2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Peter Hulbert

Hon. C.

Clark

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Coal Act (Bill 28)

Hon. P.

Bell

Passenger Transportation Act (Bill

30)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Role of volunteers

P. Wong

Perfect 10 natural energy bars

V. Roddick

Coalbed methane extraction on

Vancouver Island

M. Hunter

Oral Questions

Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with

CN Rail

MacPhail

Hon. K.

Falcon

J. Kwan

B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail

and first nations consultation

Nettleton

Hon. K.

Falcon

Point of Privilege

J. MacPhail

Standing Order 35 Motion

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents

Office of the Police Complaint

Commissioner, annual report, 2003

Follow-up of Performance Reports ,

auditor general report No. 1, 2004-05

Committee of the Whole House

Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 13)

MacPhail

Hon. B.

Barisoff

Reporting of Bills

Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 13)

Third Reading of Bills

Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 13)

Committee of the Whole House

Water, Land and Air Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)

Hon. B.

Barisoff

Reporting of Bills

Water, Land and Air Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills

Water, Land and Air Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

M. Hunter

Hon. M. de

Jong

G. Trumper

P. Sahota

Halsey-Brandt

D. Hayer

B. Belsey

Hon. R.

Harris

MacPhail

Standing Order 35 Motion

(Speaker's Ruling)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

R. Stewart

Hon. T.

Christensen

J. Kwan

K. Manhas

J. Bray

Stephens

R. Lee

[ Page 10129 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Mr.

Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I'd like to welcome everyone back.

Hope you all had a nice break.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah. This is the first

time this occasion is being recognized across Canada. It's an opportunity to

remember the more than six million victims of the Holocaust of 1933-45 and to

reflect on the enduring lessons the tragedy of the Holocaust holds for each of

us.

There are

no words to describe the extent of the evil that claimed six million lives: six

million children and parents, six million brothers and sisters, six million

aunts and uncles — artisans, shopkeepers — six million people with six

million stories to tell. For the sake of the victims and the survivors, all of

us have a duty to ensure that the evil that sparked the Holocaust finds no place

in the world.

Today we

are honoured to be joined by 40 survivors: Rita Akselrod, a Holocaust survivor;

Lillian Boraks-Nemetz, a Holocaust survivor; Alex Buckman, a Holocaust survivor;

Marion Cassirer, a Holocaust survivor; Sophie Cymbalista, a Holocaust survivor;

Mark Elster, a Holocaust survivor; Shoshana Fidelman, a Holocaust survivor; Myer

Grinshpan, a Holocaust survivor; Esther Golgher, a Holocaust survivor; Vladimir

Hopner, a Holocaust survivor; Dr. Robert Krell, a Holocaust survivor; David

Shaffer, a Holocaust survivor; Side Shaffer, a Holocaust survivor; Bente

Nathan-Thomsen, a Holocaust survivor; Leo Vogel, a Holocaust survivor; Inge

Manes, a Holocaust survivor; Saul Cohn, a Holocaust survivor; Lola Apfelbaum, a

Holocaust survivor; Frances Hoyd, a Holocaust survivor; Issy Fraeme, a Holocaust

survivor; Rosa Ferera, a Holocaust survivor; Florentina Tamir, a Holocaust

survivor; Esther Basat, a Holocaust survivor; Miriam Davowicz, a Holocaust

survivor; Iakov Sitchine, a Holocaust survivor; Elizabeth Stern, a Holocaust

survivor; George Wertman, a Holocaust survivor; Frieda Wertman, a Holocaust

survivor; Hilda Everal, a Holocaust survivor; David Reitman, a Holocaust

survivor; Betty Reitman, a Holocaust survivor; Karl Levinson, a Holocaust

survivor; Judith Levinson, a Holocaust survivor; Goldie Miller, a Holocaust

survivor; Avrum Miller, a Holocaust survivor; Jack Fraeme, a Holocaust survivor;

Margaret Fraeme, a Holocaust survivor; Maurice Lipkowitz, a Holocaust survivor;

and Nisson Goldman, a Holocaust survivor.

We grieve

for the suffering that each of these survivors has endured, for the suffering

that their families have had to endure. We thank them all for honouring us with

their presence here in this Legislature today.

[1410]

Today at a

ceremony at noon, it was pointed out that no child deserves to be suspended

between life and death. Many of us are fortunate that we never had to go through

that experience. Each of these survivors did. Each of these families did. It is

our work here to do justice to the legacy that each of them places before us. I

ask our House to make each and every one of these exceptional individuals

welcome and to let them know that we will never forget.

W. Cobb:

Mr. Speaker, this is not an introduction but best wishes and a happy birthday to

a very old colleague from Burquitlam. He was born in 1946, and I must say that

he is far too old to be sporting a ponytail.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I know that members are very concerned about an event that's

taking place in Vancouver tonight. The event will be exceptional in British

Columbia sports history when, once again, that great British Columbia hockey

player Brendan Morrison scores not once but many times as we defeat the Calgary

Flames. I know that many members are nervous, as are many of the Canucks' fans,

as we look to that very critical seventh game tonight.

But I want

to have everyone rest easy. This afternoon I had the opportunity to meet with a

number of students in grade 5 from Sir James Douglas School. One of those

students is a true hockey fan, and her name is Maddie Baldrey. I asked her what

was going to happen in the game tonight. She says not to worry. It's going to be

5-0 Canucks. I want to say thank you, Maddie, for making us feel so comfortable.

That's great.

Hon. L.

Reid: We're joined today by two very exceptional women in the gallery. One

is Rheta Steer, and the other is Catherine Reid — and my daughter, Olivia

Reid-Friesen, who is a frequent visitor to this Legislature. I'm honoured to

offer my son on his first visit to this place, Will Nicholas Reid-Friesen. To

the House: please make them all welcome.

J. Bray:

I'd like to join with the Premier to welcome a class of grade 5 students

from the exceptional school of Sir James Douglas, well known for their hockey

prognostications as well. The 32 grade 5 students are joined by five adults, who

are taking their time to join the kids today, and by their teacher Mr. Carson.

I'd ask the House to please make these students very welcome.

Nijjar: It may have taken three years, but after three years I can finally

stand up and say that I have students from a school to introduce in the House. I

believe that makes the score Surrey-Tynehead 56, Vancouver-Kingsway 1. I am very

proud of the students from Windermere high school. All of the grade 11 students

are coming here to the Legislature today throughout the day, and some are in the

House right now.

Windermere

is one of the most community-oriented schools. In fact, the students were

featured on

[ Page 10130 ]

B1 of the Vancouver Sun for having the highest participation in the

Sun Run for the second year in a row. Not only that, but in other things like

food drives and helping in charity organizations, they are one of the most

participatory schools in all of Vancouver.

I'm very

proud of them, and I'm proud to have them here at the Legislature. Would

everyone please make them welcome.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today in the House I'm pleased to be joined by a couple of special

guests. The first is my very hard-working constituency assistant from

Surrey-Cloverdale. Susan Gotfried is joining us here today. I'm pleased she

could make a day over here.

She is also

joined by a young student named Leslie Small. Leslie is from Lord Tweedsmuir

high school in my riding. Leslie has just completed a three-week co-op work

program where she got stationed, fortunately — or perhaps it's her misfortune;

I'm not sure which — in my office. We've enjoyed her tremendously. She's been

a great worker and learned a lot about the process of constituency politics. I'd

ask the House to please join me in making them both welcome.

Tributes

PETER HULBERT

Hon. C.

Clark: I just want to take a moment to mark the passing of Peter Hulbert,

who was a lifelong resident of Port Moody in my constituency and a lifelong

volunteer on behalf of many issues that are so important to people. He was a

staff photographer for the Vancouver Province for decades. After he

retired, he devoted so much time to protecting our environment and to making

sure that our streams were healthy and filled with fish. He worked in our

community. He worked in Africa supporting young children.

[1415]

He will be

deeply, deeply missed by everyone in our community, but we will remember him as

an example of how one person can make such a tremendous difference. I'd ask that

you, Mr. Speaker, send condolences to his wife, Ann Hulbert, and his family on

our behalf.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Tonight in Victoria is the mine health and safety awards dinner. I

think everyone knows that the safest heavy industry in British Columbia is the

mining industry. Some of those people that will be receiving awards are with us

today: Rob Pritchard and Clayton Behnke. Along with them are their spouses Mya

Pritchard and Stephanie Willms. Will the House please make them welcome.

Jarvis: I'd like to introduce Mr. Bill Denault, my riding president, who is

from North Vancouver–Seymour, over here also for the mining awards dinner.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COAL ACT

Hon. P.

Bell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Coal Act.

Hon. P.

Bell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. P.

Bell: I am pleased to introduce Bill 28, Coal Act. The Coal Act is the

provincial statute under which the government issues coal licences and leases

for the exploration and production of Crown-owned coal.

The Coal

Act is an older statute that was last rewritten in 1979 and has not had any

major updates in the past 20 years. The amendments that are introduced in this

bill are made to streamline the administration of coal tenures for both

government and industry. The changes will reduce regulation and create a modern,

simplified system for acquiring and holding Crown coal rights. The new act will

see the elimination of 49 regulations, representing a 34 percent reduction in

red tape.

A more

efficient and streamlined regulatory environment will support the coal industry

in B.C. Policy changes introduced by these amendments include the removal of the

requirement for a free miner's certificate, the removal of the requirement for

storage of core samples, incorporation of wording to reflect the two-zone land

use system for mining, and provisions of flexibility in size and shapes of

licences.

The changes

introduced in this bill support the Ministry of Energy and Mines policy

objectives of promoting investment in mining in British Columbia. Government has

consulted the coal industry prior to amending the act, and industry told us that

they welcomed the reduced regulatory requirements and costs. Government is

committed to building a strong economy through the provision of certainty for

industry. I look forward to passing this legislation and demonstrating our

government's firm commitment to continued streamlining of regulations and

building a strong, prosperous economy for all British Columbians.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. K.

Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Passenger Transportation Act.

[ Page 10131 ]

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 30, Passenger Transportation Act,

which will replace the Motor Carrier Act.

[1420]

The Motor

Carrier Act has not been substantially revised since its introduction in 1939.

The commercial transportation industry supports fundamental changes to the Motor

Carrier Act, and we are responding to their needs. In consultation with

commercial carriers and under the leadership of our Premier, we developed the

new Passenger Transportation Act. This legislation places a priority on safety.

This act will replace the Motor Carrier Act and allow the commercial

transportation industry to compete and respond to market forces and give

operators the flexibility to meet the needs of customers while protecting and

enhancing transportation service levels.

The

benefits of this bill are many. It will ensure continued public safety. It will

allow the commercial transportation industry to be more innovative to meet the

needs of their customers. It will encourage tourism and spur economic growth,

and it promotes competition by allowing carriers to quickly respond to changing

market conditions. Finally, it provides an enhanced ability to deal with illegal

operators.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ROLE OF VOLUNTEERS

P. Wong:

This is the beginning of National Volunteer Week in Canada. Volunteers form the

backbone of our society at large. Last summer, after the devastating forest

fires, volunteers worked hard to provide relief for the fire victims. Whether it

was to raise funds for recovery efforts or to ensure that victims had food and

clothing, volunteers helped so many get through that difficult time.

