2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 15

[ Page 17577 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House

some guests that I don't usually get the opportunity to introduce. I have my

wife Raminder in the gallery with my three sons Pavel, Aseem and Umber, and

their two very special guests, Bobby and Shauna. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I have two sets of introductions to make today.

First, from my riding, New Westminster, there are 30 adult students in the

social services program at Douglas College who are here with their teacher Ms.

Newman. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

Secondly, joining us in the gallery today are Chris Tollefson, who is the

executive director of the University of Victoria's environmental law centre;

Catherine Parker of the law firm Arvay Finlay; and Vicky Husband, conservation

chair of the Sierra Club of B.C. All of these guests are strong advocates of the

right of British Columbians to speak out on issues of public concern without

intimidation, particularly when it comes to environmental and land use issues.

Would all members join me in making them welcome.

[1410]

G. Hogg: Joining us in the gallery is an alumnus of White Rock

Elementary School and Earl Marriott Senior Secondary, who is now a student at

the University of Victoria. Would you please welcome Ms. Kambi Wilson.

Hon. E. Conroy: Today in the gallery is my wife Katrine, who's been

down here this week ensuring that I can navigate the halls in a manner that

doesn't allow me to bounce off the walls. Would the House please make her

welcome.

T. Nebbeling: We have with us two guests in the gallery. One is the

former mayor of Chilliwack, Mr. John Les, who's also the candidate in the

very-soon-to-be provincial election. And with him is Mr. Paul Danes, who has

been an adviser to the city of Chilliwack for many, many years. Can we make them

welcome.

J. Cashore: In the gallery today is a constituent and a member of the

board of directors of the Douglas College student union. Her name is Carly

Turner. This message was handed to me by a secret admirer.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to make a number of introductions

to the House. First of all, I'd like to welcome the mayor of Chilliwack, Clint

Hames, along with the mayor of the district of Kent, Sylvia Pranger, and a

councillor of the district of Kent, Ted Westlin. We had lunch today, and I know

that earlier today they met with the Minister of Environment to talk about our

community's frustration with the difficulty in removing gravel from the Fraser

River.

It's also my privilege, along with the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi,

to welcome the former mayor of Chilliwack, John Les, who's currently in

political purgatory awaiting the dropping of the writ, and his and my friend,

Paul Danes. Would the House please make these people welcome.

D. Streifel: We have touring the precincts -- and I think some may be

in the gallery right now -- a school group from Marysville Middle School in

Marysville, Washington. Ms. S. Gonce is the teacher, and they have up to 60

students and 20 adults, and there are grade 6 students in the party. If they

have the opportunity to be in here for part of question period, I just want to

leave this thought with them. You have your college of electors, and we have

question period here. Who knows which is more productive? Would the House please

make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: I'd like to introduce to the House the mayor of Dawson

Creek, Blair Lekstrom. He's watching us today. He's the candidate for Peace

River South in the upcoming election.

Hon. E. Gillespie: It is my great pleasure today to welcome three

constituents to this House: Liam Walton Roy Simmonds, aged about three months,

born January 2, son of Laurel Walton and Keith Simmonds. I'd ask you all to

please make them welcome.

G. Abbott: It is my pleasure to have two friends and constituents in

the gallery today: Mayor Gordon Dale of the city of Enderby and Councillor Greg

McCune from the same community. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

C. Hansen: There are two school groups in the Legislature today from

Vancouver-Quilchena. There is a grade 4 class from Crofton House girls school

and their teacher, Ms. Magrath. There is also a grade 10 class here from Prince

of Wales Mini School and their teacher, Ms. Moon. I hope the House will make

them welcome.

R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to have two guests today visiting from the

Okanagan. The first one, Rowan Shaw, is a student at the University of Victoria,

and he'll be graduating this year. The other is Aaron Dinwoodie, a director from

the Central Okanagan regional district. Would the House please make them

welcome.

[1415]

Hon. G. Robertson: With us today is Keith Simmonds. Keith is my

executive assistant, and although my colleague from Comox pointed out that his

son Liam is from Courtenay, I want the members in this House to know that he was

born in the Campbell River Hospital.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: From 100 Mile House today is the Cariboo Christian

School accompanied by their teacher, Ms. D. Raatz. There are about 20 of them

here. Would you please make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice someone in the gallery who's no stranger

to this House but hasn't been here much lately. I'd ask the House to make Jim

Bennett welcome, please.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I've received word that also joining us in the

gallery today is Sheila Gallagher, who is a legal adviser in the Premier's

Office on secondment from my ministry. With her is James Sunter, who is a lawyer

and negotiator with the native title services in the Department of the Premier

and Cabinet in Queensland, Australia. He's on a nine-month exchange with a

lawyer from the aboriginal litigation branch of my ministry. Would all members

join me in making them welcome.

[ Page 17578 ]

M. Coell: I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming Patrick

Rogers, who's no stranger to this chamber. Please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE

ACCESS ACT

Hon. C. Evans presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Emergency Contraceptive Access Act.

Hon. C. Evans: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Evans: On October 26 of the year 2000, cabinet approved

regulations under the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act.

These regulations allow pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptive pills,

also simply known as ECPs, for women without a doctor's prescription. This was

done to give the women of B.C. immediate access to emergency contraceptive pills

by making them available at their local pharmacy. This legislation validates

those regulations and then confirms the right of British Columbia women to have

convenient access to emergency contraception.

Emergency contraception pills have been available from agencies like Planned

Parenthood, emergency rooms, public health nurses and doctors for nearly 30

years. The experience to date with the direct distribution by pharmacists

indicates that this is a key addition to the convenient access of emergency

contraception, and ready access is the key to emergency contraception.

The availability of ECPs through local pharmacies and pharmacists makes

emergency contraception accessible for many women who might otherwise be denied

this choice. There is nationwide support for the eventual delisting of ECPs, but

for the time being B.C. is leading the country on this issue. All women have the

right to choose when or if they want to get pregnant. ECPs are a backup form of

contraception to prevent a pregnancy from occurring when a regular form of birth

control fails. This government has always maintained that women have the right

to choose. This legislation is the right thing to do for the right reasons. I am

pleased to be able to table this legislation today.

I move that the Emergency Contraceptive Access Act be placed on the orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House following today.

Bill 8 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.

ABORTION SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Abortion Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Legislative Assembly voted yesterday in favour

of a package of initiatives needed to help protect the right of women in British

Columbia to reproductive choice. To help protect a woman's right to choose, this

bill enshrines new protection in the statutes of British Columbia.

[1420]

Right now, regulations to the Hospital Insurance Act contain a list of 33

B.C. hospitals required to provide abortion services, to give women access to

these services throughout our province. Amendments to the Hospital Insurance Act

contained in this bill will add one more hospital to that list and will place

the list within the statute. The new provisions will allow more hospitals to be

added to that list at any time, but none may be removed without further

legislative amendment and debate. This bill also ensures that with very few

exceptions, information about these services will not be released. This will

enhance the privacy of women and service providers and will help protect them

from harassment or harm.

By designating hospitals in statutes and by protecting information about

these services and service providers, we continue to side with the women of

British Columbia and their doctors and to act on our commitment to their right

to choose. It is a right that should never be denied. I'm pleased to introduce

this legislation today.

I move that the Abortion Services Statutes Amendment Act be placed on the

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 21 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.

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT

Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Protection of Public Participation Act.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and

read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 10,

the Protection of Public Participation Act. The purposes of this bill are to

encourage public participation and to dissuade persons from bringing or

maintaining SLAPP suits -- also known as strategic lawsuits against public

participation -- which are launched against persons for openly participating in

public issues.

The bill will provide an opportunity at or before trial for a defendant to

allege that a lawsuit is brought for an improper purpose and is therefore a

SLAPP. A court may dismiss the lawsuit and reimburse the defendant for all the

reasonable costs and expenses that they have incurred or may require the

plaintiff to post security for all of the costs and damages that may be awarded

to the defendant should the plaintiff lose at trial.

The bill further provides protection from liability for defamation if the

defamatory communication or conduct con-

[ Page 17579 ]

stitutes public participation. Finally, the bill preserves the right of

access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or

maintained for an improper purpose.

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

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

Bill 10 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.

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. I Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Environment and Sustainability Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Hon. I. Waddell: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill

today, which will establish a commissioner for environment and sustainability.

The Premier committed to create this position, and today we are introducing

legislation to meet that commitment.

This commissioner, independent of government, will report to the Members of

the Legislative Assembly through a select standing committee. To save taxpayers

money and reduce overhead, the commissioner will be based in the office of the

auditor general. I'm pleased to report that the auditor general is fully

supportive of the approach we have taken to establish this important position.

We will amend the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to make

environment and sustainability a measure of government's performance. The

commissioner will report on our performance every year. Every two years the

commissioner will issue a general report on the state of B.C.'s ecological

health. In addition, British Columbians will be able to submit complaints to the

commissioner for referral to appropriate ministries or Crown corporations.

[1425]

In short, the legislation I'm introducing today will ensure that British

Columbians get full, accurate, impartial information about the state of B.C.'s

environment and what the government is doing to protect it.

