2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Small business

M. Polak

Legal status of women in Canada

C. James

Vancouver search and rescue assistance

to victims of Hurricane Katrina

L. Mayencourt

Environmental sustainability of 2010

Olympic Winter Games construction projects

G. Robertson

Women in military service

J. McIntyre

Organ donation and transplantation

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Government response to teachers labour

dispute

C. James

Hon. M. de

Jong

J. Horgan

D. Routley

Class size and composition in education

system

G. Robertson

Hon. M. de

Jong

Hon. S. Bond

B. Ralston

Government response to teachers labour

dispute

M. Sather

Hon. M. de

Jong

Government assistance to victims of

earthquake in South Asia

H. Bains

Hon. J. Les

Monitoring of sex offender in Merritt

Area

H. Lali

Hon. W. Oppal

Petitions

B. Simpson

G. Coons

Tabling Documents

Public guardian and trustee of British

Columbia, annual report, 2004-2005

Second Reading of Bills

Southern Interior Development

Initiative Trust Act (Bill 8) (continued)

S. Hawkins

N. Macdonald

Hon. B.

Bennett

H. Lali

Hon. C. Hansen

Forests and Range Statutes Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 10)

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Northern Development Initiative Trust

Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)

B. Simpson

Hon. C. Hansen

G. Coons

C. Wyse

Reporting of Bills

Northern Development Initiative Trust

Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)

Third Reading of Bills

Northern Development Initiative Trust

Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)

Personal Statement

Monitoring of sex offender in Merritt

area

Hon. W. Oppal

Proceedings

in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community

Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues

(continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. I. Chong

S. Simpson

G. Gentner

[ Page 865 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce a new resident of my constituency. That is because the residence of the consul general of the United States is in the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena. Consul General Lewis Lukens is making his first official visit to Victoria as the U.S. representative in British Columbia, and I hope all of the House will join me in making him very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to introduce to the House today my brother-in-law, Prof. Geoff Scott from Sydney, Australia. He's the pro-vice chancellor at the University of Western Sydney. He's been working for the past month with all the universities of South Africa and four Canadian western universities on an international project aimed at improving learning and teaching in higher education I'd like everyone here in the House to make him feel welcome today.

[1405]

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure today to introduce an old friend, and an old friend of this place, my old roommate from the last term. He was a fair-to-middling roommate, a great MLA, a dynamic speaker in this House for four years and the best MLA to ever come out of Prince Rupert — Bill Belsey.

K. Conroy: It gives me real pleasure today to introduce two former colleagues of mine. Lorne Reider from White Rock is the newly appointed CEO of Community Social Service Employers Association. Paul Sibley from Kamloops is the vice-chair of the board of CSSEA. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

A. Horning: I'm pleased to introduce to this House today some special guests from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association: president Joe Sardinha and general manager Glen Lucas. These gentlemen have brought some special 2010 Okanagan apples here today to share with all the members. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like to introduce to the House a number of distinguished scientists from British Columbia: Dr. Robert Brunham, who's the medical director of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control at the University of British Columbia; Dr. Harold Coward, emeritus fellow, the University of Victoria; Dr. Carl Douglas, professor and head of the department of botany at the University of British Columbia; Dr. Douglas Horsman, who's the director of the cancer genetics laboratory and director of the hereditary cancer program at the B.C.

Cancer Agency; Steven Lund, assistant professor of genomics at the University of British Columbia; Don Riddle, chief scientific officer of Genome B.C; and Dr. Ben Koop, professor and director of the Centre for Biomedical Research at the University of Victoria.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) Mr. Speaker: Before we get started with members' statements, members, I want to remind you that yesterday we touched on the political side a little bit too far — so just a friendly reminder before we get started.

SMALL BUSINESS

M. Polak: Mr. Speaker, I will remember your comments, because today I'm pleased to rise and recognize that it is Small Business Week in British Columbia, and we have a lot to be very proud of in this province. I want to recognize the fact that small businesses throughout British Columbia are contributing so much to our communities. I want to first of all point out that B.C. small businesses contribute almost 30 percent of the province's gross domestic product, and that's the highest rate in Canada.

It would be wrong to think that businesses only contribute in a financial sort of way to our province. This past Saturday I had the privilege of attending the ninth annual Business Excellence Awards presented by the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. As one would expect, the evening was a showcase of successful Langley businesses. Langley is blessed with a strong business community, and there was no shortage of deserving nominees. The highlight of the evening was the announcement of the businessperson of the year award. The recipient, Ed Dubuc, owner of Langley Hyundai and Langley Suzuki, was recognized not only for his business success but also for his tremendous community involvement.

Along with establishing successful business ventures, Ed worked tirelessly to contribute to his community. With his family, Ed spent three years delivering meals to downtown east side Vancouver residents. He supported Langley Memorial Hospital, Kwantlen University College, Langley minor baseball, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, the Cancer Society and many more worthy organizations.

[1410]

Sadly, one week ago today Ed passed away very suddenly. His achievements in business and in life make him an exemplar of real success, and it was because of this he was presented the businessperson of the year award posthumously. Successful business people don't just add value to the bottom line. They add value to the communities in which they live and work, and I know that is something this House wants to recognize during this week where we celebrate all that small business contributes to British Columbia.

LEGAL STATUS OF WOMEN IN CANADA

C. James: Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a person. On the face of it, this statement is so obvious, so mundane

[ Page 866 ]

that it feels absurd to stand here and say that. But had I said this statement in 1927, it would have been a subject of some considerable debate. Canadian courts would have rejected that, in fact, I as a woman was also a person.

Today marks a very special day in history for Canadian women and for all Canadians. It's a day to celebrate the efforts of five courageous women. On October 18, 1929, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards won a crucial victory for women in Canada by contesting the notion that legal

definitions of "person" did not include women. It was a critical notion worth fighting because if women were not legally persons, they had no rights.

The Famous Five, as they were known, were journalists, magistrates and politicians. Their crusade of courage reached the highest level of appeals, the British Privy Court, which ultimately pronounced women persons. They asked the Supreme Court of Canada a simple question: does the word "person" in

section 24 of the British North America Act include female persons? The Supreme Court of Canada said no.

Stunned by the decision, they resolved to fight on, and they took the Persons Case to Privy Council. The Privy Council decided to answer that question, whether women qualified as persons, with another question: why would the word "person" in the BNA Act not include women? It was a commonsense response to a very straightforward question, one with profound implications for all Canadian citizens.

Today I'd like to ask everyone in this House to join me in recognizing October 18 as Persons Day in Canada, the day we mark the historic court decision and the courage of five Canadian women who won a landmark victory for all of us.

VANCOUVER SEARCH AND RESCUE

ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF

HURRICANE KATRINA

L. Mayencourt: A few weeks ago we talked a little bit about the relief efforts that had been undertaken by Canadians during Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath of the terrible events that happened there, Vancouver's heavy urban search and rescue team was asked by state officials to come down to Louisiana to help out in the recovery.

They knew they had a difficult job to do, and they knew that in many ways they were risking their own lives. But they've been preparing for this kind of eventuality for over ten years. They have over 45 highly trained professionals who are able to conduct rescue operations in a variety of challenging situations, including at collapsed-building sites and in fast-flowing water.

There were search and rescue specialists, doctors, paramedics, structural engineers, hazardous material technicians and, of course, a dog squad. We've all seen the images on our televisions — floodwaters 20 feet high in some places, families torn apart, people stranded and lost, and many had died. Knowing the gravity of the situation, the volunteer team members did not hesitate to climb on a plane when the call came through. This team was the first group of rescuers to reach the area and, in fact, remained one of the only international search and rescue teams asked to join in the Katrina efforts.

They were there to do one job, and that was to locate and rescue survivors. Working in 12-hour shifts, they had to duck gunfire and create an on-the-spot chain of command and an organizational infrastructure that would allow for an effective rescue operation.

I know their work was a success, and so do 119 other survivors of Katrina, because that's the team that found those people and brought them to safety. Those people, their families and their friends — the people of Louisiana — will be forever grateful to HUSAR.

[1415]

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

OF 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

G. Robertson: I rise to recognize the many people in my community of Vancouver-Fairview who are grappling with the impacts of construction and enduring massive changes in their neighbourhoods to accommodate the 2010 Olympics.

The RAV line construction will devastate Cambie village for years to come, affecting tens of thousands of local residents and dozens of small businesses. We may well lose many of those businesses due to the cut-and-cover construction method, which is a result of this project's private-public partnership imposed by this B.C. government, and this is unacceptable.

I want to recognize the struggles and sacrifices of the citizens and local businesses working to minimize the impacts of this construction. With construction of the Olympic facilities and parking lots at Riley and Hillcrest parks, home of the Vancouver Canadians and Little League baseball, we will see enormous change. Residents of this quiet and scenic neighbourhood are working hard to promote sensible approaches to the project, and their volunteer efforts and sacrifice warrant recognition in this House.

However, the government of B.C. has lagged a bit behind. Social responsibility means an inclusive public process for people and organizations that will be affected by significant changes. I salute the local communities for striving to give the word "sustainability" meaning on the ground for the 2010 games, and I recognize the citizens of Vancouver-Fairview for their sacrifices and gutsy efforts to help their neighbourhoods adapt to big change.

[ Page 867 ]

WOMEN IN MILITARY SERVICE

J. McIntyre: I rise in the House to report that I had the honour of emceeing a very special event in the Legislature rotunda today during Women's History Month to celebrate women's changing role in the military. We had the opportunity to hear intriguing stories from women in service — from the past, the present and those who represent tomorrow's future.

Now, according to national statistics, women comprise 16 percent of the Canadian Forces and have been in the military since 1885, when nurses first served in the Northern Rebellion. During the First and Second World Wars, women served in an increasingly greater variety of roles outside the traditional ones of nursing and administration until the trend was dramatically reversed after the peak of 50,000 women in World War II, leaving only 80 nurses in service.

I would like to take a moment to go back in history and honour the memory of my father's two elder sisters, who both served in the military in World War II in very interesting roles. One sister, Cynthia Oakley, was a captain in the CWAC — that's the Canadian Women's Army Corps — who led them into Italy after the Allied landing in 1943.

The other sister, Helen Oakley, served in the U.S. Army, in the OSS, which was the Office of Strategic Services and the forerunner of the CIA, on Bill Donovan's staff in North Africa and Rome. My family is very proud of their contributions to the war effort, and I think they really serve as true role models.

