2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Canwest Canspell champion Rachael McDaniel

Hon. J. McIntyre

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Government Integrity Act, 2009 (Bill M204)

J. Horgan

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Jane Danzo and cancer awareness

O. Ilich

Words on the Water Festival

C. Trevena

Community spirit in south Delta

V. Roddick

Sarah-Spring Stump

C. Wyse

Seniors housing development in Burnaby

J. Nuraney

National Volunteer Week

D. Thorne

Oral Questions

Gravel extraction proposal and Hopington aquifer

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

M. Sather

R. Fleming

Government support for logging contractors

S. Fraser

Hon. P. Bell

B. Simpson

Education funding

D. Cubberley

Hon. S. Bond

D. Chudnovsky

N. Macdonald

Second Reading of Bills

Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 7)

Hon. J. van Dongen

R. Fleming

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. van Dongen

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 10)

Hon. J. van Dongen

Hon. J. McIntyre

M. Farnworth

B. Ralston

Hon. J. van Dongen

Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 11)

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

Hon.C. Hansen

Forest Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 13)

Hon. P. Bell

B. Simpson

J. Horgan

C. Evans

S. Fraser

D. Routley

J. Rustad

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

[ Page 14635 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Today I have two sets of introductions. The first is a number of individuals who work in our ministry office, our staff here, who are visiting the Legislature today. As we all know, we rely heavily on our support staff. They are here today to observe question period. I'd like to introduce to the House Aleesa Paulson, Pamela Lawson, Mindy Pearson, Leah Davidson, Jennifer Earl and Cathi Bigelow. I would ask the House to, first of all, please make them all welcome.

Secondly, I am very honoured to have two constituents of mine here observing today as well. I believe it may be the first time for at least one of them to observe question period in person. I'd like to introduce Mr. Rob Bennett, who has been a member of the technology community here in Victoria for over 30 years and is currently the Vancouver Island representative on the B.C. Cancer Foundation board; as well as a good friend and constituent, Jane Danzo, who is the vice-chairman of the B.C. Arts Council and who has volunteered in the greater Victoria community for over 35 years.

In particular for Jane and her husband, who have both been affected with cancer, and with today being the launch of the daffodil campaign, which symbolizes the Canadian Cancer Society awareness, I think it was particularly important that she attend today. I understand that my colleague from Richmond Centre will be making a statement with regards to that.

I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is one of the high schools in my riding. That is Archbishop Carney Secondary School. Their teacher Ms. Brygida Reis is accompanied by a number of students, who are here to watch question period and tour the buildings. I would ask that the House make them most welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined in the gallery today by a good personal friend, a constituent, a previous mayor of Prince George. He's someone who always championed wood as the best building product anywhere in the world and especially here in British Columbia, but he was a great friend of all British Columbians. I'd ask that the House please make Colin Kinsley — fondly referred to as His Warship — welcome to the precinct.

C. Trevena: In the gallery today are four members of the Catholic Women's League, who met with the members of the opposition earlier today. They had some very interesting ideas and resolutions they wanted to discuss with us, and I hope the House will make all of them very welcome.

K. Whittred: I have two introductions this afternoon. First of all, on behalf of the Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery.

[1340]

They are participating in a full day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

Oh sorry. She's still got more to introduce.

Continue, Member.

K. Whittred: Also on behalf of Mr. Speaker I want to welcome two guests from his riding. They are Lynda Jones-Layne, and she is accompanied by her daughter Barbara Jones-Layne. So would you all please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: I hate to stomp on the Speaker's introduction.

I have two friends here today from Langford. The first one is my good friend Sharon Wilkinson, who is here to watch democracy in action.

Of course, I want the Minister of Education to cover her ears because we have a grade 10 student from Belmont who is cutting classes today to be here to watch proceedings in the Legislature. His name is Grant McLachlan. Grant has been interested in politics from an early age, and he's very much looking forward to the next 48 days.

Tributes

CANWEST CANSPELL CHAMPION

RACHAEL M c DANIEL

Hon. J. McIntyre: I would actually like to pay tribute to a young lady from West Vancouver. Her name is Rachael McDaniel. She's 11 years old, a grade 6 student from Irwin Park Elementary School in my constituency.

She took top honours at the 2009 Canwest Canspell regional spelling bee last Saturday. I understand it took eight exhaustive rounds at UBC's Chan Centre involv-

[ Page 14636 ]

ing 70 grade 4 to grade 8 students before she triumphed. Rachael is off to Ottawa in a few weeks for the nationals.

I just was hoping that members of the House would please join me in wishing her the very best of luck. We hope she returns to British Columbia as the champion.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: I have 40 students from Kwalikum Secondary School cutting classes today to be here. They were on a tour that I was attending this morning. Jaret Abel's grade 10 class is here. They had lots of great questions. Please help me make them feel very welcome.

R. Hawes: This morning the government caucus also met with the B.C. and Yukon provincial council members from the Catholic Women's League of Canada. That was Marianna Caldwell, the president; Nancy Simms, president-elect; Sandra Stajduhar, resolutions chair; and Sheila Quinn, the legislation chair. They are all four in the gallery.

On behalf of the government caucus, I would like to thank them for the presentation this morning, which was highly informative. We all want to see them back next year speaking to us again as government caucus. Could we please make them all welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Government Integrity Act, 2009

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Government Integrity Act, 2009.

J. Horgan: Notice has been given on the order paper for this bill to be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: I rise today to speak to the Government Integrity Act, 2009. This bill proposes amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The act will extend conflict of interest laws to include the activities of senior public servants and political appointees and will substantially bolster rules governing the disclosure of lobbyist activities in the province of B.C. Specifically, the bill provides the registrar of lobbyists with the necessary powers to investigate the actions of those who would thumb their nose at public disclosure and would have appropriate penalties.

For those keeping score at home, this is the third time in 12 months that the opposition has tabled measures such as these, so if you're feeling a bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day , you're not alone.

The current conflict-of-interest legislation is out of date. The existing Lobbyist Registration Act is, in the words of the Attorney General, inadequate. This bill will provide clear rules to ensure lobbying is done ethically and transparently, and it will establish a more transparent regime for ethical conduct for current and former public office holders.

[1345]

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 M204, Government Integrity Act, 2009, 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) JANE DANZO AND CANCER AWARENESS

O. Ilich: Today is a fitting day to talk about cancer awareness because it is the kickoff for Daffodil Month, which generally signifies that we're going to be looking at cancer and trying to raise awareness. In this House and throughout the province many of us have been touched by cancer. Each of us reacts to that diagnosis in a different way. As we know, some become crusaders and fundraisers for the B.C. Cancer Foundation, like our colleague Sindi Hawkins.

Today I want to tell the House of someone who lives here in Victoria, who survived cancer last year and whose husband also survived cancer, and what she's doing. I met Jane Danzo a number of years ago when she was the chair of Pacific Opera Victoria. When she was diagnosed last year with breast cancer, she decided that she needed to contribute to the cause in some way that was meaningful. She wanted to do two things — raise awareness and raise some money.

Jane worked with local jeweller Rolf Schmidt, who himself lost his only daughter to cancer last year, and designed five different gold pins, each based on a recognizable ribbon motif of the Cancer Society, each handmade and custom-ordered. The pin, called the cancer awareness pin, raises awareness of cancer, whether worn as a symbol of courage, remembrance or support. The price of the pin is based on cost and a tax-receiptable donation to the B.C. Cancer Foundation for the work of the province's cancer centres. I am wearing one of these pins here on my lapel, along with my MLA pin. Jane's goal is to make these pins available throughout the province.

In the next 12 months one in seven B.C. women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. We remain hopeful that awareness will encourage early detection as well as contributions to the Cancer Foundation for more research.

[ Page 14637 ]

We should all be supportive and appreciative of people who are actually contributing to that effort.

words on the water festival

C. Trevena: Once again Campbell River is opening its doors to the lovers of literature, lovers of ideas and lovers of language. Words on the Water is hosting its eighth festival at the Maritime Heritage Centre. It's a joy for anyone who loves books to sit and listen to writers read their own works. The festival, which started small, has grown and become a fixture in the social structure of the city of Campbell River.

A volunteer group who do love words and books put together the weekend event, which is described by participants and by the audience alike as wonderful and excellent. It's supported with the writers-in-residence program at Haig-Brown House, where fiction and non-fiction authors, poets and journal writers are able to spend a winter writing in Roderick Haig-Brown's home on the banks of the tumultuous Campbell River.

Most important, it's supported by our community, which comes out for the evening panel discussion on Friday and the day readings on Saturday. The Saturday event also allows for a question-and-answer of the authors directly. The weekend is rounded off with a literary cabaret on Saturday evening which provides, as its own advertising attests, all the components necessary for an entertaining and stimulating evening — readings, music and good food.

This year the organizers have brought together an interesting cross-section of authors: Marilyn Bowering, John Gould, Lorna Jackson, Rex Weyler, Mary Novik, Richard Van Camp and Wayde Compton. They're joined by Marjorie Doyle, this year's writer-in-residence, from another island and another ocean. She's from Newfoundland.

The festival is not only a delight for the people of Campbell River, the nearby areas and surrounding communities in itself, but it also provides the foundation for a greater literary awareness in our community. It's a place where writers are encouraged, and they, in turn, can work with the writers-in-residence and other authors. It's a place where advocates for literacy can see successes, and it roots the importance of language of the spoken and written word in our coastal community.

COMMUNITY SPIRIT IN SOUTH DELTA

V. Roddick: Delta South is a community of doers, and 1969 was certainly a stellar year for two of our major local projects to get off the ground. The original face of Delta, our museum, in the centre of what we affectionately refer to as old Ladner and housed in the heritage municipal hall, courthouse and jail is simply brilliant, especially for children and, better still, grandchildren.

[1350]

Each room is set up as part of a pioneer farmhouse, store, fishing dock, dairy, blacksmith, hotel and, most exciting to the youngsters, a jail with occupants.

So 1969 was 40 years ago. To me that's just yesterday. I'd been married four years and had a two-year-old son. That is exactly how some original members of the Delta Hospital Auxiliary feel, and they are as active now as they were then. Volunteers Dorothy Andreasen; Georgina Reynolds, whose husband Robert Reynolds served as the Delta Centennial Hospital Society's first president; Joan High; and Marge Paton have a combined 160 years of service at the hospital.