Now more

than ever, people are extremely busy. Many families have both parents working,

and yet they still make time to volunteer in organizations that truly could not

survive without them. People volunteer as field workers in search and rescue,

soccer coaches, people who provide care to animals at the SPCA, people who spend

time with the elderly, parents who supervise on school field trips. The list is

endless.

In a

country of slightly more than 30 million, it is estimated that we have 6.5

million volunteers. That's about 22 percent of our population. Canada has a

global reputation for being a friendly and helpful nation, and I believe that

the numbers regarding volunteers speak for themselves.

National

Volunteer Week, April 18 to 24, is a time to celebrate the importance of

volunteers in society and to recognize their efforts in building and maintaining

our communities. I urge people across our province to get out, participate and

volunteer in their community and feel the warmth of giving to one another from

our hearts and through our actions. Just imagine what good could be done in our

communities if everyone across the province volunteered just two hours a week.

PERFECT 10 NATURAL ENERGY BARS

Roddick: Perfect 10. I rise today to tell you about a great new business in

Delta South. Leed Products produces Perfect 10, a superb energy bar composed of

ten natural ingredients, including locally grown Delta cranberries. The bars are

gluten- and dairy-free. They come in five flavours, with chocolate on the way,

and they are simply delicious. The Perfect 10 started out as a homemade snack

made in the kitchen of Les Paukov, an inventor and designer originally from

Slovakia and now one of the three partners of Leed Products.

Many of you

will have read the story in the Vancouver Sun last year of how Mr.

Paukov's friends urged him to go public and mass-produce the bar for everyone to

enjoy. Well, he did. Mr. Paukov got together with two partners, Tom Irving and

Ed Tycholaz. Mr. Paukov had the recipe; the others the expertise in finance,

marketing and production. Together they launched Perfect 10.

[1425]

The next

chapter had a Stanford and NASA engineer formerly from Vancouver discovering

Perfect 10 bars at Mountain Equipment Co-op while visiting Vancouver and buying

them for a NASA expedition in California. He e-mailed the company, wanting more.

Leed Products donated the bars to NASA, and the rest, as we say, is history.

But wait;

there's more. Perfect 10s were supplied to the athletes at the 2004 Special

Olympics Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island. Leeds is branching out

into the eastern markets and hopes to be a household name across the country.

In today's

hectic world, eating properly can be extremely erratic. Perfect 10 is healthy,

it's tasty, and it's made right here in B.C. This is a local success story we

can all celebrate, because we still have to eat to live — 2010, here they

come. It's a perfect 10.

COALBED METHANE EXTRACTION

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

Hunter: Tough act to follow, but I'll try. Members from the

Thompson-Okanagan region might think that I'm standing to boast about the

magnificent victory of the Nanaimo Clippers in the B.C. Hockey League

[ Page 10132 ]

Championship, but I'll refrain from doing that because I have another serious

matter that I want to talk about.

Last week

an important and encouraging announcement was made by Snuneymuxw Chief John

Wesley on behalf of a number of aboriginal groups from southwestern British

Columbia. The Naut'sa mawt tribal council and the Yiasulth Management

Corporation outlined a new association agreement with Akita Drilling Ltd. of

Alberta to prepare for opportunities for the extraction of coalbed methane on

Vancouver Island.

This is

great news from a number of perspectives. First, it shows that individual

aboriginal communities throughout the southwest can work together. Ten Coast

Salish first nations plus some of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth bands and the United Native

Nations are involved in this deal. Second, it shows that our aboriginal

communities are pursuing economic development opportunities on their own. The

fact that they see opportunity in coalbed methane is great news indeed. Third,

the aboriginal partners have explicitly recognized the oil and gas drilling

industry's environmental and safety records. Perhaps the leader of the NDP

should follow the example set by the first nations and do her homework about oil

and gas drilling as well.

Ernie

Hardy, co-chair of the Yiasulth Management Corporation, said about this

initiative: "We see the potential to be involved as workers, as partners

and as investors. We welcome the opportunity to participate in all those

ways." I want to say that I share the vision of these aboriginal leaders

and of Akita Drilling as they enter this joint venture. I am pleased to bring it

to the attention of the House and know that every member will join with me in

wishing the partners success and profit.

Oral Questions

TERMS OF B.C. RAIL

AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

MacPhail: The Premier and the minister sold the privatization of B.C. Rail

as a 90-year, $1 billion deal where the province retained ownership of the

railbed. Now we know it's a 990-year deal worth $750 million that allows the

province to sell the railbed and accompanying land to CN for a buck. The Premier

and the Minister of Transportation were explicit in claiming the original deal

was for 60 years with one 30-year renewal clause — one renewal clause for 30

years, not 15 renewal clauses lasting for another 930 years. Can the Premier

tell British Columbians why his government hid these details from the public

when the deal to sell B.C. Rail was announced last year?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I guess I shouldn't be surprised, really, that the members opposite

and Carole James don't understand the distinction between a lease term and

options to renew, but I'm happy to explain it for her. If they check their own

NDP office lease, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a five-year lease. I also

wouldn't be surprised if it had a couple of options to renew for additional

five-year terms. But I want the member to know that that doesn't mean they

signed a 15-year lease. They actually signed a five-year lease with options to

renew.

[1430]

That's just

what we've done with the CN–B.C. Rail investment partnership. At the 60-year

intervals, the government of the day will have a very clear choice. They can

decide to continue with the arrangement. They may decide they want to bring in

another railway operator, of which they would have that option, or — and I

hope this isn't the case — they could even, as government, get back into the

railway business. At the end of the day, the issue really comes down to this.

What we're not hearing from the Leader….

Okay, I'll

leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and there you go.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: When the Premier stood up and announced this deal, he said it was

a 90-year deal. That's what he said. He said that 60 years plus an extension

made a 90-year deal. The government can't have it both ways, saying that now

these extensions mean nothing. Despite the rhetoric, there's a simple

explanation for the government's dishonesty. They were worried about the

political backlash of a broken promise and chose to hide the real deal from

public scrutiny.

On March

30, I asked the Premier to assure British Columbians that there were no — no

— renegotiation clauses extending the lease or sale of B.C. Rail beyond the

original 90-year agreement. I asked that question specifically. The Minister of

Transportation said I was spreading false misinformation. Now we know that even

Capt. Jean-Luc Picard and the Starship Enterprise will be gone by the time this

deal is up in the year 2995. Can the Premier explain…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Can the Premier…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the

floor.

MacPhail: Their disregard with the concern around this matter is shocking.

Can the

Premier explain, when asked that question, why his government deliberately kept

the B.C. Rail renegotiation clauses a secret — when he was asked point-blank

on March 30 if those renegotiation clauses existed? Point blank, and you said I

was spreading misinformation.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Again I'll say it to the member opposite: you don't understand the

distinction in funda-

[ Page 10133 ]

mental business principles between a lease term and renewal options. What we

really need to know is something that I think is even more significant.

What we

need to know is that this member and Carole James want to keep the government in

the operation of a railway. The question I have for them is: where are they

going to find the billions of dollars to be investing in railway? Where are they

going to find the $3.5 billion for track maintenance and rehabilitation over the

90-year term of this lease? Where are they going to find the $135 million for

the northern development initiative? Where are they going to find the money to

expand Prince George Airport or to create containerization at Prince Rupert? The

only place they're going to find it is on the backs of the taxpayers with their

$3 billion tax increase they want to put through.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

MacPhail: In order to cover up their withholding of information, this

minister comes up with new figures just out of the blue. The B.C. Liberals had a

choice. They could have been honest. They could have been straightforward about

this broken promise and hoped the public would understand based on the spin that

the minister's now giving, or they could try the truth, or they could try to

spin the deal. They chose to hide the truth. Now, not surprisingly, there's a

huge credibility gap.

The

minister is trying to draw a comparison to a standard commercial lease for

office space that has extension provisions. Fair enough. That's fair enough. But

if those extensions were negotiated, there would be a cost to the tenant. That's

the way business is done. Under this privatization there's absolutely no

additional cost to CN.

[1435]

I remind

the House that CN gave $122,000. They get 990 years for a billion bucks — nice

investment. Can the Premier point us toward another lease anywhere, anywhere in

this province, that has extension provisions that extend centuries into the

future with absolutely no additional cost to the tenant beyond the normal cost

of doing business? It's 990 years for a billion bucks. Is that what he says is

doing good business in this province?

Hon. K.

Falcon: You know, when you hear questions like that, suddenly you get

clarity. It's like a moment of clarity where I'm now understanding how it is

they entered into a fast ferries project that blew half a billion dollars. It's

a moment of clarity where I realize how they could have shovelled $400 million

into a money-losing pulp mill. It's a moment of clarity where I realize when

they talked about three — count them, three — aluminum smelters, there was

no hope of that ever happening. Well, it's because they can't understand the

basic premise of a lease agreement. If you cannot understand that, I can see why

we get into so much trouble.

What I

would say to this member is that she needs to understand this. We've been very

clear that all of that information, all of the information associated with this

that is not commercially sensitive, will be released upon the completion of the

competition tribunal review. Upon the completion of that review all the

information that's not commercially sensitive, including this lease agreement,

will be fully, completely disclosed to all British Columbians.

J. Kwan:

You know, when this deal was announced by the Premier, he said he was so proud

of it that he would actually campaign against it on the next election. Let's put

the facts forward. Here's what we know today. Since that announcement, we've had

police raids on the Legislature involving the sale. We've had angry bidders

withdrawing. Now we have a deal that nobody has any faith in at all. Now we find

out that not only does the deal last for 990 years and the government can

potentially sell billions of dollars of real estate to CN for a buck, but that

the taxpayers of this province are on the hook for some of the 7 percent rate

reduction promised to the shippers in the deal.

Can the

Premier tell us how much of the 7 percent taxpayers will be paying and how many

years they will have to pay? Is it for one year, five years or 990 years? How

much will taxpayers have to subsidize this key Liberal campaign donor?

Hon. K.

Falcon: This is just fascinating, because it gives some great insight. Now,

the members…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …of the opposition are concerned because there's a clause in there

that will allow the government, for the sum of a dollar, to force ownership of

certain lands back on to the proponent that's operating the railway. They ask

the question why and think that's a bad deal. Why don't they actually listen to

the answer? Why don't they listen to the answer for a moment? The reason we did

that and we insisted on that clause….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order!

Hon. K.

Falcon: If you tried listening, you would actually hear the answers, and it

might be helpful.

The reason

we did that is because we wanted to ensure that if there was a case where track

in which they were operating had, for example, significant environmental

remediation costs associated with it, we had the right to make sure that the

operator could not discontinue that

section of the track and turn it over to a

taxpayer obligation. She wants us to not have that, and she would rather have

the taxpayers be stuck with that.