A broad-based selection committee including members from both sides of the

House will be struck by the auditor general to choose the first commissioner. We

hope to have the position filled within the next few months.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7 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.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY

REPORT ON SNOWPACK LEVELS

R. Neufeld: The Environment ministry's reports on B.C.'s snowpack

levels normally come out four times a month -- on time, like clockwork. The last

report is now one week late. Since there are serious concerns at B.C. Hydro over

water levels and snowpack levels, will the Minister of Environment tell us

whether he has stopped collecting the data, or is he trying to hide more bad

news -- that Hydro will not have the water to meet the Finance minister's

fudge-it budget document?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I'd be pleased to answer the member's

question. The answer is no, no, no, no. There is no problem with the report; the

report will come out. We're not trying to stop any report. We are interested in

the snowpack levels. As a matter of fact, I anticipated the member might ask me

that a week or so ago, and I had a look at some of the snow reports around the

province. What I'm told is that the snowpack really varies. It varies in the

sense that if you're in the East Kootenays, there are some problems. If you're

in Whistler or other parts of the province, it's doing quite well. But we have

to wait and see.

I also asked questions of my officials about what has happened in the past

with low levels. And there are some low levels this year, as previous reports

have shown and people have said. They tell me that it can vary, that we can have

late-season precipitation, that it's quite unpredictable. But the report will be

released, and it will be there for the member to see we're not hiding anything.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North has a supplemental

question.

R. Neufeld: If the Minister of Environment knew one week ago that the

report was late and anticipated that we would ask the question, he should know

that the snowpack is low in the north. He indicated that the snowpack was high

in the north. I would like to ask the minister if he could tell me the name of

the report we're referring to that he knows is one week late.

Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member . . . . My

instructions . . . . I'm waiting for a report in the first week of

April. As soon as I can get that report, the report will be released to the hon.

member.

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, you know, I just introduced a bill in the House

today to make things transparent and make things open and have this report. It's

exactly what I do as Environment minister, unlike the members opposite.

[1430]

[ Page 17580 ]

COMPARISON OF B.C. AND

MANITOBA TAX LEVELS

G. Farrell-Collins: For the last week or so, the opposition has been

raising questions about the budget, and many people in British Columbia have had

many questions about the budget. But it has now gone beyond the borders of

British Columbia.

I have a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press , and it turns out that the

NDP government in Manitoba has questions about the NDP's budget numbers.

An Hon. Member: No.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'll just quote from the

article. It says:

"Finance officials in Manitoba have complained to the British Columbia

government after figures in the back of that province's budget painted a grim

picture of Manitoba's tax load. B.C.'s calculations suggested that four out of

six typical families would pay higher 2001 taxes in Manitoba than in any other

province except Quebec . . . .

"But Manitoba's number-crunchers" -- the NDP government in

Manitoba -- "discovered that . . . British Columbia . . . had

made several miscalculations, including underestimating Manitoba's property

tax credits."

I know there's a growing chorus of opposition to this budget. Can the minister

tell us who we should believe: the new, pristine, clean NDP government in

Manitoba or this NDP government that has brought in two fudge-it budgets and

counting?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've asked ministry officials to look at the Manitoba

figures and compare them to the ones that we released with the budget. Those are

produced by ministry officials. Until I hear otherwise, I stand by them.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: It doesn't sound like your caucus stands by them

-- or at least they'll wait to see the results.

The NDP in Manitoba went on to say that this government's budget figures say

that British Columbia has the second-lowest tax rates in Canada. But the NDP in

Manitoba, in their calculations, say that British Columbians pay the highest

taxes in Canada west of Quebec. So I know that some people in British Columbia

may have trouble deciding who they want to believe: the NDP government in

Manitoba, who have just been re-elected with a fairly significant popular vote,

or this government, who on the eve of an election produced yet another fudge-it

budget.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, there have been a number of comments on the

budget. I want to read one:

"With British Columbia about to call an election, it is a good time to

take stock of the state of the province's fiscal situation. British Columbia

has a lot going for it . . . B.C. now has the most transparent and

comprehensive financial reporting of any province. B.C. has the lowest

corporate income tax rate for small business in the country. It has the

second-lowest marginal tax rate for low-income earners among the provinces and

the third lowest for middle-income earners. It has the second-lowest

debt-to-GDP ratio in the country . . . its debt-to-GDP ratio has

remained remarkably steady . . . . It offers a comprehensive,

well-funded set of health, education and social services."

Produced by that shill for the NDP government, the Bank of Montreal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Clark: You know, the real reason for optimism in the B.C. economy

today, the only reason for it, is that there's going to be an election in the

next couple of weeks. First, this Finance minister was caught inflating the

Hydro revenues. Then he got caught inflating the ICBC revenues. Now he's been

caught inflating the NDP budget numbers in Manitoba by 36 percent. Apparently

he's not happy sticking to just fudging his own budget. But doesn't he think

it's getting a bit ludicrous when he has to go outside B.C.'s borders to find

new budgets to fudge?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, budgets are always an interesting topic of

debate. The one thing we don't have, because the opposition has refused to

present it, is what they intend to do. And the people of British Columbia know

very well that the real choice is going to be between a government that has said

that health and education must take priority over huge tax cuts if we're to

preserve our fiscal stability. And we're going to do that on this side. But that

side won't come clean. Their own advisers say: "Come clean. Are you going

to run a deficit? Are you going to cut health and education?" Or which

great Crown corporations are you going to sell, hon. members?

[1435]

The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a

supplemental question.

C. Clark: Well, you'd better book the infomercial now, because the

Finance minister has finally come up with a new miracle cure for B.C.'s big,

heavy tax burden. You know what it is? Just make everybody else's taxes look

higher. That's like trying to pretend you're losing weight by putting everybody

else on a steady diet of high-calorie fudge.

Will the hon. minister tell us today whether Manitoba's is the only other

provincial budget he has fudged, or has he gone out and fudged all the other

province's numbers as well?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What a wonderful lot of interest in the budget. They

refused to debate it in the House. They passed interim supply for $8 billion in

12 minutes.

Some Hon. Members: Twelve minutes?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Twelve minutes. And now they're full of questions. The

people of the province are going to be full of questions as well. They're going

to be full of questions about how on earth you reduce government revenues,

increase funding for health and education, and maintain a balanced budget. It

doesn't work, hon. members. You know it; your own advisers know it. You refuse

to admit it. When are you going to come clean with the people of British

Columbia and tell us your real plans?

ICBC ADVERTISEMENTS

M. de Jong: Last month ICBC purchased 30 minutes of air time from BCTV

for a March 18 production that we're told

[ Page 17581 ]

was the ICBC story, in living colour. But they postponed that air date, and

according to the briefing document we've got, it's because there was a concern

about the broadcast falling too close to the election. My first question to the

minister is: what was the total production cost of the cancelled propaganda

piece?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if the briefing document is the radio newscast

in which I announced that I had advised the board of ICBC to think carefully

about doing such a thing so close to the election and to not advise them, then

that's fair, because I made that comment publicly at the time. So unfortunately,

even the source of information to the Liberal opposition is about a month late.

They could actually just turn on their radios and find out all of that

information.

The record of ICBC since it was brought in, in 1973, by a New Democrat

government is excellent. There are lots of reasons to celebrate that; there are

lots of reasons why people should be concerned about that wonderful corporation

still existing. I think the corporation has spent about $5,000 to date, to use

it as an internal tool with their employees.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: If $5,000 is what was paid to BCTV for not using the 30

minutes, how much did it cost to produce the video?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to get that information for you, hon.

Speaker. But I'll tell you something: ICBC talks amongst its employees all the

time about what a wonderful corporation it is. I have to tell you something: the

employees of ICBC do a wonderful job in keeping insurance rates frozen,

implementing safety initiatives in this province that save lives and prevent

crashes, and do a wonderful job on behalf of all of the policyholders. I fear

for that future under a Liberal government.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a further supplemental

question.

M. de Jong: The minister's first answer was particularly curious in

light of the other positioning note that we have from her ministry -- that is,

the one that says there is a new series of pre-election ads in the works. Those

ads are apparently going to start in just a few days, actually on Monday. The

note talks about the fact that questions may arise regarding the proximity of

that ad campaign to an election.

To the minister: if you decided to pull the March 18 propaganda piece because

of proximity to the election, on what possible basis are you now purporting to

justify running a whole series of new ads within days of what we hope will

finally be the election call?

[1440]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ads that are being put forward by ICBC have been

approved by me. That's because they're all about road safety initiatives -- all

of them. Every single one of them is about road safety initiatives by ICBC

encouraging the public to drive more carefully, to take precautions, to save

lives. That's what they're about.

I would also note that earlier in the week, this opposition raised the whole

spectre that ICBC couldn't possibly manage its affairs and questioned the fact

that road safety initiatives may not be going forward. Now we have ads with

public information about how people need to drive more safely, and this

opposition disagrees with that.

G. Plant: Well, the minister's answer, I think, gives rise to another

question. We did learn earlier this week that the Insurance Corporation was

ordered by the government to suspend its road safety fund. It seems to me a bit

odd that on the one hand the minister is about to spend $366,000 to produce and

air a bunch of ads about road safety, when on the other hand the Minister of

Finance has said: "Stop spending that money." Perhaps the minister

responsible for ICBC could explain why on earth the public of British Columbia

needs to see one more ICBC pre-election ad.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, hon. Speaker, it is interesting, when you

leak a whole bunch of documents to inexperienced, ill-informed and ignorant

people, how ineffective those briefing documents actually are. You need the

experience. Leaked documents only work so far. You need the experience of a

thoughtful government committed to public insurance to work with those

documents.