Since the '40s there was a slow recognition of women's abilities, but it wasn't until a policy review resulting from the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women that job opportunities expanded and policies were revised. By 1985, 75 percent of the trades in the forces were open to women, and women had already entered military colleges. In 1989 a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision directed that all restrictions barring women from employment in the forces be removed with one exception.

In closing, I'm pleased to report today that Canada's policy remains fixed on achieving full integration of women in the military.

ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION

K. Conroy: This week in Greater Victoria it is Organ Donation Week. The B.C. Transplant Society is working with municipalities, local businesses and organizations to get this very important message out to people in this area. However, organ donation and transplantation is more than a municipal health issue. It affects people in provincial communities throughout this province.

[1420]

Yesterday the Canadian Blood Services was here working with our colleagues who donated blood. To all of the members and staff who did donate, I thank you on behalf of those who so desperately need the blood but also on behalf of us who can't donate. Since my husband Ed was diagnosed with hepatitis C, neither I nor any of my close family members have been able to donate blood. However, we have all registered to be organ donors. As a family we have benefited — and that does seem like a rather inadequate word — from the unselfish act of an organ donor.

Many in this House followed Ed's trials and tribulations as he received his first transplant in 1996. When that liver failed and he had to get a second transplant in 1997, many of us wondered if he would make it. Well, this November will be eight years since his second transplant happened — eight years since we sat thinking he wouldn't see his younger kids graduate, his daughters get married and the birth of our four grandchildren. But these have all been witnessed by Ed, due to the selfless act of a young man and his family who gave us all a second chance.

We were supported by the incredible work of the B.C. Transplant Society. This society was established in 1986 as a comprehensive health organization and is responsible for all aspects of organ transplantation in British Columbia. Since its inception, the BCTS has supported thousands of British Columbians with life-saving organ transplants, hundreds of them in the Victoria area. Despite this, there is still a significant need, as there are more than 500 British Columbians waiting for an organ transplant. Sadly, unlike Ed, many of them will die before they get a second chance.

But there is something all of us as a compassionate society can do: educate ourselves about organ donation and register your decision to be on B.C.'s organ donor registry.

Surveys suggest that more than 80 percent of British Columbians support organ donation, yet just 13 percent have registered on the organ donor registry. I urge all residents in the Greater Victoria area and all members of this House to ensure that they're registered as an organ donor.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

C. James: More than 30 school boards from across the province have spoken out against the current education dispute. My question is for the Premier. Can he outline for school trustees and school boards from across the province, who work every day with their communities, what his government plans to do today to end this dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday in this chamber, despite a number of opportunities, the Leader of the Opposition refused to tell teachers categorically that they should return to work. In fact, outside the chamber she is reported as saying: "I'm not giving teachers direction. It's not up to me." I must confess that I asked myself why the Leader of the Opposition would refuse to make a statement that should logically flow from any

[ Page 868 ]

member of this chamber. Today we may have the answer.

Before we get further into this, will the Leader of the Opposition confirm that her party's NDP offices are being used to contribute to illegal activities in defiance of the courts?

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

C. James: Unlike the other side, we're not here to use education as a political tool; we're here to get students back to school. We're actually focused on providing leadership and ensuring that students get back to school and on listening to members of our community. School trustees are members of our community. They are calling loud and clear for this government to take some action. So I would like to ask the Premier again: what is his government doing to ensure he listens to the elected officials in our education system to get students back to school?

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the Leader of the Opposition will at least believe this. If I did not believe this principle was so important, I would not put this next statement to her.

The e-mail is dated Monday, October 10. That is after Bill 12 passed and after the Supreme Court's contempt order. It says: "Re Tuesday, October 11." It is from an organizer for the Teachers Federation. It says: "I want to thank everyone who worked so hard on Friday" — that would be October 7 — "and thought that we should divide up the roster and have single flying pickets instead of partners." It goes on: "We were wondering if a number of people could come around 11:30 to work at the later shift. We can shift times on Wednesday if someone prefers an early morning. Anybody else that would like to come and help out in the NDP office would be welcomed."

The integrity of this chamber and the integrity of our courts are in the process of being challenged, and according to this material, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia is standing side by side and contributing to that defiance of the courts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, members. Order.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Once again, what we see from the other side is fingers pointing absolutely everywhere else except at the fact that this government caused the mess that we see right now. This government will point fingers everywhere, other than accepting blame for the fact that they could have kept this dispute from escalating. They could have ensured that they sat down with teachers, worked through the challenges and ensured that they provided support for students in classrooms, which is what we should be here dealing with.

Again, I would like to ask the Premier: what actions is he personally taking today to ensure that the parties get back to the table and talk about education, talk about the issues that he said were important yesterday, so students can get back to school?

Hon. M. de Jong: When it comes to identifying and criticizing illegal actions in defiance of the court, we and I will point fingers whenever necessary and whenever there are people who are helping, aiding and abetting that illegal….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the Leader of the Opposition appreciates the seriousness of the situation. The NDP office in Courtenay located at 491 4th Street, directly below the Comox District Teachers Association, has apparently become a beehive of activity.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? We know about the political affiliations. We know about the work that the BCTF did on behalf of the NDP.…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: But, Mr. Speaker, there is a court order in place, and maybe the Leader of the Opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. Horgan: I just cannot believe that you can sit on that side of the House, Mr. Minister of Labour, and not take some responsibility for four million days of lost class time. I recall during the campaign that there were commitments from that side that not one day would be lost. My question is to the Premier: how's that going?

Hon. M. de Jong: It probably, thankfully, doesn't happen often, but every now and again in the life of an important issue, there comes a time when a party and its leader lose credibility to speak on that issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: Regrettably, we appear to have come to that point. Perhaps this member…. His leader chose to ignore some pretty disturbing facts. Maybe this member, who I'm certain is very tied in with the operations that are taking place, will advise the House what other NDP offices around the province are working in defiance of the courts.

[ Page 869 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: What appears to be clear is that there's no one on that side working on solutions for students in this province. How can the Premier sit there and speak about a golden goal of education and literacy when we reduce teacher-librarians? How can he talk, as he did yesterday, about the importance of special needs children and helping classrooms, and sit there and do nothing day after day after day?

That's seven days, Mr. Premier — seven days of inaction by you and your cabinet. When are you going to do something for the kids in this province, for the teachers and parents? That's what people want to know, not who is picking sides here. Stop the politics, and start doing your work.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's a remarkable statement that the hon. member would equate the defence of our laws, our institutions, our courts as somehow picking sides. What a remarkable thing to hear from a member of the opposition.

Look, I know it makes them uncomfortable, but his leader wouldn't do it. Maybe the member will take advantage of this opportunity and explain how it is that as a lawmaker in this chamber, in this assembly, the party he represents is out there actively participating in activities in defiance of the courts and in defiance of the law.

D. Routley: I rise as an MLA, but I also rise as a current school trustee. School boards have been left to cope with chronic underfunding, downloaded costs in the millions by this government, and now with the damaged relations with our teachers.

My own school district has called on the Education Ministry to return to full and free collective bargaining. The school district of the former Education Minister, the Vernon school district, sent a letter to the Minister of Labour, which reads: "The board of school trustees of school district 22 Vernon at the public meeting of October 4, 2005, passed a resolution to send a letter to you expressing disappointment that the process was not allowed to come to a negotiated resolution."

Your legislation will not allow BCPSEA and BCTF to find a solution. The government says it wants to hear from the partners in education. They're hearing loud and clear. My question is: why can't this government…? Why is it refusing to reconsider its confrontational approach with teachers and refusing to act now to reach a deal when there is a clear precedent to reach a deal in the middle of a job action?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is a thoughtful individual. Maybe he will tell me this. "Anyone else that would like to come and help out in the NDP office would be welcomed." He's a trustee. You tell me. What do trustees think of a political party that happens to be the official opposition in this province not only countenancing but openly encouraging illegal activity in B.C.?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Again, as a school trustee I will reply to the member opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

D. Routley: We have waited for this government to take its responsibility seriously with students and stop using them as a political football in this province. We have seen this government take a confrontational approach to teachers that was guaranteed to come to this end.

I want to know from this government, from this Premier: when will the B.C. Liberal government stand up and take its responsibility to bring peace to our classrooms and bring our kids back to classroom conditions which will support the learning that they need?

Hon. M. de Jong: If memory serves me correctly, then, this member has taken two oaths — one as a member of this chamber and one when he became a school trustee. In both cases, he accepted responsibility for enforcing and abiding by the law.

[1435]

Maybe the member again would explain to the chamber how it is he can reconcile those obligations and those oaths with clear evidence that the party he purports to represent in this chamber is in clear violation of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we want question period to continue….

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION

IN EDUCATION SYSTEM

G. Robertson: Well, rather than spending more time and energy worrying about us, why aren't they actively finding a solution to this problem? That's the beginning of my question: why aren't you actively finding a solution here?

Yesterday the Premier admitted that there might be a problem here: "We agree that there are classes that are too large, and that's not acceptable." The Premier is right. It's not acceptable. And he did it. Can the Premier tell us why it has taken over three million lost student-days to admit that class sizes are too large and that learning conditions in school classrooms are unacceptable?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I had my druthers, that's precisely what we'd be talking about. We'd be talking about it with a teachers union that is actually obeying the law.

[Applause.]

Yeah, I wish they could applaud, actually. But they're not obeying the law, and what's disturbing to-

[ Page 870 ]

day is that we discovered they're being aided and abetted by a group that also holds the responsible position of being the official opposition in this province. You know, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if this member or his leader or someone over there could stand up and in clear, categorical, unequivocal statements say to the teachers: "You are bound by the same laws as four million other British Columbians. Go back to work, and obey the Supreme Court of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: Let me remind the members opposite that we wouldn't have this situation if the government hadn't enacted Bill 12 and inflamed the situation to start with. And again, let's return to the substantive issue here of finding a solution. Yesterday the Premier also had the realization — bing! — that classes with numerous special needs students and no resources are unacceptable: "If there are examples of classes with too many special needs students for any one teacher, that's not acceptable." Well, there are many examples that we all know about, and if question period were three hours long, I would list some of them here.

Here's just one example. Since 2001-20002 the Saanich school board saw a drop in enrolment of 1.2 percent, yet in that same period special education teachers dropped by 9 percent.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

G. Robertson: That ratio just doesn't add up — does it? If education is one of the Premier's great goals….

Mr. Speaker: Member.

