I ask all the members of the House to please make these members of the CWL very welcome.

R. Sultan: We are graced today by members of the critically important insurance industry. We have in the galleries with us representatives from Wawanesa Insurance, Peace Hills, the Dominion, Chubb, AXA and CNS. They are led by the Insurance Bureau of Canada staff, led by vice-president Lindsay Olson, supported by Serge Corbeil and Miranda Lee. Would you please make them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. B. Bennett: Today in the precincts we're having a meeting with members of UBCM and the provincial government to discuss matters relating to local government elections. In the gallery we have two members from UBCM who are part of that task force: Mary Sjostrom, who is mayor of the great city of Quesnel, and Barbara Steele, who is a councillor for the great city of Surrey. Please help me make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a pleasure for me to be able to introduce to the House today the members of the Technology Education and Careers Council of British Columbia. TECC was first formed in 2008 by ASTTBC to bring together industry leaders in education, different associations, to advance technology education and training.

Board members today here include Sandy Innes of TELUS; Jan Marston of Terasen; Josh Blair of TELUS; Steve Cardwell of the Vancouver school board; Harry Diemer of the B.C. Safety Authority; Diane Sullivan from the B.C. Safety Authority; Andrew Hay from Okanagan College; Reid Johnson, Health Sciences Association; John Leech of ASTTBC; Debbie Nagle, the vice-president of B.C. Hydro; Grahame Rainey, president of the B.C. Science Teachers Association; Sid Siddiqui of Stantec; Bryan Tisdall of Science World; Harry Watson of Metro Testing; M.J.

Whitemarsh from the Canadian Home Builders Association; Lesley Wilson, the principal of Concost Consultants; Don Wright, president of BCIT; and Glen Wonders, the vice-president of Terrane Metals.

They're here to meet with ministers and MLAs today, and I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

M. Elmore: I have two introductions today. I'd like to welcome and introduce my partner. Angelina Cantada is here. As everyone can appreciate, it's not easy being a partner of an MLA, given our schedules. I'm reminded of that constantly. She's got great support from my family and friends and all my supporters. I appreciate her support.

She's also an award-winning director. She won the best female director for the Vancouver Short Film Festival. She was a finalist in the Crazy8s film festival. Her short film Sikat , the story about a Filipino caregiver, will be making the rounds of the film festivals around the world. I please ask you to give her a very warm welcome.

I'm also very pleased to introduce a good friend of mine, a good friend of the House here. The former MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, David Chudnovsky, is in the House. He's continuing to be very actively involved in Vancouver with the Coalition of Progressive Electors, organizing in Kensington and right across Vancouver. It's great to have him here.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery today. They are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work they do and the work of the ministries and how that all affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Hayer: At this time I'd also like to welcome Barbara Steele, one of the best councillors in the city of Surrey and also one of my constituents. Would the House also make her very welcome.

Statements

ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE PRESERVATION

Hon. G. Abbott: On March 27, 1989, a resolution was passed by the Assembly of First Nations to declare March 31 National Aboriginal Language Day. This is a day to promote the use of indigenous languages in the workplace and/or social settings. Aboriginal language and culture, as you know, are an important part of the rich diversity of British Columbia.

[ Page 3940 ]

British Columbia has the greatest diversity of First Nation languages in Canada. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identified that two-thirds of all indigenous languages in the country are found in British Columbia, which has 32 distinct indigenous languages.

While British Columbia is the most linguistically diverse region of Canada, many of these languages are facing a rapid decline, and some face the threat of extinction within the next decade.

[1340]

Within British Columbia the lead organization responsible for First Nation language revitalization is the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, a provincial Crown corporation established in 1990 by the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act. I'd ask the House to join with them in celebrating National Aboriginal Language Day.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 39th Provincial General Election and Referendum on Electoral Reform, May 12, 2009; the Auditor General report No. 11, 2009-10: Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports .

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF YOUTH IN BURNABY

R. Lee: Burnaby has many talented and inspiring youth leaders who make a difference in the province and enrich the lives of others. Today I would like to congratulate some of the talented youth in the city of Burnaby. They are an inspiration to many and show us that no matter how young you are, you are capable of accomplishing some very special stuff.

Recently 11-year-old Burnaby resident Scott Xiao came second in the Canwest Canspell National Spelling Bee in Ottawa. Nazampal Jaswal of Byrne Creek Secondary won the BMO Loran award, which is the largest undergraduate scholarship in the country, valued at $75,000. The two have shown that they are amongst the top performers in the nation, which is truly a remarkable feat.

Meanwhile, Burnaby's grade 12 student Stephen Scaccia recorded and released an independent five-track CD and donated all of the proceeds to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. At the age of ten, Jacob Lam and Hamza Hijazi organized a very successful soup drive for victims of the Haiti earthquake. This type of compassion is so wonderful to see in our young people.

Tomorrow the Michael J. Fox Theatre will be showcasing Burnaby's talented youth from ten to 12 p.m. The event will feature over 90 young people. It's very encouraging to see that they are making an impact on our community.

Burnaby youth are certainly an inspirational bunch determined to make a difference early in their lives. It is without a doubt that the future of B.C. looks bright. I would like the House to join me in applauding the achievements of these talented British Columbians.

SHELBOURNE COMMUNITY CELEBRATION

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to talk today about an upcoming celebration called the Shelbourne Community Celebration. The district of Saanich has partnered with a number of community organizations in my constituency to present the Shelbourne Community Celebration on Sunday, April 11. The event celebrates a United Nations World Health Organization initiative called 1,000 cities, 1,000 lives. It starts with a family bike ride escorted by the Saanich police along Shelbourne Street.

The global goals of the 1,000 cities, 1,000 lives campaign are to open up public spaces to promote healthy lives. This includes recreation activities, of course, the use of parks, town hall meetings, environmental cleanup campaigns — in my constituency — and promoting commuting alternatives to end congestion and the air quality impacts for motorized vehicles. This campaign is also aiming to collect 1,000 stories of urban health champions who have taken action and had a significant impact on the health of their cities.

There are two components to the Shelbourne Community Celebration: as I mentioned, the family bike ride, which departs at 11 a.m. at the Gordon Head Recreation Centre; but from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Shelbourne Plaza, community members will have an opportunity themselves to learn about and provide input into creating a new vision for the Shelbourne corridor.

Work has already started on the Shelbourne corridor action plan to develop, in consultation with the community and other stakeholders, a comprehensive, long-term community plan, a 20- to 30-year vision for the entire corridor and the neighbourhoods on either side of Shelbourne Street.

I want to applaud the many community organizations and the district of Saanich, who are organizing the Shelbourne Community Celebration. I want to wish it great success and invite and encourage local residents to join me there and any members of the Legislative Assembly — my neighbour from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, for example — to come out and support the Shelbourne corridor action plan.

[1345]

[ Page 3941 ]

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS

L. Reid: We have the Oscars, we have the Emmys, and in Richmond we have the Ethels. The women who help make Richmond a great place to live, work and play will be recognized in beautiful new surroundings during this 17th annual Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards and luncheon. Locals are encouraged to make nominations in any of the five categories — sport, youth, arts, community and business — by filling out a form on the Richmond Review 's home page at richmondreview.com. The nomination period closes this Friday, April 2 at 5 p.m.

Since its inception in 1994, the Ethels have raised tens of thousands of dollars for Nova House, a shelter for women and their children escaping domestic violence. Named after founding publisher Ethel Tibbits, the event has raised money for other women's charities, including the maternity ward at Richmond Hospital, the Richmond Women's Resource Centre and a scholarship fund for women returning to school.

Ethel Tibbits was a pioneering newswoman who started her career as a Vancouver Province reporter in the 1920s before moving to Richmond, where she married husband Orland Delos Tibbits in 1926. In 1932 she began working at a fledgling newspaper, the Richmond Review . Within a year she bought it. Together, Orland and Ethel ran the paper out of their store, called Blundell Grocery. Orland was circulation manager and Ethel was the editor of the Richmond Review .

Ethel was known as a force to be reckoned with. Week after week she explored the daunting issues of the Depression era, writing intelligent and hard-hitting editorials. She was tough, insightful and strong in her opinions. For example, in 1933 she predicted England would join the rising conflict in Europe. In 1942 in a series of editorials she openly criticized the government's plan to intern Japanese Canadians. She was ahead of her time, hon. Speaker, and became a legend in Richmond.

Last year's winners were Melanie Pudlas in the Arts, Ami McKay for Business, Nina Graham in the Community, Marilyn Grubb in Sport, Prianka Dhir in Youth and Frances Clark in Pioneer. We congratulate them, and we look forward to this year's winners, who will be announced on April 17.

UN CONVENTION ON RIGHTS

OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

S. Hammell: This month Canada ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It was an important moment for Canada. All of us who enjoyed the Paralympics watched people of exceptional abilities and amazing skills. It was inspiring to see many competitors rise above all challenges and meet and exceed their goals. Watching these successes also gave us a heightened awareness of the issues and challenges of those among us with disabilities.

This ratification came after years and years of hard work by leaders and advocates from all walks of life. To celebrate this moment meaningfully means recommitting ourselves to principles that lie at the heart of this pact.

The convention formally recognizes belonging as one of the most fundamental human rights — belonging, Mr. Speaker — and as a society, country and province, that's a promise we have to live up to — to inculcate an attitude of respect and openness, to make our infrastructure more inclusive and accessible, and to work towards a shift in how we perceive disabilities, a shift from a deficit located in a person to a problem located in our environment or in our attitudes.

Our Paralympics showed us the way. For many of us, they awoke in us a new definition of what we consider abilities. Now it's for everyone in here and around this country to do their part, and it's this ratification that can make a historic moment, that can take us to that new place where we all belong and where disabilities are just a problem.

VAISAKHI

D. Hayer: Next week is the beginning of many cultural festivals and the beginning of Holy Week — for Christians, a celebration of Easter; for Jews, of Passover; and for Indian-heritage Canadians, of Vaisakhi, which officially begins on April 14. Vaisakhi is when thousands of British Columbians of the Sikh faith observe the founding of the Khalsa in 1699 by the tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh. It also marks the beginning of the Sikh New Year.

At the same time, Buddhists celebrate because Lord Gautama Buddha was born on the full moon of Vaisakh in 623 BC. For Hindus, it is called the Hindu/Vedic New Year. And similarly, Vaisakhi is celebrated throughout the world. Vaisakhi is the start of harvest season. It is a special time to celebrate our future and our togetherness. While we all look back at the historic teachings, we also look forward to the hope and promise that Canada provides for all of us.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker, Vaisakhi is also a time of tolerance, respect and honour. Like Easter and Passover, it is a time of rejoicing and reflection, a time to observe the past while celebrating harmony and peace. It is a festival of two weeks' duration.