Since 1996 -- I think it was 1996 -- we introduced a six-point road safety

plan, Road Sense. It has been singularly successful and well funded. These road

safety ads actually are initiatives that have been in place since 1996. What the

Minister of Finance has said to ICBC is that the new funding of initiatives that

we're putting tens of millions of dollars into has to come before Treasury Board

to make sure that they're going to be done in time -- and could even be

expedited.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Ministerial Statement

TERMINATION OF THE

SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I rise to make a statement on a matter

of great importance to the working people, forest companies and forest-dependent

communities of British Columbia.

On April 1, Canada's softwood lumber agreement with the United States

expires. The expiration of this agreement brings with it serious economic

concerns to this province and its economy -- an economy in which the forest

industry is of critical importance. Make no mistake: while British Columbia's

economy has diversified considerably since our first softwood lumber dispute

with the United States in 1982, the forest industry is still a key player in the

broader provincial economy and is the very lifeblood of many of our rural

communities.

At the same time, our economic, environmental and social ties with the United

States of America seem to grow closer and stronger every year. The U.S. is a

vital trading partner, and we must ensure that we continue to enjoy a productive

and mutually beneficial trading relationship with them.

[ Page 17582 ]

[1445]

Much has been said in the press and by industry observers as to what Canada's

and British Columbia's strategy in dealing with the expiration of the agreement

ought to be. Some have suggested that B.C. should cut a deal with the U.S. to

fend off countervailing duty and anti-dumping actions by the U.S. Others have

said that we must increase stumpage rates in order to appease U.S. concerns.

Still others have gone so far as to claim that we must change our environmental

practices because they are becoming a factor in this trade dispute. The province

has taken a leadership position on this very important issue to British Columbia

and Canada. The Minister of Forests has made representations to officials in

Ottawa and Washington, D.C., and met with purchasers of B.C. wood products on

the west coast of the United States of America.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the province's position on

the matter.

1. B.C. does not subsidize its forest industry. The repetitive claims of the

U.S. industry and others cannot disguise the simple fact that our stumpage

system has been challenged and reviewed by international trade panels on three

separate occasions, and we have won each and every time. This should not be

surprising. On any reckoning, our direct forestry revenues exceed our costs by

hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

The province supports the establishment of free trade in lumber with the U.S.

We need and deserve unrestricted access to this very important market. And as

many Americans will admit, they need our lumber too. Given our increasing

economic ties with our U.S. trading partner, it only makes sense to have a truly

North American lumber market.

2. We will not be forced into an unfair trade relationship. We must not allow

our interests to be compromised, and most importantly, we must retain our

resolve and composure in the face of pressure tactics from our U.S. trading

partner. Quotas can no longer be part of any arrangement between our two

countries. Inequities in quota distribution across our country and within our

province have led to unnecessary mill closures and to families struggling to

make ends meet. This can and must be avoided in any future agreement.

3. British Columbia has made many changes to forest policy over the past

decade. These changes include the introduction of some of the world's most

progressive forest practices and toughest environmental standards. These

measures have been undertaken so that our forest industry remains modern and

able to compete effectively in world lumber markets.

4. I want to state my support of the work the federal government has

undertaken on this issue of critical importance to our B.C. economy. We will

stand united with our fellow lumber-producing provinces and our country and

present a common front on this issue critical to our U.S. trading partners and

ourselves. To this end, I will be contacting the Prime Minister, reiterating our

position and urging him to stand firm. It is only through cooperation with the

federal government that we can present to the U.S. a strong national position

and help reaffirm our case through NAFTA and WTO mechanisms.

5. I have directed the Minister of Forests to convene a meeting of the

province's forest industry, including representatives from the IWA and the

contracting sector, to confirm the province's position on this very important

issue. In recent days, as the current softwood lumber agreement has been set to

expire, stakeholders on both sides of the border have been doing a lot of

talking to the papers instead of each other. I want to emphasize that some of

this discussion in the papers must end. We must work with the federal government

to provide a unified national position and, most importantly, focus our efforts

on meaningful discussions with our trading partner instead of engaging in trade

rhetoric.

[1450]

This is an important issue for the economy of British Columbia, and I respect

both the passion and the vigour in this debate. I expect it to be there.

However, it's important that we lower the rhetoric and focus on ensuring that

B.C.'s interests are well represented to both the Canadian and the U.S. federal

governments.

Finding a resolution to this critical trade issue will not be easy. To the

contrary, it will be very difficult and require considerable determination and

effort. I call on my colleagues across the aisle and on all British Columbians

to support us in establishing a fair, equitable and mutually beneficial trading

relationship with the United States.

G. Campbell: I want to start by saying that there are no issues that

face British Columbia that have the level of magnitude of import to people's

lives as the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement on March 31. There is

no issue that will have more impact on the 270 communities across this province,

large and small, that depend on forestry. There is no issue that will have more

impact on the tens of thousands of families in this province that depend on

forestry for their jobs, to pay their mortgages, to take care of their children.

There is no issue that is more critical to the future of British Columbia than

how we manage this.

So let me start by saying that the opposition unites with the government in

taking the interests of British Columbia first. British Columbia will speak with

one voice firmly, unequivocally, on behalf of our forest industry and the

thousands of people who work in it.

Let me say, also, that this has been an issue that has been coming for some

time. We should have no illusions about what we are up against in British

Columbia. There is no question in my mind at all that the Coalition for Fair

Lumber Imports in the United States is ready to go at 12 o'clock on Monday

afternoon, this coming Monday, and launch a complaint against Canadian producers

of lumber that suggests, incorrectly, that our lumber exports are subsidized to

the tune of 40 percent. Hon. Speaker, they are wrong. They are wrong today; they

were wrong last year; they were wrong years ago. It is time for British

Columbians and Canadians to stand up and husband every resource we need to

protect the interests of the people of this province and this country.

I suggest it is equally important that we take our message not just across

our province and across our country, so that we are speaking with one voice

unequivocally on behalf of the people that live here . . . . But it

is equally important that we take our voice and our message down to the people

of the United States. I've visited the United States on occasion, and I've

noticed that they want nothing but the best. The best products, the best

workers, the best value come from British Columbia and our products, which we

want to make sure they have access to in their marketplace. Their customers need

[ Page 17583 ]

our products. And I concur with the Premier 100 percent that we should never

take a back seat, because B.C. delivers the best value possible to the customer.

We will do that with the United States, and we will do it elsewhere.

As the Premier said, and I concur with his comment, it is equally important

that we speak with one voice when we speak as Canada. There are ten provinces in

this country. We will speak with a united voice, and I would call on the Prime

Minister and the minister responsible to make sure that that voice is a unified,

united, firm voice demanding free, open, honest access to the American markets

so that we make sure that their customers get the value of our products.

There is no question in my mind that this will be a major initiative and a

major undertaking, and we should not ever underestimate the extent of the

challenge in front of us. But I also believe that we should not underestimate

the resolve of the people of this province to demand fair, open access, to work

in cooperation with our customers to the south, to work in cooperation with our

colleagues across our country.

[1455]

I will join with the Premier, if he would like, or I will write a separate

letter to the Prime Minister, if he would prefer that, in calling for the

immediate appointment of a Canadian envoy to go and get the talks started so

that Americans understand what we're talking about, understand what our industry

offers and understand how it will benefit every American family to have B.C.

products available to them regardless of where they live or what they do in the

United States.

There is no order of business that is more important. There is no order of

business that is more critical to our future as a province. So on behalf of the

opposition, I am glad to reach out, with the Premier, to our national

representatives in Ottawa to speak calmly and firmly on behalf of British

Columbians and to reach out, if necessary, south of the border to make sure that

those in the United States understand the position that we take forward. I think

there should be no question that we all understand -- on this side of the House

and on the government side of the House -- that British Columbians take pride in

our industry, take pride in our workers and take pride in our product, and we

will not be forced to take an agreement into a trading arrangement that is

unfair to the people that live here.

We will stand with the government, we will stand with the national

government, and we will be sure that together we will win this very important

competitive battle that we are about to face. We can do this, hon. Speaker. I

look forward to working with the Premier in accomplishing our goal.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following

document: the office of the information and privacy commissioner annual report,

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call Bill 6, committee stage.

ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House in committee on Bill 6; D. Streifel in the chair.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I note that joining us in the gallery is Fred

Sparkes, who is a constituent of mine and is the spouse of the mayor of New

Westminster, Mayor Helen Sparkes. I'd ask all my colleagues to join me in making

him welcome today.

[1500]

section 1.

G. Plant: The bill here is the Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment

Act. It contains a variety of sections that amend, in quite a detailed way, a

variety of other statutes including the Adult Guardianship Act and the

Representation Agreement Act. This is part of the continuing rollout, I guess,

of this legislation. I want to ask a couple of general questions that apply

across this bill as a way of beginning this debate.

The first is this: we were here last year and were asked to enact some

amendments to the adult guardianship legislation with the aim in mind of

bringing some of that legislation into force -- not all of it, but some of it. I

think that, with respect to the balance, the situation was that some parts of

those four or five statutes, as enacted in 1993, were put into perhaps a

permanent deep freeze, and other parts were put into a wait-and-see mode.

My sense is that what we're asked to do in Bill 6 is to make changes that are

directed primarily, or perhaps entirely, to those parts of the adult

guardianship legislation that were given effect last year -- that is, we're not

moving beyond the core of the legislation that was enacted and proclaimed last

year. Perhaps I could ask if the minister could clarify that.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: That's true. And just for the information of the

House, joining me today is Jay Chalke, the public guardian and trustee for

British Columbia.

