2006 Legislative Session: Second 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Robert Costall

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Water protection

Fraser

Professional engineers

Sultan

Sikh community in Victoria

Fleming

International trade and B.C.

economy

R. Lee

Spelling bee achievement by

Heather Caldwell

C. Wyse

Ovarian cancer

Whittred

Oral Questions

Investigation of medical billing

practices

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Lobbyist registration of Patrick

Kinsella

Fleming

Hon. W.

Oppal

Lobbyists' meetings with

government officials

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Lobbyists registration

legislation

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Karagianis

J. Kwan

Highway of tears investigation

J. Brar

Hon. J.

Les

Approval of fish farm licences

Simpson

Hon. P.

Bell

Municipal election campaign

financing

Farnworth

Hon. I.

Chong

Homelessness in Surrey

Ralston

Hon. R.

Coleman

Changes to fire commissioner

office

Macdonald

Hon. J.

Les

Petitions

L. Krog

N. Simons

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Hon. B. Penner

Horgan

Simpson

Macdonald

Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

C. Evans

Gentner

Robertson

G. Coons

[ Page 3725 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Tributes

ROBERT COSTALL

Hon. G. Campbell: It's a long way from the Sunshine Coast to a place 110 kilometres northwest of Kandahar, Afghanistan, described as a bit of desert in the middle of nowhere. But Pte. Robert Costall made that journey in service to his country.

One week ago thousands of soldiers from eight countries marched onto a dusty military runway to bear witness, as a Canadian piper sounded the lament to mark the beginning of Private Costall's return journey. Last night, on board a quiet ferry sailing with flags at half-mast, Private Costall at last returned home.

[1405]

Tragically, he did not come home to a joyous celebration with his family, but instead he came home draped in the flag and pride of a grateful nation.

The 22-year-old Pte. Robert Costall was a true Canadian son — born in Thunder Bay, raised in Gibsons and based in Alberta. A beloved son and brother; a loving husband to a loving wife and proud father of his one-year-old son; a brave soldier of the First Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, he died in defence of his fellow soldiers, in defence of the always fragile ideal of freedom and in defence of peace in a land that has known precious little peace. Of the young men and women who serve in our military we can ask nothing more. It seems that Private Costall was destined to give his country nothing less.

On behalf of all British Columbians, I would like to ask the Legislature to extend our heartfelt condolences to his family and all those to whom he meant so much. I know that tomorrow the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and the member for West Vancouver–Capilano will be attending his memorial services. We are all in this room humbled by his sacrifice and lessened by his loss.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the galleries today are three guests of mine: firstly, two residents of Black Creek, Leslie McNabb and her daughter Ayla Akehurst; and from the beautiful Cowichan Valley, my friend Leanne Baird. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. MacKay: Today in the gallery I have a special guest. I have a nephew of mine from the city of Prince Rupert visiting us today, and I would ask Clayton Williams to stand up. I would ask the House to please give him a warm welcome.

G. Coons: In the gallery and in the House today we have 110 grade 11 students from John Oliver Secondary School. My friend and colleague from Vancouver-Kensington couldn't be here today, and I'd like to welcome them as well as their teachers Paulina Kwan, Shirley Lim, Pat Lee, Wendy

Johnston and Constable Schaaf. Could we please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: In the gallery with us today are members of the B.C. public fire and life safety education advisory committee. This is a committee that provides advice to government through the office of the fire commissioner on fire and life safety matters for all British Columbians. The committee consists of dedicated members from the Fire Chiefs Association, from professional and volunteer firefighters, fire training and fire prevention officers, and the First Nations Emergency Services Society.

With us in the gallery this afternoon are Bruce Hall from Whistler, Bob Cannon from Mission, Rita Payne from White Rock, Charlene Jordan-Jones from Abbotsford, Dan Murphy from Vancouver, Richard Melnik from Fruitvale, Bob Stephens from Gibsons, Ian Josephson from Chilliwack and Barb Kidd from New Westminster, as well as Jackie Goodwin, Steve Bachop and Matt Herman from Victoria. The chair of the committee is Bruce Hall, who is the fire chief from Whistler.

Would all members in the House join me in welcoming these people here today.

S. Fraser: I have two guests I'd like to introduce today, Gerlis Fugman and Rob Mealey. Rob Mealey is originally from Port Alberni. His parents and brother are still constituents of mine. His brother Charles is actually a city councillor. Rob is currently a staff person with the College of New Caledonia students association, local 13 of the Canadian Federation of Students, located in Prince George.

[1410]

Gerlis, Rob's partner, is currently conducting research in northern Canada for her PhD in the University of Bonn, Germany. She is conducting research in several provinces, including British Columbia. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is my honour today to welcome several distinguished guests to the gallery, including Mr. Don Listwin. Don is the founder and chairman of the Canary Foundation. The Canary Foundation is the only U.S. non-profit organization that is dedicated to funding the early detection of cancer.

Early this morning Don and the Canary Foundation announced a $1 million donation to the B.C. Cancer Foundation for research into the early detection of ovarian cancer.

Don was born in Canada and at one time was the CEO of Openwave and had been the number-two executive at Cisco Systems. He left his high-profile technology career and launched the Canary fund to support research into the early detection of cancer. Don's motivation was his family, which had been deeply affected by cancer.

Also in the gallery today is Michael Ball. Michael was instrumental in connecting Don with the B.C. Cancer Foundation. Also joining us are Pat McCowan and

[ Page 3726 ]

Chana Palmer from the Canary Foundation, and Mary McNeil and Penny Noble from the B.C. Cancer Foundation.

I would ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming our guests and thanking Don Listwin for his remarkable contribution to cancer research and detection in British Columbia.

J. McIntyre: I would like to welcome today to the gallery my cousin Terry Dance-Bennink. Terry is a former V-P academic at Fleming College in Peterborough. She is now semi-retired and has moved here with her husband Theo, who is an avid sailor. They have moved to Victoria. Personally, for me, it's very nice to have family in this part of the world.

I also just wanted to mention that Terry is the daughter of an aunt whom I was very, very close to, Helen Oakley Dance, who has been an inspiration to me in many ways and is probably one of the reasons I'm here in the House in this term of office. She was a woman I cited in my statement in the House in the fall, who had served in the military in the Second World War. So I would just like to make that connection, and I hope you will all welcome Terry and Theo to Victoria and to the House today.

N. Simons: It is not often I get to mention the fact that I was a cello teacher two days in a row in the House, but here you go. I would like to welcome, along with…

Interjection.

N. Simons: I will get his name this time.

…the Solicitor General, fire chief Bob Stevens, whose son Shane Stevens is quite a good cello player, despite the fact he was my student. That's twice in a row for a joke too. If the House would make him feel welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: I would like to introduce a few members from the public affairs bureau who are here attending the parliamentary procedures workshop. They're with us today: Deborah Pearce, Donna Lowe, Pamela Whelan, Rob Duffus and Stacey McGaghey. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today I would like to introduce to the House a special visitor from Romania. Please join me in welcoming Elena Sava Stefoi, the Ambassador of Romania. This is Her Excellency's first trip to British Columbia, and we look forward to continuing building the good relationship between our jurisdictions. Would the House please join me in giving her a warm B.C. welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Also here attending the parliamentary procedures workshop today is Jim Collins from the Farm Industry Review Board. Would the House please make him very welcome.

[1415]

Hon. S. Hagen: Joining us in the gallery today is Sandra Wiens. Sandy is a provincial mental health consultant, senior nurse specialist. She has been with the ministry just over a year and is involved in projects directly related to the implementation of our child and youth mental health plan. Sandy is here today attending the parliamentary procedure workshop, and I ask the House to join me in making her very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) WATER PROTECTION

S. Fraser: In Alberni-Qualicum my constituents are very passionate about their water supplies, and they care very much for them. They're concerned about privatization, proposed pesticide spraying, clearcut logging in sensitive watersheds, and protecting key watershed components in the Beaufort Range, the massif on Mount Arrowsmith and the wetlands of Hamilton marsh.

With that in mind, I'm going to read from a proclamation that was signed in Vancouver on July 8, 2001:

That the intrinsic value of the Earth's fresh water precedes its utility and commercial value, and therefore must be respected and safeguarded by all political, commercial and social institutions,

That the Earth's fresh water belongs to the

earth and all species and therefore, must not be treated as a private commodity to be bought, sold and traded for profit,

That the global fresh water supply is a

shared legacy, a public trust and a fundamental human right and, therefore, a collective responsibility, and,

Whereas, the world's finite supply of

available fresh water is being polluted, diverted and depleted so fast that millions of people and species are now deprived of water for life and,

Whereas governments around the world

have failed to protect their precious fresh water legacies,

Therefore, the nations of the world declare

the Earth's fresh water supply to be a global commons, to be protected and nurtured by all peoples, communities and governments of all levels and further declare that fresh water will not be allowed to be privatized, commodified, traded or exported for commercial purpose and must immediately be exempted from all existing and future international and bilateral trade and investment agreements.

This proclamation is an excerpt from The Treaty Initiative to Share and Protect the Global Water Commons , signed by 35 nations in Vancouver, July 8, 2001. We should all be mindful of that.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

R. Sultan: Yesterday MLAs on both sides of the House met with the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia, employers of many of B.C.'s 23,000 professional engineers. Last fall we met with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., which licenses them and maintains professional standards — two important organizations.

[ Page 3727 ]

In their hands lie our port development, our new transportation systems and the purity of our drinking water. In their hands lies the environmental planning for new mines discovered by their geoscientists. In their hands lie the future of neighbourhoods built in slip-slide and fall zones, skating rinks built to billiard table specifications, fuel cells, hydrogen cars, photovoltaic electricity and Google satellite pictures of your neighbourhood.

British Columbia engineers create all of these things. When the engineers come to town, MLAs appreciate anew their dedication, their technical smarts and their focus on doing a quality job safely, on time and on budget. Not long ago engineering services were not so much in demand, but those dark days are over. Today assignments are plentiful.

B.C. is back, and our engineers and geoscientists are too. Next time you see a construction crane on the horizon, think of somebody who wears an iron ring on his or her little finger, puts P.Eng. after his or her name and is proud to be building a better British Columbia.

SIKH COMMUNITY IN VICTORIA

R. Fleming: The historic day of Vaisakhi is celebrated in places around the world each year on April 13. In my constituency of Victoria-Hillside there are three temple societies, all of which are busy now preparing for a celebration of Sikhism and community.

[1420]

This region has a long history of Sikh settlement, with several Sikh families arriving in the early 1890s. In the century that has followed Victoria's Sikh pioneers, the community has achieved many proud accomplishments with success in many fields — in business, labour, community leadership, athletics, the arts and academics, to name but a few. This region has been immeasurably enriched by the contributions of the Sikh community to our multicultural and multifaith society.

