2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Doug Bondue

Trevena

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Musqueam Reconciliation,

Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Journée de la Francophonie

Cantelon

B.C. firefighters

C. James

Team B.C. at Special Olympics

R. Lee

Forest industry in B.C.

Routley

Joseph Creek residential care

facility

Bennett

Aboriginal canoe naming ceremony

Hammell

Oral Questions

Government relationship with Ken

Dobell

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

J. Kwan

Simpson

Fleming

Karagianis

Thorne

Macdonald

Hon. M.

de Jong

Status of Ken Dobell with Law

Society of B.C.

Ralston

Hon. M.

de Jong

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail–CN Rail investigation

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts, third report

Fleming

McIntyre

Committee of the Whole House

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 8) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 8)

Committee of the Whole House

Local Government Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)

Hon. I.

Chong

C. Wyse

Robertson

Farnworth

Gentner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour and

Citizens' Services

Puchmayr

Hon. O.

Ilich

Chouhan

[ Page 10429 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: On a historic day, a remarkable day, it's my pleasure to ask members to welcome to the Legislature a number of very special guests. Included amongst them from the Musqueam Indian band are Chief Ernie Campbell, Councillor Wendy Grant-John, Councillor Delbert Guerin, Elder Larry Grant and Leona Sparrow. In addition, of course, there are a number of elders and community members from the Musqueam First Nation.

We also have in the precincts Grand Chief Edward John from the First Nations Summit and Leadership Council and Chief Shawn Atleo, regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Having just attended the signing of a historic agreement, all are awaiting the next step in that journey along the path of reconciliation. I hope all members will make our guests feel very welcome today.

[1335]

C. James: I'll add our appreciation to the chiefs, the elders and the councillors who are here today — from the opposition as well.

I am also pleased to introduce Laura Collier, who is here today. She is completing her fourth year in the University of Victoria's School of Social Work. It's been my good fortune to have Laura working in my community office as a practicum student over the last while.

Visiting today with Laura are her parents Del and Lynette Collier of Gull Lake, Saskatchewan. The Colliers own and run a grain and cattle farm in Gull Lake. They're here visiting their daughter today. I think it's especially nice, as we celebrate Social Work Week, to be able to welcome Laura and her family to the Legislature.

Hon. J. van Dongen: With us today in the Legislature to celebrate journée de la Francophonie are Mr. Moussa Magassa, board member of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Mr. Walter Deplazes, consul general of Switzerland; and Mr. Real Roy, president of the Victoria Francophone Society. They are here along with many members of the francophone community, and I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

D. Thorne: Over the last couple of days, we've had visitations from many of British Columbia's fine firefighters. I have had the distinct pleasure of having two young men from Coquitlam, fabulous examples of firefighters. I would like the House to welcome Mac Sullivan and Jason Miller, loyal members of Local 1782 and representatives of Coquitlam's best.

Hon. S. Bond: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mme. Marie Bourgeois to the House, who's also here to celebrate Francophone Day in British Columbia. Mme. Bourgeois is known for her unwavering commitment to the promotion of French language and culture. In fact, she was awarded the Order of Canada in 2005 in recognition of her unparalleled leadership and work on various boards and francophone organizations. I am very proud to say that she is the board chair of school district 93, which is B.C.'s francophone school district, le conseil scolaire francophone.

Alors, je vous souhaite une bonne journee de la Francophonie . I ask the House to give Mme. Bourgeois a very warm welcome.

C. Wyse: I would also ask the House to join with me in welcoming Daryl Cooper and Rob Chalmers, who met with me this morning on behalf of firemen from around the province. In welcoming them, I would ask whether the Speaker might also consider welcoming all the other fire representatives that are here in the House with us.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members, I would like to welcome all the firefighters who are here today and, apparently, last night also. A number of members, I think, enjoyed an enjoyable evening with them.

R. Cantelon: Indeed, there are five of Nanaimo's finest firefighters here in the gallery: Mike Rispin, Bill Eggers, Brian Wood, Ron Daly and Chad Porter.

Thank you for broadening the welcome. Should things get too heated in question period, Mr. Speaker, they're prepared to leap into action to help us.

M. Farnworth: Just in quick response to the member opposite, I think that if things get too heated here in question period, they want to enjoy the fire.

It's my pleasure to introduce a couple of firefighters from Port Coquitlam, Mr. Rob Bonas and Mr. Nick Zupan. They're here to inform us of their issues as firefighters and also to observe the fireworks in question period. Would the House please give them a big welcome.

Mr. Speaker: I tried to welcome all the firefighters.

[1340]

V. Roddick: There were five of Delta's finest here last night as well.

In the gallery today from Delta Senior Secondary School, fondly referred to as Ladner high, are 60 civics 11 students that are really, really engaged. I almost froze to death out there, but it was the most terrific time — great questions.

They are joined today by Mrs. Alka Goel-Stevens, Mr. Graham Harkley and their teacher, Mr. John Powell. So would the House really make these young people welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, had the privilege of meeting with one of New West's finest, Greg Simpkin, a New Westminster firefighter, and also with one of their union reps, Tim Bailey. We decided not to meet in the great big board room and meet in the coffee shop. They made me buy them breakfast, so they're very astute. Please make them welcome.

[ Page 10430 ]

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today is Mr. Gérald Moreau, a former constituent of mine and a retired university professor from the University of Victoria. He is also here to celebrate Francophone Day at the Legislature.

More recently, Mr. Moreau served as a citizenship judge here in British Columbia, performing many ceremonies and welcoming many new Canadians to Canada. I just wanted to say that I first met Mr. Moreau through his late wife, Mme. Henriette Moreau, who was my French teacher at Mount Douglas high school, where she taught for 23 years.

Mrs. Moreau was tireless in her efforts in the promotion of the French language and culture here in Victoria and in Coquitlam. In her honour and in her memory, five awards will be given annually through several organizations for Mme. Henriette Moreau. I would ask the House to please welcome Mr. Gérald Moreau.

K. Conroy: I so rarely get to introduce people from the Kootenays that I am going to take this opportunity to welcome two firefighters from Trail, Richard Melnyk and Tim Boutin, both from Local 941. They both actually live in Fruitvale, but it's great to have them here.

Hon. S. Hagen: We are joined by Mlle. Lucille Riedle from the Comox Valley Francophone Association, here to help us celebrate B.C. Francophone Day. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

B. Simpson: I want to introduce all the firefighters that are left. Actually, I'm going to introduce another group that's here today, United Steelworkers, a lobby group that's here lobbying various MLAs for immediate assistance for laid-off workers and for communities impacted by the current downturn in the marketplace.

From Local 1-424 Prince George we have David Stoll, Kapal Kilshaw, Alfred Wilkins; from Local 1-3567 in Langley, Caleb Boustall, Igor Berzowski; from USW District 3, Kim Pollock, who is no stranger to this House, and from Local 1-85 Port Alberni, Rita Lajeunesse. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Trevena: I would also like to introduce one of the steelworkers in the gallery who is the president of the Campbell River, Courtenay and District Labour Council, Leslie McNabb, who we will be meeting with later.

I would also like to introduce one of the many firefighters who came to meet with us, but he was also one of the organizers of the event. I think the House may want to make Reid Wharton, a Campbell River firefighter and the co-chair of the association's legislative committee, particularly welcome.

Tributes

DOUG BONDUE

C. Trevena: Some of our communities have some very special people in them, and I would like the House to help me recognize one such person, Doug Bondue from Port Alice, the top hockey volunteer in Canada. Doug has been a stalwart in the local hockey community, starting a hockey society in the village, keeping the arena open when the mill was shut down and keeping hockey alive in the community.

Now he's being recognized by the RBC Local Hockey Leaders program. Doug is the only person from B.C. to be so recognized and will have his name displayed in a permanent exhibit at the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Doug is also going to receive $10,000 to be put toward the registered charity of his choice. He's going to get a Team Canada jersey, and a banner will be raised in his name in the Port Alice arena. I hope the House will help me congratulate Doug, B.C.'s top hockey volunteer.

[1345]

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: We also have five of the finest firefighters visiting here from Surrey. They met with us yesterday, and they're meeting with us later on at 2:30. I would like to welcome them to the House. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Karagianis: I see that we've just had a new guest enter the gallery. It is the Esquimalt Nation chief, Chief Andy Thomas, and I would ask the House to please make him very welcome.

R. Fleming: I'd like to add to the welcome of the firefighters who are here in the precinct today and single out Rick Farrell and Gary Birtwistle from the Victoria fire department. It's a fire department that is older than this province has been in Confederation. It protects Victoria residents and, of course, this precinct.

This year they're celebrating protecting Victorians on land and on sea with the addition of a new fire boat to the new navy of the fire department. Will the House please make those two firefighters welcome.

J. Rustad: Prince George faced a real challenge this past winter with the floods that came along, and the firefighters played a tremendous role in helping our community fight that battle. I'd just like to introduce three of the finest from Prince George: Fred Wilkinson, Blake King and John Iverson. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, would like to extend our welcome to the firefighters from Burnaby. They are not just hard-working and very efficient, but they also made the calendar — the firefighters' very famous calendar that they issue. Please join me in welcoming the firefighters from Burnaby.

Hon. P. Bell: The finest of the fine, the president of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, from the wonderful community of Prince George — Al Leier. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else to introduce? If you weren't introduced, welcome.

[ Page 10431 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MUSQUEAM RECONCILIATION, SETTLEMENT

AND BENEFITS AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand in the chamber today and introduce Bill 12, the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act.

This legislation acts upon the government's commitments made in the reconciliation, settlement and benefits agreement signed with the Musqueam people and Chief Ernie Campbell just a few moments ago. This agreement puts the province and the Musqueam people on a new path of reconciliation and will provide the Musqueam people with a solid foundation upon which to develop their community.

We are, as I pointed out earlier, joined on the floor of the House today by Musqueam Chief Ernie Campbell, Councillors Delbert Guerin and Wendy Grant-John, Elder Larry Grant and Leona Sparrow. I do want to pay tribute to the leadership of Chief Campbell, the councillors and the elders for their courage and vision in taking this step together. They did join with me and others in a ceremony earlier today to sign this historic agreement. It was a proud moment for B.C., one that puts mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation into action.

This agreement establishes new economic opportunities for the Musqueam people, is a basis for reconciliation and resolves many years of outstanding litigation. It creates the foundation for a new relationship between the province and the Musqueam people, one that provides a positive future and moves us away from the era of confrontation and litigation.

[1350]

The transfers of cash and land contained in the agreement will create economic opportunities so that the Musqueam can fully engage in the lower mainland's mainstream economy. This is a great day for the Musqueam, a great day for British Columbia and the beginning of a new relationship between us.

