Hansard -- Thursday, April 10, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 7 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6207

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6207
	Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr405) R. Nijjar Ash Developments Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr401) V. Anderson Kennett Contracting Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr402) V. Anderson Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr403) T. Christensen M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr404) T. Christensen

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6208
	Vast educational opportunities centre in Port Alberni G. Trumper Prevention of violence against women P. Sahota Pacific Assistance Dogs Society J. Nuraney

Oral Questions		6209
	Role of Fisheries minister in investigation into Stolt Sea Farm J. MacPhail Hon. J. van Dongen Labour dispute at Simon Fraser University H. Bloy Hon. G. Bruce Anchoring fees in marine parks B. Kerr Hon. J. Murray Use of ditch water for irrigation T. Bhullar Hon. J. van Dongen Business immigration and investment P. Wong Hon. R. Thorpe Appeal of monetary awards to Woodwards building protesters J. MacPhail Hon. G. Abbott Independent living services S. Orr Hon. K. Whittred

Petitions		6212
	K. Manhas

Committee of the Whole House		6212
	Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24) I. Chong Hon. R. Thorpe

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6214
	Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24)

Committee of the Whole House		6214
	Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16) J. MacPhail Hon. R. Neufeld

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6223
	Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16)

Committee of Supply		6223
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) Hon. S. Hagen J. MacPhail

Royal Assent to Bills		6232
	Foresters Act (Bill 5) Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12) Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16) Procurement Services Act (Bill 23) Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24) Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 25) Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 30)

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today Dorothy and Don Wrigley. It was Don who ten years ago saved, restored and installed a carousel, which has become a pride of Burnaby, in a pavilion that is named after him. Please join me in welcoming Don and Dorothy Wrigley.

G. Trumper: Today I would like to ask the House to welcome students from the Vast leadership program in school district 70. They are John Roberts, Roy Roberts, Jesse Chase, Jen McBride, Judy Horgan, Steve Standingworth, Lisa Ho, Lianne Lawson, Cory Roywood, Josh Johnson, Dwayne Coutts, Ray Gore and their principal, Mr. Tom McEvay. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are some representatives from Weyerhaeuser, a great forest corporation in British Columbia: Anne Giardini, Tom Holmes, Ted Kimoto, Lawrence Pillon, James O'Hanley and Bob Taylor. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

K. Krueger: In the summer of 2001 we imported a young man to be the research director for the B.C. Liberal caucus here in the Legislature. He came from Ontario. He had a strong background there. He found out this is no Queen's Park, but he distinguished himself for us. Sadly, for family reasons he's decided to move back to Ontario. We'll miss him. We wish him Godspeed and wish him well.

He's leaving a part of himself here. We're not sure where it went, but he lost his hair and 40 pounds while he was here. We say to his mother: "We send him back to you. We've trimmed him up. We ask you to look after him and make sure he doesn't slip back on us."

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's so seldom I get to stand in the House and introduce anyone, and it's not from Peace River North. In the gallery today are Ernestine and Lawrence Sweet. They are family members of Colleen Sweet, my executive assistant. She's very happy to have them here visiting with her from New Brunswick. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Visser: Well, today in the gallery is somebody who's followed me around the riding, had a heck of a time trying to get me to return his phone calls and in fact has had real trouble trying to get a meeting with me for the last three months. He's here today. He finally tracked me down. Would the House please make Ted Skwarok, my constituency assistant, welcome.

P. Wong: I'm pleased to introduce the second half of the 160 students visiting from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. Once again, I'm pleased to inform the House that I have garnered another $500 scholarship from the Better Community Partnership Outreach Network sponsor, Mr. Johnny Fong. This is the fourth scholarship awarded to the students of the school under this network program. These 84 students are led by respectable teachers Mr. Ferguson, Ms. Heather Paris, Mr. Brian Chan and Mr. Aaron Mueller, along with the school's vice-principal, Mr. Chris Atkinson. Would the House please extend our warmest welcome again.

T. Christensen: As any members of the House who follow junior hockey in this province will know, the Vernon Vipers are becoming a junior hockey legacy in British Columbia. Last night they beat the Chilliwack Chiefs 1-0 to sweep that series and capture their fourth British Columbia championship since 1990 and their ninth since 1970.

It may come as some consolation to the members from Chilliwack that they're in good company. Prior to the Chilliwack series, the Vipers had smoked the Trail Smoke Eaters in four straight games, and they had tamed the Penticton Panthers in four games. In fact, the Vipers are on a 15-game winning streak including the regular season. They're now on to pursue the Doyle Cup against the champions of Alberta, and I'm sure it will be on to another national championship with the Royal Bank Cup in Charlottetown.

I wish them the best of luck, and I think it's time for all members of this House, whether they're from Chilliwack, Trail or Penticton, to wish them good luck as well.

Hon. K. Falcon: In the precinct today, although I'm not sure if he is in the galleries or not, I ran into a former Attorney General of British Columbia, Alex Macdonald. Alex was also a former professor of mine at SFU, and I'd like to point out to Alex that I thought he was a far better professor than he was an MLA. Nevertheless, he's a very, very fine man, and he was a very good professor. I would ask that the House please make Alex welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: In the House today are a number of students from Boundary Park School and their teachers, and with them is my cousin, Justin Baarts. Would the House please make them all welcome.