G. Plant: The bill, as I said, has a variety of different provisions.

What I want to find out is: what is the timetable for implementation of Bill 6?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: There are some sections of the act that will come

into force on royal assent. Most of the act deals with the Representation

Agreement Act, and that will be done by regulation. We're looking at the

possibility of putting an order through cabinet in the next week, if cabinet

meets, which would set a date for later this year. Otherwise, it will have to go

through cabinet after an election.

G. Plant: Some of the Representation Agreement Act changes, then --

are they some of the changes that will in fact come into force immediately upon

royal assent?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: No, all amendments to that act will be by

regulation.

G. Plant: I notice that the first few sections of the bill are Adult

Guardianship Act amendments. Some of those, I gather, will come into force upon

royal assent. That would be an example of some provisions that are going to come

into force in . . . . It seems to me to be fine-tuning in terms of

the specific

[ Page 17584 ]

description of the triggering criteria. In some cases, time lines are being

changed. It's that sort of detailed work that is really the focus of many of

these changes in the whole bill. Would that be a fair comment?

[1505]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yeah, the two major themes of this legislation are

to increase the workability of the statutes as well as to ease access and

affordability. Those are the two major themes here.

G. Plant: Does the bill have fiscal implications for government, and

if so, what are they? And have they been provided for in the current budget?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: There are no fiscal implications.

G. Plant: Just for the sake of clarity, that would include and extend

to the office of the public guardian and trustee -- that is, there are not going

to be any additional demands on that office that would require additional

resources or funding. Or in the event that there are, there are, in any event,

no further funds being made available to that office this year.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm receiving advice which may be a bit conflicted,

but there is nothing arising out of this bill that should create increased

financial pressure on that office.

G. Plant: One of the things that this bill is intended to do is

ultimately permit notaries public to have a more expanded role in relation to

representation agreements. I believe it was in the minister's second reading

speech that he talked about training. Could the minister please elaborate on

what he means by that reference?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Under the amendment, cabinet can approve a training

course. Cabinet is authorized to do that. That was recommended in Dulcie

McCallum's report. We're proposing to begin work with the Society of Notaries

Public on exactly what that will look like. The cost of that would be borne by

the notaries, not the taxpayer. In my second reading remarks I mentioned the

Justice Institute, but we'll also be looking at other possibilities -- primarily

the Justice Institute or maybe UBC -- to deliver that course.

G. Plant: It sounds like it would be difficult to put in place and

make operative that apparatus, if you will, immediately. Is there a specific

timetable associated with the rollout of the provisions that affect notaries?

How long will it take?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Our intention would be to have the course in place

at the same time as the coming into force of these amendments. As I indicated

earlier, the Representation Agreement Act amendments will come into force by

regulation, which would specify a date. It would make sense to have that

coincide with the date on which this course would come into force as well.

[1510]

G. Plant: Just to put more flesh on those bones . . . . It

sounds like that's a matter of months rather than weeks, or perhaps longer.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, it's not a matter of days or even a matter of

weeks; it's a matter of months. We'll probably be looking at early fall as a

realistic time.

G. Plant: Two more general issues before turning to the specific

provisions. In the years during which the government was wrestling to find a way

to bring the Representation Agreement Act into force, questions were raised from

time to time by financial institutions. They asked me -- I know they asked the

government -- how it is that they would have the necessary degree of assurance

to know that they could rely upon a representation agreement as evidence of what

it purported to be.

I haven't had any contact with that sector of the economy in relation to this

issue for awhile. Is there anything in this bill that speaks to that concern?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes. There are a couple of elements of these

amendments which speak to that. If financial institutions are looking for

absolute guarantees, I think the answer is no. But some of the changes that are

being made should give them more comfort. The first is that, because we're

reducing the number of certificates required to demonstrate that these are

properly executed documents, it will be easier for them to verify that they are

properly executed documents. I believe it's two certificates. The other change

that's being made here is that the introduction of a prescribed form should

offer some comfort, as well, if it's broadly used.

G. Plant: The prescribed form in this context referring to a

prescribed form of representation agreement, a sort of standard general powers

representation agreement . . . ?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, that's right. And I should add that the

Canadian Bankers Association were consulted on these changes and have offered

their support.

G. Plant: One last set of general questions. The relationship between

representation agreements and powers of attorney has been an ongoing question.

One of the things that this bill does, in the context of trying to express some

of the detailed powers that can be conferred in a representation agreement, is

make a change to the previous act that goes like this, as I understand it. The

previous act attempted to enumerate in a couple of subsections, in some detail,

the kinds of financially related things that representation agreements could

achieve. The bill will amend that. To some extent the amendment simply says that

a representation agreement can do anything a power of attorney could do.

If I've got that right, then what I haven't figured out yet is what is

expected to happen, I guess, when the right to make an enduring power of

attorney comes to an end, as I believe it is scheduled to do according to the

current state of things in September of this year. If I haven't explained my

confusion I'll have another go at it, but if the minister gets it, I'm just

trying to figure out how those two things will work together.

[1515]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The repeal of the clause would make it clear that

there will be no new enduring powers of attorney after these amendments take

effect. But

section 32 of this bill does preserve a representation agreement in

the same way that an enduring power of attorney was previously preserved. I

think

section 2, the purpose clause, also offers some assistance in terms of the

intent of the legislation.

G. Plant: I'm prepared to let sections 1 to 29 pass.

[ Page 17585 ]

Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

G. Plant: Let me, if I may, revisit the question that I attempted to

ask a moment ago. The Attorney General's answer was helpful in one respect. It

dealt with the question of how long a representation agreement can last and made

the point, as I understood him, that the intent here is that representation

agreements should endure in much the same way that enduring powers of attorney

could endure, with whatever specific rules apply.

But I'm interested also in the question of the scope-of-powers issue. The

section in front of us is going to amend

section 9 of the Representation

Agreement Act by repealing three existing subparagraphs and replacing them with

one there in the bill, which says that a representation agreement will allow to

be done anything that can be done by an attorney acting under a power of

attorney and that is not mentioned in the other paragraphs.

So I'll come back to the question I asked a moment ago. Enduring powers of

attorney are going to come to an end. Does that have any impact on the way in

which this

section will operate, in terms of the scope of subjects that can be

encompassed within a representation agreement?

[1520]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: No. The scope of power should not be affected, is

not affected, because whatever you can do by power of attorney -- I'm not

referring to an enduring power of attorney -- you can do by representation

agreements. So powers of attorney will continue; only enduring powers of

attorney will no longer continue. That will have no impact on the scope of

powers contained or available to a power of attorney.

G. Plant: This is obviously a work in progress. We'll see how much

progress has been made over time. I suspect that the only way we're going to see

it is by watching it actually work. I think it would be highly unlikely that any

amount of work I could do reading this bill word by word would be persuasive,

given the amount of work the public guardian and trustee has done and the number

of groups that have been involved in this.

I think in this particular case, rather than deal with the bill one

section

at a time, we'll just see what happens in the fullness of time and hope that it

works. If it doesn't, I'm sure some of us will be back here in some form or

another to try and make it better, sooner or later. So I have no further

questions.

Sections 30 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move an amendment to

section 46(c), which is

standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 46 (c), in the proposed subsection (2) (

a) by deleting "may

continue to act;" and substituting "may continue to act, or"]

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

Sections 47 to 52 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I move that the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete

with amendment.

[1525]

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

D. Streifel: By leave, now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee stage on Bill 11.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: This is the Sex Offender Registry Act, which has a two-part

scheme in it. I believe that when the minister spoke to the bill in second

reading, he talked about how the two parts would interact, one with the other.

As I recall, he said that the second part of it would only come into force if

needed, implying that if the first part of the registry were to work

satisfactorily, then it would not be necessary to bring into force the second

part of the registry. I guess what we're talking about is the relationship

between

part 2 of the bill and

part 3 of the bill.

Could the minister, as part of an introduction to the consideration of the

details of this bill, explain what he means by the idea that the second half of

this scheme would only come into force if needed? As part of that, I guess I

have to say that as someone who looks at the idea of what we do in this place

and thinks about it from time to time, it had occurred to me to ask the

question: why would we legislate something if it were not needed? If it were to

become needed, maybe we would come back and legislate it then.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it's a fair question. I mean, of course

there is the option of simply bringing in a bill which only sets up the first

part of this structure; it's possible that the second part may never be

required. I think it's in the interests of efficiency. I think there's a fair

amount of public support for making sure that if we put in place a registry and

start with the first phase of this and we find that for some reason it

[ Page 17586 ]

doesn't work, then we're able to respond quickly and set up the second phase

without having to go through the legislative process again.

[1530]

I take it as a fair point that the bill could have been split, I suppose, and

we could have come back and gone through the legislative process again. But I

don't see the harm. I don't think there would be a great deal of public concern

about bringing in a bill in this form and ensuring that we can shift gears

rapidly if we find, after the initial assessment, that the first phase, the

monitoring phase, doesn't work.

G. Plant: One of the things that the bill leaves out is any expression

of what might constitute a legitimate basis for moving from the first phase to

the second. Even if I were for a moment to accept the minister's answer

completely, it would seem to me that answer would invite the question: why would

we then not legislate specific criteria that would apply to allow either cabinet

or the Attorney General -- whoever the responsible official is -- to determine

whether the second

part is needed? When I look at it, it seems to me there is a

legitimate public policy question there, which I invite the minister to comment

on. And perhaps to add sort of a second question, what is it that would

constitute, in the mind of this minister, a reason or the basis for expanding

beyond the first part to the second part?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: We know right now . . . . The first part

of this is modelled on our family maintenance enforcement program, to the extent

that we've actually developed a very successful search mechanism to track people

who aren't making payments. We know we have a 90 percent success rate in finding

people through that form of system. So what we're doing is taking that system

and applying it in this context. So if we have a 90 percent success rate, that's

pretty good.