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

Bill 12, Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

R. Cantelon: C'est avec grand plaisir que j'annonce la proclamation du 20 mars en tant que journée de la Francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. Puisque la chambre ne siège pas la semaine prochaine, nous soulignons cet important événement aujourd'hui.

Comme nous le faisons depuis 2002, mon collègue le ministre van Dongen organise un événement spécial, à l'heure du midi, pour souligner la journée de la Francophonie. Cette année les célébrations mettent en vedette le secteur des arts et de la culture francophones et soulignent le 150e anniversaire de la Colombie-Britannique.

Dans les années 1850 les francophones constituaient jusqu'à 60 pour cent de toute la population européenne en Colombie-Britannique. Les francophones ont contribué à l’exploration de la province et y ont établi la première colonie de peuplement au XVIIe siècle. Plusieurs lieux symboliques de la ville de Victoria, soit l'hôpital Saint-Joseph et l'Académie Sainte-Anne, ont été construits par des francophones.

[French text provided by R. Cantelon.]

B.C. FIREFIGHTERS

C. James: Continuing on with the theme from introduction of guests at the beginning of this session, the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association is holding their annual legislative conference in Victoria, and I had the pleasure yesterday of addressing that conference.

Over the next couple of days all MLAs will be meeting with delegations of firefighters from their communities. Each MLA in British Columbia has a deep appreciation and respect for the firefighters association and the work that they do.

The Professional Fire Fighters Association is an extremely effective advocate for firefighters, for fire safety and for the health and well-being of our communities. One of those amazing community supports is the firefighters burn fund. Through awareness, research and prevention programs, for 30 years the

[ Page 10432 ]

firefighters burn fund has made an enormous contribution to B.C.'s communities, providing support to burn research, burn survivors and to the families of burn victims.

The firefighters association also led the fight to recognize different forms of cancer as occupational diseases. New Democrats were proud to support Bill 11 and to offer amendments to expand its scope, recognizing that fire is only one of the dangers that firefighters face.

One of the most passionate advocates in the campaign to recognize cancer as a presumptive illness passed away last year. Robert Hall fought his illness with the same resolve and purpose that he fought for the health and dignity of all firefighters. Robert served others so that we could all be safe. I know all members in this House will miss Robert's smile on a day like this, when we remember him being here each year to lobby all of us. That smile and that legacy will remain forever.

I ask all members in this House to join with me to honour firefighters for their sacrifice, their dedication and their bravery.

[1355]

TEAM B.C. AT SPECIAL OLYMPICS

R. Lee: On February 24, I attended the Team B.C. send-off ceremony for the 2008 Special Olympics Canada National Winter Games in Quebec City. I was pleased to join the Minister of State for ActNow B.C. at the draft and athletes' send-off.

The draft was in NHL style, where each of the athletes and a sponsor, including the government of B.C., were paired and photographed on stage. We also heard from three guest speakers: the Minister of State for ActNow B.C.; Colin MacKinnon, chair of the board of directors of Special Olympics Canada; and Ken McLean, a Team B.C. athlete who delivered a very inspiring speech.

Events like this would not be possible without the hard work of Karen Hamilton of Special Olympics B.C. It is indeed an exciting opportunity for sponsors to meet these amazing athletes.

The games took place in Quebec City from February 27 to March 2. I am pleased to report that the games were a tremendous success for all participants. The team of 98 athletes, along with 42 coaches and mission staff from across the province, proudly represented our province at the games.

Along with new friends made and many personal bests, the Team B.C. athletes won 134 medals in seven sports at the games, including alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, curling, figure skating, floor hockey, snowshoeing and speed skating. Of particular note are the achievements of Bridget Colvin of Burnaby, who came home with three medals — gold, silver and bronze — in various snowshoeing events.

Would the House please join me in sending our congratulations to all the athletes, their dedicated training coaches and team coaches, and supporting family and friends for reaching new heights in Special Olympics.

FOREST INDUSTRY IN B.C.

D. Routley: I rise in the House today to talk about the number one industry in British Columbia, and that is forestry. I rise to talk about forestry in B.C. and in my riding of Cowichan and Ladysmith.

Forestry is an industry in crisis. Over the last three years we have lost 45 percent of our revenue from stumpage. From '04 to '07 we went from $1.3 billion in stumpage to $714 million. A further $40 million is expected to be lost from that total this year, which will take us down to $674 million exacted from forestry stumpage. That will be a 50 percent decline.

Over the last five years we have seen over 50 major mills close. On Vancouver Island the most recent was Elk Falls, affecting hundreds of workers and their families and indirectly affecting the entire community.

The communities of Vancouver Island are calling out for a plan that will deal with our forest inventory, that will assess our forest health, that will give us new current data on our timber supply and that will provide us with an old-growth strategy. We need an innovative 21st-century approach that will recognize the ecosystem services that our forests provide when it comes to carbon, air and water services and preservation.

We need to ensure that full value is extracted from our resources when it comes to dimension lumber, remanufacturing, value-added, engineered wood products, pellets, pulp and paper, and hardwood products. Those should be the priorities, not raw log export.

We need a community and worker stability program that will provide the economic diversification required by our communities for their survival, but one that retains our industry and retains workers within that industry. If we are to have a 21st-century forest industry, we need the workers, we need the skills and we need the methods to be developed, not transitioned out of that industry. So I call for this House to endorse a recommitment to forestry in British Columbia.

JOSEPH CREEK

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY

B. Bennett: On Saturday night my wife and I attended the Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce evening of excellence. It's an annual event. Awards are handed out to small and large businesses for everything from marketing prowess to best-improved.

The top award of the evening was for business of the year. It's the award that's given to the business in the area that shows leadership, job creation, environmental enhancement, good labour relations and high-quality, safe service.

[1400]

I am pleased to announce today that the Joseph Creek care home in Cranbrook was awarded the business of the year award. Joseph Creek Care Village is a relatively new facility in our community, which provides 29 assisted-living units and 100 complex care units.

[ Page 10433 ]

Whereas seniors once waited up to two years in my area to get a complex care bed in an outdated facility, today seniors and their families wait an average of two months to get a beautiful, bright new room in Joseph Creek Care Village.

Of course, seniors where I come from had never even heard of assisted living before Joseph Creek Care Village. If they were too weak to be at home, they were shipped to the hospital to occupy an acute care bed or were institutionalized in old buildings with long hallways and tiny rooms.

Joseph Creek Care Village has brought hope and optimism to seniors in the Cranbrook area, partly, at least, because they recognize the aging process in itself is neither an illness nor a medical condition. There are no patients. Instead, there are residents who bring with them an extended network of relationships with family, friends and others that are maintained within the social fabric of that facility.

Joseph Creek Care Village accepts and adapts to each individual senior's functional abilities, personal desires, life experience and health needs. They respect individual differences, they promote individual choice, and they focus on strength and wellness. This is the fundamental distinction between the medical and the social models of care.

When thinking about this statement on the weekend, my wife mentioned to me a recent obituary in the Cranbrook Daily Townsman . The obituary closed with the following statement: "Fred spent the last months of his life under the tender, loving care of the amazing staff at Joseph Creek Care Village."

Congratulations to Joseph Creek Care Village in Cranbrook, especially to the 160 hard-working people who work in that facility.

ABORIGINAL CANOE

NAMING CEREMONY

S. Hammell: The event at Queen Elizabeth high school was on my calendar, as well as a number of other events, on Saturday, February 16. I stopped by, planning to spend an hour, and stayed for eight. I witnessed and was chosen to bear witness to the naming ceremony of a 30-foot hand-carved aboriginal canoe.

Many of the moments of the next eight hours were simply amazing. The hand-carved, traditional-style northern canoe entered the gymnasium to the beat of drums on the shoulders of about 60 people. The transformation from a huge western red cedar tree to this long, narrow, elegant and beautiful 30-foot canoe was simply breathtaking.

The canoe took its place in the front of the gymnasium, and as the canoe was given life and a name, the accomplished carver Michael Dangeli described in detail the journey of the carvers and the dream of teaching people about first nations culture, traditions and protocols through the carving of Ishqual.

The canoe was named Ishqual, meaning flight of eagles. In the aboriginal tradition, the transformation of the tree to its new life as a canoe was complete when it was named. At that point more drums were heard, accompanied by singing and dancing from the Nahanee family dancers who entered the gym. Masked in black paint and moving to the music of creatures of the forest, the dancers honoured the naming of the canoe and the carver Michael's accomplishment.

They were followed by a troupe, 50 strong, of Nisga'a cultural dancers who were able to make one's hair stand on end. The beating of the drums accompanied by the blowing of a conch shell horn echoed through the gym as the singers and dancers came on stage in waves of mesmerized singing and dancing. The effect was astonishing.

How fortunate I was to bear witness, and I wish all of us to assist them with their accomplishments.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP

WITH KEN DOBELL

C. James: Yesterday the Attorney General denied there was a cloud over Ken Dobell. Well, as it turns out, there is a cloud, and it's not only over Ken Dobell. It's over the Premier and his entire office.

[1405]

Yesterday we learned that the Premier's top adviser, Ken Dobell, has been charged with violating the Lobbyists Registration Act. The special prosecutor also said that Mr. Dobell could be charged with influence-peddling based on a contractual scheme that was approved by the Premier and his deputy, Jessica McDonald. Today we learned that the Premier has been asked to testify in the B.C. Rail corruption trial.

My question is to the Attorney General. If that's not a cloud, what is?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't quite understand the question.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, if it was coherent, I would understand it. If it was coherent and comprehensive and it stuck to one issue, I'd understand it.

If the question relates to Mr. Dobell, Mr. Dobell is scheduled to appear in the court tomorrow. I would assume that when he appears tomorrow, he'll enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. So why don't we wait to see what happens in a courtroom tomorrow?

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

C. James: This relates directly to the Premier's office and the Premier's deputy. In 2006 Ken Dobell sent a letter to Jessica McDonald, the Premier's deputy minister, and to Judy Rogers, a Vancouver city manager. In that letter he expressed his own concerns about conflict of interest. Jessica McDonald, the Premier's own deputy, brushed off those concerns and personally approved an arrangement that the special prosecutor has said is influence-peddling.

[ Page 10434 ]

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Given that Jessica McDonald and the Premier set up this scheme, will the government do the right thing, remove Jessica McDonald from her position as Deputy Minister to the Premier and actually do something about integrity for this government?

Hon. W. Oppal: We have faith in the system. We have faith that whatever the judge will decide as far as imposing a sentence on Mr. Dobell will be an appropriate sentence. We'll live by that.

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

C. James: The Attorney General says that he has faith in the system. What we don't have faith in is any kind of integrity and trust in the Premier of British Columbia. That's where we don't have trust.