G. Robertson: I'm getting to my question. If the Premier has said education is one of his great goals, why are there fewer special needs teachers today in our classrooms?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it amazes me — $150 million, the largest single increase in over a decade in this province…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …which school districts are using for precisely the reasons that the members opposite continue to point out. In fact, 37 million more dollars to special education. We want to have a discussion about those classes. The member opposite is absolutely correct. We want to have that discussion. There is one fundamental issue, and even today, once again, the members opposite refuse to stand up, take their responsibility as legislators in this province seriously and join with us and ask the teachers to go back to work and end illegal job activity.

[1440]

B. Ralston: It's very evident from the responses here that the government refuses to accept any responsibility for the crisis they've created. My question is about special needs students, because that really should be the focus of what we're doing in this place today. In the Surrey school district in 1998-1999…. Enrolment for special needs students for levels one and two — levels one and two are the students whose needs require the most attention — has increased by 82 percent. That trend is predicted to increase to 107 percent by 2008-2009. In other words, it will double over the ten-year period.

The Surrey school board, the largest district by number of students in the province, warned the Minister of Education about this rising trend years ago. My question is to the Minister of Education. Given that you were advised by the largest school board in the province, why did the government go ahead and remove class size and class composition from the teachers' collective agreement, and not replace that by enshrining it in legislation with guidelines similar to those in the collective agreement to avoid putting those children at risk?

Hon. S. Bond: We actually agree with the member opposite that we want to be talking about the needs of children in this province — every child, those with unique needs and those that are more typical. That's precisely what we want to do.

In fact, we've honoured that commitment by adding $150 million to the system. In fact — and the members opposite simply can't deny it — funding in this province is at its highest level ever.

The reason we believe that discussion needs to take place with people in addition to the B.C. Teachers Federation — and I say in addition — is that we think parents and trustees have a role to play — unlike the Education critic, who said that the last thing a parent advisory committee should be doing is addressing working conditions and student outcomes. That's precisely what they should be doing as partners in education, and that's what we intend to do at the learning round table.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, clearly from the response of the minister, the minister is not prepared to accept that despite the expenditure of further money, a number of costs were downloaded upon school boards, making it impossible to carry out the mandate for special needs students had they wished to do so. Teachers understand how important class composition is, and parents understand how important class composition is. The Surrey school board, the largest school board in the province, shared that information with the minister.

So why did the minister choose to ignore the advice of the Surrey school board and not pay attention to that

[ Page 871 ]

important information and persist in her course, causing class size and class composition to rise to critical levels in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: That's precisely what we've done — in this budget year alone, $150 million more. In fact, we've seen 20 school districts, as a result of the additional funding, apply additional resources to meeting the needs of special needs students in this province.

I think it's fairly ironic that the question is coming to us about the involvement of parents in that process. Time after time after time, the Education critic on the opposite side of the House continues to imply that parents aren't an important part of that decision. That is shameful, and we're not prepared to accept that.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

M. Sather: It's clear that members opposite in this government do not want to deal with this crisis situation that we're in. Fortunately, there are other people in this province that do want to deal with it. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission and I met recently with the trustees for school district 42. By the way, for members opposite, these are not members of the New Democratic Party. They were adamant that this government act to deal with this crisis. They said that it's a matter of dignity and respect.

They wrote a letter to the Premier and said: "We are extremely disappointed with the timing of both the introduction and the passing of Bill 12, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act. It is our belief that this premature action by your government did not permit for the due process provided to the teachers under the essential services determination of the Labour Relations Board to run its natural course."

My question is for the Minister of Education, through the Speaker. Can you tell me why your government is not acting to deal with this crisis and has acted prematurely, instead of sitting down with the teachers and dealing with the issues like class size and composition?

[1445]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: his criticism, which is part of what he is obliged to do in this chamber, is only going to be accurate if he familiarizes himself accurately with the information. The contempt order that is the subject of judicial proceedings now does not relate to Bill 12. I know what the member's view of Bill 12 is. I know what the view is of people within the BCTF. The contempt order before the court relates to an order of the LRB that was registered with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

What the minister has said, what the Premier has said and what the government wants this member at least to understand is that we do want to talk. There are significant important issues that need to be talked about. But we can only do so with a party that can come to the table with clean hands, as the lawyers say, and is not disobeying the law. So when the member makes the criticism, he should at least take time to familiarize himself with the facts so he knows what we are talking about.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS

OF EARTHQUAKE IN SOUTH ASIA

H. Bains: The earthquake in South Asia has left over 41,000 dead and over three million homeless and injured. It's estimated that it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to put those survivors back on their feet again. The B.C. government pledged half a million dollars to help the survivors, but this does not even come close to our reputation in the world as the most generous and responsive nation in such events.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will she or her government agree to raise that pledge considerably more than the half a million dollars that has been pledged?

Hon. J. Les: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. First of all, let us recognize the terrible suffering that is being endured in the Kashmir region as a result of that terrible earthquake just a few days ago. We certainly empathize and sympathize with all of those victims. The government of British Columbia has contributed half a million dollars towards the relief work that is going on. That is in addition to, of course, many other contributions that are coming in from all across Canada.

For example, the province of Ontario contributed a million dollars, and there are federal efforts going on as well. We are continuing to monitor the situation, and I'm sure that other British Columbians are mobilizing, as well, to contribute to this very worthwhile relief effort.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Last week two radio stations in the community, Radio India and Shere Punjab Radio, held a radiothon and attracted children as young as four years old bringing their piggy banks to donate and seniors bringing in money out of their pensions. The community dug deep and raised $1.5 million in those three days.

My question, again, is back to this minister. Will she agree today to at least match the donations that were collected by those two radio stations?

[1450]

Hon. J. Les: Well, the first thing I want to do is recognize the community in the Surrey area and beyond for their tremendous generosity. I think that's certainly very commendable. But I want to draw the member's attention, as well, to the fact that it isn't only this particular emergency that our government has been contributing to. For example, last winter with the terrible tsunami that happened in South Asia, we contributed significant funds to that as well.

[ Page 872 ]

MONITORING OF

SEX OFFENDER IN MERRITT AREA

H. Lali: David James Caza, released into the community of Merritt last Thursday, is a sexual predator. He's got 42 convictions. He's a repeat offender who has repeatedly breached court orders and refused treatment. He's been in and out of jail on various charges, including sexual assault and other violent crimes, and has been classified as a homosexual pedophile at a high risk to offend.

His first act upon being released into Merritt was a very brazen act. He walked the entire town up and down, street by street, scoping the place. As a parent of three young children and with hundreds of other parents in Merritt in the same boat, we're afraid to let our children out of the house, even during the day. As Merritt mom Patty Taylor says, you shouldn't have to live like prisoners in your own town.

My question is for the Attorney General. What is the Attorney General doing to make sure that Caza is legally recognized as a repeat offender by the courts and that he is going to be put into an institution where he will receive court-ordered treatment?

Hon. W. Oppal: The concerns expressed by the hon. member are well placed. However, this matter is presently before the courts. My understanding is that Mr. Caza is in custody, and he is awaiting trial. In due course he will come to trial, and in due course the matter will be dealt with in court. It is no function of the Attorney General or anybody in this House to comment on the merits of the case while it is before the courts.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: The Liberal mayor of Merritt, the NDP MLA and the Conservative MP from Merritt — we're all on the same page. This is not a political issue — no intent to make it that way. It's a safety issue. It is the safety of our children that is at stake, regardless of what community this individual is in — whether he is in Kamloops or Cranbrook or Merritt.

The Solicitor General has recently been quoted in the Province as saying: "What we should be doing with fellows like Mr. Caza is locking them up and throwing away the key. It's obvious that Mr. Caza doesn't get it. He is a high risk to the public." It continues: "The best the province can do is keep close tabs on Caza through local police and through the RCMP's integrated sexual predator observation team designed to monitor him."

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General. Since the Solicitor General wants to lock up this sexual predator and have his movements monitored, and considering there is no court order to monitor Caza's movements, what's the Attorney General doing to ensure this sexual predator is monitored — whether he is in Cranbrook, Merritt, Kamloops or elsewhere?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll reiterate what I said earlier. That is that the matter is before the courts, and the process will take place. The courts will deal with it in due course.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Simpson: I would like to table a petition in the House, a petition of protest against the Terasen Gas sale to Kinder Morgan. There are 1,400-plus here, and they've all been copied to the Minister of Energy as well.

G. Coons: I would also like to table a petition in the House from concerned citizens in Prince Rupert in support of public education, who urge the government to set aside Bill 12 and to begin meaningful negotiations with teachers and put in place a collective agreement that addresses both working and learning conditions and the salary of teachers.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the 2004-2005 annual report of the public guardian and trustee of British Columbia.

[1455]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 8 and in the Committee A room, continued estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Community Services.

Second Reading of Bills

SOUTHERN INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT

INITIATIVE TRUST ACT

(continued)

S. Hawkins: I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 8. I want to join my colleagues from the southern interior region to support this very important

[ Page 873 ]

initiative. I am very excited about the $50 million Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. I want to acknowledge all the hard work of the minister, and I want to thank the Premier and our government for following through on this very important promise.

I know my region and my community are already looking at the possibilities, the probabilities and the opportunities that this fund might present. I can tell you quite clearly that there is really a growing recognition in my region of the fact that the fund will only be as effective as the partnerships we build and the projects we take on collectively in our regional partnerships.

In the past year or so — probably two years — the Okanagan has done just an incredible job creating Okanagan Partnerships, a collective of industry and sectors big and small across the region. Each participating sector has identified not only the assets and the needs for this sector to grow but also the opportunities that are there to be captured. We are ready, and this fund will certainly help us get on our way.

I'm sure you have often heard it quoted that there are 50 ways to leave your lover. Well, I'm sure I can safely say there are going to probably be 50 million ways to spend this fund. But in keeping with our government's commitment, it will be the southern interior region, not the government, that will decide where this money will be invested, how this money will be spent and what opportunities will be funded. It will be our region that will make the decisions for our residents, our projects and our future.

Bill 8 creates a $50 million trust for the southern interior, for the communities, to help them create new economic growth for more jobs. I can tell you that we've got more jobs than workers right now, and I'm really happy to have that problem in the Okanagan. So make it grow.

This bill enables the southern interior trust to operate independently of government. I think that is really important. It requires the trust to report publicly to the residents of the region. It establishes trusts with regional advisory committees, and a board that is going to manage and administrate a regional account to support investment in the areas that are listed in the bill. Frankly, they cover just about all the areas that our region is interested in.

There's forestry; transportation; tourism; mining; obviously Olympic opportunities — and I know my community is happy to share in those; small business opportunities; economic development; energy; agriculture, including our wineries and our fruit growers.