[ Page 10134 ]

That's exactly why this member, Carole James and the NDP have never got it.

They never will get it…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …and they'll never get back in power, thank God.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

[1440]

J. Kwan:

If this government tells the truth, the answer might be worth listening to. It's

the same story over and over and over again. Hide the truth, and when it comes

out, insist that it's a good deal. It's not good news when a government hides

the truth. The scandal is no longer about a particular clause in this contract.

It's about a government that has deliberately and consistently kept the public

in the dark, a government that has perpetrated a political swindle on the people

of British Columbia.

We asked

the Premier this question three weeks ago, and he didn't answer the question.

Instead, the minister ducked the question on his behalf. Now we know what he was

hiding.

I'll ask

the question again. Will the Premier stand up today and be open and accountable

and put the full details of the B.C. Rail deal forward for full public scrutiny

and for full public debate, and will he do it today?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'll remind those….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: It's difficult to talk when you keep yelling and interrupting. I'll

remind those members that what we've said and what we've always said is all of

the information that is not commercially sensitive — I'm sure the member

opposite does not want us releasing lists of employees and how much employees

earn — including the lease agreement, will be released upon completion of the

competition board review.

The real

issue here is this. Carole James and the NDP have to answer this question. Since

they're so fascinated in having government continue to run this, even though

taxpayers have put over a billion dollars in losses into this railway over the

last 15 years, I need to hear from them where they're going to find the billions

of dollars to invest in the railway over the next 90 years, where they're going

to find the $3.5 billion to invest in the track upgrades and rehabilitation,

where they're going to find the dollars to invest in new centre-beam cars.

Mr.

Speaker: Wrap it up, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Clearly, they're not prepared to make that commitment…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …because they haven't got the money. Our priority is health care

and education, and that's why we're bringing in…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …a private sector operator and their investment.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

AND FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

Nettleton: A letter dated March 2, 2004, from Tribal Chief Harry Pierre of

Carrier-Sekani tribal council, directed to the federal competition bureau, reads

in part:

"Please

be advised there has been neither meaningful consultation nor accommodation of

our aboriginal title, aboriginal rights or interests, infringements on our

title and rights related to their activities in our territory, and of the

inadequacies of the consultation accommodation in relation to granting

replacement and transfer of tenure rights within our territory. It is

incumbent upon these companies and the provincial government to address these

issues. We request that this merger not be approved until meaningful

consultation and accommodation are negotiated with the CSTC and its member

first nations."

My question

is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the minister now recognize that these

concerns are obstacles that need to be resolved between the B.C. government and

the Carrier-Sekani tribal council to ensure that their rights are not

permanently infringed upon if this hasty, secretive and ill-conceived deal is

finalized? In light of this further impediment to the sale of B.C. Rail, can the

minister tell the members in the Carrier-Sekani tribal council what actions he

plans to take?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Absolutely. I can confirm that we have been very clear that there's

absolutely no threat whatsoever to the rights and title. We've been very clear

with them from the first.

One of the

things that is also very exciting is that under this deal, as you know, we're

creating a first nations benefits trust made up of $15 million. Those 25 first

nations will each have representation on the board of that trust, and they will

be able to use that for creating economic opportunity, creating cultural

awareness and creating real good news for the first nation folks of the

province.

[End

of question period.]

Point of Privilege

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of

personal privilege at a future date.

[ Page 10135 ]

Mr.

Speaker: So noted.

Standing Order 35 Motion

MacPhail: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to

debate an issue of definite and urgent public importance, specifically that this

government's failure to provide the public with the true facts about the B.C.

Rail deal has led to a crisis in public confidence in this government.

Mr.

Speaker, as suggested in practice recommendation No. 8, I have provided you with

advance notice of my intention to bring this motion forward at this time.

[1445]

Until this

weekend, no one but the government and perhaps CN knew some of the important

details about the B.C. Rail deal, which have alarmed many in the public. Indeed,

this government stated unequivocally in this Legislature that the deal was for

60 years with a 30-year option to extend and renew and for a specific amount of

money. Now we have learned that the successful bidder can also have sole use of

the B.C. Rail lines for 990 years. There is no information from government on

what, if any, additional benefits might flow to future generations should CN

exercise that 900-year option. Also…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …this government campaigned on not selling B.C. Rail, and yet

this weekend we learned that there is clearly language in the agreement that

would see government selling title to the railway and railbed. Clearly, we have

a matter that questions public confidence in this government. This matter is

urgent. The government, as we speak, is pursuing a speedy closing of this

agreement.

Given the

misinformation made available at the time of the debate in this Legislature on

the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, a point and

questions that were raised by the opposition at the time, it is clearly urgent

that this matter be debated now, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to acknowledge the

urgent nature of this matter. Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you adjourn this

House until your ruling on this matter has been heard.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm somewhat interested by the comments of the member opposite.

First of all, there's just a fundamental error of facts in her statement, which

I think any clear reading of question period Hansard today would

indicate. The fact of the matter is that CN does not have a

990-or-whatever-it-was-year lease that she mentioned. In fact, the option to

renew is an option of government.

There will

be at some point, some time from now, a government that can opt, as the minister

said, to renew, to not renew, to find someone else to operate the railway for

them or to operate it themselves. So first of all, there's a fundamental error

of facts, again, with the comment by the member in the Legislature.

Second of

all, she alleges that that, therefore, is new information, and I think there

have been numerous previous rulings in this House as well as in other Houses

about the relevancy and the impact of new information on the urgency of debate.

It's not a matter, and I'd refer the member to page 370 of the sixteenth edition

of Erskine May…. Even if there were new information, which I allege there

isn't, that is not a matter for urgency. I would refer the Speaker and the

member opposite to that.

The

question is the urgency of the debate, in fact, and there have been previous

debates in this House about this issue. There was last fall with the passage of

legislation. There was also, I might add, and there continues to be a standing

opportunity for the members opposite to raise matters and motions that they put

before the House on Monday mornings in private members' time, something that was

not available to the opposition in the ten years I was in opposition.

It's also a

standing provision in this House by agreement with the opposition members that

they can choose the time for that debate. They could have done it this morning.

They could do it next Monday, if they wish. There are other opportunities for

debate. It's not me that doesn't want to have the debate. If that member had

wanted to have the debate, she could have had the debate. She could have had it

this morning. She can have it next Monday, if she wants. It's up to her to get

her act together and to submit her information.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: Again, she doesn't understand it, because the issue is a debate.

It's a debate put forward by a motion of the member of the opposition. It

becomes the member of the opposition's debate.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Could we have some order, please. Hon. members, we heard one side

of the issue. Let's have the courtesy of listening to the other side.

[1450]

Hon. G.

Collins: The member is just incorrect. The fact of the matter is she's just

put before the House a motion that she would like to move in the event that you

rule in her favour. So for her argument to be that it's not an opposition motion

is simply factually incorrect, and if she'd read her own motion, which she just

handed to the Table, she'd know that.

There is a

process by which the member….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

[ Page 10136 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: The fact of the matter is that the member put forward a motion

which would be moved in this House, and it would be up for debate. There are

other opportunities for her to do that. The estimates for the Ministry of

Transportation will be up shortly. As well, there will be legislation coming

before the House. When the B.C. Rail issue comes for final determination, there

will be opportunities for debate at that time.

Mr.

Speaker: The Chair thanks both members for their comments. We will take them

under advisement and bring back a ruling on the subject, probably later today.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: I have the honour to present the annual report of the office of the

police complaint commissioner, 2003, and the auditor general's 2004-05 report

No. 1 , Follow-up of Performance Reports .

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 13,

Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004. In Committee A, there's continued

debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

Committee of the Whole House

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:53 p.m.

The

Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The

committee recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

On

section

MacPhail: Has Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, been proclaimed?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: No.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain why we're here, then.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: This act was actually intended to be done in phases, and this is

just the progression of the phases that we're going through.

[1500]

MacPhail: Phases — that's an interesting way. It's typical of this

government. We're doing it in phases, but they don't pass any of the phases.

It's not a phase when you do everything at the one time. They haven't passed the

original act. The government hasn't passed the original act, and now they're

bringing in "the next phase." That's called doing it all at the same

time.

As we

mentioned during second reading, the National Round Table on the Environment

says that there are some 30,000 brownfield sites in Canada, and the ministry

itself says that there are some 7,000 right here in British Columbia. It's been

well publicized in independent reports done for industry and for the government

that the biggest obstacle to cleaning up these sites — and of course, that

would also be the point raised by the member for Chilliwack-Kent and the member

for Nelson-Creston in second reading — is the issue of joint and several

liability.

Of course,

that's exactly what we're discussing under the sale of B.C. Rail to CN too. The

government's saying: "Oh, we're gonna force CN to take land for a buck,

because if it's contaminated, then they'll have to clean it up. We're going to

give them billions of dollars of land, because if it's contaminated, then

they'll have to clean it up." Why not just make a law or enforce the law

that was on the books that the owner had to clean it up regardless?

This

legislation is the beginning down a slippery slope where this government is

going to take away joint and several liability for land cleanup. In fact, that

was the point the member for Nelson-Creston made — that we have to take that

step. That was the point the member for Chilliwack-Kent made.

Can the

minister tell this House and, in particular, tell the member for Nelson-Creston

and the member for Chilliwack-Kent where in this bill the issue of liability for

the cleanup of contaminated sites is addressed? That was the point they were

making that needed to be changed.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The liability issue is a very serious issue, and we are dealing

with it in a slow-progression manner to make sure we deal with that liability

issue. That will come forward as we move through these phases.

MacPhail: Okay, but that was why I asked whether the original bill, Bill 57,

had been passed. It hasn't, so there are zero phases so far. This particular

legislation — the one we're dealing with now, Bill 13 — doesn't address the

concerns the member for Chilliwack-Kent and the member for Nelson-Creston raised

around joint and several liability.

[1505]

What is the

purpose of this legislation in terms of actually making change? And why can't

the minister just…? Maybe the minister could stand up, then, and tell us:

what's the phase that deals with joint and several liability? And what are the

government's intentions, given that his own government has put this issue

[ Page 10137 ]

on the table with the sale of B.C. Rail and giving the land to CN for a

dollar? His own government has raised this issue about joint and several

liability in terms of the sale of that land. It's the only explanation that

could possibly justify a $1 giveaway of all those B.C. Rail lands to CN. So what

are the government's intentions?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: We needed to develop and consult on the contaminated sites regs

and codes on the waste discharge regulation, and once we've got those in, then

in the next month or so we'll bring it all into effect.

MacPhail: Let me read from the news release of this minister, dated March

10, 2004. It's entitled Redevelopment of Contaminated Sites Accelerated .

On page 2 it says: "Amendments addressing contaminated site liability,

dispute resolution, appeals and cost-benefit analysis will be brought forward in

the third phase of changes planned for 2006."