Ken Dobell's letter and Jessica McDonald's own admission in 2007 make it clear. The Premier and his office were complicit in what the special prosecutor is calling influence-peddling. There was no due diligence. A whitewashed report and a continued favour to the Premier's closest friend.

Ken Dobell is not the only one to blame. He raised the concerns himself. It was the Premier and his office who approved those contracts. It was the Premier and his office who approved what the special prosecutor says is influence-peddling. It's the Premier and his office who should be held accountable.

So again, my question is to the Deputy Premier. When will the B.C. Liberals fire the Premier's deputy and actually restore integrity in that office?

Hon. W. Oppal: I find it unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has such disregard for the process and such disregard for the rule of law that she makes statements concerning other people who are not involved in the issue that will be before the court tomorrow.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. It was the Premier's office that allowed a scheme that the Crown prosecutor called influence-peddling, which went on for months in the Premier's office, and the Premier's office did nothing about it. They even kept Dobell on in key positions. He was chair of the convention centre, a project now $400 million in budget overruns. They allowed him to keep on lobbying his office and several other cabinet ministers. They even appointed him to lobby Ottawa on B.C.'s behalf. All of this was signed off by the Premier's office and by Jessica McDonald.

[1410]

Again to the Deputy Premier: will this government hold the Premier's deputy to account and fire Jessica McDonald today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Dobell will appear in court tomorrow. He will presumably enter a plea at that time. A disposition presumably will be made, and we'll live by it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: This is a question about the Premier's deputy, Jessica McDonald. The Premier is not going to hold himself to account. Let's be clear about that. At the very least, the Premier's deputy should be held accountable.

Ken Dobell's protégé, Jessica McDonald, gave her former boss a pass on issues of conflict, on violations of ethical standards and the Lobbyists Registration Act. Her actions have put the Premier's office into disrepute.

My question to the Deputy Premier is this. Will she stand up and hold Jessica McDonald to account and fire her today?

Hon. W. Oppal: The last time I looked, the charge was sworn against Mr. Dobell. That will be heard. As far as other witnesses or other people involved….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure that's something that's fodder for the opposition to speculate upon. But what we're concerned about is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: We can run out the 30 minutes like this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: Okay. We'll wait for the court to make its decision.

S. Simpson: In April of last year Jessica McDonald cleared Mr. Dobell of any conflict in a memo. We have now learned from the work of the special prosecutor that he was much less than clear of any conflict and that, in fact, the memo from Ms. McDonald was nothing more than a whitewash. That's unacceptable conduct by the deputy Premier. Will the government do the right thing, and will they fire Ms. McDonald now?

Hon. W. Oppal: As long as that same question will be asked, I'll give the same answer. We'll wait for the trial judge to make his or her decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 10435 ]

S. Simpson: The trial judge will make a decision about Mr. Dobell, who presumably, from reports, will plead guilty. This issue isn't about Mr. Dobell. This issue is about the Premier's office. It is about Ms. McDonald and her conduct in clearing Mr. Dobell of charges that we now know he clearly was guilty of, by his own admission. The question is Ms. McDonald.

Why won't this government protect its own integrity? Maybe its integrity is not important to it. Maybe its sense of entitlement is all that's important to this group on the other side. Fire Ms. McDonald for her breach of proper conduct.

Hon. W. Oppal: If the opposition is so preoccupied by Ms. McDonald and is making the allegations against her, why don't they step outside and make them?

[1415]

R. Fleming: I'm trying to glean something out of the Attorney General's non-answers, so my question for him is about Mrs. McDonald. If tomorrow Mr. Dobell is found guilty, is that the moment that the deputy Premier will have been found in serious breach and serious error, and she will be fired? Is that the moment when it will occur finally — tomorrow after the trial?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, once more we see how the opposition is showing a complete disregard for the legal process. They're rushing to judgment.

The matter will be heard in the courtroom tomorrow. Why can't we wait to hear what the judge has to say? Is there nothing else that they have to go on?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The matter will come up before the judge tomorrow. We'll hear what the judge has to say and what the decision will be.

M. Karagianis: I think it's appalling that no one is able to be held accountable in this government for these actions and for what clearly has been outlined as influence-peddling.

Yesterday the Attorney General refused to admit that it's not okay for any of his ministers to continue meeting with Mr. Dobell while he's being charged. So I would ask through to the Minister of Transportation, who's nice and chirpy over there. Mr. Dobell is registered to lobby him on behalf of Cubic Transportation Systems. Will the Minister of Transportation agree today to call off any and all future meetings with his ministry and with any public agencies like TransLink?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll read the portion of the report again. "Mr. Dobell is scheduled to make his first appearance in Vancouver Provincial Court in the morning of March 12, 2008. As this matter is before the court, it would not be appropriate to comment on the circumstances of the case at this time."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's talk a little bit about the history of this government. In the past it was okay to fire Mr. Basi and to suspend Mr. Virk at the very first hint of an investigation in the B.C. corruption scandal — the very first hint. Yet here we have Mr. Dobell going before the courts and a special prosecution, and it's okay to continue meeting with him.

Again, through to the Minister of Transportation: do the right thing and say today that you will cancel all the future meetings with Mr. Dobell with your ministry and with any public agencies like TransLink.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll do my best to speculate where the question was in all of that. I assume in that lengthy speech, there was something about Mr. Dobell. If there was, my answer is the same.

D. Thorne: The special prosecutor has already said that Mr. Dobell's contract to lobby the provincial government on behalf of the city of Vancouver involved influence-peddling. Influence-peddling is something that I would hope this government would take seriously, but they're refusing to do anything about it.

Mr. Dobell is still registered to lobby the Minister for Housing. So my question is to the Minister for Housing. Will the minister agree not to meet with Mr. Dobell and not allow any of his staff to do it either?

[1420]

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me, through the Speaker, give some advice — unsolicited as it may be — to the member opposite. Yes, the special prosecutor has said that. Yes, the special prosecutor has filed a report. Yes, there is a charge before the court. The judge has not made any findings yet. Those presumably will be made tomorrow in a courtroom in the city of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: That response is not only not acceptable; it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The judge hasn't rendered any decision in Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk either. We're talking about the same thing here and getting different answers.

It's beyond belief that this government will not sever its ties. It's beyond belief. Maybe the only reason is because Mr. Dobell is such a close friend of the Premier…

Interjections.

D. Thorne: I was going to finish that sentence by saying: "…and Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk are not."

[ Page 10436 ]

I again ask the Minister for Housing: will he agree to not meet with Mr. Dobell or have any of his staff meet with Mr. Dobell? It's a simple question. Please, let's have an answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Somewhere in that question there has to be a common thread, and I'm trying to find out where it is. There's Mr. Dobell, there's Mr. Basi, and there's Mr. Virk. I guess they're all before the court, so that's something common there. That makes a lot of sense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Attorney, continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can't answer the question, because I didn't understand it.

N. Macdonald: We'll make this clear. There is one standard for Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, and there is another standard for a good friend of the Premier. That is what is clear in this issue.

Let's turn to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Mr. Dobell is registered to lobby the Minister of Tourism with regards to the cultural precinct project. Meanwhile, he is being charged with breaking the law regarding lobbying.

My question to the Minister of Tourism is very simple. A yes or a no — will he agree to sever all ties with Mr. Dobell?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what is clear. In less than 24 hours an individual is going to appear in court. The information we have in the report is that that individual is facing charges.

What is abundantly clear from what has taken place here today is that the opposition has so little regard for the time-honoured independence of that judicial process — to allow that judicial process to run its course, to allow that individual to have his day in court for a finding or a plea to be entered and for that charge to be dealt with…. I have never in 15 years seen such a despicable display and such blatant disregard for the independence of the judiciary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

N. Macdonald: Nothing speaks clearer to the failure of the Attorney General than to have the House Leader have to stand up and save him from the pathetic answers we've been getting on this issue.

I'll tell you what's clear on this. The deputy minister in the Premier's office cleared Ken Dobell of conflict twice — twice. The deputy minister also gave Ken Dobell permission to violate the cooling-off period. Those two things.

So the question is around the credibility of the Premier's office. And if the House Leader wants to get up and explain to the people of British Columbia why there is special treatment for a longtime friend of the Premier…. Is it poor judgment on the part of the deputy minister, or is it cronyism, pure and simple?

Hon. M. de Jong: Time and time and time again, British Columbians have seen the same thing from this opposition — an opposition that has no new ideas and is desperate to create an issue. Today they saw this opposition hit a new low. Time and time again we see what they do. Bankrupt of ideas, they choose to malign the reputation of public servants who are, in good faith, providing a service to British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is pretty straightforward, Mr. Speaker. If the members opposite want to allege bad faith on the part of the deputy to the Premier, they should go out in the hallway and do so. If the members opposite want to allege some kind of improper conduct on the part of the deputy to the Premier, they should go outside and allege it, free from the kind of immunity that exists out here. I have never seen such a despicable attack as what I see from this opposition today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member. We're not going to continue until there's quiet. Just take your seat.

STATUS OF KEN DOBELL WITH

LAW SOCIETY OF B.C.

B. Ralston: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, has the power to appoint six lay benchers to the Law Society. Those are the governing body of the Law Society. Mr. Dobell is one of those lay governors. As of 1:30 today on the website, he's still listed as being a lay bencher of the Law Society. Will the Attorney General confirm that Mr. Dobell has offered to resign from that position?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, blanketed in the security that the immunity of this chamber grants all members, the opposition continues to cast aspersions on individuals. I am astounded that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 10437 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: …this hon. member, a member of the bar, who practised the profession of law, a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, would — 24 hours in advance of an individual going before the court to have a matter dealt with — stand in this chamber and pass judgment in anticipation of what is going to take place in the court.

I say shame on that member. I say that he has today revealed a level of disregard for the independence of the judiciary that I would not have expected from this member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1430]

B. Ralston: Were this person, Mr. Dobell, a police officer who was before the courts and a special prosecutor appointed, the presumption of innocence would continue to apply while the matter was before the courts. But his employment relationship might well be suspended or ended. There's a different standard. Certainly the hon. House Leader knows that, as a sometime member of the bar, I believe.

So the question is an entirely proper one. Has Mr. Dobell offered to resign as a governing member of the Law Society?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look. The member seems to have no qualms whatsoever about injecting himself into a process that the criminal justice branch and the special prosecutor went to pains to urge people…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: …to refrain from doing.

I'll read it too. "Mr. Dobell is scheduled to make his first appearance in Vancouver Provincial Court the morning of March 12, 2008." Gee, I guess we'll have to wait the 15 hours it will take for that to happen. "As this matter is before the court, it would not be appropriate to comment on the circumstances of the case at this time."

If there's something about that which this member or this opposition has difficulty understanding, then maybe they should hire a lawyer and have someone explain it to them.