On April 8 Vaisakhi Mela will be held in Surrey. On April 10 one of the largest Vaisakhi festivals in North America will be celebrated in Vancouver by the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver, established more than 100 years ago. Another very large Vaisakhi festival will be

[ Page 3942 ]

held in Surrey on April 17. These festivals bring together everyone, regardless of their race, colour or creed. It's a time to practise, rejoice and enjoy.

I urge everyone in this House to join the festivities in their community to celebrate the incredible diversity of our different cultures.

CRISIS LINE SERVICES

IN TRI-CITIES AREA

D. Thorne: I rise today to mark the end of a Tri-City institution which has served our community since 1972. The SHARE crisis line, which has provided life-saving support for thousands of men, women and children, hangs up the phones for the last time tonight.

Over the past 38 years more than a half-million calls have been answered by over 2,000 friendly, helpful, trained volunteers. They have handled a range of issues, from suicide prevention to requests for financial help. As well as saving lives and helping their fellow citizens, these volunteers have learned skills that have helped them in all aspects of their lives — how to handle emergencies, communication skills and, especially, the importance of staying calm. Many went on to careers in the helping professions.

The new, centralized crisis line is based in Surrey and will serve all of the Fraser Valley. We don't know yet if volunteers from the Tri-Cities will trek across the bridge to Surrey. The volunteers' very valuable skills may be lost. It might look good on paper to unify three crisis lines, but we may in fact lose valuable volunteers in the process.

I can't help but grieve the loss of this local opportunity for caring citizens to give back to their community. A community is not made by roads or structures or buildings. A community is made by its citizens coming together to form a rich tapestry of caring and support.

We will miss the SHARE crisis line and are forever grateful to the thousands of volunteers who gave so generously of their time and talents. Our community has been a safer, gentler and healthier place to live. Thank you, volunteers, and will tonight's volunteers please turn out the lights.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON FAMILIES

C. James: From restaurant meals to haircuts, medical supplements to school supplies, the HST is going to make life more expensive for B.C. families — a tax that the government promised not to bring in and that comes at the worst possible time. But that's not all. The HST, in fact, is being imposed on families who are also being hit by fee hikes and cost increases starting tomorrow. Tomorrow British Columbians start paying more for ferry fares, bus fares, B.C. Hydro, Terasen, camping fees. In the coming months the list is only going to grow longer.

So my question is to the Minister of Finance. During a time when families are struggling to come out of a recession, during a time when small businesses are working hard just to stay afloat, how can the B.C. Liberals continue to hit British Columbians with more costs that they can least afford?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and pretend she's a defender of small business when, in fact, they voted against the reduction in taxes for small businesses. It's surprising to hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and talk about how much money B.C. families have left in their pockets, because they voted against the reduction in personal income tax that we have brought in over the last eight and a half years.

[1355]

Mr. Speaker, I think what British Columbians are waiting for is to find out what the NDP position is on the harmonized sales tax. Is it as the Finance critic says — that if the NDP ever form government, they're going to keep it? Or is it as the Energy critic says — that no, they would eliminate it but bring in a whole bunch of other taxes? Or is it as the member for Cariboo North says — that taxes aren't bad, harmonized taxes aren't bad?

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can stand up and show some leadership for once and actually explain to British Columbians where she stands on these important issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's pretty clear that this Finance Minister and this government will say almost anything to have the public avoid taking a look at the reality that this government is making life more difficult for families — almost anything. Let's take a look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: Let's take a look at the reality. For families, starting tomorrow, a 7 percent increase in ferry fares, more than a 9 percent increase in hydro rates, TransLink fares up as much as $14 a month, camping fees up as much as $5 per site. What a cruel April Fool's joke to the

[ Page 3943 ]

public in British Columbia, a cruel joke by the same B.C. Liberals who announced the HST just weeks after they promised not to bring it in.

Again, my question is to the minister. Why do B.C. families always come last under the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the question is: who is providing leadership on behalf of the official opposition? Is it the member for Cariboo North, who says that harmonized taxes are a good thing? Is it the Finance critic, who says that they would keep the HST if they ever form government? Or is it the Energy critic, who says that he would eliminate it, would jack up a bunch of other taxes? And the question is: what other taxes would they increase?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll tell you what strong leadership is. Strong leadership is making the kinds of decisions that resulted in a net increase over the last eight years of 400,000 jobs in British Columbia. That's strong leadership. Weak leadership is when you have a Leader of the Opposition who's trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth and actually will not even stand up and tell British Columbians what that party stands for, if they stand for anything.

We are a party that shows strong leadership in creating jobs. We will create jobs for the next ten years, and the introduction of the harmonized sales tax and the elimination of the job-killing PST is an integral part of that.

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

C. James: It's very clear to the public that that side of the House is standing up and saying yes to a hurtful tax. We will say no to the HST on this side of the Legislature. That will be clear.

[1400]

But the April Fool's tax hikes aren't the only ones that British Columbians are facing. Starting January 1, residential care rates also went up. So did MSP premiums. Hydro rates, ferry fares, TransLink, camping fees, residential care, MSP premiums. Between the HST and the ongoing fee increases, the B.C. Liberals have made it clear they just don't get the pressures that families and small businesses are facing.

Again, my question is to the minister. When will the minister stop defending the B.C. Liberal HST betrayal, and when will he start addressing the needs of families and communities in this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, let's look at the record — what B.C. families are paying in total taxes compared to what they paid ten years ago under the NDP. In every single income category, every single family in British Columbia is paying less today under a B.C. Liberal government than they would have paid for the same amount of income ten years ago under the NDP.

When it comes to the NDP's position on the HST, we've heard everything from yes, no and maybe. It's time for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and tell British Columbians: if they were ever to form government, would she repeal it? If she would repeal it, would she actually jack up all of the other taxes as the Energy critic is proposing? She should come clean with British Columbians and tell how she's going to increase taxes to replace the $5 billion worth of revenues that they would forgo.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance is very quick to brush aside the legitimate concerns of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians about this tax. The fact is that this tax will hit B.C. families hard. It will have a negative impact, particularly on small business, and it will lead to job loss right away — 10,000 indirect or direct jobs in the tourism industry, $750 million revenue lost in the restaurant industry.

Seniors will be hit by the loss of the equivalent of one month's income a year. Hundreds of thousands of B.C. residents will be affected by increased strata fees.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: Obviously, they don't like the truth.

Fee hikes taking effect tomorrow will only add to the pressure on family budgets and on business budgets here in the province. Why did the B.C. Liberals continue to dismiss the negative impact the HST will have on families and on businesses here in the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's a bit surprising that this member is trying to pretend he's a defender of small business in British Columbia when actually you find that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been a 100 percent supporter of the shift to the harmonized sales tax going back over ten years. The Retail Council of Canada has come out solidly in favour of the harmonized sales tax because it's better for their consumers. The B.C. Agriculture Council is 100 percent in favour of the harmonized sales tax because it's good for farmers.

[ Page 3944 ]

You know, the member from the West End tries to pretend that he's a big champion of the motion picture industry. Well, the motion picture industry is 100 percent in favour of the shift to harmonized sales tax.

The member for Cariboo North tries to pretend he's a champion for the forest industry, yet the forest industry is 100 percent in favour of the harmonized sales tax.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The government's decisions and indeed the response of this minister show that consistently they do not understand the pressures facing B.C. families. They're out of touch with the needs of British Columbians, and they are refusing to shift their focus to the real needs in our communities.

Why won't the minister acknowledge that the narrow focus of his government on the HST is ignoring the real needs and concerns facing B.C. families today?

Hon. C. Hansen: If this member cared about B.C. families, he actually would have supported the tax cuts that we brought in. If you take an example of a family of four earning $30,000 a year, do you know how much less that family of four earning $30,000 a year is paying in total taxes today under a B.C. Liberal government compared to ten years ago? It's $1,793 a year less in total taxes.

I'll tell you how you support B.C. families. You support B.C. families by providing strong leadership that creates jobs in British Columbia, and that's exactly what the HST will do.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES SECTOR

S. Simpson: If the minister wants to talk about strong leadership, strong leadership starts with saying the same thing before the election as you say after the election. If this minister wants to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …talk about families, I'd like him to find the families that think a $2 billion tax transfer from corporations onto their backs is a good idea.

The non-profit service providers in this province are facing increasing pressures from the B.C. Liberals. We're seeing cuts in funding, increased costs like the Medical Services Plan fees and now the HST.

The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. has stated: "It is essential that B.C.'s harmonized sales tax be fiscally neutral in its impact on the community social service sector in order to ensure the ongoing delivery of quality social services by non-profit agencies throughout the province."

The action of the B.C. Liberals does exactly the opposite. Will the minister kill this tax and protect these services?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is wrong. The member clearly has not done his homework, because if he had, he would know that we have already announced an HST rebate system that will ensure that all not-for-profits in British Columbia will pay no more under an HST system than they currently pay today.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What the minister will know is while they provided some relief, they have not provided the relief to the industry, to the sector. The relief is insufficient.

[1410]

You compound that relief with cut grants, you compound that relief with liabilities around the health benefits trust, you compound that with increases in Medical Services Plan, and you create a problem for those agencies that deliver public services on behalf of the government and the people of B.C.

What this minister and this government are doing with the HST and these fee increases is putting pressure on the agencies that meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. That's a direct attack on those citizens. This minister knows it, and he could do better.

Will the minister show some support for vulnerable British Columbians for those critical services and end the HST today?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is interesting how many different positions we're getting from the opposition, whether it's their stand on whether they're going to do away with the HST or not…. Now we've actually heard two different claims from the member from Hastings from one question to the next. Even then, he still hasn't got it quite right. He acknowledges that there is some relief for HST. There's actually full relief for charities to cover the incremental cost of HST.

I'll tell you that the most important thing to support those social service agencies around the province is to make sure that we've got a strong economy, that we come out of this economic downturn stronger.

I can tell you that the best thing that we as governments can do to support families in British Columbia is to make sure that they've got access to jobs. Based on the analysis done by one of Canada's leading economists, this HST will create a net increase of 113,000 jobs. That is a huge benefit to B.C. families.