R. Nijjar presented a bill intituled Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

R. Nijjar: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

R. Nijjar: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr405 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

V. Anderson presented a bill intituled Ash Developments Ltd. (Corporation Restoration) Act, 2003.

V. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

V. Anderson: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

V. Anderson presented a bill intituled Kennett Contracting Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

V. Anderson: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

V. Anderson: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

T. Christensen presented a bill intituled Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

T. Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

T. Christensen: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

T. Christensen presented a bill intituled M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003.

T. Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

T. Christensen: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr404 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

G. Trumper: We have in the House today students from the Vast Educational Centre of school district 70. These programs are led by Tom McEvay, the principal — someone who has a gift for motivating students, and someone for whom I have the greatest respect. I know that some of the other MLAs had the opportunity to meet these students earlier on.

The education centre is an accredited B.C. public school offering students in school district 70 alternative means to complete B.C. curriculum in grades 10 to 12. Students enrolled in Vast are a minimum of 16 years of age through to adult learners. Students at Vast are usually seeking a B.C. graduation, an adult graduation or some form of upgrading.

Vast offers courses in a standard, self-paced format using learning guides and textbooks, as well as computer-delivered curriculum. They can apply to have adjudication of prior learning and equivalency for courses. External course credits can be granted, based upon ministry guidelines. Some students are developing independent directed studies with their advisers, and a growing number of students are combining courses from Vast, the regular high school and even the local college in their education plans.

The centre is one component of the alternate programs of the Alberni school district. These programs include three intensive behaviour support programs called project classes; the options focus program, which is a transition program for high-risk youth; a separate adult education class; hospital home support; and an in-school alternate program in junior secondaries. All of these programs are designed to meet the diverse needs of the learners and to ensure that no student is forgotten in school district 70.

P. Sahota: For eight years the government of British Columbia has recognized the fourth week of April as Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. We set aside this week in April in the hopes that people around this province have the opportunity to consider this very important and serious issue.

As a society we have recognized that violence exists, and most of us know that women and children are the most vulnerable. We know that during this week we set aside this month, too many women will be the victims of violence — most likely by someone they know, most likely by someone that's their partner. On any day this week or next week or the week after, our government will provide services in the 61 transition houses around the province. Other women will be staying at safe houses and second-stage housing as they try to rebuild their lives. The government provides more than $25 million a year to community organizations to operate transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing in communities all around this province. We provide a further $7 million each year to Stopping the Violence counselling and Children Who Witness Abuse counselling.

Through our actions we are making changes. In the coming months the Minister of State for Women's Equality will introduce a safer community strategy that will examine programs for women and make sure that women are receiving the access to the services they need.

We also have a role not only as elected officials but as citizens. Each one of us must accept personal responsibility for stepping forward and helping to protect women and children against abuse and for stopping the violence. We must speak out when we see and hear things that contribute to violence against any member of our society.

I would ask each and every one of us in this House to consider what we can do in our everyday lives year-round to meet this commitment in our constituencies and in our work.

J. Nuraney: I would like to speak today about an organization that is offering a very unique service to people who are facing the daily challenges of life with a disability other than blindness.

The society is called the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society and is based in Burnaby. We all have heard about the seeing dogs that help people with blindness. PADS dogs, however, are specially trained to aid the physically disabled, the deaf and the hard of hearing or are placed with professional caregivers who work with the elderly, the disabled and in the long- term care facilities.

They are a great support for persons unable to perform simple tasks such as turning on light switches, retrieving dropped items or even answering telephones. They also instil in their recipients a greater sense of confidence and independence. According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 240,000 mobility-impaired, 241,000 agility-impaired and 170,000 hearing-impaired people in B.C. alone, and this is only a part of the population that PADS attempts to service.

These dogs are valued between $6,000 and $15,000, depending upon the level of skills training. The society has placed about 70 working dogs so far. What is commendable is the fact that this organization operates entirely on community and corporate donations. This is a very good example of the success of a true community effort to meet a need of our society.

This is also an organization that has acquired international recognition and accreditation. I'm looking forward to attending a graduation event this weekend, on Saturday, where these dogs will exhibit their skills and training.

I would like to congratulate the society for the invaluable work they do and also the volunteers like Don and Dorothy Wrigley, who help make the lives of those who really need this service a little better.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Attorney General gave the Minister of Fisheries clearance to answer questions about his role in the ongoing fish farm fiasco. Let me quote from the Attorney as he said in yesterday's estimates: "There is no restriction I'm aware of that flows out of the special prosecutor process, which in any way constrains the ability of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to answer questions with respect to what the reason for the investigation was…what actions he may or may not have taken…."

