2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th 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 25, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. C. Hansen

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Victoria West Community Association

M. Karagianis

Purple Day proclamation and epilepsy awareness

N. Letnick

B.C. Rural Communities Summit and Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

D. Donaldson

Multicultural participation in 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games

D. Hayer

Role of education

R. Austin

Paralympic athletes and accomplishments of Ina Forrest

P. Pimm

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail executive compensation

C. James

Hon. S. Bond

B. Ralston

L. Krog

M. Farnworth

Success By 6 program

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. Polak

M. Karagianis

Home care fees

S. Hammell

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Simpson

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 (continued)

M. Sather

Hon. B. Penner

L. Krog

Hon. K. Falcon

Hon. M. Coell

Hon. K. Heed

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act (continued)

M. Sather

J. Rustad

B. Simpson

E. Foster

S. Fraser

H. Lali

R. Cantelon

D. Donaldson

C. Trevena

H. Bains

Hon. P. Bell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development (continued)

Hon. I. Black

J. Kwan

K. Corrigan

Point of Order (Chair's Ruling)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development (continued)

Hon. I. Black

K. Corrigan

J. Kwan

[ Page 3703 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine, two individuals who are very active in the James Bay community and in the James Bay New Horizons. I would like the House to please welcome Irene Paris and Aileen Miller here today.

J. Les: I have four visitors with us today in the Legislature. They are Ed Helfrich and Tom Crump with the B.C. Care Providers Association, and Derek Morton and Susan House with the Denominational Health Association. In spite of my voice, I hope the members of the House will make them very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to note that we have some members from the Canadian Union of Public Employees here today, some great activists. Michael Lanier and…. I need new glasses. I'm not sure I can see who the other people are, but anyway, members from CUPE. I hope you'll make them welcome.

S. Simpson: In the gallery today we do have a group of community social service front-line workers, and union representatives with them. They include Don Fodor, Laura Reid, Charlene Linden, Michael Lanier, Christina Hermakin, Dale Deal and Wanda Ratchford. They are here today to meet in Victoria to discuss the issue of the municipal pension plan and the lack of funding for that plan. Please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I have three lovely women just making their way to the gallery. Lynda Turney is visiting from Duncan, Rheta Steer is from Victoria, and Terri Cunningham, many of you will recall, was my ministerial assistant when she was in this building. I'd ask you all to please make them welcome.

[1335]

M. Farnworth: In the gallery and in the precincts today are a group of high school students and their teacher from Archbishop Carney Secondary in my riding. Would the House please make them most welcome as they observe our proceedings.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Finance Statutes

Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, which amends a number of statutes administered by the Minister of Finance.

Amendments to the Financial Administration Act will enable the issuance of electronic securities, which is consistent with the direction of current domestic market practice. The Financial Institutions Act amendments will enhance the regulatory tools and framework for financial institutions, including credit unions, insurance companies and trust companies.

The bill makes a technical amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act. Forms under the act will be approved by the minister instead of being prescribed in regulation, providing the flexibility to update the forms as program requirements and technologies change.

Amendments to the Personal Property Security Act will increase harmonization in personal property securities law across Canada and between Canada and the United States to enable greater efficiency for parties. First, as part of a Canadian uniform law initiative, British Columbia will adopt the U.S. rule that governs which jurisdiction's law applies to certain determinations concerning securities interest in intangible and mobile goods.

Secondly, in addition to the act's lengthy process for removing false or inaccurate registrations from the personal property registry…. It will be shortened by 25 days and streamlined into a one-step process.

The Securities Act amendments will support the harmonization and streamlining of the securities regulatory regime in Canada. The changes will facilitate the regulation of credit-rating organizations, better disclosure to investors on the sale of mutual funds and Canada's move to international financial reporting standards.

Finally, a technical amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act will add a definition for "cigar," improving consistency between jurisdictions and ensuring that tax assessment can be enforced.

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.

[ Page 3704 ]

Bill 6, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, 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.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the gallery we have a number of members of the Victoria Epilepsy and Parkinson's Centre. I had the opportunity to meet with them earlier today. They're here to help promote the important issues around dealing with issues of epilepsy and the importance of education and cross-government involvement in bringing about awareness of this important illness.

Today with us in the gallery we are joined by Miss Lise Anthony and her seizure dog, India; Mr. Dan Marple; Miss Marilyn Wilkins; Miss Terri Beaton; Miss Susan Ward, who's a board member; Dr. David Medler, who's also a board member; Miss Mary Clare Legun, who's a vice-president; Mr. Mike Doman, president of the Epilepsy and Parkinson's Centre; Miss Catriona Johnson, executive director; Miss Lissa Zala, education coordinator; Laura Yake, the executive director from Abbotsford; and Miss Isa Milman, the epilepsy program coordinator.

I would ask the House to please make all of them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

victoria west community association

M. Karagianis: Just across the Blue Bridge, Vic West is a vibrant and growing community of people living in new and old houses and condominiums, close by parks, the waterfront, community gardens and the Galloping Goose Trail. It has long been home to the Songhees people, and their longhouses once covered the shoreline from Songhees Point to the north side of the Blue Bridge.

[1340]

Today's Vic West is a welcoming place, where folks know their neighbours and community involvement is a way of life. The Victoria West Community Association is an example of that involvement.

The VWCA is a non-profit community group that operates almost entirely through the hard work of exceptionally dedicated volunteers. Every year the association hosts popular events, including Vic West Fest with live music, children's activities, gardening and food. It's the first Saturday in May.

Vic West has many very talented and creative artists as well. On the same weekend some of those artists open their home studios to the public for the Vic West Art Quest studio tour.

Another great example of the community spirit is the Banfield Anti-Ivy League. It got its start in 2004 when someone noticed that trees in Banfield Park were being strangled by ivy. Every two weeks volunteers span out with clippers in hand and free the trees in the forest floor from the ivy invasion.

The Victoria West Community Association also takes an active role speaking out on issues that impact the community. They've been vocal leaders in the opposition to the mega-yacht marina proposed for Victoria's Inner Harbour. Now they're working to turn the Vic West YMCA, which will be closing this year, into the Victoria West Community Centre.

I hope members of the House will join me in recognizing the Victoria West Community Association. Thank you very much for all the generous time you give to help strengthen our community.

PURPLE DAY PROCLAMATION

AND EPILEPSY AWARENESS

N. Letnick: Mr. Speaker, one in a hundred people has epilepsy. That's equivalent to approximately 60 million people, or 1 percent of the world's population.

Tomorrow, Friday, March 26, is Epilepsy Awareness Day, also known as Purple Day. On March 26 people from around the globe are asked to wear purple and spread the word about epilepsy.

I would like to read the province's proclamation into the record.

"Whereas Purple Day is a global effort dedicated to promoting epilepsy awareness in countries around the world; and

whereas Purple Day was founded in 2008 by Cassidy Megan, a nine-year-old girl from Nova Scotia who wanted people with epilepsy to know they weren't alone; and

whereas epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition; and

whereas epilepsy is estimated to affect more than 50 million people worldwide, more than 300,000 people in Canada and 40,000 people in British Columbia; and

whereas the public is often unable to recognize common seizure types and to respond with appropriate first aid; and

whereas Purple Day will be celebrated on March 26 annually during Epilepsy Awareness Month to increase understanding, reduce stigma and improve the quality of life for our communities of B.C.; and

whereas the Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice and consent of the executive council has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903 on October 11, 2002. Now know ye that we do these present, proclaim and declare that March 26, 2010, shall be known as Purple Day for epilepsy awareness in the province of British Columbia."

Working together, we can enhance public knowledge, understanding and acceptance of epilepsy and help improve the quality of life for those affected by it. British Columbia remains committed to understanding the causes and preventing and treating a multitude of brain diseases such as epilepsy.

[ Page 3705 ]

I would like to note the support amongst the members of this House by the number wearing bracelets, purple shirts, ties and other miscellaneous pieces of clothing. For those who wish more information, please call 1-866-EPILEPSY.

B.C. RURAL COMMUNITIES SUMMIT AND

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

D. Donaldson: The B.C. Rural Communities Summit took place March 16 to 18 in Port Hardy. This important summit brings together municipal leaders, First Nations, community development practitioners and provincial staff to share best practices, strategies and actions.

More than 150 people attended, including my opposition colleagues from North Island and Alberni–Pacific Rim, as well as myself. The organizers did a great job with the agenda. The rural economy is on everyone's mind.

One of the more popular presenters was George Penfold from Selkirk College, who researches rural economic development. He describes the focus other provinces place on rural development. His team makes a number of recommendations for this province, including creating a meaningful rural B.C. strategy.

A colleague of Penfold's is Dr. Greg Halseth from the University of Northern B.C. He recently wrote: "Our research throughout northern B.C. illustrates that people are very much aware of the disparity between growth and development. Northern B.C. wants economic development that not only creates jobs for northerners, but which also respects people, the environment and the rural and small-town quality of life that defines a northern lifestyle."

[1345]

That is why in a historic occasion earlier this week, First Nations across B.C. stood with non–First Nations and northern community leaders in opposition to the Enbridge tar sands pipeline. First Nations did their due diligence over the past five years, analyzing this project from all aspects. They conclude that the risks outstrip the benefits — the risks of a supertanker oil spill that not only threatens the environment but also the existing and potential jobs that depend on it, like those in the sport-fishing sector.

No one is rejecting the potential of other intensive projects, such as mining, or the importance of sustainable forestry. But as one northern resident said: "There are some projects that deserve thoughtful consideration, and there are others that are simply too risky to consider. As long as this project brings oil tankers to our coast, it's a non-starter."

MULTICULTURAL PARTICIPATION IN

2010 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

D. Hayer: Our beautiful province has experienced the completion of two great events to ever occur in British Columbia and in Canada: the 21st Winter Olympics and the 10th winter Paralympic Games. This was also Canada's first Paralympics, and both were the most successful Olympics in history.

The Olympic and Paralympic Games brought together the most diverse representations of culture and ethnicity ever to the province that is proudly known for its diversity. Eighty-two nations participated in the 2010 Winter Olympics and 44 countries in the Paralympic Games in a celebration of diversity in all of those nations and the diversity they brought to British Columbia on February 14 in B.C. Place during the Olympic medal presentation ceremony and the first gold medal ever won by a Canadian on home soil. We had our own five-hour multicultural celebrations.

We honoured not only visiting athletes but B.C.'s own incredibly diverse cultures. The packed B.C. Place enjoyed a performance by aboriginal entertainers, Irish dancers, South Asian artists, kung fu experts and the Goh Ballet. We also saw bhangra dancers and other representatives of almost every multicultural group that makes up our great province.