Some might say: "Well, that's good enough, and you don't have to move on

to the second phase." The specific question of the member was: what would

be, in my mind, the basis for moving to the second phase? It is discretionary,

and I would have to say that I think it would be prudent to say that it would be

based upon law enforcement advice. If law enforcement agencies are saying,

"We are having difficulty tracking certain offenders," then we can

respond quickly.

A case may arise. We know how these things can be. There is public concern

over these issues. If it should arise when the Legislature is not sitting, for

example, and law enforcement officials are saying, "This isn't working well

enough," then we should be able to move quickly.

Now, what we have indicated is that our initial assessment of our success

rate with the first phase . . . . It would take about six months to

evaluate it, from the time of it coming into force. Then we would certainly be

open to . . . . Part of that evaluation will be: what do law

enforcement officials say? I think that would be a fair basis for making a

determination to go forward.

[1535]

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that answer, which leads to

the next question: what is the ministry's timetable for bringing this into

force? What is this likely to cost? What is the mechanism that he is going to

use? That is, is he planning on contracting this out to a special agency or

using the resources of existing officials in one branch of his ministry or

another?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The timetable, as I indicated at the time I

announced that we were doing this legislation, is that we expect it to be in

force by January 2002. The annual cost will be $1.8 million. The mechanism for

delivering the program is that it will be housed in the security programs

division of the Ministry of Attorney General, which is the same division that

handles the high-risk offender or community advisories. It handles the

protection order registry and the criminal records review program.

G. Plant: I want to look at a couple of aspects of the definition

section of the bill, and that is

section 1.

Before we do that, let me just ask one more general question. This bill, in

the full rigour of its application -- even the first part of it, certainly the

second part -- will add to the burdens of life, if you will, experienced by

people who have been convicted of the offences that will trigger the operation

of the procedures and requirements of this act.

I can imagine that some zealous Charter students could argue that through

this legislation the government is, in effect, circumventing or adding to or in

some way affecting the basic rules and processes around sentencing. That is, it

could be argued that some of the reporting obligations here are akin to terms of

conditional release or probation, and perhaps it's not within the authority of

the province to do those things. Has the minister sought advice about the

Charter implications of this legislation, and is he satisfied that it will pass

scrutiny?

[1540]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is yes. Throughout the drafting of this

bill, opinions on the Charter implications of this legislation were sought and

considered. I would liken the consequences or the impositions upon individuals

inherent in this bill as being more akin to administrative consequences -- for

example, individuals losing their drivers' licences.

Clearly there are aspects of the bill that are more intrusive or less

intrusive. The first part of the bill dealing with electronic tracing is clearly

not very intrusive at all, and certainly mandatory registration in the second

part is more intrusive. But we have considered the Charter implications

throughout the drafting of this bill and are satisfied that it can withstand

Charter challenge.

G. Plant: The definition of offender in

section 1 has a number of

subsections. One of them includes people who are, strictly speaking, not yet

offenders, because they have only been charged with an offence. Those people are

included in the scheme only in some circumstances and not in others. Perhaps the

minister could outline, in lay terms as opposed to going through it in the

detailed mechanics, how the scheme will operate in relation to people who have

been charged but not yet convicted of one of the sex offences identified in it.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Well, the way the process would work in the offences

that the member refers to is that if an individual has been charged -- and, of

course, the Crown has deemed it in the public interest to lay the charge and

feels there is a substantial likelihood of conviction -- then they go

[ Page 17587 ]

onto the registry. When they're on the registry, they're subject to

electronic tracing. Mandatory registration would apply only to individuals who

have been convicted. It does not apply to individuals who are simply charged. If

you're charged, you're on the registry automatically; you're electronically

traced. If you're acquitted, then you're taken off the registry.

G. Plant: The definition of personal information has many subsections.

When I look at the list of all of the types of information that this act would

include under that rubric and compare it to, say, the legislation introduced in

Ontario, the list in B.C. is a lot longer. It goes beyond legal name, aliases,

date of birth, gender, addresses and phone numbers -- well beyond all that. It

even includes things like the names of professional or recreational associations

of which the offender is a member. It includes the name, address and phone

numbers of "known associates," and it includes a category described as

prescribed information that could assist in confirming the identity or the

location of the offender.

Those three particular subcategories excited my attention as being a pretty

broad reach of information. And I am thinking, in this context, less about the

first stage of this, the electronic tracing, and more about the second part,

where the registrar may have the power to go and ask other people to provide

this information. I'm contemplating what might happen if someone purporting to

be an official of the government of British Columbia came and said: "I'm

asking you, under compulsion of law, and you are required, under compulsion of

law, to disclose to me the name, address and phone numbers of the known

associates of Mr. or Ms. X." I'm not sure that I'm altogether comfortable

that I would even know what the extent of my obligations is.

[1545]

In general terms, the question is: why is this list so much longer than the

Ontario model? And perhaps using these particular cases as an example, can the

minister satisfy me that truly, in order to achieve the objectives of this

legislation, it's necessary to go as far as all of the many items that are

included in the definition of personal information?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, I think it's worth noting at the outset that

Ontario has provided that it can add much more by regulation. What we've done is

simply spelled more out in the statute itself in the interests of, I think, some

greater transparency and certainty. The list is very much the result of

consultations with law enforcement officials -- them saying that this is the

kind of information we would need to find the whereabouts of these individuals.

So we said it had to be very strictly related to access to information that

could help them locate or identify these people. We did reject some of what they

asked for. As an example, they wanted one of the items here to be the make and

model of the car of the next of kin of the individual. We thought that was over

the line, so we didn't put it in. But it is as the result of discussions with

law enforcement officials, and the difference with Ontario is explained by the

fact that they will be doing more by regulation, no doubt.

G. Plant: We'll see how that operates over time.

I want to move to the definition of sex offence. It's a fairly comprehensive

list of types of offences. I want to use that list, though, as the opportunity

to ask this question. We are talking about a tool that is supposed to help law

enforcement officials reduce the risk to public safety presented by sex

offenders, particularly sex offenders who have a proclivity to repeat their

offences. We're trying to find a way to help women and children feel safer in

their homes and in their communities.

[1550]

The triggering mechanism for this statutory scheme is the commission of an

offence. The triggering mechanism is not the identification of a risk to public

safety by any other means, other than having committed the offence. There is

nothing I see here in this act that looks like, for example, a risk assessment

tool -- the kind of tool that corrections officers and probation officers use

when they make their decisions.

If someone wanted to be perhaps more critical or to engage in more scrutiny

of this, they might want to ask the question whether there is in fact a certain

element of arbitrariness around the use of the commission of an offence -- one

of these enumerated offences -- as the triggering mechanism for a scheme that in

its operation will be as onerous for someone who has committed one offence .

. . . Well, that's not quite true. In some cases, if you've been

convicted of offences for a longer period of time, there is more onerousness

around the way the scheme operates, because you'll be on the registry for life

as opposed to a fixed number of years. Nonetheless, someone who commits one

offence may be in a different position from a risk assessment or a

threat-to-public-safety perspective than someone who is an incurable pedophile.

Could the minister explain some of the thinking around why the government has

chosen to use the commission of the offence as the triggering mechanism, rather

than some other risk assessment tool?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: There was a question of cost and value involved

here. We already know that convicted sex offenders have . . . . When

you do assessments of convicted sex offenders, about 70 percent are rated a high

risk of reoffence. So we could do assessments, and we could do them on an

ongoing basis. We could do them every six months. If we did that, arguably it

would be very onerous on the individual, but I take the member's point that it's

onerous to be on this registry as well.

On balance, there is a cost issue in doing ongoing assessments or in doing

assessments in the first place. We're saying that it's reasonable to err on the

side of keeping the cost of the registry low. We already know from our

experience that people convicted of sexual offences have a high likelihood of

reoffence. As I say, 70 percent are at high risk to reoffend.

[1555]

It's also important to note that we look at some of what might be termed more

minor offences on this list. I raised concerns, as well, in my discussions with

staff about this, because I looked at some of them and went: "That might

seem quite onerous, like someone convicted of vagrancy." But I am informed

that this particular

section on vagrancy relates to individuals who are

convicted of vagrancy, and they've already got a prior history of sexual

offences -- right? Based upon our consultations, these more minor ones are all

offences that are seen as indicators of risk in and of themselves for greater

sexual offences later. I accept that there's some arbitrariness to it. But we

believe that they are, on balance, indicators of risk for the future. It

justifies having those individuals put on the registry.

[ Page 17588 ]

Of course, the length of time spent on the registry will depend upon the

seriousness of the offence, as the member has noted. The more serious offenders

could be on for life; less serious offenders could be on for ten years.

G. Plant: I don't want to pursue this at great length. But I want the

minister to recall, as I'm sure he will, that the context in which that issue

I've talked about -- and he's responded to -- may operate includes, of course,

that day when someone from government decides to pay a visit to everybody in the

neighbourhood, knock on doors, ask the people who live in that neighbourhood

about Mr. X who lives down the street and ask questions like: "Who does he

hang out with? Who are his known associates? What clubs does he belong to? What

business associations is he a member of? Have you got a photograph of him? Do

you have any information that could assist us in locating him right now?"