Vaisakhi is a celebration of not only the creation of Khalsa but of spring. To this end, the Khalsa Diwan Society will again be holding a sports festival later in the month that features an open tournament in sports such as kabaddi, wrestling, soccer, volleyball, basketball, and track and field.

Many teams travel from the lower mainland by ferry to enjoy a weekend of friendly competition and cultural celebration here in the capital city. Generally, Victoria teams win against the lower mainland — home advantage perhaps. We welcome them all again this year.

From its very inception, the Sikh religion has been a universal and non-sectarian faith, and it embraces all human beings as equal. In this spirit, the entire community is invited to visit Victoria's Sikh temples beginning on Friday, April 13 to Sunday, April 15 to enjoy special services, flag-raising ceremonies and delicious food.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AND B.C. ECONOMY

R. Lee: The economy of British Columbia is booming. Unemployment rates are at record lows, and more British Columbians are working now than ever before. According to Stats Canada, in 2005 exports from B.C. to other countries reached almost $35.5 billion — a record high.

However, our combined international and interprovincial exports only contribute to 43 percent of the province's GDP, the smallest percentage among the provinces. Most of our growth in GDP is in the service sector, including health care, social assistance, financial and real estate services, tourism and transportation. In order to sustain the growth of our economy, we must strengthen our capacity in exports.

One way to increase our exports is to encourage British Columbians who are living or working abroad. A recent study by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada estimates that some 2.7 million Canadian citizens are scattered around the world. This diaspora should be recognized as our distinct advantage in international trade. It is estimated that 24 percent of foreign-based Canadians live in Asia,

whereas 44 percent of this population lives in the United States.

Expatriates can play a role in importing our food and consumer products to their countries of residence. They can also help investors to find business partners, to create networks, to attract investments, and to facilitate human capital and technology transfer for British Columbia. Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Poland, Japan, South Korea, India, China and the Philippines all have special policies in place towards their diaspora. Maybe it's time we join these countries and use our expatriate population to our full advantage.

SPELLING BEE ACHIEVEMENT

BY HEATHER CALDWELL

Besides winning the prize of a Merriam-Webster Dictionary, valued at thousands of dollars, Heather's win makes her eligible to attend the Scripps Howard national spelling bee in Washington, D.C. Also, she will attend, along with her mother, the CanSpell national contest in Ottawa this weekend.

[1425]

This weekend the entire Cariboo will be supporting her. We are very proud of Heather's achievement to date and are wishing her well in future competitions. Being quite dependent upon the spell checker in my

[ Page 3728 ]

computer, please rest assured that I admire Heather's achievement to date.

I request the House to join with me in recognizing Heather Caldwell in becoming B.C.'s top speller and to wish her well at the National Spelling Bee this weekend.

OVARIAN CANCER

K. Whittred: A few minutes ago the Minister of Health introduced Don Listwin, the founder of the Canary Foundation, whose very generous gift of $1 million to the B.C. Cancer Foundation will go a long way towards helping women in B.C. who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

I am sure that every one of us in this House has experienced the sadness of cancer — be it ourselves, a family member, a friend. This dreaded disease knows no boundaries. It affects each and every one of us, regardless of gender, race or wealth.

While there is no cure, there are precautions one can take in minimizing the risks. Along with lifestyle and diet choices, a major precaution is regular testing and screening. Early detection is so vital in defeating cancer. The sooner it is detected, the greater a patient's chance of survival. With ovarian cancer, this cannot be stressed enough. In the 25 percent of ovarian cancers that are diagnosed early, there is a 90-percent survival rate.

While great strides have been made over the past few decades in cancer research, there is still a great deal of work that needs to be accomplished. Through the work of Don Listwin and the Canary Foundation, we are closer to a cure. Please join me once again in thanking Mr. Listwin for his gift to the people of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION OF

MEDICAL BILLING PRACTICES

D. Cubberley: Health Canada has assessed British Columbia a fine of $29,000 for 12 unresolved conflicts of extra-billing for insured services in 2003-2004. In the Vancouver Sun today, the Deputy Minister of Health reveals that the government's practice on this issue is to "direct complaints back to the private clinics" because they're not supposed to be charging patients for services normally insured in the public system. Now, that's hardly an effective enforcement tool.

Can the minister explain why these complaints are being sent back to the very clinics they're about, instead of being investigated by the Ministry of Health, which is presumably the agency responsible for upholding the Canada Health Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: First, I want to express my disappointment that a copy of the Vancouver Sun appears to have been leaked to the New Democratic Party.

The reporting, actually, that is done in respect of those 12 unresolved cases is being done precisely in the manner that is prescribed by Health Canada. In fact, the reporting of those speaks to the diligence with which the Ministry of Health pursues those complaints, speaks to the honesty of the province in its reporting of these matters and speaks to our government's commitment in respect of upholding the Canada Health Act in this province.

I think, to put this matter in perspective, the $29,000 holdback penalty compares in important ways to 1994-95 when, as I recall, the members opposite were in government. The penalty in that year was $1.982 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

[1430]

D. Cubberley: Apart from the gratuitous comments on how well the government is doing with this, let's remember that this is a complaint-driven process. The question had to do with how the minister and the ministry handle complaints, and what the deputy minister said was that they're being sent back to the clinics themselves — the very clinics that are accused of infringing the act by the patients. The 12 complaints that were filed actually represent the tip of the iceberg on extra-billing in British Columbia. We only see a very small part of the problem.

The minister says no user fees are contemplated by government. But does he know just how widespread the practice of extra-billing is presently in British Columbia, and can he tell us what steps he's planning to take to shut it down?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad the member for Cariboo South in his member's statement referenced spelling bees, because I think an important fact here is that one never sees the word "hypocrisy" ever coming up in a Scripps spelling bee. There's a reason for that — because it's spelled simply N-D-P. It's very easy, particularly on this file.

It was the members opposite who doubled the number of private clinics in this province, despite their sanctimonious rhetoric today. It was the members opposite that allowed ICBC patients and WCB-referred patients to access those private clinics. So it's a tad hysterical to hear from the opposite side now this great concern, particularly when you look at that $1.982 million that was assessed against the NDP government in '94-95. That would have operated the health care system for two hours and 42 minutes; $29,000 would operate it for about a minute and 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich South has a further supplemental.

D. Cubberley: I think the Minister of Health has the distinction in this House not of being the best Minister

[ Page 3729 ]

of Health in the province of British Columbia but of being the member….

[Applause.]

Minister, I believe they're clapping for you not being the best Minister of Health in the province. In my recollection….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member for Saanich South has the floor.

Continue.

D. Cubberley: In my short time in this House, I can only recall one member having used the word "hypocrisy," and it surprises me he's never taken the time to look at his own posture and apply it to himself.

To return, however briefly, to substance. It appears that private facilities charging fees for insured services have adopted a novel practice in British Columbia, a new way of ensuring that the few complaints that have come forward no longer come forward. That involves requiring patients to sign a waiver that states they won't seek reimbursement from government for extra costs. No complaint. No fine. No problem.

Given that enforcement of the law on extra-billing is complaint-driven, is the minister aware of the scope of this practice of signing waivers, and is he prepared to act to stop it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the unexpected compliment from the Health critic. I think he's doing a heck of a job as well — doing a heck of a job. It's been excellent working with him. I appreciated him getting some extra advice from a former Minister of Health here as well. I'm sure that was remarkably useful for him in framing up his third question.

To put this again in perspective, the 12 complaints we had in that particular fiscal year that were reported represented 0.0000133 percent of all of the surgeries that were performed in the province of British Columbia in that year. That, I think, helps to set the matter into perspective.

We on this side of the House believe in upholding the Canada Health Act. We pursue complaints with diligence, with honesty, with thoroughness. I am entirely confident and proud that we are defending the Canada Health Act and doing as we should do in this province.

[1435]

LOBBYIST REGISTRATION

OF PATRICK KINSELLA

R. Fleming: The opposition has asked many questions about the corruption scandal involving high-level political aides and the lobbyist industry. The Attorney General hasn't answered our questions and refuses to see any loopholes in the act.

Can the Attorney General explain why Pat Kinsella, an extremely influential Liberal organizer and fundraiser working as a political consultant for a company like Alcan, has never registered as a lobbyist?

Hon. W. Oppal: The act is clear. There's an obligation on persons who are lobbyists to register under the act. There's a registration process in place, and that's open to members of the public.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Whatever the flaws of the registry, no one quibbles with the definition

section of the act. In 2004, however, it was revealed that Mr. Kinsella had opened an account for the lobbyist registry but never actually registered. During this time, he was working on behalf of Alcan and its efforts to export power and abandon its social contract to the people of Kitimat. This Liberal insider never registered. He never self-reported his activities.

Can the Attorney General tell us what the point of the act is, if big-time Liberal lobbyists like Mr. Kinsella don't even bother registering?

Hon. W. Oppal: I assume that the member has taken the opportunity to register the complaint in the appropriate place.

LOBBYISTS' MEETINGS WITH

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

L. Krog: It's delightful to hear an answer from the Attorney General like that, leaving it up to the opposition to do the job that this government receives taxpayers' moneys year in and year out to do on behalf of British Columbians.

The Lobbyists Registration Act does not allow the public to know when lobbyists meet with top political appointees like ministerial assistants. Brian Kieran, Erik Bornman and Jamie Elmhirst all lobbied on behalf of groups like the Council of Forest Industries, Merck Frosst Canada, the Broe Companies, Omnitrax, Famous Players and the New Car Dealers of B.C.

Can the Attorney General outline how many ministerial assistants, aside from the ones currently facing charges, ever met with representatives from Pilot House Public Affairs Group?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure the member opposite, who's a member of the bar, well understands that I can't answer that question. It would be totally improper for me to answer a question relating to people who are before the courts now. That's fairly fundamental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Nanaimo has a supplemental.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

L. Krog: Perhaps the Attorney General didn't hear my question. I asked how many ministerial assistants, aside from the ones currently facing charges. There are

[ Page 3730 ]

no lobbyists facing the courts today, other than his star witnesses. Only former Liberal political staff face multiple criminal charges. The Attorney General in this House says he's amenable to bringing about greater order and transparency to the lobbyist industry. He might recall that George Schultz in the Iran-Contra hearings said that trust was the coin of the realm. Trust is what's at issue here, as well as transparency.

Why won't he today commit to an all-party review of the legislation to give British Columbians confidence and trust in their government that it is doing everything possible to close off potential avenues of corruption?

Hon. W. Oppal: You see, the impropriety and the inappropriateness of that question relate to the linking of those people — the lobbyists — to the people who are before the courts. I don't understand why the member opposite, who's a member of the bar, doesn't understand that.