Given that

the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Chilliwack-Kent said this was

the issue — joint and several liability — the government is saying the next

phase isn't until 2006.

Perhaps the

minister could just explain for the record how the law is applied on matters of

contaminated site liability, dispute resolution, appeals and cost-benefit

analysis in the current form — under the current law.

P. Wong:

Can I ask for leave to make an introduction?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

P. Wong:

In the House today I'm pleased to introduce a group of 26 volunteers from

the Little Mountain Neighbourhood gathering club. They offer much of their

valuable time and money in helping the needy families, seniors and parents in

the riding of Vancouver-Kensington. This group is led by Irene Lui and Ellen Li.

Members include Bill Yuen, Julie Chen, Jackson Chan, Annie Wong, Lai-Mui Lau,

Gloria Sem, Chunk-Tak Lam, Yu-King Lan, Chiu Kui-Woom, Chiu Ho Wai-Kok, Kati

Kong, Wai-Ming Kong, Norman Kong, Kwai-Hung Cheung, Lisa Chan, Siu-Wan Lau,

Chung-Kan Pang, Helen Chiu, Henriette Lau, Yuke-San Wong, Ying-May Miu, Dow-Gim

Miu, Ying-Mei Guo, Jean Yiu, Jayne Feng and Malik Feng. Will the House please

make them most welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Where we are right now with liability…. We still are with joint

and several, and all responsible parties bear some of the responsibility for

cleanup.

[1510]

MacPhail: That's right. What's the problem with that?

The member

for Nelson-Creston and the member for Chilliwack-Kent, in second reading, said

that's the problem. Well, what's the problem? Would the minister stand and tell

me what's wrong with joint and several liability for cleanup? Its own government

is saying they have to do a big giveaway of a buck for all the lands, the B.C.

Rail lands, to CN in case the lands are contaminated, and they're going to force

CN to own those lands so that they have to clean up. Well, if there's no joint

and several liability — if this government is intending to change that —

what are they going to change it to? And should they not now come clean on their

intentions so we can judge what this government's intention is around the land

giveaway to CN for B.C. Rail? It was this government that brought up that issue.

It was these members, these Liberal backbench members, that said the joint and

several liability application to contaminated sites is the problem, and this

minister says he's going to change it. Come clean.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: We actually may keep the joint and several. It might be the okay

way to do it. Right now we are consulting with all the parties. In some areas,

some do it and some don't. We're in that process of consulting.

MacPhail: Who is doing the consulting on this matter?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Ministry staff is actually doing the consulting with industry,

environmental consultants, lenders, owners, municipalities.

MacPhail: Is the minister then saying nothing will change? Let me ask the

minister this question. From the law that existed prior to his becoming

government around liability for contaminated sites…. Has that changed at all

since his government came into power?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: No, liability hasn't changed.

[1515]

MacPhail: Then right now the law is very strong, given that the former

government had a huge commitment to that. As I understand it, a contaminated

site cannot be sold and the seller abandon his or her responsibility for

cleanup. That is joint and several liability. A sale doesn't negate or do away

with the obligation to clean up the contaminated site. Have I got a basic

understanding of the law?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The owner, by selling the property, doesn't negate his liability

in the property.

MacPhail: Right, thank you very much.

What is the

government going to change? What is under review? What's the consultation about?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I think the consultation process is to see if somebody, say 70

years ago, lived within the

[ Page 10138 ]

confines of the law that existed at that point in time…. As the laws change

over time, do they automatically become liable for what happened in the past?

MacPhail: Will the minister guarantee that his government is not going to

change the premise that selling land releases the seller from his or her

obligation to clean up a contaminated site?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: At this point in time, it is not the government's intention that

the mere sale of the land would actually release you from your obligations to

look after the land.

[1520]

MacPhail: Every British Columbian will be watching this very carefully,

given the government's current explanation of why they're giving the land to CN

for a buck. They'll be watching very carefully what this government does with

joint and several liabilities for cleanup of contaminated sites. The current

law, if changed, will make British Columbians outraged at this government for

changing the law to let the sellers off the hook for the responsibility of

cleaning up contaminated sites. They will also be extremely cynical and

suspicious and outraged about the reason why they are changing the law, given

their explanation of selling billions of dollars of land to CN for a buck.

Sections

1 and 2 approved.

On

section

MacPhail: The reason I had that debate with the minister, Mr. Chair, on his

intentions is exactly what's happening under

section 3…. Last year the

government under Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, changed the

definition of contaminated site. They took out the phrase "special

waste," and they replaced it with a definition of hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste, which replaced special waste under the previous act, which I

think was called the Waste Management Act…. Hazardous was then defined as

"having the prescribed meaning." Special waste under the previous

legislation had been actually defined. This government changed special waste to

hazardous waste and then said: "Go to the regulations to see what the

definition is."

Now, under

this legislation, under

section 3, we're taking out hazardous waste, and we're

just going with "prescribed substance" in quantities or concentrations

exceeding prescribed risk-based criteria. Special waste is gone, hazardous waste

is gone, and we've got a prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations

exceeding prescribed risk-based criteria. Can the minister actually tell us what

the prescribed substances are? Could he read the list into the record?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: In the special waste reg, the prescribed substances are actually

in that regulation right now. The member opposite could look them up, or we

could go and get them and read them into the record if she desires to do that.

MacPhail: I'm asking what the prescribed substances are going to be now,

pursuant to the new

section 3 that deletes any reference to special waste.

Special waste is gone, so the regulation that the minister talks about is

meaningless because it is a regulation describing special waste. That's gone.

What are the prescribed substances referred to in

section 3?

[1525]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: What we're doing here is that the on-site substances and the

off-site substances are now the same. We haven't taken any substances off the

regulation at all. The regulation stays the same. It's just that we brought them

together into one.

MacPhail: Well, that assumes that the public has confidence in this

government to, first of all, make regulations public and then the confidence not

to change them. Of course, no one has any confidence in the government that they

will not change regulations behind closed doors.

The

minister is saying that the hazardous waste regulation that exists pursuant to

Bill 57, which hasn't been proclaimed, stays in effect and is added to in terms

of prescribed substances. What would those prescribed substances that are being

added to the regulation of hazardous waste be?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: We haven't got that list yet, but we take our advice from the

Science Advisory Board, and that's where that list is actually formulated.

MacPhail: Okay. What are the prescribed risk-based criteria? We're passing

legislation here. Can't the minister at least read something into the record?

[1530]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: To the member opposite: the numbers have never been in

legislation, whether they've been with our government or in past governments.

They've always been in the regulations. There's a whole

schedule here in

schedule 6, "Generic Numerical Water Standards." It goes right through

the whole thing. If the member wants, I can make sure she has a copy of that.

MacPhail: Could the minister read into the record what regulations numbers

he is referring to? And does he guarantee that those are not going to be

changed?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The regulation is B.C. reg 375/96. No, I can't guarantee that

we're not going to change them, because that's why we're meeting with the

Science Advisory Board — to understand which ones they think should be

changed.

MacPhail: Well, that's what I'm asking for. Why is the minister bringing in

legislation to change this

[ Page 10139 ]

when he doesn't himself know how he is going to change it, when the original

act hasn't even been passed or proclaimed? What's the hurry? Why can't we have

full public disclosure of this before the changes are made? These are serious

matters. We're talking about contaminated sites here. We're talking about the

well-being of our Earth.

The

minister is rushing this through. He's not telling us what changes he's going to

make. The consultation hasn't been completed. The original legislation isn't

even in effect now, so it's not like he has to hurry because his government is

changing things the way they promised. Thank God they're not managing this issue

competently from their own agenda, because I don't think it should be changed.

He quotes regulation 375/96 and then can't guarantee that that's what will be

there in the future. What are we debating? Why can't the minister wait for the

Science Advisory Board and then bring in the regulation to demonstrate what the

changes are before we pass this section?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The prescribed substances are staying the same for now, but as the

member opposite also knows, science is changing all the time. When we can, we

will change with the science as we get the advice from the scientific advisory

panel.

MacPhail: Well, no, I don't know that science is changing all the time.

That's why I'm asking the government to prove its case. Why would anyone take

this government's word on anything related to contaminated sites?

[1535]

If science

is changing, perhaps the minister could actually put those changes on the record

before he passes sweeping legislation that allows the government to change the

matters of a prescribed substance behind closed doors. Really, Mr. Chair, I must

say that around the debate on

section 3, I have far less confidence — given

the minister's answers — than I did prior to even rising to debate this

matter.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: To assure the member that we are getting good advice, the Science

Advisory Board is made up of some of the best scientific minds from UVic, UBC

and Simon Fraser. That's how we make our decisions — not at the political whim

of the government.

MacPhail: My point is: how are we supposed to know? How is the public

supposed to know that it's the best scientific advice? It's all secret. There is

no opportunity to debate or challenge or confirm. So don't give me that — that

this government isn't making political decisions. Of course they're making

political decisions, because they're doing it behind closed doors. They refuse

to release what the Science Advisory Board is recommending before passing this

legislation.

I don't

know what the urgency is around this legislation. They haven't even got their

act together to pass the original legislation. It is ridiculous for this

minister to stand up and say that they're getting the best scientific advice.

Are we just supposed to take that on the word of the minister? No, we're not. I

don't care whether the minister's got the best science advisers in the world.

They still have to be public about their recommendations.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: They will be.

MacPhail: Will the Science Advisory Board's recommendations be public before

the regulation is passed, and will they be put out for public consultation and

comment?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Yes.

MacPhail: That was a two-part question. Will they be made public — the

recommendations — and will they be put out for public consultation and

comment?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Those were two yeses, then.

Sections 3

to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail: In second reading we noted that the existing

section 44 of the

Environmental Management Act, which is Bill 57, runs a full six sections plus a

number of subsections and takes up two pages of that statute. It's now being

replaced by a new

section 44, which barely takes up half a page. The explanatory

note under this legislation, Bill 13, says that the determination of a

contaminated site is to be moved to regulation. Well, that's what this

government does with everything. We've just had that debate.

Will all

the procedures that are currently in

section 44 of the Environmental Management

Act, Bill 57, be moved to regulation as is?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The intention is not to take out any requirements, but some of the

wording certainly could change.

[1540]

MacPhail: Well, shall we go through it, then, line by line? I'm not quite

sure why the minister is making this change. Which parts of

section 44(2) under

the old act, Bill 57, will still be required? Perhaps the minister could

actually go through it, then, line by line.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The provisions that are on that page will stay but, as the member

can read in

section 6, expand the types of information a director can rely on in

making the determination, so I think that's the key line there.

MacPhail: Well, whatever. I guess the minister is referring to the fact that

a director may rely on any information the director considers sufficient for

that

[ Page 10140 ]

purpose, but the minister is confirming that Bill 57,

section 44(2)(

a) through (f), will be part of the requirements for determining a contaminated

site under the new

section 44 of Bill 13.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Not necessarily in that wording but pretty well…. Yes, it would

be, but not in the wording that you have indicated.