In 2008 alone, the 400 members put in a total of 70,000 hours of volunteer time to make our hospital the community jewel it is today. Our health authority could not exist without such dedicated people. All health authorities should covet their auxiliaries and the contribution and devotion the volunteers donate selflessly to the better of all concerned. Delta South is a community of doers.

SARAH-SPRING STUMP

C. Wyse: There are many heroes in our society. Some of these men and women make the six o'clock news. Many of these people have movies made about them. But most of these heroes quietly serve their communities with minimal recognition. On occasion these heroes receive an award and gain a few minutes of fame and then go back to quietly making a difference at home.

Sarah-Spring Stump was such a hero. Sarah, a resident of Williams Lake, died recently, and her passing is an incredible loss to her family, her friends and the people she has helped in the Cariboo.

As we in this House well know, homelessness is a failure of our society. That anyone could live without the basics of food, clothing and shelter in this 21st century is unacceptable. We have heard much talk about ending homelessness. Unfortunately, the level of action somehow does not match the level of talk. But Sarah-Spring Stump didn't talk about homelessness. She was a woman of action, and she did something about this problem.

Through Abraham's Lodge and Care Society, Sarah, her husband Danny and her family have helped the poor, the destitute and the homeless. In 1989 she and Danny began their work by taking people into their home. Sarah dedicated her life to making a difference in the lives of others.

In the 1990s she secured some funding from the local health council to assist with the cost of providing for the needs of these forgotten persons. Together with the volunteers at Abraham Lodge, Sarah provided much-needed food, clothing and shelter for the poor and destitute, and she also provided friendship and love along with these material goods.

Sarah did not go unrecognized for her contributions. Her community valued her work, and Sarah, together

[ Page 14638 ]

with Danny, received the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award in 2001.

We in the Cariboo are proud to have known Sarah and will keep her in our hearts forever.

SENIORS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

IN BURNABY

J. Nuraney: Last Friday it was my pleasure to take

part in the official groundbreaking for a development that will provide 70 units of affordable housing for Burnaby seniors. Located on Grimmer Street, this development is a partnership between the province, the city of Burnaby and the South Burnaby Royal Canadian branch 83, the non-profit operator.

The housing that we are helping to develop will help seniors to be independent and live close to their family and friends. It is being built with over $14 million of mortgage financing through the community partnership initiatives. This program helps to implement innovative strategies that create affordable housing for seniors in need. It is an example of how we are working with our partners to provide more sustainable and affordable housing options across the province.

[1355]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the South Burnaby Royal Canadian branch for taking on this project. Their commitment and dedication to bettering the community is a major reason that this project is a sure success. They have provided the land for this project, and the land is worth about $4 million, and will oversee the construction of this four-storey building.

On completion, the residents will receive hospitality services, including nutritious meals, housekeeping, fitness, recreational activities and full-time security. Such projects are much needed to house our seniors in an environment of safety, dignity and care.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

D. Thorne: Because this House won't be in session during National Volunteer Week, which this year is April 19 to 25, I want to draw attention to it today.

This will be a special time for me, because it will be an opportunity to honour the thousands of men, women and young people who enrich my community of Coquitlam-Maillardville. This year, the Volunteer Week theme is called "Celebrating People in Action," a perfect reminder that it is the individuals who take action to solve problems who really bring about change for the better in our society.

Without the hard work and commitment of volunteers, we'd see more homeless on our streets, we would have fewer environmental watchdogs, and we would go without bursaries and scholarships for needy students.

Hundreds of amateur sports volunteers coach, referee games, line fields and fundraise for tournaments and meets. Service club volunteers build parks, organize community events and provide Christmas food hampers. Arts and culture volunteers give my community its soul.

In recent years all of our community social service groups have suffered from cutbacks and inadequate funding and are often stretched to the breaking point. Waiting lists are growing at an alarming rate and produce unsustainable workloads for paid workers, and often our volunteers are managing to take on some of this load.

From babies to seniors, people with special needs, substance abuse issues or the commonplace but frightening problems that are often faced by newcomers to Canada, all of our lives are enriched by the efforts of volunteers. I ask this House to join me today in thanking in advance our own special B.C. volunteers.

Oral Questions

GRAVEL EXTRACTION PROPOSAL

AND HOPINGTON AQUIFER

S. Simpson: Yesterday the Environment Minister took questions about the risks of the Hopington aquifer on notice. This is remarkable, considering that on January 30 Karren Winther and her husband Nick Costantino e-mailed the minister on this matter. They also mailed him an information package on March 12, both with no response.

On February 10 Dr. Moats sent the minister a letter on the issue, and on January 16 Bill Mozell delivered a petition with more than 300 signatures to his office in Chilliwack. They're all wondering what it takes to get the minister's attention. We'll try again today.

Gravel mining in Brown's pit is a risk and a threat to Hopington aquifer, which is the sole source of drinking water for over 3,000 families. Now, the Transportation Minister can get his gravel somewhere else, but the question to the Minister of Environment is: will he commit today to protect that aquifer and to protect the drinking water of the people in Langley?

Hon. K. Falcon: It will help the member opposite to know that the Minister of Environment actually forwarded all of that information over to my ministry. He was very diligent in making sure he did so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

[ Page 14639 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite will also be happy to know that the area MLA, who is also the Minister of Housing and Social Development, met with all the residents, wrote to each and every one of those residents and advised them that there will be no gravel extraction if there is any risk to the aquifer whatsoever.

[1400]

The member opposite should also know that I have personally met with all those residents, and I delivered the exact same message. So let me be clear in this House today, in front of everyone gathered here. Not a bit of gravel will be extracted unless it can be done without any risk to the aquifer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What we know is that water, which is supposed to be a concern of the Minister of Environment…. Clearly, it's maybe not his file anymore when it's the Transportation Minister's project.

The problem is this. This Minister of Transportation has a report from EBA consulting done for his ministry, where it confirms that the Ministry of Environment has said that there is a high risk of surface contamination on this aquifer.

We also know that this is the only drinking water for 3,000 families. Now, this minister's prepared to take a risk and play roulette with those people's drinking water. If he's really concerned, say today that there will be no gravel extraction — period, end of story.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure why the member opposite is getting himself all worked up about this issue. The fact of the matter is that there is a hydrological report that we are awaiting. We expect to have that report in the next few weeks. As I mentioned when I met with all of the residents and sat down with them — I made it very clear — I'm always guided by facts in making decisions. If facts in the report which we have yet to receive tell us, suggest in any way, that there is a risk to the aquifer or to the water supply, we will not proceed with gravel extraction. I don't know how I can be more clear.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

S. Simpson: Those people that met with the minister told me about the meeting, and essentially what they got out of the minister is that he said: "I'm pretty good at running roughshod over communities. I've done it a number of times, and I'll do it to you if you get in my way too."

Those people in the community in Langley have no confidence in this minister. They are assured that he's waiting to get past May 12, and he'll run roughshod over them. If this government is serious about protecting water, if it's serious about Water Smart, commit today: no gravel out of Brown's pit. Protect the aquifer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: It is remarkable that the NDP want us to make a decision on the basis of absolutely no facts. That is a classic example of NDP governance.

What I said to those residents is that we will have that report, just for the member's benefit, before the election. I made it very clear to the residents that I understood how seriously and strongly they felt about the issue, but that we would make the decision based on the facts. I cannot make a decision until I have a completed report. When we have that completed report, I will make the decision. It will be based on facts, I can assure you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

M. Sather: Well, the surrogate Minister of Environment over there is talking nonsense. He knows very well that that aquifer is at risk. There are hydrologists…. The municipality has reported out on this. He knows that that aquifer is at risk. So he doesn't have to mess around talking nonsense about it. Why doesn't he get right to it and refuse to remove gravel from that pit now?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member from Maple Ridge for his interest in this issue in Aldergrove–Fort Langley, but I will say to the member, as I said to the previous member, that on this side of the House, at least, when we make a decision, we make a decision based on facts that are gathered independently by people that have a lot of expertise in the area.

The members opposite would characterize that as somehow being roughshod with the public. Actually, that's being responsible with the public.

We have a responsibility to the public at large, and I can guarantee you, as I said to those residents, that we will not be extracting gravel unless it can be done safely. We will have a report coming forward in the next few weeks. We will make a decision based upon what the facts in that report tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[ Page 14640 ]

M. Sather: I, on my side of the river, am standing up for the water because the people on that side of the river have no interest and don't care. It wouldn't be so galling if this government had any legislation to protect drinking water, but they don't, and they know it. So the whole government has no clothes. It's time today for this minister, standing up for the surrogate Minister of Environment, to protect the drinking water of Langley and to refuse the removal of gravel from that pit.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not too sure how many different ways I can say the same thing for the member opposite. On this side of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Look. The member should know that before we undertake any project…. For example, for the new $200 million Pitt River Bridge we're building in that member's riding that he opposed, we did a number of studies before we moved forward with that bridge, and that's why it's proceeding today ahead of

schedule and on budget.

Not only do the NDP oppose good projects before they're happening and while they're happening and even after they open; now they've reached this extraordinary level that they'll oppose them before they even know what the information tells them. On this side of the House we make our decisions based on facts. We don't make them based on panic-stricken opposition members in the House.

We will wait till we get that report. We will make a sound decision for the benefit of those folks in the area and the public of British Columbia.

R. Fleming: Here's one of the facts. Yesterday not a single member from the government side would get up and even say a word on this issue, when they knew full well that constituents had been inquiring of them for months on the risk to their drinking water. That's the fact. So 3,000 families, and their source of clean drinking water is at risk.

We know that gravel extraction leads to risks of contamination by arsenic and other sources. That's why there's been a 20-year moratorium in place on Brown's pit.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. When will he stand up for citizens' rights to clean drinking water before his colleague runs roughshod over those rights for Langley residents?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1410]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I understand the question from the member opposite, they want the Minister of Environment to make a decision before the Minister of Environment has a report to review. That's a fascinating way of doing government.

Apparently, as usual, the member does not have any facts in front of him, so I will try and help the member opposite. The MLA for the area and the Minister of Housing and Social Development sat down and met with these residents. He followed that up by writing to each and every one of those residents, making a commitment on paper, as a member of government, that we will not move forward unless it can be done safely.