[1440]

We have before the courts a number of people who are charged with very serious crimes. The members opposite are using the evidence or using the allegations before the courts to link other people. That's totally inappropriate. I can't comment on whether or not "other people are associated."

M. Karagianis: Well, perhaps we can ask a question that the Attorney General can answer. In May of 2003 this government changed the Lobbyists Registration Act, removing the lobbyists' obligations to list political aides they were meeting with. During debate on the bill, the then Attorney General stated that the changes "will not impact the effectiveness of the registry."

That was only months before the raids on the Legislature. Clearly, the government was wrong. But the question we have yet to have answered is if the current Attorney General agrees or disagrees. Given this scandal, why is the Attorney General continuing to exclude political aides from accountability and transparency by keeping them out of the act?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Attorney General has the floor.

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, the member opposite brings it back to a matter before the courts. By using words such as "scandal," I don't know if she understands this, but she is compromising a right to a fair trial. This country has seen wrongful convictions in our courts in the names of Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall and Thomas Sophonow. We've had a number of those examples where people have been wrongfully convicted because the presumption of innocence wasn't respected.

I would urge the members opposite to be extremely careful before they start playing footloose and fancy-free with allegations that are before the courts by irresponsibly using words such as "scandal." If there is a scandal, the Supreme Court will decide that.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: My questions are about the Lobbyists Registration Act. The Lobbyists Registration Act is now five years old. In light of recent events — and let's make no mistake…. Recent events are a scandal. This is a scandal. So it is clearly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members — on both sides of the House.

Continue.

M. Karagianis: I would say it's very clear that it's time for change. The warrants show that the legislation does not adequately protect against potential kickback schemes within the highest ranks of government. Does the Attorney General…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Karagianis: …support closing obvious loopholes in the act to stop potential kickback schemes and other avenues of corruption?

J. Kwan: The Attorney General won't commit to an all-party committee to review the lobbyists registry. Now that the Attorney General is aware of the problem with people like Mr. Kinsella not following the act, what is the Attorney General going to do to make sure that the act is being followed by people like Mr. Kinsella?

Hon. W. Oppal: If the member opposite has complaints about somebody not properly registering pursuant to the provisions in the act, then she has an obligation to report that.

[1445]

HIGHWAY OF TEARS INVESTIGATION

J. Brar: Victoria police received over 200 new tips on the Michael Dunahee case in just one week after announcing a $100,000 reward for information.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Looking at the power of a reward for generating new tips on the 16-year-old case of Michael Dunahee, will the minister learn from Victoria's experience and commit today to offering a reward for information leading to successful resolution of the cases of missing women around the highway of tears?

Hon. J. Les: Members of the House will likely recall that that member asked the same question last week.

As a matter of fact, I have discussed such an initiative with the RCMP. Last week when the member op-

[ Page 3731 ]

posite and I were in Prince George at the symposium put on by the communities involved in the Highway 16 murders and disappearances, it was explained pretty carefully to the member opposite — both by myself and, if that wasn't good enough for him, by senior members of the RCMP — that sometimes it is indeed appropriate and useful to put up a reward in a case such as this.

However, in the considered judgment of the RCMP, this is not the time to be putting forward a reward. That was carefully explained last week at the symposium. So I would suggest that I take the advice of the RCMP and not that of the member opposite.

APPROVAL OF FISH FARM LICENCES

S. Simpson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. Will the minister please tell this House why he has approved a fish farm at the Bennett Point site in the Broughton Archipelago while the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture is sitting and doing its work?

Hon. P. Bell: We think that this delegated decision-maker made a very reasoned decision around this particular licence. It's been in the process since November of 2004. In fact, a

Tlowitsis First Nation, which has long been an opponent around aquaculture licences, supports this licence and is developing a partnership with Greig Seafood to see a new model of aquaculture in the Broughton Archipelago. We're very proud of that decision.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I find it interesting. This committee was put in place. It was put in place for the purpose of dealing with this very difficult issue. It was put in place by the government through the throne speech.

It is an issue, quite frankly, that concerns shrimp fishermen. Mr. Murray Tanner from Sointula has raised concerns about the effect on pink shrimp. It's of concern to people in the Broughton about what happens with nerve poison SLICE, which deals with sea lice.

In regard to the question of the first nations, I would quote from Bob Chamberlain, the chairperson of the MTTC, who said today: "The province has promised the highest environmental standards and the best fisheries in the world as a foundation of their New Relationship with first nations. This decision undermines even the most basic principles of that New Relationship." That's what the tribal council says to the minister's decision.

Considering all of these serious and outstanding concerns and the role of the legislative committee on sustainable aquaculture, can the minister tell British Columbians why they should believe he is taking this committee seriously when he is prepared to approve farms in this way?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to see that the opposition has climbed back up on their grassy knoll of hypocrisy today. You know, the opposition was informed last Thursday of this decision. It's only since the media has become aware of the decision that it appears they have any interest at all. In fact, during the 1990s the NDP put in 34 new aquaculture sites around the province; this government has put in two.

[1450]

MUNICIPAL ELECTION

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

M. Farnworth: Over the weekend, in response to questions raised in this House last week, the Minister of Community Services stated on the record publicly that she couldn't understand why anyone would not want to disclose their campaign donations. At the same time, in the same newspaper the member for Port Moody–Westwood also stated that he favoured full disclosure of campaign donations at the municipal level and the closing of the loophole that allowed over $104,000 to be undisclosed, unreported. Today we learn that the member for Burquitlam also now supports the closing of that loophole.

My question to the Minister of Community Services and development is this. Given the support from this side of the House and the obvious support from members of her own caucus, will she now look into this loophole that allowed $104,000 of undisclosed donations to take place and investigate and close that loophole?

Hon. I. Chong: We have all the expectation and trust that individuals will abide by the law. We have in place municipal election laws that election officers throughout the province adhere to. I have also indicated that after the municipal elections, a postmortem is done. Surveys are sent out. Election officers and candidates, as well, are able to submit information to us. When we receive that information, if it is determined that changes need to be made, we would make them, if and when necessary, in time for the next municipal election.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, her own colleagues have now publicly said the loophole is a problem and it should be closed. Is that not good enough for the minister? Will she not look into closing the loophole on the basis of the complaints from her own colleagues, never mind this side of the House?

Hon. I. Chong: I thought I'd made it quite clear, but if not, I'll just repeat again for the member opposite that in fact we do receive information. We receive it from the election officers, we will receive it from candidates, and we will receive it from anyone who wishes to provide us any information. When we re-

[ Page 3732 ]

ceive all the information and not just selective information, then we will take a look at that. If changes are necessary, we indeed will make them in time for the next election in 2008.

HOMELESSNESS IN SURREY

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Housing. Surrey, which is B.C.'s second-largest city, has recorded the fewest number of shelter beds for its growing homeless population in two surveys in the past four years. As a result, more homeless are sleeping in doorways, on sidewalks and at Surrey Memorial's emergency department. Some of them, to protect themselves from extreme weather conditions, are forced to put themselves in unsafe and unhealthy positions.

The minister did make a number of visits out to Surrey prior to May 2005. Since homelessness in Surrey is now at a crisis point, will he commit to meeting with the senior staff of South Fraser Community Services and Options to help build a better plan to help the growing numbers of homeless in Surrey?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said yesterday in the House, we've increased the annual funding for the shelter program in British Columbia by 40 percent. Since we became government, we've increased year-round shelter beds from 711 to 868. We've increased cold-wet weather beds in the province from 197 to 391.

Maybe the member might want to tell the organizations to write the minister and see if they can get a meeting. Frankly, if they want to communicate with me, my door is open.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, one of the ways that the constituents are communicating to the minister is through their elected representative, which in this case happens to be the member for Surrey-Whalley — me.

Capt. Randy Piticco of the Surrey fire department says that a 42-year-old woman was sleeping in a dumpster on Friday morning when the truck picked the bin up and emptied its contents, including the woman, into its rear compactor. Luckily, the waste haulers heard her scream, and she survived with minor injuries.

Given that this problem is at a crisis point and public officials employed by agencies in Surrey are concerned that public indifference to what is likely to be the future of the homeless in Surrey is growing, will the minister not commit today to meet with these concerned officials?

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: For ten years these people were government. Did we see a Premier's Task Force on Homelessness in that ten-year period? Did we see any leadership? None.

The Premier of this province actually stepped up to the plate and put the leadership on the homeless strategy in front of all the communities in B.C. He's brought in the mayors of the major communities in the province, including the mayor of Surrey, who's a participant in the homeless strategy and is now outreaching to mid-sized communities across the province to build even a stronger strategy for homelessness. We're putting the resources behind it, and we've increased the number of beds. We've increased what we would do for homeless people in British Columbia — something they never did for ten years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

CHANGES TO FIRE COMMISSIONER OFFICE

N. Macdonald: The concerns the opposition expressed Monday about the reorganization of the office of the fire commissioner were dismissed by the Minister of Public Safety as full of rhetoric and fearmongering. I received yesterday from Fire Chief Terry Warren of Nakusp and District Volunteer Fire Department the following. He says: "I personally have reached a point in my life where I am wondering why I am still volunteering to be on call 24-7, 365 days a year to have my face slapped and to have more work thrown at me.

These changes" — and here he's referring to the reorganization of the fire commissioner in the Kootenays — "cost local taxpayers more and affect the saving of lives and property."

Surely the Minister of Public Safety is not going to dismiss these concerns as full of rhetoric and fearmongering. So the question I have for the Minister of Public Safety is: does he recognize that there is a fundamental problem with the reorganization of the office of the Fire Commission in the Kootenays, and will he commit to fixing that problem?

Hon. J. Les: As we already discovered a few days ago — on Monday, in fact — the cutbacks in the office of the fire commissioner actually occurred when the New Democratic Party was in government in British Columbia. They started out with 40 people in the office of the fire commissioner, and they cut it down to 27, and they cut the budget by 20 percent.

We have maintained all of the funding and all of the personnel within the office of the fire commissioner. Yes, changes are happening. We're actually taking steps to ensure that there are more people on the ground throughout more communities around British Columbia so that more advice and more support are available to the various fire departments of British Columbia.

Now, if there's a fire department somewhere that doesn't understand what is happening, the fire commissioner is actually travelling around the province right now, meeting with all of these people, to ensure that they understand how the fire service is being

[ Page 3733 ]

improved to the betterment of all the communities around British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Krog: I rise to table a petition on behalf of Malaspina Students' Union, protesting tuition fees.

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to present, on behalf of the Texada Island Chamber of Commerce, a petition signed by close to half the residents and probably most of the households of Texada Island, asking that the ferry service remain at the same level of service, same vessel size, and that home-porting remain in Blubber Bay.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in Committee A we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and in this chamber, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[1500-1505]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP

AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $152,559,000 (continued).