B.C.'s Olympic multicultural day, on February 14, was a thrilling and an enlightened celebration of our diversity and recognition of more than one million residents who are immigrants.

I also want to recognize the thousands of volunteers from all cultures, including Paul Keenleyside, Silvester Law, Satpaul Aujla, Daljit Sidhu, Ian MacPherson, Karim Kassam, Rehana Budhwani, who worked tirelessly to make the 2010 games an incredible success. Also, all those people of every race and colour and creed who so proudly carried the Olympic torch, such as Daniel Igali, Satnam Johal, Shirley Fu, Narinder Subharwal, Saja Noor, Taylor and Jesse Briggs and D.J. Sandhu.

I will ask everyone to join me in thanking all those people who made our Olympics very successful and the most successful in the world and Olympic history.

ROLE OF EDUCATION

R. Austin: As we celebrate Education Week here in B.C., I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the value of our public education system, recognize the great work of the many professionals who work in the system and challenge all of us to play our

part in contributing to our kids' education.

The poet Yeats once said, "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire," an early recognition not only of the complexity of education but also the importance to the individual who then forms part of a cohesive, socially liberal society.

We often think of education in terms of teaching us how to make a living, but perhaps the more important role is in teaching us simply how to live. A quick synopsis from around the world shows us the sad state of

[ Page 3706 ]

many countries, from those who suffer continual wars and civil strife, to those who lack the financial resources to even send their kids to school, to countries that we admire.

There is a direct correlation between what these countries decide or are able to invest in educating their children and their quality of life. Quite aside from the benefits of education to individuals, to families and to communities, our public education system is the bedrock of a civil society, and it's the crux of our democracy. We often leave this important task to paid professionals — our teachers, principals and administrators. But let us not forget those who support them in the school system: the teaching assistants and custodians.

It doesn't end there, for we all have a role to play — parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles. Indeed, all community members can and should assist our children through all the teachable moments in life. That can support those who dedicate their lives to working in the formal school system. For at the end of the day, education is the transmission of civilization, and this can only be achieved if we all play our part.

PARALYMPIC ATHLETES AND

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF INA FORREST

P. Pimm: I must say that this last month will go down as the most memorable month in the history of British Columbia. I know that I will remember it for the rest of my life, and I can only imagine how many fond memories the athletes of the Olympics and Paralympics will have.

[1350]

Our Paralympic athletes did all of Canada proud, and I tip my hat to all of the athletes, whether they got to stand on the podium or not. The time, effort and work that it takes to become an athlete of this calibre is an achievement in itself.

To put this in perspective, I can tell you that the most memorable time in my life came as a 13-year-old boy, when I got to represent my community at the provincial hockey championships. I can remember that event like it was yesterday, and all we did was get third place in the province.

These athletes are the best in Canada, and when they stand on the podium, they're the best in the world. They will remember these Olympics forever.

I want to talk, especially, about the Canadian gold-medal curling team and one of the members that played on that team who was born and raised in my hometown of Fort St. John and now resides in Armstrong, B.C.

Ina Forrest is the younger sister of Phil Bush, who was one of my teammates from that great peewee hockey team that placed third in the province in 1970. I knew Ina's family and friends and have always had a special place in my heart for her mother and father, who must have been the proudest parents on the planet as they got to watch Ina collect her gold medal.

I'm so proud of Ina, and I want to wish her best of luck as she continues to represent Canada in the upcoming world championships and in future Olympics. Ina is a great role model to show others that we can get past our disabilities and go on to excel at whatever we want to put our minds to.

I'm very sure that our disabled curling is definitely going to increase as a result of Canada's appearance and spectacular finish at this year's Paralympic Games.

Congratulations, Ina, and keep up the great work.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

C. James: The cost of the B.C. Rail scandal continues to rise. For the past six years the B.C. Liberals have paid four B.C. Rail executives a total of $8.6 million — $8.6 million in salary for four people to manage a rail company with no trains.

Now we learn that two of these executives are getting a golden handshake worth more than $600,000 at a time when this government is slashing early child care programs, dental visits for children, services for the most vulnerable. How can this government possibly justify millions of dollars of waste at B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how the Leader of the Opposition could characterize an organization that, when we became government, in fact was saddled with debt, was completely out of control in that department.

To the Leader of the Opposition: let's be clear. This organization restored and took care of the debt issue with B.C. Rail and returned to taxpayers in this province $1.5 billion.

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

C. James: The minister can use all the words she wants, but the facts are that there are no trains, that there are 40 kilometres of tracks, that it was $1.2 million a year for four staff with no trains. That's $8.6 million over six years, and now we find out that two of those executives will collect another half a million dollars while they say goodbye.

My question is to the minister: how can she justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars on executive salaries while cutting vital programs for children in this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 3707 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Let me begin by correcting the Leader of the Opposition on one subject. That is the fact that this government is providing record levels of funding for early childhood education, for education that in fact the Leader of the Opposition has sat and voted against time after time after time in this Legislature.

[1355]

Let's be clear. We inherited a B.C. Rail that was saddled by debt. In fact, this organization has worked to return $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

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

C. James: This minister is trying to defend something that can't be defended. We see cuts to education. We see cuts to children. We see cuts to people with mental illness. And this government paid money — six years of money, four salaries — for a rail company that doesn't even have any trains. That isn't defendable, Minister. So $8.6 million in waste, and there's more to come.

Again, my question is to the minister. How much more will British Columbians have to put out because of this government's incompetence on B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the Leader of the Opposition is the last person that can stand in the House and talk about incompetence when it comes to B.C. Rail. Let's just look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: What cannot be defended is the fact that in one year, under the member opposite's leadership, B.C. Rail actually lost $582 million — a direct hit to the taxpayers in British Columbia of over half a billion dollars. That can't be defended.

The member opposite wants to laugh? I can tell the member opposite this. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks it's amusing to saddle the taxpayers of British Columbia with half a billion dollars of debt in one year, that's what can't be defended.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the minister to make her comments through the Chair.

B. Ralston: The over half-million dollars in severance covers only two executives at B.C. Rail, President and CEO Kevin Mahoney and Executive Vice-President John Lusney. There is one more executive still waiting for a payout. Can the minister explain how much more British Columbians will have to pay?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, as I was canvassed in the Legislature for several hours the other day, we actually have…. The CFO of B.C. Rail has agreed to continue to help us with the transition to the ministry. We have not yet determined when that position will be wrapped up, but we will be making the severance public once we're aware of when that actual final date will take place.

You know, the members opposite are actually experts in the area of severance. Let's look back to just one of the severances that took place — oh my, in 1990 dollars. Let's look at the severance paid to Elizabeth Cull. Let's look at this. Elizabeth Cull, to the Leader of the Opposition, received $260,000 in severance for seven months' work in the Premier's office. That's what we would consider excessive and not defensible.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, it's clear the minister would rather talk about anything other than the severance packages that her government is about to pay out.

In addition to those four executives, B.C. Rail also has a board of directors who, over the last six years, collectively have received over $1.5 million in compensation — over $200,000 a year to direct 40 miles of track. Does the minister think this is good value for money?

Hon. S. Bond: I do know this. When an organization like B.C. Rail can return $1.5 billion to taxpayers in British Columbia, that's pretty good.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite well knows after our lengthy discussion in the Legislature the other day that, in fact, in addition to looking at how they have returned dollars to the province of British Columbia, this organization has played a key role in the Pacific gateway strategy. If you look at land sales and the real estate portfolio alone, over $180 million in gross land sales. That's production, and that's what's taking place.

L. Krog: When you add up the salaries of the executive and probably the most underworked corporate board in the history of the province of British Columbia, it's over $10 million — money that could have been spent on the public good in a myriad of ways. Instead, it went into the fat salaries of executives who were riding their own personal gravy train.

[ Page 3708 ]

My question to the minister is really very simple. How much more are we going to have to pay for Liberal incompetence?

Hon. S. Bond: It may be the member opposites' opinion that…. They want to diminish the work that's been done, but we're not for one minute going to diminish the fact that $1.5 billion worth of resources has been returned to taxpayers in British Columbia. This organization has managed a real estate portfolio that has seen gross land sales of over $180 million. They have looked at the dissolution of companies in the province of British Columbia. They're managing the Kinder Morgan organization in terms of that particular project.

We're not going to stand on this side of the House and take advice from a group that actually saw a bankrupt railway that was in complete disarray when they were in government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: A Monopoly board has more track than B.C. Rail. I want to tell the minister that the taxpayers don't enjoy ten million of real dollars wasted on the Monopoly game over there. So what's changed? What's changed?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: They were worthwhile last year to spend millions of dollars on — over the last six years — on their exorbitant salaries. Now, suddenly, they're gone. So what was it? Was it the $10 million mark that finally convinced this government to get rid of B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what it was, was a commitment in the throne speech in September to review Crown corporations to look at how we might effectively consider the future.

[1405]

Unlike the members opposite, we actually think it's worthwhile to go back and to look at those things and make changes.

Over the last five years — let's be clear, even though we've had this discussion for at least three hours in the last two days — B.C. Rail has returned in excess of $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia. That includes $250 million for B.C. Marine, including Centerm terminals and Vancouver Wharves.

There's no doubt in our mind that, in fact, we inherited a railway that was bankrupt and in disarray, and this organization is in a much better position today than it was when that member was sitting on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Let's look at the B.C. Rail record on this government. First they said they wouldn't sell it. Then what did they do? They misled the public and sold it. Then what happened? A raid on the Legislature, a court case that has been dragging on for year after year after year at a cost of god knows how much. Now after ten years we have a railway with a board of directors with no trains, no engines, no steam, not even the Thomas the Tank, and the directors are being paid $600,000 in severance.

How, after ten years, can this government justify spending an additional $600,000, with more to come, for their incompetence when it comes to the B.C. Rail file?

Hon. S. Bond: All I can say to the member opposite is that you managed to take the train and take it right off the tracks during the 1990s. In one year alone under that member's leadership — $582 million in debt. In fact, the only outcome, the only measure of success that that side of the House had was how big the bailout was going to be every single year for B.C. Rail.

So what has B.C. Rail done? They eliminated B.C. Rail's debt, 600 new railcars to help increase capacity, $8.3 million in new tax revenue for communities across this province, establishment of $135 million Northern Development Initiative Trust. That's what we've managed to do with B.C. Rail.

SUCCESS BY 6 PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Families stood in this House and defended the cancellation of the Success By 6 program, and she trotted out a list of alternative government programs and services where people are supposed to be able to turn, particularly pointing out the Parent-Child Mother Goose program.

Well, apparently this minister has no idea what she's talking about or what's going on in her ministry, because the Mother Goose programs are run by organizations that received $411,000 directly from Success By 6 in 2008.

Will the minister admit that it was a horrible mistake to cancel Success By 6 and immediately restore full funding to this critical program?