MacPhail: Well, that's reassuring, she said sarcastically.

Section

44(5) of Bill 57 says: "In addition to a site in respect of which a

director makes a determination under subsection (1), a site is considered to be

or to have been a contaminated site if a director has done any of the

following…." Then it has (

a) through (

e) for determinations that the

director must go under. Will those determinations remain in place under the Bill

13,

section 44 process?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Yes, they all will.

MacPhail: On

section 6 — again, new

section — let me ask this question

section 44(4). I want to explore what that means. Does it mean that the only

decision of a director that can be appealed is the determination of a

contaminated site and not any of the evidence used to determine or deny that a

site is contaminated? What does 44(4) mean under

section 6?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: You can actually appeal anything, but it's not until the whole

process is finished so that somebody isn't appealing partway through the

determination of what's happening. They have to wait until the whole

determination is done, and then they can make the appeal, but you can appeal any

part of it.

[1545]

MacPhail: All right, so the determination has to be done first. Then

either the whole determination can be appealed, or the factors used by the

director to make that determination can also be appealed. Is that correct?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Yes.

Sections 6

and 7 approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 8(

c) in Bill 13. This amendment removes the requirement

that the level of remediation and level of any remaining contaminants are

recorded in the site registry. I'm not quite sure how it is going to work now.

The site registry is established under

section 43 of the Environmental

Management Act, and there is a whole page there describing the site registry —

43(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) — and it's very specific what the site registry

must do. I mean, 43(1) of the Environmental Management Act — which remains in

place, as far as I understand — says: "The minister must establish a site

registry, and appoint a registrar to manage the site registry." Then 43(4),

for instance, says: "The registrar must enter by notation into the site

registry information referred to in subsections (2) and (3) and decisions of the

appeal board."

I just got

from the government's own website today the acknowledgment that the site

registry remains. I'll describe what the website says about the site registry.

The ministry's own website, as of today, says: "A site registry permits

easy access to information about sites in B.C. Basic characteristics of a site,

as well as legal events and milestones in the remediation process will be

recorded. The registry also provides information for land transactions and will

serve as a ready source of information for the general public. It will be

publicly accessible by computer through B.C. OnLine."

My question

is — I assume the minister is still keeping the site registry: what is the

intent of

section 8(c)? How does that change the information that will be

recorded for the site registry? I'll just give one other point here. Maybe

section 53(3)(

b) is redundant, and that's what you're doing here. Or is there

now a policy that information about remediation and any substances remaining on

the site do not have to be recorded at the site registry?

[1550]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The issuance of the site certificate is not predicated on (b), but

site registry

section 43 still is in existence.

MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. The site registry still exists, but I'm

trying to figure out how the site registry will exist in the future. Site

registry is not being changed. There's still a legal requirement for the site

registry. The government's description as of today of the site registry is that

it permits easy access to information about sites in B.C. Basic characteristics

of a site, as well as legal events and milestones in the remediation process,

will be recorded.

This

legislation that we're debating right now removes the requirement for the

collection of information about the remediation and any substances remaining on

the site to be recorded in the site registry. That's what the minister is

removing.

Section 8 is deleting 53(3)(

b) and (

c) from the original Bill 57. What

that said, which the government is now repealing…. I'll read it into the

record. It says: "A director, in accordance with the regulations, may issue

a certificate of compliance with respect to mediation of a contaminated site

if…(

b) information about the remediation and any substances remaining on the

site has been recorded in the site registry." That's being removed. So what

information does have to be provided for the site registry now, given that that

requirement is being removed?

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: If the member looks back at the site registry section, 43, and

looks at (2)(

a) and (b), "(2)(

a) all site profiles, preliminary site

investigations and detailed investigations that the director receives,"

[ Page 10141 ]

and "(

b) all orders, approvals, voluntary remediation agreements and

decisions, including determinations under

section 44 (3) [determination of

contaminated sites], made by the director under this Part…." I think

where we are, we're covering that off. It's covered off in the site registry.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, then, the minister is saying that the old

53(3)(b), which said information about the remediation and any substances

remaining on the site needing to be recorded in the site registry…. Full

provision, which is being eliminated, is covered under

section 43.

In other

words, what I want to know is…. I mean, the minister can stand up and say:

"Oh, it was a duplicate requirement." I want to know that by the

deletion, the repealing of 53(3)(b), we're still going to get every single piece

of information that used to have to be provided to the site registry still being

legally mandated to be put on the site registry.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The answer is yes.

Sections 8

to 15 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 16 of Bill 13 amends

section 64(2)(

m) of Bill 57, and it

removes the requirement that the director develop a protocol for

"establishing formats for summaries of site investigations and remediation

plans for the purposes of their entry into the site registry." That

requirement is now being removed. My question on this is the same as my previous

question. Will all of that information that used to be required under 64(2)(

m) still be required for inclusion in the site registry?

[1555]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: We're actually not taking anything away. We're actually adding two

things: site profiles and

summary of site conditions.

MacPhail: Yes, I saw that, but you're striking out the words "for the

purposes of their entry into the site registry." The government is removing

that requirement. So sub-subsection (

m) will now read, "establishing

formats for summaries of site investigations," and you will add "site

profiles, summaries of site conditions," but you are taking away the words

"for the purposes of their entry into the site registry."

That's my

question. Will this information still be legally required to be entered into the

site registry?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Yes.

Sections 16

to 20 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 21, by deleting "as re-enacted by

section

161" and substituting "as amended by

section 161 (b)".]

On the

amendment.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The amendment to

section 21 corrects a drafting error in the first

reading bill by replacing the words "as re-enacted by

section 161"

with the words "as amended by

section 161(b)."

This House

amendment has been identified as necessary because not making this change would

make this

section of the bill inoperative. The result of this amendment is that

section 21 of Bill 13 will read: "Section 946.1 (2) (

b) of the Local

Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, as amended by

section 161 (

b) of the

Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53, is amended by striking out

'section 40 (4)' and substituting 'section 40 (2).'"

Amendment

approved.

Section 21

as amended approved.

Sections 22

to 26 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:59 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill

13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: By leave, now.

[1600]

Leave

granted.

Bill

13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, read a third time and passed.

Hon.

B. Barisoff: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 16.

Committee of the Whole House

WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; K. Stewart in the chair.

[ Page 10142 ]

The

committee met at 4:01 p.m.

Sections 1

to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move the amendment to

section 7 standing in my name on orders of

the day.

[SECTION 7,

(

a) by deleting "section 112 (2)" and substituting

"section 112 (2) and (3)", and

(

b) by adding the following after the proposed

section 112

(2) of the Environmental Management Act:

(3) Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence

Act do not apply to anything dealt with under

section 111 (3) of this Act.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: This House amendment is being made to correct the inadvertent

omission in the proposed amendment of

section 112 of the Environmental

Management Act as set out in

section 7 of this bill.

Section 112(2) as proposed

for the amendment in

section 7 of the bill is intended to exempt samples taken

from regulatory inspection purposes for the requirement under the Offence Act

concerning the reporting of seizures of property to a justice.

However,

the amendment in the bill does not take into account that there is a consequence

to the effect of (3) as currently written; (3) is intended to exempt seizures of

hazardous waste seized for public safety reasons from the Offence Act

requirements. Technically, such seizures do not qualify as taking of samples in

the course of an inspection, but the policy is to treat them in the same way as

regards to reporting requirements. An amendment to (3) is, therefore, needed in

that it takes the change to (2) into account in order to continue this exemption

and thereby prevent unnecessary administrative burden.

The result

section 112 of the Environmental Management Act will read: Seizures and

prevention orders, 112. One, if in the course of the inspection under

section

109 — entry on property — or

section 111 — inspection of vehicles — the

officer considers that a person is contravening this act or the regulations, the

officer may, (a), seize anything that the officer considers should be seized

and, (b), order the person to do anything the officer considers necessary to

stop the contravention or prevention of another contravention. Two, sections 23

to 24.2 of the Offence Act do not apply in relation to anything taken in the

course of an inspection authorized by

section 109, entry on a property or 111,

inspection of vehicles, of this act, unless (1) of this

section applies, in

which case

section 23(4) of the Offence Act applies and, for that purpose, the

officer is deemed to be a peace officer. Three,

section 23 to 24.2 of the

Offence Act does not apply to anything dealt with under

section 111(3) of this

act.

Amendment

approved.

Section 7

as amended approved.

Sections 8

to 10 inclusive approved.

[1605]

section

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move an amendment to

section 11 standing in my name in orders of

the day.

[Section 11,

(

a) by deleting "section 20 (2)" and substituting

"section 20 (2) and (7)", and

(

b) by adding the following after the proposed

section 20

(2) of the Integrated Pest Management Act:

(7) Sections 23 to 24.2 of the

Offence Act and subsection (3) of this

section do not apply in respect of

anything ordered destroyed under subsection (4) (

b) of this section.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: The amendment concerns

section 11 of this bill and is being made

for the same reason as the previous House amendment to address the drafting

omission relating to the application of reporting requirements under the Offence

Act. In this case, the provision in question is

section 20 of the Integrated

Pest Management Act.

The intent

behind

section 11 of this bill, like the amendment concerning

section 112 of the

Environmental Management Act, is to exempt things taken in the course of

inspections from evidence reporting requirements of the Offence Act. In this

case, the House amendments will amend

section 20(7) in order to reflect the

change to subsection (2) and to address the statutes of contaminated items that

are seized and destroyed in the interest of the public safety, public health and

safety.

The House

amendments will preserve the effect of subsection (7) as it would have applied

prior to the amendments of subsection (2). Items seized and destroyed under

section 4 will be exempted from the Offence Act reporting requirements, thereby

avoiding unnecessary administrative burden.

The result

section 20 of the Integrated Pest Management Act will read: Sections 23 to

24.2 of the Offence Act do not apply in relation to anything taken in the course

of inspection authorized under sections 17, 18 or 19 of this act unless

subsection (1) of this

section applies, in which case,

section 23(4) of the

Offence Act applies and for that purpose, an inspector is deemed to be a peace

officer.

Section 7, sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act and subsection (3) of

this

section do not apply, (2) and (3), and do not apply in respect to anything

ordered destroyed under subsection (4)(

b) of this section.

Amendment

approved.

Section

11 as amended approved.

Sections

12 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

[ Page 10143 ]

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:07 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 16,

Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete

with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill

16, Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a third

time and passed.

Hayer: I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: I have two of our friends here from the Fraser Valley Real Estate

Board. One is Dave Vaishnav of Save 2 Sell Realty. The other one is Debbie Jay,

communication coordinator with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. They're here

for the British Columbia Real Estate Association's meeting with the members and

doing a good job. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates debate of the Ministry of

Forests with the astounding, astonishing and very clever Minister of Forests.

Committee of Supply

The

House in Committee of Supply B; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:09 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 24:

ministry operations, $393,292,000.