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the Chair for her indulgence as we were getting organized here. I understand the member from Malahat does have a quick question on contaminated sites, and we're endeavouring to get the appropriate staff here as we speak.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for this impromptu series of questions, and I want to acknowledge his capable staff who are with him today.

I'd like to focus, if I could, on contaminated sites within the provincial electoral area of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. The minister will know that Malahat–Juan de Fuca begins at the Cowichan River and comes south to the communities of Highlands and Langford, before going west to Metchosin, Sooke, Port Renfrew and other communities within the area.

Residents have come to me over the past number of months expressing concerns about regulations around contaminated-sites soils. In particular, there were awards given to various projects in the city of Victoria for removal of contaminated soils, and these soils ended up arriving in communities in Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

I'd like to ask the minister, if I could, if he has an inventory of such sites on the Island, across the province and, most particularly, in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

[1510]

Hon. B. Penner: I seek clarification. Is the member looking for a list of contaminated sites within his particular constituency boundaries?

J. Horgan: Yes, that's a starting point. Then I want to move from that to recourse for my constituents who are in proximity to these sites.

Hon. B. Penner: Certainly, the ministry does keep track of known contaminated sites. If the member is looking for a list specific to his particular constituency, we can try and generate that information. We don't normally organize our information systems based on individual constituency boundaries, but we could see what kind of information would pertain to the member's constituency configuration or boundaries.

If the matter is pertaining to the transfer of soil that falls within the definition of contaminated soil, then there would be a permit required. I'm not sure if that's where the member is going with the question, but that's the information that I have.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that the ministry may not organize its affairs the same way I have to. There is a large pile of soil at and around Spectacle Lake at the top of the Malahat, just past the community of Shawnigan Lake, that's of particular concern. I've had a number of constituents raise that pile of soil with me. There are also a number of properties in the communities of Glenora and Cowichan Bay where residents have expressed concerns that soils are coming on to property, and they're not certain where they're coming from.

I guess I seek some guidance from the minister and his staff as to how citizens in my community, and communities right across the province, can protect themselves from soils being removed from one place and then deposited at another. The case in point would be a site here in Victoria, in the Greater Victoria area, where I believe an award was given for the removal of the contaminated substances. But certainly no notice was given to the community where it arrived, and that was in Glenora.

That's the issue. It's a question of how local residents protect themselves from soils coming into their community. If they're on a well — as many are in my communities — and have soils of unknown origin arriving on a neighbouring property, how do they protect themselves, and how can they track down where this soil comes from?

[ Page 3734 ]

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that the regulation that would pertain to the transfer of soil that the member is referring to was first put in place in 1996. I don't believe that regulation has changed. It does require a number of things on behalf of the party that would be depositing the soil. I can arrange a briefing for the member, if that would help him. In the meantime, if his constituents have specific concerns about a particular piece of property, I would invite them to contact the Ministry of Environment by telephone and to bring their concerns directly to the ministry's attention.

J. Horgan: I'll certainly take the minister up on his offer of a briefing. I'm not familiar with this 1996 regulation, although I was in and around this place at that time. It may come as a surprise to the minister that I didn't keep track of every regulation — just about every regulation, but certainly I might have missed one or two along the way.

[1515]

I will take him up on that offer. I'll contact his office directly on that. As he will know as a constituency MLA, the first point of contact for concerns traditionally is a member's office. I assured members that I would raise these questions with you. I've done that. I appreciate the answers and the candour. I will collect an inventory of those sites and go through them with your ministry staff, and I thank you for your time.

Hon. B. Penner: I see that the Environment critic is back in the House. We'll get back, I think, to the normal sequence of questioning that we had laid out for these ministry estimates.

Just before doing so, though, I'd like to advise members, and particularly the critic, that there's an issue that's been of considerable interest to the ministry and, I know, to many people throughout the province, especially on Vancouver Island.

I'd just like to announce today that following extensive public consultation, B.C. Parks has decided to implement traffic calming measures to improve public safety in MacMillan Provincial Park. My goal is for all visitors to MacMillan Park to have a memorable and safe experience. These measures are expected to reduce hazards to drivers and pedestrians accessing the park. We are working with the Ministry of Transportation, and we hope to have these new measures put in place before the busy summer season is upon us.

In essence, they will consist of flashing lights, overhead lights along the highway, Highway 4, to alert motorists and pedestrians to the fact that there is traffic congestion from time to time in the heart of the park at Cathedral Grove.

You'll know, members, that at the Ministry of Environment, through its subsection the parks branch, a lot of work and planning has gone on over the years. It's been a considerable effort. I want to thank the parks staff who have diligently looked at a wide number of options, many of which have been brought forward from members of the public. At this point, I can inform members of the House and the public that B.C. Parks does not have any intentions at this point of proceeding with the new parking lot option at Cathedral Grove. Rather, we'll be relying upon traffic calming measures, and we'll be reviewing those and monitoring the situation closely in the months and years to come.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for making people aware of that. I'm sure that will be good news for a lot of people in the community who were very concerned about the parking lot proposal. I'm sure they'll look forward to working with the minister and the ministry on finding traffic calming measures that are effective and still protect the integrity of the park, as they saw it. I do appreciate that, and I apologize for my delay in getting back.

What I want to do is proceed a little bit further on the discussion around species. I have a couple more questions related to that, and then we'll move on from there to discussion of parks.

I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about the fact that the SaRCO, which falls under the jurisdiction of Agriculture and Lands, has responsibility for the designated species, including the caribou and the owl. Could the minister tell us: what responsibility does his ministry have in order to deal with issues related to the caribou, the recovery plan, and the owl and its recovery plan? What is the responsibility of this ministry for those versus the responsibility of SaRCO or other ministries?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: I believe we did canvass this at some length last fall during estimates debate. If I understand the member's question correctly, he wants to know what the role of the Ministry of Environment is in terms of working on recovery plans with respect to the three species that he mentioned.

Our role in the Ministry of Environment is to provide scientific support to SaRCO, the species-at-risk coordination office, and assist them in recovery planning. Once a plan is decided upon and approved, then we would have a further role to play in assisting in the implementation of any particular plan.

S. Simpson: Around this question of scientific advice, could the minister tell us — and maybe this is important to the work that I know the minister spoke about yesterday, regulatory work related to future species-at-risk initiatives — how species currently get listed? What is the process for a species to get listed on the conservation data centre information base? How does that assessment get made to put a species there?

Hon. B. Penner: Yesterday, when we were discussing this matter, there was some debate around different numbers and different criteria. Just to step back a bit and put things into a broader perspective, I am advised there are a total of approximately 42,000 different species of different kinds in British Columbia. That includes everything, including plants, except for things

[ Page 3735 ]

that would be defined as microscopic organisms. So that might help in terms of a baseline.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told those would be native species, native to British Columbia.

In terms of the criteria applied by the conservation data centre, which we talked a bit about yesterday, or CDC for short, that is a database that — no surprise — operates on a computer system. They look at, for their listing criteria, things such as the total number and condition of occurrences; the population size; the range, extent and area of occupants; short- and long-term trends in a variety of factors; threats; intrinsic vulnerability and environmental specificity. This would be to determine whether a species is a candidate for further listing or further action. It's a preliminary decision in a way, because there could be more work that would come later.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that number. I know that with us having, based on that number, just under 1,600 listed on the database, if we include plants, then I'm sure we want to pay attention to those 1,600 and be grateful that it's not a larger number.

Hon. B. Penner: Thirteen hundred.

S. Simpson: Some 1,303 animals and about 200 plants, I'm told, but I stand to be corrected.

The minister in his last answer spoke of a number of criteria that are used to determine how an animal or a plant gets on to that list. Could the minister tell us: how is that information collected, and who collects it?

[1525]

Hon. B. Penner: The member may be aware that the CDC, or conservation data centre, was just added to the Ministry of Environment in the past year. So we're just endeavouring to get the total number of staff that came with the CDC, or the conservation data centre. The work is done by staff who work for that organization. As well, we receive information from experts in the field — people associated with universities and other research institutions that provide the CDC with information for analysis and consideration.

S. Simpson: It would seem to me — and I would hope the minister would agree — that the preferable way for species to get on that list or any list around questions of species at risk is for it to be scientifically based, rather than based on some other criteria.

The question that I have is: could the ministry supply me with some idea of the scientists who, in fact, do that assessment and where they're located — whether they be biologists or other scientists with the ministry, whether they be scientists directly related with the conservation data centre or whether they be scientists who are contracted or brought about through academic institutions?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe we can pull together that list. Our staff will endeavour to do that. We're just going through our binders. It looks like we picked up, when the reorganization of government took place, approximately 33 FTEs consisting of people who develop inventory standards and specialists who perform the work in identifying species to be included on the conservation database centre.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I look forward to getting a fairly detailed list of who the scientific community is inside and outside the ministry that, in fact, provides the advice on how species get on those lists.

[1530]

Could the minister tell me a little bit about how species…? What are the consequences…? Maybe we'll start here. If we have a species at risk that's identified by the ministry…. Maybe the minister could start with some categorization. What I'm trying to determine here is what happens when an individual, possibly a hunter or whatever, a poacher — because they obviously wouldn't be licensed to do this — or a business through its enterprise, a company, impacts a species that is at risk in a way that breaches the expectations of the ministry and of government.

How does that work? What are the charges? What happens? How is somebody held accountable for that?

Hon. B. Penner: There are general provisions in the Wildlife Act, which I don't have right in front of me, that carry penalties for poachers — people hunting without a licence or otherwise inappropriately harming or killing wildlife. In fact, just a few moments ago I was being asked some questions in the hallway by the media about an incident that came to light, I think, just yesterday involving three bald eagles that were found dead near Bowser on Vancouver Island.

The conservation officer service is actively investigating that situation. I'm advised that under the Wildlife Act there is a potential penalty up to $50,000 upon conviction, should the COs track down whoever may be responsible and determine that the law was broken, lay charges and get a conviction in the court. I'm not sure if that general penalty provision applies the same for all species or whether that's specific to bald eagles or to other animals. I would have to check the legislation.

In addition to that, I'm told the Species at Risk Act nationally also carries a number of additional penalties. Again, I don't have those specifics, but that's something we could look up in the statute books.

S. Simpson: I'll ask for a clarification and ask my next question at the same time. My clarification would be on the SARA, the Species at Risk Act, and the federal penalties. Would I be correct in assuming those would only apply on federal lands? We determined yesterday that SARA only applies on federal lands. So would we assume that their penalties would only apply on federal lands? The minister could just clarify that.

[ Page 3736 ]

I very much appreciate that poachers and people who conduct themselves in that way need to be charged. They need to face the full extent of the law, and I'm very hopeful that officers of the ministry will find those people responsible for the bald eagles.

My question, though, is: what happens in the instance of industry, where business interests or industry come into areas where there are species that are at some degree of risk, and business practices are deemed by conservation officers, by others, to have inappropriately imposed on those species? How is that determined, and what might the consequences for that be?

[1535]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm busily flipping through the Wildlife Act, looking for the various provisions in terms of penalties. I'll let the member join me in that task maybe a little bit later on. It's always entertaining.

The member is not quite technically correct to say that Species at Risk Act penalties don't apply to private land in British Columbia. I'm advised that in order to prohibit the damage or destruction of residences of non-federal species on provincial, territorial or private lands, the federal Minister of the Environment may make that decision to do so, if supported by way of an order-in-council of the Governor-General-in-Council. So there is a provision for SARA to apply if it's determined by the federal environment minister that that's appropriate.

In addition to that and regardless of that, in British Columbia we have a number of different statutes that potentially apply. I've already referred to the Wildlife Act — and a variety of provisions there — which lists, I think in

section 6.1(1), a number of things respecting species at risk and potential penalties there. There's also the Forest and Range Practices Act, which provides for various penalties should somebody not conduct themselves on the land base the way they're supposed to.

Furthermore, there is, of course, the federal Fisheries Act, which contains some hefty penalties for those who are responsible for allowing deleterious substances to enter into waterways or to cause harmful alteration of fish habitat. And of course, near and dear to my heart is the Park Act, which protects provincial parks and recreation areas in British Columbia. The number is more than 600 parks where that statute applies and provides protection in terms of ecosystems and the land base.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about the ability, under SARA, for the minister to go out and intervene with support — to be able to do that. I understand, though, that that has never occurred, though I do understand that there are a number of organizations that have a lawsuit in relation to the spotted owl. For the first time they're trying to actually have that clause used by the minister, because they aren't satisfied that the provincial government is in fact fulfilling its responsibilities around the spotted owl. As a consequence, they're in court trying, for the first time, to get that clause to be used under SARA. I appreciate that the minister pointed that out to me.

Could the minister tell me a little bit about what it means to be on the conservation data centre list? There are 1,300 species that are on this list. We know that the three that are under SaRCO…. There are varying degrees of recovery plans that are being driven by SaRCO, and I appreciate that.

What does it mean for a species to have been put on this other list of 1,300, in terms of how the government looks at those species and deals with them? What's different between that, in terms of the conduct of the government and conservation officers, and the other 40,000-odd animals that are in the province?

[1540]

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for your indulgence. I've been joined by Brian Rendell, who is the executive director of compliance and enforcement for the Ministry of Environment. He's busy thumbing through the Wildlife Act — so perhaps the critic and I don't have to — endeavouring to get specific information around penalty provisions that apply, depending on the type of offence.

What I found on my own is that there are different maximum penalties, depending on which

section of the act is contravened. We'll hopefully have more information from that perspective in a moment.

In terms of the member's most recent question pertaining to the list and what the purpose of that list is — which I have at 1,364 on the CDC list — my assistant deputy minister advises me that that does include plants, but that's subject to checking. That provides the pool for the FRPA designations, the Forest and Range Practices Act list.

[1545]

About 85 or so out of the 1,364 have been deemed to be of significant interest under FRPA — requiring further consideration. Then that same pool is used for review by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, heretofore known as COSEWIC. That'll be easier to say. From that list of 1,364, 134 have met the legal definition or criteria under SARA, the Species at Risk Act, for listing. Some people in the ministry refer to that as the legal list — the 134 — because it meets the legal criteria as established by the species-at-risk legislation.

S. Simpson: Can I assume that between these three lists — the SARA list, the COSEWIC list and the FRPA list — there's a reasonable amount of crossover between these three acronym-based lists? That would be true?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes, there is considerable overlap. I think the member asks an excellent question. As I look at the numbers and I'm asked…. It's basically a rough flow chart here between the three different lists.

The 1,364 up here is the general pool for further consideration. Under SARA, there are 134 that have

[ Page 3737 ]

met a legal definition under SARA. Then under the Forest and Range Practices Act, there are about 85. I'm told that between the 85 and the 134, there is a considerable overlap, considerable consistency, in terms of the species listed in either list.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I imagine it's no surprise to anybody that there would be crossover in those species, that the different jurisdictions would share concerns about species when, presumably, the criteria for those different agencies would be similar in many ways in terms of what they would look at as criteria to put a species on an at-risk list.

We have these species. When I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands in his estimates earlier this week, we talked about how a species gets on the SaRCO list, and I think what he said was that it is globally significant. I believe that's the term, though I could stand to be corrected.

The three species that are there were deemed to be that way, and they met a number of criteria, including having what is a G listing on the conservation data centre list. I'm sure the minister can tell me what a G listing means, because I'm not sure. Anyways, these three were deemed to be globally significant through criteria that SaRCO had that brought together pieces of information from a number of different lists.

The question I have is: what happens to species that SaRCO doesn't deem to be globally significant based on their criteria, yet there are challenges for those species in British Columbia in terms of the level of risk? Is there a process for the Ministry of Environment to put recovery plans in place, to put conditions in place, to protect those animals or those species and in fact develop a recovery strategy for those species, even though they didn't make the SaRCO list?

[1550]

Hon. B. Penner: We're back to dealing with a range of different numbers that we were talking about yesterday. There are, as the member mentioned, three particular species that SaRCO, the species-at-risk coordination office, has primary responsibility for in terms of developing recovery plans. Those are the marbled murrelet, spotted owl and mountain caribou.

In addition to those three, there are another 86 listed species where B.C. is either leading or co-leading the planning process for recovery. That would be a total of 89 different species being worked on.

S. Simpson: What does that mean? What does the ministry do? Maybe the minister can tell me: who in the ministry has responsibility for developing those recovery plans, for going out and doing the work, for making sure that strategies are moving forward? What's the budget for doing that work? How much money gets invested in those 86 species to ensure their futures?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just working to put together some of this information here. The Ministry of Environment has an ecosystems branch. That would be our lead agency within the ministry for working on species-at-risk recovery planning and implementation. In addition, of course, there's the SaRCO office housed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

[1555]

Together we work with outside entities, including universities and industry. I'm advised that that helps us lever additional resources and personnel to help facilitate the work that the province is pursuing.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell me how many FTEs are in the ecosystems branch, and how many of them do direct line work or scientific work related to those recovery plans?

Hon. B. Penner: There are seven and a half FTEs in the ecosystems branch and another seven and a half FTEs working for the species-at-risk coordination office. Between the two ministries there are 15 FTEs. I don't have a complete breakdown here along the lines that the member asked for. We'll see if we can get that, but it is not in front of me.

S. Simpson: To be clear, that's about 15 people all-in who have primary responsibility for this. How does the SaRCO office break that down? Do the seven or seven and a half FTEs in SaRCO actually pay a lot of attention to these 86 species, or are they primarily there to deal with the key recovery plans around the three that they have primary responsibility for? How do they divide their time to actually put effort into this?

I'm trying to determine how many FTEs deal with these 86 species. I accept the seven who are in the ecosystems branch do. I'm trying to figure out how much attention they get out of the SaRCO office.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of the member's specific question around SaRCO, I direct the member to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, since it's housed over there. I don't have the full details on their financial arrangements.

Just a point of clarification. We talked a bit about this yesterday, and this, again, is where the numbers can get a bit confusing. While there are 89 different species that we're working on, that's covered off by 32 different teams. In fact, there are 32 different teams that are currently active. The ministry personnel that we've talked about to date are active in working on those 32 different teams.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could explain this to me. The minister just said that there are seven people who do this work, I believe. Seven people in ecodiversity, or that branch of the ministry, and there are 32 teams. Who makes up these teams in addition to the seven people, or do they just have a lot of hats?

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for allowing me the chance to clarify. The number I gave him, 7.5 FTEs, is the headquarters number. It does not include

[ Page 3738 ]

field staff that we have throughout the various regions in the province. Depending on the particular team or the particular species being worked on and where that may be located, various field staff in the regions would be drawn upon to help support the recovery teams. That could be a biologist in Nelson or somebody from the Peace River, depending on the location and the type of species being worked on.

In addition, as I said earlier in one of my previous answers, it's not just the ministry doing this work. Certainly, we set the guidelines and steer the process, but we partner and lever additional resources through those partnerships with universities, NGOs and industry, who also serve on these 32 different recovery teams.

[1600]

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I believe I made the ask yesterday. The ministry, I believe, is putting together information about conservation officers, park rangers, science biologists and that in areas. I know the minister committed to that information yesterday, and I assume that will give me a better idea of what some of the ministry people in those teams look like. I'm assuming it's conservation officers and park staff, who would be working in cooperation with the coordination team out of Victoria or out of the head office.

I want to move on a little bit from that specific question and ask just a couple of questions in relation to another matter. Then we will be going to parks after that, just so you know.

I'm looking for some clarification about Koda and Banff, the grizzly bear cubs. The minister, I'm sure, will remember the grizzly bear cubs. Could the minister tell us: what is the status of these grizzly bear cubs right now in terms of British Columbia's involvement?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry has received an application — what's called an import permit — from, I think, the Kicking Horse facility near Golden, British Columbia. My understanding is that the ministry has completed the review of that application, and I'm not aware that there were any showstoppers. It's quite possible that a permit will be issued in the near future in terms of those two orphaned bears.

However, there would still be an export permit required to be issued by the province of Alberta, because the two bears in question were orphaned in Alberta. They were captured in Alberta, and they are still residing in Alberta. So the decision about where the bears go is not solely that of the province of British Columbia.

In fact, a considerable amount of the responsibility rests with the province of Alberta in terms of whether or not they'll grant an export permit. I don't know if one has been applied for yet in Alberta. The last time I checked, which was some time ago, the province of Alberta had not actually received an export permit for those two bears. So they were not in a position to make a decision one way or the other.

[1605]

I have, however, received information from both Parks Canada, which has legal ownership of one of the bears, and the Edmonton zoo, and they both indicate that the particular bears in question…. I will quote the Edmonton zoo here: "The bears are not good candidates for release."

Dr. Steven Woodley, chief scientist of the ecological integrity branch of Parks Canada, has indicated that: "Our biologists and wildlife management specialists do not feel that this cub is a suitable candidate for rehabilitation. This animal is highly habituated to people." I also note that Tony Toth, the executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, has also taken issue with the critic's comments that the bear should be considered for rehabilitation, indicating that it would be totally misguided.

S. Simpson: We clearly have some conflicting information here around those questions and around, in fact, who is saying what. We do have information that suggests that both Parks Canada and Alberta Fish and Wildlife agreed that rehabilitation was a possibility — absolutely not a certainty that it would be successful; we don't know that for sure — and received comments from Dr. Woodley that he had in fact submitted a request to the B.C. government on December 21, which had been turned down by the minister's office. That's what we were told in January.

I understand that part of the concern there, at one point, was that I believe it was Mr. Austin from the ministry who, in speaking about the Northern Lights facility — which was the facility that I think was in question as to whether the bears would go to Northern Lights for rehab and whether that was possible — had made the comment that the grizzly bears didn't meet B.C.'s grizzly bear rehab standards. I guess the question I'd have at this point is — because I haven't been able to identify those standards: are there, in fact, written standards for grizzly bear rehabilitation?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding from the senior grizzly bear biologist in the ministry, as well as from other individuals in Canada, is that grizzly bear rehabilitation is not considered to be a proven technique. I understand there are claims that it has worked on other continents, but certainly the experience in North America has not been a positive one.

I do have here a letter dated December 7, 2005, from Dr. Woodley, who is the chief scientist of the ecological integrity branch of Parks Canada, wherein he states: "Grizzly bear rehabilitation is unproven and will be a difficult and long-term project." Earlier in the letter he says: "We do not consider the cub a candidate for rehabilitation, because it is habituated to humans." So that's the information we have.

I have asked ministry staff if it would be possible to develop a program in British Columbia around grizzly bear rehabilitation. There's going to be an information-gathering exercise that will be required. But at this point there is apparently a dearth of proven scientific

[ Page 3739 ]

information, particularly longitudinal studies, to determine what has actually happened to bears outside of North America and other continents — I think in Russia, which is sometimes held up as an example — after they were released and whether they survived for a considerable period of time or not.

That is something I'm interested in learning about. I guess it has to be classified as a work in progress in terms of gathering more information. But in any event, the consensus view of the Calgary Zoo, the Edmonton zoo, Parks Canada and professional biologists with the Ministry of Environment here in British Columbia, as well as the B.C. Wildlife Federation, is that these two particular bears are not good candidates for rehabilitation.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments, and possibly the minister could make a copy of that letter from Dr. Woodley available. That would be appreciated.

[1610]

I'd like to move on to the next issue, which is parks. I guess my first question around parks really relates to some broad budget issues related to parks. Could the minister tell us: what is the parks budget for parks in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Penner: In fiscal 2006-2007 the total budget for the environmental stewardship division of the Ministry of Environment is $69.987 million. That budget covers fish and wildlife branch, parks branch, protected areas and ecosystems — something we were just talking about a moment ago in terms of species at risk. The budget in terms of B.C. Parks itself would be approximately $30 million.

S. Simpson: I assume that a significant amount of that…. Each of the parks, I assume, has a budget of its own. There's an analysis of budget for each of the parks in terms of what the cost of operation of a park is. How is that budgeting done, particularly around our provincial parks? How does that work in terms of determining the budget for each of the parks? And presumably that makes up the global budget.

[1615]

Hon. B. Penner: The member would not be correct in assuming that there's a specific budget allocated to each and every one of the 600-plus provincial parks in the province. Instead, what happens is that the budget is divided by regions. In terms of how it is prioritized between different parks and operating different areas within parks, that's a decision that's made in consultation with the regions and headquarters in Victoria about assessing priorities and allocating resources.

S. Simpson: The budget, then, is determined by region. So would it be possible to get copies of those regional budgets?

Hon. B. Penner: We can work to get that, but we could also offer a briefing with the member on, specifically, how the budgets are put together and allocated between the different regions when it comes to B.C. Parks.

S. Simpson: I would appreciate having that information. I'd also be very happy for the opportunity to have that briefing, as well, around some of those matters.

I know there are revenue streams. Some of the parks have revenue streams; others, not so much. Of the $30 million of budget for parks, is that $30 million after revenue? Or is there a revenue stream that comes in there from private interests and operators in parks — fees, etc.? What portion of the money is dollars coming in through revenue, and what portion is government contribution?

[1620]

Hon. B. Penner: I believe the member's question was whether or not the $30 million figure is inclusive of any recoveries collected by park facility operators or through other operations in B.C. parks. The answer is no.

I'm told that in fiscal 2005-2006 projected recoveries are about $13.4 million, which goes to defray and help offset the costs that park facility operators incur in providing services in parks. That would be in addition to the $30 million that the ministry spends in supporting B.C. Parks.

S. Simpson: Then I would be correct in assuming, if I do the math, that the cost of park operations in terms of government costs is $43.4 million, something like that — the combination of the $30 million budget plus the 13.4 million of revenue that goes back into parks. So $43 million or $44 million is the government expenditure on provincial parks. Is that accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: The cost to the ministry is booked at $30 million, give or take, in terms of supporting the operations of B.C. Parks. That's hiring park rangers and looking after other things that happen in the parks.

The $13.4 million figure is revenue that gets collected from camping fees and other operations in parks — boat rentals where those are permitted, that type of thing — which the PFOs are allowed to retain. All things being equal, if they were not permitted to retain that revenue, one would assume — and probably rightfully so — that they would bid a higher contract price when the next round came up for managing or providing services in those parks.

Another way to look at it is that our expenditures would have to be another $13.4 million higher theoretically, possibly, if PFOs were not allowed to retain that revenue that gets collected from camping fees and other activities in the parks.

S. Simpson: Am I to understand that, in fact, the $13.4 million is roughly the profit that private operators are making in parks from fees and things that the ministry has authorized them to charge people for ac-

[ Page 3740 ]

tivities in parks? For private operators in parks, they've been authorized to charge certain fees. Those fees are generating $13.4 million of profit or revenue for them. It may not be profit; they have expenses. But is $13.4 million the revenue stream to them?

[1625]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct to be careful in not assuming that the number is about the profit, because you'll quickly hear from park facility operators everywhere — some of whom will say that they don't make any profit. Certainly, I've heard that lament. Whether or not that's true, I'm not in a position to judge.

The number I gave was maybe a higher number. So before my phone starts ringing from PFOs telling me that in fact they don't get that full $13.4 million…. That number apparently also includes recoveries that come directly back to the provincial government through the consolidated revenue fund. Just exactly what that amount is…. I would guess it's about $2 million. The actual amount that is retained by park facility operators I would estimate at approximately $11.4 million, give or take.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how much we do pay — presumably out of the $30 million, though maybe it comes from somewhere else — to those facility operators as contractual fees for them to provide these services in parks? Do we as the government pay something in addition to the fees that they recover?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that we've just completed the negotiation or renegotiation process for the park facility operators around the province. I'm sure the member is aware that different parks are grouped into bundles that in turn then go out for competitive bidding. As a result of that competitive bidding process, the contracts for the various bundles can look different, and it depends on the nature of the particular parks within each particular bundle.

Just referring to a park that I'm quite familiar with, Cultus Lake Provincial Park, for example, I would assume that if the bundle were only for that particular park — it's not, but if it were — a smaller subsidy or contribution directly from the ministry would be required. Given that there are 300 or so campsites in a prime location close to the lower mainland that are available for use, there's a healthy revenue stream that's available. Other parks may be more remote and have fewer campsites and, therefore, provide fewer revenue opportunities for the PFOs.

[1630]

That all gets fleshed out, thrashed out, through the competitive bidding process, and people who are interested in bidding on particular bundles will have to make a business case for themselves to determine what kind of bid they should submit. They could say in their contract proposal, "If awarded the contract, I'll actually pay the province to operate this particular park or the bundle," or alternatively: "I'll only require X amount of additional contribution over and above the fees I'm allowed to collect from the province." That's a calculation that has to be made by each and every PFO and would-be PFO in the bidding process.

I'm told that because the bidding process has just closed, we're just getting the numbers — we don't have them here — about the specific amounts. In rough terms, that's my understanding of how the bidding process works. I was working for B.C. Parks when a lot of this process started in the late 1980s. It started in, I'd say, about 1988, if my memory serves correctly.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that this year's numbers aren't quite reconciled yet — that the process is ongoing. Maybe the minister could tell me what that number looked like for last year.

Hon. B. Penner: I've asked for that information, and I hope it arrives here soon.

S. Simpson: We'll move to another issue related to parks. The question of master plans for our provincial parks — could the minister tell us what the status of that is? Do all the provincial parks have a master plan? Do some of them have a master plan? How does that work?

Hon. B. Penner: Out of approximately 830 parks, protected areas and ecological reserves, there are in the order of 666 management plans currently in place. Our service plan calls for us to reach 700 over the course of this year, so it's a work in progress, and it's ongoing.

There are different levels of plans. There's something known as a purpose statement. There's a management direction statement as well as management plans, which I think the member might be referring to as master plans.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how different parks are deemed to have a different status, whether it's a management plan or a purpose statement? How does a park get put in a category to have one or another of those levels of planning?

[1635]

Hon. B. Penner: Generally speaking, the greater the degree of complexity or the severity of the conflicts in terms of use, the more active the planning process will be and the greater the detail that will go into the plan for a particular park. In some cases we are guided by LRMP processes that may have already come to some consensus or a fair degree of specificity about the types of activities that should or could take place in a park or protected area. Not all parks have come to us through that process, but some have. In that case, then, those LRMP processes and resolutions help shape the final master plans or other plans that are put in place by B.C. Parks.

[L. Mayencourt in the chair.]

[ Page 3741 ]

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: in this year, how much money is budgeted and allocated for either developing or updating park plans?

Hon. B. Penner: There are, in total, 12 planners that work for B.C. Parks. Three of those are located in the headquarters here in Victoria. In addition, we have nine located around the province.

With the announcement that I made about an hour and a half ago around Cathedral Grove, some of those park planners will have more time to pursue other matters now in the weeks and months ahead, because I know they've spent considerable time over the years working on that project. That's the answer to that question.

[1640]

The member had a question earlier around park facility operators, and we've just got a note sent in with the figure that the member was looking for. The shortfall or the difference between the revenues that they're able to collect and keep and the amount that they're required to be supplemented with is known as a deficiency payment. That's the jargon or the lingo used by the ministry. The deficiency payment for the last fiscal year, I'm advised, totalled $3.7 million.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll deal with that in two parts. So the first piece is, then…. The minister is telling us, hon. Chair, that the planning process is engaged in the budget or some portion thereof of the 12 park planners, and they do the work on the park management plans or that work.

Do they have a piece of their time and a budget allocated around their time, a line item that says park planning, park master plans, management plans — those categories the minister spoke of earlier — and it is X amount of dollars, and that's the commitment of their time or additional resources or contracted resources to do park planning directly? I'm talking about the overall management plans of the parks which, as I understand, guide decision-making about what does and doesn't occur in those parks.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair; it's good to see you there.

The ministry park planners, I'm told, spend about three-quarters of their time, roughly, on updating and developing plans for various parks and protected areas as well as ecological reserves. They're also responsible, though, for doing some other very important work, including first nations consultation and working to develop agreements with first nations. Sometimes there are some agreements that are worked out in terms of how we're going to manage parks. That's something that the ministry has been actively engaged in for the last couple of years as well.

S. Simpson: So is there a line item in the budget when you do your budgeting that says park planning — that management and whatever the number is — and includes their time and whatever other costs are incorporated?

[1645]

Hon. B. Penner: There isn't a specific line item. Instead, what the ministry does is fund the staff positions. As indicated, about three-quarters of their time, in terms of those 12 planners, is spent in working on developing or updating management plans for the parks, protected areas and ecological reserves of British Columbia. Our estimate, though, would be that the cost incurred to government and to taxpayers would be approximately $800,000 per year if you were to break it out that way.

S. Simpson: My understanding — and I could be corrected on this — is that a number of the plans, maybe even a majority of the plans, actually have been around for quite a while. Many of them are pre-1990, I believe — when the work was done on these plans. As with everything, they become somewhat dated.

Has the ministry determined how many existing plans they would consider to be out of date and requiring an update or a review, which are in play? And what is the number in terms of number of plans that would fall under that category?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry is making a concerted effort to work through these plans. As I indicated, we have an objective by the end of this year to be up around 700 or so total plans.

My assistant deputy minister, Nancy Wilkin, is estimating but believes that perhaps she has been involved in signing off on about 400 of those in the last four or five years, give or take. So it is something that the ministry is working on. As you can tell by our objective to reach 700 plans in place by the end of this year, we're making progress.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that.

When the opportunity comes for me to avail myself of the briefing that the minister kindly offered around parks, maybe we could talk a little bit about this planning and about what the expectation is on the big number or the cost of doing this. I won't ask for it right now — but the cost of doing those extra 300-odd plans to get to where you want to go. It obviously is going to require some resources.

I will be back to talking about park issues in a bit, but at this point I would like to turn the floor over to my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, who has some very specific park questions around his region.

[1650]

N. Macdonald: Just specifically, questions on Columbia Lake Park. I'm limited to three questions, so what I'm going to do is bundle, first, information as I understand it, and then you can correct me if I misunderstand anything about the process, and then three specific questions.

As I understand it, Columbia Lake Park is a class-A park. I understand that there is an application to change the boundaries of Columbia Lake Park to allow

[ Page 3742 ]

the upgrading of a road. My understanding is the reason that it needs to be done is that road upgrades or any infrastructure upgrades within a class-A park need to be for the benefit of the park rather than something outside of that.

So the first question I would have is around this. My understanding is that this is a new policy that allows changing boundaries. My understanding is that this is the first time that the new policy is going to be used. The question is just around, first, that new policy: what was the genesis of the policy that allows changes to park boundaries? What problem was it intended to solve, and where was the need identified?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's not quite correct. It's always been possible to make boundary amendments to parks in British Columbia, and people were always able to contact the ministry and make that request.

What we did in July of 2004 is try to bring some clarity around how decisions would be made and what the assessment process would be in terms of reviewing applications that came forward. So the objective was to bring some additional clarity and consistency to the criteria that would be used in determining whether or not requests were considered appropriate from a Parks perspective.

In any event, changes to park boundaries, as the member knows, do require a legislative amendment where those parks and their boundaries are set out in the

schedule to the Park Act. Just last week this Legislature passed a number of amendments through Bill 15, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, which modified park boundaries for quite a number of parks in British Columbia, adding four class-A parks and adding to the size of Strathcona Provincial Park on Vancouver Island, which is British Columbia's first and oldest provincial park.

So that process is fairly routine. Just about every session that I can remember, there's a bill that comes forward tweaking park boundaries around the province. But the specific policy that the member is referring to was put in place for persons outside of government who are making suggestions about altering park boundaries. That policy is available on the Ministry of Environment website, and you can download that policy as I did some time ago when I was looking into this matter.

N. Macdonald: Which specific group…. You said that there were people outside of the ministry who put forward the idea of this particular policy. Could you give me details on what group or what individuals put forward that idea of the new policy in terms of changing the park boundaries?

[1655]

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that the previous NDP government did have a policy in place around making boundary amendments to B.C. parks. It was determined that this was procedurally complicated, open-ended and unduly cumbersome in implementation.

B.C. Parks went back and, as you can see on the website with the policy, made sure that there was more consistency and transparency in terms of the objectives that had to be met. First and foremost, if the member has read the policy, he'll know that proposals for park boundary amendments will be considered on a case-by-case basis where there are compelling provincial, economic, environmental and social benefits that exceed preserving the integrity of the existing park boundary in values. This process, which has been established under the 2004 policy, also requires local public process: consultation with local governments as well as first nations as required.

N. Macdonald: To be clear, the minister is saying that the initiative for this came from within the ministry, and it was intended to simply clarify what had previously existed — okay? If that's incorrect, you can correct me when you have the opportunity.

Where is the application to change boundaries? Where does it sit right now in terms of a time frame? Is it on the minister's desk? Is it still being developed, or information being gathered? If you could give me a sense of where the application is now, please.

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that the member is referring specifically to Columbia Lake Provincial Park and a proposal by Fairmont Hot Springs. They've made an application pursuant to the policy that we've just been describing. The ministry is following the process that is set out in the criteria, including public consultation and discussion with first nations. I'm not aware of any decision document having reached my desk. My understanding is that the work is still ongoing.

N. Macdonald: In terms of the first nations component, the Ktunaxa, in a letter that I think has come to your office — although I understand that a lot of letters come to your office — have very clearly indicated their opposition. The language they use is basically around their opposition being something that they wouldn't be willing to compromise. Here they're talking, specifically, maybe not about the park boundary change but changes on the east side of Columbia Lake, which would include changes to the boundary.

The question I have: with the policy that is in place, does the opposition of the Ktunaxa preclude any change to the boundary of Columbia Lake Provincial Park? If you could just elaborate on that, please.

[1700]

Hon. B. Penner: I don't believe I have had an opportunity to read the letter the member is referring to. You're right; the in-box is pretty full every day. I get to see the mail delivery person struggling as he carries in the boxfuls each and every day, and it's on a wide variety of topics.

I can indicate to the member, though, that our policy does require us to consult with first nations, but under the policy they don't necessarily get a veto. I

[ Page 3743 ]

should also add that under this 2004 policy for considering park boundary amendments, proponents are responsible for providing the ministry with adequate information respecting a number of things, including economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposal; possible mitigation measures; possible alternative sites or routes for the project; and the results of consultations with local governments, first nations and other stakeholders. And — this is important to note — the proponent must bear the cost of obtaining this information and conducting the consultation.

N. Macdonald: I just want to thank the minister for the opportunity. I'll have other questions later on, at different times. I'll turn it back over to the member for Vancouver….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: I can't remember. Hastings — oh, of course. Anyway, thank you very much.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that you know the name of my constituency. I'll discuss this with my colleague at a later time.

I have a question in relation to…. Again, this is a budget matter and maybe the minister could tell me what the plans are here. We know the government has supported the north coast and central coast LRMPs. That's going to create an area of upwards of — what is it? — 1.8 million hectares of protected areas. It is my understanding that all of those areas, or the significant portion of those, in relatively short order will end up under the Park Act.

Could the minister tell me what the plans are there and what the expectations are about increased budget, staffing and resources to be able to make that work in those parks?

[1705]

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that we will be getting funding from the integrated land management bureau, which is housed within the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, as we work to implement the results of the mid- and north coast land use planning processes. I don't have those specific amounts with us, as those are coming from the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, integrated land management bureau.

S. Simpson: Is the expectation that that will become a budget item next year? Or does it become a supplementary budget item later on this year as you begin to take responsibility? How does that work in terms of staying within your budget or having your budget supplemented so that you don't get out of whack and mess up your paycheque?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that the money will be expended by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands through their appropriation. I think those estimates are complete, but should that appropriation be approved by the Legislature and given royal assent, then that appropriation by that ministry would be charged against that ministry.

We will have a say in how that money gets allocated, assuming that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is conducive to our suggestions, and I'm quite certain he will be. As for whether in future years there'll be a specific inclusion of that amount within the Ministry of Environment budget, it has not yet been determined. That will be a matter for Treasury Board.

S. Simpson: Moving to another question related to parks, could the minister tell us what the status of the resort and lodge strategy is? I know we've discussed this matter in question period. I'm curious as to what the status of that strategy is at this time.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that we're still working on refining the lodge policy for the Ministry of Environment, specifically as it would relate to parks. Similar to the situation we talked about a few minutes ago when the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke was asking questions around the process for applications to be made for park boundary amendments…. That policy was pre-existing, and what happened in 2004 was that some clarity was brought to the process. Similarly here, it's always been open to people to make suggestions to the ministry to put facilities into parks.

What we're attempting to do through the lodge policy is to bring some greater certainty and clarity around the process and what the criteria would be in the event that individuals were interested in making those proposals to B.C. Parks. The member will know from our earlier discussion about this, I think, in question period that there are already something in the order of 160 roofed accommodations in B.C. parks all across the province. They run the gamut from small, back-country cabins all the way to facilities that look very much like a hotel.

[1710]

I'm thinking about Manning Park, for example, which is in the member for Yale-Lillooet's constituency, which has been operating for many, many years — many decades, in fact. It provides an opportunity for many people to have their first outdoor experience by getting to stay in the park under a roofed accommodation and then venturing out onto trails and enjoying some of the beauty of Manning Provincial Park.

S. Simpson: I appreciate, as the minister says, that we have 165 roofed accommodations. My understanding is that that includes 92 cabins, 17 shelters, 50 lodges of indeterminate size, five resorts and one eco-lodge. That's how I've been told that tallies up. Maybe with the exception of some of the lodges that have essentially been grandparented into facilities, that is somewhat different than a proposal to put upwards of a

[ Page 3744 ]

hundred beds — 80-to-100-bed lodges or resorts — in facilities.

I guess my question to the minister is: what is the process of consultation around those decisions to do that?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, the policy work is continuing, but I would fully expect that any policy, once complete, would require that proponents engage in a certain amount of consultation — in fact, a fair degree of consultation — firstly, with first nations; secondly, with communities; and thirdly, with other interested third parties. As part of their approval process, they would be required to engage in that kind of consultation before the ministry and B.C. Parks would make any decision about a specific proposal.

S. Simpson: An FOI that I saw around a Treasury Board submission indicated that the plans were based loosely around the notion of ten new lodges or resorts in parks and that an RFP was intended to be issued before the end of '05-06, I believe, based on that submission. Has that been changed? Or has that RFP been issued?

Hon. B. Penner: As indicated, the policy work is still ongoing.

S. Simpson: Just to be clear: there is no request for proposal out for any new lodges or parks in British Columbia at this time?

Hon. B. Penner: That's correct.