[1410]

[ Page 3709 ]

Hon. M. Polak: This year alone we'll be providing another $2.5 million grant to Success By 6. Staff will continue to meet, as I said in the House yesterday, with Success By 6 to determine transition of programs and also to see what opportunities there are to continue supporting programs on into out-years.

The important thing to remember here is that this government is providing supports and services to children and families in British Columbia like no other government in B.C. history. As the world of children and families has changed in British Columbia, we've responded. We're responding to requests from parents. This budget alone will provide $26 million to expand child care subsidies; $58 million to implement full-day kindergarten; and $43 million to StrongStart centres, 300 of them, all across this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Yesterday the minister also talked about helping these programs transition. She said she would help them to transition their programs and to look for opportunities to enhance community capacity-building across the province. Again, the minister has absolutely no idea what she's talking about, because that is exactly what Success By 6 does.

Will the minister admit this was a shortsighted move and reinstate the funding for Success By 6?

Hon. M. Polak: Each and every year since 2003 we have provided grant funding to Success By 6. This year — no different. We are providing them with $2½ million. We will be meeting with them to discuss programming for further future years.

Make no mistake about it. Our investment is unparalleled when it comes to providing for children and families in this province. This year alone we'll spend, across government, a billion dollars on early childhood development, child care, services for children and youth with special needs.

We're bringing in full-day K. We've got StrongStart centres, and we're increasing the amount of money for subsidies for low- and middle-income families for child care — unparalleled support for children and families, far more than that government ever gave them.

M. Karagianis: The minister is talking about a $2.5 million cut to Success By 6 — 50 percent of those funds cut.

Now, we have right here a quote from Michael McKnight, who is the president of the United Way in the Lower Mainland. He's quoted as saying: "Money is tight, but I guess it depends on what your priority is. In this case government chose not to support kids in this particular way. For the government, it doesn't sound like a big deal, but to that mom with two or three kids, it means the world."

By walking away from Success By 6, the B.C. Liberals are leaving more dollars on the table in matching grants and in-kind partnership than they're saving. Nice business case.

It doesn't make any sense. Will the minister fix this mistake and immediately restore the full funding to Success By 6?

Hon. M. Polak: What is hugely important to parents around this province is the opportunity that they have for their children through more than 300 StrongStart programs across this province. What they're wanting is all-day kindergarten. Guess what. We're providing it for them; they voted against it.

[1415]

This year $26 million is allocated in our budget toward expanding child care subsidies; $58 million for all-day kindergarten; $43 million for StrongStart centres; and across government this year, in 2010-11, $1.75 billion for literacy programs for children — unprecedented support, certainly more than was ever provided by that government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: You know, the minister brags about all of these programs, programs that are directly supported by the Success By 6 program that is being axed by this government — 50 percent funding cut this year, the program killed next year.

Now, Mr. McKnight of the United Way recognized that the B.C. Liberals' priorities are wrong on this. The credit unions and other community partners recognized that the B.C. Liberal priorities are wrong on this. Communities right across British Columbia recognize this.

Once again, will the minister do the right thing and commit today to restore the funding to this program for this year and 2011 and beyond?

Hon. M. Polak: Let me repeat for the member. This year Success By 6 will receive a $2½ million grant, like each and every year since 2003, and like each and every year since 2003, they vote against it.

Parents want all-day kindergarten. We supply an investment of $58 million to implement it. They vote against it.

StrongStart centres — 300 of them across British Columbia. We supply an investment of $43 million. They vote against it.

It's pretty clear that by investing a billion dollars from this government this year in early childhood development, child care, supports for children and youth with special needs, not to mention $1.75 billion across government for literacy…. It's very clear that when they vote against those things, they're the ones that have their priorities wrong.

[ Page 3710 ]

HOME CARE FEES

S. Hammell: Yesterday the Minister of Health acknowledged he had made a mistake in a regulation affecting the cost of seniors home care. He has had 48 hours to learn this file and the implications of his mistake. Can the minister tell this House how many seniors have been impacted by his error?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned yesterday, there was a mistake made in the drafting of a regulation back in February, where the words "qualified client" were not included in the regulation. That is being dealt with forthwith. In the meantime, we're dealing with those individuals that have been affected, as is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: A simple question: how many seniors have been overcharged, and when will they be reimbursed?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have that figure. The health authorities will have to report back on that. But I think the important thing to recognize is that this was an.…

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I would presume the members want to hear an answer, and I'm trying to give one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: The inadvertent error was caught, and that is being amended forthwith, as I indicated. All the health authorities will determine what individuals need to have their situation corrected.

You know, I do think it's important to point out, as I did yesterday when I spoke to the member, that I am proud of the fact that actually, in the area of home care and home support, funding levels have increased by 70 percent since 2001. I do always think it's important to point that out, because of course it was cut by 31 percent by the NDP — in fact, by that member, while she was in cabinet — during the 1990s.

S. Simpson: Will the minister commit today that any overpayments by any seniors will be fully reimbursed to those individuals?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I want to remind the member that the drafting error was an inadvertent mistake that was made. That is being corrected, and I will be guided by whatever the professional legal advice in the ministry is.

[1420]

I can tell you this. It's an inadvertent error. It's unfortunate that this kind of thing may happen occasionally in government. It is being dealt with forthwith, and we will follow whatever the appropriate legal advice of the ministry is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What's appropriate is for seniors not to have to pay for the minister's mistake. This isn't about legalese, and it isn't about lawyers. It's about senior citizens on modest incomes who have been overcharged by this government because of the minister's mistake.

Will the minister commit today that every dime of that overpayment will be returned to those seniors?

Hon. K. Falcon: So I've answered this question now. I think I'm on my third time. I'll explain to the member that there was an inadvertent mistake made in the drafting of a regulation where the words "qualified client" were inadvertently left off.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is being dealt with forthwith. But I will say this. I am glad that the member has now showed a new and renewed interest in the issue of seniors, because I can tell you, the record of cutting the spaces for home support and home care by 31 percent was their actual record in the 1990s,

whereas we have added literally thousands of new opportunities as a result of investment and spending going up by 70 percent.

While I recognize that it is unfortunate when an error is made in the drafting of a regulation, I think the important thing is to recognize the mistake that has been made and to make sure that as government we deal with that and correct it as quickly and as forthwithly as possible. That is exactly what we are doing.

[End of question period.]

Hon. I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today watching question period, or part of it, were a group of political science students from the University of Victoria. They are Christina Davidson, Laura MacLeod, Erika Syrotuck, Chris Bordeleau, Alexander Biornson, Joshua Kepkay, Rajpreet Sall, Michelle Moreno, Geordon Omand, Olivia

[ Page 3711 ]

Delmore, Nathan Warner, Jose Barrios, Angela McCleery and Shawn Slavin. I hope the House will make them welcome so they can see these proceedings further.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Small Business — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 4, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

M. Sather:

Section 23 amends

section 101(4) of the Water Act, and this is under "Power to make regulations" — what we're talking about here. Section (4) "is amended by repealing paragraph (d) (ix) and by adding the following paragraph."

If we look back at the Water Act,

section 4(d), it says:

"Without limiting subsection (1) or (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of

Part 5 as follows….

(

d) establishing requirements, procedures, standards or codes in respect of any aspect of the following:

(

i) siting wells; (ii) constructing wells; (iii) installing well pumps; (iv) designing, testing, operating, disinfecting, floodproofing, capping or covering wells; (

v) closing or deactivating wells; (vi) removing works from wells; (vii) conducting flow tests of wells; (viii) works, including the design, construction, installation, testing, operation, alteration, maintenance, repair, disinfection or replacement of works relating to the use, testing or monitoring of wells and ground water; (ix) sampling and analyzing ground water for new or altered wells including, without limitation, specifying

(

A) the class of the laboratory that may carry out the analyses,

(

B) the nature of the analyses, and

(

C) alterations to a well that require sampling and analyzing of ground water;

(

x) stopping or controlling the flow of flowing artesian wells; (xi) any other activities respecting wells for which the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it necessary or advisable for purposes of the protection of an aquifer or ground water to establish requirements, procedures, standards or codes."

Now, of all that, this

section amends only the part (ix) of that — having to do with sampling and analyzing groundwater, etc., as I've previously read.

Section 101(4)(d)(ix) is repealed, adding the following paragraph, (d.1), which says:

"(d.1) respecting sampling and analyzing ground water for new or altered wells including, without limitation, the following:

(

i) prescribing alterations to a well for the purposes of

section 73 (1);"

Section 73(1) has only to do with the taking of a sample and having it analyzed.

"(ii) prescribing an activity or class of activities for the purposes of

section 73 (1); (iii) prescribing circumstances in which a person other than the person responsible for a prescribed activity in relation to a well is required to comply with a regulation made under

section 73 (1);"

Again, those three all only have to do with taking samples and having them analyzed.

"(iv) specifying circumstances in which sampling and analyzing of ground water is required or is not required; (

v) specifying requirements for the timing, collection and quality of ground water samples; (vi) specifying requirements for the storage, handling and transportation of ground water samples; (vii) specifying the purpose, timing and technical requirements for ground water sample analyses; (viii) specifying the content, frequency and timing of reports and the method and form used for reporting relating to ground water sampling and analyses."

[1430]

Now, when one compares the list that is being repealed versus what it's being replaced with…. I mean, there are a lot of words here, a lot of stuff, but on examination it appears to me that the two lists are quite different.

I would like to ask the minister…. In the deleted section, "establishing requirements, procedures, standards, or codes in respect of any aspect of the following" — for example, siting wells…. What happens to that requirement? I don't see it covered under the new (d.1)

Hon. B. Penner: I'm tempted to ask the member to repeat his question along with the

preamble, but I know some of us are hoping to go home by six o'clock today. So I won't.

I think the member may have skipped over the fact that…. What he just asked about now, the siting of wells, is actually remaining intact. We're not amending that section. That appears in subsection (d)(i). What we're doing here is changing (d)(ix) and substituting what is, admittedly, expanded authority to require various types of testing of groundwater.

M. Sather: Subsection (d)(ix), "sampling and analyzing ground water for new or altered wells including, without limitation, specifying (

A) the class…(

B) the nature of the analyses and (

C) alterations to a well that require sampling…." It's replaced by a longer piece.

If the minister could just clarify again for me why it was necessary to make that change.

Hon. B. Penner: We talked about this prior to noon, about the act previously spelling out that it had to be the driller who conducted water samples. For the reasons I gave prior to noon, it was believed that we'd be better

[ Page 3712 ]

enabling others to do the sampling of water as well — perhaps the pump operator or installer or geoscientist who is doing the flow testing.