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL INVESTIGATION

M. Farnworth: The Premier has said that he would cooperate with the B.C. Rail corruption trial. He promised openness and transparency. Well, in the court today the defence raised the issue of the unilateral change to the disclosure protocol made sometime in the summer of 2007. The defence has alleged this may be grounds for litigation under

section 7 of the Charter of Rights, and the defence says that the Premier's change to the disclosure protocol will form the basis of defence application alleging breach of process application.

Can the Attorney General inform the House as to whether the Premier has cleared his calendar so that he can testify?

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to read, first, a portion of a letter sent by the Deputy Attorney General to the member for Nanaimo. It says:

"The real point in your letter, however, appears to question whether I made decisions on the disclosure of government documents independent of political input. I have exercised the responsibility I was given to determine whether to assert privilege on any government documents completely independently, free of any influence.

"There has been no attempt by anyone to influence my decisions. I have been left entirely to my own judgment to decide these questions, and I…"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal:

"…take my independence on these and other justice issues very seriously, and I feel aggrieved when that independence is questioned. I believe that what the Premier said to describe my role in the estimates debate in May of 2007 is completely accurate. I was given the power to decide cabinet privilege without further consultation with the Premier or anyone in the Premier's office. I have done that."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This case is of an extremely serious nature. It goes right to the heart of trust in government and the conduct of the Premier's office is central to this. Questions have been raised. We learned today that the Premier will be called as a witness — a distinct possibility of the Premier being called as a witness. That is a very serious thing.

We're just asking the Attorney General, because we know the Premier has very many commitments in this chamber, that they will not be used to block or delay his ability to testify.

[1435]

Hon. W. Oppal: That question indicates to me how little that person understands about the system. What has happened here is that application has been made by the defence lawyers to have the Premier testify.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: People don't testify in a courtroom unless they have relevant evidence to give. It's my understanding….

Interjections.

[ Page 10438 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: That member should understand what all this is about, above anyone else, you know.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The judge decides if any particular witness has relevant evidence to give or not. If that witness has relevant evidence to give, then that witness would be called. It's not a question of who wants to go and who should go and all the questions that have been posed here by an uninformed member. The answer here is that if there's any relevant evidence to give, that witness will appear and give the relevant evidence.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Reports from Committees

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the 38th parliament.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

R. Fleming: I move the report be adopted and, in doing so, would like to make some brief comments about the committee's work during the last session.

I am pleased to report that our committee has worked very well to provide parliamentary oversight to the activities and the programs of government. We've done this through a close working relationship with the Office of the Auditor General, which is now led by Mr. John Doyle, the province's fourth Auditor General, who began his duties on October 29, 2007, relocating here from Western Australia after an international search that the committee conducted.

During the third session, the Public Accounts Committee reviewed 11 main reports and one follow-up report tabled by the Office of the Auditor General with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The topics covered and reviewed this year ranged very widely from public administration to performance reporting; value-for-money reporting on the subjects of financial reporting, treaty negotiations, post-secondary education and transportation policy; a report on the child and youth mental health system; and other health care–related matters. The Public Accounts Committee also reviewed and approved the Auditor General's annual financial statement audit coverage plan.

I'd like to thank all of the committee members for their participation for these past months at the Public Accounts Committee and particularly the Deputy Chair, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, for her hard work in convening the committee and contributing to the committee.

I'd also like to give special thanks to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the member for Delta North, who served on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and who will no longer serve during this session as they move on to other standing committees of this House.

I'd like to welcome the member for North Island and the member for Cariboo North to the Public Accounts Committee, who now serve on this committee. I look forward to working with those members as the Public Accounts Committee continues its work with the Office of the Auditor General.

I now move the report, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to echo the sentiments expressed by the Public Accounts Chair and add my thanks to the Chair and to the committee for their hard work over the past year.

We accomplished much at the committee level, all the while engaging in our active search for a new Auditor General, whose appointment was approved unanimously in May of that year. From all the feedback we've received, I'm very confident that we've selected an outstanding gentleman of integrity who's already making an impact and providing value to all British Columbians.

[1440]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A. Committee of Supply, for the information of members, will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. In this chamber continued committee stage debate on Bill 8, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

[ Page 10439 ]

section 10 (continued) .

B. Simpson: I think we actually finished

section

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

B. Simpson: Now,

section 11 is amending

section 109, according, again, to the explanatory notes. This is an area that I need some assistance to understand. The explanatory note says something about shifting, allowing money derived from a particular expenditure to be credited to B.C. Timber Sales on approval of the Treasury Board and then allowing money in B.C. Timber Sales account to be expended for the prescribed purpose on approval of the Treasury Board.

This is one of those small amendments. We're inserting a subsection (

i) under

section 2 and (

e) under

section 3. I wonder if the minister can describe what is going on here and why these two particular related sections are important in how it relates to B.C. Timber Sales.

Hon. R. Coleman: Welcome this afternoon, Madam Chair. We're all pleased to see you in the chair this afternoon.

Section 109 establishes that B.C. Timber Sales account and defines a qualifying revenue and expenditures stream relating to that account. The amendment to

section 109 will allow money in the B.C. Timber Sales account to be expended for a prescribed purpose, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board. The amendment is also to ensure that any revenues generated from such an expenditure be credited to B.C. Timber Sales account.

[1445]

This amendment will enable B.C. Timber Sales to pursue innovative business practices that support government objectives that are closely aligned with the program's mandated objectives. Any new expenditures falling under this category will require a supporting regulation and will be subject to Treasury Board oversight.

Basically, in order to do something…. For instance, where we might want to work with a first nation and do some fee-for-service work in order to help them build their capacity and move the wood, that would allow for them to do that charge. But it has to be approved by Treasury Board in order for them to do it because it has…. Well, it doesn't have a huge fiscal impact, but it's not unusual for these things to have to go to Treasury Board.

B. Simpson: The minister's remarks on introducing the bill go to the latter point that he has made just now that somehow this is going to support new relationships with first nations, allowing more timber to market. It deals with an issue near and dear to both first nations and licensees, and that has to do with each other.

Then later on in his supplementary comments to close off the debate on second reading, he said that first nations asked us to allow B.C. Timber Sales to be one of the partners that might be able to form a joint venture with them to move wood.

I wonder if the minister could describe what the nature of a joint venture between B.C. Timber Sales and first nations might look like that would be covered under these two

section additions.

Hon. R. Coleman: Right now we can't have any relationship with first nations outside of…. B.C. Timber Sales is pretty restricted in what they can do. They can do work on selling their own timber, designing their own timber blocks, designing their own roads and taking it to auction.

This would allow B.C. Timber Sales, if the first nation asks for it, to work into a planning relationship where they would be able to plan — basically, expend some funds for planning to help the first nation achieve their goal. It would allow them, if the first nation wanted to, to include their wood in an auction, to auction wood, and also to be able to actually joint-venture in a relationship, for instance, on reforestation.

That's the type of thing that they can't do today. All the money can't be expended outside the account, and they don't have the ability to do it. This

section amendment would allow them to pursue other business practices like that.

B. Simpson: Does it only apply to first nations, or can they enter into joint ventures with any other licensee? I don't see any constraints in the legislation that restrict this to joint ventures with first nations.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it doesn't have any restrictions to other…. Somebody else with timber could come to B.C. Timber Sales, as well, and ask if they would want to enter into a relationship.

The reason this was designed, obviously, was because of the concern over the forest and range opportunities and the movement of wood and the First Nations Forestry Council saying: "We'd like to have a different relationship and some other opportunities for our folks to be able to gain some expertise that may be available within government, particularly B.C. Timber Sales." But it doesn't stop B.C. Timber Sales from also working with other groups.

[1450]

B. Simpson: The minister raised the issue of forest range opportunities, but forest range opportunities have nothing to do with B.C. Timber Sales. That's an allocation of cut, independent of what B.C. Timber Sales has.

Is the minister suggesting that what a first nation can do is come to B.C. Timber Sales and treat them like a consulting company, to assist them to build some capacity to be able to do work in their forest and range agreements? Is that what's suggested here — that there's effectively a contractual arrangement a first nation can make with B.C. Timber Sales to get some

[ Page 10440 ]

assistance to move their volume under forest and range opportunities?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's precisely correct. It would allow them to come to B.C. Timber Sales and say: "We have a forest and range opportunity of" — well, let's use the round number — "50,000 cubic metres a year for each of the next five years. We don't have the capacity at our end to be able to, basically, plan it and get it out. We wonder if you would enter into an agreement with us for costs to be able to accomplish that — to move the wood or that sort of thing with regards to the wood that we may want to sell or design the cutblocks for." That sort of thing.

This allows B.C. Timber Sales to actually expend money for that prescribed purpose but at the same time also recover it, because there's a cost and a revenue impact here. Basically, they could charge for the service and recover it from the sale, or whatever the case may be. So that's what supports that, and all of it is subject to Treasury Board oversight.

B. Simpson: If I understand this correctly, in many forest districts, B.C. Timber Sales got first pass on the 20 percent takeback plus whatever was in the small business program. In many forest districts there was a bit of a tussle, if you will, around extracting from some of that takeback opportunities for woodlots, community forests, forest range opportunities, etc. As the minister is well aware, in some districts — I happen to come from one of them — B.C. Timber Sales' take of the 20 percent takeback made it very restrictive for us getting into other arrangements that were supposed to be part of that.

If I understand this correctly, then is this not simply a way for B.C. Timber Sales to contract with first nations to get access back to wood? As the first nation gets a forest and range agreement, they've got 50,000 cubic metres, they go B.C. Timber Sales and say: "Can you make sure it gets out to the market for us?" In effect, then, B.C. Timber Sales is managing that wood, and what…? The first nation simply gets a cheque cut, but B.C. Timber Sales is the one that's now doing the work? Is that how this is going to work?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it should be clear that it isn't mandatory for anybody to do this. Second, what it is, is that the first nations have said: "We need a vehicle, which may include B.C. Timber Sales, that would be able to do something."

Now, what the member describes could be one of the outcomes. The other outcome could be that they come and say: "We want a mutually beneficial contract. We are not experts at the planning of the land, but we certainly can cut the timber, so we would like the employment for our folks for the cutting and the hauling of the timber."

It may be a case where they feel that they want to build another relationship and want some advice with regards to how they build the relationship to maybe put some together to have enough volume to do a small mill — that sort of thing. Those types of pieces of advice would obviously be available. That's not necessarily…. It doesn't have to come from here. It can come from other consultants.

[1455]

What they were looking for is, is there a vehicle that you could create that would allow this to happen so that they could, you know, achieve capacity over time? Initially, they might start out by saying: "We want to do the planning, and we'll do the reforestation and the cutting, but we're really not the people who, we think, have the capacity to sell the wood." So they go down that road.

Over time they build relationships, with the help of B.C. Timber Sales, to where they're able to go more marketing direct, or they build long-term contractual relationships. What it is, really, is to give them one more tool to help them build capacity.