Now, 70 percent of the people who commit these offences, the minister says,

are at high risk to reoffend. I guess one of the challenges we always have is

trying to figure out how to legislate not just for the people we know we want to

legislate for but for the other people who are going to get caught by this. It's

a pretty broad net. I guess I want to repeat my concerns that the legislation

reaches pretty broadly in that respect. It may be that that is a point on which

we'll just, at least for the time being, have a difference of opinion. I'm not

going to suggest that the issue is so serious as to paralyze the whole scheme,

but that may be because I've only had a chance to think about it for the last

few days. But I did want to give the minister one more chance to sort of think

about that problem in the particular context in which I've presented it.

[1600]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I want to reiterate something I said when I made the

announcement of this legislation and, I believe, in first reading as well as

second reading. That is, I've been very clear that we have no intention of

creating a public registry. Now, the reason I want to reiterate that is that it

has some bearing on this question in terms of the intent of what we're trying to

do here.

We don't want to create a situation that encourages vigilantism in any way.

We want this to be a tool to be used responsibly by those who are authorized to,

under this act. It's worth noting that

section 12 details those persons to whom

personal information that's in this registry can be disclosed by the registrar.

There is no intention whatsoever of having people going out and knocking on

doors around neighbourhoods. I would suggest that to even ask the question and

ask for this information about someone could potentially involve a breach of

this statute, in terms of the authority to share personal information.

That certainly isn't the intent. We've tried to be careful and ensured that

ISTA was consulted on this. The freedom-of-information people within the

ministry were involved in this. It's not our intention to create a situation

that inflames these matters in a public way. The example that the member cites

of having representatives of government going around and knocking on doors in

the neighbourhood of someone who is on the registry certainly would tend to have

that inflammatory effect.

G. Plant: If I may, in the context of continuing one more time to

explore the question that arises in relation to the definition that we have in

mind, could I ask the minister to direct his attention to

section 7(4):

"For the purposes of the registry, the registrar may demand from any person .

. . any personal information about an offender that is in the possession

or control of that person"? That's what I had in mind when I was asking the

question a minute ago.

Hon. G. Robertson: I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Robertson: With us this afternoon we have a class of grade 4-5

students from Zeballos Elementary School to tour the legislative precincts with

their teacher, Mrs. Auld. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Sawicki: I too would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Sawicki: In the gallery today is a member from Burnaby, Patrick

Thomas. Most importantly, he is a spokesperson for the Council of Senior

Citizens Organizations of B.C. They have done tremendous work on a policy paper,

and they are here in Victoria to share their thoughts with us. I want to ask the

House not only to welcome Patrick Thomas but also to congratulate all the

seniors who continue to contribute to public policy.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it's important. The member raises

section

7(4), and I think we have to look at the interplay between that and

section 12.

Let's just take the member's scenario. Someone knocks on the door in the

neighbourhood and says: "Hi, I'm from the government. I work for the B.C.

sex offender registry, and I want to know if you can tell me the whereabouts of

John Doe." I would suggest that that would amount to a violation of

section

12 -- right? I mean, you've just disclosed some pretty vital personal

information. It's important that the authority is there to demand that

information, but that has to be balanced off against the operation of

section 12

and the responsible conduct and management of personal information.

[1605]

I should emphasize again . . . . I appreciate the member raising

this example. This is where you always raise the most difficult scenarios. It's

worth emphasizing that the vast majority of the information that would be sought

and retrieved under this system would be electronically. It's a matter of having

access agreements with various parties that may have databases. For example,

with a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro, it would be pretty easy to have an

agreement to have access, and you could run the name or the known aliases of the

person. If they're opening accounts in their name anywhere, then you've got some

information about their whereabouts. That's where the vast majority of this

information is going to come from.

The situation the member raises . . . . I think it's appropriate

to raise it, because it presents a potentially difficult issue conceptually. But

I do think that sections 7 and 12, when looked at in contrast to each other,

would indicate that there is a balance to be achieved without being unfair to

the person who is on the registry.

[ Page 17589 ]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Plant:

Section 2 deals with the application of the act to a young

person. The general proposition is that the act doesn't apply to somebody

charged with or convicted of a sex offence committed while the person was a

young person. But cabinet "may, by regulation, provide for that

application, including by modifying or adding to any provision of this

Act." I have to say that I just don't like that kind of legislation. If

you're going to legislate it, legislate it; if you're going to regulate it,

regulate it. But don't enact a provision that says that cabinet can change the

statute.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I completely appreciate the member's point. In fact,

it was my position, as I worked on this with staff, that we should just outright

include young offenders in this statute. I was convinced, however, that because

of impending changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act federally, which we're

expecting this session . . . . I mean, we'd be having to reopen our

legislation and amend it in order to take that into account in how we treat

young offenders under this bill.

I thought that it would be prudent in order to ensure . . . . I

feel strongly that young offenders should be covered by this statute and,

because I was convinced that we should be taking a close look at the changes

coming federally, that we could allow for that to be done by regulation.

G. Plant: I've heard the minister. I'm not persuaded, but we'll move

on.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

G. Plant: That's fine; we'll move along. I can move to

section 12.

The Chair: The Chair will ask for clarification. Do you want to

question on

section 12?

G. Plant: We can let pass up to

section 12.

Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

G. Plant: I want to ask a question. Actually, I guess I should have

asked it in the context of

section 10, but it applies to both sections 10 and

We can talk in theory about the ability to correct a registry. I understand

what the act says about that. The question, of course, is: how well will it work

in practice? I am concerned about all entries generally, but I am in particular

concerned about entries made in respect of people who have been charged with

offences but not convicted, and of course I am more concerned about those people

when and if they are acquitted.

[1610]

The ability of the minister to enter into information-sharing agreements or

arrangements is pretty open-ended, in my view. When you look at the

interrelationship between

section 10 and

section 12 and, frankly, also

section

11, I guess I have to say I am a little bit concerned. One of the things that

might happen here is that information might find its way out of this B.C. system

into some other system where, as a practical matter, somebody here in British

Columbia is not going to be able to do anything about it once it's out there.

As I say, it is more of a concern in respect of people who may have been

charged wrongly with an offence for which they're acquitted. And then someday

years on, they're driving somewhere -- Montana or Iowa -- and they get pulled

over. And somebody says, "Well, according to our records, you're a known

sex offender," while in fact they're not. Perhaps the minister could

explain his approach to that problem.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think, first of all, that it's important to note

that the intention is that the information on this registry would indicate the

status of this person. So the person's name isn't on there just as a sex

offender. It would indicate that this person has been charged with an offence,

or this person has been convicted of an offence. So that's an important first

point, I think.

Secondly, to the extent that we're going to have information-sharing

agreements with other jurisdictions that may be running their own registries, it

will obviously be important to ensure that there are protocols as to the use of

that information. We would require a consistent use.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

For example, one of the principles of our system is that it's not for public

access. So we won't share with another jurisdiction if they're going to make

that information publicly accessible. It has to be consistent with the use that

we're doing here. And that should also include -- in those information-sharing

agreements or access agreements or protocols or however you want to term them --

that if an individual is charged and they appear on the registry and then

they're acquitted and taken off our registry, the other jurisdiction we're

sharing with would also have to take that person's name off.

G. Plant: If we were doing this in another context, I think I'd

probably suggest that if the minister meant what he just said, we should

legislate that restriction. But we're not doing this in that context, so I'll

just leave that suggestion on the record. I think that it would be, in

principle, a good way of protecting the integrity of the information. That is,

it's a good answer to the question I asked. But of course, as the minister will

appreciate, his assurance is of less enduring relevance than legislation or

regulation.

But I can move along. The next questions I have are in respect of

section 14.

[1615]

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

G. Plant: The offender reporting requirements in

part 3 of this bill,

which will only come into force if needed, require an offender to report in

person to a registry officer at the location specified in a notice by a certain

date. That's a little different from asking an offender to send a letter saying:

"Here I am."

[ Page 17590 ]

And if we have an offender moving from one small town in British Columbia to

another, I think there's a public interest in knowing where these registry

officers are going to be. I am mindful of the fact that the obligation to report

arises every time the offender moves.

So the question is a question, I suppose, about the more remote or rural

parts of the province and how the minister sees this working out. If we have

somebody moving, say, from Burns Lake to Vanderhoof, are there going to be

registry officers in each of those towns? Or is it more likely that the

offender's going to have to drive down to Prince George in order to report this

change in his location?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The intention is to have individuals report . .

. . The registry officers will be located at community corrections

offices around the province. It's the same system we have for probation, so that

makes it widely accessible. Of course there may be some inconvenience for some

individuals. I think we have to remember that at the end of the day, these are

people who are registered on a sex offender registry, and they have been

convicted of offences or have been charged with them. So we want to make it

convenient, but I'm not overly concerned if some of them are put to some

inconvenience in order to have to report.

Sections 14 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[1620]

Bill 11, Sex Offender Registry Act, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: At the next sitting of the House, hon. Speaker.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 14.

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the bill be now read a second time. It's

my pleasure to address the purpose of this bill on second reading. Second

reading, in our system, deals with approval in principle of a bill.

The bill deals with Muskwa-Kechika area of northeastern British Columbia, an

area that we call the Northern Rockies, an area that has garnered international

attention and recognition because of its outstanding environmental and resource

values. Bill 14 builds upon the successes of the previous Muskwa-Kechika

Management Area Act, which was passed by this government in 1998. The act was

designed to ensure that the extraordinary values of the Muskwa-Kechika would be

protected and sustained for current and future generations.