If we're not going to have the driller doing it anymore, we wanted to specify here who should be, giving us the authority to indicate who should be doing this work as described in this new subsection.

In addition, we wanted to make sure that we were not just capable of directing who would do the sampling but then, once the samples were taken, how the samples would be handled. Based on advice from legislative counsel, we're of the view that to give us the specificity of authority to direct how the samples are handled is worthwhile pursuing. That's why this amendment is here today.

[1435]

M. Sather: Is the minister then contemplating changes in how water samples are handled?

Hon. B. Penner: This

section would give government the ability to make regulations specifying how the water samples should be taken and also how they should be handled.

M. Sather: As it stands now, there are no regulations or directions as to how water samples should be taken and handled.

Hon. B. Penner: That's essentially correct, subject to what I said earlier about the legislation previously specifying that it would be a driller that would take the samples. I don't want to repeat what I just said with my last answer, what we talked about before noon. In essence, yes.

M. Sather: The minister had mentioned before, for example, that one would want to be certain that one wasn't getting a lot of sediment in the sample. That assurance or that requirement isn't there as it now stands, I guess. If you get sediment in, you get sediment because there's no specific ways in legislation or regulation as to how to do the sampling now.

Hon. B. Penner: The difficulty was, as I indicated a couple of times already, that the existing version of the act specifies that we have authority about what drillers do in terms of taking samples. We discussed why we thought it would be preferable to allow samples to be taken by the geoscientist who was doing flow testing or the pump installer. We've passed those sections now, just prior to noon.

This proposed amendment gives us more authority to specify what happens to those samples, how they're handled and the type of testing that will be required. The regulations that would follow under this section, should the Legislature see fit to approve it, have yet to be drafted.

M. Sather: All right. But it seems to me from what the minister has said so far that the way that the water samples are being taken, I guess, handled and analyzed is not satisfactory. He talks about more specificity. Maybe he could clarify what he means by more specificity.

I'm getting the impression that the way things have been done to this point — in fact, I think he said this — was not satisfactory. Can the minister tell us a little bit more about the specificity that's now being required?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, it is our view that this would give us improved authority for the handling of water samples. That's why we're here before the Legislature seeking approval for this amendment — in particular, for purposes of this discussion,

section 23.

[1440]

I think it's self-evident that it's more specific if you just compare it. The member has already read into the record at some length comparing the two provisions, the existing versus the proposed new provision, which is apparent on its face that it goes into much more detail about what authorities the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may have to require certain things to be done with those water samples.

It's part of a general trend in legal drafting, particularly when delegating authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to draft regulations to be more specific about what authorities are being contemplated for that subsequent regulation-making power.

In the good old days, the member for Nanaimo may recall, it was kind of an accepted practice. "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations," and it was often about as broad as that. Then they started to say: "Well, we can make regulations respecting something about that subject matter without going into much detail."

Nowadays I've noticed, not just in this act but in many others, that the style of legislative drafting goes into much more specificity in terms of what authorities are being given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to impose various regulatory requirements. That's just an evolution of the law.

I think the legislative drafters pay attention to court

interpretations from time to time and court verdicts that I assume suggest to drafters and to us as parliamentarians, who are responsible for approving legislation, that we should be more specific about what kind of authority we are granting to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations.

M. Sather: Well, maybe it's a really, really good thing that the government is bringing in this section. I couldn't tell from the interchange we've had whether it's simply

[ Page 3713 ]

some sort of housekeeping affair or whether it really has significant changes attached to it. I guess we would learn that, perhaps, in comparing new regulations to old regulations.

I suspect that there are some problems out there with the way water is being handled right now, so if that's the case and this is going to lead to correcting that situation, then I'm all in favour of it.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

L. Krog: If the minister could just explain the purpose of this section.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a consequential change to the Hospital District Act. We've got some amendments coming up that have to do with just clarifying the fact that it's actually the assessment authority that issues notice to the hospital districts and not the minister.

L. Krog: This may satisfy all the questions I have on the health services amendment. Historically this has obviously fallen to the minister. Is this just a question of shifting bureaucratic responsibility, and that's the only reason for doing this — to save the minister's bacon, should he some year fail to do his duty and shift it onto B.C. Assessment now?

[1445]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's basically operationalizing what has been in practice for many, many years.

Sections 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

L. Krog: If the minister could simply explain the purpose of this section. It looks fairly innocent on the face of it, and I'm sure he's going to tell me that.

Hon. M. Coell: This indeed is a housekeeping amendment. It provides clearer authority for the existing $35 fee that's charged by the employment standards branch. It's basically taking it from the Ministry of Finance and moving it into our ministry.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

L. Krog: The existing

section provides that after investigation, "a coroner must promptly provide to the chief coroner a signed, written report describing the result of the investigation and (

a) setting out…." This is the alternative: "(

b) recommending that an inquest be held for a reason set out in

section 18…." This will have the effect of saying, "recommending, for a reason described in

section 18, whether an inquest should be held," which is a very different matter than the existing provision.

I'm wondering: why are we changing it? I believe this

section is only about three years old, so what's the point of changing this now? What circumstances have occurred? What evidence, what information can the minister provide to the House?

Hon. K. Heed: The words "whether an inquest should be held" were inserted in order to give discretion to the coroner with respect to that inquest, and criteria have been laid out in a subsequent

section with respect to that.

L. Krog: I certainly don't want to repeat what I had to say during second reading yesterday, but I think the minister is well aware that there are certainly significant concerns that have been raised in inquests in the past around the deaths of individuals while in custody. The Coroners Act to some extent, as it exists now, was a response to those concerns.

[1450]

What this appears to me to be is very much a stepping back from what was seen as quite progressive to a situation where now the coroner is going to be given discretion. I mean no disrespect to the coroner, the present officeholder or any other coroner, but we're not talking about what I would refer to as a significant issue that I'm aware of.

If the minister can tell this House how many inquests that have been held in the last three years wouldn't, in his view, have been necessary if this provision was in place, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. K. Heed: Six to eight inquests per year.

L. Krog: The office of the coroner is an old one. The right of the public to know the cause of death of people in the community is something that goes back literally hundreds and hundreds of years.

When someone dies in the custody of a peace officer, that obviously raises great concern in the public mind. I think the Solicitor General, who had a very distinguished career in policing, would be well aware of how important this issue is to the public.

What we are essentially being asked to do here today is modify the legislation so that we're going to save the potential costs of six to eight inquests a year, all of which involve the death of individuals while in custody. Although I wouldn't wish to suggest that the taxpayers' money should be spent freely and without good reason, it strikes me that….

section 31 the reference is to "natural causes and was not preventable." It seems to me that a coroner with

[ Page 3714 ]

proper evidence in front of them could come to that decision with a very short inquest. We're not talking about days and days of evidence.

So what this

section appears to me, again, to be is simply a measure in response to something that isn't an identifiable problem and all at the same time, I think, contributing to public distrust of our police forces, which deserve and need our respect in order to effectively police communities.

I guess my question is: was this legislation one that comes from the ministry itself, or did the coroner's office request this legislative change?

Hon. K. Heed: The request came from the coroner's office. I'd just like to make a couple of points here.

The member opposite talked about the fact of maintaining public confidence in our systems here in British Columbia, ensuring that these matters are investigated for public interest. I can tell you that the investigations involving in-custody deaths will still be fully investigated by the B.C. Coroners Service, will still be fully investigated by police forces in British Columbia.

We have made amendments to the Police Act with respect to who those investigations will be done by. For example, in in-custody deaths, one organization, one jurisdiction will be investigated by police of another jurisdiction. Those procedures — although they have been in place with police departments in British Columbia, including the RCMP, for a period of time — are going to be put into regulation as of April 1 of this year. So those very extensive investigations will continue.

[1455]

When we talk about the cases that are affected here, the five to six inquests per year, there are procedures and processes that take place for every inquest here in the province of British Columbia. There's a significant amount of resources from various areas that are required for each and every inquest. So it's not just a matter of the coroner or the coroner's representative sitting in as part of the inquest. There are several other people that are required for each and every inquest.

L. Krog: I'm sorry, but I thought he might have said six to eight inquests a year, and I believe he just said five to six inquests a year. I wonder if he could just clarify how many inquests a year would fall under this section. What, if any, has the coroner advised him would be the cost of those inquests? In other words, what money are we really saving by this provision?

Hon. K. Heed: There are direct savings, but that's just part of the answer. When we deal with these six to seven particular inquests a year, we need other people there — for example, the pathologists, the toxicologists, the emergency responders, the sheriffs, the court reporters, other witnesses, jurors, etc., — who are not included in that particular cost.

Of greater significance here is freeing up the capacity for the coroner to deal with the backlog of those non-mandatory inquests where public interest is significant in order to allow the coroner time to conduct those inquests in the period of time.

So I have addressed the costing issue there, and it is significant, but it's not the primary reason. It is to create capacity to do those non-mandatory inquests where there's real public interest in those unfortunate deaths.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response to my question and the concerns I'm raising. But unfortunately, issues of medical attention in jails — including access to medication, medical treatment, food that may make a person in custody sick, emergency response — are not going to be dealt with, with the greatest respect, under the provisions of the act as they're proposed, as I see it.

The fact is that if you have a proper coroner's inquest, there may well be recommendations coming out of that inquest as to how you deal with people in custody. Surely the public interest in being satisfied that in each and every occasion there was nothing that could have been done to prevent what is the purpose of this section, which is to deal only with deaths due to natural causes or that weren't preventable…. Surely we're not going to get those recommendations under this system.

What's being proposed here is that we're going to abandon coroners' inquests where someone comes to — and I'm not saying this terribly unkindly — a fairly rough and ready determination that Mr. Smith died of a heart attack in cells. Mr. Smith had a heart condition. So be it. Mr. Smith is dead. The public has no interest in this.

But if a proper coroner's inquest is conducted, maybe there will be procedures put in place that when Mr. Smith is arrested, there could be checks made and questions asked to determine whether Mr. Smith is at risk of having a heart attack because of the particular circumstances under which he arrived, because of the condition, because of the way he's been treated — all of those things.

Surely the public interest is in ensuring that it is very clear and open — that when a person dies in custody, the reasons for the death are known — and that if any processes or procedures need to be changed or any further or better attention needs to be paid, it will in fact happen.

It's not going to happen if there isn't a coroner's inquest and there aren't the kinds of recommendations that are provided for in

section 4, which gives the authority to do and to make recommendations. Surely those things are important.

[1500]

I raise this particularly because the further provision that's referred to — and this is not specifically in

[ Page 3715 ]

this section, but we are, after all, amending

section 16 — talks about making a report to the public under

section 69(2). But again, that

section in and of itself is not mandatory. It refers to "may," which is permissive. It's not mandatory.

Again, if we're going to abandon the existing section, then we are moving into a regime where it will be entirely at the discretion of the coroner to make a determination. And even if they're satisfied that it was natural causes and they have no concerns, no reason to be concerned, the publication of that information will again be a discretionary matter.

With respect to the minister, I just think, given it's a death-in-custody, that discretion is a bit too broad. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that.

Hon. K. Heed: Although we're referring to

section 31, I believe that area is covered in

section 32, and I'll respond to that at this particular time. If, in these circumstances, the coroner is not calling an inquest, the coroner must submit his reasons in writing to the minister, and that becomes a public document bearing some of the FOI procedures that we're bound by.

Section 30 approved on division.

section 31.

L. Krog: This is the meat of the section. It provides that if a person dies in circumstances described in

section 3(2)(a), a death while in custody, the chief coroner "must direct a coroner to hold an inquest unless any of the following apply, in which case the chief coroner may" — in other words, we're permissive — "direct a coroner to hold an inquest: (

a) the coroner is satisfied that (

i) the deceased person's death was due to natural causes and was not preventable, or (ii) there was no meaningful connection between the deceased person's death and the nature of the care or supervision received by the person while detained or in custody."

So we are now making an exception to an existing practice that this Legislature three years ago thought was a very good idea. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I believe it received general support. I can't see any great mischief that comes out of having an inquest, and I know the Solicitor General's not going to say that. I mean, if we have to have an inquest, what possible public mischief will occur from that? The worst thing that happens is that we get a full story as opposed to a brief story of why a person died in custody.

I'm led to the conclusion, notwithstanding what the minister says, that this really gets down to a question of economics as opposed to the public's right to know, notwithstanding the minister's protestations. Because surely if it was good public policy three years ago to make it as open and as transparent to the public, it's just as good an idea today, except that we now find ourselves in somewhat different fiscal circumstances.

So again to the minister — I'd like him to respond specifically to this: why are we changing this section?

[1505]

Hon. K. Heed: I may repeat myself, but just for the member opposite's information, the full investigations will continue. Those will not stop. We will now have the added benefit of ensuring that we create capacity not only to deal with the matter in an efficient way but to deal with other matters that could come forward and, again, the backlog of the non-mandatory inquests where public interest is significant.

There are cases where the coroner is required to hold an inquest, where under these circumstances, there's absolutely no public interest whatsoever. Matter of fact, family members don't even show up to that.

Remember, we're talking about discretion, not absolute here. Where there is a high level of public interest, there are options that the coroner has, and one is to call an inquest. Again, if the coroner does not call an inquest, he or she must submit their reasons in writing, which will become public. The minister even then has the opportunity, I should say, to call an inquest if he or she so desires.

L. Krog: The difference between a circumstance in which a person dies in a traffic accident, for instance, is that in a situation specifically covered by this section, the state, if you will, has taken complete control over that person's life and, by extension, obviously, responsibility for it.

Once you're in custody, you're in custody. You have lost the ability to control your circumstances. I don't mean this unkindly: you are essentially at the whim of the state. This is why this

section was enacted in the first place — to guarantee that should a death occur, there will be full public disclosure.

One of the concerns I have is that…. If you go to section (2.1), it says: "If the chief coroner decides under subsection (2) of this

section that an inquest is not required, the chief coroner must" — and this is mandatory — "(

a) report the decision to the minister and include with the report (

i) the authority on which the decision is based, and (ii) the reasons for the decision, (

b) subject to subsection (2.2), make the report public, and (

c) direct a coroner to make a report in accordance with

section 16 (1) (a)…."

Now, if you go to (2.2) it says: "Section 69 (2)…applies for the purposes of a report made under subsection (2.1) (b)."

I'm not enough of a lawyer to determine, by the time you've gone through all that wording, what that exactly means. I know the minister has capable staff beside him, but it reads to me like…. You make reference to

section

[ Page 3716 ]

69(2) that says the coroner "may disclose any report, or part of a report, made to the chief coroner" to the public or a person whose opinion, etc., in determining whether or not, considers various things….

So in other words, we're making reference to a

section that says you may disclose, and this

section — (2.1) — says you must, but it's subject to the

section that says it's subject to

section 69. So it sounds to me like it's not mandatory that this report, which I'm not satisfied is the appropriate response, is sufficient to equal an inquest.

[1510]

I read this — and I'm happy to be convinced to the contrary — to say that the mandatory reporting is in fact really not mandatory at all, that the chief coroner reports will not be made public unless they decide to do so.

Hon. K. Heed: With reference to this section, the report to the minister will become public. That is mandatory. So 69(1) does not apply to that particular report, but 69(2) does in that the coroner must take into consideration to not disclose personal information from that report.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. What the minister is telling me is that if this

section is passed…. There is no inquest. There's a report made to the chief coroner, and then that report, subject to some private information, will in every circumstance be made public.

Hon. K. Heed: We're talking about two different reports. There's a report that will go from the coroner to the chief coroner. The one we're referring to, where it's mandatory and it will become a public document, is a chief coroner's report to the minister. That's the one we're referring to.

L. Krog: Can the minister tell the House how that report will be made public? Is it posted on a website? Is it stuck in a book somewhere? What happens to it?

Hon. K. Heed: We didn't consider that, but I'm advised by the acting chief coroner beside me, the deputy chief coroner, that we will post it on the website.

L. Krog: I appreciate the explanation of the Solicitor General.

Was there any public consultation with various groups who have looked out for the interests of those in custody before this

section was proposed?

Hon. K. Heed: There was internal consultation. There was not external consultation.

L. Krog: Does the minister think it appropriate in these circumstances when you have such public interest in this

section — Pivot Legal Society, other groups…. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to perhaps discuss this amendment with them, given that I'm certainly not aware of any public outcry around this existing section, save and except from what I've heard from the minister, which is a request strictly from the coroner's office?

[1515]

Hon. K. Heed: This is all done on a case-by-case basis. The discretion is there with the coroner. If there was public outcry, if I could use that term, or some public dissatisfaction with the decision by the coroner, then there is an opportunity for either the minister to call for an inquest, or the coroner — and the coroner will keep that in mind — can reverse the decision and call an inquest.

Sections 31 and 32 approved on division.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading on Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

(continued)

M. Sather: Yesterday the member for Nechako Lakes had challenged me in my assertion that Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act, does not cover timber-harvesting lands.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

[ Page 3717 ]

If one looks in the

definitions of the bill, "deforestation" means "the human-induced removal of trees from an area of forest land to such an extent that the area is no longer forest land…"

So if it's no longer forest land, that doesn't incorporate our timber-harvesting lands, because they still are forested lands, even when the harvesting takes place. Certainly, it's clear, as it was pointed out in the news release from the ministry, that this act does not cover timber-harvesting lands.

[1520]

Yesterday when I finished my speech, I was querying in my own mind as to whether this bill would cover private lands. But for the same reason, it would not, because normally private timber-harvesting lands also remain forest land.

As the definition of forest land, of course, means that an area of land that's not been forested since at least December 31, 1989…. Now, it might be an exception on private lands with regard to those lands that they've turned into housing developments, perhaps. I'm not sure, but by and large, no.

The minister says that they have identified about 750,000 hectares of lands in the province that would be covered under this act. There are 25 million acres of timber-harvesting lands, so 750,000 acres is 3 percent. We're talking about a very, very small part of the lands that could conceivably become and very arguably should become covered by this act in order for it to have any meaning in terms of doing what its stated intentions are, and that's to fight climate change.

There are some things happening out there on the land base that may have relevance to this act, and the minister, perhaps later at third reading, will elucidate more clearly what would take place on the 750,000 hectares and, more importantly, where. To me, I'd like to know where these lands are, and of course, I would like to know what is taking place.

There are some interesting developments out there. For example, there's a U.K.-based multinational company called Reckitt Benckiser, which is the maker of Lysol household spray and, I guess, a number of other cleaning products. They have taken it upon themselves to purchase land in the Fort St. John and Prince George areas. They are apparently in the process of a large afforestation or tree-planting project. They intend to use this afforestation project to partially or wholly offset their greenhouse gas emissions from the processes that they use to produce their product.

I have some questions that I would like to know about this project or other ones like it. What is the nature of these lands that they're afforesting, that they're replanting? Are they agricultural lands? Are they lands that are in the agricultural land reserve? Some questions would come up around that if they were, but I'm not saying outright that it wouldn't be a good idea. But certainly I would — particularly if they were lands in the agricultural lands reserve — want to look at that very, very carefully.

Perhaps those are some of the kinds of things that the minister is talking about with regard to these 750,000 hectares. We need to learn more about that to get some sense of, you know, what the reality is behind this miniscule amount of 750,000 hectares.

At least within that tiny amount, what is the reality of what presumably is supposed to happen in order that this bill can actually, in fact, do something to deal with what I think we all recognize in this House is a very, very significant problem — the issue of global warming, of climate change?

[1525]

Now, another suggestion has been made that I think could hold a lot of promise for a zero net reforestation initiative or act. That's the suggestion with regard to beetle-killed forests. I know, up in the 100 Mile area, a lot of those trees are falling down pretty quickly, within two or three years, and there's a need, presumably on some of those stands, to reforest them. These could be considered.

First of all, if we're looking at an area that's been logged by a forest company as part of their contract to replant, that's not what I mean. I mean other lands that are Crown lands, and it's up to the Crown to take care of them. Planting trees on these lands could be considered additional. Madam Speaker may know that additionality is important with regard to offsetting emissions. In other words, what that means is it has to be a project that wouldn't be done in the normal course of affairs. It has to be additional to that.

This would result in greater carbon storage or sequestration and might eventually be marketed as credits. The problem is, though — and that may be a very worthy suggestion, and I hope to hear from the minister — that it can't be covered under this act because, again, it doesn't qualify as deforestation.

That's something that I hope the minister will look at, because he's talked about carbon credits as being one of the things that should be involved in dealing with climate change. So this might be a way. This might be one way where we could extend it. Certainly, there are a lot of beetle-killed forests out there right now. Although some of them probably appear to be regenerating naturally quite well, my understanding is that there are a number of others that are not.

These lands could perhaps be replanted under the net deforestation agreement, and it certainly would be much, much larger than the 750,000 hectares the minister has mentioned. But unless the government is willing to amend the bill to allow that to happen, we're stuck with some unknown quality of a very small amount. It's simply not up to the mark in terms of the challenge that we face.

[ Page 3718 ]

We face a huge challenge, and it's an imminent challenge, with regard to climate change. I would hope that the government is taking the challenge seriously. This bill, though, leaves me with some questions about their commitment. Although it sounds good — just if you look at the name, it sounds good — the actuality of what can be achieved under this act is not significant.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I think I will conclude my remarks and allow other speakers to have an opportunity to address the subject.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to be able to stand today to have an opportunity to speak to the Zero Net Deforestation Act. When you think about the act and you look through the intent of what we're trying to do, there are about 6,200 hectares, give or take, on any given year in this province that are deforested due to various industrial activities around the province.