B. Simpson: In this joint venture relationship, will the first nations get access to any additional potential wood through B.C. Timber Sales? The term "joint venture" suggests that both sides are benefiting. So can a first nation then supplement the timber or the volume it has in its forest and range agreements with B.C. Timber Sales if they happen to be operating in the same area, or whatever the case may be? Is there an opportunity here for a first nation to supplement their volume?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. This doesn't have anything to do with that. If they wanted to supplement their volume, they could bid on the wood like anybody else.

B. Simpson: With respect to B.C. Timber Sales' part of this, will they be cost recovery or cost plus?

Hon. R. Coleman: Each deal is going to be different. It really is cost recovery, though. It's really to build a relationship that's beneficial to the people who have forest and range opportunities, and first nations. In some cases they may come and want to do a revenue share, which would cover costs, and maybe B.C. Timber Sales could benefit, if they keep the costs down, I suppose.

We haven't done one of these yet. We're just trying to get the authority to do it. I think we'll find out, as each contract evolves individually — because each one has to be separate — how successful we can be.

B. Simpson: I want to be crystal-clear about this because it goes to my next questions. Is the possibility there for B.C. Timber Sales to become a consulting firm for first nations in which they are doing more than cost recovery — that they are actually deriving an income from providing a service to first nations?

The minister has already admitted that it doesn't need to be restricted to first nations. It can go beyond first nations — woodlots, community forests. A lot of the community forests are very tiny, and it's going to be very difficult for them to ramp up and have capacity and absorb all of the costs associated with the planning, the maintenance, the silviculture and everything else.

[ Page 10441 ]

Can they come to B.C. Timber Sales as well? The minister has already indicated that that's a possibility. So are we actually, by these two small amendments, making it possible for B.C. Timber Sales now to become a forestry consulting company to smaller tenure holders in which they will derive incremental revenue from that, beyond the first nations?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. It's not the intent at all for them to become a consulting company and make money on this. We will set a direction specifically to the company, to B.C. Timber Sales, with regards to where this should be applied.

It's not beyond the realm that maybe a community forest would come in, but I would suspect that we will have a certain amount of capacity available within B.C. Timber Sales to do this. We're not going to go out and build additional staffing and stresses on our people on top of this.

The intent is really to see if we can help with something that we've been asked to help with, quite frankly. We'll see by each individual agreement. It would probably go into the Treasury Board process, and those questions would be asked each time one of these came through. But it is not the intent to have this become a consulting company. It's the intent to be able to have them work with first nations for the benefit of the land base, to move the wood that everybody refers to as a piece of some wood that they'd like to see actually come to market.

B. Simpson: It's actually what everybody refers to as the black hole that they want to see coming into market. No question that it needs to come in there.

In order for me to understand this, who asked for this? It strikes me that there are consulting foresters who work all over British Columbia who provide this service to first nations.

[1500]

If B.C. Timber Sales is going to be doing it at a cost recovery level, then are they not going to be effectively undercutting consulting foresters — in fact, the minister has one on this round table — who have made a point of taking their business and orienting it specifically and explicitly to assisting first nations to do this?

If I've got the ability as a first nation to go to B.C. Timber Sales and get this nice little service on a cost recovery basis, where they're not having to bear the capital costs or not having to bear rent and all of that stuff and not trying to return some investment to whoever the shareholders are in that company…. Am I not undermining a whole bunch of consulting foresters who have spent a lot of time working on relationships with first nations by giving B.C. Timber Sales the ability to do this work with first nations?

Who asked for this? Is it an area of the province where there aren't consulting foresters?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're not going to push consultants out of the business. That's not the intent here whatsoever. Maybe I described it poorly earlier. My apologies.

The member asks: who asked for this? Well, the B.C. First Nations Forestry Council spoke to me about this. First nations have spoken to me about it as individual communities. The member referred to the black hole of wood. People in industry have actually said: "Is there some way you can facilitate a way that this could move even better?"

We may find, as we come through how we price this in the future, with regards to the wood and with the discussions that are taking place and that are coming forward to the processes that govern, which I talked about earlier, with the committee and Treasury Board and cabinet and what have you with the FROs…. Some of this may disappear, but it was just a request from them in meetings with me that we look at something like this.

I think it's probably the capacity on the sales side as much as anything. The only difference would be that if we're selling it, we can do something with the silviculture liability, which allows them to go do their replanting and create those jobs within the first nation. But there's no intention to go into the "consulting industry."

If there was something that came in with regards to planning or something, more than likely, we wouldn't be using our staff. We would actually point them in the direction of the people in the area who could do that work and work with them, simply because we don't have the capacity to become a consulting company on top of everything else we do.

We are very good at selling wood in a unique way, as we can put it up for sale and bid. We're good at that, and that's something they would like to see — helping them with moving it and then acquiring whatever benefit and jobs and economic opportunities out of that that they can.

B. Simpson: Well, part of the black hole is B.C. Timber Sales sales in certain areas of the province, where we get serious no-bids. And we get difficulty getting wood out the door from B.C. Timber Sales as well. So the black hole isn't just restricted to first nations.

[1505]

Again, this gets fuzzier for me, not clearer. The minister now says that B.C. Timber Sales, for example, may just point to others. Well, you wouldn't need this act if that were the case, because there's money flowing in and out. You're enabling B.C. Timber Sales to come to Treasury Board and request the ability to flow money in and out for purposes other than just simply B.C. Timber Sales sales.

Let me try a specific example. If band X in an area wants to not continue to pay consulting fees to the consulting foresters that they've had…. They don't have internal capacity; they've used an external capacity. They've got a good gig here now if they can come to B.C. Timber Sales and get B.C. Timber Sales to be involved in the planning and selling of their timber and maybe pick up some of the silviculture obligations, as the minister has pointed out. It's a major cost reduction for them to do that through B.C. Timber Sales.

Isn't that then taking over the role of those consulting foresters? First off, is that possible that I can walk

[ Page 10442 ]

away from my consulting foresters, go to B.C. Timber Sales and ask B.C. Timber Sales to do this function for me instead of the consulting foresters I had?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. The answer to the question is no.

First of all, we're not going to get in the way of any contractual obligations that exist between anybody and first nations. This is really about the fact that first nations have said to us: "Is there a way that we could have a relationship with someone like B.C. Timber Sales to pursue some business practices that support government objectives?" Government objectives would be that the FROs would bring economic stability and opportunity to first nations communities where they are. There are 149 of them around the province.

Subject to the approval of Treasury Board, they would have to be closely aligned with the programs and mandates of B.C. Timber Sales as they exist today. Basically, that's what this allows it to do.

This isn't about us becoming the consultant for first nations. It's about us being a vehicle they could use if they want to sell their wood. When I referred to silviculture, sometimes when we, as the member knows…. Cuts come with silviculture liabilities. Part of that relationship could be that the first nations want to take on the reforestation so that they could have the jobs for their community.

I don't see any reason why we couldn't arrange that as part of a sale for them, but we're not going to get into stepping in where consultants are today. We're actually just saying that this is an opportunity to move your wood.

Actually, what may happen is that some consultants will say to first nations: "As we do this and get this done, we now have a vehicle where we can auction your wood versus you running around trying to find somebody to buy each stick of timber. You might be able to put it up for auction and sell it." And that may be a benefit to them.

I guess the best description is us trying to see if we can do something a little different that will assist the first nations with the FROs, if they wish to. They don't have to. I mean, they can go whichever route they want, and some will. But some have also said that because of their capacity, they would like to have a relationship with someone like B.C. Timber Sales, who oftentimes in some of the more remote areas of the province have the synergy on the ground that nobody else has. There's nobody else there.

I mean, they are the organization that has the other cutblocks, other than the major licensees.

B. Simpson: Were the ABCFP and the consulting foresters associated with the ABCFP consulted on this?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm told by my staff that we consulted with industry, but not that organization directly.

B. Simpson: Again, just a clarification. I get the fact that the minister is talking about what B.C. Timber Sales does on the sales side of it, but I'm confused by the comments around: if the first nations want the silviculture jobs, we can work with B.C. Timber Sales to get them the silviculture jobs.

My understanding on a forest range agreement is that they already have access to the silviculture jobs. They don't need any special relationship with B.C. Timber Sales to have those.

[1510]

Is the minister talking about incremental silviculture jobs on B.C. Timber Sales lots? If not, I don't understand where silviculture jobs have anything to do with what we're doing in this portion of the bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: You're right. They do have the silviculture liability. But when I was describing this — and I just maybe clarified it a bit with my staff…. If they came in and said: "We want to sell this block, and we don't want the silviculture liability either, so make sure you put it in your price that the silviculture liability is covered, and then you guys take care of that…." That means they could go outside and hire a contractor and replant the trees based on what they got from the wood because it would include that liability in the cost of the auction.

Conversely, they could come in and say: "We want you to sell the wood, but we want to do the silviculture. We would like to be paid for it as a result of the sale. So the price you get out of it for silviculture now comes back to us so we can plant."

That's the nuance there, I guess. That's the best I can describe it for the member. But it really is that this amendment is to enable these guys to pursue some innovative business practices to support government objectives. That's what it is. It's government objectives.

They're not going out to pursue a separate private sector objective. They're going out to pursue government objectives that are closely aligned with the program's mandated objectives, which are to make sure that the purchase and sale and the auctioning of wood support the market pricing system, among other things.

What this is to do is enhance the ability to move wood to market in a relationship with an organization like a first nation that has an agreement with government and that has expressed to us that they're having difficulty getting to the point where they can move the wood. They would like to work with somebody to do it, and one of the groups they identified was B.C. Timber Sales.

B. Simpson: I get that this is trying to address a government objective, which is to address the black hole because of the pressure to get that first nations wood out there. The issue around that is whether or not the first nations have capacity. So you address the capacity issue by making B.C. Timber Sales skill sets available to them. I get that.

But there's a whole bunch of private sector consultants out there who also have a private sector objective, and they're just ramping up, trying to assist and facilitate first nations in getting that wood out to the marketplace. I would see this as a direct conflict to that. That's the point I'm making.

[ Page 10443 ]

In order for me to understand the Treasury Board component of it…. Since I've used band X, let's go to band Y. They go to B.C. Timber Sales in Terrace, and they have a 20,000-cubic-metre cut this year under their FRO. They say to BCTS: "Let's go to the most simple way we can. We want you to manage that for us. We don't want to have anything to do with it. We just want a cheque at the end of the day."