You notice I can say the name very well. I had to learn to pronounce the

name; it's a very interesting name. It's sometimes, as I've said, called the

Northern Rockies.

The Muskwa-Kechika is one of the most impressive wilderness areas in North

America -- indeed, in the world. It is one of the last intact large

predator-prey ecosystems south of the 60th parallel. It is home to an amazing

abundance and diversity of wildlife, including wolf, grizzly bear, elk, moose,

mountain caribou, bison, mountain sheep and many other species that have become

scarce or vanished altogether from other parts of the world. It is the very

essence of wild British Columbia. I've heard people call it the Serengeti of the

North -- the Serengeti being the great plains in Africa where there are still

wild animals. This is the Serengeti of the North, and it's in British Columbia,

and we're preserving it.

The area also boasts mature and old-growth forests, spectacular geological

formations, lakes, rivers and streams, waterfalls and hot springs, rolling

subalpine and alpine areas that stretch as far as the eye can see. The

Muskwa-Kechika is also rich in natural resources, with outstanding subsurface

resource values, including extensive oil and gas potential. These reserves are

critically important to the northern economy and also to the health of the

provincial economy.

I want to point out that when we develop these areas and there's land use

planning, there are preservation values, but there are also values of

development, as well, in the land use plans. We're not freezing British Columbia

in a museum. What we are doing is taking the ecologically sensitive areas and

putting them into parks and then having the other areas open for development.

It brings a certainty to this province. It encourages business investment. It

doesn't discourage it, because it brings certainty. If the hon. members opposite

would cooperate with us on land claims, we could bring even more certainty to

investment in this province. The Muskwa-Kechika area also has tremendous

cultural and heritage significance to first nations people, who have

traditionally used the land for hunting, gathering and fishing. Its abundant

wildlife resources undoubtedly attracted aboriginal people for centuries. And it

contains evidence of past use such as native trails, abandoned villages and

aboriginal campsites.

This bill, the one before the House, contains three amendments to the

original Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act that I spoke about. That was the act

that we passed in 1998. The first amendment adds 1.9 million hectares identified

in the Mackenzie land and resource management plan. That's the local planning

process from the bottom up, done by the people of various sectors that meet and

plan and work, and then we put it into law. It adds 1.9 million hectares,

bringing the total management area -- the Muskwa-Kechika -- to 6.3 million

hectares. I believe that might be bigger than Ireland. That is a huge area.

[1625]

The 1.9 million hectare addition is virtually roadless. It's a virtually

roadless expanse of land that provides unfragmented habitat. Listen to that

word: unfragmented habitat. I can translate it into a little bit clearer

in southeast

[ Page 17591 ]

Vancouver. It's a small area in southeast Vancouver, compared to this vast

area. And I say to my constituents, especially to the school kids, that we're

creating an area here that is big enough . . . . And that's the key

-- that it is unfragmented habitat. That means it's not split up. It's big

enough that it provides the habitat or the area for, let's say, the grizzly bear

or for cougar or for other animals -- sheep and so on -- and they interact

together. So it means we can keep this forever. Think about that: we keep it

forever. And we do it because it's big enough. That's why it's important to have

a park this big.

Almost 600,000 acres of the addition to the Muskwa-Kechika management area

will be preserved as protected areas. The remaining land is designed as either

special or wild land management zones, where mining -- yes, mining -- oil and

gas and forest development activities may be carried out, but in a manner that

is sensitive to the area's very high ecological and wilderness values. This

careful exploration and development will have major social and economic benefits

for the residents of the Mackenzie area.

I think this is epitomized by our new Premier when he says that he's a person

of balance. What we're balancing here is the environment and development. It's

the classic struggle of the late twentieth century and the beginning of the

twenty-first: the environment on the one hand, development on the other. You can

have both if you do it right, and it's done right here. That's what I believe

our party stands for.

The second and third amendments seek to ensure that the Muskwa-Kechika trust

fund has sufficient resources to fund its valuable planning, research and

conservation efforts. You can't just create parks and then not have funds for

the parks. That's why I'm pleased that my budget in Environment has been

increased this year for next year. It was increased this year, and it's going to

be increased next year. There's money available so that we can look after a big

park like this. Accordingly, the annual funding provided to the trust fund for

this park is increased by $1 million, resulting in an annual appropriation of $3

million. The current maximum annual contribution to the trust fund is $2

million.

Additionally, the period during which the government will contribute funds to

the trust fund is extended to 2005. Current government funding would have

expired in 2002. If, by a fluke, there were to be a different government after

the next election, we want to make sure that these parks stay and the money is

not given away in tax breaks to a few rich individuals. We want the money to

stay in the government coffers so that they can fund a beautiful park like this.

Anyway, I'm straying into the next election. I just hope that no future

government would do that.

These provisions reflect the dedication and enthusiasm of residents of the

Mackenzie area. I'm a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to this. I can stand up and

make this great announcement on this bill, but there were a lot of people before

me, to be honest, who put a lot of work into this -- local people, as well as my

colleagues on the benches and on committees of this House and critics in this

House.

First nations, environmental groups, resource industries, unions,

guide-outfitters, trappers and local government . . . . Through

recommendations made in this land use planning process, the Mackenzie LRMP,

these local residents made it clear that they recognized the value of the

special management and environmental protection provisions set out in the

Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act. These provisions give strong protection to

the superb natural value of the Muskwa-Kechika area, while allowing for

sensitive resource development to occur in areas outside the protected areas.

I want to pay special tribute to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, a

former minister, who has been active in chairing the Muskwa-Kechika trust up

there, and I hope he'll speak in the debate and add a few words. He's got a lot

of experience here. I'd like to thank my colleagues from Burnaby-Willingdon and

Kamloops, who are here on the government benches, former Environment ministers

who worked hard. And I would like to especially thank the member for Vancouver-Kingsway,

the Premier whose last name starts with "C" -- since I can't name the

name in parliamentary procedure -- who, as Premier, worked very, very hard

between 1996 and 1998 to do this. He should get thanks for it, and I give him

that thanks.

[1630]

In

summary, then, let me say how pleased I am to put forward these amendments

to the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act today. It demonstrates this

government's continued commitment to the values in northern British Columbia,

because it comes from northern residents. It's an excellent example of what can

result when British Columbians are committed to the task of good land use

planning. Eighty percent of this province is now in land use plans; 12 percent

of the land is in parks and protected areas. It's the first jurisdiction in

North America to meet the United Nations goal, which we can be proud of as

British Columbians. Now our task is to keep it that way and to make sure those

parks stay.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill now.

M. Coell: It's a pleasure to stand and offer some comments on Bill 14.

The opposition will be supporting this bill, as we supported the Muskwa-Kechika

act last year. What the government is recommending here for the payment for the

trust fund seems reasonable. There will be a lot of work that the trust fund has

to do in the planning process in the years to come, and I think it's reasonable

to spread that time over the five-year period. I think it also makes a lot of

sense to have the 1.9 million hectares of land added in to the management area

from the Mackenzie plan.

I know that both of these plans were difficult to achieve, but they were

achieved through a consensus process, and I think that says a lot for British

Columbians. I think they need to be congratulated -- the people who have stuck

it out at those tables over the past years. I will have some questions during

committee stage on how the planning will take place and also, if there are any

mining claims in that area, how government will deal with those to settle up,

and also a couple of questions with regard to first nations. I'm pleased to

support the act at this point.

J. Cashore: It's an honour to stand and speak in support of this act.

I do so both in the capacity as sitting MLA and as a former Minister of

Environment who was involved when the planning tables were set up that have

culminated in the recommendation that we're acknowledging here today. Also, I've

had the honour, as the minister said, to chair the Muskwa-Kechika board, which

has now just been expanded.

When you think of the amount of land, we have gone from an area of land,

under the results of the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson tables, which was 4.3

million hectares -- the size of Switzerland. I think Switzerland is very

descriptive,

[ Page 17592 ]

because we think of mountains when we think of Switzerland, and when you're

in the Northern Rockies . . . . Anyone who has the opportunity to be

there would be just absolutely blown away by the beauty of the area and the

uneroded wilderness that is there.

With this act, we have gone from an area the size of Switzerland to adding

1.9 million hectares, an area now the size of Ireland in its totality. This is

truly a remarkable outcome of a decade of land planning that has taken place in

this province. It is a credit to the people in all the regions of the province

who have come together to sit around planning tables, often with people with

whom they are in fundamental disagreement, and to be told, as I told the Fort

Nelson table in 1992, that the one thing they all have in common . . . .

While they have many disagreements, the thing they have in common is that they

hate decisions being made for them in places like Victoria or Ottawa.

[1635]

The word was: "Build the consensus here yourself, or we'll have to do it

for you." And they did. I commend the people of Mackenzie, who for seven

years worked at that table and have come up with the addition that's involved

here. It's very important to point out that this is not a park. It contains

protected area; it contains parkland. But one of the really big challenges, as

the opposition Environment critic has pointed out, in the work that's being done

under the now $3 million annual trust fund is to find out what the special

management is for the non-protected area that ensures that any activity there --

whether it's guide-outfitting activity or mining activity, logging activity or

tourism activity or whatever it may be -- does not take away the long-term

values of the predator-prey relationships that exist there.

One of the very real advantages of this plan is that it involves large tracts

of land, which virtually ensures the continuation and the preservation, for

thousands of years, of grizzly bears, large ungulates, sheep, goats, moose and

all of those parts of that ecosystem that are very precious.