[ Page 3945 ]

CAMPSITE AND PARK FEES

R. Fleming: With the HST introduction, this government is raising the costs for British Columbians from the morning they get up and buy their first cup of coffee till every waking moment, day in and day out. That's the reality for families.

Starting this long weekend, they're raising the costs of family campsites and camping trips for families. Starting tomorrow, B.C. campers will pay twice as much for back-country experiences like in Garibaldi, Juan de Fuca, Strathcona. Families will pay to use campsites right across British Columbia. Yet this government is downsizing the parks budget again. They're closing parks at the same time that they're raising fees on British Columbia families.

My question is for the Minister of Finance, because he gets to keep the money in this case. Explain why British Columbians should pay more to use their park system when it's in the state and condition that the Outdoor Recreation Council calls the worst ever.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, all of the funds that are raised from these fee increases actually go to help maintain our parks in British Columbia.

This is actually about supporting families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's actually about time that this member woke up and smelled the coffee, because if he actually did some research…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: …into how the HST works, he would stop spreading some of the misinformation that he and his colleagues have been spreading.

For example, I quoted yesterday from this brochure from the member for Delta North. He's a little sensitive about this one, I gather, because I gather this one was actually funded with taxpayers' money out of his constituency office.

[1415]

In here, in the context of how much HST supposedly is going to cost, he says: "Think of it this way. A $20 meal after taxes will cost you $25.40."

I can tell the member that he needs to do a little bit more work on his arithmetic. It's actually, as my colleague says, classic NDP math. He should actually be providing factual information, and I challenge this member and his colleagues to do a little bit of homework and stop spreading misinformation.

B.C. HYDRO RATES

J. Horgan: Tomorrow hydro rates are going up again. Over the past two years they've gone up 11 percent. Tomorrow, on April Fool's Day, they're going to go up another 9 percent. It doesn't end there. Over the next two years another 20 percent increase.

The minister is going to stand in this place in a moment and say: "This is so that we can upgrade infrastructure." The reality of the situation is that the Minister of Finance is asking B.C. Hydro to provide another $750 million above what they've done historically to pad his fiscal folly. On top of that, they're asking B.C. Hydro to pad the pockets of their private power pals rather than put the public first.

My question to the minister is a simple one. Scrap the energy plan. Put people first. Get public power back on the agenda, not private power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll thank the member for his question, and I'll thank him for understanding the answer he's going to get early, because it is a result of the fact that B.C. Hydro is investing billions upon billions of dollars in their infrastructure, in the hydro assets that actually all of us benefit from.

From the generation to the transmission, all of those assets that are governed and owned by British Columbians are in need of upgrade due to an artificial rate freeze during the 1990s. Although it was good politics, thinking you didn't have to raise rates, it actually cost British Columbians billions of dollars as a result of the lack of infrastructure upgrades that were dearly needed.

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: As British Columbians prepare to travel for this Easter weekend, B.C. Ferries is busy raising fares again. Not only is there an across-the-board fare increase, but B.C. Ferries has decided to punish people who want to go camping on the islands. People with trailers and other vehicles more than 20 feet long are being slammed by a 153 percent increase. Now there's an outrageous charge to bring your bike on board, which has always been free. So much for green transportation.

British Columbians are being forced to pay more, and island communities will be hurt once again when people realize they just can't afford to travel on B.C. Ferries.

[ Page 3946 ]

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. When will the minister get a handle on this taxpayer-funded company that this government created and get it under control?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: The last time we saw any evidence of the management that the members opposite had with B.C. ferries, they were being floated out of the harbour on the back of a barge.

[1420]

In fact, taxpayers in British Columbia are supporting B.C. Ferries to the tune of almost $200 million. They've expanded their fleet, they've upgraded their facilities, and their service is far better than we've ever seen under the terms of the members opposite.

SUPPORTED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

S. Fraser: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Niles Brick is a teenager with complex special needs issues in Port Alberni. As of midnight tonight he, like other youth, will be cut off the supported child development program that has provided them with one-on-one care that is absolutely essential.

Dr. Chris McCollister is a pediatrician for Niles and other teens with complex disabilities. He says that Niles and other youth who are about to be cut off of this essential program need that one-on-one care. "It is not a luxury or an option. It is a matter of life and death."

It is Niles's 16th birthday today, and the minister is taking away the very program that keeps him and many children safe in this province. Will the minister ensure that on this, Niles's birthday, Niles and other teenagers and youth receive the care that they require?

Hon. M. Polak: First, I want to assure the member that there have been absolutely no reductions to the supported child development program. In fact, that budget has increased from $37 million to $58 million.

It's important to understand that the supported child development program is for children up to the age of 12, and the agencies and regions attempt by exception to assist those who are older. When they have not the capacity to do so, the ministry works with those families to bring in other, more appropriate services.

I can assure the member, without speaking to the individual case, that I am more than happy to discuss with him any additional assistance we can provide to any families in his area.

FOREIGN WORKERS AND

ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK PROJECT

M. Karagianis: Today building trades workers gathered in Esquimalt to protest the federal government's hiring of 35 temporary foreign workers in the graving dock. Half of our shipbuilders are out of work, and yet those foreign workers are taking our jobs and being paid with tax dollars. In any other province in Canada, the Premier or the Labour Minister, who in this case lives just down the road, would be at front and centre in defending those jobs for our workers here in British Columbia. But sadly, that's not the case in British Columbia.

Will the Minister of Labour join today with the skilled workers in this community, contact his counterpart in Ottawa and stand up for B.C. jobs for B.C. workers first?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Even with current unemployment rates, there are shortages in key sectors in the economy. Depending on the season, that can be exacerbated. There are times when short-term contracts cannot be filled by Canadians or residents.

Specifically with respect to this project, it is a federal contract to install the new crane and is part of a complete contract. Immigration authorities provided a labour market opinion that the workers are here as business visitors.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: We have in the precinct with us Reed Early. He's a fine member and constituent from the Cowichan Valley. Please join me in welcoming Reed.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism will be under discussion. In this chamber we will begin with committee stage debate on Bill 8.

[ Page 3947 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources Statutes

Amendment Act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

section 1.

J. Horgan: I have to confess some surprise to be on my feet today. I had asked for a detailed briefing from ministry staff on what are, by and large, technical amendments to legislation that was passed by closure in this place, as I referenced in second reading just yesterday.

This bill was tabled 49 hours ago. In that time we've had a whole host of other responsibilities and tasks to perform. I am now asked to take a bill, Bill 20, rather than a statute from the statute books that alight the bookcase just to my right.

I'm getting a violin from my friend from Shuswap, and I'm hopeful he'll play for me the entire 3½ hours that I'll be on my feet quizzing the minister on this important piece of legislation. I can use the support and enthusiasm from him at all times.

Hon. R. Coleman: Can I get the Reader's Digest version?

[1430]

J. Horgan: No, there will be no Reader's Digest , Minister. There will be no Reader's Digest version today. Much of the discussion we'll have could have most likely been addressed through a briefing. The minister and I have talked since his appointment, in fact, about trying to change the tone and decorum of debate.

I don't hold him responsible for the mismanagement of the legislative agenda of the House Leader. Clearly, the absence of legislation on the other side makes it sadly inevitable that we have to go through committee stage on a piece of legislation that has only been here for 49 hours.

I've been sleeping through some of those hours, most of them when the government members are speaking but also when I'm at my home. Nonetheless, 49 hours is probably a lot of time to be dealing with what's becoming the largest and most important industry in the province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: The last 4½ minutes have seemed like a long time.

J. Horgan: Get used to it: 15 minutes a clause, 15 minutes a clause, and if you want to keep me going with mirth and merriment, I'm delighted, absolutely delighted. The House will be here until….

The Chair: Member, can I bring you back to the bill under discussion?

J. Horgan: I'd love to come back to the bill, which I'll do periodically over the next 15 minutes.

As I said in my second reading remarks, which I believe have not yet made it beyond the Blues …. I can't refer to them to ensure their accuracy, nor can I refer to the minister's comments at the end of second reading debate, because, of course, they're still in draft form. That's how quickly we're gone from second reading to committee stage.

As I say, I don't want to hold the minister responsible for this. I believe that the Government House Leader is the one that should be accountable for bringing forward legislation as if he were making sausages rather than doing the public's business, doing the work that people expect of us when we come to this place.

Again, I'm hopeful that the minister will be humble when he takes to his feet to answer the hundreds and hundreds of questions I'll now have for him, rather than his able staff, who are, in most instances, as a former staff person, better prepared than a minister on any occasion. I certainly know that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations can confirm that thesis. I'm certain of that.

As I was saying, we've had 49 hours to review this material. I had begun my consultation, as an opposition critic, with people in the community that will be affected by this. I would have hoped that I would have had a bit more time, perhaps the weekend, to have those discussions. But there has been a series of e-mails that have come forward, and they'll be able to assist me as I proceed through, clause by clause.

We are on

section 1 of Bill 8. As I said, I would have hoped that I could have gone to the statutes and reviewed what clauses we're going to be amending. As I look at the statutes, I see that for the Oil and Gas Activities Act, one of the two pieces of legislation we're amending with Bill 8, sections 1 through 118 are not yet in force.

When I read

section 1, I'm in good company, because it's the Agricultural Land Commission Act that we're amending. But as we get through other clauses, I'm regrettably going to be forced to go through what was a draft bill passed by closure with one minute of debate at the end of the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

I wouldn't expect that the minister would see this as an appropriate way to do the public's business. I expect there are one or two ministers on the other side that would see that as appropriate, but I'm hopeful that my colleague from Peace River South would recognize that this puts both him and I in a very uncomfortable position unnecessarily and, in fact, jeopardizes the public business in this place as a result.

[ Page 3948 ]

If I'm nothing, I'm Irish, and when I get angry, I get grumpy, and when I get grumpy, I get fastidious. So I'm going to be fastidious as we go through this bill. The Chair will know full well the rules of this place, and I have approximately 15 minutes to assemble my thoughts as I'm reviewing the legislation and posing questions to the minister. I'm hopeful that his staff will recognize that it is not my desire to keep them here tarrying unnecessarily, but sadly, that appears to be the case.

Again, hats off to the Government House Leader for his expert managing of the process here. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars that go into running the Legislature, you would think, hon. Chair, as we look at Bill 8,

section 1, that the Government House Leader would have some respect for the taxpayers' dollar and would also have some respect for the desire of all members of this House, I think certainly all on this side and many on that side, to do our able best to scrutinize legislation as it comes forward.

We have an opportunity at third reading here on Bill 8 in

section 1 to do that. I'm always mindful of coming back to that most important point, that we are discussing Bill 8,

section 1, over the next number of minutes.