They then also met with the Minister of Transportation. The Minister of Transportation met with them for almost an hour. We had a very good discussion. I made it very clear to them that we would make a decision based on the hydrological report. I appreciated their interest in the subject. I appreciated the homework they'd done on the subject, and I made it very clear that no gravel gets extracted until and unless it can be done safely.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

LOGGING CONTRACTORS

S. Fraser: Forest and Marine Investments will be seeking bankruptcy protection and putting another 3,000 jobs at risk in the coastal forest industry. This will directly impact market loggers, the independent business that generates 70 percent of the forest economy on the coast. These independent businesses get no support from EI or through the community development trust. They need help from this government, and they need it now. What is the Minister of Forests going to do to help these independent businesses?

Hon. P. Bell: We're very concerned about Forest and Marine and the events that they're facing as a result of the American banking institution that they traditionally work with. I have been in touch with Forest and Marine, with David Lewis of the Truck Loggers Association, but more importantly, with Minister Lisa Raitt, the federal Minister of NRCan. We are talking to them about programming that's currently available through the federal government that we think may meet the needs of Forest and Marine.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: That's spoken like a true spectator. Evidently the minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

[ Page 14641 ]

S. Fraser: …doesn't understand the gravity of the situation. These independent contractors are not eligible for any help from any government, yet they make up to 70 percent of the forest economy on the coast. They provide logs for the open market, and if they go down, there will be huge repercussions for the few remaining manufacturers on the coast.

Without credit, without security and access to loans, there's only one option: bankruptcy. It's not like they want a $360 million roof on B.C. Place. These independent contractors need credit assurance and loan guarantees from this government. Will the minister show some leadership and avert potential disaster on the coast?

Hon. P. Bell: One of the challenges the opposition appears to be having is working off a script, and we've seen that in the last two questions. The member doesn't realize I just answered his question. I just told him that we're very concerned about this file, that I'm personally working with the federal Minister of Natural Resources Canada, that we've spoken with the company involved and that we're working with the Truck Loggers Association. There are programs available to deal with this. I wish the member would bother to take the time to listen to the first answer.

B. Simpson: The number of people claiming EI in the province of British Columbia doubled over last year. We lead the nation in the increase in the number of people claiming EI. Business bankruptcies on the coast have doubled over last year, and they include Hayes, Munns, Leroy, Madill — all reputable, long-term logging contracting companies. A thousand jobs lost there.

[1415]

My question to the Minister of Forests is this. The minister is trying to go again to the federal government for help. What the Truck Loggers Association, what Forest and Marine are asking for is this government's help — an immediate intervention by this government until we can find alternate solutions. There are two days to deal with this — 3,000 jobs at risk, 75 companies that will join the list of bankruptcies.

Will the Minister of Forests commit today to give interim credit assurance and loan guarantees until we find out if the federal government can, in fact, resolve this issue? Will the minister actually do something?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is wrong on three fronts — the first being that EI, in fact, is at a lower rate today than it was ten years ago. The second is that bankruptcies in British Columbia are, in fact, at a lower rate today than they were ten years ago.

The third is that there is a pre-existing program in the federal government called the Canada small business financing program. It's delivered through the Business Development Bank of Canada. We're speaking with Minister Raitt's office now about the application of this particular program for Forest and Marine. We've spoken with Forest and Marine, and they've not asked us for any intervention beyond that at this point.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The truck loggers have certainly asked this minister to intervene immediately. He's not telling this House that. The minister needs to understand that what we need is more than words.

This is the minister who's going to hold up the sky. This is the minister who doesn't believe there are any more issues affecting the industry. We'll get no more mill closures. This is a minister who releases plans with fluff words and no targets, a minister who prefers words as a substitute for action when what we need is action.

The minister knows that if they go through the Business Development Bank, they're going to get an increase in interest rates of 3 to 4 percent, which will drive many of these businesses under as well. It's not the solution. We need a made-in-B.C. solution to prevent these 75 companies from going under and 3,000 more people going on EI.

Again, will the minister commit today to find a made-in-B.C. solution to float this company so that these businesses do not go bankrupt?

Hon. P. Bell: Well, it appears that the month of March is a record month for the NDP. We've now heard two pieces of policy developed by this opposition. The first one was that the province of British Columbia should accept the environmental liability for all heavy industrial sites across the province. That would be a net cost of $3 billion or $4 billion. The second is that we should bail out companies in the business of financing companies and supporting financial institutions.

In fact, there are programs available through the federal government. We're working with the federal government to make sure the application of those programs is successful.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Bell: The members opposite can either take the time to listen to the facts or not, but they're wrong. There are actions being taken today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

EDUCATION FUNDING

D. Cubberley: School districts across British Columbia are again facing the trauma of massive program cuts

[ Page 14642 ]

because this government has the wrong priorities. Saanich school district 63, my own, one of two districts, is facing a $3.6 million shortfall next year. Why is that? Because government funding isn't keeping pace with inflation, because new initiatives aren't being fully funded by government and because the loss of revenues from declining enrolment outstrips the savings of having fewer kids in school.

What parents and families in my community want to know is: what is this minister going to do to protect the quality of learning in a school district facing the single-largest drop in funding in its history?

Hon. S. Bond: What this side of the House is going to continue to do is to protect and increase education funding, as we have every single year since we took government.

[1420]

Let's look at the numbers in the Saanich school district. Very interesting to hear the member opposite talk about the funding side. Let's talk about the enrolment numbers. This is a school district that has seen a reduction of 14 percent of its student population and has continued to see increased funding.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, it sounds like the minister is going to continue to twiddle her thumbs while the quality of education is undermined right the way across this province.

The district superintendent says that cutting $3.6 million from funding will be a difficult and painful exercise. I think that's an understatement. That's going to translate into massive job loss. Up to 16 teachers will be gone. There will be rising class sizes right the way across the district; less support for children with special needs, an apparent priority of the government; an individual learning centre closing; and there will have to be more school closures.

Children are the ones who are going to be forced to pay the price for these cuts. Parents don't support these Liberal cuts. So what's this government's actual message to my constituents? It seems to be: "Tough noogie. Cuts are coming. Get used to it. We don't care."

Is that this minister's message to my constituents? This government is so arrogant and out of touch. You just don't care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Minister.

There seem to be other members that want to ask questions.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps this member could have shown his own support for his school district by just yesterday voting to support a budget that adds $800 million over three years to education.

You know, maybe it's time…. All of British Columbia and the members on this side of the House are waiting to see when the Leader of the Opposition is actually going to lay out her plan for British Columbians. Let's see what they're prepared to do for education over the next three years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We're not going to continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: I spoke today with a Vancouver school trustee who reports their shortfall will be $7.13 million. Her assessment is that it is not possible to make up that shortfall without "dramatic cuts in services to children." I'll repeat that. In Vancouver schools there will be dramatic cuts in services to children.

Can the minister explain which services she thinks should be cut and what those students should do about the educational opportunities they will miss.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, let's look at the facts. In fact, in the Vancouver school district we expect to see that they will receive, despite ongoing declining enrolment, in this year alone $1.1 million more dollars than they received last year.

We also would like the member opposite to go and perhaps have a chat with the Vancouver school board about the accumulated surplus they have in their school district.

[1425]

But what's most important here is that it's time the members opposite stood up and actually told this House and British Columbians what their plan is. Let's add a billion here, add a billion there, and all of that on the backs of taxpayers in British Columbia. It's time to come clean and lay out a platform for British Columbians to make their choice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Will the minister commit to meet with Vancouver trustees and parents to hear directly from them the impacts of her funding allocations, and will she commit to come to that meeting with her suggestions about where more than $7 million should be cut?

Hon. S. Bond: I have visited virtually every school district in British Columbia. In fact, on those visits, we have visited with school trustees, with teachers, with

[ Page 14643 ]

students, with parents. We've visited and talked to all of those. Do you know that as a result, we have actually increased funding every single year that we have been government, and we intend to continue that?

N. Macdonald: Well, the Education Minister is deliberately blind to what is happening on the ground. Kamloops-Thompson school district is facing a $600,000 shortfall for transportation costs alone. The result is that there are either further cuts to school bus services or potential charges of $20 per month, just so that students can get to school. There are choices like that being made by school boards across the province.

This is a province with 11,000 classes that are over the legal limit for class size and composition. It is up from last year's unacceptable level to this year's beyond unacceptable level with a certainty of getting worse next year — a certainty. We've heard about Saanich, Vancouver and Kamloops, but it is happening everywhere.

Will the minister admit that each and every school district will be making cuts to services for our children because of this government's underfunding? Each and every school district cut.

Hon. S. Bond: What this government has said and what it has demonstrated is the fact that every single school district in British Columbia will receive the same or greater funding, despite declining enrolment in British Columbia. That's our commitment.

On the verge of being able to go to the polls, let's look at what the Leader of the Opposition said before the last election about her education budget. The Leader of the Opposition said this: "We have a one-year budget, and we've not included any increases in our budget." Shame on you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 7, the Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009.

Second Reading of Bills

Police (Police Complaint

Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[1430]

The Police Complaint Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. The bill changes the appointment provisions for the commissioner to be similar to those for other officers of the Legislature — namely, the Auditor General Act and the Representative for Children and Youth Act.

These legislative amendments provide for direct appointment of the commissioner by resolution of the Legislative Assembly instead of by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This bill changes the appointment term from one six-year term without the ability for reappointment to a five-year term with the ability for reappointment for one term of up to five years.

The amendments specify that the commissioner's salary is equal to that of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of B.C and that the public service pension plan applies to the position. This does not change the current salary or benefits of the commissioner.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The bill also changes the provisions for appointing an acting Police Complaint Commissioner. Instead of appointing by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the appointment is made by the Legislative Assembly and, if it is not sitting, by the special committee of the Legislative Assembly. These changes also follow the model already set out for other officers of the Legislature.

The amendments add a provision that requires the Police Complaint Commissioner and acting Police Complaint Commissioner to take an oath.

The new Police Complaint Commissioner, Stan Lowe, was appointed for a six-year term effective February 13, 2009. Transition provisions make him eligible for reappointment. However, the second term would be up to four years in order for the total term to be ten years. In addition, the end date of his term is moved to the end of February for the simple purpose of easing the logistics of appointment of the Police Complaint Commissioner by the Legislative Assembly in the future.

The transition provisions also apply the pension provisions to the new commissioner and provide for retroactivity of the appointment provisions as necessary to the current commissioner just appointed.

With this bill, British Columbia will have a more complete legislative framework for the appointment of the Police Complaint Commissioner that is consistent with the legislation for all other independent officers of the Legislature.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the Solicitor General for introducing second reading of this bill, which is legislation that is supported by both sides of the House and is consistent with practices in the assembly for

[ Page 14644 ]

the independent officers that were referenced by the Solicitor General in his remarks just now.

I wish to make a few opening comments on the bill. The designated responder will be our Public Safety critic, who will speak a little later during second reading debate.

I think, speaking for this side of the House and for myself, that Bill 7 is something that the official opposition believes is long overdue, is consistent with our practices in this assembly and ensures that the Police Complaint Commissioner's independence is asserted both in their selection and in the new provision for a reappointment process.

That means that the Police Complaint Commissioner, essentially, is able to do his or her job not only with the confidence of both sides of this Legislature and the requirement for unanimous recommendation and appointment. It means, most importantly, that the public can have confidence in that individual because they are so vetted and enjoy the confidence of all members of this assembly.

So that when the Police Complaint Commissioner does their work…. We know that the things that are referred by our municipal police departments across British Columbia and by complainants, civilians and others are often very difficult issues.

[1435]

These are issues that deserve and require the utmost objectivity and sensitivity to the information that's gathered, that the powers of that office oblige and give investigatory powers to determine facts that can then support or even in some cases overturn decisions that a police department or police board or government may have made.

While there has been no fault from our previous Police Complaints Commissioners, previously there was, I think, a legitimate concern that the individual who occupied this post served at the pleasure of government and that the manner of their appointment was simply an order-in-council from government.

Yes, there was the involvement of a legislative committee to select those past individuals who have served with distinction the province of British Columbia, but there was no requirement in that selection process by special committee for government to accept it. I don't know of any incidents where there was disagreement, but good legislation is where these kinds of conflicts should not arise when it comes to having an independent officer. It shouldn't be that way, and this legislation fixes that potential problem and flaw within the old legislation.

I think one of the amendments here that is significant, which this side of the House supports the Solicitor General in pursuing, is to allow a Police Complaint Commissioner to serve longer than one term. This is consistent with other independent officers in the Legislature. There is a process now, where there wasn't before, to allow reappointment.

So when somebody who occupies that position does an exemplary job — when this Legislative Assembly, when government, when everybody who has worked with this officer is beyond pleased, is satisfied fully with the conduct of that person in the position — previously we had to let them go. There was simply no way to retain somebody. Now we have, just as we do for the Auditor General, for the independent commissioner that we have for this assembly, for Children and Youth, for the ombudsperson of British Columbia…. For those officers, we have the same provision that allows for reappointment.

I think that's a critical fix in this legislation that will serve us well, and the manner is the same in terms of the reappointment that it is for the initial appointment. It will require the unanimity and the work of a committee, a special committee of this Legislature, to agree to that. Again, that is a test to ensure that the individual who holds that post and wishes to stand for reappointment has, and continues to have, the confidence of all members of the Legislature, that they have again been vetted and evaluated on their professionalism and their conduct in the position.

Instead of seeing the knowledge and the work go out the door because we had no means to make a reappointment in the past, that person — he or she — can be retained by the province and continue to provide public service through a reappointment. I think that is a very important reform that this bill speaks to.

It is the same as well, I might add, for the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We recently did reappoint a very capable person to continue on in that position. If they had had legislation that disallowed it, as the Police Complaint Commissioner Act did originally, we would not have been able to continue to have the services of Mr. Loukidelis for the province of British Columbia in his position.

I think that's an example of why we need this change, and I'm very pleased that this change is in the legislation. I think one of the most important decisions around this office now and after this amendment act is passed is how the commissioner can actually do their job, what resources they have available to them. That has typically been the concern of this opposition.

[1440]

Those discussions generally occur at the Finance Committee. Of course, they occur elsewhere in government as they set broader budget parameters, but that is where independent officers go to make a case for the resources they need to do their job to the best of their abilities and as thoroughly as possible for British Columbians.

Many of the things that aren't in this bill, the daily operations of this office, are contingent on agreements and funding that is provided and is deliberated upon at the Standing Committee on Finance of this assem-

[ Page 14645 ]

bly. I'm very pleased that this bill provides and outlines a manner of selection that is wholly the property of the Legislative Assembly now — all 79 members of this place having an equal say, having a requirement for unanimity and being the final arbiter of the appointment for the province's Police Complaint Commissioner.

I think, as I mentioned at the outset, in the past there was always…. While there are no examples, there was always the possibility of executive interference in the recommendation that a legislative committee made on who they wished to see appointed in that position. This act will remove that discrepancy or that possibility for that to happen, and I think it's good legislation for that reason alone.

I've spoken to the reappointment process as well. We had to allow that to happen. That is a good reform as well, and I thank the Solicitor General for including it and bringing this legislation before the House. Those are critical things, I think, to ensure that the Police Complaint Commissioner for the province of B.C. has the confidence of ordinary citizens, is able to do their job to the best of their ability and that their independence is beyond question and they enjoy the confidence of all legislators.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill 7, the Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009.

As my colleague from Victoria-Hillside said, this is an important piece of legislation because what we're doing is making it so that the Police Complaint Commissioner can apply for a second five-year term. That's bringing it into line with other independent officers of the Legislature. I think that's a very important thing that we need to recognize.

Currently, independent officers of the Legislature include the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, for example — just to name two of them — and the Ombudsman. They do extremely important functions. They help ensure that those functions such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner are not only perceived to be independent but are actually independent.

The incumbents, the individuals that fill those offices, don't answer to a government. They don't answer to an opposition. They answer to every single member in this House. That's a very important point and a very important distinction to be made.

They don't serve at the pleasure of the executive council, so if they make a decision that cabinet doesn't like, that pleasure can be revoked. There not under partisan political pressure to resolve an issue one way or another. They are there to serve this House, to serve every single member — 79 at present, but after the next election 85. It's crucial that every member of this House has confidence in those individuals and confidence in the process under which they operate but also under the process by which they're selected.

I've been in this House for almost 14 years, and I have sat on a number of committees that have hired independent officers. Those committees are made up of both government and opposition members, and by and large, those committees have worked well. Members have taken the approach seriously. They've done their homework. They've asked the questions that need to be asked. They've made it work because they know that at the end of the day the decision on who to hire has to be unanimous, and it will be endorsed by this House, by every single member.

[1445]

That focuses individual members, I think, away from the overtly partisan, to ensuring that we get the absolute right individual for that position. That's why I think, when it comes to the Police Complaint Commissioner, it's important that we make that same reform here and now. I wish it had been done earlier. I wish it had been done a number of years ago. It wasn't for whatever reason, but it is being done now.

It's worthy of our support, and it's worthy of recognizing what it does when we pass this legislation. It will ensure that the Police Complaint Commissioner in the province of British Columbia — and it's a very important position, particularly from the view of the public — is able to do their job as unfettered as possible, as independently as possible, and that their findings are not based on the view of either government or opposition and are achieved without any political pressure.

That's why the fact that they now answer not to a cabinet, not to just an individual committee, but they answer to this House — that they are a statutory officer of this chamber, of this House — is a significant step forward and a significant improvement.

If the current incumbent, at the end of the term of five years, wants to reapply, they have the ability to reapply for that position for a second term. If they don't, then a committee will be struck, and that committee will be charged with hiring a new individual, who will bring a recommendation for unanimous approval here in this House. That's a good thing. That's a very positive step forward, and it's a change that we fully support.

But I will also make this caveat. The one thing that we need to recognize in this chamber is that when independent officers come forward with their budgets on an annual basis, we need to respect the work they have brought to their deliberations around that issue.

We must ensure that those budget discussions and requests around the independent officers of this Legislature — whether they be the children and families commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner, the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, the Auditor General or the Police Complaint Commissioner — are taken seriously and are not used to try and achieve partisan pol-

[ Page 14646 ]

itical objectives. That's crucial. That's the role of every member of this House, and in particular, I think it's the role of the opposition to ensure that that is respected.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This legislation is a significant step forward. It's one that we support. It's one that we will be voting in favour of, and we look forward to further discussion in the committee stage. With that, I will take my seat to hear other members, if they also have comments.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Solicitor General closes debate.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to thank the members opposite for their comments. I think with legislation like this, which establishes the appointment procedures and reappointment procedures for an independent officer of the Legislature, it is essential that it is supported by both sides of the House, given the nature of that position and the accountability to all members of this House. So I appreciate the comments of the members opposite and their support for this bill.

With that, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: You've got to move second reading first, Minister.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move second reading of this bill.

[1450]

Motion approved.

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

Bill 7, Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Krueger: I call Bill 10, intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

These anti-fraud amendments build on the changes to the Motor Vehicle Act that were made last year to establish the enhanced driver's licence program. The enhanced drivers' licences and enhanced identification cards will be used as officially recognized alternatives to a passport at land and water border crossings into the United States.

First, the purpose of these amendments is to prevent the B.C. driver's licence, identification card, enhanced driver's licence and enhanced identification card, which are trusted forms of government-endorsed photo identification, from being fraudulently obtained or used. These amendments also align the enhanced driver's licence with the travel document standards agreed to by the Canadian and American federal governments under the western hemisphere travel initiative.

Specifically, the amendments establish authority for the seizure or retention of documents presented to ICBC by customers for a licence, identification card, enhanced licence or enhanced identification card. These amendments clearly establish that it will be an offence to obtain or attempt to obtain a licence or ID card through fraud or to assist another person to do so through fraud. It will also be an offence to present fraudulent information to ICBC to maintain a record relating to a licence or ID card or assist another person to do so.

These amendments establish a strong deterrent with a consistent penalty for driver licensing and identification card fraud. We will be establishing a new fine of $400 to $20,000 and/or up to six months' imprisonment.

This legislation also creates authority for ICBC to cancel a driver's licence and enhanced licence if fraud has been involved in the application for the licence or in the provision of information to maintain the licence. ICBC will have the authority to review the customer's continued eligibility and ensure identity when a replacement enhanced driver's licence or enhanced identification card is requested.

This bill also contains amendments to update references in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Motor Vehicle Act to align this legislation with recent federal changes to the Criminal Code, including the new street-racing and impaired-driving offences.

These amendments will ensure that the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles, ICBC and the courts will continue to recognize convictions under the Criminal Code and take action as necessary at the provincial level — for example, in administrative functions such as forwarding the conviction from the courts to ICBC, recording the conviction on the driver's licence and automatically suspending the driver's licence.

Specifically, these amendments are necessary in particular to ensure that individuals convicted under the Criminal Code for the new impaired driving offences will be subject to provincial sanctions currently in place under the Motor Vehicle Act, such as participation in the responsible driver program and the ignition interlock program.

[ Page 14647 ]

Since the new Criminal Code sections are already in force, several Motor Vehicle Act sections are being amended to include transitional provisions. This is necessary because new street-racing offences under the Criminal Code have been in force since December 2006, and new impaired-driving offences under the code have been in force since July 2008.

The transitional provisions are meant to capture drivers who may have been convicted of the street-racing and impaired-driving offences prior to these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act coming into force.

[1455]

The transitional sections relate to refusal to issue a licence or permit; second, automatic prohibition against driving on conviction; third, reporting conviction or discharge; and fourth, suspension on conviction for certain offences.

In

summary, this bill makes significant improvements to the legislative framework for British Columbia's driver's licence and identification card programs. I am pleased to move second reading of this bill.

Hon. J. McIntyre: I am very pleased to rise and support Bill 10, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. This bill includes some key provisions which I support and am therefore particularly delighted to see go before the House for enactment this spring. These provisions will allow the province to move forward on the full implementation of the enhanced driver's licence as a cross-border travel document.

You may well remember that the Premier announced in January 2008 that British Columbia would be the first province in Canada to implement an enhanced driver's licence, commonly known as EDL. This EDL program was established so that British Columbia could meet the new U.S. travel document requirements under the western hemisphere travel initiative while keeping our borders open to legitimate travel and trade. These requirements, we believe, are scheduled to be introduced on June 1, 2009.

The enhanced driver's licence and its companion, the enhanced identification card, will let approved applicants cross from Canada to the U.S. by land or water with a single piece of identification. The province and ICBC are currently working together with our federal partners at the Canadian Border Services Agency to bring this concept to life.

I'm hopeful that the province can announce in a few weeks' time the very next step, which will be full implementation, so Canadian citizens resident in British Columbia can apply.

The enhanced driver's licence will be a secure and convenient voluntary option for Canadians in B.C. travelling to the U.S. We actually know how convenient and efficient this card can be, because during the program's pilot phase in 2008 the province issued these EDLs to 521 qualified volunteers. As I recall, that program was subscribed to in about 48 hours. There was so much interest. It was open for 500 or so.

The feedback from the users was positive. The testing phase proved highly successful and allowed ICBC staff to further refine the program details.

I think it's important. I hope members here in the House and those watching at home will understand that the ease of cross-border travel is absolutely vital to families and communities on both sides of our Canada-U.S. border, whether it's for a trip to a Seattle sporting event, a shopping trip or family vacation. In fact, same-day trips make up about three-quarters of British Columbia's automobile travel to Washington State.

The United States and Canada share the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world. Approximately $1.5 billion U.S. in two-way trade crosses our border daily. Congestion and inefficient border processing hamper daily traffic flows of business travellers and tourists and affect long-term investment, jobs and productivity.

The annual cost of border waits is expected to increase by 145 percent by 2013, costing businesses approximately $54 million, according to the International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project.

The EDL program in B.C. demonstrates the province's leadership on border issues. We believe in making travel easier by making it convenient, secure and efficient. This enhanced driver's licence program is part of a bilateral effort to facilitate border traffic between our two countries.

This will be particularly important during the 2009 World Police and Fire Games and, of course, while we host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. These will be two of the most significant events we're about to host.

In fact, current estimates suggest 73,000 additional travellers will cross from Washington to British Columbia during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games — approximately 5,000 people per day of the games. Getting the holders of enhanced drivers' licences across the border more efficiently is among the key recommendations issued by the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, the PNWER organization, to streamline cross-border travel and trade.

The PNWER border charter signed last summer shows how British Columbia is working with our neighbours and the two federal governments to meet our objectives of reducing congestion and streamlining flows of legitimate trade and travel and the expansion of frequent border-crossing programs such as EDL.

[1500]

We have to find ways to prevent the border from thickening. We are finding solutions to reduce increased costs and unnecessary inconvenience. Collaboration produces successful solutions at the regional level for the national issues. I'm very proud that this program is

[ Page 14648 ]

being replicated in other provinces and states across our two countries.

This enhanced driver's licence program, which will be brought to life by this act, was born in recognition that our border has changed and continues to change, and we can work together and smarter to ensure that it changes for the better.

This legislation, as the Solicitor General mentioned, will introduce a new penalty for fraud for the EDL and for identification cards. The purpose is to prevent several documents which are trusted forms of government-endorsed ID from being fraudulently obtained or used.

This legislation before the House today is another important step towards making cross-border travel easier, safer and secure for all British Columbians, so I'm proud to be speaking and voting in favour of Bill 10. Thank you for the time this afternoon.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and offer a few comments around Bill 10, the Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, and to recognize some of the important issues that are being raised.

My colleague from Burquitlam wishes to make an interjection.

H. Bloy: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Leave is granted. Proceed.

Introductions by Members

H. Bloy: Today I'm really pleased to introduce the future of British Columbia. I had the opportunity to meet with these grade 5 students in the lower rotunda just a little while ago. They're from Our Lady of Fatima School. They're all in grade 5, and they can't wait to get into politics. I want to thank Mrs. Lorena Farina, the teacher, for bringing them, along with a number of parents. I just want to also wish one young lady a happy birthday — Jada. So if the House would please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Farnworth: The purpose of this bill is to amend a number of clauses. The Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act is to bring existing legislation into line with changes that have been made around the Criminal Code regarding street racing and drinking and driving. These are changes that this side of the House has pushed for and has spoken out on and has been supportive of. The need for tougher penalties around street racing, for example, has been a real problem in British Columbia, and it's something that we've said — that those penalties need to be changed and strengthened.

Those changes have taken place. Likewise changes around issues regarding drinking and driving, which I think all members in this House know is a real problem. It's something that society does not approve of. The public wants to ensure that government is doing everything it can to ensure that drinking and driving is reduced and eliminated, and the penalties need to reflect that.

Well, when those changes are made, it also has an impact on existing provincial legislation. The amendments in this act make those changes, bringing existing legislation into line. Those are changes that we on this side of the House support and will be voting in favour of. We'll have some questions in committee stage to seek some clarification on a few issues, but we will certainly be supporting the legislation.

[1505]

I think it's important to point out a couple of the other changes that this legislation does, particularly around fraud. Some of the amendments in this piece of legislation impact on, I think, some important issues around fraud and drivers' licences. One of the issues that the police and the public are concerned about, for example, is fraudulent drivers' licences. This legislation makes it easier to deal with some of those issues.

For example, if documents are fraudulently used to obtain a driver's licence and if they're found to be fraudulent, it's easier for ICBC to seize them and to ensure that they're taken away from the individual attempting to use them fraudulently. It increases penalties, again, which is something that we want to make sure is taking place. It allows for a tightening up of security around the issuing of drivers' licences and ensures that those drivers' licences that are being issued are in fact legitimate and that they are not being used fraudulently.

One of the things that happens over time, particularly in this age, is that technology makes it increasingly easy to allow for the production of fraudulent activities. We see it in a whole host of areas. We change our money in this country — the design and the denomination. The design and the security features of money are changed on a regular basis, in part as a response to the changes that occur in criminal activity and the desire to keep on top of the fraudulent measures that are used, for example, in counterfeiting.

The same principle applies when it comes to drivers' licences. The same type of activity takes place, and it's important that we are able to stay ahead of those who would seek to obtain a fraudulent licence or use fraudulent means to create a licence or procure a licence. So this legislation deals with a number of those issues.

Hon. Speaker, we will be supporting this particular bill, and we look forward to further opportunities to ask questions during committee stage.

B. Ralston: I wanted to briefly address some of the provisions in Bill 10 which bring some amendments to

[ Page 14649 ]

the Motor Vehicle Act to bring the Motor Vehicle Act in line with changes that have been made to the Criminal Code concerning street racing or impaired driving. Street racing and offences involving street racing are of particular concern to citizens in my constituency and, indeed, in Surrey and south of the Fraser generally. I know that other MLAs certainly join with me in that concern, whether it's the MLA for Surrey-Newton or the MLA for Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

There was a particularly notorious case involving the Badh family. I've met with Varinder Badh, who's a representative of the family. She is very concerned about the impact. Her parents were in an accident in which both her parents were killed, and the driver fled the scene. Due to the state of the investigation, nothing has resulted in the way of a successful investigation, from her perspective, in terms of criminal charges being brought or any closure being brought to the matter.

While this bill does address, in some small respect, an aspect of street racing, I think it does illustrate the more important dimension of street racing as a very serious criminal offence that has catastrophic consequences for families in the region, in the province and indeed across the country. I think it's appropriate that that take place.

If I could also give another example of the devastation that has been brought about by street racing. Nina Rivet, who is a constituent of mine, has expressed her public concern about a street-racing incident that led to the death of her sister a number of years ago. It's wound its way through the courts, most recently before the Supreme Court of Canada on a related immigration issue.

These crimes are serious, and they need to be taken seriously. There is much more that can be done. Varinder Badh has expressed to me some suggestions in the way of legislative amendments not only to the Motor Vehicle Act but to the Offence Act and has expressed some concerns about the penalties that are in the Criminal Code and whether they are strict enough to deter this kind of crime.

[1510]

There is certainly a sense that families have that the way the Motor Vehicle Act works in not compelling responses from a registered owner if they leave the scene and that that can lead to what they regard as an injustice — in the sense that an investigation cannot successfully determine who the driver was and, therefore, attempt to fix criminal liability. So these sections that bring about these amendments are important ones, and I support them.

Insofar as sections 10 and 11 are concerned — and I know we'll have clause-by-clause debate at another time — I think it is appropriate, where people have not paid victim fine surcharges and other court charges, to use the mechanism of the publicly owned Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is a public vehicle that's available to the province and to the ministry, to not issue a driver's licence — where the person hasn't paid those fines.

It's yet another mechanism of collection. I think it's fair in the sense that it's related to your driving privileges, and that's what the right to drive is. It's not really a right. It's a privilege to drive that's granted on certain conditions that people have to comply with. When they don't comply with them, I think it's appropriate that they not be entitled to drive.

Those are the comments that I would have at this stage, and I look forward to the committee stage debate of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Solicitor General closes debate.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to thank all members, including my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi and the members opposite, for their comments and their support for this bill. I believe that the opposition critic has appropriately captured the intent of the bill, both with respect to the antifraud measures for the issuance of drivers' licences and enhanced drivers' licences by ICBC and in respect of updating our provincial legislation to make sure that it aligns with Criminal Code amendments recently made by the federal government.

I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting….

Mr. Speaker: No. Minister, you've got to do second reading first.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Okay. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Minister.

Hon. J. van Dongen: One day I'll get this down, hon. Speaker.

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

Bill 10, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 11, intituled Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009.

[ Page 14650 ]

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 11, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009, be read a second time.

Bill 11 contains changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act to enable B.C.'s pension standards to apply to the new private sector pension plan that the Premier announced in last fall's economic statement. While the new pension plan will be established in legislation next year, it will be operated at arm's length from government as a voluntary, defined-contribution plan. It will enable all B.C. workers, including the self-employed, to enjoy the financial security of pension income after retirement.

The technical amendments in this bill will permit the new pension plan to be registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. For the protection of plan members, the act's minimum standards for registered pension plans would apply to the new plan. These standards deal with matters such as member eligibility, vesting and portability of pension entitlements, survivor benefits and disclosure to plan members. These amendments would be brought into force by regulation when the new pension plan is established in legislation next year.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In addition, the bill will allow greater access to pension funds for members whose lives are expected to be considerably shortened. In these circumstances, unlocking pension funds or allowing individuals to access their pension funds prior to retirement age is currently permitted only for individuals with physical disabilities. These amendments would allow pension plans to give individuals who have other disabilities or terminal illnesses the same choice to unlock their pension funds if their life expectancy is similarly shortened.

[1515]

This amendment will make B.C.'s pension unlocking rule for considerably shortened life consistent with the Human Rights Code. In addition, B.C. and Alberta's unlocking rules in this area will be harmonized.

Madam Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 11.

B. Ralston: I propose to make several comments on aspects of the bill, but I do want to set a bit of a context in terms of discussion of the bill and how people feel about pensions and the impact of the current economic downturn upon their opportunities to receive a pension in the future, or the impact upon the RRSP savings that they may well have made that have declined in value.

Many people do not have what is called a defined-benefit plan. That's a benefit plan that's often negotiated in a collective agreement or that comes as a condition of employment, where in return for the employee paying a premium each year or each month, at the end of their time of employment they receive a specific dollar amount as a pension. Defined-benefit plans in the workplace are declining, and increasingly employers feel themselves unable to either agree to negotiate those as part of a collective bargaining process or to give those as a part of their compensation package to employees.

In addition, you have people who have RRSP savings, and if they've been invested in the typical equities, or at least a portion in equities, the dollar value of their RRSP savings has declined, which obviously troubles people as they face the prospect of retirement, given that then the likely value of the annuity that they can purchase at that time will be less and their monthly payment will be less.

It's indeed significant that only about 38.5 percent of Canadian workers have workplace pensions, and it's estimated that almost a third have no retirement savings at all. While there has been an improvement in the financial conditions for some retirees until relatively recently, a number of retirees will not have the financial resources that will enable them to live in anything other than poverty.

Sometimes we look to our neighbours to the south for emerging social trends. I discovered an

article in the Wall Street Journal , February 23, 2009, datelined Akron, Ohio. I'll just read a brief excerpt from it, because I think it highlights some of the problems that people certainly in the United States are facing and may well come to pass here in the future.

"Mary Appleby, 76 years old, lost her job in January as a cashier at a courthouse cafeteria here. She is now looking for a minimum-wage job. May Bennett, 80, began filling out application forms for fast-food restaurants and convenience stores after she was laid off last March as a machinist. Fred Dase, 81, a bartender until last summer, also needs another job."

In the past, particularly when the economy was better, people did proceed to retirement. But in the States increasingly, where people have borrowed on their home and the home equity and all the problems that that has caused for people, people even at that age are financially obliged to keep working. Although there is social security and some other plans, bank loans and, in particular, the American experience of high medical bills have resulted in a new generation of workers in their 70s and 80s looking sincerely — not just as something to occupy their time but as a matter of necessity — to continue working in order to pay the bills and put food on the table.

The trend that is emerging — and Stats Canada confirmed this in a study in 2007 — is that, while the gap between those 20 percent at the top of the income scale…. Their retirement savings have benefited from the economic upturn, but the 20 percent at the bottom have not.

[1520]

[ Page 14651 ]

So a gap is widening in terms of the likely pensions that people will receive upon retirement, and it may result in people having to defer retirement in the way that that New York Times

article describes. That's the concern.

This proposal that's put forward appears to be modelled on a voluntary pension plan in Saskatchewan. That pension plan was begun in 1986. It's relatively small. I looked at their website recently. They have approximately $250 million in assets and about 30,000 members.

I'm not sure of the design that is being thought of. In general, I think it has certainly some possibilities, but the Saskatchewan plan also enables employers to participate. So if you're a small employer, you would be able to participate and offer an employer plan.

What they say is, again reading from material that was available on their website, you're eligible to contribute up to $600 on behalf of each of your employees. Contributions made through your business are tax deductible. You can do it on your schedule. There are no required payments, and contributions to employee accounts can be made by the business, by employees or as a combination of both. They do the required paperwork. There's no minimum number of employees required.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So if this is the plan…. I appreciate that sometimes these kind of legislative schemes take a while to develop, but if this is the intention, then I think it has some possibility, certainly, for small employers to offer that prospect of a retirement plan as a benefit to their employees with the ability to calibrate the contribution according to the particular circumstances of the business.

That may put smaller businesses at less of a competitive disadvantage with larger businesses that are still able, by virtue of their revenue and their scope and their size, to offer that kind of retirement package as a benefit.

I'm not sure about portability outside the province. It wasn't clear in the material that I examined, but it does seem to have some possibility.

To the extent that these amendments are put forward to begin the kind of public discussion that's necessary to create this kind of a plan, I support it.

In the legislation that the minister just described, he talked about the power to unlock — given where a person is facing a catastrophic illness — the value of the pension and draw it out. There is another issue which arises. I'm sure the minister and other members of the Legislature have encountered the same inquiry from people who have what's called a locked-in RRSP.

Once you've contributed to and designated the RRSP plan — sometimes by your employer — as locked-in, you're unable to withdraw the contributions on any timetable. This ability to withdraw is provincially regulated, and indeed it appears that other provinces have legislated the ability to withdraw from a locked-in pension. I'm just going to, in the research that I've…. I just want to briefly set it out.

Alberta allows people 50 and over to unlock 50 percent of their locked-in RRSP. Manitoba allows people 55 and over to transfer up to 50 percent of one of their locked-in retirement income funds to a non-locked-in registered retirement income fund, but one time only. In 2007 Ontario allowed a 25 percent transfer of locked-in funds to an RRIF, where the eligibility date is now changed, but generally at age 69 to 71. Saskatchewan allows the transfer of up to 100 percent under certain limited circumstances.

[1525]

I understand that this is a small legislative package and that there's an ongoing major review of pension standards which has reported out in a preliminary way. But I would commend to the minister and to the government to apply that same principle of looking at changing the ability to withdraw money that's saved in a so-called locked-in RRSP and giving people the right to withdraw that under certain conditions, similar to that of other provinces.

That's certainly a request that I'm encountering and I know others are encountering in mail or e-mail that they receive from their constituents. It does appear to be a growing concern, I think, if the volume is any measure of that, particularly when people are feeling pinched and strained financially. They're looking at those resources, that money saved, and seeking to withdraw some of it, at least, for more immediate financial concerns.

Finally, before I end on this. This is, again, a broader issue which I think is properly addressed at second reading. The pension standards review, the joint expert panel of British Columbia and Alberta, in one of its aspects also studied what are called negotiated cost multi-employer pension plans.

Those are pension plans, typically in some of the construction and building trades, where there are a number of construction employers and a number of unions who participate in the plan. It has different aspects from a defined-benefit plan because typically a defined-benefit plan is with a single employer only.

There are some suggestions that have been made in that review as to how those plans might better serve the interests of the trustees and the members. I don't think it appropriate to go into great detail at this stage of debate, but I do want to alert the minister and the members of the chamber to that report and to the changes that are proposed.

Typically, what is a problem increasingly is that the rules that are required by regulators require a valuation at a given point in time as though the pension plan were going to be wound up when, in fact, there's no intention to wind it up. That can lead to a requirement of either greater premiums and reduced pensions to the members,

[ Page 14652 ]

the pensioners of the plan, at a cost of great hardship when there may be no actual real financial jeopardy to the plan. There is an actuarial risk that can be managed in the long term properly.

The legislative framework, if it were altered slightly, I think, could accommodate those concerns and better serve the interests of the plans, the employers who contribute to them and the retirees who draw a pension income from those plans.

Those are concerns that I think will be addressed when the expert panel reports, and I hope some of the other concerns are taken into account when these issues come to be considered. Increasingly, as we are all aware, the shifting demography means many more people are looking at the prospect of how they're going to support themselves in their retirement or indeed if they can retire.

Some of the trends that are emerging are ones that I think cause many people to worry about themselves or their parents and how they are going to make provision for themselves in the long run.

These are not easy issues to address, but this bill, I think, begins some minor steps to begin that discussion. There is a broader, fuller discussion which I think we will have at some point either here or in the public, because I know that's something that I hear regularly from my constituents on.

With those comments, I would end my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to thank the opposition Finance critic for his very constructive remarks.

This is the first step in putting in place a new form of pension option for British Columbians that I think is quite exciting. The member mentioned the expert panel. This is a joint B.C.-Alberta panel that has been working diligently over the last year and a half, culminating in their report, which is now up on the website and available for anyone to take a look at their recommendations.

[1530]

This concept of going to a multi-employer defined contribution plan is one of their key recommendations — although for anybody interested in policy around public pensions, I would certainly recommend to them the entire report, which obviously covers much more than just the issues that are reflected in this piece of legislation today.

One of the things that came out of the findings of the joint panel that I found quite surprising and concerning was the very low level of pension participation, particularly by private sector employees in British Columbia. In fact, what they had determined is that only 22 percent of private sector employees in this province have access to a registered pension plan. That is part of the motivation behind putting forward this concept and for British Columbia to become a leader in Canada in pushing forward with this new pension option for British Columbians.

Of course, while we were the first province to announce, as the Premier did last October, that we were going to proceed down this road — even actually in advance of the joint panel finalizing their recommendations — other provinces have now expressed interest. In particular, Alberta, which was a partner with us on that expert panel, has indicated that they see it as a desirable objective.

One of the things that surprised me since the Premier came out with this commitment in October was the amount of response that it elicited both from workers and from employers. I expected that it would be good news and that it would resonate well, but I quite frankly was taken aback with how many e-mails I got, how many letters I got and how many comments I got from people stopping me in the street or at a conference and things like that to say how pleased they were to see the Premier's announcement.

I think when you look at it from the perspective of the worker, they obviously are anxious to have security in their retirement years. The options that would be available to them if their employer didn't offer a registered pension plan were really limited to the Canada Pension Plan, as well as whatever they may be able to put into individual RRSPs. But the option of having access to a registered pension plan is something that was not available to them.

Yet if you also look at it from the employer's perspective, many of these small and medium-sized employers would dearly love to be able to put in place that kind of benefit for their individual employees. But the complexity of putting in place a single-employer pension plan just made it absolutely prohibitive, particularly for small and medium-sized employers, and also a huge financial risk for those employers not just from the financial side but also from the administrative side and the regulatory compliance side that is required in the case of single employer pension plans.

Particularly when we are in times of labour shortage, where employers are looking for new ways they can attract the employees they need and, more importantly, retain the employees they need, they look to those benefit packages. What is it that they can offer their employees if they're going to make that workplace all that much more attractive? A pension plan is one of those very important benefits that an employer would like, in many cases, to be able to offer their employees.

Even today, yes, we see unemployment rates inching up a little bit because of the economic cycle that we're in right now. But the concerns I hear from employers around the province are that they're still nervous about labour shortages, because they know that once we get through this economic downturn and start to see the

[ Page 14653 ]

economic recovery that's anticipated for 2010, they will be once again looking at labour shortages as one of their primary concerns for the decade ahead.

I think this is an option that is timely. It's one that I think speaks to the needs of a lot of British Columbia workers, as well as employers, and one that we will proceed with in due haste to get the rest of phase 2 of the implementation in place as quickly as possible. That's going to require a lot of consultation. It's going to be some very complex legislative drafting that has to be done, and we want to make sure that we do it right. It's not going to be something that will happen quickly, but certainly by early next year it's our hope that we'll have phase 2 of this legislation available.

[1535]

The member in his comments mentioned two things. One is around portability, and that is obviously a big desire, a desirable objective of this legislation. If you have an individual who moves from one employer to another in a multi-employer plan, they can actually take their pension benefits with them and continue to accrue those benefits, even when they move from employer to employer.

Our objective is to ensure that that portability exists not just in British Columbia but actually nationally across Canada. That's why it's important that we work with Alberta and ensure that what we put in place will dovetail with what Alberta may put in place.

The other thing the member mentioned was the Saskatchewan plan. A week and a half ago we had a joint B.C.-Alberta-Saskatchewan cabinet meeting, the first time that has ever happened. As the member mentioned, Saskatchewan has had in place for many years now a Saskatchewan pension plan. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to work with the Saskatchewan Finance Minister and have some discussions about how our deliberations around this plan may be able to dovetail with the plan they have in place in a way that actually supports even greater mobility going forward.

I think this is timely, and as I say, I appreciate the members' comments. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to committee for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Krueger: I call Bill 13, intituled Forest Amendment Act, 2009.

Forest Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to move Bill 13 and have it read a second time now.

Bill 13 supports the individuals, families, first nations and communities that help the B.C. forest industry. They're passionate about forestry. They invest their time, their money and their energy working in our forests.

Bill 13 helps bring increased operating certainty, new opportunities and a larger role to build our forest sector and our province. It reduces the amount of paperwork and office hours and lets licensees focus on the things that they do best — silviculture and forest practices.

There are three key elements to Bill 13. The first focuses on community forests. Community forests across British Columbia have been incredibly successful. They're a model that easily could be replicated in a number of other communities, and we're actively in discussions with communities to expand the community forests around the province.

One of the community forests that I often like to refer to is the McBride Community Forest, an early adopter of the community forest. They are innovators. Mike Frazier, who is the mayor of McBride, has done a great job delivering fibre into the marketplace, growing value-added businesses in his community and extracting maximum value from his community forest.

I recall several discussions that I had with Mayor Mike early on, long before I was in this role. His passion around the opportunities associated with a community forest was absolutely clear to me.

This particular amendment allows for community forests to be issued for the full 25-year initial agreement as opposed to going through a probationary period of five years. We have in the neighbourhood of 50 community forests around the province right now. Our experience is that it's not necessary to have them go through a probationary period any longer.

We have confidence in the delivery model of community forests, and we think it makes sense for those community forests to go into full production. This gives them the certainty necessary to go out and finance new operations and attract the types of businesses that would be looking for fibre security over a longer period of time.

One of the other community forests that I see as an exemplary model is the Revelstoke Community Forest. This is an interesting model because they actually purchased the rights to a TFL as opposed to being provided a community forest through the normal channels that have evolved.

The Revelstoke Community Forest actually has a sort yard, and they sell small components of the fibre, whether it be a few logs, a few loads or a larger volume of timber. There has been a series of value-added businesses that have evolved in the Revelstoke-Golden cor-

[ Page 14654 ]

ridor, which rely on the Revelstoke Community Forest. It has spawned a number of new businesses as a result of the work that they do, and it really is, I think, a great model.

[1540]

I often refer to the Revelstoke Community Forest as one of the real success stories in the province. We would be well served if we can model many of the other community forests after the Revelstoke model, but we do have many community forests across the province.

Maple Ridge–Mission has had a community forest for a long time. I just had the privilege of signing off an extension agreement to that particular community forest. Again, people feel more connected to the wood and to the forests and to the world around them when they have a stake in the resource and in the decision-making processes, and that's why I'm so supportive of the notion of a community forest.

I like the model of us growing community forests, providing more community forests and larger community forests. Ideally, I'd like to see these all located in the immediate communities that benefit from them, and we're going to work hard to continue to grow this particular segment of the business. This amendment does have the support of the British Columbia Community Forest Association, and I'm sure that members opposite will also support this amendment.

The second amendment speaks to woodlots, and it actually allows for larger woodlots to evolve. Previously, woodlots would be a maximum of 400 hectares on the coast and 600 hectares in the Interior. This new legislation would allow for woodlots of up to 800 hectares on the coast and 1,200 hectares in the Interior, double the existing size of the woodlots. This will allow woodlots to become more efficient in their delivery model, and that's not to say there isn't a role for the smaller woodlots still. There will be.

We're very excited about the woodlot opportunities across the province. I haven't counted the number of woodlots that I've announced over the last number of months, but I'd guess it's in the half-dozen-to-ten range of new woodlot opportunities that we've been able to provide to communities.

Again, the beauty of the woodlot program is that it really allows for fibre supply from the local community to have the decision-making processes and the benefits associated with that community. Oftentimes woodlots see their wood going into value-added manufacturers to provide long-term contracts that allow these different companies to create new forms of products and new businesses that evolve from them. More importantly for me, woodlot owners are passionate about growing trees as well.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I know many woodlot owners personally, and I know that they manage their individual woodlots very, very carefully. They're a great example to follow because each of those woodlot owners will oftentimes produce several times more timber per hectare available than there is in a normal forest.

So again, woodlots are a great model. Allowing woodlots to get larger — double the previous size — or consolidating two woodlots into a single woodlot is a proposal that the B.C. Woodlot Federation is wholly supportive of and, again, I think will provide real benefits to the woodlot sector.

The final component of this bill speaks to postponing cutting permits, and I want to go into a bit more detail in this particular item. Cutting permit postponements were introduced originally in 2007. The purpose of the postponement regulation was to allow for beetle-attacked timber to be managed more effectively and to maximize the value from our beetle-attacked stands and direct the harvest into those stands and away from green stands.

Many times companies had gone out and put together a block of timber in a green stand with a plan to harvest it, but as the beetle came into their area, we tried to focus their attention on the beetle-impacted stands and asked them to be more aggressive in harvesting those particular stands. What we found was that the time lines for those permits to expire is four years, and as we move through the beetle period of time, we are finding that they weren't getting an opportunity to go back and harvest those green stands. So we thought it appropriate to create this amendment.

There are other reasons why our statutory decision-makers had the authority to postpone permits relating to fire initiatives for, again, maximum extraction of fibre that was imminently…. There was the potential for it to imminently lose value. So a number of reasons why we wanted to have that flexibility. Given the circumstances of the day, we think it's appropriate to expand those options again.

[1545]

Members opposite and around this Legislature will know how strongly I feel about us maximizing the value from our forests and full extraction, extrapolating all of the material that we can possibly get out of the forests and doing something with it — whether it's pellets, it's energy or it's high-value cedar siding — products that we further manufacture and create very high-value further-manufactured products, all of the various components.

Being able to manage our stands more effectively in postponing permits and allowing companies to retain the value of the effort put into establishing that permit is absolutely appropriate and I know will be supported as well.

These improvements provide better tenure certainty for our community forests, they create new opportun-

[ Page 14655 ]

ities for woodlots, and they allow for more flexibility to postpone cutting permits. Bill 13 allows small and community tenure holders to spend more time on forestry, on silviculture, on creating jobs and opportunities in our forests. It is the continued work of this government to support licensees in sound forest management and managing our provincial forest resource.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 38 grade 5 students and 16 grade 6 students visiting from Frost Road Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They're joining us with some of the best teachers in Canada. That is Mrs. Jas Cruise and Mr. Fred Sommer, along with a special education assistant, Miss Estelle Slamang. There are also many volunteer parents with them who have taken time away from their busy schedules to accompany the students.

Would the House please make these students and these parents and teachers very welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: I do stand with support for this bill — with questions. The minister is correct that we will be supporting the basic intent of this bill. We do have some questions. The bill, as I understand it….

I've said this many times in this House. An amendment act is one of the most difficult things to understand, because unless you are very vested in all the legislation that's behind it — you understand what the implications are — it's very easy within an amendment act to make changes to a single word that has huge implications in practice.

Some of that is in here, and I will be asking questions about those things in third reading when we get to that. For example, in

section 12 of this act it talks about a community forest agreement, and it gives the government the right to increase the area covered by the community forest agreement.

That has, of course, questions. How do you increase the area? What are the implications for other tenure holders? What would the consultation process be for that?

As the minister indicated in his discussion of this, towards the end of this act, in

section 16, there is a change to the rules regarding cutting permits and restrictions on cutting permits. As the minister indicated, there are a number of reasons why one may want to do that. But again, this is a single sentence change that gives the minister freedom to make changes — and his designated decision-maker freedom to make changes — with respect to the regulations.

Again, we've seen over the last four years that we have had this change from legislation to regulation, which does give the government of the day freedom to operate and the minister of the day freedom to operate but doesn't necessarily give comfort to the opposition and to people who need to be consulted before decisions are made. So I will explore tomorrow with the minister what the nature of any consultations would be.

What would we actually see in terms of notification to people if there are going to be changes to cutting permits? It's one of those things. It does take some time to tweak out, if you will, answers to some of these questions.

With respect to the bulk of this, this is a change to tenures in British Columbia — two tenures in particular, community forest tenures and woodlot tenures. A tenure is something that is now a hot topic for discussion.

[1550]

I see a group of students in the gallery with us today. I can tell you that as a longtime educator, one of the things I'm very conscious of as I come into this chamber is that we use a lot of language. We use a lot of acronyms. We believe we understand the meaning of that language, but the general public and people who are trying to understand what we do here don't often understand the same way we do.

What happens with a tenure? It's a way that we give people access to the public forests. For those folks up there, we own 94 percent of British Columbia's land base. The people of British Columbia own the land base. That is a unique aspect of living in British Columbia. If you're a citizen of Canada and a resident of British Columbia, you actually have an ownership right over the largest portion of this province. Ninety-four percent of the province is owned by you and by other British Columbians.

Over the years we've had to figure out: how do you get people access to the resources in that public land base in a way that they can generate economic activity and create jobs? How do they create those jobs and economic activity in a way that benefits communities?

I live in the community of Quesnel, which is in the heart of the province, dead centre almost. It's in the heart of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and we're struggling to address that issue and the long-term implications for our community and for the province.

When you live in those communities, your only economic activity is dependent upon how we give people access to the public lands surrounding those — for mineral rights, so they can go and create mines and create jobs from that; for fishing and guide-outfitting; for hunting rights and permits. One set of rights is these things called forest licences or tenures.

A forest licence or tenure is a way that we give a company or an individual rights to go out to the forest, take

[ Page 14656 ]

down the standing trees, turn them into logs and bring those logs into our communities so that we can manufacture them into products that people want to buy. That's what we mean when we talk about the tenure system or the forest licensing system.

This is a system that has a long and sordid history to it. There was actually a Forests Minister who was put in jail for playing around with this system to his own benefit. There have been all kinds of challenges — court challenges, challenges in the Legislature, challenges between companies — about who has access to our public forests, because it is a rich source of resources for economic activity and job creation.

We on this side have engaged in a debate now, leading up to the May 12 election, about a fundamental change that's needed to the tenure system. The Forests Minister was part of the round table that went around the province to hear what people had to say about the B.C. forest sector and the B.C. forest industry. The round table heard loud and clear in community after community, by presenter after presenter, that our current tenure system is broken. It doesn't serve the needs of the vast majority of British Columbians, and it desperately needs to be fixed.

So we have a bill in front of us today that does some tweaking of the tenure with respect to community forests and woodlots, and I'll speak to the nature of those changes. But does it really address the heart of the matter, which is a full and sweeping change to the tenure system?

The tenure system that we have just now — the way we give access to the forest licences so that people can get out into the forests — was actually designed…. The 1956 royal commission said that we designed the tenure system to ensure stability of employment in forest-dependent communities.

What we attempted to do through tree farm licences, which are grants to areas of the public forest for 25 years and being renewed…. We said: "You can have those exclusive rights to that exclusive area of B.C.'s public forest if you build a mill, if you create jobs, if you provide community security in a forest-dependent community." We have a number of these tree farm licences around the province that were issued with that explicit goal in mind.

Other forest licences are issued just to go out and get a volume of timber, cut the timber down and come off the land base. You have an obligation, since 1987, to go out and replant that, but you may never get on that land base again. A lot of people question whether or not that's the right thing to do, because you don't have a vested interest in that land base.

[1555]

The reality is that since the 2003 Forest Act changes, what we have done is delinked community benefit and job creation from the right of a company or an individual to have a forest licence and a tenure. There are some very explicit examples of that. In the minister's own region, in the timber supply area in Mackenzie, there's a company called AbitibiBowater that has a 15-year renewable licence in that timber supply area. AbitibiBowater very shortly here may get

chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because they are really struggling to stay afloat in these economic conditions.

They have permanently closed their mills in the Mackenzie area — two sawmills and a pulp mill. The sawmills are in question as to whether or not they're going to even be made available for sale in a way that somebody might be interested in buying them. Yet AbitibiBowater still holds a public forest licence for just under a million cubic metres of public logs to come off that licence. For what? To whose benefit?

That's really now the fundamental question. Who benefits from these tenure systems when the communities do not get the job creation, when communities do not get the direct benefits and the long-term security and stability of employment in their communities?

We have another case — and this case is in front of the minister — where Weyerhaeuser permanently shut down its mill in the Kamloops region. In the announcement of that mill shutdown, they also announced that they had sold or were going to transfer their licences to West Fraser Mills, which in turn was going to subdivide those licences to another company called Interfor, which would use the wood to run their Adams Lake mill.

What that meant for the community of Kamloops is that without consultation with them, without consultation with the first nations in that region, there was a company-to-company agreement to take the wood that surrounds Kamloops and move it north and south to benefit other communities outside of the Kamloops region.

Now, that may be good for 100 Mile House and Williams Lake, and it may be good for Adams Lake. But it begs the question of what the purpose is of our forest licence and tenure system if it no longer benefits the communities that are surrounded by those forests, if companies are free to actually come in, buy the licences and move the wood away from the community to the benefit of other communities.

That's why people come forward and say: "We think that the tenure system is broken. We think that it doesn't meet the needs of British Columbians today." It doesn't give the security of jobs in forest-dependent communities. It doesn't guarantee that there will be economic activity in those regions.

The second thing that's happened since 2003 is that…. I'm probably dating myself, and the kids in the gallery probably don't even know what I'm talking about when I say that a Pac-Man game has occurred. That Pac-Man game has been a big game of gobble-up, as one forest company has gobbled up another forest company because of the freedom to treat these forest licences and tenures as a privately held asset that you can trade, that you can sell, that you can subdivide.

[ Page 14657 ]

You don't have to come to the public who are impacted. You don't have to go to the workers who are impacted. You don't have to go to the minister, in most cases, and tell him that's what you're going to do.

As a consequence, we now have corporate concentration on the land base the likes of which we have never seen. We have one large company, Western Forest Products, on the coast that controls the majority of the public forest licences — almost all of them on Vancouver Island — and the majority of the log flow on the coast.

In the Interior we're collapsing down to four major companies, with Tembec down in the Kootenays. We also now have Interfor, Tolko, Canfor and West Fraser, the main ones in the interior of the province.

Now, logging contractors, silviculture contractors and trucking contractors will tell you that that is not serving them well. When I was involved with West Fraser's purchase of Weldwood, I know that our logging contracting and trucking community put briefs before the Competition Bureau in Ottawa saying: "We don't believe that West Fraser's purchase of Weldwood will serve the interests of the logging contracting and trucking community in the Quesnel–Williams Lake area."

[1600]

Subsequent to the sale of Weldwood to West Fraser, the loss of Slocan Forest Products and Riverside and all of these other companies that have disappeared, we now have a concentration in the central Interior that does cause significant downward price pressure on the work that the logging contractors, trucking contractors and silviculture contractors do.

In fact, the silviculture contractors tell me that, in many cases, the price that they get for planting trees is equivalent to what they used to get in the 1950s and 1960s. There's that much price pressure because there's a concentrated market. When you only have one major log buyer, when you only have one major company setting prices for silviculture or trucking, you naturally get that compression of prices, and it's making it very difficult for these companies to survive.

Now, it's interesting that H.R. MacMillan, one of the founding fathers of forestry in British Columbia, actually gave a warning. He gave a warning to British Columbia when he said that the citizens of British Columbia will rue the day when a very few companies control the land base in British Columbia. We will rue the day.

Well, that day has come. That day is here. I know that we're in the election window. I know that the good people of West Fraser and others are publicly…. In fact, there's a letter to the editor today in my own hometown publicly stating that what we are talking about in doing tenure reform will scare away investment, will cause de-investment in the forest sector, will create a loss of jobs.

Well, my challenge back to those people who are saying that is: the companies have certainty over the land base the likes of which they've never had, and we're losing jobs. We've got permanent mill closures. We've got a collapse of the industry down to a few major mills in the Interior, one company on the coast. Jobs are being lost on a daily basis and a monthly basis, and they have certainty over the land base.

So how can we rationalize continuing on that path when we need an alternate path? And the round table heard that loud and clear. I've read the briefs from the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, the Truck Loggers Association, the Central Interior Logging Association, the woodlot federation. Everybody's saying that we need a greater diversity of ownership over the land base, a greater diversity of tenures, in order to create a real log market in British Columbia that people can actually come to and buy logs in to create benefits for communities and create jobs, and that's all we're saying.

We're saying that we hear that. We hear that loud and clear from all sectors of the forest industry, and we're committing that what we would do is, rather than bring forward amendment acts that tweak and play around with community forest tenures and woodlot tenures, actually look at the system as a whole