Hunter: I've got three or four areas that I'd like to canvass with the

minister this afternoon. The first is with respect to the tenure takeback and

the legislation that we passed, the revision to the Forest Act. I wonder if the

minister could give me an indication of where we are in that process. I have

lots of woodlot operators, smaller — some private land owners who are

interested in where the future is going. I wonder if it's possible for the

minister to give me an update on where we are in that process and examples,

perhaps, of where changes have been made that I can give to my own constituents.

[1610]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It is obviously a

significant part of the forest revitalization strategy that was announced one

year ago — well, just over one year ago. The logic, as the member knows, was

to facilitate the creation of some new opportunities for practitioners in the

forestry field — first nations, for example, and community tenures, community

forests, woodlot owners. It's not the first time that this has been talked about

— to provide those new opportunities — but it is and has been a difficult if

not impossible thing to do in the past, where so much of the tenure is locked up

in long-term replaceable licences. So we said we were going to take from the

major licensees, and we built in a threshold.

If I might,

to the Leader of the Opposition, who has just entered, there were some other

questions from other members, so we decided to….

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Okay. In order to facilitate that, there was a need to embark upon

a reallocation exercise that involved the major licensees. The member's question

is: where are we at that way? It might be helpful if I laid out what the program

has been. We spent a considerable amount of time working with the affected

parties to identify by licence the areas, the volumes that were going to be

subject to the reallocation. It's important to keep this in mind.

What we

didn't say in the legislation passed last year is that it would be 20 percent of

each licence. It was agreed by virtually everyone that we wanted to have

sufficient flexibility to make decisions that made sound business sense in terms

of business units and operating units, so there was a variety. In some cases, in

a few rare cases, licences were affected 100 percent. In other cases, licences

were affected to the tune of less than 20 percent or not affected at all, but on

balance the cumulative effect had to be 20 percent. That's because we needed

representative volume in order to drive the new market pricing system that's

been in place on the coast and has, I might modestly say, led to a significant

return to work and revitalization of activity on the coast. We needed

representative volume for the first nations, for the communities, for the

woodlot owners.

We're now

at a point, Mr. Chair, where those volumes have been identified — largely

identified by licence. That was done and communicated and verified in letters to

the impacted licensees, and we're now working with those stakeholders, including

the licensees obviously, to identify areas on the ground from where those

volumes would take place. Everyone's got

[ Page 10144 ]

an interest in that. If you're a first nation, you obviously have interest in

seeing volumes located within your asserted traditional territory. If you're a

woodlot licensee or a prospective woodlot licensee, you have an interest in

where those volumes come from. If you're a community with an interest in a

community tenure, you would have an interest in seeing some of those volumes

come from an area in closer proximity to the community itself. That all makes

sense. At the same time, we as a Crown have an interest in making sure that we

have the representative volume for the timber sale component to this that we

need to drive the market pricing system.

[1615]

Where we're

at right now is working by licensee and by licence through an identification

process. I should tell the member this. We've settled on a priority approach to

this, and it goes like this. We're going to do the midcoast–northwest first,

then the coast and then the interior of the province. That is a reflection of

the respective economic challenges that those areas are facing as they relate to

forestry.

addition, we will in all likelihood, with some certainty, effect this in two

stages: firstly, by and large, the volume related to the timber sale program and

then, secondly, the volume as it relates to the other tenures — the first

nations, the community forests and the woodlots. The objective is to have the

first stage complete by the end of calendar year. When I say complete — I

think the member knows but perhaps can convey to others — the process is not

complete until the Minister of Forests signs off on the ministerial order.

What that

allows, and this is very important, is for operations to continue in the hands

of the original licensee. What we're looking to effect here is as seamless a

transition as possible. The timber isn't going anywhere, nor should it disappear

administratively into some black hole in Victoria. If it is going to the timber

sale program, we want it to be in a position on the day that it comes back

functionally from the licensee to be issued as a licence opportunity for someone

else. The target for the first stage of this is the end of the calendar year,

and then in 2005 for the remainder as it relates to the smaller licensees and

the first nations component. Hopefully, that gives the member a broader sense of

where we're at in terms of the time line.

Hunter: Thank you, minister. That's quite helpful.

I wonder if

you could give me a little clarification or maybe some information about the

opportunities for changes in tenure or ownership of pieces of parcels of forest

land. In my community, certainly with the urban interface area, with the forest

changing as the community grows…. Gabriola Island is a good example, where

there's lots of forested land where people are looking to try and create some

more stable future than perhaps a woodlot might provide. To be blunt about it,

some people don't want to see some of the trees harvested. I don't even know in

that particular example if they're worth harvesting.

Is this

process of negotiating with licence holders — I guess including the Crown,

because we own a fair amount of timber as the Crown…? Is there a process in

place to deal with these issues of urban interface where perhaps a piece of land

that was usable and useful as forest land in the past might better be used as

parkland in the future? Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Maybe I'll try this from a slightly different angle. The Minister

of State for Forestry Operations and I, as recently as this weekend, were

talking with some people of the community forest association. They made a point

not that dissimilar to what the member said, which is that there are in certain

parts of the province, especially in rural/urban interface areas, forested areas

that have largely become inaccessible for commercial forest operations for any

variety of reasons — the evolution of the community around them, the attitudes

of the people there. Sometimes it's other considerations.

[1620]

The point

attributable to the suspicion that many people have around operators who may

come in from elsewhere to conduct those operations;

whereas if the tenure was

held by the community itself or a local resident via a woodlot, we might

actually see some of these areas heretofore inaccessible becoming either

partially or entirely accessible for some degree of economic activity.

The one

qualifier I would put on that, and I do so as candidly as I can…. This process

of tenure reallocation is designed to reallocate tenure for the purpose,

primarily, of encouraging economic activity. It is not a pseudonym for the park

creation strategy. Insofar as communities may have strategies for the creation

of a community-based tenure and will make decisions around that, I have been

fairly candid, I think, with them that if it's a park we want to create, then

let's create a park. But my notion of a community forest is a working community

forest.

Hunter: Yes, thank you. That's very helpful in a couple of areas in my

community to have that clarity, so I'd like to thank the minister for that.

The

minister talked about market-priced stumpage systems that were introduced

earlier in the year. I think it's fair to say that amongst the folks in the

forest industry I talked to, there's a fair degree of, I would say,

encouragement and even excitement. Actually, that was a major milestone, a major

event that was put in place in the industry. I'm wondering if the minister could

indicate whether there are numbers available to the ministry that would give us

any more than anecdotal information about increases in employment activity in

the forests. I hear all kinds of stories, but it's hard to take a bunch of

individual employers, companies and contractors, and try and add it all up. Is

there an independent source that might suggest what the introduction of MPS has

done in terms of employment, at least in the coastal sector, which is where the

market-priced stumpage has been introduced?

[ Page 10145 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am — like the member, I think, who regularly and diligently has

tracked this through good days and bad — very, very enthusiastic about what we

have seen take place, particularly over the last number of months. I don't yet

have quantifiable numbers that I would be offering with appropriate levels of

confidence.

I do know

this, and the member knows this better than I do. For the first time in a heck

of a long time, we are seeing advertisements in local newspapers seeking people

to be employed back out in the woods. Anecdotally, the complaint I have been

subjected to most recently — a couple of weeks ago, up-Island — was: "I

can't find enough truck drivers; I can't find enough heavy-duty mechanics."

That is a very different story than, obviously, was the case a year ago. The

numbers reveal a trend that is positive.

I'm going

to say this. As anxious as I am to celebrate victory and declare the corner

turned — and I think it is — I'm going to be reluctant about issuing those

celebratory statements until we see this continued and maintained. The member is

right. For the first time in a long time, the advertisements are appearing

seeking workers. The complaint I receive is a complaint for a shortage of

workers.

You know,

the other thing — and I'm sure we're going to talk about it in part — is

that there are still communities in the coastal industry that face some pretty

serious challenges. I can think of Port Alice right off the top of my head. The

trendlines are good, and the numbers and the significance of those numbers for

workers and their families. I am told that the implementation of the market

pricing system served to reinforce and in some ways accelerate that, but the

proof is always in the pudding. The longevity of that trendline is something we

have to watch very carefully.

Hunter: Yes, thank you. I agree. Certainly in my area, as I said, the

anecdotal information is pretty encouraging at this stage of the game, so let's

keep it up.

[1625]

I wanted to

switch track a little bit and talk about perhaps one of the more contentious

issues we have. Certainly, it's brought to my attention frequently in Nanaimo by

constituents, and it's perhaps more contentious than softwood tariffs. That is

the issue of raw log exports. The minister knows that I have been pretty frank,

I think, with people on this issue. I believe that when it comes to exports of

raw materials from Crown lands, we have a system in place which makes sure that

the product is available for sale in British Columbia. We have to ask the

question: how come the price in Portland, Oregon, is higher than in Vancouver?

That's the important question we have to ask. I am confident that as we see the

coastal industry begin to come back to some state of health, this issue with

respect to Crown lumber will disappear.

There is a

continuing issue with respect to exports of lumber from privately held land. As

the minister knows, in my area, much — in fact, a very large percentage — of

the volume of the cut is actually off private land. There is a federal

regulation, as I understand it, that pertains to telling people what they can or

cannot do with product they grow on their own land. I wonder if the minister

could explain or give an update on where things are with respect to the

regulation of exports of raw lumber from privately held land in British

Columbia.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The short answer is: about where they have been for some time.

There obviously continues to be, in my view, a strong negative reaction amongst

the populace around what has been over the past, I would say, five or six years

a pretty significant increase in the harvest and export of unprocessed timber

off of private lands, not matched but met by a pretty aggressive lobby on the

part of those with private land holdings to remove the restrictions or the

application of any regulations that would purport to restrict their ability to

export that timber. Nothing has changed in that respect.

I think the

member knows that the position we have adopted as a government with respect to

any trade negotiations is that the present restrictions and regulatory regime

will remain in place. That is a position that enjoys support, by and large.

I should

come back and say this. When we talk about this issue, we tend to focus in on

the position of a couple of major licensees, mostly because those are the people

that own vast tracts of private land. It's also an issue for small private land

holders, and it's there where it becomes, to a certain extent for many people, a

little more problematic. If you're a small private land holder in the East

Kootenay with very small volumes of timber but can realize a 30 percent or 40

percent premium on the price of those modest volumes of logs by shipping them

south of the border, there's an obvious attraction to doing so.

I still

think and say that the objective we have to work towards achieving — and I

hope and believe we are making modest progress — is a day when we can harvest

that timber competitively in British Columbia and when processors can pay a

competitive rate for that timber within British Columbia, and the attraction or

the incentive to seek out an export market for unprocessed timber will largely

disappear. I am also mindful of the fact that although recognizing the member

approaches this with a specific interest insofar as the coastal industry is

concerned, it is not an issue that people in the interior are blind to,

particularly given the volumes of infested wood and the fact that there is a

saturation point at which the North American market, at least, can't absorb more

2-by-4s. That's why we have to look at alternate products and alternate uses for

that fibre.

[1630]

Hunter: I want to switch to the final area that I want to canvass, which is

with respect to the pulp sector. The minister mentioned Port Alice as an example

of a community perhaps with problems, a community where there is a pulp mill. I

often think that the pulp

[ Page 10146 ]

sector of the forest industry is kind of forgotten. It tends to be away in a

bay somewhere. Even in my own community it's visible. Once in a while you see

the smokestacks, and they drift over town.

I don't

think many people in our province actually understand the importance of the pulp

sector. Perhaps historically, I think, people recognize it was there. The old

saying was that it's the smell of money, but those smells disappeared a long

time ago.

I do think

that what we are looking at in our pulp sector is a business that has huge

challenges within the huge challenges facing the entire forest sector. Here are

challenges that are occurring in a sector which is actually high value-added for

the most part. Obviously, if you're in pulp and paper, the value-added is a

little higher, but we shouldn't underestimate the value-adding that goes from

pulpwood and chips into pulp products that are exported all over the world and,

from my community particularly, into Europe and China.

I am

obviously concerned about the viability of this sector. It seems to me that

they've had considerable difficulty. Every problem we've had in the forest

industry…. The supply of logs and chips to the industry is problematic. I just

wanted to scope out at this point what the attitude of the Minister of Forests

is to this industry.

I think

that the financial problems it faces, the marketing challenges it faces, with

competition from southern radiata pine and other — even hardwood — pulp

products from competing jurisdictions…. British Columbia no longer owns the

pulp market. I'm not convinced that the management of our forest industry, both

at the government level and at the private sector level, has actually come to

grips yet with the new world of pulp. I'd like to know what kind of plans the

ministry has with respect to looking at the pulp sector as a continuing, viable

part of our forest industry.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, he's quite right. It is an incredibly important component of

our overall forestry economy. Depending on how you measure it, the employment

numbers can reflect the importance…. Well, they do reflect the importance of

that industry.

There are

all kinds of issues that impact on this and figure in our thinking as we

consider strategies moving forward. Many of them are consistent with what we've

already done. The pulp industry has to operate on a competitive basis and be

able to pay competitive rates for the fibre. We have to make sure there's fibre

available for them to bid competitively on. That is certainly one thing.

We have to

be mindful of the fact that the cycles in this market have been something akin

to a roller-coaster. Happily, at the moment we seem to be on the ascendancy, and

the pulp prices are very good. That's a positive development as well, but people

that have watched this industry long enough will know that they are cyclical, so

we have to plan accordingly.

We have

worked with the pulp sector in terms of the policies that have been developed

around things like utilization. Happily, there is a degree of acceptance and

actually support for that.

[1635]

But look,

there are some pretty big challenges out there when it comes to pulp. You don't

have to look any further than two examples. One is in the northwest of the

province in Skeena — New Skeena or Skeena Cellulose — and the other is up

the Island from where the member lives, in Port Alice — different kinds of

facilities, different kinds of pulp, similar challenges and challenges that have

visited upon people in a very real way and, in the case of Port Alice, are

causing real anxiety right now. Happily, the mayor will be meeting with the

Premier tomorrow, in fact, and we are endeavouring to identify every possible

strategy that can be employed to ensure the ongoing viability of both the

operation and the town that relies upon it.

If I might

just take a moment, this member has distinguished himself in my view by

providing constant and timely reminders, to myself and to the government in

general, of the importance that this industry represents. He has facilitated

meetings with representatives of organized labour within the pulp industry, with

officials on the management side. To the extent that those meetings have taken

place, there is in my view a healthy sense or degree of willingness to

cooperate. What's the bottom line here? Pulp prices are on the upswing right

now. They're at pretty good levels, and we should be capitalizing on that.

We should

recognize something else the member said. We're not the only supplier anymore.

That world is changing, and I will say this. In that new world — that new,

very competitive world — any disruption to the supply of our product to

customers can be devastating. The member comes from a background where he knows

of which I speak. He knows, also, and will be watching and is watching very

carefully the developments in the dispute that presently exists in the towing

and barge industry. We're tracking that. We're trying to ensure that we stay

ahead.

You know,

at a time when the coastal industry on the timber side and on the pulp side is

beginning to show some real signs of life, it would be incredibly foolish on

everyone's

part if we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and put ourselves

at a competitive disadvantage through any kind of prolonged labour disruption.

Trumper: Minister, these are some general questions. It's regarding the

takeback, which I'm quite sure you're fully aware of, in my area. I think I'd

just like to give a bit of a background. Certainly, I think everybody recognizes

the changes that had to take place. The difficulty comes when it's a very

specific area that is being proposed for takeback.

One of the

issues, as well as that, is that on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which

certainly went through a very difficult time following the Clayoquot….

Consequently, one of the companies moved out. Interfor did stay, so they are

doing some work there. One of the big issues there is with small contractors who

are not able to get on the traditional lands of some of the bands out there

without some discussions

[ Page 10147 ]

taking place — I suppose that would be the best way of putting it — which

makes it very difficult for the small contractors on the west coast.

At the same

time, there is an agreement with some of the first nations and with one of the

companies on a joint venture program, a joint program there, with Iisaak, which

on a very regular basis does not take out its annual allowable cut. That's

causing issues out on the west coast as well, which is making it very difficult

for those people who are reliant on the forest industry to make a living.

Certainly, it is causing a great deal of friction on the west coast.

We then

come to the 20 percent in the Alberni Valley which is proposed to be taken out

of one area. Having had meetings with some of the contractors there who,

certainly at the beginning, were very supportive of where we were going with the

20 percent takeback, with so much going to communities and to first nations….

They are now very antsy about it, because they do have a fear that with the

proposal being mooted by the one company which we have contractors in there….

Some of them have been told they will no longer be logging in that area.

[1640]

For the

last considerable length of time, the 20 percent takeback has been, I'm told,

used as one of the reasons why not a great deal of logging is taking place in

that particular division, which is putting over a hundred families in a very

difficult position. I can tell you I've had them in my office, and some are very

distraught because they don't know where it's going.

I've heard

you say many, many times to people, when you have been asked, that this has to

be fair to the communities. Certainly, we have a percentage that is going to

first nations and is going to communities. I wonder if you, minister, could

maybe reiterate how you see the 20 percent working, how you see woodlots being

involved and how you see community forests coming into this, which will give

some confidence to, maybe, the people who are working there or who are hoping to

work there or who have small companies that have invested a huge amount of money

and are now very, very concerned. This is one area that isn't picking up where

everywhere else is picking up on the west coast with the changes that we've

made. It's pretty tough there right now.

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, let me say that the specifics of the situation this

member alludes to in and around her community are reasonably well known to me.

The reason for that is because this member has gone to extraordinary lengths to

ensure they are well known to me and to facilitate direct contact between those

who are impacted or potentially impacted and myself and officials within the

ministry and even the Premier.

I want to

commend her for the diligence she has shown in that respect and also for two

things: not being shy about being pretty blunt about where those concerns are

and also being innovative in endeavouring to identify where some of the

solutions might lie. That is a healthy combination, because unless we're

prepared to acknowledge up front what those concerns are, we're not going to

have much success in trying to alleviate them. That's a good recipe.

Let me say

this to begin with, and I don't say it to be trite or dismissive of the concern,

which is very real. We do have to approach this from this perspective: the trees

aren't going anywhere. That is a fundamentally important concept for us to come

to grips with, because I know for some people, the notion that the agency that

has control of a licence or a tree…. A change in that control is akin to the

subject timber disappearing off the face of the earth, and that's not the case.

Now, it can happen administratively if we don't proceed with this in a sensible

way, and that is the black hole into which volume can disappear. We need to be

careful that that doesn't happen.

I told

another community that I would use them as an example, so I feel as if I have

some licence to do this. The community is Hope. Every community in B.C. is

unique, but insofar as this reallocation process would impact on them and impact

upon a company crew — a different company than the one operating in the

member's area — there was precisely the same anxiety. In fact, in Hope the

proposal would see the entire licence reallocated. So it's not even a question,

as it is in the member's community, about allocation of the takeback volume

between two different areas within the same licence. It's the whole licence —

as one might expect, great anxiety. There's still anxiety. But when we started

to sit down with the IWA….

[1645]

I should

say this as well, if I didn't earlier. This member has been instrumental in

facilitating dialogue not just between the licensee and government but, perhaps

more importantly, between the workers and government via their bargaining agent,

the IWA, and that's a good thing. That's a very good thing.

In the case

of Hope, the same process is taking place. What the parties have realized….

The Minister of State for Forestry Operations and I had continued discussions

with Hope as recently as Friday night in Revelstoke at the community forest

meeting. I'll come to the community forest situation in a moment. The

realization grew that the reason the reallocation was necessary was for the

Crown to meet its obligations to first nations — generally, the Stó:lô people

in Hope.

What has

emerged out of the preliminary discussions is a realization that the timber

still needs to be harvested. The logical people to conduct that harvesting

activity are the people that are doing it now. They will continue to do it for

the original licensee until such time as we have worked out the details of the

reallocation. While we're doing that, the discussions between those workers and

those first nations have already begun to ascertain what I would suggest is

eminently logical — an arrangement whereby they become the front line of

continued harvesting operations and provide some training and capacity building

for those first nations.

And who

knows in that case? There is already talk of getting beyond mere harvesting of

the fibre, but ex-

[ Page 10148 ]

panding into some form of secondary manufacturing. Now, first things first,

and let's not create expectations until there is a reasonable prospect that they

will be realized.

In the

member's example, we have seen some genuine innovation. She said something that,

it occurs to me, is spot on. As we move from the theoretical to the specific,

the anxiety levels immediately went up, because this was no longer just a

theory. It was possible to begin to identify how this might impact in a very

real way.

At the same

time, this member has been instrumental in bringing together a coalition of

people within her community who are interested in a community forest

opportunity. It's a unique community because there is expertise there that, to

be blunt, doesn't exist in every community across British Columbia — expertise

as it relates to management of the forest, harvesting, processing. It is a part

of being from Port Alberni, if I can localize it to Port Alberni. Along with

Mayor McRae and other leaders, there is genuine innovation taking place. That

innovative attitude has always been there, I think, in my sense of Port Alberni.

The biggest

obstacle to it being realized has been the inability to access fibre. I think

the challenge here is to get from where we are today to a situation where Port

Alberni and its community leadership have actually acquired some control over a

portion of the fibre basket in the Port Alberni valley — where they can make

decisions that have a positive economic impact for the people there. It is, at

the risk of inciting a reaction, the most direct form of appurtenancy I can

think of — where local people actually control a portion of that fibre.