Sometimes people say: "Why would you protect an area that is so remote

that not many people can ever get into it?" If our view were that the only

reason for a protected area is so people can get there, that would be a point

that makes a point. We certainly have, within the parks system, a great many

parks that are people-oriented and people-friendly -- indeed, friendly to people

who are in wheelchairs and needing special assistance to enjoy those areas. At

the same time, it's important that there be areas that are there for the

preservation of species. Our planet is losing species at an enormous rate. Every

day, two or three species are lost from the face of the planet, and this

legislation today symbolizes reversing that trend.

In conclusion, I want to say that I congratulate the people of British

Columbia and this government for what has been accomplished in the area of

protecting land where, as the minister pointed out, we have exceeded the United

Nations recommendation of 12 percent. We've done that in ten years. That's a

remarkable accomplishment, and it is a legacy that perhaps isn't noticed that

much today. There hasn't been much coverage of the announcement yesterday, but I

believe that 50 years from now people will look back and say that this decade of

land planning has been the most important decade in the history of the province.

We are the last generation in all the eons of time that has the opportunity to

make these kinds of decisions before it's too late.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak in

favour of this bill, in large part because of the role that I played in the

first Muskwa-Kechika act, which was introduced in 1998, and the significant

ecological contribution that the creation of that park and protected area has

made to the province and the impression it made on me when I had the opportunity

to in fact visit the Muskwa-Kechika region prior to the announcement of that

great and wonderful park.

I think it's important to highlight some of the points that my colleague from

Coquitlam-Maillardville made. He has a very unique perspective on this region of

the province because of the work he's done as chair of the Muskwa-Kechika

Advisory Board. I think he's done a remarkable job of bringing together the many

interests in the region and the province and has in fact coped with the

international attention that this new protected area has brought as a result of

its remarkable content, its remarkable ecosystem and the remarkable level of

wildlife that really remains largely undisturbed as a result of it being an area

of the province that is quite remote and not easily accessed.

[1640]

As a province, we've worked very hard at engaging the public in discussions

around how best to manage protected areas in the province. I think it's

important to talk about those principles and values and the bringing together of

people from every walk of life in decision-making around parks and protected

areas.

In the case of the Muskwa, there was a great involvement, particularly from

the oil and gas sector. And their interest in that region of the province was

because they saw the enormous wealth not only in the wildlife and natural beauty

but in the economic opportunity it could also bring to people in the region.

They wanted to apply the same level of innovation and concern for the natural

environment as the approach we took in managing -- as the member previously made

reference to -- the special management zones that are a part of the

Muskwa-Kechika now and its father, if you will, the first version of the

Muskwa-Kechika, as it was looked at in 1998.

The board members, as well, represent that broad perspective, and they have

discussed together ways in which we can access those remarkable resources in

that part of the province without harming the natural environment. The Minister

of Environment spoke to the question of balance, and I think that those

principles have been achieved by those board members as they've worked with the

representatives of the community to make sure that balance is achieved. It is,

in fact, a significant legacy for this government to have worked with

representatives and communities around the province to set aside representative

samples of park and protected areas in order to preserve them forever.

The climate in today's world . . . . Every citizen is concerned

about our natural environment, the loss of habitat and issues of endangered

species and how each of us as individuals can act in ways, take actions, which

protect our natural environment to ensure that we can preserve it for future

generations. So the goal of achieving protected areas across our province and

the goal of achieving 12 percent, which we have effectively surpassed -- and I'm

very pleased that we've taken those additional efforts to do that -- are a

significant way in which we can contribute, on an international level, to the

preservation of important ecosystems around the world.

The world does look to us. I know the Minister of Environment talked about

the Muskwa as the Serengeti of the

[ Page 17593 ]

North. In fact, it has been described that way on an international level

because of the significance of the wildlife values and the significance of the

natural environment in that part of the world.

I'll never forget the opportunity I had to visit the Muskwa and to meet with

representatives from the oil and gas industry to talk to them about their

excitement in working with us in achieving this special area, and with the Kaska

Dena. They're the aboriginal people in the region who had so much interest in

not only preserving their own natural culture but working with us in order to

preserve those values for their own cultural purposes and for the enjoyment of

all British Columbians -- in fact, for everyone from around the world to have

this opportunity to study an area that is so remarkably large that it provides

unique opportunities to do research on ungulates and other types of wildlife

that exist in that area.

This bill adds a new part to this protected area. As well, it defines new

special management zones. Appropriately, it increases the trust fund through

which the board members can now continue to work together to achieve the goals

that the community set as a part of the LRMP process that set aside the Muskwa

for future generations.

Hon. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I've had the opportunity to

speak to this bill, and I'd urge all members of the House to support its

passing.

[1645]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close

debate.

An Hon. Member: Real fast.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes. I won't be real fast, but I won't be very long.

I just want to say that I'm really pleased to hear the former minister and the

Liberal critic speak in favour of the bill.

Just to pass along this idea once more, I represent a riding, Vancouver-Fraserview,

which is in the south, but you know, we are a northern people, Canadians. And

that northern area belongs to the people in the north who live there and to all

of us. Even though many of our people will never go there, we will know that we

have preserved an area that will last for people's children and their children's

children to have and to know that that habitat will be protected. That is a real

achievement.

With that I'd like to close the debate on this bill.

The Speaker: I'll put the motion on second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Amendment Act, 2001, 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. I. Waddell: I'm wearing a few hats here, hon. Speaker. I'm rising

as Government House Leader to call second reading of Bill 15.

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is an important step in building our world-renowned park system --

an ecological reserve system that British Columbians have established. We've

been creating parks since 1911 in British Columbia, but the last decade has seen

an unprecedented commitment by people across the province and from all walks of

life to preserve and sustain this natural legacy for future generations.

Since the inception of our protected-areas strategy, the protected areas

system has expanded significantly. In 1992 protected areas comprised 6.3 percent

of the provincial land-base, with the addition of the areas described in this

bill, because we're redescribing the areas and all the parks in this bill. The

government's goal of protecting 12 percent of British Columbia's land-base as

parks, ecological reserves and other protected areas will be met and surpassed.

This increase in less than a decade will represent the addition of nearly six

million hectares of land to our protected areas system. With this bill, B.C.'s

protected areas system will now include 561 class A parks and 149 ecological

reserves, and the total protected area in British Columbia now exceeds more than

11 million hectares. I think that's fantastic.

This bill itself creates 15 new class A parks and one new ecological reserve.

It makes additions to six existing

schedule class A parks. This will comprise

more than one million acres. The new parks and ecological reserves contained in

this bill have been identified for protection through this innovative land use

process that some of the members have described in the previous speeches on the

previous bill, and I needn't go into that.

I want to highlight a couple of the names of the parks. I won't go into all

the details, but one should note parks like Dune Za Keyih Park, also known as

Frog-Gataga Park, which is 330,000 acres; Omineca Park, which is a new class A

park more than 130,000 hectares in size; and the Stikine River Park, which I've

had the advantage of flying over in a small plane a couple of summers ago with

the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. It's 257,000 hectares in size, and it

comes out of the Cassiar-Iskut-Stikine LRMP. The canyon there is to be called

the Grand Canyon of British Columbia. It's also contiguous to Mount Edziza Park

and Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park, and they're both being expanded, as well,

and connected.

The bill also continues the process of replacing the written metes and bounds

descriptions for new parks with legally mapped boundaries that are more

accurate, more understandable and practical to use. The members of the House

will get these maps. They're referred to in the schedules of the act, and they

will be made available.

It gives me great pleasure and pride to move second reading of this great

park act.

[1650]

M. Coell: The opposition will also be supporting this act, as it has

the acts brought forward doing the same things with the parks that the previous

minister brought to the House. I think that providing the added protection of

this act is a good

[ Page 17594 ]

thing for parks. I think that parks and ecological reserves are a foundation

of British Columbia and a foundation that I think people respect. I think that

bringing them to the Legislature in this form gives a sense of confidence for

the future. So I'm pleased to speak in favour of this.

I'd also mention that looking at the number of parks that they were able to

deal with, I would congratulate your staff for being able to put that many parks

in this act with the existing descriptions for reserves and parks. It's with

pleasure that I support this act.

J. Sawicki: As members in this House know, I could actually take my

whole allotted 30 minutes to talk about this topic. But I will not do that; I

will keep it very, very brief.

You know, in this last decade and the times that we have brought acts like

this into this House, we have perhaps come to take for granted the incredibly

significant achievement that British Columbia has experienced this past decade

in creating these parks. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville mentioned all of

the reasons why parks are so important, but the significant one, I believe, is

that we are the last generation to have the option to put aside these areas, to

legislate them forever to ensure that they can be protected for the species, the

ecological diversity and future generations.

I would like to go on and talk a little bit about the land use planning

process, but I will not do that. I will only end by saying that when people ask

me what I'm going to do when I leave this place and my career as an active

politician, I answer: I now have 780 parks to explore in British Columbia, and I

intend to do as many of them as I can.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call the question on the

motion.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, I'm made aware that the Lieutenant . . . .

Oh, we have a motion by the Environment minister?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, and I thank the members for passing that.

I move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today, so we can do it clause

by clause.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

The Speaker: Members, the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. I

would ask the members to please keep their seats for a few moments. Thank you.

The House recessed from 4:55 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in

the chair.

Law Clerk:

Child Care BC Act

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2001

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2001

Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001

Access to Education Act

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to

these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2001

Supply Act, 2000-2001 (Supplementary No. 3)

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her

Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these acts.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G. Janssen: Noting the hour, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. G. Janssen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page

Copyright �

2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada