2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Scott Niedermayer

N. Macdonald

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Heritage assets and Morden Colliery Historic Provincial Park

D. Routley

Bicycle race event in Penticton area

D. Ashton

Business-to-Business Network of Women in New Westminster

J. Darcy

Sandy Wakeling

D. Bing

Orca Book Publishers

L. Popham

Fraser Valley Child Development Centre

D. Plecas

Oral Questions

Therapeutics initiative and drug review process

A. Dix

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

Therapeutics initiative and access to drug information

D. Eby

Hon. T. Lake

Ocean research project and Enbridge oil pipeline and tanker proposal

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Polak

Drug review process for Champix

M. Farnworth

Hon. T. Lake

Recovery of deceased persons from B.C. waters

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Anton

Yinka Dene Alliance concerns regarding Enbridge activities

D. Donaldson

Hon. J. Rustad

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

A. Weaver

B. Routley

S. Fraser

V. Huntington

Estimates: Other appropriations

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. D. McRae

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

B. Ralston

M. Mungall

[ Page 273 ]

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Michelle Stilwell: Today it brings me great pleasure to introduce a very important person in my life, someone who wears multiple hats. His day job is actually for our government working as the legal counsel responsible for the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, but in his spare time he is my coach. For the last number of years he has helped me reach the top of the podium as I represent Canada on the international stage, and I welcome him here today as we are preparing for the world championships in just two weeks.

Welcome, Peter Lawless.

L. Popham: I'm happy to welcome a constituent of Saanich South to the House today. Robert Tyrrell is the founder and president of Orca Book Publishers. He joined me for lunch, and he's staying for question period. Please make him welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: A good friend, Barb Spitz, is here today in the gallery with her son Paul and his children, her grandchildren, Adam, Jordan and Emma. They're here visiting grandma and other family members and undoubtedly gloating about the fact that they live in the Stanley Cup town of Chicago. Well, good for them. Our turn will come, Madame Speaker. I hope all members will make them feel welcome.

[1335]

Tributes

SCOTT NIEDERMAYER

N. Macdonald: Still on a hockey theme, last year Scott Niedermayer came to this Legislature to encourage the government to respect the Qat'muk declaration, and today Scott was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

He was raised in the Kootenays and played junior hockey in Kamloops, before a long career in the NHL, and was one of the most wonderful hockey players that you could watch. Anyone who saw the gold medal game, I think especially in 2002, in Salt Lake City — just incredible stuff. A real gentleman, who won everywhere he played. I ask members to join me in congratulating Scott Niedermayer.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have two sets of introductions to make today. First, joining us in the gallery today is John Juricic. John is a passionate and longtime advocate for small business in British Columbia. He is the owner of Harbour Digital Media. He is a board member of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He is the executive director of the Sidney and North Saanich Industrial Group and chair of the city of Langford's economic development committee. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

My second introduction. Joining us in the gallery today is recently promoted Petty Officer 2nd Class Trevor Moore. Trevor is a proud member of our Canadian Forces and, as a part of his ongoing career-related studies, he is here today to see our Legislature in action. He is joined in our precinct by his wife, Katie Moore, and their five-week-old daughter. Congratulations and welcome. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Letnick: In every community across British Columbia we have those outstanding citizens that really make our communities thrive. In Kelowna we have one by the name of Chris Olson-Brown. Chris lives in the Rutland part of our great community. He has been the chair of the May Days celebration every year for quite a few years. Would the House please make Chris feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HERITAGE ASSETS AND MORDEN COLLIERY

HISTORIC PROVINCIAL PARK

D. Routley: I rise today to remind the members about Morden Colliery Historic Park. It's located just south of Nanaimo, about one kilometre down the Island Highway, just about a kilometre off the highway. It is a coal tipple and loading facility still standing, just barely so, as a reminder of early industry on Vancouver Island.

In B.C. we have no Parthenon, no sphinx. We don't have pyramids. In B.C. our historical assets are often industry-related. These form the backbone of much of our tourist industry. Besides the spectacular scenery in which they reside, these attractions for tourists, such as the Kettle Valley trestles, the Britannia mine at Lions Bay, and here on Vancouver Island, the Kinsol Trestle and the Morden Colliery.

Connected by a network of trails, including the Trans Canada Trail, these historical assets are easily accessed by cyclists and hikers. Morden Colliery was one of the most advanced concrete structures in North America when it was built. A strike in 1913-14 stopped work underground, so the company focused on its assets above ground, improving infrastructure and investing in this advanced

[ Page 274 ]

loading facility.

Coal mining in the area stopped in 1930, but the memory of it remains in these families of the area and in the history of our communities. Morden Colliery, because of its advanced construction, has lasted and stood the test of time, although not without wear.

The constant weathering of the structure has led to deterioration, which now threatens to bring this structure down. Immediate investment on the part of the provincial government is necessary to save this historical gem.

The Kinsol Trestle faced a similar challenge when it was considered for demolition, as the structure was rotting and had been partially burned. Through community organization and public investment, including from the provincial government, Kinsol was saved. It is now a vital link on the Trans Canada Trail and a precious, valuable tourism asset in the region's economy.

Morden Colliery is also an important asset that I hope the members will treasure and I hope the government will invest in.

BICYCLE RACE EVENT

IN PENTICTON AREA

D. Ashton: It was quite a sight in Penticton last weekend. Thousands of bicycles, perhaps too much spandex and even some fairy wings. It was the Valley First Granfondo Axel Merckx Okanagan. It attracted more than 2,700 cyclists from all around the world and many, many spectators.

[1340]

Some of them were in for the competition, trying to win and get the personal best race time. Others were in it for fun, donning costumes and taking in the spectacular views of the Okanagan Valley. There were three distances to choose from: 160, 92 or 55 kilometres. There was also a family-friendly event with a one- to two-kilometre Piccolofondo for the kids.

The event was so successful that it took many minutes for all the participants to get out of the starting gate. That might be a good problem to have, because it means thousands of people are keeping active, inspiring others and contributing to the local economy as visitors to the city.

There are lots of great people behind this fantastic local race. I'd like to thank Axel Merckx for bringing this high-quality cycling event to Penticton as well as Valley First for being the title sponsor and longtime contributor. The city of Penticton and numerous other sponsors also added greatly to the success of this event.

Registration for the 2014 Granfondo is already underway on the event website. I invite everybody to challenge themselves and sign up, whether it be for the 160-kilometre ride for you weekend warriors or the Piccolofondo for the rest of us.

BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS NETWORK OF

WOMEN IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: I rise to tell the House about an exciting new organization in my community of New Westminster. This organization is called B2B NOW. That doesn't, in fact, refer to back-to-back, although they do have each other's backs.

This is an organization called a business-to-business network of women. I believe the minister met with them when she was in New Westminster a number of months ago. It's a networking group of New Westminster small business women entrepreneurs from a wide variety of industries who meet every month and share information with each other and support each other with the aim of promoting and improving our businesses and the community in which they are located.

They first got together at the time of the launch of Canada's first Small Business Saturday, last October. They had actually invited small businesses led by men and women to join them, but as it turned out, only women showed up, so it became a network of women of small businesses.

The majority of new start-up businesses in New Westminster — as across the province, as the Speaker will probably know — are, in fact, women. They have a lot of challenges to deal with: working part-time in order to get their small business off the ground; putting everything on the line; working morning, noon and night, often juggling family responsibilities; having to negotiate leases for the first time. I'm sure some of the new members on both sides of the House can appreciate the challenges of doing that for the very first time.

Their bottom line is that they want to work and support each other, to grow small business in our community, to encourage more women and mentor more women to get involved in small business. They're very excited to tap into the energy that new development is bringing to our downtown in New Westminster.

They represent a wide variety of businesses, 19 in all. My favourite, actually, is something called big fat paint, the fat referring to the chalk in the paint. It's really about them focusing their energies on developing rich, deep, dark colours, in the heritage colours of New Westminster.

SANDY WAKELING

D. Bing: It is with great pleasure, as the MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, that I recognize one of my community's most outstanding citizens, Sandy Wakeling. Sandy is the 2013 citizen of the year for the city of Pitt Meadows for his remarkable community involvement.

Some of you in this House already know Sandy from his involvement as the former assistant to our Finance Minister just a few years ago. Sandy now works as a communications director for the Langley school district.

[ Page 275 ]

Sandy lives in Pitt Meadows with his wife, Ali, his sons Sebastien and William.

Although he has only lived in the community for 14 years, Sandy is one of the community's most active members. He is willing to help out whenever and on whatever needs doing. Sandy has been involved with the Friends in Need Food Bank, the Pitt Meadows United Church, the city's economic development committee, the official community plan committee, the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, and Pitt Meadows Day, amongst others.

To me, however, I will always remember Sandy as one of the prime organizers of the annual Terry Fox Run. Sandy has always considered Terry Fox to be a personal hero. According to his wife, Ali, Sandy shares Terry's belief that one person can make a difference. In fact, he thinks we all have a responsibility to do so.

[1345]

Sandy has always emphasized the importance of giving back to the community. Sandy has made a very positive difference in our community and is a very deserving recipient of this award. Congratulations, Sandy Wakeling.

ORCA BOOK PUBLISHERS

L. Popham: What's black and white and read all over? By read all over, I mean read all over the world. The answer is not a newspaper, as the old joke goes, but in this case it's Orca Book Publishers. I'm happy to have the president and founder, Robert Tyrell, as a constituent of mine in Saanich South. He and his business partner Andrew Woolridge have their main warehouse and editorial offices located here in Victoria.

Founded in 1982, Orca Book Publishers is an independently owned Canadian children's book publisher with over 500 titles in print and more than 65 new titles a year. Orca publishes award-winning, best-selling books in a number of genres. The staff at Orca are passionate and dedicated to continually improving the quality of the books published. All editorial production, marketing and distribution is done in-house, and Orca has a well-deserved reputation as an efficient and successful publishing company.

Long committed to publishing books with an environmental theme, Orca continues that commitment with responsible publishing practices. Virtually all books are printed in Canada on Forest Stewardship–certified paper, and every effort is made to reduce, reuse and recycle.

Book publishing is a vibrant part of the creative economy here in B.C. The challenges that the creative economy faces as a sector are well known. Having a provincial strategy in place to support our creative economy is essential, or we will be at risk of falling behind other jurisdictions.

FRASER VALLEY

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

D. Plecas: Today I would like to call the attention of the House to the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre. The Fraser Valley Child Development Centre assists children and families who are at risk or living with a developmental delay or diagnosed disability. This is a centre which was established 30 years ago with a small group of people under the umbrella of what was called the Fraser Valley Neurological Society. Since then, they've been very successful in their main mission, and that is to provide services to children with special needs.

So far, they've provided services to 12,000 children and their families. They provide services to over one thousand children and their families every year. While I'm talking about the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre, of course, this should be of importance to all members of the House because the need which is addressed by the centre is apparent throughout this province.