This legislation is really about giving our communities the resources and the tools that they want to pursue for their priorities. I think that is important — that they will have the control over how this money is going to be invested, how this money is going to be doled out and spent. They will identify those opportunities. I really think that's important because we've always said — in our government, anyway — we believe that decision-making should be more responsive to local needs, and this fund really creates that kind of initiative.

[1500]

I just want to outline four points. I'm going to speak very shortly on this. In general, the government really has made it a priority, I believe, to help all regions of the province. We saw a Vancouver Island fund; we saw a northern development fund. We are very happy to join in that legacy of now having a southern interior fund, because it really is going to help our economy in our region.

The trust will give, as I said, our communities, including the first nations, the funding, the control and the ability to identify and pursue new opportunities — new opportunities, I think, for sustainable economic growth and job creation because that is really what we are looking at in our region. We don't want just overnight businesses. We want stuff there; we want a legacy for our kids. We want opportunities that are going to grow and be there for generations.

This is exciting. This fund is an exciting thing to happen because it makes people think, it makes people dream, and it makes people hope that they can finally bring some of the things they've been working on to fruition in our region. I think that's important.

I've heard members talking about communities that have projects. They come to government, and somehow it just doesn't fit into the government's priorities or the government's criteria. This is about a region being able to create its own incentives and its own criteria. Really, as I said before, the fund is going to be as effective as the partnerships it can create to help build that fund, grow that fund and invest that fund. I can tell you that my region — talking to people across the Okanagan, anyway — is very excited about getting involved in this.

I think it's going to be great for businesses, for families, for developing sectors in our region. Really, the investment is going to create, I believe, a very prosperous southern interior, a very exciting place to live, with some of the things our government has already done for our region. You know, in the last year we now have University of British Columbia and Okanagan College there. Having this kind of fund and those kinds of partners in secondary education is very exciting for us, because it brings other opportunities from around the world when you have a world-class university sitting right in the middle of your region. So I think that's very, very exciting.

I do want to say to the minister, the Premier and to the government that I am very appreciative of this. My community is looking forward to getting involved in this. I support the bill, and I wish the minister would get on with it. We are very excited about this.

N. Macdonald: With Bill 8, the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act…. This is one that I'll agree with in principle, as I think all members will. Fifty million dollars to support economic development activities is always going to be welcome. As a mayor, I worked to put resources into economic development, and I've seen it work. I know it can work.

[ Page 874 ]

The structure within the bill recognizes local government, and I appreciate that. I think that's the right way to go. Interim directorships are mayors from the Kootenays and Thompson and Okanagan, and the permanent structure, as well, looks well-thought-through. The structure does not appear to include first nations. There must be first nations representation. It must be guaranteed in the act, and that's a discussion we can have when we come to the committee stage.

This remains, however, simply a stopgap action. There has been a fundamental shift in the province's interaction with the interior. There has been a fundamental shift in the way that services are provided by the province, and I'll just talk about those for a few minutes, just to explain some of the things that I think will need to follow this bill. As I say, it's simply stopgap.

[1505]

In terms of courthouses, the area that I represent used to have four of them. Three of them have been sold by the province. Family services, health care, seniors' support, women's support, forestry with offices closed; education, eight schools closed.

My point is that in the last four years, there has been a fundamental shift, and it has hit smaller rural communities very hard. There are some that represent regional centres, and I think they are perhaps less impacted. Certainly in the area that I represent, the province has drawn away from providing services that are needed and have been provided for a long time. That has changed.

I think we also need to recognize that there's been a shift in the way we tax — in the way we collect tax and who pays for these services. The province has reduced personal income tax. I think most would accept that that has benefited, in particular, the wealthy. There have been cuts to the corporate tax rates.

Now, very often what will look like a tax cut will appear as a tax shift to those that are impacted, and I speak for a part of the province that has very definitely felt that it is a tax shift that has taken place. I'll give you an example. The community that I was mayor of, and one of many of the communities that I represent, lives along a river. The river needs diking. In the past the province would put up 75 percent of the money for the diking. Now it does not do so. These communities are still going to build dikes. The only difference is that the money is going to come from a different pot.

In this case it is going to come from municipal property owners. Whether they're business- or homeowners, they are going to pay for something that previously came from the province.

If you look at policing for communities under 5,000, it's very much the same thing. There's still going to be policing. Previously it was paid for provincially; now it is going to be paid for locally. As well, when certain facilities were closed, the community still felt the need for that service. For instance, in Kimberley, you know that the province closed the hospital. What you might not know is that the community purchased it. So to keep it there, they tried to purchase it.

In Invermere and Revelstoke the courthouses closed. The community uses the tax that it generates from homeowners and from businesses to buy the courthouse. If the province is going to remove services from rural areas, then very often the communities find that they have to provide these services for themselves. How that happens needs consideration beyond this bill.

I'll give you an example. We can use hydro as an example. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about the moneys that forestry generates. There are other examples, as well, with mining. If you look at Revelstoke…. It produces, through the two dams that sit above it, the energy to give electricity to 1.7 million homes every day. So when turbines are added to both Mica and Revelstoke dams, the benefit to the whole province is going to increase even more. What you have is a huge benefit to the economies, to the social structure of all of British Columbia.

The benefits that accrued to the community that lives close to the dam are these. For the ten years of the construction, especially with Revelstoke Dam, there was a tremendous number of jobs. They were good jobs, but they lasted for the ten years. The flip side of it is the impact of these developments, and with hydro, the impacts are there.

Revelstoke, of course, like all of the riding, shares the benefits of a relatively inexpensive hydroelectric energy, but it is not even up to the standard that you would get in the lower mainland. Last Valentine's my wife and I had the chance to go to a restaurant, and it was a wonderful dinner. It was very dark, and the restaurant was depending upon candles. Normally you would have that for Valentine's anyway, and it was nice, but the fact was that all of the community was without electricity. It happens once or maybe twice a year.

[1510]

The reason is that the system is not looped, so if the line is cut anywhere from Kimberley all the way up, then we don't have power — okay? So it is not even the service level that you would expect within Vancouver. The area that produces the electricity does not get any better service than any other part of the province and perhaps slightly worse.

Let's look at other impacts. The Mica was built in the 1970s. It floods massive areas of previously forested valley. The implications for the communities close to Mica are that forestry, which is a very important industry — and, done properly, one that can go on indefinitely — is limited. This is forest land. It's at the bottom of the valley, and it is prime forest land for the industry. Communities, not only in Revelstoke but in Golden, would benefit from the jobs that that would provide.

You also have the fact that the forestry that exists is limited by the reservoir, because these are reservoirs. So you have Mica — almost 200 kilometres of forest valley floor flooded. You have the loss of the land for forestry. You have the limitations in the forestry that you're going to do, because with the forest floor elimi-

[ Page 875 ]

nated, the valley floor flooded, you have people forced to go and build roads along the side of the reservoir and access the forests — the timber that's there — in a very roundabout way. You also have Revelstoke Dam, built in 1984. It is within city limits. It also floods 200 kilometres of forest floor.

The reservoirs. The Revelstoke reservoir is somewhat balanced in terms of how much fluctuation there is, but at the Mica reservoir the fluctuation is incredible. So as a tourist site, it is not particularly useful, and there is a constant problem with the amount of debris that comes into the area.

So what we have, then, just using hydro as an example, is a region that has contributed enormously to the provincial benefit in providing power and in helping a number of industries. You do not have anything flowing back to the community beyond some grants, and I think the grants are in the range of around $2 million per year. For the amount that is generated, it is very little that flows back into the community.

My main point is this. This bill is something I will support. It is $50 million that is coming into the communities, but overall, we need to do much more thinking about how we develop a new relationship between the province, the provincial government and local regions. There has to be a way for the local regions to get more systematic control of the resources that generate wealth for the whole province. That's something that needs to be given a lot more thought. It's something that I would look for this government to do in the time that is ahead. It is certainly, as a caucus, something that we on the NDP side will put effort into.

So I speak in favour of Bill 8 in principle. I reiterate that I see it as stopgap. I see inequities between what the province collects from our region and what the province gives back, and those inequities have become far greater in the last four years. I thank the Legislature for listening.

[1515]

Another example could be with forestry. Within forestry you generate a tremendous amount of money in stumpage. You're taking the resource and extracting a tremendous amount of value from it with hydro, without properly putting back the resources to the communities.

Just to finish off again, Bill 8 is something I support — stopgap. There is a need for far more thought around how we're going to have a more equitable sharing of the resources and a more equitable way of providing local governments with providing the services that have been removed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank for their attention those on the opposite side.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm up on my feet to support this bill, but the previous speaker did say something that I feel obligated to respond to. He is a member that clearly cares a lot about his constituents and about the province. I don't say this with any disrespect, but I do want to disagree with the member, who said that our tax cuts were only for the rich. Actually, you know — and I think we need to keep saying this — we have the two lowest tax brackets in the province. We have the lowest rate of tax in all of Canada. So it's actually low-income people that receive the greatest relative benefit in our tax cuts.

I also want to just inform the member, because he clearly doesn't know this, that we reduced MSP premiums for low-income British Columbians. We also reduced our Pharmacare costs for low-income British Columbians. We increased our disability benefits for those folks who need that, and we have thousands of people working in the province who were once on welfare not that many years ago.

Although I wouldn't sweep away all the criticisms in the member's speech or other opposition speeches, I do think that we need to have that balance.

Hon. B. Penner: There's the Kicking Horse Canyon project.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member from Chilliwack reminds me that there is the Kicking Horse Canyon project, which I believe is a multiple-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars project in the member's riding, which I'm sure he's very excited about. I see him and hear him clapping over there.

But I do want to speak in support of the specific legislation. I disagree with the member for Cariboo North that $50 million is "not much money." I think it's quite a bit of money. In fact, it's about Z\z/, I think, of what was spent on the fast ferries. I think it's a lot of money. I also don't agree with my colleague for Nelson-Creston that this money will be…. I don't want to get this wrong, because I enjoyed his speech, and there are a lot of things he said that I agree with. It's not going to be dissipated.

I think we will give local people an opportunity to decide how that money will be invested, and "invested" is the key word here. I certainly don't think it's our intention as a government — certainly not the minister's intention — to put $50 million into a bucket and hand it over to the region and say: "Go for it. Get it out of there as quickly as you can."

The idea is that we'll gather together, as the member said — you see, I read your speech very carefully — some smart people. They will decide along with us, incidentally, how that money should be invested. I think it can have long-term benefits, and I actually have trust in the people of the region that they will invest it so that we do get those long-term benefits.