[1530]

It's important, I think, to recognize that as we deforest, there's a cumulative effect of that in terms of development that happens. What this bill is designed to do is to say that when we have some of that activity that goes on that creates some deforestation, we are going to have afforestation that will offset it so that you'll have a net zero deforestation for the province.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

It's the right thing to do when you think about some of the areas that we have available in the province. I think there are about 750,000 hectares around the province that could be reforested, could be afforested, as part of that. It's a logical step that would go through in our province at any given time.

Given the fact that in order to meet those targets at 2015, it takes a couple of years for us to be able to do the baseline work, to be able to get the process, to get incentives in place to move up to that, this is, once again, a logical process in terms of trying to move through.

I know that the opposition members have said that it should happen instantly. I suppose maybe they are masters of some magic wand that'll allow you to do things instantly. We actually have to be able to plan through, work through, make sure that things are done methodically and carry forward in a timely manner to make sure that we can meet targets that we're looking for.

Some of the previous speakers have talked about the mountain pine beetle and whether some of the pine beetle areas should have an opportunity for afforestation. I just want to reflect back a little on mountain pine beetle and, really, what created that problem and why we're looking at that today. As I see the member for Cariboo North quickly grab a pen to take some notes, I won't be saying anything that I haven't said before in this House or in other areas.

I was in the forest industry back in the '90s when the pine beetle epidemic really started to take root in this province. During that time, there was a large discussion — and I was privy to some of that discussion — with some of the Forest Service people as well as industry people around trying to do a very large burn in a place called Tweedsmuir Park.

The pine beetle epidemic was something that was throughout the province in very, very small pockets, but there was a large concentration in an area known as Tweedsmuir Park that was really, I guess you could say, festering. It was a problem. It was starting to grow. There was a big concern that you would get a lot of these pine beetles coming out of the park.

There was a proposal to go in and do a big burn, to go in and do some forest health management within the park to actually eradicate as much of that problem as could possibly be. It wouldn't have eliminated the pine beetle, but it might have been able to bring it down to a little bit more manageable state.

The unfortunate

part is the Forest Service had a beautiful high…. It was perfect conditions — tinder dry, nice stable high conditions — and they went and said: "Let's light 'er up." Unfortunately, from the top down, from Victoria back down in the '90s, there was a decision that: "You know what? We're a little uncomfortable because we think the burn might be too big. Let's wait for conditions to cool down a little bit before we light it up."

Later that year the conditions did cool down. They tried to do the burn, and guess what. It was ineffective. It's a real shame, because when you look at the damage that has been done and you look at all the projections and the mapping and watch the pine beetle progress across the province, it's very clear that there was a massive epicentre around Tweedsmuir Park, and it spread out from there.

There were other pockets, there were other problems, but it's very, very clear that this was….

B. Simpson: You know better than that.

J. Rustad: You know what? The member for Cariboo North says I should know better. I've seen the maps, and I know you've seen the maps. You can tell me…. There's a big pocket here, and it marches out like this.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please, through the Chair.

J. Rustad: I know they don't like to hear this, because I know they don't like to hear about those failings from the 1990s. But it's the reality. You can see the maps. You can see the reality.

[ Page 3719 ]

A little bit later, a few years later, there was another attempt. At this point the pine beetle now had got outside of the park. There were, as the member has said, other pockets of it around through the province as well. But clearly, there was a big problem that had come out of the park.

There was an attempt at that stage by the forest companies and some in the ministry to try to focus harvesting in that area and to increase harvesting in that area to try to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, to try to do as best they could to get in front and try to slow down this epidemic.

[1535]

Well, at the time the Green Party happened to have a plank in their platform called…. They wanted to reduce the annual allowable cut. They thought we were overcutting in the province. The party in power at the time, during the 1990s, was losing support to the Green Party, and they didn't want to be seen as increasing their cut at the time, to drive more support out of their party.

Clearly, forest decisions were made not based on science, not based on the best information available, but based purely on political decisions. That's a shame, because when you look at the results in areas like those of the member for Cariboo North — who is continually heckling here about the impact that's going to happen in his community, the impact that's going to happen in my community, the impact that's happening in our forest industry from the pine beetle — it's a shame that more aggressive action wasn't taken at the time.

Back a number of years ago, I had the pleasure of being able to speak in Williams Lake to a group from Alberta. The pine beetle had just gone over the mountains and gotten into some of the pine in Alberta, and they had come to see what the epidemic looked like here in B.C. There were politicians as well as business leaders from across the province, and I got a chance to speak with them down at Williams Lake. The one thing I left with them…. I said: "Don't make the mistake that we did in the 1990s. Be aggressive. Don't be afraid to take the public hit, because it's the right thing to do to go after it."

Since 2001 when we came into power, we have taken those steps. We have gone and taken those steps to increase the harvesting. We're trying to do as much as we can in there. We tried to get out in front and slow it down, but there was a period in about 2003-2004 where there were so many pine beetles flying at one time that it actually showed up on Doppler radar during the flight season. It was just massive at that point. It was too late to be able to make a really serious dent. All we could do was try to minimize the damage as we went. Like I say, that was a real shame.

Here's just another example. Fast-forward to today now with the pine beetle, and there's the suggestion that we should consider pine beetle areas as part of the Zero Net Deforestation Act. There have been suggestions coming from the opposition side that we should simply plow it all under and replant it. We should — get that — plow it all under and replant it as quickly as possible.

I've got a quote from the member for Cariboo North — I think it was from CBC — where he suggested that we should be plowing these areas under and getting them reforested as quickly as possible. That's irresponsible. There is an enormous amount of opportunity to be able to capture value from that fibre today. We're trying to promote the idea of utilizing some of that fibre for things like bioenergy, for other types of projects — which, unfortunately, the members opposite have opposed. They don't like independent power.

Once again, we have some plans coming forward on forestry, and these guys just don't understand. They don't understand what's important in rural B.C., and they just don't understand how a forest industry actually works.

Zero net deforestation and the act that comes forward will generate, for that roughly 6,200 hectares, about 75 jobs a year. Those are important jobs in silviculture. It's also just the tip of what we could be doing in silviculture.

One of the big things that I think is important — that we're talking about in this act and that we'll be exploring more in the following years, associated with the work we're doing with the Western Climate Initiative — is really around carbon sequestration and the opportunity for carbon credits.

That is an enormous potential for the forest industry. But it's not — as many in the opposition and, certainly, some of the other groups have suggested — planting a tree and having it grow forever. There's an enormous opportunity, if we can get there, to look at the idea of incremental sequestration — where we get additional volume, additional value being grown on an area — and to be able to apply credits to that. It could be an enormous boom for our forest industry.

Those are things that I think are worth talking about. Perhaps one day we'll actually be able to get a chance to have a debate here in the House on that.

The other side, of course, is that…. You look at forest products. There is an enormous potential for what forest products could replace. In my riding of Nechako Lakes, up in Houston, we're looking at a company there that wants to build a refinery. They want to take wood waste, turn it into a natural gas and convert that gas into a high-octane fuel. It's an enormous potential for the area.

[1540]

The significant part about that is that every ounce of that fuel would be driven from a renewable source called our forest products or our fibre. The best part about that is that all those areas that are hit by the pine beetle…. It doesn't matter what type of wood comes from that type of plant. It doesn't matter if it started to degrade or check, like some of the challenges you can have with

[ Page 3720 ]

pine beetle stands. They can use it all. They can use all of that wood.

It has enormous potential to help feed our forest industry and help diversify our forest industry. Plowing it under, as has been suggested, for reforestation would simply lose all of that opportunity. It's a real shame that we don't look at that as an opportunity for the future.

What we're going to be trying to do around the zero net deforestation is really around setting that stage, working through, seeing what kinds of incentives we are going to need to be able to achieve that — what kinds of positions we're going to have to put in place over a number of years to measure how we can have that success and ultimately drive the opportunity for some investment.

When you look at the greater silviculture issue in the province and at wanting to be able to do some driving of incremental silviculture, we are going to need to have that incremental investment from sources other than just government. We're going to need to be able to drive those kinds of opportunities, and on a very small scale, this is one example of how we can try to work through and do some of those things. So I'm looking forward to how this will develop over the years and to see the results of it as it progresses to 2015 and as it goes, obviously, far beyond that.

The other thing I want to touch on briefly with forestry wanders a little bit away from the Zero Net Deforestation Act, but when you look at forestry, when you look at planning for the future in forestry, you really need to take the long-term view. You need to look at all the players and the issues that we have in the industry, and you have to be able to make responsible decisions.

Prior to the last election the opposition was calling on us to rip up the softwood lumber agreement. Just think, Madam Speaker, what that would do to our forest industry if we suddenly had thrown another $20 or $30 a metre or perhaps even more in terms of the costs to our industry.

During the '90s there were a significant number of mills that closed and a lot of jobs lost. I look at it and think: "Was that because of the most significant economic downturn that we have faced since the 1930s?" No, it was because the management regime's decisions that were brought in place by the opposition, by the NDP, during that time took us from being one of the lowest-cost producers to one of the highest-cost producers.

When you're a high-cost producer, the bottom line is that when you're facing any kinds of challenges at all, you're the first to go down. You look across North America, you look across at the challenges, and you see the evidence of that everywhere you look. It's what is called irresponsible forest management. I've just given you, Madam Speaker, a number of decisions on the pine beetle, on what they would like to do with the softwood lumber agreement, on what they did with the high costs in the 1990s. It's unfortunate — very, very unfortunate.

What we have heard from the opposition — that is, around this act, when we introduced the Wood First Act, when the policies we're bringing forward…? What have we heard? And do I hear policy? It's silence. All it is, is rhetoric. They haven't brought forward any ideas at all, and I know why. It's because they want to go back to the ideas they had from the 1990s that created such a mess in the first place.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I find it very interesting. Obviously, the member for Cariboo North is getting wound up and wants to jump into the debate next, asking me to take my seat. But Member, you'll get an opportunity here very shortly.

Just remember, though, when we're talking about the Zero Net Deforestation Act, this is truly around what we need to do in the province that is the right thing to do to make sure that as we are developing land, as communities need to do some development, whether it's mines or pipeline projects — all of which, by the way, you guys oppose…. I have no idea how you'd ever think of trying to actually fire an economy in this province, since you oppose everything being proposed.

However, as those things are developed in the province, this is an opportunity for us to look at making sure we have a net zero impact on our land base. It's the right thing to do. You can actually go forward, and if a mine happens to come forward and wants to build….

[1545]

You know, I find the interesting thing…. They're so opposed to a mine, yet a mine is no bigger a footprint than perhaps a large shopping mall. That's it. That's the footprint of a mine. You go out and visit a mine…. You go out and visit the area, look at the overall area. That's the impact. So you're talking about that. When you look at the mall and the parking lot, the wide area, that's what the size is. So when those get developed, the opportunity is for us now to be making sure that it has a net zero impact in terms of deforestation.

The legislation that's brought forward is very clear. It's a good logical step. It's a good building stone that will help us be able to test some theories, to work through in terms of incentives to drive the investment. It's a great opportunity for us to be able to look at encouraging other development without having that negative impact.

You know what, Madam Speaker? It's just the right thing to do. Do you know what the best part of this is? With all the waxing that will go on from the opposition about this, they're going to vote for it anyway. And you know what? That's fine. I'm happy to see that they will get a chance to stand up and vote for this act, because it is the right thing to do.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing the opposition's debate.

[ Page 3721 ]

B. Simpson: Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and other members of the House that I couldn't control myself when the previous member was speaking. I made a commitment when I was elected here that I wouldn't engage in some of the nonsense that passes for debate in here, but I had a hard time sitting and listening to this.

If you actually condense what the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture had to say about a supposedly substantive bill, it's: "It's the right thing to do." That was it. That was the sum total of the argument. "It's the right thing to do." That's really a very interesting way to rationalize a bill that is supposed to be of a substantive nature. "It's the right thing to do."

Again, it begs the question of what a parliamentary secretary does, particularly when you've got silviculture in your portfolio and you're supposed to know that file and supposed to bring something substantive into this House to deal with that.

What did we get? We got political rhetoric. We got him having to go back to the 1990s and actually present disingenuous arguments about what happened there just to justify himself and make him feel good.

As I indicated in my little heckle, we got the ultimate in 3Ps that makes it almost impossible for us to govern this province or any other western democracy. The ultimate 3P is petty partisan politics.

I'm going to speak about the mountain pine beetle in my response, and I will correct the record. I challenge the member to bring forward into this House the statement that I supposedly said: "Mow down the forest and replant it." I don't think you can come into this House and make a statement without having a justification and evidence for that. So I challenge the member to present that evidence to me directly.

But I want to talk about the substance of this bill. I want to talk about why this bill in its form is wrong. Conceptually it may be right. The member is correct. As a concept, zero net deforestation is not wrong. It's laudable. But we must get to a point where we as elected officials actually are engaged substantively in the formulation of the laws that govern this province.

We should never be caught in this House by bills that come forward which have not had substantive public debate, which have not sustained scrutiny by experts and by stakeholders and by other people who have vested interests. We should never have a bill come into this House that catches anybody by surprise or that is a fluff piece of legislation that adds to the cynicism of the electorate that's already out there — never.

[1550]

That's what's wrong with this place. That's what's wrong with our democracy. We think the electorate doesn't care. Well, they do care, and those who are not voting care enough not to go into a ballot box, for the most part, because they cannot stand what we offer. They cannot buy the petty partisan politics that passes for governance in this province.

It has to stop, and this bill typifies that. Two years ago, in 2008, we were promised zero net deforestation as part of this government's climate change strategy. Two years. What do we get two years later? We get two pages, one that you could have gotten from Webster's Dictionary within about 15 minutes. It's a page of

definitions.

The second one — what does it say? Does it give us plans? Does it give us strategies? Does it give us implementation, action, resources? Nothing. What does it say? It says that this cabinet and this government will figure out how to do this at some point in the near future, and hopefully by 2012, and then by 2015 it supposedly has done something.

Let me disabuse the members opposite. In that 2008 speech the government promised that we would get zero net deforestation. In that speech it said that the not satisfactorily restocked forest land — in the future, I will refer to that as NSR; that is, areas of Crown forest land that do not meet the chief forester's requirements for a free-to-grow status — is actually back to a productive, healthy forest.

The throne speech in 2008 said that there were 700,000 hectares of NSR. In the presentation of this bill, the Forest Minister says that that number is actually 750,000. We were promised in 2008 explicitly…. This is a direct quote from the speech to the throne: "All forest land currently identified as not sufficiently restocked will be replanted and no 'NSR' backlogs will be allowed to develop in ensuing years."

I take it that "ensuing years" is kind of '09, 2010, 2011. Yet between 2008 and 2010, somehow 50,000 more hectares have appeared on NSR. In actual fact, and I'll speak to this in a minute, the forest practices branch, in a recent report last fall, said that the NSR, the not satisfactorily restocked, is over 1.4 million hectares — double what this government is indicating, double what the Forests Minister is indicating. The Forests Minister will be accountable for that when we get into estimates.

Why the difference? When his own ministry calls it 1.4 million plus, the minister stands up and puts this bill forward and says 750,000. That shows you how bankrupt this government's inventory of our Crown land base is. How can you manage the number one asset of this province when you don't know what you're managing, when you have that much of a difference that you have to reconcile? A full double not satisfactorily restocked.

Why is that important? You see, this bill is supposed to somehow make 6,200 hectares of development properties where you deforest — that backlog — disappear. That's the argument that we've gotten from a couple of the members from the opposite side.

I want to know what the math is of 6,200 hectares a year being deforested for development against 1.4 million backlogged NSR. How does that math work out? I

[ Page 3722 ]

think that's a few years of very hard work and substantial dollars to address just what already exists in backlog.

No wonder we laughed when the minister brought this bill into the House. It is laughable — not in concept but in principle and in timing and in the way the government's planning on going about this. That's what's laughable.

We've got this increase already, since 2008. The basic math of forestry — and the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture ought to have known this — is that for every thousand hectares of forest land, it takes about 100,000 trees to replant that to stocking standards. So for 1,000 hectares, a hundred thousand trees.

Let me walk you through some math to see what the real problem is and why it is insulting that 6,200 hectares is supposed to solve this problem. First, the backlog NSR, as I've indicated, by the ministry's own documentation is 1.4 million hectares.

[1555]

However, accumulating fire, as it rolls up, was a million hectares since 2003. Some of that has been replanted; some has not. The minister has indicated that he expects more catastrophic fires in the future. We haven't even addressed fully the 2003 fire event. In many cases, fire actually sterilizes the soil to the point that you cannot get it back for forests for generations, and that's not documented in the ministry's inventory. We don't have those figures.

When you talk about deforestation, this government is talking about zero net deforestation related to development. Well, what about sterilized forest soils? That's deforested, and no amount of planting will bring it back for generations to come. That's not in this calculation.

Pests and diseases other than mountain pine beetle — where is the sum total of that? We are losing forests to pest and disease. In particular, we are losing plantations to pests and disease. Plantations that are on this government's book, in many cases, as actual free-growing forests are not free-growing forests but are dead and do not meet the ministry's requirements and should be on the NSR backlog, and they're not in the inventory.

The mountain pine beetle. I want to get to the arguments that a couple of members have made here about the 1990s, because I think it's important to set the record straight. The mountain pine beetle is now at 14.5 million hectares. Of that, the government's own documentation indicates that at least four million of those hectares are what are called non-recoverable losses — so areas that we won't be able to take fibre off of, areas that will be standing dead timber, areas that in many case will add to this backlog of not satisfactorily restocked.

Then, from 2002 through to about 2007 this government started playing with how they calculated not satisfactorily restocked. They started taking roads out and landings out and various others things out, so they downscaled the number.

The reality, by my calculations…. Again, we're going to canvass this in estimates. We're going to actually flesh all these numbers out. That's the way this House is supposed to work. So it's a forewarning to the minister to make sure he's got the staff with their calculators out, because we have.

The accruing not satisfactorily restocked, non-recoverable losses, potential Crown land base that needs silviculture treatment in some fashion relative to the 6,200 hectares that these members are talking about is actually in the order of magnitude of about 6.4 million hectares.

If you do the math, Madam Speaker, that's 64 billion trees. That is gross mismanagement of the province's largest asset. We're going to find out in estimates how much this government doesn't know about how bad it is.

The silviculture contractors will tell you about what they call the silviculture gap that exists that has grown year over year. I want to talk about planting on the Crown land base in a second. But they have been shocked at how much that is accruing, how little work has been done in silviculture throughout this province.

Before I get to that, if you want to talk about zero net deforestation, let's talk about the real story, the true story, of how big the magnitude of that is, what kind of resources we're talking about, how many trees we're talking about. It's not bits and pieces of development. It's the massive lack of investment on the Crown land base.

Let's talk about a little project that was in the government's 2008 throne speech as well. In the 2008 throne speech the Premier, in introducing zero net deforestation, made the following comment. It's about what these members are talking about. Here's the statement. This is from the throne speech.

"…large urban afforestation initiative" will be undertaken. "Millions of trees will be planted in backyards, schoolyards, hospital yards, civic parks, campuses, parking lots and other public spaces across British Columbia. Major investments in tree nurseries will be made under this initiative. Those new trees will help clean our air and 'lock away' carbon dioxide that would otherwise contribute to global warming."

[1600]

The Premier, as he's wont to, came up with a wonderful little catchphrase just to make everybody feel warm and fuzzy that he was going to take care of that terrible thing. He called it Trees for Tomorrow.

Wait a second. You've got future forest ecosystems. You've got Forests for Tomorrow. You've got net zero deforestation and this little project, Trees for Tomorrow. That was 2008. The members opposite there — I remember some of them saying in their speeches: how could we be against Trees for Tomorrow? "Oh my god, it's like killing puppies." What did we get? Here's what happened.

So far, since 2008 to today, about a million trees have been planted. We're not sure. We don't have a proper accounting. We have some project lists. But about a mil-

[ Page 3723 ]

lion trees have been planted. It said: "Millions of trees will be planted." About a million got planted.

How did they get planted? Grants, Madam Speaker — you know, those cost-sharing things that municipalities, school districts, hospitals hate because they have to bring their money to the table in order to get the money from the government to do what they need to do anyway. So it was done in the form of grants.

What effect has it had? Has it cleaned our air and locked away carbon dioxide? If so, how much carbon dioxide? How many cars it has taken off the road, equivalency — all that fun stuff that the government likes to tout. We don't know — no reports — but what we do know…. And I challenge every one of those individuals over there who likes to just simply take what they get from PAB and read it in here to go to the webpage Trees for Tomorrow. It actually even has a 1-800 number, 1-800-T4T — I don't what those numbers are — and then the rest of the numbers.

Cool — webpage, phone number, everything else. Go on the webpage, Members, and this is what you will find when you bring the webpage up about how to apply for Trees for Tomorrow: "There is no intake at this time." You go to the next page about how to apply: "There is no intake at this time."

How incompetent of a government that it cannot even get its act together to cover its you-know-what by making sure that the Trees for Tomorrow program, which is supposed to be behind this net zero deforestation, is actually still functioning when they're in this House talking about how this wonderful program is going to work. They can't even do that.

Again, forgive us for finding it laughable that the government thinks — faced with the order of magnitude of Crown land that is being left to waste, that is not meeting its obligations…. Even little programs to help put trees in urban centres…. They can't even continue that program. We just simply don't find it credible that this government puts a bill before us and wants us to trust them that somehow they're going to make it happen in 2012 and 2015. They couldn't even stay the course from 2008. Two years, and the program's gone.

Now let's talk about the wonderful investments, major investments in nurseries. That's what the government said in 2008. There's a recent op-ed that reflects a statement by Ben Parfitt. This op-ed in the Vancouver Sun reflects what we have heard — the critic for forestry, the two of them have heard.

Actually, the Agriculture critic and I visited a nursery in the Kamloops region. We've heard from every nursery that they're in dire straits, that they are borderline in being able to keep their doors open. When we have a silviculture gap as large as it is in this province, they do not understand. If they had hair, they'd be like me, because they're pulling it out. They don't understand why the government isn't responding to the challenges confronting them.

What we've got is — and Parfitt captures it in this one sentence: "Commercial tree nurseries across this province are reporting some of the lowest orders for planting stock ever seen."

Now, again, I know we don't want to confuse the members over there with too many numbers, because they're probably not getting numbers from PAB, but the capacity in our nurseries is 250 million seedlings, a quarter of a billion in seedling capacity in this province.

[1605]

What are the orders? The orders, the sowing requests for 2011 — 126 million. A quarter of a billion in capacity, 126 million in sowing requests for 2011. What happened to the major investments in nurseries? What happened to the millions of trees that were supposed to be planted?

By the way, you don't order trees like you order sea monkeys, where you go to a catalogue, they come to you, you throw them in some water, and — poof! — you get some sea monkeys. You need to know the species. You need to know the genetic characteristics. You have to collect the seed stock and grow it. You have to test it. You have to change your nurseries to be able to plant and grow those into seedlings that can be planted. This is significant work.

In planting, 2010 will be the lowest on record at 172 million seedlings with that huge silviculture gap that we've got, and it looks like planting in 2011 is going to be even lower than that. These nurseries, with this government gutting forestry as it is and gutting all of the dirt ministries, are worried about their economic viability, yet the Premier promised them in 2008 that they would get major investments.

That's why we laugh at bills like this. That's why we laugh at concepts like this — not because the concepts themselves are not reasonable and worth exploring but because this government is not serious about it. They're just not serious about it. They think that if they can put a little catchphrase out in front of the public, the public will be placated and they can get on with whatever their business is with their lobbyists and the people who fund their political party.

Let me talk a little bit about the order of magnitude that we should have. Again, this is from the government's own documentation. People should know by now that I don't come in here and make this stuff up. This is from the government's own documentation.

I challenge the members over there. Put your PAB backgrounder aside. Go to the Mountain Pine Beetle Task Force on the government's webpage. Go to the 2006 mountain pine beetle action plan.

On the back page, one of the final pages on that, this is a direct quote. That was in 2006. The order of magnitude is now far, far worse four years later, but in 2006 the

[ Page 3724 ]

Ministry of Forests' senior staff and strategist said the following: "Initial assessments suggest that a total of approximately $800 million to $1 billion will be required just to mitigate the mountain pine beetle impacts alone." A billion dollars just for mountain pine beetle alone.

What do we get? Some $161 million. It says it right in the same document — $161 million for the first four years of Forests for Tomorrow. Now, they did say that they were going to go to the federal government. Everybody in this House, remember? The federal government was going to give us $100 million a year for ten years, etc.

But Mr. Emerson, when he was a Liberal cabinet minister, or a Conservative cabinet minister…. No, wait. He was a Liberal cabinet minister at the time. Mr. Emerson said in a very clear, lucid moment in Prince George: "We're not just going to cut cheques to the province. We need to see the plan."

We brought that into this House. We actually were given a copy of a document where this government was trying to fast-track some discussions with the federal government to cover themselves on the mountain pine beetle, and that submission never went in. In fact, it would be interesting, in estimates, to find out what kind of dialogue we're having with the federal government just now, because we never got the billion dollars that was promised from then, let alone matching funding from this government.

That's the order of magnitude we got. Today, in fact, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs just issued a press release and a resolution reminding us of this:

"The federal promise was to provide B.C. with $100 million a year for ten years to address the mountain pine beetle crisis. The province agreed to provide 20 percent of this funding, or $20 million a year, to First Nations. Unfortunately, the federal government chose not to transfer the money to B.C. Instead, it administered funds through its own departments, and it only provided $200 million specifically for mountain pine beetle funding."

[1610]

Why is this? Because this government never got its act together to put a plan in front of the federal government to show that they were going to match funds, to show that they had actually done the due diligence, that they knew what those funds were going to do, because the first $100 million they got, they used to fund provincial Crown obligations, because of cuts that they had done in previous budgets.

You don't do that to the federal government, because then what happens? They turn the tap off. You pay for what's provincial, and provincial obligation with provincial money. You take federal money, and you make it incremental to it.

We have two very good track records of that, two forest range development agreements from the 1990s. If you go back and look at the record, it's available to the public. Hopefully, the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture actually does its own research this time and looks at it. It shows you that the biggest investment we had in this province on the land base was in the 1990s. With two forest range agreements coming from the late '80s through the '90s, we poured millions of dollars into the land base, and this government is undermining that because they didn't continue the programs.

Under this government, we have the lowest-ever silviculture activities — brushing, thinning, commercial spacing, site preparation and using fire as a silviculture tool. It's all on the government's own website. A forest practices branch PowerPoint presentation from the fall of 2009 lays it all out. You don't have to go anywhere. I'll gladly hand a copy to any member on that side of the House for their bedtime reading, instead of whatever it is they've got to say tomorrow on the message box. It's all there — a massive deinvestment in the land base.

They were not smart enough to realize that if they'd just brought some money to the table and just done some planning, there was a legitimate offer by the Martin government for that $10 billion program, and Prime Minister Harper continued that. But they saw no movement from this side, and we lost that opportunity. Today we're reminded of the impact of that on First Nations, and we're reminded of the impact of that on our land base in general.

Now, the minister spoke in his speech about the fact that they're doing incremental forestry. Another lovely little pet phrase: Forests for Tomorrow. The minister reminded us that licensees are obligated by law to replant where they harvest. But we've got significant issues, and the Minister of Forests must know that because there's a big shift right now to naturals, not planting. That's why some of the falloff is occurring. The harvesting is low, but some of the falloff in the nurseries is because they're going to natural plantations, natural regrowth, rather than planting.

We have huge health risks out there as well, so the licensees' obligations, which are called a silviculture liability, are accruing. You talk to any of the licensees out there, especially the smaller ones, and they are very, very nervous about that huge financial liability they're accruing. It's not a given that the licensees' work on the land base will actually result in healthy forests. That's not a given. The fact that they have the legal obligation doesn't address what's going to happen on the land base. But the Crown has no such obligation.

In 2002 this government absolved itself of actually being obligated to manage the Crown forest land other than areas that were harvested. Prior to that they were obligated to deal with fire, obligated to deal with pest and disease, obligated to deal with areas of the forest that had been logged but that contractors hadn't gone and done the work on. This government absolved itself of that. Therefore, as I've indicated, actual planting has been plummeting. All silviculture activities have been plummeting, and we have this massive silviculture gap.

[ Page 3725 ]

We have Forests for Tomorrow. In 2008 the promise was 60 million seedlings over four years. The program was put in place in 2004. Again, these are real numbers available to the government. It's not that hard to go and google Forests for Tomorrow. It's all there for you. PricewaterhouseCoopers does a little report for you.

Only about 17.85 million trees have been planted since 2004 — 60 million trees promised, 17.8 million realized. Now, I think that's called — what? — a silviculture gap. If this is how they're going to do zero net deforestation, no wonder we laugh on this side. Promise 60, deliver 17.8.

[1615]

They're not going to achieve 20 million a year, which is what the minister and others have suggested. So now in this throne speech, the minister — or Forests for Tomorrow — is promising 60 million over the next four years. That's not going to happen.

One of the interesting things about that — and it's a question that we'll have when we explore this in third reading…. One of the interesting questions is that they use PricewaterhouseCoopers to run that program, not Ministry of Forests. So why did an accounting firm and a financial management firm get to run silviculture in this province? Did the government not trust the Forest Service to do that?

So we don't have the federal money. We have PricewaterhouseCoopers delivering and, I would say, taking very hefty administrative fees to deliver what is a minuscule amount. That's a tragedy.

Let's get to the bill quickly, because I know we've got speakers who want to get up on our side.

First off, the Liberal argument for the bill — independent of "It's the right thing to do" — is that, first, it's principled. Well, if it was principled, we would have the strategy, the plan, the implementation, the resources, the costs. We'd have it all laid out in front of us. If it was principled, that would be it. It wouldn't be: "Trust us. We'll do this by regulation."

There's a trap in doing it by regulation. If this is a setup for carbon trading in the Pacific Carbon Trust…. If that's what this is — and it's a potential that that's what this is — then it's a potential to flow money through to the lobbyists and to the political sponsors of that party, where you take the development and you say: "You deforested there, but we're going to slide you some tax incentives. We're going to slide you some goodies to go and plant some of our Crown forest over here."

We don't know that, because it's going to be designed by regulation behind closed doors within cabinet. And who's sitting at the table talking to them about it? It's not principled. If it was principled, we would know the details.

Secondly, greenhouse gas reductions. The Minister of State for Climate Action, when he introduced this yesterday, said he'd read a National Geographic report on deforestation, and he got all shocked and awed inside himself and everything else — right?

Now, climate action in the basement of the Legislature, given the Premier's climate change and all that stuff. That's a whole other story, and I don't have time to tell that.

The minister of state lives in the largest clearcut in the province of British Columbia, an area that's been denuded by generations of British Columbians. Deforestation has been going on forever. Civilizations have disappeared because of how they've treated their forests, and as I've already indicated, this government is doing that with our Crown asset.

The greatest greenhouse gas release — and I challenge the Minister of State for Climate Action to come with me out into the bush, and I'll show him — is wood waste from logging practices allowed by this government. In 2006 and every year since, four million tonnes of carbon has been released into the atmosphere from the wood waste that this government allows as normative logging practices now. That's the biggest thing.

Zero net deforestation, 6,200 hectares? Give me a break. When you're releasing that much carbon into the atmosphere and lack a fire management strategy — catastrophic fire events. This government has been warned by the Forest Practices Bo