I want to highlight what can be accomplished by the work done by the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre by calling attention to Surjit Atwal. Surjit Atwal is a man who lives with cerebral palsy. He was told at a very early age that he would never walk and never talk. He was told by educators in his early schooling that he should never expect to gain employment.

Well, none of that happened, because last month he graduated from the University of the Fraser Valley with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and philosophy. He did that in a span of just three years and did well enough that it moved the University of the Fraser Valley to create what is now called the Surjit Atwal Remarkable Achievement Award. Accordingly, the work of the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre is important, but it should inspire us to what's possible.

To those people who said that Surjit would never be employed, I have to tell you, I am now graced to have him as one of my constituency assistants.

[1350]

Oral Questions

THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE

AND DRUG REVIEW PROCESS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Dr. Arnold Relman and Dr. Marcia Angell, both past editors of the New England Journal of Medicine , have praised UBC's therapeutics initiative as an outstanding drug watchdog. They credit the TI for saving lives and the health care system money.

[ Page 276 ]

TI's research protected British Columbians from Vioxx years before it was pulled off the shelves. It also issued warnings about Avandia, a diabetes drug, six years before the U.S. government fined GlaxoSmithKline over $3 billion for withholding information about the drug's risks.

Does the Minister of Health agree with Dr. Angell's and Dr. Relman's praise for the therapeutics initiative? And if so, will he take steps to ensure that the therapeutics initiative continues to do its job and continues to have the support of the government of B.C.?

Hon. T. Lake: To the Leader of the Opposition, the British Columbia government relies on the best scientific evidence available. That's the very foundation of the drug review process we have in British Columbia.

The therapeutics initiative still plays a role in that drug review process. We will continue to work with the TI, but we will make sure that the system that we use here in British Columbia ensures that not only are the best drugs available for the patients here in British Columbia but also have the best value for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the government just cut the funding for the TI and essentially eliminated its role in the drug review process. If that's what the minister thinks is supporting it or working with it, I would like to see what he does to those that oppose him.

Successive Health Ministers Colin Hansen, George Abbott and Kevin Falcon all withstood pressure from the pharmaceutical industry to maintain the role of the therapeutics initiative, to ensure that the therapeutics initiative plays that role in ensuring the safety of drugs taken by British Columbians here in our province — drugs such as Champix, a smoking cessation drug made by Pfizer which Premier Clark added to PharmaCare in September 2011, despite serious concerns about side effects.

The Premier said at the time about those lethal side effects that she was going to insist that the drug's safety be examined. Why did the government then go on to order the therapeutics initiative not to evaluate Champix's safety? Did they, in fact, oppose a published evaluation of a drug the government itself was promoting?

Hon. T. Lake: The hon. member fails to recall that a review of the drug approval process came at the behest of an umbrella patient organization, Better Pharmacare Coalition. The Pharmacare Coalition was critical of the amount of time it was taking the ministry to approve new medications compared to other jurisdictions, claiming it took 2½ years on average, for B.C. to review and list new drugs.

In response to this, the Ministry of Health appointed a panel of experts. Minister George Abbott at the time accepted all of those recommendations.

What we have is a system whereby drugs are evaluated and listed with far greater efficiency than in the past. We still involve the therapeutics initiative. Their funding has not been cut — although, related to the data breach, some of the funding has been suspended while that investigation is ongoing, which is only the right thing to do, and we stand by that decision.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, this appears to be a drug approval process that the minister supports. The Premier promotes Champix in her leadership campaign. The government then lists Champix on the PharmaCare program.

[1355]

The Premier says the drug's lethal side effects, which have forced it to be recently taken off the list in other jurisdictions, will be reviewed. Then, when the therapeutics initiative is doing such a review, the Ministry of Health sends the following e-mail: "We have decided to keep smoking cessation in-house. Sorry about that. It's getting political, and we aren't sure anyone wants to see a published evaluation."

This is a serious situation. The government is promoting this drug. The Premier herself ensured the drug would be listed. She assured the public that side effects would be reviewed, and they are not being reviewed.

Does the minister agree with this approach to drug approval in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Champix is an effective drug that has helped many people quit smoking and go on to a healthier, smoke-free life — something that we actually think is in the best interests of British Columbians. The ministry, the national common drug review and Health Canada reviewed all the available research on Champix before B.C. decided to cover the drug. All three continue to monitor research on the use of this drug.

For someone to suggest that we are making political decisions, from someone who made a political decision in the middle of a campaign that caused all kinds of issues for job creation in this province, I find it a little bit hard to take.

J. Darcy: The Liberals keep saying that examining government's key responsibilities will be central to the core review they are planning to launch. Given that keeping patients safe should be one of the Ministry of Health's primary obligations, a valid core review would expand B.C.'s drug watchdog.

However, this government is gutting the therapeutics initiative, jeopardizing research into the safety of drugs

[ Page 277 ]

like Accutane and dabigatran, a potent blood thinner — so potent that it may cause life-threatening complications and fatalities due to uncontrollable internal bleeding. It is a drug that the therapeutics initiative planned to and needs to review, to protect British Columbians.

Will the minister agree that his primary obligation is to patients, not pharmaceutical companies? Will he agree to restoring therapeutics initiative's funding so that it can study the safety of drugs like dabigatran?

Hon. T. Lake: I thought I made it clear earlier but just to reiterate, government has not cancelled funding to the therapeutics initiative or cancelled its working relationship with TI. Some contracts have been suspended while a ministry investigation continues. We think that is the prudent thing to do, and that is the decision that we stand by.

J. Darcy: The minister and the cabinet also talk about bending the health care cost curve. As the minister is aware, prescription drugs are one of the top cost drivers in health care today. Peer-reviewed research shows that in addition to saving lives, the therapeutics initiative drug research saves B.C.'s PharmaCare program around $140 million annually. That is an excellent return on money, given that therapeutics initiative's funding from this government has ranged between half a million dollars and $1 million.

Why is the minister agreeing to shut down therapeutics initiative at the very time he needs its expertise more than ever to ensure that B.C.'s health care dollars are spent wisely and efficiently?

[1400]

Hon. T. Lake: Again, a coalition of people who work on behalf of patients was concerned about the amount of time it was taking British Columbia to list new drugs — 2½ years, longer than the national average. I suppose the members opposite would think that that's a good thing — to have people waiting 2½ years to approve a drug that could improve their life. On this side of the House we thought we should do something about that.

A task force recommended a change in the way that we list drugs here in the province of British Columbia, which includes a role for the TI. We think that's appropriate, and we think the faster way of approving drugs has benefitted patients in the province of British Columbia.

THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE AND

ACCESS TO DRUG INFORMATION

D. Eby: That was 2008 when that patients' coalition made that recommendation. This is 2013. Not only that, but two past editors of the New England Journal of Medicine have said that this was best practice that other jurisdictions should follow.

Giving doctors accurate information about how well medications work is another way the therapeutics initiative saves our health care system money. This information helps doctors give their patients the medicine that works the best instead of new drugs that are more expensive but no more effective. By providing impartial information, the therapeutics initiative helps save money for patients, employers and taxpayers.

In B.C. alone there are over 600 drug company representatives trying to convince family doctors to prescribe new drugs that aren't any better than existing drugs. Can the minister explain to this House how it makes financial sense to shut down the therapeutics initiative and stop doctors from getting the information that saves patients and taxpayers money?

Hon. T. Lake: This is about getting the best medication to patients in the fastest time possible and ensuring the efficacy of those drugs. This is what the Pharmaceutical Task Force pointed out. They wanted to get those drugs to the patients faster. They also have more content experts on that panel to review the drugs under the new system. We think it's a better system. It gets the needed drugs to patients in a faster, more timely way. That is good for the health of British Columbians.

D. Eby: For years the pharmaceutical industry has asked the Liberals to stop the therapeutics initiative from teaching doctors and pharmacists about what drugs work best and how to save patients and taxpayers money. There is no doubt it will save time, stopping the therapeutics initiative from teaching doctors, but that's also, of course, one of the recommendations made by the industry-led Pharmaceutical Task Force in 2008.

Over 90 percent of family doctors and pharmacists use the objective information the therapeutics initiative gives them about what medicines are safe, effective and the best choice for patients. It doesn't make sense to ask the companies that sell the drugs to tell doctors what drugs to buy.

Will the minister stand up today and admit the obvious, that it makes good financial sense to have an independent and objective agency like the therapeutics initiative give impartial drug information to doctors?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the organization called the common drug review is in fact an independent, impartial, evidence-based agency that's tasked with providing advice to help decision-makers about new and emerging health technologies. That's a national program.

Then provincially the therapeutics initiative is still used, along with our new system of approving drugs, to ensure that in fact drugs not covered by them can be listed here in British Columbia. In response to patients, in response to content experts, we have created a new system that has a more timely way of getting those needed drugs to patients.

[ Page 278 ]

[1405]

OCEAN RESEARCH PROJECT AND ENBRIDGE

OIL PIPELINE AND TANKER PROPOSAL

A. Weaver: In the April 2013 Canadian Ocean Science Newsletters of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research there was an interesting

article published by scientists working at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada. The title of the

article is "Operational Atmosphere-Ocean-Ice Prediction Systems in Canada: Providing Decision-Enabling Marine Environmental Information to End Users."

The

article focused on operational oceanography, which provides information for real-time decision-making, historical review of ocean conditions and strategic planning for Canada's coastal and waterway operations. On page 4 of the

article it states: "A major initiative in planning is the complementary measures project for the area surrounding Kitimat, British Columbia, to support planned oil tanker traffic. This is a specific demonstrations of how ocean services are infrastructure assets that support the Canadian economy."

Madame Speaker: Does the member have a question?

A. Weaver: Yeah. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Is the government aware of this complementary measures project, and would the project meet the second of the government's five conditions for approval of the northern gateway pipeline — namely, the need for world-leading marine oil spill prevention and recovery systems?

Hon. M. Polak: I have not read the report myself. I certainly am pleased that the member has raised it, drawn to it my attention, and I will pursue with staff whether or not, in point of fact, they are including it in the work that is underway as we develop our world-class, world-leading marine spill response and preparedness plans.

A. Weaver: I've come to understand that since the May 14 provincial election, in fact, federal funding has been approved for this project. Given our Premier's promises that any increases in oil tanker traffic on our coasts must be supported by B.C., how can the government say it has control over whether or not major pipeline projects go forward if the federal government is approving funding for major initiatives without consulting the British Columbia government?

Hon. M. Polak: I can't respond with respect to the specific funding grant that the member speaks to. What I can say to this House, though, is that we have experienced very good cooperation from the federal government through not only Environment Canada but Natural Resources Canada and also Transport Canada with respect to their participation on our working group that is in the process of developing recommendations around our world-leading spill preparedness and response.

DRUG REVIEW PROCESS FOR CHAMPIX

M. Farnworth: I think we need to revisit the issue of Champix with the Minister of Health. He made some interesting comments that I think he needs to address.

The Premier is the one who championed Champix. She championed the drug, and yet, on the day that a class action was certified in Ontario about the drug and the potential lethal side effects around the drug, there's a leaked e-mail that says: "We've decided to keep smoking cessation in-house. Sorry about that. It's getting political, and we aren't sure anyone wants to see a published evaluation."

When the minister has been talking about public safety and safety of drugs, why on earth would the government not want to see a published evaluation of a drug like Champix made public so people can read what's really going on?

Hon. T. Lake: We all know the cost that smoking has to our society and to many loved ones on both sides of the House, I'm sure. So I hope the member isn't doubting our commitment to do all we can to reduce the incidence of smoking and keep people healthy in the province of British Columbia. Champix is an effective drug, and it's helped many people quit this terrible habit that can lead to disease and, in fact, death.

[1410]

The decision was based on a thorough review, as I mentioned — solid clinical research and evidence. The ministry, the national common drug review and Health Canada reviewed the available research on Champix before B.C. decided to cover the drug.

If new evidence comes forward, it will always be reviewed. Of course it will. But we on this side of the House will do all we can to make sure that people of British Columbia know how they can get rid of this terrible addiction, keep themselves healthy and reduce the cost to British Columbians of the health care system.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: We all know the costs of smoking. We also know the costs of drugs like thalidomide and Vioxx and what happened when they went wrong. There's a class action suit in Ontario about Champix. Your Premier went and championed the drug. You suppressed the report. You suppressed a public report on a public evaluation. Why won't the government make it public?

[ Page 279 ]

Madame Speaker: Member.

M. Farnworth: Put it out there so people can do their own evaluation.

Madame Speaker: Member, your comments through the Chair.

Hon. T. Lake: I find it reprehensible that the member opposite would suggest that this government would suppress information about a drug equal to thalidomide. To compare this to thalidomide is reprehensible. The member should be ashamed of himself.

To suggest that this government would suppress information that would be in the best interests of British Columbians is absolutely reprehensible. We on this side of the House believe in approving drugs that will help British Columbians stay healthy, and we'll continue to do that.

RECOVERY OF DECEASED PERSONS

FROM B.C. WATERS

K. Corrigan: Raymond Salmen was lost beneath the waters of Harrison Lake on June 7 of this year. Police told his widow, Daniela, they know pretty well precisely where the body is. Unfortunately, the police say they have no mandate to recover his body, nor does the Coroners Service. B.C. Hydro has technology that could help in recovery efforts, but they also say they have no mandate to get involved.

In the last three months alone five people have been lost beneath B.C. waters, but it turns out families who want to recover their loved ones are left to rely on charity from outside our province.

My question is to the minister of public safety. Will the government work with the RCMP, the coroners office or whatever agency is appropriate to address this serious gap in services?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a tragic case, and I would like to express my condolences — and, I'm sure, everyone's condolences — to the families of these victims and also the other victims by drowning in British Columbia this year. Many of us will know that there have been many drownings this year.

I would like to say on behalf of public safety that people swimming in British Columbia waters do need to be careful. We do have treacherous waters. There are undertows; there are currents; there are rocks that kids dive off; there are many ways that people drown in our B.C. waters. I would like to caution swimmers and boaters and people, particularly, who are not used to being around the water that they do need to be careful.

On the specifics of this case, it was a tragic case. The police did what they could to find the body, I'm told, but they failed. Whether they did the right thing or not…. Of course, we are always working with the police, but the police do make the operational decisions.

This is in the hands of the coroner. I'll be looking forward to hearing from the coroner on the issue. Because it is in the hands of the coroner, I am not going to make any more public statements about the specifics of the case. But I would, as I said, like to caution people — caution everyone — to be careful in our B.C. waters.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

[1415]

K. Corrigan: Well, I certainly understand people do need to be careful in the water in the summertime. But unfortunately, there are several families that have been unable to recover the bodies of their loved ones, and they are asking for help. Help is available if the government is willing to provide it.

Daniela was hoping that a couple from Idaho, the Ralstons — who specialize in these kinds of recoveries and do their work at cost — could help her. Unfortunately, after successfully recovering the bodies of two young boys who were lost in Nicola Lake and finding a long-missing body in Francois Lake while they unsuccessfully searched for Sid Neville, a Burns Lake resident, at Francois Lake, the Ralstons had to return to the United States for a medical appointment before they could bring Raymond home.

Daniela is just looking for help, but she is losing hope that she's ever going to be able to have her husband's body recovered.

My question — I'm asking the minister and this government — on behalf of Daniela and the other families who have lost members, their loved ones, in tragic accidents like this: will this government please help? The technology is there. The ability is there. Will this government please help these people recover their loved ones and bring them home so that they can have some closure?

Hon. S. Anton: The operational decisions as to searches are made by the RCMP. As minister of public safety, I do not get in the middle of those operational decisions. I am, as I said, of course — as we all are in this House — extremely sympathetic to the families of the victims of drowning in B.C. waters this summer. But as to the specifics of each of these cases, I can't comment on them. There may be risk to teams who are doing the searches. We don't know the individual circumstances of these cases.

I do have great confidence in the RCMP and the operational decisions that they make. I'm not going to try and second-guess those decisions here in this House.

I would, once again, like to express my condolences and the condolences of this House to the families who

[ Page 280 ]

are suffering from the drowning of their loved ones in B.C. this year.

YINKA DENE ALLIANCE CONCERNS

REGARDING ENBRIDGE ACTIVITIES

D. Donaldson: First Nations, especially those living along the proposed Enbridge corridor, have a right to be skeptical about the Liberals' commitment to their own so-called new relationship.

The latest dose of reality comes from the Yinka Dene Alliance. They say if the B.C. Liberals grant permits for Enbridge, which the alliance opposes, to do test drilling and other work on their traditional territories, it will risk future talks on LNG development.

Chief Martin Louie of the Yinka Dene Alliance told me he is worried that the permits are already a done deal. He has been trying to get some answers, but the Premier hasn't responded.

Will the Minister of Aboriginal Relations commit today that the rights of the Yinka Dene will be respected before work goes ahead on their traditional territories, or is the new relationship just more empty promises from this B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member for the question. We believe in working very closely with First Nations. We're trying to build relationships. We're trying to build the economic opportunities that can change lives for people in First Nations.

Through that, we, of course, are looking for opportunities with treaties. We're looking for opportunities with non-treaty agreements. But specifically, around the movement of oil, we believe there are five conditions that need to be met. The Enbridge project, to this date, has not met any of those conditions.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, this government has a funny way of working closely with First Nations. Chief Martin Louie told me this morning that the Premier hasn't got back to him, and it's not okay that Enbridge will be proceeding with this work on their traditional territories. Failing to do the fundamental work with First Nations could impact proposed LNG plants in the northwest. This government has just not done its due diligence with First Nations.

[1420]

Proposed pipelines to supply those possible or potential LNG plants cross through the territories of many First Nations — the Yinka Dene Alliance, the Wet'suwet'en and others. Already Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs have banned pipeline development on their traditional territories.

The Wet'suwet'en are asking for government-to-government discussions to address the environmental and economic conditions of these developments. Once again, will the minister respect the rights of these First Nations? Or, once again, is the new relationship more empty promises from this Liberal government?

Hon. J. Rustad: Through to the member opposite: thank you, once again, for the question. What we try to do with First Nations is to engage, as I mentioned earlier, to develop the opportunities, particularly the economic opportunities, that can change lives.

To that end, we already now have 18 non-treaty agreements that are making a difference on the ground for First Nations people. We have over 110 forest revenue-sharing agreements. Through our work with the mining industry…. We have numerous revenue-sharing agreements with the mining industry. More importantly, it has put hundreds of people to work — First Nations people.

I find it very interesting that the member opposite talks about liquid natural gas. Clearly, his perspective, coming forward, seems to be that before the election it was a pipedream and after the election they wanted to put the brakes on. LNG holds an enormous opportunity for British Columbia, for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates in this chamber, Ministry of Forests; and in

Section A, the Ministry of Social Development.

[1425]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $340,367,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: Where we left off was a question about Pacific Carbon Trust. Where we left, the minister had said that the answer to the question as to why the public planting of trees wasn't something that would qualify

[ Page 281 ]

for carbon offsets was because it didn't meet the test, the requirement for additionality.

I guess the question to follow up on that is: if seedlings planted by government are not required by law…? There was certainly a period of time, after the B.C. Liberals changed the law so that it wasn't required, where the government did no planting.

So if it's not required by law, why do efforts to replant by government not meet the additionality requirement of the ministry's protocol? Why are trees planted by a private entity on NSR land with mountain pine beetle and fire history considered additional, but a public investment in pretty well the same way wouldn't be considered additional?

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I answer that specific question, I wanted to read into the record a response to one of the questions that came earlier around the B.C. Timber Sales gross revenue. I think it was information that we'd agreed to provide to the members opposite. This was the question around the breakdown of gross revenue between the coast and the interior.

[1430]

To provide that for the record, for fiscal '12-13, coast, $55.4 million; Interior, $119.7 million, for a total of $175 million. For '13-14, $50 million for the coast, $137.5 million for the Interior, for a total of $187.5. For '14-15, $48.5 million and $142.7 million for the Interior, for a total of $191 million.

So that's the breakdown between the coast and the Interior — the numbers on the BCTS gross revenue that were requested earlier.

Now to the question that was just posed. I thank the member opposite for the question. The reason for it is…. Under the carbon offset protocol, the one that I referenced, one of the key factors that has to be addressed in that protocol when it's verified by a third party is the test of additionality. With historical public investment, that doesn't meet that test of additionality.

Whether it was required or not required, the base is based on what has been historical public investment. That doesn't meet that test of additionality. So to preserve the integrity of the system and to ensure that you're getting the additional offsets, that historical public investment is recognized as part of the base case. So it's not eligible for the offsets in this program.

N. Macdonald: I mean, that's the minister's position. It doesn't completely make sense to me, but if that's what the minister is accepting, then there we are.

Recently the ministry posted on a website a coloured booklet titled B.C. Forest Carbon Offset Investment Opportunities , promoting investment opportunities in forest carbon offsets by planting trees on Crown land disturbed by fire and pests. I have, for the minister, a few questions that I'd like answered. I'll give him a series of questions here, and then the minister can respond with them all together.

Basically, does the Crown, on Crown land, have an ownership right to the carbon? Will the opportunity to propose carbon offsets be brokered by Pacific Carbon Trust, or is Pacific Carbon Trust only to be involved with the first 100,000 tonnes of carbon offsets from the initial offering? Will the Pacific Carbon Trust be involved with brokering carbon offsets beyond the initial offering of 100,000 tonnes?

Once Pacific Carbon Trust has validated reforestation plans from proponents, will Pacific Carbon Trust be selling the first 100,000 tonnes of carbon offsets to the provincial government? And the final question is: what is the price of a tonne of CO 2 equivalents on today's carbon market?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: I hope I've captured all the questions here that I've had. I'm sure there will be a follow-up.

First of all, to confirm, the Crown retains ownership of the resource. The Pacific Carbon Trust role is not directly involved in the program. They're not brokering. In fact, at this point all they've indicated is that they would be prepared to buy, and that was to provide some initial strength to the program.

With the initial program, it's external parties that are…. We have a number of external parties that are well prepared to be involved in the program. Initially, that's the way the program is — with the initial start to the program.

I'm advised that the current selling price is between $5 and $25, depending on the type of project.

N. Macdonald: Okay, thank you. I want to spend a few minutes to clarify my understanding of how the process for the initial offering of 100,000 tonnes will work and to get the minister to either confirm my understanding or to correct it.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's assume that a proponent submits a proposal plan to Pacific Carbon Trust to plant lodgepole pine seedlings over 1,000 hectares of NSR forest land of medium site index at a cost of $1,000 a hectare. The plan estimates that 175,000 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent will be sequestered over 80 years. Pacific Carbon Trust, or some certifier, applies the criteria and process rules of the ministry's forest carbon offset protocol

Once the plan is validated, the proponent is offered, say, $12 a tonne CO 2 equivalent, for which payment is ex ante , meaning that the proponent can only receive money for actual carbon sequestered, which, again, must be validated before money changes hands. The proponent implements the plan, spending $1 million on tree planting.

The first payment for carbon sequestered would occur

[ Page 282 ]

as soon as ten to 20 years. Pacific Carbon Trust agrees to pay the proponent, say, $12 a tonne of CO 2 equivalent, which would mean a potential cash payout to the proponent of $2.1 million over 80 years.

Meanwhile, Pacific Carbon Trust goes to the B.C. government and says something like, "I have some carbon offsets for you to buy to meet your carbon-neutral goal," say, at $20 a tonne CO 2 equivalent. In order to pay Pacific Carbon Trust for the carbon offsets, the government forces selected ministries, like Health and higher education, to pay from their voted budget amounts equivalent to their carbon emissions — let's say $20 a tonne CO 2 equivalent, not the $12 a tonne of CO 2 equivalent to be paid to the proponent.

My question for the minister is: have I understood in principle how the carbon offset process works with Pacific Carbon Trust, or is it something completely different? Maybe I'll just ask the minister to respond to that.

[1440]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think you need to step back, because the framing of the question was on the assumption that the Pacific Carbon Trust was involved, and as I indicated, they're not involved in the program. What they simply indicated is that they may be prepared to buy an offset if it was verified.

In this program the money is coming from the private sector, not the Pacific Carbon Trust. The company that has the management of the program administers it. The process is verified. As I said, they have a number of interests in the program, the initial start to the program, and both have been private sector investments. I expect that that will continue to be the case.

N. Macdonald: So as I understand the ownership rights, the people of B.C., through the Crown, own the provincial forests. Again, a series of questions so that I can understand this. Who owns the carbon on Crown land in these carbon offset agreements — the proponent or the Crown? I think you answered that it was the Crown, but if I misunderstood, you can repeat that.

How does the ministry separate rights to carbon from rights to timber? Who will pay for validation of plans and of carbon sequestered? And who will pay for monitoring of carbon offset plantations, especially in light of the ministry not monitoring the success or failure of tree plantations after they've reached free-growing status?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the Crown retains the ownership of the carbon and of the trees, so we don't need to separate the ownership of the resource. The validation of the plant is paid for by the proponent. The monitoring is paid for by the proponent.

What they obtain in this program is the right to sell the credit — the atmospheric benefit. The Crown retains ownership of the trees and the carbon.

N. Macdonald: I apologize if I…. Just to understand Pacific Carbon Trust's role in this, you're saying that Pacific Carbon Trust would not necessarily be involved but could be involved? Or are you saying would never be involved? Just to understand.

Hon. S. Thomson: As indicated, they could be a buyer. They're not involved in the program otherwise. They've indicated that they could be prepared to buy; to date they have not been.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand this program better, maybe you could just explain the role that Pacific Carbon Trust has here again. I'm not fully understanding how this works.

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, again, the only role in the program for the Pacific Carbon Trust is potentially as a buyer. The basis of the program is based on the fact that there is a private sector proponent — third-party verification against the offset protocol.

[1450]

We have a comprehensive forest carbon offset protocol, which is one of the ones that can be used. It could be another protocol, but the one that is generally used and expected to be used in this program is our protocol that's in place. And you have a buyer.

As I said, again, the Pacific Carbon Trust is only potentially one of those buyers. It has no other role in the program.

A. Weaver: It's my understanding that the protocol used really meets voluntary carbon standards, and as such, the only buyer for the carbon could be the Pacific Carbon Trust, at any value. The voluntary carbon market is essentially collapsed, and the price per tonne is on the order of cents.

My question would be: is there really any other buyer expected other than the Pacific Carbon Trust — which frankly, as I can see it, is the only possible buyer?

Hon. S. Thomson: Already the program is operating. Already the program has seen investment and carbon offsets sold to the private sector, as private sector proponents. So clearly, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not the only buyer.

We expect as the program evolves — we've had a very initial start to the program — that the buyers' market will be there. Again, as I said, the Pacific Carbon Trust is only one of the potential buyers — again, to provide initial strength to the program. To date they have not been a purchaser in the program, and we expect that we're going to continue to see the private sector proponents, those private sectors, being able to sell the carbon offsets.

[ Page 283 ]

N. Macdonald: Will the Pacific Carbon Trust buy directly from the proponent or from the open carbon market? What's going on with that?

Hon. S. Thomson: In this program, if the Pacific Carbon Trust was a buyer, we would expect that they would be buying it directly from the proponent.

N. Macdonald: So to understand — I have it here — on June 28, 2013, the government newsroom announced this forest carbon program means more trees for B.C., which is what the minister is citing. In the news release from Kelowna the minister tells us: "The province has planted more than 20,000 trees to kick off an innovative program that uses private sector investment to stimulate ecosystem restoration and reforestation." The release talks about this newly created B.C. forest carbon partnership program.

I guess a couple of questions just to clarify. Does the B.C. forest carbon partnership program describe the carbon offset investment opportunities through Pacific Carbon Trust that I've been asking about?

You've mentioned the proponent. Who is the proponent? Did the proponent actually plant the 20,000 trees? What was the area planted? Where is it?

[1455]

What price, if Pacific Carbon Trust is involved in this, are they going to be paying the proponent for a tonne of CO 2 equivalent sequestered, and what price will Pacific Carbon Trust charge the government for a tonne of CO 2 equivalent?

Hon. S. Thomson: To reference the specific initial initiative under the program, the proponent was the Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative. The trees were planted in Quesnel. A filmmaker funded the first 20,000 trees. The credits are going to the filmmaker as part of a corporate social responsibility climate action undertaken by themselves. So no involvement at all of the Pacific Carbon Trust.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Likely I'm missing something here. I guess when I laid out the hypothetical scenario, and then you corrected it…. It still confuses me how this works.

I mean, if you take 1,000 hectares, and it's planted and it's estimated to sequester 175,000 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent — right? — in 80 years, which equates to about 154,000 cubic metres of wood if the conversion factor is 0.88…. So if the Pacific Carbon Trust is involved and charges the government $20 per tonne for that, then it seems an extremely expensive way to get at the problem here, which is the cost of actually replanting. With that scenario, you're up to about $3.5 million for something that if you simply replanted would be perhaps a third of that.

I still don't follow how this program would work in a way that more cost-effectively meets the needs that the ministry has. Again, the minister has heard what I've laid out. If there's misunderstanding, maybe he can enlighten me in how this all works in a way that's cost-effective.

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the scenario that the member opposite hypothesizes or paints is the Pacific Carbon Trust doing and paying for the reforestation. That's not the case in this program. As I've indicated, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not involved at all in the program, unless potentially as a buyer of the verified offset.

What the basis of the program is, is private sector investment. The private sector investment pays the costs of the reforestation. Through the co-op, the private sector investor receives the carbon offset, or the benefit, to be able to sell the right of the carbon offset. As I said, the province retains both the resource — the trees and the carbon — and that's through a verified process.

This is a program that is meant and designed to facilitate or attract a private sector option for reforestation. We think that it is a model that has potential benefit to be able to assist in reforestation efforts in areas where it's appropriate. The private sector investors get the benefit of selling the offset. They also, in cases, examples in the first case, have the benefit of the social corporate investment that they've made.

The member opposite keeps trying to bring the Pacific Carbon Trust into the equation here. That's not the case. This is done through the carbon offset cooperative that has been put in place to manage the program. They facilitate the private sector investment, facilitate the verification of the offset through an independent verification process, and the offsets are sold.

It's private sector investment, and the private sector receives the benefit under the program. The province gets the benefit of reforestation activities taking place.

Again, to be clear, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not involved in the program other than the potential to be a buyer.

B. Routley: I still recall net zero, the legislation: Zero Net Deforestation Act. Back then — I think it was 2009-2010 — I remember standing in my place in this House and declaring that this reminded me of the old Three Dog Night song. Nothing from nothing is still nothing. I had no idea that my little idea of a joke or a jest was actually coming true.

This government is still nowhere and has done nothing with the Zero Net Deforestation Act. While the government could have…. This could have been an innovative way to pay for reforestation for not sufficiently restocked areas resulting from wildfires, from mountain pine beetle infestation.

As with the 2013 budget in general and with so many

[ Page 284 ]

other initiatives, the government trademark has become: say one thing and do another.

[1505]

The government wasted no time in trumpeting the all-time merits of net zero deforestation. The pitiful reality is that zero net deforestation has become

an act of greenwashing and remains pure fiction because it has sat on the shelf for over three years waiting for the enabling regulation to be passed. Why? Because this government prefers unfettered resource development at minimum cost over responsible stewardship of publicly owned land.

My question for the minister is: exactly when will this government pass regulation to the Zero Net Deforestation Act necessary to bring this act into force?

Hon. S. Thomson: I heard a lot of the chatter and the clarification about who it actually was. Although I appreciate the analogy that the member opposite used, there's another analogy that's important to point out here too. I think the member opposite said: "Say one thing; do another thing." I think there's a very clear example of that on the opposite side of the House in saying one thing with respect to Kinder Morgan, saying something different and changing that at another time. So it's a little bit rich to have….

Anyway, to go back to the deforestation. The act was brought in place in May 2010. We have currently an afforestation of an estimated 2,000 hectares per year. Annual net deforestation averages about 4,200 hectares. That's compared with the total annual timber harvest of about 180,000 hectares.

What we are working on are the programs to address that gap, exactly the type of program that we just talked about in bringing private sector investment in. We're going to continue to look to those options with our programs, along with the voluntary actions by stakeholders, to achieve the goal.

[1510]

B. Routley: Further to the subject of zero net deforestation, could the minister explain to us how the province determines the area of forest land in the province that has been deforested and what has been afforested, in order to determine whether or not we are in a deficit as far as the government's stated commitments are concerned?

Hon. S. Thomson: In order to develop a calculation and a database for this, we use a number of sources — both the inventory and silviculture programs. We use a voluntary reporting process with some of the other sectors where we have good data, in areas like forestry or mining or industry.

[1515]

In other areas like settlement, recreation or agriculture, we rely on collaboration across different data sources in order to be able to do the calculation. Again, as we point out, we're looking towards our programs and other programs to be able to move towards that zero net deforestation target.

B. Routley: Related to my last question, serious concerns have been raised about the prospect that very large areas of forest land are being cleared for hydro rights-of-way, for natural gas pipeline corridors, for gas well pads and other infrastructure in the natural gas sector. Such land clearances are likely to rise dramatically in the event that liquefied natural gas, or LNG, plants in the province are built and there is a sharp increase in production of natural gas.

Can the minister please tell the House how forest lands cleared by the natural gas industry are tracked and whether or not such deforestation is being factored into the government's zero net deforestation commitments?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is tracked through our inventory system.

I think it's important to say on this side of the House that in these areas, particularly in terms of liquid natural gas, I hope and expect that we are going to see that level of activity increase. It provides a great opportunity for British Columbia, and we want to make sure that we seize on that opportunity and provide that economic future for the province of British Columbia.

The tracking of that, for corridors or for transmission development, is done through the inventory program. It's done through cooperation with the agencies or proponents, in terms of providing that information to us, and it's built into the overall data as we look to work, as I said before, on achieving the overall objective of zero net in the longer term.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us what the total area of land cleared by energy companies was for each of the last three years? And if the number cannot be immediately provided, could you commit to return to us as soon as possible?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: Short answer: I don't believe that I have that information readily at hand. Certainly, yes, we will commit to provide it as quickly as we can, as part of all of the follow-up that we've committed to.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us how much the provincial treasury has received in payment for trees logged by energy companies in each of the last three years? Again, if the answer cannot be provided, could the minister commit to provide it as soon as possible?

Related to that, I might add that in my talking to forest industry constituents in the province of British Columbia…. I was up in Fort St. John and talked to a contractor who was supposed to be logging in a trans-

[ Page 285 ]

mission line site. His statement to me was that he had 300 loads of logs ahead of him and that he was instructed by the company who was dealing with that that he would be logging these trees. Then something changed. A phone call was made to the ministry, and the word came from your ministry to go ahead and burn those logs.

It's related to this question about the trees that energy companies are logging. I would also like to know if you know anything more about what rules the ministry has about discarding such logs. Or do you have a full-utilization requirement for logs that are mature and harvested within transmission lines?

Hon. S. Thomson: On the first question, in terms of the total dollars paid, I will undertake to provide that information. I don't have it readily available.

With respect to the example that the member opposite references, there are a number of circumstances, particularly in the remote areas where the activity takes place. The logs are brought out. They're left…. Our general approach is to try to ensure that they're made available, but in many cases these are remote areas where the market doesn't exist. The market doesn't cover the costs of moving these out.

We would not order the company to burn them, but the company would have that option in order to remove the waste and not have it be a continued hazard.

[1525]

To be clear, in those cases they do pay the stumpage on whatever they leave. In some cases that may be more than what would be paid if it was brought out and marketed.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us who is tracking logging and deforestation rates by energy companies? Is it the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources? Or is it the provincial Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: In this case the permitting for the activity is undertaken by the Oil and Gas Commission. What is harvested is monitored and reported by our ministry. It's reported through to our tenure administration system, which makes its way into our inventory system.

B. Routley: This question is: what is the flat-rate charge to energy companies that log public forest lands?

Hon. S. Thomson: There's a variable rate. Depending on the area, it varies between $460 per hectare to $1,881 per hectare. The reason this is done is it actually achieves more value for the Crown and the resource than if we administered and they had to pay to cruise. Most of it would be at, in these cases and in these areas, minimum stumpage rate.

[1530]

This system is operated because it provides more value to the Crown than it would if it was managed through the normal stumpage process. All of this, in each of these cases, is reviewed and approved by our staff.

B. Routley: Yes, we've had a lot of concern expressed about cumulative impacts. This question is: do energy companies bear any fiscal responsibility to reforest any of the lands they clear in light of the permanent deforestation that does occur in the energy sector? And has the government considered increasing fees energy companies pay for the trees they log so that some of those funds could be spent on afforestation or reforestation activities elsewhere?

Hon. S. Thomson: We've recognized, with much of the work around cumulative impact and things, what we need to do here in terms of ensuring that we reduce the impacts. We've made a lot of great progress in the last number of years. The approach is now to seismic lines where they're no longer bladed. They're left so that they can revegetate naturally. The whole movement towards multi-pad wells has reduced the impact, and when the areas are abandoned, the responsibility is for revegetation of those areas.

N. Macdonald: In principle, the concept of zero net deforestation is sound. It has the potential to offset substantially the cost of planting the vast NSR area resulting from wildfires and mountain pine infestation.

I think when you combined this with planting through carbon investment, if that works, you have the possibility for the ministry to go quite a long way in restoring the ecology and timber resource in support of forest-dependent communities.

[1535]

Unfortunately, even when this is passed into law and is fully operating with regulations, the present zero net deforestation regulation as written really doesn't give the act any teeth. It really is a series of polite suggestions that industries like oil and gas might voluntarily consider replanting some other NSR areas to compensate for deforestation that they undertook to extract resources.

Is the minister considering revising the regulations before making it a fully functioning law so that energy and mining companies, by law, have to replant equivalent areas to those that they have deforested?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I recognize the objective that we're working towards here, and I think the member opposite agreed that the overall objective was a good one. As I pointed out, we've taken a number of steps to reduce the impacts, particularly, as in the examples I pointed out previously, in the oil and gas sector. We continue to work with other sectors. We are considering options around how we bring all of those forward with a voluntary approach to achieving the objectives. That was the basis of bringing this forward, so we're looking

[ Page 286 ]

at how we continue.

I think everybody wants to work towards that longer-term objective. We need to look at those options and how we do that, both in a voluntary way and how we also do it in a way that reduces the impact of those activities in such ways as I mentioned: multi-pads, seismic lines that are being managed in a much different way.

[1540]

We need to work with the private sector — for example, in agriculture — looking at those options. We think those options, plus the approach we're looking at for private sector investment in reforestation, provide those opportunities.

B. Routley: The ministry's estimates on revenue growth appear to be predicated on dangerous assumptions about maintaining or potentially increasing logging rates. But as we know — part of the mid-term timber supply committee that I was on — the ministry is predicting shortages in available timber supply in the Interior.

Furthermore, forest companies licensed to log public forest lands are telling the ministry that they are having a hard time finding enough economically viable timber to keep their mills operating. Hence the government's irresponsible moves to log areas previously out of bounds to harvesting at the expense of our water resources, fish and wildlife, not to mention other non-timber industries such as recreation and tourism.

Can the minister confirm that in order to meet its provincewide revenue projections, his ministry is considering lifting some of the current constraints on logging companies? And if such constraints are lifted, can the minister explain what considerations it has given in crafting its revenue projections for the impact that unconstrained logging activities would have on the resilience and the well-being of local communities, on the tourism industry, and on the health of our water and non-timber resources?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I need to…. The member opposite has made some pretty broad assertions in his question here that we're on some kind of a path or process to unleash the constraints on the industry. That's certainly not the case.

The recommendations from the mid-term timber supply committee did not make that recommendation. The recommendation was, in fact, that it should be science-based, that it would look at…. Very clearly, it would only take place where communities requested it and brought it forward, and it would happen under a science-based framework.

The revenue assumptions that we have in the current fiscal plan are not based on any adjustments to the constraints. They're based on conservative estimates.

[1545]

It's for over the next three years, in the future revenue, when we look farther out into the fiscal plan. That will come at its point as the harvest levels may come down as a result of the mountain pine beetle impacts on the mid-term timber supply.

That'll be taken into the revenue forecasts, but there clearly is not anything in our revenue projections. They are, in fact, generally conservative recommendations taking into account all of the potential risks to revenue, and there is no intention to move to an unleashing of the constraints on industry as the member opposite seems to insinuate in his statement and his question.

N. Macdonald: Still, logic would tell us that the impact of the mountain pine beetle attack and a growing supply shortfall in available trees of a commercially desirable quantity and quality near to sawmilling facilities will lead to declines in future logging rates and, therefore, future revenues, perhaps within as little as two to three years.

Related to this pressure on timber supply, we see before the Forest Appeals Commission an appeal concerning whether the ministry, as the public's forest agent, has the right to reject a licensee's forest stewardship plan. As I understand the appeal before the commission, Babine Forest Products Ltd. wanted to amend its forest stewardship plan, allowing for clearcutting that the ministry felt would not meet the approved visual quality objectives of retention and partial retention.

Now, Babine has appealed the rejection of the FSP amendment, essentially arguing that the ministry doesn't have the right to say no, that the Forest and Range Practices Act does not grant that discretion. Even if the plan would lead to the established VQO, the visual quality objectives, not being met, the ministry had a legal duty to balance the objectives so that the timber-harvesting objective is prioritized over all other interests.

The appeal, I think, is being heard right now, maybe in the day, at Smithers. If the commission has already ruled on the appeal, perhaps the minister would kindly share the outcome with the House.

Further to that, just to add another question in there: can the minister tell us how soon, in his opinion, we will begin to see logging rates reduced by his ministry in order to bring economic activity more in keeping with the available timber supplies in the 12 timber supply areas most hard hit by the beetle infestation?

And how will the minister ensure that the ministry has the legal controls necessary to conserve biodiversity, visual quality and non-timber values, especially those non-timber values specified in the land use plans, when these values are already under threat by elevated, unsustainable AACs and rates of cuts during a time of rapidly declining timber supply?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to the appeal that was referenced, it's my understanding that the Forest Appeals

[ Page 287 ]

Commission is considering that, maybe as we speak. I don't have the results of that. We expect we may know shortly with respect to that appeal. But I know and expect…. You know, it was a statutory decision, and in this case, our statutory decision-maker felt he had the right to make the decision he did. That's the subject of the appeal, and we'll see how the Forest Appeals Commission deals with it. I don't have the decision or the response, although I know it is imminent.

In terms of the second part of the question, around declining harvest levels in all of those areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle, that's the work of the chief forester. He will be undertaking that work on a TSA-by-TSA basis. That was a lot of the work of the Timber Supply Committee recommendations in terms of how we might deal with that and how we might mitigate some of the impacts. But that's the important work of the chief forester, and that work is underway as they go through that area on a timber-supply-area by timber-supply-area basis.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I think everybody understands how important the issue of timber supply is to understanding the revenue projections that are here in the estimates before us, because timber supply availability is directly tied to stumpage revenue and to B.C. Timber Sales revenue.

During the 2012 estimates I asked the minister how many of the 12 TSAs worst impacted by the mountain pine beetle had been resurveyed to the present vegetation resources inventory standard, the VRI standard. The response was less than satisfactory from the minister, but I do wish to acknowledge that the Forests Ministry has been most forthcoming and helpful in characterizing the out-of-date status of the forest inventory in a presentation to the Special Committee on Timber Supply.

Now, one of those beetle-affected TSAs is Merritt, as the minister will know. On the ministry's website, inventory staff categorized the status of the Merritt timber inventory as follows, and I'll read it into the record. "The air photos on which the forest cover inventory is based were acquired in the early 1990s." A second point: the forest cover information is not to VRI standard.

Third point: coverage is pretty much complete. Fourth point: most but not all harvest and reforestation updates are current to 2009. "Harvest detection mapping based on satellite imagery is current to 2011. Recent fires…have not been integrated into the inventory file. The inventory file has been projected to 2011." Timber volumes have been adjusted to reflect beetle-killed forests.

Next point: additional technical details on sampling, site productivity and audit analysis are provided. The final point: "Mountain pine beetle has killed mature lodgepole pine and has changed the characteristics of many forest stands. An estimated 14 percent of the pre-beetle, 1999, timber volume on the timber-harvesting land base has been killed in the current mountain pine beetle epidemic."

[1555]

We are dealing here with an outdated inventory, where some 90 percent of the forest cover was interpreted on aerial photographs over 20 years old, and an estimated 14 percent of the standing timber volume has been killed.

Yet on June 21, 2013, just last month, the minister announced, through the government's newsroom and under the banner headline of "Merritt Innovative Forest Harvest Levels Increased," that the Thompson-Okanagan regional executive director has increased the annual allowable cut, the AAC, for five companies by 370,000 cubic metres over an area that covers 1.13 million hectares for three years, until December 31, 2015.

The minister claimed that this increase does not increase the AAC of the Merritt timber supply area, which remains at 2.4 million cubic metres. On the one hand the minister says that he's increased the AAC for these five companies that operate in the area, and on the other hand he says he hasn't increased the AAC of the Merritt TSA as a whole. I'm not sure exactly how that works.

We are talking about, in my view, an increase in the AAC of the Merritt TSA, a timber supply area among some of the TSAs worst affected by the beetle, for which the AAC was recently set in December 2011, based on 20-year-old forest cover inventory.

Now the minister justifies this increase in the AAC of the five companies in these words: "Continued innovative forest practice, such as ongoing inventory work, support the increase." Could the minister please explain what is innovative about ongoing inventory work and how this so-called innovation justifies an increase in AAC in the region.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: In reference, again, to the Merritt TSA, an inventory ground sample of the entire TSA is underway in 2013 to provide for ground-plot data for immediate use, supporting decision-making such as the upcoming timber supply review. Sampling will establish the long-term forest growth monitoring plots on a grid over the entire TSA. So inventory work is being undertaken in that TSA.

With respect to the innovative forest practices agreement, what we were able to do…. Because of the innovative work that these companies do collectively and in partnership with First Nations — silviculture strategies, specific inventory work that they do — we were able to increase the apportionment for those companies in terms of their allocation under the apportionment, their AAC. But it is all within the total AAC of the timber supply area.

We have not increased the total AAC of the area. But within the apportionment within that area we have been able to increase the annual allowable cut for those specific companies within that innovative forest practices agreement.

[ Page 288 ]

It was an agreement that was to expire. We've actually been able to renew the program at a level that is lower than what their original agreement was but increased above their base apportionment.

N. Macdonald: Now, in the press release there was discussion around doing some inventory work. The minister talks about conducting activities above basic forestry management obligations. The minister hasn't added to that, although he did talk about silviculture. Presumably there is more than simply inventory. But as I say, most of it seemed to be just inventory work.

I think it does confirm, going back to a discussion that we had yesterday, an earlier point, that area-based management can take place and indeed does take place within the existing forest licensing system within the TSAs. The minister, if he wants to debate that point, could explain how this agreement to conduct enhanced silviculture activities over 1.13 million hectares of Crown land within the Merritt TSA is not area-based by definition.

Would the minister, then, agree that the creation of more TFLs is not necessary to achieve area-based management and improve productivity on the publicly owned timber harvesting land base?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: The Merritt agreement, IFPA agreement, is…. I think members opposite may have heard about this agreement and know about it. Some of the work that…. They did a model that, I think, under IFPA the model is one that has worked very well.

We have a number of them, and it doesn't work to the same degree in all areas. It depends on the partners and the companies involved in terms of making it work. This is an example of one that does work well, and that's why we've agreed to maintain the agreement and to provide the additional volume for that agreement.

It is one of the options as we look at the area-based approach that will be one of the examples of where this works. It's not something that would work in every area. We had significant discussion yesterday on the area-based consultation that is to go forward, in terms of looking at the potential area-based approach through TFLs. Again, what we've said is that we will undertake the consultation.

Clearly, we need to work through that. We've said it would be done in a way that would benefit the public interest and be done in a transparent manner. But again, the important point, as we confirmed yesterday, is the step to go out with the consultation, fully engaged in that approach. As I said, we are considering the options of the best way to do that, to ensure that we get meaningful engagement in that discussion. That will take place.

In terms of IFPAs, they are one of the options, along with the other area-based options that we have in terms of community forests and woodlots and First Nations woodland licences.

B. Routley: I'm wondering if the minister would agree that the veracity of the revenue estimates may be in doubt when we have no up-to-date inventories to the VRI standard, or vegetation resources inventory, for Merritt, Lillooet, Lakes, Revelstoke, 100 Mile House and Kamloops TSAs and only partially complete inventories to the VRI standard for sizeable portions of the Williams Lake and Quesnel TSAs. This backlog of inventories, it bears repeating, involves TSAs where the pine beetle attack was, in many cases, very severe.

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, no, I don't agree that the veracity or the confidence in the revenue projections that we have, that we've projected in the current fiscal plan, is at risk. That's based on, as I said earlier, conservative estimates based on current harvest levels. Going forward in terms of completing and bringing up to date the inventory work across these areas, that's why we've announced the ten-year strategic inventory plan.

[1610]

That's why we're providing $8 million a year in direct funding to the inventory program. We recognize the importance of the inventory work. That was one of the key recommendations of the committee. That strategic plan is underway, and we'll ensure that we bring the inventory work up to date, initially focused on the most critical areas in the mountain pine beetle–impacted areas.

N. Macdonald: We're getting to the end of the revenue

section — just two more questions. Basically, the context for looking at revenue is that we have seen, year after year, investments in the land base that simply have been inadequate to do the job that's needed. This year the government is choosing from general revenues to cut into areas that desperately need work, to the tune of $35 million.

What we have done throughout the revenue portion is suggest ideas that come from other jurisdictions or that people have talked about as areas for revenue so that we can get the work done that desperately needs to be done, since the government clearly doesn't feel that it's a priority.

We've given the minister some suggestions. I think that the minister's response clearly demonstrates that the revenue side of the equation is flawed here. We have the 25-cent minimum stumpage charge that's been there since — what was it? — 1987, I think, which essentially ensures that the government has been and will for the foreseeable future be unable to meet its obligations under the Ministry of Forests and Range Act to protect the public's financial interests as they pertain to public forests.

I guess the question is: when will the minister and his government restore confidence to the people of British Columbia that it's able to fulfil its statutory stewardship responsibilities and act in the financial best inter-

[ Page 289 ]

ests of the province by securing revenue sufficient to do its work?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, it's important to point out that as part of our government objective to achieve a balanced budget — that's the promise that we made in the recent election, that we would bring forward a balanced budget — our ministry makes a very important contribution to that process in terms of the revenues on the resource side of the equation.

That's why we've got the integrated decision-making process. That's why we have over 180 projects in the major projects system, looking through how we move those projects forward to get to yes in those projects. That's going to generate the revenue for the province. We've got a key role, along with the Ministry of Natural Gas, in moving forward on the tremendous opportunity in liquid natural gas.

We will continue to support that work within our own revenue projections. As I've said, they're conservative. We had an advance last year of $10 million, which we've utilized to ensure that we can manage our contribution this year in terms of meeting the balanced budgets.

[1615]

The funding in those programs is fully restored next year. We've also announced in our platform that we're committed to increase additional silviculture investment forward in the fiscal plan.

B.

Routley: I think the minister would like to agree with me that with his unconvincing answers to questions about the adequacy of the government's information on public forests, about its lack of imagination in finding new revenue sources, about its reluctance to deal with reviewing existing rates and fees to reflect current values and about the inadequacy of its projected revenues in estimates before us, the people of British Columbia have little reason to place any confidence in this government's ability to assert the financial interest of the Crown and to take strategic decisions in the province's best interests that will ensure a sustainable future for our public forests and a resilient future for those communities worst affected by the mountain pine beetle.

My question is: does the minister agree that much more could and should be done to improve revenue to his ministry?

Hon. S. Thomson: We have lots of good discussion, and probably it would be tough to say that I never like to agree with you. There are times when we've had good discussions and all working towards achieving the same objectives. But clearly, the people of British Columbia expressed confidence in this government and in members on this side of the House in terms of managing the economy, managing the province. We're part of that confidence that has been provided.

That is why in the forest industry we're seeing new investment in the industry — over $1 million in new investment in the last two years. That's why we're seeing job growth in the sector — 3,000 new jobs in the sector in the last year. That's why we're seeing the optimism in the industry, as we've brought them through the most difficult time period in the industry.

As markets recover, we are investing strategically in inventory work. We've committed to future investments, further investments in silviculture work. Our ministry will continue to work to ensure that we manage the public resource and get the appropriate revenues from that resource, not just in forestry but across the great resources we have in this province. I look forward to continuing that work as we work in partnership with the industry, with communities and with First Nations and continue to grow the sector.

N. Macdonald: Turning to the expense side, and again, just to set the context for the estimates, I expect the minister is familiar with a recent report titled Trends in Renewable Resource Management in B.C. , by four retired public servants who once held senior positions within the Forests and Environment Ministries.

This report was the focus of a column by Stephen Hume titled "B.C.'s Resources Need Support" in the Vancouver Sun , in which Mr. Hume writes: "A bit of perspective. Renewable resources — forests, fresh and salt water, arable land, rangeland, fish and wildlife — generate more than $25 billion in provincial economic activity each year."

Now, that perspective tells us just how important it is that we steward and invest in our publicly owned renewable and natural resources. Yet this government over the last decade has done, many would argue, the exact opposite. It has ransacked the budgets of the renewable resource ministries.

[1620]

In the report the authors write: "The total budget for the renewable resource ministries, in 1975 dollars, has been lower since 2003 than it was at any time in the 13 years prior to that. In 2011 it was less than half of what it had been in 2002 and only 8 percent greater than it had been in 1976."

The authors go on to say that from 2001-2002 to 2012-2013 the inflation-adjusted funding for the remaining non-resource sectors of government all increased dramatically — and I know the minister knows that — but, of course, declined within the dirt ministries. The decline in budgets noted by this team of respected former senior public servants was and continues to be the inevitable outcome of a smaller revenue base, driven in large part over the past decade by decisions government has made around personal and corporate taxes.

Of course, the officials raised concerns about the ability of government to do the work that it needs to do to

[ Page 290 ]

look after our most valuable public asset. The point is also made that if that investment is neglected, then it leads in the long term to declining resource revenues.

So a couple of questions — four of them, actually. I'll get the minister to confirm, as much as anything. The actual net operating expense budget for the fiscal year 2012-2013 was $601 million, I understand. The comparable budget estimate for this fiscal year is $561 million. The year's budget represents an effective decrease in expenditures of $40 million or a 7 percent decrease.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, those numbers are correct.

It's important to point out that in the last fiscal year we received a budget lift of $10 million. The reduction this year was signalled in the fiscal plan. Again, as I said, this one-year reduction of $30 million — we knew that was in the fiscal plan.

With the $10 million, we've advanced a number of activities in silviculture and other areas to prepare for this year. The funding is fully restored in the next fiscal year.

B. Routley: In the estimates for the last three years, government has stopped reporting staffing full-time-equivalents, or FTE levels, by ministry. This prevents B.C. citizens from easily determining where jobs have been cut or increased.

My question for the minister is…. Well, I've got a couple of questions. Will the minister please tell the House the numbers of full-time-equivalent positions in the ministry for the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and for this fiscal year, 2013-14?

The further questions related to that are: how many staff will lose their jobs as a result of the $40 million cut to the ministry's budget in this fiscal year, and how many full-time-equivalents vacated by attrition will not be filled as a result of the $40 million cut to the ministry's budget this year?

[1625]

Once again, I ask the minister: would he commit to restoring the accounting of full-time-equivalents by ministry to provide the openness and transparency that the public expects?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, for our ministry, there are no planned staff reductions, within the current plan.

Our staffing varies, particularly seasonally, with fire management crews and other crews — particularly in seed operations and other areas. There is no plan to return to detailed FTE reporting within our documents.

Ministers — we have the accountability to balance the budget to our bottom-line figure, and that will be our focus to ensure that we balance to our fiscal plan.

N. Macdonald: Again, just to set the context. I'm sure the minister would confirm this. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2013-14 operating expenses for resource stewardship are $66.9 million. I think that that represents a $35.3 million, or 35 percent, cut from 2012-2013.

It appears that the subvote of resource stewardship has taken 88 percent of the total cut to the ministry's net operating expense budget. By contrast, the subvote of executive and support services, of which almost 100 percent is located in Victoria, was cut by $500,000, or less than 1 percent — from $63.6 million to $63.1 million. Likewise, all other subvotes remain at almost the same as they were in 2012-2013.

The first question is: would the minister provide a list of all staff positions that the minister's office budget supports — so a list of those positions? And would he please explain the priorities and criteria used to target the resource stewardship expense budget with 88 percent of the $40 million cut to the ministry's budget?

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: In response to the question, we've had to make difficult decisions in order to ensure that we've met the balanced budget objectives within our ministry. This meant the one-year impact of certain funding within our land-based investment program. We had the additional funding provided last year of $10 million, which has helped us provide for that. The decision was made to manage that within that specific program, which falls under the resource stewardship branch, knowing that the full funding for that program is being returned in the next fiscal year.

It's also important to recognize that across the balance of our ministry, those are the key components of ensuring that we have the integrated decision model in place that's supporting resource and economic development across the province. The decision was made that the way to manage this was within that specific program, knowing that that would have the least impact going forward, because we were restoring funding to that program fully in the next fiscal year.

N. Macdonald: So what the member is saying in an election year…. There's a one-time cut of $35 million, and then once the election is over, it will come back. I guess that's what the minister is saying on those programs. I guess the question for many would be…. They see the executive and support services there, and the decision is made to cut investments in the land.

But I did ask another question. I did ask for a list of all staff positions that the minister's office budget supports. Maybe the minister could confirm that that'll be provided to me at a later time.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we'll undertake to provide that.

[ Page 291 ]

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister.

[1635]

Can the minister tell the House how the overall expenditures break down by resource stewardship functions or programs under the authority of the chief forester for the last fiscal years 2012-2013 and for this fiscal year 2013-14 — for example, by inventory; timber supply analysis; pests and disease — forest health, in other words; silviculture; Forests for Tomorrow; tree improvement; water use planning and authorizations; watershed restoration; fish, wildlife and habitat management; climate change and research, etc.

I may not have a complete list, but that's why I need more clarity and detail, if the minister could provide that. I'm looking for a complete comparative breakdown of the resource stewardship expenditures by function or program under the authority of the chief forester for the last year and this year.

If some of the $66.9 million is not under the chief forester, could the minister please break out the balance by resource stewardship function or program and tell the House what division or assistant deputy minister has authority for it.

I presume that the ministry will take some time to produce it — although, I doubt it would take too much time — but I'm hopeful that the minister could provide the House with maybe columns that would contain the requested information so that we could compare. Again, if the minister could make a commitment to provide that in a timely way, I think that's the best way to go forward.

Hon. S. Thomson: What the member is asking for would take a little bit of work to provide it in the format that he's asked for. We can undertake to do that.

What I do have I could provide and read into the record, if you would like — or we can provide a copy to the member opposite — in terms of the breakdown by function within the land-based investment program — forest health, reforestation, water, timber supply mitigation, tree improvement, inventory, range, invasive plants. We have that information directly within the program. That's only the program side of the resource stewardship budget — some $42 million.

I think what the member opposite is asking for is the breakdown through the balance of how you would allocate that across the various areas of responsibility. That will take some work to be able to provide.

B. Routley: In its efforts to eviscerate the B.C. Forest Service after 98 years of dedicated service as the public's forest agent, this government, in one of its most ill-considered decisions, disbanded the world-renowned research branch, B.C. Forest Service research branch, in

an act that some have characterized as public vandalism.

Our resilience to climate change and to many threats of globalism will depend on how we are able to apply knowledge derived from scientific forest research to strategic policy.

[1640]

Would the minister tell the House how many FTEs are involved directly with forest research activities, and is the number of FTEs less than, the same or greater than it was in the fiscal year 2012-2013? And what is the total amount of ministry operational funding provided for research in the estimates before us?

Hon. S. Thomson: The salary budget for research in 2013-14 is anticipated to be maintained at about $6.2 million. That was the same level in 2012-13. The full-time-equivalents in that are 73. The operating budget is anticipated to be, in '13-14, around $5.2 million — so a total of approximately $13.7 million on research activities. We also anticipate spending about $2.2 million on external research through FPInnovations.

N. Macdonald: Certainly, in the past I've spent a lot of time talking about inventory and will continue to do so. There certainly has been a lot from the ministry trumpeting new investments, but I think we all know that the investments don't get us to a standard that we need to get to.

The two questions are: what were the actual expenditures on inventory work in the last fiscal year, 2012-2013, and what is the inventory budget for this fiscal year, 2013-2014?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: Expenditures in 2012-13 on the program side, $7½ million; for '13-14, $8 million plus the associated staff complement that goes with the programming, for a total investment in the inventory program for '13-14 of approximately $10.7 million.

A. Weaver: The preservation of existing and rapidly depleting old growth, particularly on Vancouver Island, is of grave concern to many in British Columbia for a variety of reasons that the minister, I'm sure, is aware of.

Yesterday the Ancient Forest Alliance released a statement calling on the provincial government to establish a B.C. park acquisition fund. The fund would be similar to the park acquisition funds of various regional districts in B.C., which are augmented by the fundraising efforts of private citizens and land trusts.

My question to the minister: has the minister explored within the estimates an option to create a mechanism that would allow public funds to purchase land, particularly old-growth land, for protection?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's important to point out that in British Columbia we have the highest percentage of land that is in parks, protected areas and conservancies across the province, a level that exceeds United Nations

[ Page 292 ]

standards.

[1650]

On Vancouver Island significant areas of old growth are protected through those processes. We have the Great Bear rainforest agreement. That was a leading agreement that protected old growth and other values in that area.

In terms of the specific request of the alliance in developing an acquisition fund, that's not currently under consideration. The Ministry of Environment, with their responsibility for parks, has a program and deals with acquisitions on a priority basis, as the fiscal plan will provide for it.

N. Macdonald: Just on inventory, to come back to inventory, in past budget figures on inventory provided by the ministry, the calculation…. We've had this discussion many times. We'll put on the record again. For the decade 1990-91 through to 2000-2001, the average spent on inventory was roughly $23.6 million which, when you adjust it to 2013 dollars, is about $33.1 million.

For the last decade, 2001-02 through to 2010-2011, the average was about what it is now — roughly $8.5 million which, when you adjust to 2013 dollars, brings you to $10.1 million, which is essentially where we're going to be next year. We also know that in the years '96-97 and '97-98, inventory budgets exceeded $40 million.

I raise this in the context of the discussion we often have. In the past the minister has talked about technology, but that really isn't what's going on. We have allowed inventory, by every measure, to slip to where it is, in many cases, not up to standards that we need. The professional association, of course, talked about a figure of $15 million as being a more appropriate one.

The question that I have…. In 2010 the ministry assumed the additional responsibility for conducting and maintaining 34 tree farm licence inventories. Would the minister please tell the House why the ministry assumed responsibility for TFL inventories and why it chose to pay for them, having cut its own budget for inventory, instead of exacting an annual levy from the TFL holders? And how much money does the ministry plan to spend on maintaining TFL inventory work this fiscal year?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member is asserting that we are not investing strategically in inventory, by referencing past expenditures. We have made the point — and we've debated it before — that just because that was what was spent before, it needs to be spent now. It does not reflect the investments and approaches in new technology.

That's why we brought forward a long-term strategic inventory plan with funding certainty in that program over the years — so that the inventory plan…. Now is the appropriate time to do it, after the mountain pine beetle has essentially started to complete its course.

Ten years, $8 million per year in the program — that's going to allow us to do the strategic inventory work. This plan was developed with a lot of consultation from key stakeholder groups, including the Association of Professional Foresters, who welcomed the plan and advised that this plan would meet the inventory needs of the province.

B. Routley: In my travels to forest-dependent communities, people asked me why forestry was excluded from the Premier's job plan. Why, indeed. Their questions commonly applied to fire-hazard abatement in the WUI, or the wildland-urban interface, to reforestation of lands disturbed by fire, to the mountain pine beetle and, also, to forest inventory work, for all of which, the opportunity for job creation is absolutely huge.

Will the minister please confirm that this government's job plan still excludes forest stewardship and continues, through inadequate stewardship expenditure as exampled in the estimates before us, to discount forest jobs in the private sector related to stewardship and forest management?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: The forest sector is a key part of the provincial jobs plan. It's a key part of what is meant to build a strong economy for the province.

That's why we're investing in the strategic inventory. That's why we're investing and have indicated, as part of our platform, future investments in silviculture. That's why we are continuing to work with the industry in partnership to build diversified markets in the province. That's why we're reviewing the operations of B.C. Timber Sales: to make sure that we get the full profile out through the B.C. Timber Sales programs, providing that additional fibre and jobs for British Columbia.

It's all about building the sector, building on the opportunities that are ahead of us in the sector. That's creating jobs for people in British Columbia, jobs for coastal communities, jobs for First Nations. That's why we've continued to build capacity for First Nations in the forest industry. It's all about building jobs and the economy.

The forest sector is a key part of the B.C. jobs plan. We're continuing to make the strategic investments in the industry that are going to help move this sector forward. So I disagree wholeheartedly with the member opposite's assertion that the forest sector is not part of the jobs plan. The sector and all of our natural resource sectors are the future for building that economy in British Columbia that's going to help us build jobs in communities throughout the province.

N. Macdonald: Well, I think most neutral observers would look at what has taken place and recognize that over the Liberals' term we've lost 30,000 jobs in this sector. We've lost over, I think the figure was…. My colleague pointed it out yesterday. Was it…? What was the

[ Page 293 ]

figure — 112, 113 manufacturing facilities?

The trend that most would look at and see is in this budget: the key part to forestry is the land base, and the decision is to take out $35 million in investment in the land base. Increasingly, what we see is the rawest of raw products sent offshore to do work that people in B.C. used to do.

But let's turn to another key element. We often think of it as something that's environmentally important, but of course it's also very important to the product that we market, which is the assertion that the forest products come from a sustainably managed forest. There are, of course, people who question whether that's an assertion that one can make.

In the most recent State of British Columbia's Forests report, 2010, the government describes sustainable forest management as the following: "Management that maintains and enhances the long-term health of forest ecosystems for the benefit of all living things while providing environmental, economic, social and cultural opportunities for present and future generations."

In that report the ministry uses a number of criteria and indicators to self-assess how sustainably it is managing forests on behalf of British Columbians. Without getting into a tremendous amount of detail, forest agencies throughout the world use two very simple indicators of sustainability. One is for the timber resource alone and is called the growth depletion rate. This is a simple ratio that looks at the amount of timber being added to the management unit versus the amount of timber being lost to things like logging, forest fires and pests.

[1705]

The ministry, in response to recommendation No. 4 in the recent Auditor General's report, stressed the importance of accurate yield projections as far as B.C.'s timber base is concerned, which is, essentially, an acknowledgement of the central importance of knowing what our growth depletion rates are.

Could the minister please tell us what performance measure the ministry now uses to report on sustainability, and how is it reported in the ministry's annual service plan report?

Hon. S. Thomson: What's important to recognize is that with respect to B.C.'s forest land base, we have the greatest percentage of our forest operations operating under forest stewardship certification — greater than any other jurisdiction. Our '13-14 to '14-15 service plans will define the provincially desired outcomes for timber.

The updated performance measure for timber volume gained from silviculture investments is linked to baseline provincial timber harvest target levels of 57 million cubic metres per year during the mid-term and 65 million cubic metres in the long term. This is based on projected provincial harvest target levels that are based on B.C.'s 22-million-hectare timber-harvesting land base and accounts for such factors as stand volumes, reforestation growth, conservation of wildlife trees, riparian reserves, water, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

N. Macdonald: The minister cites performance measure No. 7, the timber volume gained from silviculture investments. As I understand it, that's what he pointed to. That's used in the ministry's service plan as a measure of sustainability. But it's a measure, really, of timber productivity rather than sustainability, I would say, and I think most would agree. It's certainly not a measure that's recognized. Unless the minister can correct me, I don't think it's recognized as a national or international indicator of sustainability.

That's what the minister is citing. It seems to me that a lack of, really, a critical performance indicator undermines the credibility of the government and sort of the mantra of claiming that we have sustainably managed forests.

[1710]

Am I incorrect in thinking that the only point that the minister made was that performance measure 7 is the single thing that government can point to? Or are there other things that I missed in the minister's answer?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the approach to doing this is to manage for the long-term sustainability of the resource. There are a number of other performance measures that relate to that — the percentage of the regulated communities compliance with statutory requirements; the coordinated resource decision data quality index, which is a measurement around the quality of the resource monitoring data for resource stewardship decisions — but this is all about building long-term sustainable harvest levels, taking into consideration all the values.

We're confident that the programming we have in place…. We have a bit of shorter-term challenges, but we've managed for that, knowing we had the additional investment last year. We are managing for all of those values in the long term to make sure that we have a sustainable level of harvest and that it's done respecting all of the other values that are in place on the landscape.

N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, the minister…. We spent a lot of time with the committee hearing from groups, and the government has spent an awful lot of time feeding off the work that was done by previous governments. You know, they point back, in many of the certifications, to work that was done ten years ago.

I think with sustainability, as well, there's a real danger, not only environmentally but economically for the province, with the lack of work that's been done. From 2003 to 2010 the ministry reported on a quasi measure of sustainability in its annual service plan and service plan annual report. This performance measure was the ratio of area reforested to area harvested or lost to fire and pests.

[ Page 294 ]

A ratio of less than one indicated that the forest management was not sustainable.

Predictably, the ministry reported and projected targets of less than one for seven years. This reality did not agree with the fictional image of forest management that the minister's predecessor, the former MLA for the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, wished to project to the world — and I guess maybe the government as a whole wanted to project — so he scrapped that performance measure in 2010.

[1715]

The question for the minister is: what provincial government indicators and evidence can the minister point to that demonstrates that the public forests of British Columbia are sustainably managed?

Hon. S. Thomson: To go back a little bit. With reference to that specific performance measure that the member opposite was referencing, that was based on actual surveys. I think the specific measure was taken out at that point.

I wasn't here at that time, but my understanding is that it was taken out as a result of the fact that with the mountain pine beetle impact that was not a specific performance measure that could be maintained because it was based on the actual survey. It was replaced with a range of other performance measures that relate to sustainability and the sustainability measures, as I've talked about previously, but also other measures, like recovery of open forest and grassland ecosystems as a performance measure; resource decision data quality, as I mentioned; and mountain caribou herds meeting the recovery objective as another performance measure.

We have built in a number of other performance measures that relate to the overall sustainability of the resource, and we're confident that the programs that we have in place and that we're managing contribute to that in terms of a long-term sustainable resource.

B. Routley: Until 2000 the ministry reported annually, in table 4 of its annual reports, on the not-stocked status of forest land within all TSAs and TFLs. The reason the ministry used this is because the ratio of not-stocked to stocked land is a coarse indicator of sustainable forest management.

Could the minister tell us the areas of not-stocked, or NSR, forest land for the coast and for the Interior that are deemed economic and feasible to plant with tree seedlings? How much does this area differ from the comparable statistic that the minister provided during the 2012-2013 estimate debate?

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: As of June 2013 there are 698,934 hectares of NSR in the timber-harvesting land base. That includes about 564,470 hectares of recently harvested areas that are managed by tenure holders and B.C. Timber Sales as part of their ongoing basic silviculture obligation to reforest; 37,000 hectares of backlog NSR — those are the government's responsibility to manage; and about 97,000 hectares of NSR relating from wildfire, mountain pine beetle or other agents that have been identified through the field surveys. These areas are the government's responsibility to manage, but government does not have a legal obligation to reforest.

In addition, in terms of recent work, there are estimates that there could be between 600 hectares and 1.1 million hectares impacted by the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic and new wildfires that could cost-effectively be treated to improve stocking. I think that number is consistent with the work of the Forest Practices Board in estimating additional NSR lands.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for that, Minister.

The minister cited, as a measure of sustainability within the service plan, the caribou. I'll quote from the ministry's 2013-14 service plan. It has, as I say, that performance measure, which they number 5, the "Mountain Caribou herds meeting recovery objective." Let's test that as part of the discussion we're having about sustainable forests.

The number of herds attaining the recovery objective by fiscal year 2012-13 was forecast to be four. What is the actual number of herds that reached the recovery objective in 2012-2013, and has a third party independently validated the result?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: This, overall, in terms of the caribou recovery programs, as I think as the member opposite knows, is a challenging area. We have a number of programs in place to do that. We continue to work to manage both the complex areas around predator-prey impacts. We've taken a number of initiatives.

In March a major radio-collaring program was completed. We've had transplant programs in place to attempt to work with the recovery programs. I think, as members opposite know — particularly, the member for Kootenay East will know — that project was not very successful in that initiative. Our biologists continue to work with that complex relationship in working to try to move forward on the caribou recovery plans.

I think there is lots more work to do in those areas, and I think there are ongoing challenges to achieve overall success in those areas. We need to continue to work on those caribou recovery plans, but again, it's going to take some overall decisions around how we manage that in terms of the predator-prey relationships, habitat relationships, all of those. I think, on an ongoing basis, this will be a continuing challenge to meet those performance measures.

[ Page 295 ]

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. And I don't doubt the complexity. I understand the complexity of this issue. It's one that impacts the people that I represent a tremendous amount.

[1730]

Nevertheless, there were some fairly specific questions that the minister didn't answer. The question was: what is the actual number of herds that reached the recovery objective in 2012-2013, which is four, and has a third party independently validated the result?

I bring this up mainly because the government points to precious few indicators of sustainability. This is one that the minister has pointed to as evidence of sustainability, and clearly, there are issues with that.

Maybe the minister could either indicate that he can answer those two questions and provide the answers or not, and we'll move on to the next one.

Hon. S. Thomson: As we pointed out, a number of different plans and different initiatives are underway. I think, to be complete and accurate here, I would like to be able to provide that information as a follow-up response to the member opposite, because we need to….

There are specific herds in the specific plans. The overall number was four. Targets for '13-14 are nine, and I think we'll need to provide further specific detail to the member opposite in response to the question.

N. Macdonald: Mainly, I'm focusing on this because this is the area that the minister pointed to as an area that indicates how good a job the government is doing in terms of dealing with sustainability. I don't doubt the complexity.

The mountain caribou, though, is something that the ministry has committed to protecting. The mountain caribou, of course, is an emblematic animal of Canada's cordillera. It's also an animal that we all know is in trouble. In 2002 it was listed as endangered in Canada. In B.C. the B.C. conservation data centre currently lists it as threatened.

The added part of it is that 98 percent of all the world's mountain caribou are resident in B.C. So we have a particular responsibility and the government has a particular responsibility for the long-term well-being of these animals.

I think most of the efforts in recent years have focused on wolf and mountain lion population control — in particular, wolf control. But the part that is, I think, more difficult to talk about is the impact of forestry. That's the part that…. Really, I think people just want to hear what the government is actually going to do, although it's like one of these issues that, I know, for any government is a bit of an awkwa