I wanted to make a point of getting up today because it is an opportunity to talk about rural British Columbia, and it's an opportunity for us rural guys to get our licks in. We don't get that many opportunities — even those of us in government, even those of us who are members of the executive branch — to get our licks in. There are just not that many of us anymore because the province has changed. The country has changed. Most people have moved from the country to the city.

[ Page 876 ]

There is something, I agree, that is fundamentally dysfunctional about the model. It's a 100-year-old model that we have in this province. I don't know what the answers are, but I know that when I drive through a community that's actually not in my riding…. It's in the riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke. It's the community of Kimberley. When I go to the ski hills, sometimes I think, when I pass all the fairly modest houses in that community…. I think to myself: there was a mine there for a hundred years, and we pulled $20 billion out of that mine. I wonder sometimes: where did it all go?

[1520]

That is a community that I think is a model, actually, for resource communities in transition. They had a mayor there, Mr. Ogilvie, for many, many years. In fact, I believe he's seeking re-election. I won't take a position on that, but he did a great job of trying to prepare that community for the day when that mine would close. He had the community get involved in golf resorts and ski resorts. I think they did probably a better job than a lot of resource communities do when the mine or the mill is coming to the end of the road. Still, you go through that community and — $20 billion, 100 years later — you ask yourself: where did it all go?

I would share in some of the comments made by other rural members — that it's difficult when you throw a bunch of money at rural regions, especially when you throw it at big regions like the Okanagan and the Kootenays. We do suffer from a certain amount of parochialism in rural B.C. I know that Kimberley often expresses its distaste for the city of Cranbrook and vice versa and that Fernie regularly expresses its distaste for the city of Cranbrook. The differences of view and the almost hatred that exists between the three big communities in the West Kootenay is legendary.

I remember, in the last term, hearing some of my colleagues discuss the issue of where the regional hospital should be located, so I'm kind of familiar with some of those challenges that come from parochialism. But I think that despite the fact that we have that history in rural B.C. — and I'm sure that that history is common to all rural areas of probably the world — I still have confidence. I have faith in the people who live out in the rural regions that they will be able to take up this challenge and take this money and invest it wisely in a way that will pay dividends not only to our children and grandchildren but to our great-grandchildren and thereafter.

I did want to get on the record. That's all I've really got to say. I wanted to say that I think the trust is an innovative approach, despite what some members have said, to get some assistance out to communities that want to diversify their economy. There are no strings attached to it. I think that is one of the strongest features of this legislation and of this initiative. We're not telling rural regions how to spend the money, so it really is up to them as to whether they make the most of the opportunity or not.

I don't share the view that it's even subject to partisanship. In fact, people may not realize this, but I'm the only Liberal MLA in the Kootenays. The other three MLAs happen to be opposition MLAs, and my understanding of how this process is going to work is that they'll get an opportunity to be involved in this and to express their view. So actually, I'm going to be outnumbered — which I'm a little concerned about, to be honest — because I have a lot of respect for my three colleagues from the West Kootenay and Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I am very pleased just to wrap it up here. I'm very pleased that the member for Nelson-Creston expressed his support for capitalism. I've read him wrong all these years. He said that he recognizes how investment drives the economy, and that's great. That's great stuff, so I know that we can count on the member for support in the future for our policies that will further increase confidence — investment confidence.

You know, in the Kootenays we've got an unemployment rate of between 4 and 5 percent, but the real estate rates are going up. Everything really is going pretty darned well. I mean, you can always find things that you want to find fault with. There are always things that are not going perfectly, but if you look at the last, say, 30 years in the Kootenays, we're doing really, really well. We don't take all the credit for that on this side. We really don't. But we take some of it; we take some of it.

We inherited what we think was a heck of a mess in 2001, and we had to do some tough stuff, and it wasn't a lot of fun. In fact, it was no fun — that part of it — but we did it because we believed it was the right thing to do.

[1525]

Things have turned around, and we've had a little bit of assistance from commodity prices, and I think somebody else over there said interest rates. That's probably had something to do with it, but they had those things in the 1990s too. But I won't go there today. That's not why I'm on my feet here today.

I do want to support the legislation. I'm way off my notes. I have no idea where I'm at, so I will close there. Thank you for the opportunity.

H. Lali: The hon. member for East Kootenay who just spoke before me mentioned that he is outnumbered by New Democrat MLAs in the Kootenays 3 to 1. Well, I've got him beat, because in the Thompson-Okanagan I'm outnumbered by the Liberal MLAs 8 to 1. So my job, in terms of holding the government to task, is a little tougher than the hon. member's over there, who is talking about the East Kootenay. But I can relate, anyway, and we will hold the government to task.

I rise on this occasion to talk on the bill before the House for the southern interior development initiative, and obviously, while I'm talking about that, I will say a few words about the northern development initiative as well. I also happen to be the only member in the House, I think, who gets to sit on two trusts, because Yale-Lillooet…. As you know, the trusts are divided

[ Page 877 ]

per constituencies. The northern half of my constituency is in the NDI, and the southern half will be in the SIDIT. I guess that's what they're calling it: SIDIT.

L. Krog: Double-dipping.

H. Lali: Double-dipping, as the hon. member says. That's correct. My constituents are allowed to double-dip, and they're allowed to do it in a legal manner.

It's good that the government has put forward this fund to help constituents all throughout rural British Columbia, basically, outside of Victoria and Vancouver. This is something that's long overdue. When I was a member of a previous caucus in government and also in cabinet, I actually lobbied for this exact sort of thing to take place at that time. As you know, we kind of ran out of time in the late 1990s there.

But I also have some concerns that I want to express and put forward on the record. As so many members before have said about what this is all about in terms of economic development, rural British Columbia has been really hit devastatingly hard by the social and economic policies of this Liberal government since the year 2001.

With the exception of a few pockets, perhaps, like Kelowna and other communities that are of a sizable nature, every small town and every rural area in British Columbia has been devastated, not only by the pine beetle infestation that's taking place but also by the policies of this government, the failed policies to deal effectively with the pine beetle and, at the same time, with the social and economic problems that rural British Columbia faces.

As a matter of fact, all of those huge cuts that the Liberals administered over a four-year period have actually really devastated the economy of rural British Columbia.

How this fund actually came about, as you know, is this secret deal that the Premier and the Liberals made in selling off B.C. Rail to CN, the privatization of B.C. Rail. The proceeds from that…. I guess it must have been a guilty conscience on the part of the government, who said: "Well, look, here we are selling off this prime asset that the people of British Columbia own, and now we've got this pot of money that's coming in from CN. I guess we'd better throw a few of the crumpets back to the people of rural B.C." That's why the NDI first came out.

It was supposed to be a way to alleviate the negative economic consequences of B.C. Rail now being looked after, administered and owned by a company that's 50-percent owned by Americans. It's guilt money that has flowed from that situation.

Nonetheless, it is designed to do some good things, and I will talk about that in a minute. I've already talked about the regional disparity a little bit — how rural British Columbia has been suffering under the rule of the Liberal government over the last four years, especially in a constituency like Yale-Lillooet where we have 56 small communities, which includes 27 aboriginal bands. And there are seven municipalities and also about another six or seven sizable communities that don't have any kind of municipal government but are under the auspices of regional districts.

[1530]

So obviously, it was rural British Columbia that really got hit in a big way, and the economy is suffering in terms of economic development. People are looking for the government to actually come in and help the private sector, to prop the private sector to make sure that the population of those small communities does not continue to go to other outlying areas, like the Okanagan or Kamloops or the lower mainland.

Hospitals have been closed, and schools have been closed in record numbers in Yale-Lillooet. As well, the forestry policies of this government have favoured big business, but the small operators are all suffering because they can't get enough wood. Obviously, the pine beetle, which has been really big in central British Columbia and the north, has been ever steadily increasing its presence over the number of years into the southern interior, which is going to be the next big area for devastation, if it hasn't already begun.

All of those cuts to government ministries are pulling out of offices, whether they were government agent offices, probation services, schools or hospitals, forestry offices, environment offices, highways offices…. You name it; they've pulled it out of Yale-Lillooet and the southern interior, as indeed happened in small towns of northern British Columbia and the northern Island as well. The result has been economic devastation in that neck of the woods.

I know that during the last election in May the Premier and the Liberal Party made a number of promises that they were going to actually institute a fund for areas of rural B.C., including putting extra money into the NDIT and also creating the northern island development initiative and the southern interior development initiative. Both of those were coming right out of the promises that were made by the Premier.

I want to put forward on the record that the three pots of $50 million now that are in each one of these trusts that is going in…. This actually falls short of what the NDP had said during the election as well. The NDP platform had contained a similar proposal: $200 million, which was actually one-half of the '05-06 forecast allowance for all regions outside of Victoria and the lower mainland for economic development initiatives in the '05-06 budget year.

The NDP platform also committed additional funding in years to come, as the commitment was tied to the budget's forecast allowance, specifically one-half of the annual forecast allowed. Note that the updated September budget reduced the forecast allowance to $300 million from $400 million. So although they have not presented it in this context, the Liberal government has committed one-half of the forecast allowance.

What I want to also point out is that where our position really differs from that of the Liberals is that the Liberals are putting in this one-shot deal. You get this one chance, and that's it. There's no continuity in terms of providing for economic development funding for rural British Columbia,

whereas the NDP position was to do it on a yearly basis and not just a one-off one year.

[ Page 878 ]

I just want to talk a little bit about the northern development initiative. I found out after I got elected that I automatically get to sit on one of the RACs, regional advisory committees, of NDIT, specifically the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet region of the four regions that form the NDIT.

We found out, even though the hon. member — and he probably said this in his naivety…. The hon. member for East Kootenay said this, and I'm paraphrasing. I tried to write it as quickly as he was speaking, but he said that this is not a bucket of money given to them — "them" meaning local areas and municipalities — to shovel out.

But unfortunately, when the NDIT trust fund was created, it was done in a really hurried, haphazard fashion because they wanted to meet their electoral cycle guidelines, as opposed to actually setting in place some legitimate guidelines for municipalities, the folks from the municipalities and the regional districts who sat on these RACs and some of them who sat on the board as well.

[1535]

I also want to put on the record that my comments should not in any way be construed as trying to say something negative about those local officials. I believe that the local officials are honest people. They're trying to do an honest job. They're only going to work with the criteria or the guidelines that were put forward to them by the government. In my opinion, the government in a number of instances kind of left those local officials to hang out to dry.