B.C. Timber Sales then does all the work and so on, puts it out to bid, and they net, after all costs and expenses, $10 a cubic metre. That's $200,000. Do they then just cut the cheque to the first nation for $200,000? And is that why you need the Treasury Board component? It's the in-and-out component of it, where they're absorbing costs that are not theirs — they're technically the first nations' — and then they're having to cut a cheque to first nations for the residual. Is that why Treasury Board is involved in this whole process?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: Treasury Board is an oversight board for all finances in government. Basically, decisions on each one of these, as it is structured right now, would be that any new expenditures falling under this category will require a supporting regulation but be subject to Treasury Board oversight. That basically means that Treasury Board gets to watch what goes on — right? — and actually has to be reported to.

What this does is allow, basically, crediting of the dollars in and dollars out. The revenue that's collected, for instance, on stumpage today comes into general revenue, and expenses that are paid out to or costs that are due to a Crown go back to the Crown. This also allows, though, for them to apply for expenditures to be able to pay their bills with regards to achieving that revenue. This would also allow for the facilitation of the money to go to B.C. Timber Sales from stumpage to be paid to the first nation, the client. That's why the Treasury Board relationship.

I know that sounded convoluted and complicated. Believe me, sitting on Treasury Board I know that sometimes that's the way it can be. It really is about enabling regulation to be able to do what you're trying to do — receive the revenue into the government, have the revenue come to B.C. Timber Sales for them to take their expenses off, and then send it to the client.

B. Simpson: My apologies to the minister. I think that's what I said. That's what I was asking — if that's what enabling legislation was doing. Effectively, what they are doing is incurring costs on behalf of another entity — not their costs, which is under their current mandate just now. In this case, they'll incur the costs on behalf of the first nations or the woodlot or the community forester or whoever comes to them.

They will then accrue revenue, as well, as a result of that, which is not their own and which at some point they have to cut a cheque to. You have to have a reason for them cutting a cheque out, and it has to be related to that activity. Again, it still strikes me that they are replacing what consulting foresters do all over this province. I'm going to be curious, when I talk to some of my consulting forester friends who specialize in first nations, what they think about this bill, considering they weren't consulted with, as a result of the minister's own admission today.

How will B.C. Timber Sales report out on this, when part of the regulation of reporting on this is a separate item in their quarterly and annual reports?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. It's not mandatory that every time we do a

section of a bill, we consult with the world. In actual fact we don't, because you would never get any legislation done.

The reality is that they have their financial reporting requirements, as the member knows. They have their financial statements. They are subject to estimates of the House, and they're also subject to the Treasury Board oversight on each one of these. That's additional reporting that's put on them.

So the record is really clear, there is no intention and no direction intended to come from government to B.C. Timber Sales to do this for woodlots or community forests or anybody else. The intent is to be able to have the legislation so that we can deal with an issue with regards to what was asked of us by the first nations. But in writing it we've written it so that it doesn't just prejudice against one opportunity over another, because it may not just be an FRO. There may be a first nation that has a non-replaceable forest licence who also wants, in conjunction with their FRO, to do some work.

[1520]

We've left some flexibility in there for that, but the reality is that this is really focused on the issue that the member and I have talked about on other occasions.

It's not the intention to go out there and take over the consulting forestry jobs of British Columbia. It's to have a vehicle for them to be able to sell their wood through, which they don't have today. But they have that opportunity to do it so they can move the wood and get some advice from B.C. Timber Sales while they're doing it.

B. Simpson: Well, I know it's not mandatory that you consult with anybody on any piece of legislation. There's a difference between mandatory and what's appropriate and what's right. In fact, this bill is not the full bill that it was intended to be, because the range portions had to come out because of poor consultation with the range folks and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Because of bad consultation, that piece is not in this legislation just now.

It should be mandatory, if the government is going to infringe on what a business opportunity is in the private sector…. If they're going to replace that with a possible replacement within the public sector, which does not bear the same costs, and particularly this government, which has been going around and farming out all kinds of work…. PricewaterhouseCoopers does all kinds of work, at a fee-for-service, that used to be done within the Ministry of Forests.

[ Page 10444 ]

So I think in that case, it may not be mandatory, but it sure would be nice if we knew that the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals and their consulting foresters had been consulted on this.

But my question was more explicit than that. B.C. Timber Sales reports out on a whole bunch of categories of work and services that they do. Their annual report is very specific, and we had a discussion in last estimates about breaking out some of that even more so that silviculture obligations and various other things were transparent.

Given that this is now a new effective function or at least a licence to do something different, and it has cost implications, would it not be appropriate to have them report that out? So my question is: will they be reporting out this particular part of their function so that people can track how much volume from first nations is moving through B.C. Timber Sales — what kinds of activities B.C. Timber Sales is doing on behalf of these?

You know, the minister has talked a lot in the debates over the last couple of years about intention, but legislation sets up possibilities that go beyond what the intent of the government of the day is. So over time this could evolve, and it could be a service to a whole bunch of people.

In the report, in the regulations and in the guidelines governing B.C. Timber Sales, will they be required to report out explicitly about this activity?

Hon. R. Coleman: We will look at that as part of the reporting-out. I can't comment on it today. This is an amendment to a particular

section of the act, and maybe when BCTS comes through estimates, we could canvass what we think is an appropriate reporting mechanism for the member.

We should also recognize, though, that first nations hire forest consultants who will actually look at this as an opportunity for some place for their clients to go and do some additional relationship with regards to the movement of wood. So I don't think this is a negative for forest consultants and professional foresters at all.

The ones I've spoken to over the years tell me that they think there needs to be a vehicle for some of the first nations to move this wood as well. They would do that on behalf of their clients working with B.C. Timber Sales, so this is just the vehicle.

Really, what this is, is trying to let B.C. Timber Sales be a vehicle for the sale of wood, which they're not allowed to be a vehicle for today under the legislation.

[1525]

B. Simpson: I'm all for first nations being able to move their wood. It's whether or not the due diligence has been done — that this is a good vehicle to do that — because as the minister should be aware, consulting foresters have been hit very hard with the degree of corporate concentration that's gone on and the collapse of the industry down to a few licensees.

If this ends up being punitive towards them, then they won't be that happy. So what I'm trying to make sure of is that we've done the due diligence and that this isn't going to be a further insult to that group, many of whom have already gotten out of the business or have had to find other means of employment.

Again, with respect to B.C. Timber Sales reporting out on that, I will canvass that in estimates debate. One final question on this with respect to the Treasury Board approval process, because these are going to be individual decisions that are made. What does that look like? Is it a blanket kind of approval? Do you have to get approval on a case-by-case basis through a process? If you have to get it case by case, what kind of time frame are we looking at for this to go through the due process with Treasury Board?

Hon. R. Coleman: The basic concept gets put into reg, which enables us to do this, so then they can move on it. If they get someone that comes in, they would advise the chair of Treasury Board: "Here it is; this is what the deal is." That really isn't an onerous process. Basically, if it's under a certain value, the chair of Treasury Board can approve it. Then it's approved afterwards by Treasury Board in a supplementary report, basically, to Treasury Board. It's not something, in my experience, that I think would be particularly long.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

B. Simpson: I just want to clarify

section 12 with respect to the news release and some of the minister's comments in second reading. This is the part that's supposed to ensure that "forest licensees consistently report to government in a timely manner all cost information necessary to support the market pricing system." Is it correct that that's what this

section is supposed to be doing?

Hon. R. Coleman:

Section 136 requires a person who harvests, buys or sells manufactured timber products to report specified information to the ministry — right? In subsections (1.1) and (2) the reference to "the regional manager" as the receiver of information is being updated to "a person designated by the minister" so that we can bring the information quickly into a more central body.

The change is being made to reflect today's electronic submission of data. I think that at one time people reported everything in. Now they should be able to go on line and fire it in to a central place so that we get our information more quickly.

The amendment to subsection (1.2) ensures that the market pricing system is fully supported by updating the list of information required to be reported to include the cost of transportation of harvested timber and the cost of forest management administration. In addition, the description of the type of sales information that must be reported is broadened.

Basically, this amendment just improves our stumpage reporting requirements by providing greater certainty to the Crown, and we'll be able to obtain pricing information necessary to support the softwood

[ Page 10445 ]

lumber agreement. The amendment would also allow the ministry to adapt new initiatives — e.g., bioenergy, pricing methodologies and those sorts of things.

[1530]

What we do with the market pricing system…. It's a living document. It's a living process. We update it. Basically, this is to change it so that it'll be modernized for quicker processing of information by allowing us to not have to always send it to the regional manager but maybe to a central body that's designated by the minister.

Whenever we do any changes to the market pricing system, of course, we also go and do consultation with the United States to make sure that they understand what we're doing so it doesn't attract a challenge with regards to how we're collecting our data.

B. Simpson: I'll take that as a nice, long explanatory yes — that that's what it applies to.

Some questions around that. The minister made the comment even stronger than what's in the explanatory notes, because this amendment changes from having to go to the regional manager to the ability to go to someone as designated by the minister. The minister actually used the term "central body." Does this enable the minister to set up an entity like PricewaterhouseCoopers to do this data collection and to drive the market pricing system independent of B.C. Forest Service?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not, hon. Member. This is just to align us with current practices, because that information is now coming in to the ministry, and it's being managed. This basically aligns it with current practices, because in some areas we're already doing this.

B. Simpson: I just want to go back to the minister's comments before about intent. Now the bill just simply says "to a person designated by the minister." Is there a constraint on a person designated by the minister that it has to be within the ministry, or could at some time — because it's not going through the regional managers; it's not going through the Ministry of Forests' functionary in the region — the minister, or a minister, decide that the person designated is a third party outside the ministry that's going to drive the market pricing system for them as a separate entity?

Hon. R. Coleman: In theory, yes. I guess the person designated by the minister, I'm told, could be anybody. That's not the intent, and it's certainly not the plan with regards to what this is.

This is for us to be able to be concurrent to current practices, to align this so the information coming into revenue branch, which is the body that receives all of this, can come directly to revenue branch so that they can do the calculations for the market pricing system.

B. Simpson: I'm happy the minister clarified that it may not be the intent but that it's possible. As we've seen in the Ministry of Small Business, we have farmed out what used to be government functions. We collect now through a third party. So it's quite conceivable that at some point, if you think that there are efficiencies to be gained, that this no longer becomes a ministry service. It becomes a service to a third party.

We'll canvass that in estimates by how much money is flowing through PricewaterhouseCoopers these days that used to be line functions of the Ministry of Forests. We'll be looking at whether or not there are actually efficiencies there to be gained.

Let me just clarify. Does this

section of the act apply, as stated, to B.C. Timber Sales with respect to all of the things that have to be reported for establishing the market pricing system? Does this apply to B.C. Timber Sales as a licensee?

[1535]

Hon. R. Coleman: The timber sales licensees have to report to B.C. Timber Sales, who have to report it to revenue branch. I want to try and comfort the member on this.

There's a comfort with the United States with our revenue branch and the relationship built on the market pricing system that I wouldn't tinker with. Any change that would ever be to where this information was collected and processed outside the ministry would be, first of all, subject to, I think, a significant discussion with the partners to the softwood lumber agreement prior to anybody ever considering doing anything other than what we're doing.

We're staying with the revenue branch. The revenue branch will do this. We just want the ability for the information to come directly to them so that they can accrue the information in a more efficient manner to be able to be stronger on their calculations for what they need to do.

B. Simpson: It's my job, as the minister well knows, to be a part-time conspiracy theorist on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: Well, hopefully, it's only part-time — part-time working with my constituents in helping them do their stuff.

We could argue the point of whether or not this would make people at the softwood lumber table comfortable or not comfortable. One of the things they're not comfortable with is administrative changes or political interference in the market pricing system. Putting it out to a party that's independent of government, a private sector third party, might actually give them comfort. It would be interesting to see what their response to that is.

I just wanted to make sure that I understood that that possibility does exist. We've seen this government move down that path. We have taken a lot of things that used to be government functions and put them out to third parties — some to the benefit of British Columbians, some not.

I want to be clear about the B.C. Timber Sales piece. The reason I ask it is that the minister should be well aware that part of the problem with the market pricing

[ Page 10446 ]

system is that people don't believe that B.C. Timber Sales books all their true costs. I'm curious as to whether there are any discussions about this whole list of costs being booked by B.C. Timber Sales so that B.C. Timber Sales is actually bearing the same and the true costs of every other licensee that's out there. That's a complaint about B.C. Timber Sales — that they don't have to book all the costs, as every other licensee does.

Hon. R. Coleman: The cost data from B.C. Timber Sales that would come in would be what their cost of road construction is and that sort of thing that they do. That data would come in, and the person who buys it has to submit data with regards to their cost of harvest and silviculture and all the rest of it — whatever is part of that equation. So they all have to submit data. It's all brought into the revenue branch and the economic and trade branch — two branches of government, one in Finance and one in the Ministry of Forests — that then collate this information and put it into the formula that is the market pricing system.

B. Simpson: Again, I think that's an area — it's not addressed in this bill — that is causing people some problems and complaints, because they don't believe those costs line up. For example, forest-managed administration is a cost that's not accounted for, necessarily, in B.C. Timber Sales pricing that is having to be reported by the licensees. So they see that as a differential.

[1540]

Let me go to

section (

c) of this bill where it says: "'or products derived from timber' after 'related to timber.'" Is "products derived from timber" the ability to open the way that we cost our system for things like carbon or chemicals or energy? The minister mentioned energy as a possibility.

Is it the thought that if you do it in this general term — "products derived from timber" — there's this whole range of emerging products now that you want to capture under this and drive it back into your pricing system?

Hon. R. Coleman: This just widens the net to the information we're going to collect. It doesn't necessarily go to what the member describes. It widens the net, because some people could say: "We don't have to provide you information because of products we derive from timber." We're saying that we actually want all the information so that we can have the best amount of data possible for us to be able to process it.

B. Simpson: That's precisely what I'm trying to understand. What is that net capturing?

As this industry evolves, there are going to be a lot of derivative benefits from the forests that people are rightly questioning whether or not a forest licence holder, who is supposed to be getting sawlogs to create lumber products, should actually start to derive those benefits. If it's not in their cost arrangement, you could actually have somebody who is logging, harvesting, making minimal timber and actual lumber products from it and maximal residual products from it — using it for pellets, using it for energy, using it to derive chemicals and all kinds of things.

Are you casting the net wide enough that at some point, if you see that that's what is actually happening, you're able to add that into your cost system? It does drive back to how you would determine your stumpage in any given quarter. So that's what I'm trying to get at. Is the net that wide?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is not a new change to how business is currently conducted. This is something that allows us to do what we're already doing. It's a bit of enabling. I don't think there's any question that the MPS is always going to be an evolving system. As the member knows, we may find a higher value for wood than sawlogs in the future. As the member knows, we're going to end up with a lot less sawlogs in some areas of the province, and that other standing timber is going to have an effect on the pricing.

I think what this allows us is maybe enough flexibility in developing future regulations as we see how the market changes so that we can adapt. It doesn't affect how we're currently doing business in the near and the long term, but it does give us enough to be able to cast the net a little bit wider by regulation, if we see that we need to have additional information with regards to how the products out of forestry are changing.

I think they're going to change. I think a number of them are going to change — like pellets, as the member mentioned; bioenergy; biofuels; and other things that could come out of our forests. That will affect, over time, how we describe our whole system of pricing, frankly. In the next round with the United States, we'll probably engage in a whole different discussion of how we look at the forests in B.C. with regards to that relationship on the softwood lumber deal. Quite frankly, we know that there's going to be a change in the cut, and those things will all have to be dealt with as we go forward.

This allows us to collect information and cast the net as we see fit.

[1545]

B. Simpson: Again, I beg the minister's indulgence, because this is an important transition that we are making here. We're talking about the legislation, not the regulation. We don't get to debate regulation, as the minister has pointed out to me on a few occasions.

This part of the act is talking about information that needs to be reported. In fact, a portion of this next piece is that if you fail to report as required under this section, you can get a fine of $100,000 or imprisonment for no more than a year or both. So it's a very serious part of the Forest Act.

The

section that we're changing here, subsection 1.2(f), where we're adding "or products derived from timber," actually specifically says that what must be reported is "sales information of a kind that is usually contained in an invoice related to timber." It's a very explicit statement: "that is usually contained in an invoice." We're going to say not just "related to timber" now but "or products derived from timber."

[ Page 10447 ]

Now many mills are putting pellet plants on site; mills are putting co-gen plants on site. Will they have to start giving, or do they already give, invoices to the government from the sale of their pellets and from any kind of money that they get from B.C. Hydro for putting power onto the grid from their co-gen?

Hon. R. Coleman: Right now we send out surveys for information. The survey goes out to the forest companies, and they fill that out and send it back to us. The information that's collected includes, right now, some products derived by timber, if you were looking at the definition.

Under

section (f), "sales information of a kind that is usually contained in an invoice related to timber" is where it used to stop — right? But the surveys actually ask for more information. So this is saying "or products derived from timber," because we're asking for the information now. We want to make sure that there's no argument about asking for that information.

Now, in the future the stuff that the member described…. Right now there's nobody really selling into the grid, so that's really not an issue. Bioenergy is in its infancy, very much so in B.C. compared to other jurisdictions around the world anyway, and those things will be adapted as time goes on. But this is to really deal with what is the current practice as a collection of information.

Some people could say: "Well, the law says to stop at the timber." We're saying, "No, it should also include products derived from the timber," because how are you going to determine what the value of the stumpage is in the future if you don't have that information?

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

B. Simpson: We're now into the Forest and Range Practices Act and the amendments here through to when we go to the Wildfire Act.

[1550]

With respect to

section 15, I just want clarification. What this is doing is making a small adjustment in subsections (1) and (2). Part (

b) of that repeals

section 3(3). That subsection says that the previous subsection does not apply to a timber sale licence for timber harvested under the Park Act.

By repealing this section, are we requiring, then, that forest stewardships plans be approved for work done under a timber sale licence for timber harvested under the Park Act? Are we adding now another requirement for a forest stewardship plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: Now I'm joined by Marg Shamlock. She's the legislation and policy forester with the integrated resources

section of the ministry.

No, that doesn't. Basically, this

section specifies that when a forest stewardship plan is required…. This one actually provides an exemption to preparing a forest stewardship plan on a timber sale licence for timber harvested under the Park Act. This exemption is actually being repealed because a timber sale licence is no longer used to harvest timber under the Park Act. It's just not done anymore, so it's being repealed.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

B. Simpson: Again, my understanding of this

section is that we're switching out the whole

section in order to add in some "ifs," by the looks of it. I'm just curious here. Do we have a sense of what proportion of the land base actually operates now under these exemptions? Is it a fairly large proportion? Is it an occasional occurrence? What is the nature of the land base involved here?

Hon. R. Coleman: This removes an automatic forest stewardship plan exemption for plan holders harvesting timber damaged or destroyed by fire, insects or disease outside an area of their plan. The amendment is necessary to ensure that harvesting outside of the forest stewardship plan area for damaged or destroyed timber is limited to small, dispersed patches. This amendment will prevent large areas from being harvested without reforestation obligations.

Under

section 4.2, it's also being amended to provide the minister the ability to exempt a person from preparing a forest stewardship plan for the reasons specified by regulation. The amendment provides for greater flexibility in the forest stewardship plan exemptions.

What it really addresses, from the standpoint of the minister — and I know it's probably a concern in the member's area as well — is the reforestation concerns associated with what people are calling chicklet logging. Without this amendment, licensees will continue to salvage significant volumes of mountain pine beetle wood made up of small adjacent patches without a forest stewardship plan.

With no forest stewardship plan requirements, a licensee is not obligated to conduct public consultation and a plan for reforestation. That's what we're trying to catch here. We're catching it in there so they can't continue to do it. We can actually put the reforestation liabilities back on them and have the plans adapt accordingly.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that explanation. It's quite helpful. I didn't understand what we were doing here, and the explanatory notes are not that great.

What the minister calls chicklet harvesting…. Actually, it's the first I've heard it, but I understand what he's talking about, and the concerns. Does this also impact small-scale salvage operators? Small-scale salvage operators don't operate under a forest stewardship plan. They often are the ones who are operating in these exempt circumstances. They're often chasing the bug or doing repair work or whatever the case may be.

[1555]

[ Page 10448 ]

By changing this, does it impact small-scale salvage operators?

Hon. R. Coleman: This does not affect small-scale salvage.

B. Simpson: This is a general query, because we see this in lots of legislation.

In (

f) where it states "other prescribed circumstances," is the prescription in regulation? Is the minister free to prescribe the circumstances, or does regulation prescribe what the circumstances are?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's just a standard clause that's in most legislation, with regards to flexibility in regulation.

B. Simpson: That's what I'm trying to understand, because it is a standard clause. When it has that, though, are the circumstances prescribed by regulation? Or is the minister free, because of that clause, to prescribe the regulation that he or she wants to see on the land base?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I don't get that much power. I have to prescribe it specifically in regulation. It would have to go, obviously, through cabinet.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

B. Simpson:

Section 5 is what talks about the content of a forest stewardship plan. What this does is add a subsection, (1.2). It refers to "objectives set by government or other objectives referred to" in the previous subsection "that are in effect when…."

If the minister could, I'd like an explanation of what this is really doing and what it's addressing, because it's certainly not clear to me either from the explanatory note or from trying to juxtapose the subsection that's being added with

section 5 in total.

What is this doing? The language is fairly legalese and circuitous.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and do this. This one is pretty technical.

The addition of

section 5(1.2) identifies that the objectives in effect when a cutting or road permit is issued, a timber sale licence is advertised, a declared area is reported or a transitional

section 196 area is identified in a forest stewardship plan are the objectives that apply to the permit, licence or area.

The amendment ensures that there is operational continuity and protection of the plan holder's economic investment from changes in objectives for the areas that have a cutting or road permit issued, a timber sale licence advertised, a declared area reported or a transitional

section 196(1) area identified in the forest stewardship plan.

That is the plain-language explanation that I have for this

section for the member.

[1600]

B. Simpson: Ouch. I need my afternoon coffee for this one. Let me see if I can try and ask some questions to help me understand it.

As we're all aware, there is some pressure through various entities to add objectives to the Forest and Range Practices Act. There is a desire to add objectives for fire and forest health. There was a discussion about adding safety as an objective and so on.

I know that part of the concern in the industry was that if I've already got a preapproved forest stewardship plan, I have work in progress, a cutting plan in progress, roads on the go and everything else. And then the government has the ability to go and add another objective. Now I've got to go and redo all of that work with this new, additional objective.

Is the intent of this to stabilize that and say: "Look, if you've already got work in progress and there's another objective that's going to apply, you do the work-in-progress as if the previous objective is applied"? You're not going to be punished and have to go back and, as the minister said, bear incremental costs because of additional objectives being added. Is that what this

section is attempting to do or doing?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it does protect the previous objectives so they apply, and it protects the work-in-progress. Just so the member knows, we repealed

section 7, where this used to sit. This is basically finding a home for something in legislation that existed somewhere else. We repealed one

section and put it into this one.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

B. Simpson: We'll go to 19, but

section 7 is the repealed

section that the previous

section 17 was replacing, so that helps.

Section 6(2) of the Forest and Range Practices Act. If I understand it correctly, what this is doing is explicitly capping the number of years that a forest stewardship plan can be in existence. The previous one suggested that you could roll it over for a period not exceeding five years, which gave the possibility that you could just keeping rolling it over for five years.

This one, if I understand it correctly, says it's five years to a maximum of ten, so you can only roll it over once. Am I understanding correctly what this

section is doing?

Hon. R. Coleman: The short answer is yes.

B. Simpson: The question I have on this is that this doesn't suggest…. Again, I'm not as versed in this bill as the minister's staff is. It's very difficult to get through all the bills associated with the forest industry. But this doesn't suggest how the approval process is done. I know we're going to get into that in the next section.

[ Page 10449 ]

"May grant one extension…." Is it possible for the minister just to simply say that what we're really doing for all of these five-year forest stewardship plans that are approved with this and with the subsequent sections is approving them so that they're ten-year plans? Between this and the subsequent sections we're going to go through, isn't that what we're setting the ground for?

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: This basically allows us — actually gives us — more of an ability to say no to the extension than yes. Yes is already there. You can give the extension. But it does allow us, by regulation, to set down clear roles as to what you have to accomplish in order to achieve an approval for an extension. It actually sets the message very clearly to the people running a forest stewardship plan whether they have a chance of getting an extension, which should reduce a bit of administrative stuff.

If they can achieve that, they probably won't even come in and ask for an extension. But it does tell people, if they want the extension, what they have to meet to get it. This limits the extension opportunity to once during the term of the plan as well. It does that under

section 6(2).

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

B. Simpson: I thought we would go forward to 20, to come back to the minister's point, because the

section that we were on really is the

section it caps. If I understand correctly, then,

section 7.1 — we've repealed 7, and we're now adding 7.1 — is where the groundwork is laid for how a renewal is going to occur or how an amendment is approved, which is what the minister had moved on to. That's why I decided to move here.

I guess I don't understand what the minister's saying, because a lot of what's in

section 7.1 already existed in here. It seems to me that what we're doing is separating some things out between woodlot forest stewardship plans versus forest stewardship plans, and so on. We're tidying some things up to give, I would suggest, the woodlot owners a little bit of comfort that they're not caught under the larger FSP process. That's my own gut instinct.

I don't see anywhere in here where it's making it any more restrictive or where the ground is being laid to signal that you're not going to get your plan approved. I wonder if the minister could give me some more explicit examples of where the new legislation is going to make it more difficult or more clear than what's already existing.

Hon. R. Coleman: The

section we passed a minute ago says: "…not exceeding 5 years in the circumstances specified by regulation." That's where that would get clarified specifically for the member.

[1610]

This new

section provides for the approval of a forest stewardship plan or amendment. This

section was previously part of

section 16 of the act, "Approval of forest stewardship plan, woodlot licence plan or amendment," which set out the approval process for both forest stewardship plans or woodlot plans and amendments.

The member is right. The approval test for a stewardship plan and woodlot licence plans or amendments has been placed into two separate provisions. Separating the forest stewardship plan and the woodlot licence plan into separate sections will increase the clarity of the act, and there have been no changes made to the requirements at all.

B. Simpson: Where in this is the increase in public consultation that the minister spoke about in his opening comments and that is in the news release? The news release states that updating rules for forest stewardship plans, requiring entire plans to undergo a public review and government approval every five years….

The minister's comments state, in his opening comments in second reading, that the amendments increase the opportunity for the public to review and give input. So where is that? Because it certainly is not in the legislation.

Hon. R. Coleman: This takes me back to two sections. But first of all, the five-year plan is exceeding the circumstances specified by regulations, so we're going to increase the public consultation within that.

Then what we're saying is that when we repealed

section 7 and we rerouted the new

section 19, it provided that a proposed forest stewardship plan submitted for approval must conform to the act and regulations as they would before the date of submissions. Right now they can come in with just the changes. Now they have to submit the entire plan — resubmit for approval.

This one basically tightens up the

section to replace it. That was the first piece — to tighten it up. Then plus the provisions that were changed by repealing

section 7, which specified…. It is already there, and we're also going to include some additional public consultation requirements now that we've been able to do that with those sections, within regulation.

B. Simpson: If I understand what the minister is saying, the

section we're on just now,

section 20, requires that the entire plan be resubmitted prior to the minister approving it. But rather than having any consultation requirements in legislation, we have consultation requirements in regulation.

What is the nature of those consultation requirements? Will all current forest stewardship plans that are currently approved be required to go to full public consultation prior to the minister signing off on those plans for another five years?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes.

[1615]

[ Page 10450 ]

B. Simpson: Are those regulations already in existence? Are they already on the books, or are they a proposal?

Hon. R. Coleman: The consultation process is already in regulation, but what we will change, once the act is passed, is to include that now, on reapplication, it's the whole gamut that has to be met versus just the changes.

B. Simpson: With respect to amendments to forest stewardship plans within the five-year period, are those subject to public consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: If it's a minor amendment that doesn't require the minister's approval, no. If it's a major amendment that requires the minister's approval, yes.

B. Simpson: What's the public notification requirement for that? That's part of the problem that people have with forest stewardship plans. The actual activity on the ground is effectively preapproved under the forest stewardship plan, with no requirement for public notification unless you've registered yourself as wanting notification if they're going to operate in a given area.

What's the public notification requirement for an amendment that then meets the criteria that it has to go to public consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no change to that process. It's the same as it exists today.

B. Simpson: I understand that. What I'm trying to understand, from the perspective of more public consultation, which is what the claim is by both the minister and the news release…. There are lots of people who are struggling with these forest stewardship plans — struggling to understand them and struggling to have an understanding of how they influence them. What I'm trying to get, for the public record, is how are…?

We're just in the forest stewardship plan process. We just finished approving them all through last year. Now, I would expect that the next phase we're going to be in will be amendments to those forest stewardship plans, and I don't think the public really knows where to get that information.

Is there a website on the ministry's website that's a single point of reference for forest stewardship plans — the status of those forest stewardship plans, which ones are coming up for renewal, which ones have major amendments in place, etc.? What's the public interface here that we as opposition members or government members can point people to and say: "Go to that website and track the forest stewardship plan in your area or your region or whatever the case may be"?

[1620]

Hon. R. Coleman: The short answer to the member's question is that the single point of entry isn't there yet. It is being worked on through the provincial Forest and Range Practices Act implementation team. I don't have a time line as to when that might be available.

Any major change has to be advertised. Notifications have to go out according to the regulation as to how they are done today, and that will continue. On minor amendments, which really could be something as easy as language, we're not going to go out to…. That doesn't attract that same process.

Section 20 approved.

The Chair: Member, before we go on to

section 21, at the call of the Chair, I'm going to call a four-minute recess till 4:25, if that meets with your approval.

The committee recessed from 4:22 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

section 21.

B. Simpson: Before I move on to

section 21, I want clarification on something that the minister just said in the final

section there. We were talking about public consultation and how this bill improves public consultation. I want it to be clear, because the minister stated that public consultation requirements are in regulations and that they're already there.

If the public consultation regulations aren't changing, how does this, then, improve public consultation? Just so I'm clear, because that's one of the questions that I've been asked about the bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: The way it was, you only had to consult on changes. Now when they do it, they have to consult on the whole plan all over again.

B. Simpson: Thanks for that clarification.

section 8. If I understand it correctly, this

section is actually adding…. Again, it may be somewhere else in the bill that this is already in, and it's just moving it, but it seems to be adding the ability for government to explicitly establish other objectives. If I understand it correctly, there's a period in which these objectives can be established, or not.

Maybe I need an explanation from the minister as to what this is doing and whether or not it's just the fact that the government now is able to actually add, clarifying what applies and what doesn't apply if new objectives are added by government.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is housekeeping. This used to be in the act in cross-references to sections. You would say that "a longer period specified" is an enacted reference to

section 7(1.1)(a)(i). Now it is actually written in this section.

Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

[1630]

section 25.

[ Page 10451 ]

B. Simpson: Again, just a straightforward question. Is this a housekeeping one, because this is in here, or is this a consequential change here for these emergent cases?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's both, actually. It's housekeeping on the reference to

section 16. That exists.

The difference, though, is that if we say we have an emergency…. Let's say we've had a forest fire and we say: "Get out on the land and deal with the problem." We also now can say: "But within this prescribed period of time, you have to come back to us with a plan." It allows us to get on the land for emergency purposes. But at the same time, you need a plan for that land or the woodlot or whatever the case may be, and you have a prescribed period of time that you have to get back to us with that plan.

B. Simpson: Again, just with respect to the sort of size of the land base we're talking about here, are there no restrictions on that? If you've got an emergent situation, you want people out on the land base. If it's covered under their forest stewardship plan, rather than amend it, they get on the land base, and then they submit to you afterwards, regardless of the size. Or are there restrictions on what the minister can use this to do?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no restriction on size, but the reality is that these events are usually not large enough that they would take in an entire TSA, for instance. In that case we would obviously have to have the prescribed period to make sense. The intent is to be able to get out there and