[1650]

We don't

get there without doing this. It is the harsh reality. We don't get there

without addressing the fact that the bulk of the fibre there is controlled by a

single licensee, and that is going to change. But when you look at some of the

projects that have arisen out of there — and the member has been instrumental

in helping to facilitate some of those projects — I have a level of confidence

that we can make this work to everyone's benefit.

The last

thing I'll say, Mr. Chair — and some people will believe this, and I suppose

some people won't — is that we didn't wake up one day and think it would be

fun to reallocate 20 percent of the fibre, because it's not. It's fraught with

difficulties and anxieties, particularly through the transition. But in order to

create the new opportunities, in order to meet our obligations to first nations,

in order to have a truly market-based pricing system, it needs to occur. For too

long people have talked about all of these good things without acknowledging the

obvious, which is the challenge involved in getting there.

Part of my

optimism is based on the work this member has done. I know that she will

continue to raise the issue and the corollary issues on a regular basis. I know

when she gets replies or responses or non-replies or non-responses — as the

case might be — that don't address the heart of the issue, she won't be shy in

pointing that out.

Trumper: It would be remiss of me not to comment on the fact that people in

the community, such as the IWA president and the companies, have certainly been

working hard amongst themselves to come up with some solutions. I know they've

had meetings, and I'm just about to organize some more meetings next week.

You can

either go with the change, or you can buck it. I've said to everybody….

Hon. M.

de Jong: Buck it?

Trumper: That's what I said.

But change

is a challenge. I've always said the trees will always be there. They're not

going anywhere, as you have said, and so if the company doesn't want to fell the

trees, then let somebody else do it. I think people do understand that, but it's

the issue of change which is very challenging.

The

question that has been asked of me, and this does deal with the employees who

are probably…. There are those that have some issues right now with the

company, and I think that's a separate issue. That is something they and the

company have to sort out. But the ones who are going to be displaced when the

change takes over…. The question I have been asked by not only the employees

but also some of the companies on compensation is: when do you see that rolling

out?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That is actually an excellent and timely question. It would have

been remiss of me not to touch on that.

As the

member knows, in order to facilitate a transition of the sort we have been

discussing here, we have set some money aside — $75 million to be divided

between impacted contractors and impacted employees. I will eliminate any of the

suspense. Both of those groups will argue passionately that it's not enough.

There is destined to be a lingering disagreement. Nonetheless, that is the

fiscal envelope we are working within.

What I can

say to the member since we last engaged in this discussion in this chamber and

since the pledges were made a year ago as part of the forest revitalization

unveiling is that we now, as of last month, have a trustee in place. That

trustee, Mr. van Soren, will have a board composed of representatives from

organized labour, from the licensees and from the contractors. They are now

beginning the process of setting the specific guidelines around how those

transitional funds will be paid out. The example the member has given is a good

one — that worker.

[1655]

I hope no

one will take offence if I offer an opinion on who I believe we should focus our

attention on with respect to those transition funds within the broad class of

any employees that may be impacted. I think the

[ Page 10149 ]

worker who's anywhere in their mid-twenties to late forties wants to keep

working. That should be, and is, the primary objective. Let's create an industry

that is vibrant enough to reattract the kind of investment that we need to grow

employment, whether it's in the primary sector, the harvesting sector or the

remanufacturing, value-added sector.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Where I

think we need to focus our attention…. I will now shamelessly draw on some of

the terminology that members of the IWA, including their national president Dave

Haggard, have used. Let's provide a dignified exit for the 55- or 56-year-old

forestry worker who has invested a lifetime in the industry and now, through

transition and through change in the industry, is in a position where others

younger than he or she will come along and play a role in the new industry.

If I have a

bias — and I do, I confess — it is to focus attention on those workers to

provide them with that dignified exit or transition and to create a circumstance

in which we can, as is happening in many parts of the province and some parts of

the coastal industry now, start to see some of those employment ads running

again where people are being sought out for employment in the industry.

Trumper: Those are my questions, and I thank you very much for your

forthright answers.

Sahota: Last year the minister introduced the forestry revitalization plan,

which was designed to create new opportunities throughout British Columbia. I

was wondering how that is going. Have new opportunities been created? If he

could give us an update on that.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member will know it was, by any estimate or stretch of the

imagination, a pretty complex and comprehensive change or blueprint for change

in the forest sector. We have talked today already about the reallocation of

tenure, that commodity by which the industry operates. We have talked about the

new opportunities that are entailed in that — new opportunities for first

nations, for community tenures, for an expanded woodlot program.

I'm

actually glad this member asked this question, because she is from a riding that

oftentimes people don't think of as being at the heart of the forest economy,

yet I think one of the leading forestry firms in the country operates within the

borders of her riding. I'm thinking of Taiga Forest Products and other

operators. The shift to market pricing that occurred earlier — roughly a month

ago — has, I think, accelerated a revitalization that we are beginning to see

signs of.

If I were a

member of the public, I might bring some degree of skepticism to this

conversation and say: "Well, that's easy to say, but where's the

evidence?" I think that might be, in part, her question or the essence of

her question. Well, people are going back to work. It's difficult to quantify at

this stage, but the member heard me talk earlier anecdotally about those

employment ads beginning to run again. I think I have one with me from the

interior of the province, but we're even beginning to see that in the coastal

industry. My sense is that that positive development around employment and

families going back to work is there.

[1700]

Another

indicator — and I happen to think it's an important indicator, because at the

end of the day I think it is instrumental to having a healthy forest sector

economy — is investment in the industry. Those numbers have, over the last six

to 12 months, begun to show some pretty impressive signs — whether it is an

OSB plant in Fort St. John worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the largest

single investment in over a decade; whether it is the fact that we now have in

Houston, B.C., as a result of a significant multimillion-dollar investment, the

largest sawmill in the world. Look, I don't think there's any magic,

necessarily, in having the largest, but if there's going to be a largest

sawmill in the world, as far as I'm concerned, it might as well be in British

Columbia. The fact that we achieved that mantle by virtue of a significant

multimillion-dollar investment is, for me, a very positive sign.

If you go

just outside of Prince George and look at what's happening, the Dunkley mill….

We talk about what's happening on the large side, but here is an independent

processor that has made an investment in, I believe, the neighbourhood of $50

million to $60 million, doubling the capacity of their facility. Again, as I was

travelling a week or two ago, I saw in the Prince George newspaper a half-page

ad looking for employees — signs we haven't seen for a long, long time in

British Columbia. In Prince George itself a significant reinvestment by Brink

Forest Products in a new, expanded remanufacturing facility — again, I think a

very positive sign, a sign where much of this investment will go in the future.

Even on the coast, where there has been no end of the challenges, we are

beginning to see investment as it relates to upgrading mill facilities.

In the case

of the member for Surrey-Tynehead, even…. How is the member? He is good, I

think, because we have seen a significant investment in the establishment of a

new small-log mill in that member's riding — again, an indication of some

degree of confidence. If I think about a community that sort of straddles the

interior and the coast, Merritt, one of the major operators there is engaged in

significant reinvestment activity.

These are

things that perhaps the member is not aware of or many British Columbians aren't

— and I think she is — but it is happening steadily, and it is showing a

trend. As I said to the member for Nanaimo, I think it is far too early for us

to proclaim any degree of satisfaction with where we are, because we have a long

way to go. The trend lines are moving in the right direction, although we still

have significant challenges. Working through the stages of the reallocation

process is one. Trying to find, if we can, a solution on the trade

[ Page 10150 ]

front is another. Despite those challenges, despite the pine beetle

infestation we are, for the first time in a long time in British Columbia,

seeing people return in significant numbers to the province — returning to the

forest sector and with it significant investment in the forest sector, upwards

of half a billion dollars in the last six to ten months.

Sahota: Another part of the forestry plan was to diversify the markets so

British Columbians would not be reliant on a single market, the Americans. That

was also part of the forestry revitalization plan, as I recall. I was wondering

if the minister could also give us an update in terms of pursuing other markets,

where that is at, and if there is — in terms of the three top markets that the

British Columbia forest industry and the ministry are pursuing….

[1705]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, it's another theme that I am pleased a member, and this

member, has raised. I've said it before, and some members in the House will

chastise me for sounding like a broken record, but surely one of the lessons we

have at last learned from the dispute we are embroiled in with our largest

trading partner is the vulnerability that accrues when we place all of our trade

eggs in one basket — or substantially all of our trade eggs in one basket.

The member

has raised a point that I think goes to the heart of us being successful over

the long term. Again, I can think of companies within her community and within

her riding whose success will be tied to the success we enjoy as a province in

gaining access to those new markets. What's the update? What's the status? Well,

we're beginning to see some progress.

I hasten to

caution everyone that I don't think we're where we need to be or should be, but

in the case of an emerging market like China we've taken some pretty significant

steps. I will say this. I think the member knows this. She has been instrumental

in encouraging, within government, some of these projects and initiatives, but

the Premier has taken a specific interest in this. His involvement in the Dream

Home China project, which is now on the verge of having construction

commence…. In fact, when the Premier was there last, he turned some sod, and

we are now into the construction phase for completion later in the year. It's a

showcase facility in the heart of Shanghai, in the heart of the fastest-growing

housing market in the world — 12 million new homes. You know what? Very few of

them are made of wood at this stage. We have to change that.

One of the

ways we change it is by taking our product to the People's Republic and saying

that this is what you can do with wood. This is how you can build. You can build

homes; you can build showcase facilities; you can build semi-detached homes; you

can build apartment facilities. These are all of the things you can do on the

structural side — and also not neglecting the fact that there is a heck of a

lot you can do on the decorative side in terms of finishing products, whether

it's flooring, kitchen cabinets or doors and windows.

This is an

opportunity that we have, in this incredibly dynamic market, to make an

impression and to be in the face of potential customers and say to them:

"If it's wood you want — and it should be wood you want because it's the

most environmentally friendly product to build with — then you want B.C. wood.

You want B.C. product because of how well we do it here, how reliable we are,

because of our forest practices." The country that wants to host the green

Olympics needs to be aware of where they're purchasing their products.

These are

all messages that we are taking into those new markets. We're taking them into

Taiwan, we're taking them into Korea, and we are taking them into India. I might

take advantage of this opportunity to turn the question on its head to the

member and say to her…. She was part of a specific delegation that visited

India earlier this year — or late last year. I've now lost track of time. I

know that was very much a topic of discussion while that member and her

colleagues, along with the Premier, were travelling through India.

I will say

this. I think that in the case of India, we're not anywhere near where we should

be in terms of expanding that potential market for us. Some of it is cultural,

in terms of the uses that wood is put to. You know, markets don't develop on

their own. We have to be aggressive, and we have to be smart about developing

those new marketplaces.

[1710]

Those

initiatives are taking place. This member, the member for Surrey-Tynehead, other

members in this House…. The member for Surrey–Green Timbers, I know, was in

India peddling B.C. products in a way that only she can do — in that gentle,

non-threatening manner that we have become so accustomed to seeing from the

member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I hope

she'll continue to talk about this. I hope she'll continue to pester the

Ministers of Forests and