I'll give you an example. There was no public accountability put into place. There is going to be some now in the two new trusts, and the new guidelines are going to apply to the NDIT as well. But the fact of the matter still remains: there was no accountability mechanism. First of all, you had this NDIT covering three-quarters of British Columbia from, basically, Merritt north, excluding Merritt and the Island, and it was broken off into four regions. There was the Peace region, the Prince George region, the northwest region and the CCL — the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet region. Then that, of course, was broken off into subregions.

So basically the applications, and it was a one-page application with four sets of criteria…. I imagine there might have been 13 or 14 pages. These proposals were really coming forward in an ad hoc sort of manner, and then it was up to…. If it was the village of Lillooet, for instance, in my riding — I'll use that as an example — or the village of Cache Creek, which is in the Cariboo South riding….

The applications that came forward to those particular villages were to be judged by the administrator or the town clerk for those particular municipalities, and then the recommendations were to come from the subregion to the region, and then from there on to the board, and the board would make the final determination. So there were a number of steps where there were no people put into place. It sort of reminded you of the HRDC scandal that took place a few years back. They had the makings of that.

The push was to push this money out as quickly as possible. Of course, it didn't really meet the Premier's electoral cycle in May, but then it was the next cycle, which was the municipal cycle. I don't blame the municipal officials at all, because they didn't have those accountability measures given to them. They didn't have those guidelines or any detailed guidelines given to them. There was no staffing really put into place in Prince George at the head office where all of these hundreds and hundreds of applications actually could be filtered through and judged against the criteria.

At our first meeting the members for Cariboo North, Cariboo South and I, all New Democrats…. We happened to be on the CCL region of the NDI trust. It became really apparent to us within — we were there for about a four- or five-hour meeting — the first hour that there was something fundamentally wrong here. So I raised the issue about accountability, and my cohorts from Cariboo North and Cariboo South also joined.

All three of us raised the issue about accountability and how we didn't feel that it was appropriate for members from senior levels of government, from the Legislature, to be sitting in on these meetings where, without any kind of an accountability measure put into place, we would be recommending these grants for approval. It was really difficult.

We raised that issue. We wrote letters to the chair of the board and also to the CCL RAC chair, saying that we had some concerns dealing with that. I'm happy to say that in Bills 6, 7 and 8 the $50 million each that is going out has taken into consideration the comments that the three members of the opposition were able to raise on the CCL region. It was done only after members of the opposition raised it, and it's a good thing. I want to congratulate the government on that, because otherwise it had the makings of an HRDC scandal if it was not done. That's exactly what happened at the federal level with the HRDC.

When Mr. Chrétien fired about 50,000 civil servants across the province, a big chunk of those came from HRDC at the ground level in communities all throughout Canada.

[1540]

That's why for about two months they didn't know where the $2 billion went, because there were no people at the ground level who were able to look at those applications or even to provide the information back to headquarters that this was what was going on.

The Premier and the government should be thankful that the three New Democrats who were sitting on this RAC were able to flag this issue and prevent the Premier from getting into that kind of a scandal that Mr. Chrétien got in. He should be thankful. He should be thanking the NDP opposition for actually saving his skin on that particular issue.

Another concern that I've got is the fact that this is not subject to FOI — freedom of information. There's a big chunk of money that the government of British Columbia controls as a result of the B.C. Rail sale.

An Hon. Member: Transparency.

H. Lali: Transparency. There has to be transparency. The member for East Kootenay said it's not a way

[ Page 879 ]

we're just shovelling out the money from the back of a pickup — or implied that. This is not what we're doing. But in one sense, when there is no transparency, how do we debate that in the House? How do we debate that if it's not subject to FOI? How do we do that? It has to be a mechanism. It has to be brought under freedom of information.

You're looking at a pot of, I think…. A total that's been given out is about $237 million. That's a huge chunk of money. That's a quarter of a billion dollars with no transparency. It's not FOIable, and it should be. You know, this is the purview of the provincial government. They are responsible for that $237 million — a quarter of a billion dollars — and they've sort of pushed that out without any measure of visibility there.

Now, of the $50 million with the southern interior development initiative trust fund, there's $30 million for the pine beetle fund that's in there. Again, that's good that the $30 million is going to be in there, but the fact of the matter is that you have this….

Interjection.

H. Lali: Well, I think my time is up. The hon. member is…. No, it's not.

Hon. member, don't confuse me like that. I'm rolling here, so just give me a moment. I'm just about finished.

An Hon. Member: Just getting started.

H. Lali: Just getting started.

So the pine beetle fund is in small pockets in different ministries now. How do we administer it? How is that going to affect the deliverability in terms of dealing with the pine beetle? It's a billion-dollar solution, and you've got, basically, the government coming up with these small pockets of funds, and it doesn't even match the fund that the federal government wants to put forward.

There are a number of other inconsistencies as well, and I won't go into all of them. It's these inconsistencies across the regions with respect to the regional committee guidelines and procedures. For example, some regional committees are prohibiting MLAs from voting while others are not. We're allowed a vote on our RAC. Now, I'll probably sit on one of the RACs for the southern interior development region, and I'm just sort of wondering: will I be allowed to vote there or not? So you've got one MLA allowed to vote in one area, and in another area, he's not allowed to, possibly.

So we're waiting for those guidelines to come out, and I think the government has got to make those guidelines consistent throughout all of the regions. You can't have some MLAs voting while some can't vote. It has to happen where all MLAs are really treated equally.

The last item I want to put on the record, because I have to be in the little House pretty quickly, is in terms of aboriginal participation. Now, there was a small fund. I think it was $15 million. I stand to be corrected. I know the minister's across the way. He can nod if it was $15 million. I think it was. That was for the aboriginal peoples, the first nations that were along the route of the B.C. Rail who felt they were going to be negatively affected, and that dealt with them. I think there are about 28, 29 bands.

In British Columbia there are over 200 bands there, and probably in the area north of Merritt, there's got to be closer to about 170, 175 bands. So you've got all of these aboriginal first nations who are saying: "Well, regional districts are getting their funds." The first nations along the rail line have got a small pot of funds. Municipalities are getting a thought…. Applications and proposals could come forward from the public and the private entities as well. Those aboriginal people, about 150 bands, are saying: "Well, where are the economic development moneys for us?" It's almost like they're going to be an afterthought, if they are indeed going to be looked after. But they're not.

[1545]

I think this is grotesquely unfair — that you have another level of government in British Columbia that is not going to get access to these funds. I think government seriously has to look at that to make sure that our first nations citizens who live in British Columbia — the first nations of this province — should have an equal right to the fruits of this province as well, and not just the municipal, the regional and those bands that are along the rail line.

This is a serious flaw. I don't know if it was done on purpose or was an oversight by the government, but it has to be corrected so that those aboriginal people who don't live along the BCR line, who haven't had access to this fund, are able to get access to this fund or a fund that would be set up specifically for those bands as well, because I think it's discriminatory in the way that it has been done. It has to be dealt with. I know in my constituency I've got 27 first nations bands, more than any other constituency, and they're all crying foul.

So on behalf of all of those aboriginal residents in my riding, I'm putting this on the record for the government to consider. They should seriously either let aboriginal people have access to these funds as well or set up a fund separately for them so they can enjoy equal rights just like every other citizen who does in rural British Columbia.

I've spoken at length. I think I've gone a few minutes over what I said I was going to, but I thank you for the opportunity.

Again, I have some concerns as I put them on the table. Overall, I want to state that this is a good thing that the Premier and the Liberal government have put forward. This is something that the New Democrats, when we were in government for a number of years, for ten years, had protected rural British Columbia from the kind of massive cuts that the Liberal government actually brought forward in the last four years.

Now I think this is some way that the Liberal government is trying to make up for it. I know my friend

[ Page 880 ]

from Peace River South is sort of smiling in agreement with what I have to say.

Having said that, thank you very much, and I will listen to the rest of the debate by the hon. members opposite as well.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you and just so that…. I apologize to the member for Yale-Lillooet. I didn't mean to interrupt him when he was on a roll, particularly when he was praising our government. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Mayencourt: I have two very good friends that I greatly honour from my community here in the gallery today. They are Teri Nicholas and Renata

Aebi, and they have joined us from Vancouver. These two ladies are responsible for building the integrated youth services building in my riding. It's a phenomenal addition to youth services in our community and they deserve great praise for it. It's been a pleasure working with them on that project. So would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Economic Development closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: Thank you very much, and I think there are some common threads that have been woven through members' comments on the second reading of these three bills that are before us — Bills 6, 7 and 8, all of which establish regional trusts in the province or, in the case of the northern development initiative, add an additional $50 million to that particular trust.

There are a lot of specific questions that have come up and issues by various members that have spoken on these bills, and I think they're probably best dealt with when we get into committee stage. I'll be pleased to try to give them the fullest answers possible.

I think the one theme that comes through is a recognition that these pieces of legislation are really a great initiative to provide financial resources to communities so that decisions can be made on a local and regional level about the economic future and economic opportunities in those regions.

[1550]

But I would like to make one appeal to individual MLAs who are from these regions of the province, and it is this. I believe that the greatest outcome of these trusts will be some of the big issues, some of the big regional issues, not so much the community-by-community issues where one community may want a particular project and another community may want another little project, but rather that these funds be used as an opportunity to create some strategic, economic, dynamic opportunities that are bigger than just the individual communities.

I know there may be a temptation to say: "Let's take this allocation of money, and let's just divide it up according to population. Let's let the town councils in each of these communities decide how they would like to spend their per-capita contribution."

Quite frankly, if they decide to do that, that is their right, because it is not for us as the provincial government to tell these trusts how they should spend their money. The best I can do is ask this of the MLAs who are going to be sitting on the regional advisory committees, MLAs from both opposition and the government party: that they do their best at that regional advisory committee level to try to try to seize on the opportunities that are long term, that are strategic.

I believe that if everybody looks at their challenge, as a member of either the trust itself or as a member of the advisory committees, we can truly make some new miracles happen with these financial resources that are being put at the disposal of these regions throughout the province.

With that, I look forward to committee stage.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 10.

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTESAMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 10 be read a second time now.

Bill 10 proposes amendments to a number of forest statutes which will enable this government to continue the implementation of the forest revitalization plan. The plan was aimed at restoring the strength of the forest industry. We took steps to improve the competitive position of our industry, steps to improve the stability of the communities that depend on the industry and steps to ensure the environmental protection and sustainability of forest and range values.