[1435]

I'll just read the section, for those who don't have access to this bill. I know there are people in the gallery who will be anxious to know just what the member for Juan de Fuca's talking about, so I'll read the section. It goes as follows:

Section 1, under the explanatory notes it says: "Agricultural Land Commission Act,

section 20, is consequential to the continuation by this bill of the mediation and arbitration board as the surface rights board." That's the explanatory note, people in the gallery, for

section 1.

On the substance of the bill, the clause reads as follows, hon. Chair. If you'll indulge me, I'll just read it for those who are here and those who are watching at home. "Section 20 (3) (

a) and (

b) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 36, is repealed and the following substituted." This is the substitution that we'll be doing right now.

The member for Chilliwack — that area, over that way — will be interested in this. Minister, you've got your notes there. It's: "(

a) the Surface Rights Board, or its predecessor, the Mediation and Arbitration Board, under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Mining Right of Way Act or

section 19 of the Mineral Tenure Act."

Now, as I understand it, as we discuss in committee stage this first clause of the bill…. As I understand that, we are amending consequentially a number of other pieces of legislation. Now, normally, I would go right to my right here. The camera doesn't pick this up, but there is a bookcase full of statutes that have been passed by this place by parliamentarians that have come before us. Many of us here, some of the good work we've done is contained in documents just to my right.

Now, I'm able to go and look at that bookcase and find the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and I'm able to look at the consequential amendments. But I'm still puzzled, so I'll put my question to the minister, and I'm hopeful that he will be fulsome in his response. Can he explain the necessity of this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Before I respond to the member's first question, I'd like to introduce the staff I have with me here today in the Legislative Assembly. To my right is Barbara Thomson, who is the director of corporate policy and legislation, and to her right is Gordon Goodman, my assistant deputy minister of oil and gas division.

The reason for this amendment is simply the fact that we are changing the name of the mediation board to the surface rights board, and that is a consequential amendment that will follow in the Agricultural Land Commission Act so that it is reflected there.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the introductions of Ms. Thomson and Mr. Goodman. Thank you very much for coming. I hope you enjoy your time here in the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia.

We assemble here four times a week and have discussions about pieces of legislation that are vital and important to the well-being and development of the economy and the social fabric of British Columbia. It is actually my privilege and honour to do so on behalf of my constituents in the constituency of Juan de Fuca.

As I explained to my constituents, and to those on this side of the House and others in Shuswap and Langley and White Rock, why these consequential amendments are being made…. Perhaps the minister could show me where in the Agricultural Land Commission Act I can find these sections that are being amended by

section 1 of Bill 8, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You would find them in

section 20(3)(

a) and (

b) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

J. Horgan: We are changing the name of the surface rights board from the mediation arbitration board under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Can the minister tell me why we are amending that

section in this act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: For the very same reason. We're changing the name. It is going to the surface rights board as it clearly states in here, and I think it better reflects, actually, what this means to the people on the ground, particularly in northeast B.C.

J. Horgan: If it better reflects, does that mean, then, that there is no mediation and arbitration being done by the surface rights board?

[ Page 3949 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there still will be mediation and arbitration. The process will remain. The name change is to better reflect, actually, what it is on the ground to the landowners up there, which is really what this is about — surface rights.

[1440]

J. Horgan: Does not the mediation and arbitration board deal with mediation and arbitration? If so, why would we want to change the name if it clearly identifies the purpose and function of that board in the title, which is mediation and arbitration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member for his very important question. This really reflects what takes place in the rest of western Canada when we deal with these issues relating to oil and gas. This is a surface issue, so we're changing the name to the surface rights board. It will bring us in line with others but truly does reflect what this is about.

J. Horgan: Then the minister is saying that "mediation and arbitration board" didn't accurately reflect the mediation and arbitration that was taking place on the watch of that board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This board was named 50 years ago. This is an update to better reflect what takes place and what it's about. It is about surface rights. There is a full mediation and arbitration process that takes place, but this is going to be renamed the surface rights board.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm curious that…. Surface rights — my goodness, that could be almost anything. I don't get a sense, and I'm sure that those watching at home or in the gallery don't get a sense from "surface rights board" just what exactly that might be.

When I think of mediation and arbitration and a board, I think of a tribunal or a group of individuals who will mediate and arbitrate differences between parties. I get a clear understanding from the previous title what exactly is going on.

For the life of me…. I question — maybe members can help me out here — surface rights board. I don't get any sense whatsoever what the function or role of that entity is. However, mediation and arbitration board makes complete sense to me. I'm curious. Again, what's the necessity to change the name of the act? What motivated the change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, you asked where this originated and where it came from, and I know that you've indicated you've had the opportunity to talk to some people in the northeast, as I do virtually every day. It actually was a discussion we had with members of the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee up there that thought it better reflected what took place.

"Mediation and arbitration" actually is all-encompassing. What we're talking about here are surface rights, so it was reflected from what we refer to, the acronym, as NEEMAC. The people on the ground up there thought this would better reflect what actually takes place.

J. Horgan: Was the suggestion from NEEMAC just that — a suggestion from the board? Or was it a proposal put forward by government to the board for their consideration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It has been raised by numerous stakeholders over the years, the last five years, talking about finding something that better reflected what actually takes place. Mediation and arbitration do take place, but as I said in a previous answer that I gave, it's more broad-ranging. It encompasses everything. What we're dealing with here are surface rights issues, and with the result of that dialogue that we had with people in the northeast, we came forward with this change.

J. Horgan: Again — I don't know if the minister doesn't understand my question — I'm wanting to know if the proposal to amend

section 20(3)(

a) and (

b) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act was suggested and recommended by the majority of the board, the totality of the board.

Was it a proposal that was put forward by ministry staff and then endorsed? What was the chicken-and-egg on this one? Whose idea was it? What was the genesis of this notion that we should spend time here in the Legislature amending this

section of this act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It was proposed by stakeholders, as I indicated previously. We then took that forward to NEEMAC. Many of the stakeholders are certainly friends, family of the residents and the members that sit on NEEMAC. It was discussed and was felt that this was the right decision to make and move forward with.

[1445]

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide minutes or any other evidence that NEEMAC proposed these changes that we're debating here today?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We can actually supply those. I'm not sure that this will be reflected in the minutes. I know there's discussion that takes place. It's interesting. I think this truly does reflect what goes on, on the ground.

I know that the member is Irish, as he indicated earlier, and is going to take a considerable amount of time. I'll continue to answer the question the same as I have. This better reflects what goes on, on the ground.

[ Page 3950 ]

This has been talked about for numerous years in the region that I represent that's affected by oil and gas. We have proposed the change. I think it makes sense. Our government thinks it makes a great deal of sense, and the people of the northeast think it makes sense.

J. Horgan: Perhaps the minister could advise me. If this was something that had been discussed for years and was the focus of consultation and vigorous discussion — although no minutes can be provided — at NEEMAC, why it is that these proposals weren't contained in Bill 20, which was passed in this place, as you know, hon. Speaker?

I'll just remind you. Members who have come and gone may not be aware of this. Bill 20 was introduced by the previous government in the 38th parliament. It was debated at second reading briefly, and of course, a commitment was made. It was a very, very voluminous bill — 207 clauses in total.

I was told at the time, after a thorough and detailed briefing from ministry staff, which I have not been able to have in the case of Bill 8…. I was advised at that time that consultation had been extensive when Bill 20 was introduced. I was advised at that time that the entire region was gleeful at the prospect of having an updated and modernized Bill 20, which was then the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

The minister at the time and in this place said that this was the culmination of many, many years of work. The minister today has referred to that. Yet 18 months have gone by, and 118 sections are not in force. Before we can even celebrate the anniversary of the passage of Bill 20, we're here amending it before it even becomes the law of the land. Therefore, when I look at the statutes book, I see but one page rather than the 207 clauses that we debated — albeit only for one minute — at third reading in May of 2008.

So if the discussions a year and a half ago had been exhaustive and all areas had been canvassed and a comprehensive and thorough bill had been prepared to consolidate the previous pieces of legislation…. There were a number at that time: the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which we'll talk about; the Oil and Gas Commission Act; the Pipeline Act; and amendments to the forest practices act. Now we have amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise me how it was that the comprehensive and thorough negotiation and consultation that took place to prepare Bill 20 managed to miss this very important change — making up the name "Surface Rights Board" and removing "Mediation and Arbitration Board."

Why didn't that happen in the previous bill if it is so important and had been the subject of so much negotiation and consultation? This is a curiosity to me. I know the minister wants to take his feet, but I want to ensure that all members of this place and those watching at home have a thorough understanding of why this is curious to me.

I mean, I am often intellectually curious. My colleague from Stikine mentions that to me, on occasion. "My goodness, member for Juan de Fuca," he will say, "you are intellectually curious." That is why we want to take some good deal of time…. The member for Langley appreciates that. We want to take a good deal of time reviewing this information, as we should.

Again, if only the Government House Leader had appreciated the importance of having a thorough dialogue and having a critic and a minister better understand each other and their staff so that we didn't have to waste the time of the Legislature on petty, petty issues like the change of a name of a board.

It's a shame. It's unfortunate. But again, I want to make sure that the public has a thorough understanding of what we're talking about here.

We had a bill that was so important to the government of the day — the current government, the current Premier — that it was passed by closure. Less than a year and a half ago the government felt this was so important and had been so comprehensive — the negotiation and the consultation — that no rock needed to be turned. Everything was as it should be. It was complete, comprehensive, exhaustive. Pick a superlative, any superlative.

[1450]

I can recall that the minister then, Richard Neufeld — now Senator Neufeld, ascended to the Red Chamber in Ottawa — said: "It couldn't get any better than this." I sat in a briefing with his deputy minister. We went over it. It took 2½ hours. I was satisfied that, my goodness, they've done an awful lot of work on this.

We'll take a little bit of time at committee stage. We'll look at the various clauses. We'll do some consultation of our own as an opposition, which is appropriate and happens in jurisdictions around the world. The Commonwealth is littered, as the minister knows, with legislatures where governments and opposition bring forward legislation. They debate it, clause by clause, to ensure that motives are pure, and no one's benefiting unnecessarily from a piece of legislation.

After the good work that was done by Senator Neufeld, I'm curious, again, why it is that we missed the need to change the surface rights board from the mediation and arbitration board. What happened?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You mentioned that both he and I are trying to gain a better understanding of one another. I thought we were well on our way until that exact question, Member. You threw me off.

The issue of changing the name was key to the people up there — rights. The name "rights" in this was a key issue for the landowners, the men and women and their

[ Page 3951 ]

families that live in rural British Columbia up there. So that's the reason.

But you refer to Bill 20. I do want to make sure. I know you've done your due diligence on Bill 20. You have looked at that. You have been thorough, but Bill 20 didn't deal with the mediation and arbitration board at that time. This is something that came after that bill was introduced. Yes, it's been talked about. It wasn't part of Bill 20, so to put it in this bill, I think, is the proper thing to do.

As the member, I'm sure, lives his life, I live mine trying to improve each and every day on what I've done the day before, and this is an improvement.

The Chair: I would caution the member for Juan de Fuca on the repetitive nature of this debate.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair, but again, the minister opens a rich vein of opportunity by responding as he did. I just want to pursue it to ensure that I am fulsome in my toil as a critic. I don't want to let down the people in the gallery. I want them to realize and appreciate that committee stage can also be enjoyable. There can be some good, positive work done by the back and forth, the toing and froing on important pieces of legislation.

Again, if the amendment was not contained in Bill 20, at what point over the past 24 months did it become important and imperative that it be changed and added to the Oil and Gas Activities Act now?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just for clarification, it's part of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act — just to be clear on this. It became important, and I think it probably always has been, certainly, in my discussions with the people I represent. I believe the former minister, you know, in working on that bill, put what he could in the bill.

This became evident in discussions I've had with landowners up there. I know the member opposite has, on occasion, the opportunity to speak with many landowners in the northeast. It truly reflects a request that they brought forward. I've talked many times with my friends, with people in the rural area, and the issue of rights is a key and fundamental issue that they wanted dealt with.

I think this bill, as we go into it

section by section, will truly reflect much of what they have requested to try and improve the on-the-ground workings of what takes place in northeastern British Columbia. I think it's good. I think it's going to be better, even, after this act.

J. Horgan: Does the subsurface rights board, which is consequently amending the Agricultural Land Commission Act, have any other tools in terms of dispute resolution beyond mediation and arbitration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is primarily mediation and arbitration, but they do have the broad authority to use other processes as they would see or choose. Again, I think it's going to be something that's a positive step forward.

[1455]

J. Horgan: Was there any opposition to this change by any of the stakeholders that participate in NEEMAC — landowners or industry?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, not that I'm aware of. Certainly, none has been brought forward to me. There was none that was brought forward at the NEEMAC table that I'm aware of as well.

J. Horgan: Can the minister advise: did NEEMAC have an opportunity to review a white paper or a draft piece of legislation with respect to the amendments that are being proposed in clause 1?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: They had an overview of the general provisions. I think the member knows that until the bill is tabled in Legislature…. That is when it becomes a document that is allowed or, I guess, a public document at that point — so no. They've had a review of the general provisions of this act, and that discussion and dialogue is what helped lead us to the changes, in many cases, and the new portions that we're bringing forward.

J. Horgan: I check my in-box daily, and I look in my mailbox. I may have missed it. Did the minister or the ministry provide any advance notice of this change to the opposition?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we didn't. Actually, that information comes through the tabling of a piece of legislation, which I know the member has been diligently going through.

J. Horgan: I haven't begun to be diligent, hon. Chair. I haven't begun to be diligent. I'll be diligent on the beaches.

I'm sorry. Am I having fun? I didn't mean to do that, Minister. I apologize. I know that this isn't going to be fun for you over the next number of hours.

We had NEEMAC participate in an overview, a draft paper, some ideas — banging it around at a meeting. "I've got an idea. Let's change the name. Mediation and arbitration just describes what we do here. Let's change that to be something more vague, like surface rights board." Is that how the discussion went?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll try one more time. In the discussions I've had, in the discussions that NEEMAC had and with the landowners up there, it's very important. The rights is a key issue for our landowners. They

[ Page 3952 ]

wanted something that reflected the rights. We're dealing with an issue called surface rights.

I know that the member has many questions. I'm encouraged by the member's questions. Unfortunately, we're only on

section 1, and I look forward to moving through each and every

section of this bill with the enthusiasm that he's showing at

section 1 today.

J. Horgan: Beyond NEEMAC, did the minister consult with any other bodies or any other individuals beyond landowners — any other entity or institution? Did he discuss it with the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Because we're changing the name, the reference in their act has to change to reflect this — so no. But I can tell you, if it isn't on a daily basis when I'm at home, virtually most chances…. When I'm speaking, particularly to the agricultural community — whether it be our ranchers or our grain producers up there or rural landowners — the issue of rights comes up, and we talk about that. That's what an MLA does — I'm sure the member does the same in his riding — and you bring that forward.

J. Horgan: So the only organized group that was consulted about the amendments that we're debating here in Bill 8, the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, was NEEMAC?

[1500]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm not sure if the member is aware, but NEEMAC is made up of a broad cross-section of groups from agriculture, from industry, from the communities in the rural areas. I can get the member a copy of the members of NEEMAC. But it's far broader. When we say NEEMAC — and that was a good question, Member — it really talks about a wide cross-section of people that are represented in organizations in the northeast.

J. Horgan: Did landowners lack rights before this name change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, Member. They didn't lack rights, but the reason we're discussing this bill and bringing it to the Legislature is the ability to enhance the rights that do exist.

J. Horgan: So how are those rights enhanced by changing the name? What material change in landowner rights results from amending legislation, taking up the time of this place and members and staff. I know people are staying away from Oprah while we watch how we get through this clause, and I know people want to get back to their regularly scheduled programs.

What material change in the rights of landowners results from amending consequentially the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The material change in the rights for landowners is what we're going to discuss once we get past

section 1, Member. This really reflects the name change that has been talked about, as I've said numerous times previously in my answer, by NEEMAC, by individual landowners that have raised the issue.

Land rights are a big issue. Whether you're in the northeast part of the province or whether you're in the member's riding — or any member's here, I'm sure — we all look to the rights of the land on which we live. We want to ensure they're clearly defined, and if the ability is there to enhance those rights, that's what we do as legislators, and that's what this bill is going to do.

J. Horgan: What will the cost to government be to change the name of the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There will be no cost. This is a name change. There may be issues in the reprinting of some bills, as the member noted, but there is no substantial cost whatsoever.

J. Horgan: If I understand the minister correctly, we have not added any rights to landowners as a result of this change. We are expending public moneys to change letterhead and business cards. We may have to put up a new sign on the office. There's been a public expenditure at a time when I'm advised by the Minister of Finance that we are in dire straits.

We haven't materially advanced the rights of individuals by changing the name of the mediation and arbitration board. No change. Activities remain the same, as best as I know in reading clause 1, yet we're going to expend public moneys to achieve, in my view, taking a name that makes a lot of sense to me. "What do you do here?" "I mediate and I arbitrate," to: "What do you do here?" "Subsurface rights board."

Again, to the minister, if we can't put a dollar figure on the changes, perhaps he could advise me — aside from the many hours we're going to be speaking about this

section — how many staff hours went into producing this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to point out that we are in a modern age so today the issues that you're referring to that may cost, on letterhead or so on, are done electronically. But the issue, mediation and arbitration, is very broad. It doesn't define what the landowners in the northeast were after. They wanted something clearly that defined that the issue that they were dealing with was about surface rights.

[ Page 3953 ]

We listened. I'm proud of the ability — certainly the relationship I've developed with the people I represent and the people across the province — to listen to them and to take their ideas. When those ideas are workable and we're able to move forward on them, this is where we get to today. That's the changing of legislation that better reflects what takes place on the ground.

J. Horgan: I do appreciate that we live in an electronic age. That's the only way I was able to get a copy of Bill 20 so I could compare the amendments that we're looking at here — not, certainly, in clause 1, but as we go through the bill. Were it not for my trusty interwebs, I wouldn't have been able to get a copy of this because we chucked it all out. We assumed it was going to show up here in the statutes. Hadn't done that yet.

[1505]

Again, there was a cost to that. I'm of the view that just click "send" and everything goes peacefully, and no harm is done. The member for Kootenay East will give a different answer to pushing the "send" button, but electronic activity requires, usually, someone — most times a human — to push the buttons.

So what staff work went into preparing this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The staff worked on it through discussions, through the work that they have put into this entire piece of legislation.

I think I'll probably get a little heckling at home when I'm talking about the electronic age. I think most people look to myself as not being the most user-friendly when it comes to the electronic age. I do what I can, but as far as the ability to access Bill 20, it is on the Legislative Assembly webpage. But as well, Member, simply you could have asked. We would have gathered you a copy immediately to help you out.

J. Horgan: The minister will know well that I sent him a letter asking for a briefing, and I was anticipating at that time being given all this information. As I said at the start of my remarks on Bill 8, clause 1, I had every expectation that a mature and responsible government and a minister who has, over time, developed a personal relationship with his critic wouldn't allow 49 hours to pass between the tabling of a bill and the detailed discussion of the various clauses.

That's why we're here today, and that's why I'm probing deeply into the motivation, cost and efficacy of changing a name. There will be orders-in-council, I assume, that will be changed as a result of this. That will require legislative counsel, I believe, to draw up those documents. Government officials throughout the system will now be moving with great haste to update and modernize their information flow. I'm wondering: will order-in-council appointments be changed as a result of the name change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is a provision in the act that talks about the reference to the mediation and arbitration board that will now be recognized as the surface rights board. I do want to point out…. I will thank the member for his letter that I received at 1 p.m. today. It's now five after three, so the timing was a little difficult to get you in, to have a briefing, when I received your letter at 1 p.m. today or shortly before.

J. Horgan: I know we're telling tales out of school. The House Leaders with their voodoo and their secret ritualistic meetings won't want this exposed to the light of day, but we were advised that we were going to be debating Bill 5 and Bill 7 today. So the appropriate action by me to you, the day after we had finished second reading — the day after — to request a briefing in anticipation of a fulsome and useful discussion at committee stage, I don't believe was inappropriate.

I know that the minister is just looking for a fig leaf. I don't blame you for this, again, Member for Peace River South, Minister of the Crown. I don't blame you for the fact that we are standing here today, working on, in the first three-quarters of an hour of discussion, a name change in a piece of legislation that we have another 116 clauses to get through.

I'll take this opportunity, if I may…. I know that the member for Shuswap is interested in this. The minister referred to other jurisdictions that have different names for this activity. Could he articulate what jurisdictions use the words "surface rights board" and what, if any, jurisdictions still use something similar to or exactly the same as "mediation and arbitration board"?

B. Ralston: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: It's my honour to introduce 52 students from Bridgeview Elementary School in my riding. They're here and asking very lively questions of the guide that's been taking them around the buildings.

[1510]

They're also here with leaders — teachers and parents — Karen Harris, Mandeep Sondhi, Shainaz Ismail, Trinny Dang, Noreen Walker, Jeanne Atwal, Angela Poelzer, Norm Swistak, Brenda McDonald, Guy Sarazin. Could the House make all of these people welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The areas that you've asked about that have a surface rights board are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon.

[ Page 3954 ]

J. Horgan: Are there jurisdictions in Canada or other places in the world that still use archaic terms like "mediation" and "arbitration" to describe mediation and arbitration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're not aware of any other board that deals with these issues that's called a mediation and arbitration board, no.

J. Horgan: Well, that's just inviting furious activity in the research department as they Google "mediation and arbitration," and I will await, anxiously, the response to that.

Again, on a more serious note — and I've been, of course, serious throughout — I want to zero in for the minister.

Again, I'm a simple country doctor. I see "mediation and arbitration," and I understand immediately what that means. Is the minister concerned that there will be residents, landowners, constituents who don't see the distinction between "mediation and arbitration" and "surface rights"? Is he concerned at all that there will be people who have not yet been invaded by the oil and gas industry that may not know where and what to do when that happens?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The mediation-arbitration is the process they use. Surface rights are the issues that they're dealing with. I don't envision concern in the northeast as a result of this name change. With the discussions I've had, people both pro and not so pro with the oil and gas industry have spoken to me about this. They thought this would better reflect the actual issue of what they dealt with.

I do want to maybe take this opportunity for the member. I talked about NEEMAC, and maybe I could name the members of that organization. We have the northern B.C. guides and outfitters, our agricultural associations, the cattlemen's associations. We have the Métis Nation, First Nations, local governments. We have SEPAC, the geophysical association, the Small Explorers Association and the Grain Producers Association. We have the tourism association, a landowner advocacy group and the Custodians of the Peace.

J. Horgan: Could the minister identify which First Nations participate in NEEMAC? Can he inventory which bands, which nations?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Although we are a little off, I guess, from

section 1, we did go down the path of NEEMAC. The members that participated, from First Nations, were the Blueberry band, McLeod Lake and the Treaty 8 Tribal Association.

J. Horgan: One more question, currently, until the minister takes his feet again. We talked about the history of the mediation and arbitration board. I have a master's degree in history. I'm very big on dates, although I have said quite often that the only important dates to a student of history are 1066 and the date of the final exam. I got that on Hansard . That's to my son at home. He didn't think I could do it, but I did.

Can the minister tell me when the mediation and arbitration board was first founded?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hon. Chair, 1953.

J. Horgan: Since 1953 does the minister or the staff have at their disposal any representations from the public over the course of that half-century to change the name of the institution?

[1515]

I'm certain that there have been overtures and appeals to protect and preserve the rights of landowners, and the minister knows full well that I absolutely support his drive and the drive of government — and in fact, the opposition — to ensure that the landowners are fully protected and left whole and damaged as little as possible as a result of oil and gas activity.

But during that half-century, can the minister point to any appeals, any large public meetings demanding a change to the name of the mediation and arbitration board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This has been an issue that has been discussed numerous times. I'm not aware of large public meetings. As the MLA responsible for the region as well as being the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I don't wait for large public meetings for people to bring me issues. They walk into my office each and every day. They stop me in the grocery store. We talk. All of us are here to try and improve on what we have to make our province a better place.

I've had this discussion many times with many people in my region, and I believe the member would have had similar discussions with people in my region.

J. Horgan: Well, I have had discussions with people in the minister's constituency. Certainly not to the extent that he has, and that's as it should be. I've had numerous discussions about the importance of protecting and preserving landowner rights and significant concerns about the status quo.

Again, I'm wondering, and I want to be fulsome. Had we had an opportunity to have a detailed briefing, I'm sure that over the course of that discussion, the able staff of the minister, Ms. Thomson and Mr. Goodman, would have been able to answer many of these questions, and we wouldn't have taken up nearly an hour of the House's time on

section 1.

Could the minister inventory for me who will be the last members of the mediation and arbitration board?

[ Page 3955 ]

In other words, there are members today that will retire their jerseys. We'll put them up in the rafters at the Oil and Gas Commission, or wherever they have their meetings. Who are they?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm struggling here. I've got the names of four. There are five of them. The chair is Cheryl Vickers. The vice-chair is Rob Fraser. We have Simmi Sandhu, Viggo Pedersen, and I will endeavour to immediately get the member the name of the fifth member of the board.

The board members will remain. They won't retire. Just the name is changing, not the board members.

J. Horgan: Yes, it's kind of like the Jets going to Phoenix, I guess. You had a hockey team in Winnipeg, and all of a sudden they're in the desert, but the players remain the same. I apologize, also, for putting the minister on the spot. Residents in his community, and he doesn't quite remember their names. I know there's so much that he's got to do, and that certainly wasn't what he expected this morning when he got up.

He probably thought that we were going to be debating Bill 5 and Bill 7, like the rest of us did. He didn't think we would be standing here with the only other piece of legislation available to the Government House Leader to call, Bill 8, 49 hours after it was initially tabled.

With that, I will allow

section 1 to pass.

[1520]

M. Sather: The minister has spoken about the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee and the important role that they've played with regard to a number of factors, I'm sure, but including the change of name from mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board.

I wanted to ask the minister: did the Peace Valley Environment Association express desire to be part of NEEMAC?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm not sure right now whether they have. I can check and get the member that information.

M. Sather: If that group had made application…. I guess I'd refine that question. Is there any reason why a group would be turned down if they had applied to be a member?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think to be probably workable, you have to have a size of a committee that's actually a workable size. That's why there is a diversity of representation on that committee — Custodians of the Peace, our cattle producers, our grain producers. We have industry. We have community groups, First Nations, as I said earlier. So I think there's a very good cross-section representing the people of the northeast now.

M. Sather: I'm just wondering, then, if there is an environmental group or environmental interest to an environmental group represented there. The minister mentioned Custodians of the Peace. Perhaps he could tell me what their role is or their background. What do they bring to the table?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We have the provincial environmental forum that allows all of the environmental groups in the province to participate in the development or discussion and ideas. You asked who is on there. I talked about Custodians of the Peace very much.

You talk about environmental groups. I look at my cattle industry and the producers, the grain producers. I look at the men and women and the families. I believe everybody is an environmentalist. I think we all have to look after the footprint that we leave on this planet, and I think we all do a pretty good job.

M. Sather: I'm pleased that the minister feels that we're all environmentalists, and I hope that he's correct in that. However, I'm sure he's aware that groups that are dedicated to environmental issues bring a little extra something to the table with regard to that issue.

The member said that there was a process. I don't exactly recall the word that he used, but it sounded like there was a public meeting or something of that nature where PVEA could have participated, or did participate if they so chose.

If I'm understanding the minister right, then, he's not saying that the group did not apply. But if they had applied, as I understand what he said, they could have been excluded because of the fact that there was a desire to keep the group of a certain size.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Once again, I'm unaware if they applied to be members of the NEEMAC table. But we don't discourage anybody. I can tell you as the MLA for that region, and I'm sure I can speak for my colleague north of the river, our office has an open-door policy. If people have ideas, they write letters. They stop by. As I said, whether it's at our office, whether it's downtown at the grocery store, that's how it operates up there.

[1525]

Just before I do sit down, the member asked about the members of the mediation and arbitration board. Yeah, I will catch a little flak from a couple of them. Bill Oppen, a friend of mine, who I forgot, and Tracey Wolsey are the other two.

M. Sather: I certainly wasn't in any way suggesting that the minister's office wasn't open and inclusive to all members of his constituency and to the broader area there, but I was speaking particularly with regard to NEEMAC. Now, maybe he has more control over that organization than I thought.

[ Page 3956 ]

I wanted, though, to go back to the issue of the name change between the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board. It seems to me that this is a significant change in name because surface rights, as the minister will know, is a lot of the concern that some residents have with regard to their surface rights — those being the landowners, those being the farmers and ranchers that have felt sometimes that their surface rights have been violated by the energy industry.

I'm just wondering, then: if this is the name change, it would appear to give more precedence to those that are on the surface. They have surface rights as opposed to those that have subsurface rights — i.e., the energy industry. So can the minister tell this House, then: is it the case that the upshot of this act will give much greater protection to landowners, their surface rights, and even in fact…? No, I'll just leave it at that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This bill, as we move forward…. In

section 1 we're talking about the name, but it is really about access to the surface as well when we talk about surface rights. But the questions and the tools that we're talking about that will improve on the foundation we have today when it comes to the operation of the oil and gas industry and, I guess, the approach that they work with our landowners up there….

As we move in past

section 1 and get into numerous other sections in the bill, much of what you've just mentioned today will be borne out to talk about what we have done, how we are improving it. I look forward to that discussion as well.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Horgan: Again, I'm reluctant to read the

section here for those at home and those in the gallery. But perhaps I'll do it anyway, because what we're doing now is….

It appears that clause 2 is a consequential amendment to the Coal Act. It reads as follows: "Section 3 (3) of the Coal Act…2004…is amended by striking out 'Mediation and Arbitration Board' and substituting 'Surface Rights Board' and by striking out 'the relevant provisions of

Part 3 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply' and substituting 'Parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply.'" End of section.

So my question is to the minister. Why is this consequential amendment necessary?

[1530]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, again, the member, as he indicated in part of this question…. This is about changing the name from mediation and arbitration to reflect that.

Part 3 is being replaced with parts 16 and 17. Possibly — I'll throw this out for the member — sections 1 through 14 are inclusive of the name change from mediation and arbitration board to surface rights board. I guess we can go through each clause, and I'm sure the member may, but I think the answers that I'm going to give are going to reflect all 14 sections in the same manner.

J. Horgan: What will the effect be to the Coal Act of making these amendments?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just as we've talked about before, this really is a change. It allows the coal industry, when we're dealing with coal, to utilize the surface rights board to address any of the issues as that board would see fit.

J. Horgan: Previous to this amendment, what would the process have been for a landowner had a coal company come looking to exercise their subsurface rights? What would have happened under the Coal Act, and what effect will this change bring about?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: If an agreement couldn't be reached on surface access, previously they would have gone to the mediation arbitration board. Today, after the passing of this and implementation of it, if they cannot reach an agreement on surface access, they would go to the surface rights board.

J. Horgan: Within

section 2, we also have parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act applying. When I look at the application for mediation and arbitration in that piece of legislation, sections 16 and 17…. Of course, it is a privilege and a pleasure to be able to use the statutes to make reference and to cross-reference the amendments we're making with respect to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Of course, I'm not able to do that with some sections of the Oil and Gas Activities Act when we get to those portions of the bill.

I think it's important, again, if I just take a moment for those who have just arrived and those who are watching at home to remind them that one of the challenges that we do have when we are amending legislation is that we need to have something to compare it to.

As we go through the second

section of this 116-section bill, in this instance, with respect to

section 2, I have easy access through the statutes which sit immediately to my right to cross-reference and ensure that due diligence is being done by the opposition and the minister and his able staff.

So again, I see that we are now discussing sections 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. What changes can we anticipate as a result of this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Parts 16 and 17 are the revised processes. Where

part 3 is referred to earlier, parts

[ Page 3957 ]

16 and 17 will replace those. We are going to get into exactly what that will do as we go through the bill in the sections past

section 2.

J. Horgan: Again, just to reiterate, we had some discussion on

section 1, and I know the minister doesn't want to be repetitive, but I'm assuming that the administrative activity that will be required to amend the Coal Act and ensure that parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply in this instance is being done by his ministry in cooperation with legislative counsel.

Are there other ministries that will be involved in facilitating and ensuring that this change takes effect?

[1535]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there won't be.

J. Horgan: Then I can assume it's only staff members of the minister's ministry that will be participating in this? They don't have any other interactions in terms of changing legislation that's the responsibility of other ministers. It's all done in-house. There's no consultation. There's no dialogue between the Ministry of Energy and Mines, for example, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a consequential change to our statutes, so the employees within our ministry, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, will be doing that.

J. Horgan: How many staff will be involved in ensuring that this statute and the change will adequately be reflected on other statutes?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, this will take less than one FTE, or full-time employee. It is not a significant amount that the member is referring to that has to be done, so certainly, it will be done and done very professionally by the able staff within my ministry — but less than one FTE.

J. Horgan: How much time will this FTE devote to ensuring that this clause takes effect?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would expect no more time. It's already done. We're discussing it here today.

J. Horgan: How much time went into getting us to this point in history, this miraculous moment when we're able to stand in the Legislature and review these clauses one at a time?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would anticipate that the amount of time to deal with what we're talking about here on this specific question would be about 15 minutes.

J. Horgan: Less time than it will take to discuss it. It's interesting, because you have two staff right beside you that are devoting — I'm looking at — an hour and five minutes already, and we're only on clause 2. I'm wondering how you came up with the number "15 minutes," when I've got quantifiable evidence that you've had more than two FTEs spending more than 15 minutes on it already.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The member did ask about the development — what it would have taken to do that. "About 15 minutes," I said.

Certainly, I look forward, as we progress into the bill, to getting into some healthy discussion on many topics, but I won't take the bait, hon. Member. It was not a great deal of time to develop that.

The Chair: I would caution the member for Juan de Fuca on the relevancy of this line of questioning.

J. Horgan: The relevancy is that time is money — public money, in this instance — and we're spending it right now on

section 2. If that's in keeping with the Chair's view on the matter, it's my understanding….

The Chair: Hon. Member, the relevancy is contained in

section 2, and your line of questioning must pertain to

section 2.

J. Horgan: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. I'll do my level best.

Then can the minister tell me in some detail how many staff went into…? Is the minister saying that 15 minutes of staff time went into developing

section 2 of this bill?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a consequential amendment, so they had to determine where the change had to take place in other statutes. They have done that, and I will note one of the comments the member has made, that time is money. I think it's interesting that I will point out again that sections 1 through 14 are dealing with a name change.

[1540]

M. Sather: In

section 2 it says that the relevant provisions of

part 3 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are being struck out and substituting parts 16 and 17 of the same act. Now, I see in that act "the relevant portions of

Part 3," but — I'm not sure — where is the substitution: "Parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act"?

I mean, it doesn't have that many parts. So those parts are being added — 16 and 17 — then, I take it, as a consequence of this bill. But I don't see where in that bill these parts are added or how that comes about.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we delve into this bill more and enter the discussions, we'll get to

section 56 that

[ Page 3958 ]

deals with the sections 16 and 17 that you've just asked about.

M. Sather: The member is saying, then, that

section 56 will be the part that adds that. Thanks very much for the information.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Horgan: Although I have been reminded by the minister that the first number of clauses are consequential and the answers to one are similar to the answers of others, I still will ask him, in the interests of due diligence, if he could tell me why the amendment in

section 3 is necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason for this change is that the Coal Act presently refers to the mediation and arbitration. The question you've just asked under

section 3 is amending and striking out "mediation and arbitration" and substituting "surface rights board."

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister could, for the record, advise this place what the purpose is of

section 4.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We are striking this out because, as we go further into the bill, you will see that the Expropriation Act will be utilized under OGAA at that point. I know we'll have some discussion when we get to that point in the bill.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Horgan: I note that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is being amended by Bill 8. I'm wondering if the minister could advise what the purpose of this amendment is.

[1545]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This strictly addresses the issue of the name change from the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Horgan: Every clause, Minister. Can the minister advise me what the effect of this change to the Geothermal Resources Act will be?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As it reads, it's sections 6 to 31 in

part 3.

Part 3 is being repealed, so those will, I guess, disappear. They will be replaced by parts 16 and

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide for this House the wording of the language that's being repealed in the Geothermal Resources Act?

I notice some discomfort. Perhaps that could be sent to me in writing.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Horgan: We're now discussing consequential amendments to the Industrial Roads Act. This is of particular interest. Industrial roads are everywhere in British Columbia, not just in areas that are affected by energy, mines and petroleum resources.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House why and what the effect and purpose of amendments in

section 8 will be to the Industrial Roads Act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This was part of

part 3. It's been repealed. It will now be replaced under parts 16 and

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

J. Horgan: Now we're discussing consequential amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act,

section 16(3)(

c) of that act, 1996. I'm wondering if the minister could advise if there were any discussions with the mining association on the impact of this change.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there wasn't. This is a name change, and as you noted, it's consequential to the Mineral Tenure Act.

J. Horgan: In your discussions with other organizations about the name change…. We canvassed this fairly thoroughly in

section 1, but I'm wondering if, in preparing the name change, the minister advised or discussed any of this with the mining association.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we didn't.

[ Page 3959 ]

J. Horgan: Well, we've had the Coal Act, and now we're on the Mineral Tenure Act. We're about to go to the Mining Right of Way Act. In the 49 hours that the mining association has had to review this legislation, although they won't have had access to the debates at second reading because they're still in draft stage and have not been published and certified correct by the Speaker, I'm wondering if there have been any calls from the mining association. And if there have been no calls to his office, has he suggested that his staff call the mining association?

[1550]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we've had no calls from the mining association on this. This is truly just a name change. I don't think there is an impact, but as the member, I know, is always busy, I haven't had the chance to sit at my desk very long today. I've been in here discussing this bill for a good portion of it and look forward to many more hours of good debate.

J. Horgan: I'm delighted to know that, thankfully, we're on a Wednesday. We'll be able to go all the way to seven o'clock on this bill. But again, although it is only a name change, and we canvassed thoroughly in

section 1…. I don't want to belabour the point, but there are consequential amendments to acts that have an impact on other industries beyond oil and gas and on other areas beyond the northeast.

I'm wondering, with respect to the Mineral Tenure Act, if the minister could advise if the mediation and arbitration board has had much activity outside of the Peace in areas that are affected by mineral exploration and development.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: On average they receive less than one application a year from outside of that. This is dealing with surface access, though, as well, and that truly reflects the name that we talked about throughout our discussion here this afternoon.

J. Horgan: Less than one a year is zero — isn't it?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Average.

J. Horgan: Average. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the average.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

M. Sather:

Section 10 is, again, striking out "Mediation and Arbitration Board" and substituting "Surface Rights Board" and striking out "the relevant provisions of

Part 3 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act…."

That act refers to mediation and arbitration. Under that act, I believe…. I'm trying to get my head around: why is it mediation and arbitration under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act? If it's under that act, and we're in fact talking about the Mineral Tenure Act, why does that apply? Why is there discussion about mediation and arbitration under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act when the

section that we're on is the Mineral Tenure Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member's question, the board is created under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act but has application to many other acts as far as surface access goes.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

J. Horgan: Again, I don't have the Mineral Tenure Act at my fingertips, although, as I've pointed out a couple of times in the past hour and a half, the statutes when they're completed are just to my right here — right over there. But since we only have a few consequential amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act, they didn't want to heft the big document and drop it down on my colleague's table.

Could the minister advise?

Section 11 and the amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act — what will the effect be on that act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This

section simply changes the name from mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board under that act.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

[1555]

J. Horgan: We're now amending the Mining Right of Way Act in

section 12. Could the minister advise what the necessity of this amendment is?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This, again, is another consequential amendment, this time to the Mining Right of Way Act, which changes the name from the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your attentiveness to my enthusiasm for the debate.

section 13 we have an additional amendment to the Mining Right of Way Act, and I'm wondering if the

[ Page 3960 ]

minister can confirm that the rationale for that is similar to

section 12.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it is.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

J. Horgan: We're getting to the end of the consequential amendments, and I think we'll end up bogging down, so I don't want to spend too much time on

section 14.

Now we're into the Motor Vehicle Act. I don't have it at my fingertips, although as I've advised the minister and he's now well aware, the statutes, when they are in force, unlike Bill 20, are right to my right here. We're amending the Motor Vehicle Act, and if the Chair will indulge me, I'll read it for those who are watching here and at home.

Section 14 reads: "Section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, is amended in the definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8 (1)' and substituting 'section 139 (1).'"

I'm wondering, since we're not talking in this clause about a name change in terms of explicitly in the explanatory note or in the clause, why we're making this amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is the same as

section 8 that we discussed previously under the petroleum development road, or Industrial Roads Act.

Part 3 is going to be no more. It will be repealed, and this will now be covered under

part 16.

J. Horgan: Well, as I read this clause, I don't see any reference to

part 16. Perhaps the minister could explain to me…. We've done so well in getting through the first 13 clauses of this bill in terms of the consequential amendments, yet I don't see explicitly beyond the definition in the body of the act where and why that's happening.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: When you read this and go through it — and I apologize if I wasn't clear —

section 8(1) is being taken out, or struck out, and being replaced with

section 139(1) of

part 16. That's the reference there.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister could repeat that answer, because I don't see

part 16 in the body of the document. I'm wondering if perhaps we need an amendment to this consequential amendment to clarify this for people who are looking at statutes. Although it is clear in the explanatory note, it's not clear in the clause.

[1600]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know that the member is eager to discuss the bill. He will find, as we go through this bill, that on page 15,

section 56 introduces a new section, 139, and we'll have the opportunity to see it there.

J. Horgan: Again, I'll take the minister's word for it that when we get further down the bill, we'll be able to clarify this issue. I know I can't reserve my right to return, so when we do get to the page and the clause that the minister suggests, perhaps we'll spend a more extended period of time on that clause.

M. Sather: I'm a little confused by this

section too.

Section 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act is on licences for farm tractors, if I read it right. Now, what does that have to do with this act? I don't understand why licences for farm tractors…. I don't see anything relevant to this act. I'm missing something, obviously, but if the minister could enlighten me on that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reference that he's talking about,

section 8(1), is not the Motor Vehicle Act. It is referring to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act,

section 8(1).

M. Sather: Well, shouldn't it then say Petroleum and Natural Gas Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It says that, exactly, in the act itself. So just for the member, to clarify, in referring to

section 14 that we're discussing, it talks about amending "in the definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8 (1)' and substituting 'section 139 (1).'" So 8(1) of the act is what you will find in the PNG act.

I shortened the version — the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. I think the member is thinking it's

section 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. That's not the case. The way legislation is written, this is a cross-reference to the PNG act.

M. Sather: I admit that I am a relative rookie in the House in terms of interpreting the minutiae of acts. But I don't recall that before — having seen an amendment naming

section 8(1) with absolutely no reference to the act to which that refers. Again, should it not be included in there at least for clarity?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know you're looking at that. If you follow it, it is defined in the definition of the Motor Vehicle Act. But if you were to include the whole act of the Motor Vehicle Act when we're reading this, you would see following what is here,

section 139, in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, at the end of that.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

M. Sather: With regard to

section 139(1), the minister previously said that is covered under

section 56 of

[ Page 3961 ]

this act. There again, I don't see any reference to

section 139(1) under

section 56.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we go through the bill, it is in

section 56. It is the second

article under that, if you will look at

section 56 in the bill, but I know we'll be discussing it later this afternoon as well.

M. Sather: The minister said the second

article under

section 56…. This is a big bill, I must admit. Finding one's way through it is a bit difficult.

[1605]

The second

article under that

section — can the minister explain just what wording that is when he refers to the second article?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hon. Chair, I think we would be better positioned to do that when we get to that

section of this bill under the discussion.

J. Horgan: I'm as confused as my colleague on this. Again, as I read the clause, I'm assuming that

section 139 of the Motor Vehicle Act refers to development roads or resource roads. I go to page 15 and clause 56, and I see "development roads" at 139(1). I'm wondering: are we changing the name "industrial roads" to "development roads"? Is that what we're doing here?

We're clearly off the surface rights board, and I think that everyone is grateful for that. But what's the purpose? What are we doing here?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will do my best one more time. In the Motor Vehicle Act, under

definitions, "industrial road" talks about…. We are going to strike out

section 8(1) in the Motor Vehicle Act

definitions. It is going to be replaced. Instead of referring to

section 8(1), it will now refer to

section 139(1), which is referring to what the previous member had asked about. We will get to that under

section 56, which talks about development roads.

J. Horgan: Well, I have it handy, as the member knows, to my right — the Statutes of the province of British Columbia, save and except the Oil and Gas Activities Act which, of course, has not been brought into force, though we're amending it today nonetheless.

It's a weighty tome, and without assistance I'm looking at

section 8(1). It's talking about licences for farm tractors. When I look at the bill,

section 14, I'm advised that if I go to the Motor Vehicle Act, which I have right here at my fingertips…. I'm looking at

section 8(1), and it's talking about licences for farm tractors.

Then I go, as the minister advises, to page 15,

section 56, and we're talking about development roads. I may well not be reading this correctly, but "Licences for farm tractors" is not beyond my capacity of literacy. Perhaps the minister could explain.

Again, we don't want to belabour the point. But this legislation should be precise and, I would think, in the 21st century, easy to follow.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think this may do it. I will start at the beginning of

section 14. Member, with all due respect, you're looking at

section 8(1). It is actually: "Section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act" — 1996 — "is amended in the definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8 (1).'" I think that will probably clear it up. I think you were going to 8(1) rather than "Definitions."

J. Horgan: Well, it appears that we no longer have industrial roads; we will have development roads. Is that where we're going?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It has always been called a development road under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act — hence, the reference.

J. Horgan: I don't doubt that, but we have "industrial road" in the

section the minister referred to, and we have "development road" replacing it in

section 56. Again, I'm curious. If that's what we're doing, I don't have a problem with that. Development road, industrial road — we could debate another hour on that, I'm sure, but I don't think anyone wants to do that.

I know that my colleague from False Creek doesn't want to do that, based on her facial expression.

[1610]

Is that the objective of this amendment — to change the Motor Vehicle Act

definitions from "industrial road" to "development road"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently as you read this, it says the reference or "definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8(1).'" When you talk about

section 8(1), that's the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. The roads are development roads in that bill, so not a big deal. I think this has been the same possibly since the time the previous member served in government.

J. Horgan: Then what's the point? The issue, I think, that my colleague from Maple Ridge and I have is that we're amending…. It's a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act. I have it in front of me. The minister has ably directed me to the definition of industrial road, and now that's being struck out and replaced. I'm wondering why we're doing that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're changing it because

section 8(1) is referred to in the Motor Vehicle Act, and it's referring to a

section of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act that will no longer exist. It will then be referred to in

section 139(1) of

section 56.

[ Page 3962 ]

I know there are a lot of numbers going around, but the issue is that

section 8(1) will no longer exist, so we had to make the consequential amendment in this act for the cross-reference. If somebody was reading that, they would go to the right section. Once we get through this act and it is implemented as well, these consequential amendments then come into force.

J. Horgan: I've already admitted to being Irish, and I'll admit to being obtuse, as well, on this. As I see this, it's a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act, which I have draped over my left arm here. And we are substituting in this act — the Motor Vehicle Act — language from

section 139(1). We're striking out

section 8, and we're replacing it with

section 139.

I think the confusion on this side from my colleague and myself is that it doesn't say either in the definition or in the act what the substituting clause or provision is. From what act are we substituting? From which act to what act? I guess that's the challenge. The minister sounds like he's got it nailed, and his staff is there. They've got it nailed. But we on this side of the House are having some difficulty with it.

Perhaps if we'd had an opportunity for a briefing prior to committee stage, we wouldn't have to belabour this point. I'm sure the capable staff would have been able to draw and highlight these issues without the intervention of the Chair.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I now also have that large book of statutes over my arm. I will read it out, and we'll try and get this because I think it's an important question. We all want to understand.

Under

definitions, "'industrial road' means industrial road as defined in the Industrial Roads Act, and includes a forest service road as defined in the Forest Act and" — this is the part — "land designated as a development road under

section 8 (1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act."

We are removing

section 8(1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, so this will now read, following this introduction, that instead of under

section 8(1), it will be under

section 139(1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

[1615]

M. Sather: One last question, I think. There's no

section 131 now, as I read it, in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, so this adds a new

section to that act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under Bill 8 that we're discussing today, yes, that will add a new

section 139(1).

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

J. Horgan: Now we're entering into the meat of the legislation, the

definitions. What are we doing here? I wanted to seek from the minister an explanation as to why he's brought forward

section 15 in Bill 8.

Hon. B. Lekstrom:

Section 15, which we're discussing now, deals with changes to the

definitions of the OGAA, Oil and Gas Activities Act. That's what we're seeing before us here in

section 15.

J. Horgan: Under

section 15(c), "environmental measure," we're adding the following definition that says: "means an action a person must take or refrain from taking for the protection or effective management of the environment." I'm wondering if the minister could advise what the intent of that definition is.

Hon. B. Lekstrom:

Section (

c) that you're talking about, regarding environmental measures. They are measures that are created by different ministries — the Minister of Environment, for example, the Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister of Agriculture — and they are captured in

section 104 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

J. Horgan: Of course,

section 104 is not yet brought into force. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That is correct.

J. Horgan: Again, I know that members will be interested to know we are amending

definitions that are not yet brought into force. The government's environmental objectives are also listed, and it goes as follows: "means the prescribed objectives of the government respecting the protection and effective management of the environment."

[1620]

Can the minister advise what the government's environmental objectives are?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The environmental objectives are objectives put together by government, and those objectives must be taken into consideration by the Oil and Gas Commission when they are issuing the permits that they deal with in this industry.

J. Horgan: Are the government's environmental objectives published, readily available to citizens of British Columbia?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: They will be available upon the implementation of this act once we conclude our discussion here today and possibly in the future. Once it becomes law, then yes.

[ Page 3963 ]

J. Horgan: So can I determine from that, then, that should this bill not pass, the government will be without any environmental objectives?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we actually have, I think, a tremendous set of environmental objectives. This will be in addition to and build upon those, but we have environmental standards, as I'm sure the member is well aware, that have been developed over decades in this province that we can all be proud of.

We're going to move to enhance those under this, under the environmental objectives that will be publicly available upon the completion of this act.

J. Horgan: Are the objectives publicly available now — those that are not being added to by Bill 8?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently this industry operates under environmental regulations from the Forest Practices Code. What we're doing here is bringing environmental objectives in line with the oil and gas industry, so we're building upon that. The existing regs are available under the Forest Practices Code today, but what we're doing is bringing these environmental objectives into line, under Bill 8, with the oil and gas industry.

[1625]

J. Horgan: So the prescribed environmental objectives that are referred to in this definition currently exist in other pieces of legislation. This definition

section will point citizens, interested parties, stakeholders to those

definitions, those objectives in other pieces of legislation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently if somebody was to look for the environmental objectives and regulations that govern the oil and gas industry, they would go to the Forest Practices Code. That's how they've operated. They've used those standards.

What we're talking about here is bringing those standards over to Bill 8, which we're discussing here today. If somebody wanted to, upon completion of this bill, look to the environmental regulations, they would find it in this bill once Bill 8 is passed.

J. Horgan: So we're not adding to those environmental objectives with this definition. We're transferring them from another location. The government has already prescribed what those objectives are. They exist in another place. This definition is merely directing interested parties.

Those that review the statu