S. Simpson: The minister has confirmed that.

A question I have for the minister is around a policy and an approach that I have had suggested to me. It was something that seemed to make good sense, and I'd be interested in the minister's comments on this.

It's the suggestion that these types of facilities are important — they are economic development opportunities — and that the wise thing to do with them is to site these kinds of facilities in communities that are adjacent to our parks so that not only do you have the facility relatively close to the park so they can take advantage of the park, but it also generates economic opportunity within those communities. And other services, whether they be restaurants or other operations, are able to take advantage of people who would come to stay in that resort or lodge, creating more economic opportunity in those communities adjoining our significant parks.

[1715]

I wonder whether the minister has considered that proposition and what thoughts the minister has on that approach versus the approach of putting private facilities in public parks.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of proposals outside of parks, there is a government strategy for resorts. Sometimes the media and others confuse that with the lodge strategy within parks. It should be made clear to members following this debate that there's a clear distinction between a resort strategy for areas outside of parks and our goal to clarify previous government policy around applications coming forward for locating new roofed accommodation within parks.

In some parts of British Columbia, parks are located a tremendous distance from the closest community. I don't think the approach recommended by the member works in all parts of British Columbia, because British Columbia is a very vast area. It's geographically diverse, and not all parts of the province are the same. That's my answer to that suggestion.

Certainly, B.C. Parks is very cognizant that we want to have a cautious approach. When the policy gets completed, I expect that there will be a limited number of parks that would be considered appropriate. I've heard something in the order of 12 — this is still a work in progress, but maybe fewer than 12 or something in the order of 12 — out of more than 600 provincial parks in the province, being considered for that type of new roofed accommodation.

In terms of the member's comment about whether it's appropriate or not to site private facilities in B.C. parks, I can only assume that the NDP thinks that it is, because it was under the last NDP government that a new private facility was actually approved in a B.C. provincial park, at Kokanee Glacier Park. That's in the riding of Nelson-Creston.

S. Simpson: I guess we'll have a discussion about this as the plans become more clear from the ministry as to what the intentions are around resorts and large lodges in parks in terms of size, in terms of numbers and that. We'll have to wait until we have more clarity on what the government's intentions and plans are.

Could the minister tell us what the current status is around work related to the pine beetle in our parks?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will be aware that outside of parks, the Ministry of Forests has the lead responsibility for developing and implementing our pine beetle action plan, a plan that's well underway. We do get support within parks from the Ministry of Forests in terms of some advice and specialty assistance from people who have that expertise, but within parks, the Ministry of Environment and B.C. Parks have the primary responsibility for taking the lead.

[1720]

The Ministry of Environment has formed a ministry mountain pine beetle management team and is developing, within that, a mountain pine beetle impact management strategy as we roll this out across the province. Specifically for this year, I'm told that in fiscal 2006-2007 we have approximately $5 million earmarked for mitigation and restoration projects. That may not just be, I'm told, within parks but inside and outside of parks and funded by the Ministry of Environment.

There are a number of areas around the province where we are already taking action. There was a pre-

[ Page 3745 ]

scribed burn that was intended, in part, to deal with the threat of the mountain pine beetle in Mount Robson Provincial Park in August of 2004. I'm told that was a tremendous success, from the planners' perspective, in terms of what the result was — in terms of creating a natural firebreak and dealing with some of the deadwood that had accumulated there.

That particular approach is not going to be appropriate in all parks. As I've mentioned many times, B.C. is a very big place. We have very diverse geography, and we have communities located in different locations — sometimes too close to parks to go the prescribed-burn route. We have to be flexible in what course of action we adopt.

In the case of Manning Provincial Park, there's considerable work already underway. It was six years in the planning, specifically referenced in the Filmon report as something that needed to take place in Manning Park. The approach taken there is not to use prescribed burns, out of concern for human safety.

As the member knows — and we've already discussed this — there is not just the lodge. There are more than 30 cabins in the heart of the park, and there are many people. In any given weekend, you might have a thousand people in and around the park. If a prescribed burn were to get out of control, we would put public safety at risk.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

In the case of Manning Provincial Park, park planners and other people — consultants that have been contracted — devised a strategy which, interestingly enough, was on display at the Globe convention last week. It was on the trade show floor — the example of Manning Park and what can be done to mitigate the effects of the pine beetle. They're using selective harvesting techniques to create a buffer around the lodge and some of the outbuildings and cabins that I talked about, and also to deal with the threat to a number of campgrounds.

That said, it's a huge challenge. There will be more projects undertaken this year, and I fully expect there to be some controversy. Quite frankly, doing nothing is not a responsible approach. That's why the Ministry of Environment and the B.C. Parks branch have been busy developing plans for quite a number of parks for quite a few years now, and we're seeing the plans being put into action.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I understand this is a very complicated and difficult issue to be dealt with. There aren't real easy answers as to how to deal with this.

Could the minister, though, tell us who makes those decisions and how the decisions get made on different approaches and different parks? I understand, for example, that the decision was made, I guess because of extensive issues, to put a bit of a cutblock in Tweedsmuir to deal with the problem there. In other parks, there are safety contracts — I've seen this on B.C. Bid — to remove fuel or do some limited cutting to thin, a number of things. Who makes those decisions in a given park about the extent of the challenge and the best way to approach that?

[1725]

Hon. B. Penner: The regional manager would be the one to sign off on a particular decision around the best approach for dealing with the mountain pine beetle in a particular park. That decision, though, would be informed by the work of scientists from the Ministry of Environment as well as experts with the Ministry of Forests and, in some cases, perhaps, outside consultants.

I referenced earlier the situation in Manning Park, which is really being done, in a way, as a form of a pilot project. There is a consulting agency that apparently has quite a bit of expertise in this area that was contracted to do some of the rehabilitation work. We're not simply removing the trees and leaving the ground barren.

In fact, we're going back and replanting, but trying to replant — in the case of Manning Park — with some different species that will, hopefully, be resistant to the pine beetle and, also, not pose as much of a risk should a wildfire occur. Of course, wildfires can still occur, because the number of trees being removed certainly is, in the case of Manning Park, a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number of trees in the park — or even a tiny fraction of the number of trees infected by the pine beetle.

It's just in those most sensitive areas in terms of public safety that we're concentrating those efforts. We marshal whatever information we have at our disposal, and that decision then gets made by the regional manager. In situations where provincial parks may be on the boundary of national parks or in close proximity to national parks, then the Canadian parks service would also be providing us with advice at the regional level before that decision gets made.

S. Simpson: We'll look forward to watching the evolution of the issue around the beetle and parks as the challenge gets met.

One other issue related to parks. I understand that the ministry, through the Park Act, has been looking at a new designation called conservancy areas, I believe. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether I'm hearing correctly about that in that they would be a new designation in terms of what activity could go on within park boundaries.

Hon. B. Penner: This is a really exciting topic that the member is referring to, as we're working to add protection — as the member's referred to, 1.8 million hectares in total — to the mid-north coast. The LRMP process was a tremendous success, but I know it took a tremendous amount of work. I think it was ongoing for something like ten years. If nothing else, it certainly speaks to the powers of persistence. It will be sometime this session when we have an opportunity to look at the legislation.

[ Page 3746 ]

[1730]

I'm not in a position to talk about the details of what future legislation might look like, but it certainly is an exciting initiative we can all be proud of in British Columbia because of the involvement of first nations, environmental groups, local community representatives, industry and, of course, government. All have worked together to reach this consensus. I look forward to the day when we can bring this legislation to the floor of the Legislature.

S. Simpson: So I can be correct. I appreciate that if there's legislative activity to come forward, the minister can't talk about the detail of that. The minister is saying that the expectation should be that sometime this session — or whenever, sometime relatively soon — there is a requirement for legislation in order to address these conservancy areas as they relate to the north and midcoast, and we'll see some kind of legislative package that will bring the conservancy areas and other things into force. Is that accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes. I can just refer the member to the news release that was issued at the time of the announcement on February 7, 2006. In the fifth paragraph, last sentence: "In short order, legislation will be introduced around these land use decisions to establish new protected areas and further sustainable logging practices in the region."

S. Simpson: One last question on this. What we know is that under the north and midcoast there were a number of different categories. There were protected areas that, as I understand, may ultimately look something like class-A parks. There are conservancy areas that would have a different standard and would allow other kinds of activity in them. Maybe the minister could just tell me, if he's able: is this legislation, or this creation of conservancy areas, which are something less than a park but certainly cover a level of protection designation…?

Is it the expectation that this will only apply to the north and midcoast LRMPs, or is this something that might apply to existing parks in the province?

Hon. B. Penner: What we will be seeking to do is respond to the direction from the LRMP tables that came out of the mid- and north coast planning process. I understand, as I've already mentioned, that was a very protracted process and involved a lot of give and take, a lot of hard work and a lot of goodwill. It is fully the intention of the government to abide by the direction of the agreement that was announced on February 7 of this year.

S. Simpson: I'll look forward to the legislation when it's tabled.

I'd like to ask a little bit about Burns Bog. Particularly, could the minister tell us: the management plan for Burns Bog that is going ahead — what's the role of the Ministry of Environment in the management plan for Burns Bog?

[1735]

Hon. B. Penner: I was thinking for a moment that maybe I could have the member for Delta South answer the question, as it's certainly something not just near and dear to her constituency, but near and dear to her heart.

As the member will know, there is a multiparty ownership arrangement or underlying title to the Burns Bog area that's been protected. It's a partnership arrangement with the GVRD, the district of Delta and the province of British Columbia. B.C. Parks certainly is involved in the management planning process. We have a staffer that's actively engaged in that ongoing work. It's my understanding that the parties have agreed that the GVRD would take the lead in terms of developing management plans. But B.C. Parks, or the Ministry of Environment, is represented in that effort, and that's only right and proper, since we are one of the parties on title to that property.

S. Simpson: Clearly, the ministry has a role to play, and I'm sure the member would have provided a great answer because I'm sure she knows this file as well as anybody, if not better.

I'm interested in moving a little bit. We're going to move away from parks here. I have a couple of one-off questions here before we break for dinner. Then when we come back, we'll head into talking about sustainable communities. But I do have a couple of one-offs about things that the ministry's doing, and I hope the minister can answer these at this time. If not, I'm sure he can bring answers back.

In regard to a couple of matters that have gone before, the minister will, I'm sure, remember the issue around the Abbotsford spill — the toxic spill out on Industrial Road, or whatever the avenue was. There was an investigation proceeding with that. Could the minister tell us what the status of that investigation is?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that that investigation is ongoing, and it's an active investigation.

S. Simpson: Does the minister have any sense of when that investigation may be complete and some form of report available?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer is: as soon as possible. I should also note that, while I'm anxious to know the outcome of the investigation, I don't want the conservation officer service or other ministry employees to do anything in a fashion that