There is still a lot of work to do. There are challenges facing forestry in British Columbia. Many of them do not relate to legislation but rather to world markets: how we deliver the fibre, how we price it, how we operate as a government and as a ministry; and how our companies will adjust in the future to what is seen by many people in world markets as an adjustment necessary in forestry worldwide.

[ Page 881 ]

The amendments are consistent with this plan. Although minor in nature, they will ensure some clarity. The 2003 Forestry Revitalization Act contained a

schedule setting out which licences would be impacted and which of these licences were subject to reallocation. The

schedule was up to date as of March 31, 2003. Changes in ownership of the licences requires an update to the

schedule in order to carry out the final steps of the reallocation process. The amendment would allow us to update the

schedule to reflect these changes.

Specifically, at the time of legislation, tree farm licence 46, which we refer to as a TFL, was held by TFL Forest Ltd. of the TimberWest group. That licence is now held by Teal Cedar. The

schedule must be updated to reflect this in order that the ministry's order can be issued to allow the transfer of this timber to a new operator.

Amendments also provide a regulation-making power so that in the future, changes to the

schedule could be made by regulation, rather than amending legislation every time.

The bill also makes proposed amendments to compliance and enforcement provisions within the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act. If someone contravenes the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act, they're going to be held accountable. This clarifies that any contravention of the old Forest Practices Code is subject to the compliance and enforcement measures authorized under the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act.

[1555]

While all licensees must transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act by December 2006, many licensees will still carry obligations incurred under the old Forest Practices Code for years to come — for example, maintaining young forests until they are free to grow. It is essential that we clarify the authority to apply penalties no matter when a contravention or obligation occurred.

Under

section 67 of the Forest and Range Practices Act, we are able to seize timber or hay as a result of contraventions of specific provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act. Amendments will ensure that we can use this same power for a contravention of the code by listing the provisions of the code to which

section 67 will apply. Similar cross-referencing provisions will be made to the Wildfire Act.

The Wildfire Act was brought into force in March 2005. It moved fire-related provisions out of the Forest Practices Code and into new stand-alone legislation. This legislation provided an approved set of fire management policies that streamline regulation and improve accountability. We want to ensure that fire contraventions of the code that occurred during the transition period of January 31, 2005 to March 31, 2005 are subject to the Wildfire Act.

In conclusion, these proposed amendments allow government to continue to deliver the benefits of reallocation and a revitalized forest sector to British Columbians. They will help deliver tough compliance and enforcement measures aimed at protecting forest and range values in British Columbia.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I just noticed in the gallery the arrival of Chief Stan Dixon of the Sechelt Nation, who I've worked with closely in the past and hope to continue working closely with in the future. I would just like to ask the House to make him feel welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: I rise to speak to this bill before us today, and I want to make a few comments about it. I thank the minister for his opening comments. It helps to clarify a couple of points on the schedule, and I look forward to having a further discussion about that as we hit the committee stage.

There are a couple of aspects of this amendment that give rise to the debate that previous members of this House had around the institution of the forest and range bill itself, the Forest and Range Practices Act. That was whether or not there was sufficient consultation on this bill in the first place. As we know from past experience of all governments not only in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions, failure to consult and failure to consult adequately result in bad public policy. There's no question about that.

The previous member of our caucus who retired from this House, Joy MacPhail, argued that case vehemently with respect to the act that this bill is now amending. What she stated over and over again was that there was not sufficient consultation to ramrod through the original bill, which this bill today is amending.

As a consequence, this is the third time at least that this bill is having to be amended and, in particular, the third time that it is having to be amended with respect to the compliance and enforcement. In 2003, when introducing Bill 44, the then Forests Minister stated that that bill would strengthen compliance and enforcement regimes and harmonize them with what exists in the Forest and Range Practices Act. "These changes will improve the effectiveness of the ministry's compliance and enforcement program."

Again later in 2003, Bill 69 was introduced with the then Forests Minister stating yet again: "I want to underscore to the House that the key objectives of the Forest and Range Practices Act remain the same: a focus on results, not paperwork, and a focus on high environmental standards supported by tough compliance and enforcement."

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

So yet again, we have another attempt to strengthen compliance and enforcement of this act with another amendment. I think it's important that we recognize that the Forest and Range Practices Act was

[ Page 882 ]

passed hastily. It was passed in a way that really brings into question what the intent of the act was.

[1600]

One of the individuals whom this government depends on to give some feedback on whether or not it's doing a good job under the professional reliance model that the government has implemented in conjunction with the Forest and Range Practices Act has indicated that, in his estimation: "Most of the changes in FRPA appear to have been made only because they were NDP policies and not because the Forest Practices Code was lacking in any of the policy attributes that were desired."

There are those who claim — and, I believe, correctly so — that what the Forest and Range Practices Act was, was an attempt to institute an ideological agenda on the land base, not an attempt for good forest practices or for good forest stewardship. The evidence for this is mounting. I believe that if we were having this debate on this amendment in as much as 18 months to two years, we would see insurmountable evidence that we are no longer positioned to be the good forest stewards that we have so long claimed that we were capable of being.

Again, I would like to read into the record a comment by Fred Marshall, who is an RPF and a critic of this government, but he's been a critic of all governments, so I think he's non-partisan in his criticism. In a document entitled The Liberals' Forest Policies: Backwards to the Future he states: "The Forest Practices Code had significantly improved the level of resource management in B.C. Both the MOF and the forest industry seemed comfortable operating under it."

Now, that's from someone who works in the industry and is more intimately associated with the industry than any of the members on the government side of the House. His critique is that, under the Forest Practices Code, people were settling into it, understanding it and it was beginning to work for them.

He goes on to say that FRBC funds supported a lot of good work — for example, reduced the backlog of NSR lands, restored many degraded watersheds, supported some excellent research — and that IFPAs and many other pilot projects such as community forest licences were funded as well.

He goes on to state — and this government has used this statement as proof that the FRPA is working: "These improvements have been well-attested by Ben Cashore, who indicates that forest resource management in B.C. is among the best in the world." It's important to note that he continues: "This ranking reflects the results of the Forest Practices Code and FRBC, not the Liberals' forest policies, which are yet in the development and implementation stages."

The amendment that we have in front of us is fixing some minor aspects of the Wildfire Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Forestry Revitalization Act, but it absolutely fails to address anything substantive about either the revitalization act or the Forest and Range Practices Act that this government has had multiple recommendations on changes. They have had multiple sources of input that things are not right in our forests and on our forest land base, and they have had more than adequate indications of what changes could be made. So this amendment act is insufficient in the extreme.

Why are we having such difficulty on the land base? Well, from an organizational perspective, one thing that is a recipe for disaster is when you implement significant organizational change and, at the same time that you implement that organizational change, you gut the workforce and its capabilities of implementing that change. This government made a simultaneous change in the Forest Service, where they gave them a brand-new code and a brand-new act under which they were supposed to operate and, simultaneous to that, gutted the Forest Service.

[1605]

In fact, the group of professionals that this government is relying upon to not only implement the Forest and Range Practices Act but also to give insight into government policy with respect to our forests…. That same group of professionals, on December 20, 2004, wrote a letter to the Premier. In that letter to the Premier they stated that they were concerned about the substantial restructuring of government that was undertaken by the Premier's administration.

"We were particularly concerned that the changes might negatively impact the ability of the Ministries of Forests; Sustainable Resource Management; and Water, Land and Air Protection to fulfil their mandates." That's a very strong statement: "We were particularly concerned that the changes might negatively impact the ability of the Ministry of Forests to fulfil its mandate."

The letter goes on to indicate that the gutting of the Forest Service, contained in a report by the Sierra Club of Canada called Axing the Forest Service , which this group of professionals say they have some different points of view with it, but they agree, in essence, with the cuts. They go on to say that that report raises issues that "we, ourselves have become concerned about, such as the limited resources currently being focused on research, inventory and forest health."

They then say that the bottom line is that forests remain vital to B.C.'s future. This fact, together with the reality that forestry is a very long-term discipline involving social, economic and environmental elements and requiring science of the highest order, make it clear that forest resource management is no place for minimalist, short-term thinking. "The Association of B.C. Forest Professionals calls on the Premier to restore Forest Service capabilities, not only to put the Forest and Range Practices Act into play but to ensure good forest stewardship on the land base, to ensure we have good science to make decisions on."

What was the response to this letter — a letter to the Premier from a group of professionals that, in the new Foresters Act we've said under "Professional reliance," will be the keepers and stewards of our forests? The response, Madam Speaker, was none. Not the minister, not the Premier, not a deputy minister, not an assistant deputy minister, not even a manager of a dis-

[ Page 883 ]

trict had the decency to respond to these professionals on their stated concerns.

We can do all the changes that we want to, to the compliance and enforcement in this act. We can change dates around if we want to. We can make it grandfathered or grandmothered if we want to. If we don't have the resources on the land base to make sure we are able to get out and audit what's going on, on the land base, this is pointless.

The other aspect of the Forests and Range Practices Act is that it is a minimum standards act. It is a minimum standards act, and it is vital that we understand that. Because, again, you can make all the changes you want to enforcement and compliance, but if your standards are the bare minimum, what are you enforcing and complying with? You're complying with the bare minimum. So we're going to very quickly….

I would predict that in the next 24 months we're going to see the results of this. I would predict that we're going to see a devolution to those minimum standards. We can go out and we can enforce and comply all we want. We can grandfather all we want. What we're going to do is lose our place on the world economy as the best stewards of our forest resources that we had — by the admission of Fred Marshall, a registered professional forester who knows what he's talking about and is on the ground — that we had those standards under the previous Forest Practices Code, and there was no need to change it.

I don't wish to be presumptive of the minister's response to me, but I will be because I have that right as long as I have the floor. One of the comebacks that can come back to me on this is, of course, one of the intents of the Forest and Range Practices Act. I find it quite interesting that there are not amendments in this bill to this effect. One of the intents was to reduce red tape. It was to allow our forest companies, tenure holders, to get rid of a lot of red tape, to allow them to, as we would say under this act, have the freedom to manage.

[1610]

Again, I refer to somebody who knows more about this than I do, Fred Marshall, and his paper. He says the following — and again, this was a paper presented to the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals up in Prince George earlier this year. This is not an outdated document. This is very current. He says: "The questions we as professional resource managers must ask ourselves…. Will the policy changes as developed and proposed and implemented by the Liberals (

a) be more administratively efficient and allow more freedom to manage? (

b) result in significantly reduced administration and costs relative to current practices? (

c) result in better resource management over the long term relative to measures implemented by the NDP?"

Those are pertinent questions. I'm sure they're questions that the Minister of Forests and Range will have his own answers to. But someone on the ground, someone who knows what's happening on the ground, someone who is versed in this and who belongs to a professional association that we changed the Foresters Act to rely more on, says the following, with respect to: are these changes more administratively efficient and allow more freedom to manage? He says the answer is no.

With respect to "result in significantly reduced administration and cost relative to current practices," Fred Marshall says the answer to that is no. With respect to "result in better resource management over the long term relative to measures implemented by the NDP," his answer is a double no. That's an emphatic no, by the way, in case somebody doesn't get what a double no means.

Mr. Marshall goes on to say: "The positive aspects of improved resource management, increased professional independence and reliance and freedom to manage could have been more easily achieved under the Forest Practices Code with some modest changes."

Now, this government ramrodded the Forest and Range Practices Act through without appropriate consultation, without hearing the voices of Mr. Marshall and many like him. But in case they wish to discount the voice of Mr. Marshall, then I would go to another voice who is also a registered professional forester; who is in fact an instructor at the University of British Columbia school of forestry, and who is someone that this government used during the minimalist consultation process that they undertook. That someone is George Hoberg.

George Hoberg, as late as 2004 and I believe earlier this year, although I haven't been able to put my hands on that report, states the exact same things that Mr. Marshall is stating — that the implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Act has been suspect; that it has not achieved the forest steward objectives that we had wanted on the ground; that, in fact, the contrary may be the case.

In fact, what is happening is that we are going backwards. We are losing ground in our forests, and we are losing our place on the world stage as stewards of our forests of the highest calibre. Even their own consultant that they used in that minimalist approach to consultation is saying the same thing. So it bothers me that in the bill that we have before us, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 — another one of many that I assume we will be seeing over the next little while, because this policy is so bankrupt — we will not see those changes come forward.

Why? Because there's a reason this government did not consult in the first place, and that reason is that the changes they were making were ideological. They were not necessary. They didn't want to hear from the public that truth — that we do not have time for ideological changes. We do not have time to move forward in this direction. Therefore, make some changes to the Forest Practices Code, adjust it, and let's keep business going.

[1615]

Again, in case those two voices aren't sufficient, I would refer to Mr. John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, who as late as 2004 addressed a community meeting in Prince George and stated that the unprecedented changes that the Liberal govern-

[ Page 884 ]

ment has made to forest policy in this province have created upset in the industry. He said that the bulk of planned policy changes, translated into law…. There are too many amendments. Some are in force; many are not tested. There's a lack of internal consistency. There's no overall road map; it's not been developed. Policy linkages are not identified. There are significant threats to business continuity under the policy changes, and there's a significant amount of work remaining to get it right and to ease concerns about business continuity. In fact, the minister himself, when he introduced this bill, made the statement: "There is still a lot of work to do."

Well, I go back to a comment I made at the beginning. You can save yourself a lot of work when you're formulating policy, when you involve people in the front end of the policy creation and when you engage people in a consultation process that makes sense, that works and that hears their voices. Then you take that consultation process, and you roll it into your act and your public policy. Then you don't have to keep making amendments, and you don't have to keep saying there's still a lot of work to do to try and get this right. You don't have people out there having the ability to detract from what it is you're trying to accomplish.

But the problem is that despite amendments to this act, the overwhelming feedback this government was given when it went out with the consultation process for the results-based code was: don't do it. That's why that consultation process was shut down, that's why we have a Forest and Range Practices Act that isn't working for anyone, and that's why we're in the situation that we are just now, where we have yet another amendment to this act.

There's another voice out there that speaks to this same issue. Again, this government was given this feedback. It's from the Cattlemen's Association of British Columbia. The Cattlemen's Association has a particular vested interest in this, because it is the Forest and Range Practices Act. The range component impacts them directly on the range. The forest portion impacts them, because many of them are woodlot owners, and many of them also harvest in Crown land adjacent to their range property.

What did the Cattlemen's Association have to say? Again, this was this year. Subsequent to previous amendments to the act, none of their suggestions appear in this act as amendments. The Cattlemen's Association, in a document presented to cabinet, said the following: "We have a Forest and Range Practices Act that leaves us in the unacceptable position of being subservient to timber interests on the land base, while important details in the regulations have not been dealt with. BCCA acceptance of FRPA was conditional on several long-outstanding issues being addressed.

Compliance and enforcement." That's what this one is addressing. "Monitoring and evaluating standards, training for ranchers and ministry staff, recreation and wildlife conflicts, timber encroachment and in-growth, invasive plants, profile within the ministry, interaction with timber companies and funding for range developments." And what did the B.C. Cattlemen's Association say? "These issues remain unresolved."

That was in February of 2005 in a report from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to the cabinet. They also raise the exact same issue that the professional association raised with respect to the ability of the Forest Service to implement this act, let alone conduct their normative operations. I quote again:

A lack of staff capacity and continuity, questionable commitment and poor communication has meant not only that outstanding issues have not been addressed. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association members now find that ministry staff have differing

interpretations of the legislation and regulation changes that have been agreed to. Lacking clear direction, confused MOF staff now implement their personal views, resulting in a patchwork regulatory framework across the province.

[1620]

Madam Speaker, that's a scathing indictment of this government's forest policy not from a partisan group such as the NDP caucus, not from people that this government likes to discount in the environmental community, but from people who go out of their way to support this government and its actions. They have stated that this legislation is not working. They have stated — and again I quote, because it's such a strong statement: "Lacking clear direction, confused Ministry of Forests staff now implement their personal views, resulting in a patchwork regulatory framework across the province."

How can we have the best forest stewardship? How can we maintain our place on the world stage as global leaders in forest stewardship when the government's Forest and Range Practices Act and its cuts to the Ministry of Forests are leading us down a path where we are going toward a patchwork regulatory framework and we are going toward minimum standards?

There's another voice that needs to be heard in this, which is not heard in this amendment to the Forest and Range Practices Act. That is of Roy Nagel, manager of the Central Interior Logging Association, who stated that what we're seeing and what we've seen so far from the Liberal policy changes "is taking us in the opposite direction of what we all wanted to achieve through the revitalization policy"— the opposite direction to what we all wanted to achieve through the revitalization policy.

So there are numerous voices out there who are still trying to be heard, and that's the critical part of this. It's voices that are still trying to be heard because they were not heard. They were not given the opportunity to be heard during the consultation process, and that's why we have bad public policy. That's why we have to make amendments. That's why we have to have this debate about this amendment. That's why I have to, in my role, bring those voices into this House and get them on the record of this House because this government fails to hear. They turn a deaf ear every time.

I'd like to talk a few minutes about the Forestry Revitalization Act. The intent of the Forestry Revitalization Act was to increase small tenures. It was to take back from the major licensees in order to give some

[ Page 885 ]

tenures out to first nations, community forests and woodlot owners. Well, the whole Forestry Revitalization Act has had a questionable implementation cycle, and the minister is well versed in this, because I know that he has had lobby effort after lobby effort to fix what is not right with the Forestry Revitalization Act.

I want to just key in on one group in there. I happened to attend this past weekend the woodlot federation annual general meeting, which I spoke at. I heard from a person sitting down with me deep and sincere concerns about where our forests are heading — the fact that we are in a process where we are slipping, as I've indicated before, on the world stage in terms of our ability to manage our forests and in forest stewardship.

Again, there's an interesting trend here where you have a very large group of individuals who are ranchers, logging contractors, registered professional foresters, people who work every day on the land base, who see for themselves firsthand — not secondhand, not thirdhand, but firsthand — the implications of the Forest and Range Practices Act on the land base. What do those folks say? It's not working. What we are devolving to are minimum standards, but also it's not working because there appears to be a double standard out there. The application of the Forest and Range Practices Act to the small tenure holders is failing.

[1625]

I have a letter here from the Woodland Almanac , the publication of the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations, that really speaks to this. Again, the act was intended to reduce red tape. It was intended to increase the number of licences out there for small tenure holders. This letter states:

I was sorting papers recently and came across the entire record of my first five years of woodlot licence management in one thin file folder. Soon after that the government of the day promised us administrative streamlining. Now my entire filing cabinet, hard drive and human brain are filled to capacity with administrative documents, regulations and policy directives.

If that's administrative streamlining, Madam Speaker, I don't know what this government thinks of that.

It seems that every time we are offered a fix for one legitimate concern, we get a multiplicity of worse problems to go with it.

So there's the question of this bill that we have in front of us as an amendment act: what problems is this bill going to create?

The current "results-based philosophy" is a classic example. We will no longer be told how to manage our public landholdings but will be allowed to sink or swim with the big guys. The results: (1) a vastly diminished Forest Service with no ability for extension or support —

T hat, Madam Speaker, is a recurring theme time after time, voice after voice, sector after sector — a vastly diminished Forest Service with no ability for extension or support.

(2) an expectation that we can compete with the corporate forest giants on their terms without their billions; (3) regulations designed to maximize government revenue by imposing a big-business model on all forest management; and (4) —

this is a critical one

— the reduction of our precious little tenures to mere commodities just to satisfy market demand.

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

B. Simpson: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. Should I have clarified that at the beginning?

Deputy Speaker: Continue, member.

Hon. G. Abbott: Don't feel obliged to use the whole two hours, though.

B. Simpson: You see, if you give a short Scottish guy a pulpit, it's a recipe for disaster.

Interjection.

B. Simpson: I would be disappointed if that were not the case, Mr. Minister.

So:

(4) the reduction of our precious little tenures to mere commodities just to satisfy market demand; (5) our need to have a lawyer on staff instead of an RPF.

I could go on, but as they say, tell it to the judge. This letter-writer goes on to say:

Speaking of nostalgic, when was the last time you heard an honest

interpretation of the word "stewardship" in forest management? It was a simple little concept that seems to be completely overrun in the rush to the bottom line.

Madam Speaker, for the life of me, I cannot understand how the Minister of Forests and Range, how his compatriots in the cabinet, can turn a deaf ear to the multitude of voices out there that are calling on this government to reflect on the Forest and Range Practices Act at a much, much deeper level than these small amendments are calling for in the bill we have before us today.

There's a final voice that I'd like to bring into the room, and it's a voice that this government should adhere to because they fund them. That's the Forest Practices Board. The Forest Practices Board, on numerous occasions since the Forest and Range Practices Act has started to come into force, have stated time and time again that they have significant concerns about the implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Act on biodiversity. They have significant concerns on the Forest and Range Practices Act on species at risk, and they have significant concerns th