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has the Attorney's clearance. Now let me ask the minister again exactly what I asked him in the House over the last few days: could the minister tell this House what his role was in advocating whether to pursue or not pursue Water, Land and Air Protection's investigation into Stolt Sea Farm?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to, first of all, acknowledge to this House that I did make a mistake — that I released a document that should have remained

confidential. In any of my dealings as minister, it was never my intent to interfere with any investigation or compromise any investigation.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure whether the minister thinks that this is a confessional or what, but that's not good enough. He's had clearance from the Attorney General to answer specific questions. The Premier, too, said that the minister should come clean. The Premier said that he would be talking to the minister personally to encourage him to come clean. There's no legal, political and certainly no ethical reason why the minister continues to hide information from the public. All he has to do is answer the questions that he dodged yesterday. He dodged by hiding behind the special prosecutor's report. He's had clearance from the Attorney General.

Again, I ask him a question I asked him in the House the day before yesterday: did the minister know that representatives of Stolt Sea Farm were personally lobbying to have the investigations into its practices stopped? When did he know that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I was certainly aware that Stolt had issues with the second investigation. As I said, I have never taken any action to compromise any investigation or any of the process involved in the investigation and the decision to lay charges. I've never taken any action — never intended to take any action — to compromise an investigation.

J. MacPhail: Unfortunately, all we have in this House is the minister's word, which, frankly, is not worth much right now. In fact, the minister didn't answer the question. The question was: when did he know? He didn't answer that question. He said that he never did anything to compromise an investigation. I asked him a specific question. When did he know?

The minister escaped criminal charges, but he has not escaped his responsibility to account for his actions. He has legal and political clearance to answer the questions. He continues to dodge; he continues to hide; he continues to evade. He should know it's in his best interests, for his own political career, to come clean. I asked the minister…

J. MacPhail: …yesterday what part of his oath of confidentiality he didn't understand. Apparently, he thought that meant he had to keep the public in the dark and only let his political backers in on the secrets. Again to the minister — simple question, one I asked yesterday: did the minister have other conversations with fish farm operators that are under investigation? When did he have those conversations?

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, I was generally aware in the summer and fall of 2001 that there was a concern about the second investigation. I'm not aware of any other investigations into my conduct or any conduct of the ministry.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, I am. Simply to confirm that all of the relevant information was available to the special prosecutor — that's my understanding.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I've answered your question. I'm simply confirming that the matter, as far as I know, was fully investigated. The special prosecutor reported out, and the results of the report….

Mr. Speaker: Let's have order in this chamber, please. This is a serious matter.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I simply want to restate it was never my intent to compromise an investigation, and the matter has been dealt with through the special prosecutor's report.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. My riding of Burquitlam is home to Simon Fraser University, one of the country's finest post-secondary institutions. In recent weeks my constituents have been following the current labour dispute there with much interest.

In Bill 27, the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, section 5 provides for the minister to review the collective bargaining structure in the education system. In light of the situation at Simon Fraser University and at the University of British Columbia, can the Minister of Skills Development and Labour tell the House what he has done with this provision in Bill 27?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important to note that in the issue with SFU, the parties have agreed to my in-

clusion of an industrial inquiry commissioner, who is working on trying to come to a successful negotiation between the parties. I am confident and hopeful that will, in fact, occur. Of course, as an indication of goodwill, the union stopped the picketing that was taking place there, and the exams have carried on. I'm hopeful that in short order, we'll hear back and there can be a successfully negotiated contract.

In respect to Bill 27 and the aspect of reviewing the negotiating structure of K-to-12, I have the mandate within that particular act, under section 5, if I choose to move ahead and review that particular process. I've embarked upon a course of meeting with a number of the players — the BCTF, the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association and CUPE as a member union — in and amongst the school organizations to determine whether or not there really is a will to review that process. I'll be reporting back as I move through on that and am determined to let you know just what my steps will be.

B. Kerr: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Recently a number of my constituents have approached me, expressing their concerns about the new proposal to charge anchoring fees in marine parks. I'm grateful to the minister that she held meetings with me and a number of my colleagues, and I also understand she has had other meetings with regard to these proposed fees. My question is to the minister: can she provide the House and my constituents with an update on these new proposed fees?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, we have had a number of meetings. My staff have had meetings with associations representing boaters as well, and they've been constructive and positive meetings. One thing I know is that boaters care about protecting the environment of the marine parks, and a number of the clubs voluntarily help out with cleaning up the marine parks.

We do expect them, though — as we expect all park users to — to contribute to the costs of maintaining and servicing the marine parks, so those discussions about how that will happen are underway. We are taking a second look at those fees, and I can assure the member we will not be charging for anchoring in marine parks.

T. Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Numerous produce farms are irrigating from ditches in the Fraser Valley, and from a quick glance, one can see they're polluted with hydrocarbons and other pollutants. My question is: are there regulations in place to prohibit farmers from drawing water from these ditches, and if there are, what method is in place to ensure compliance with these regulations?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Under our food safety business area and within our ministry, we are working closely with the health authorities in the area on that issue. There is an issue of E. coli in water in ditches that has been used for irrigation and, in some cases, for washing vegetables. Our staff are working closely with the farms involved and the health authorities on that matter.

P. Wong: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. British Columbia has much to offer to foreign entrepreneurs looking to invest in our province. B.C.'s plentiful supply of natural resources, strategic location on the Pacific Rim and excellent quality of life make the province an attractive investment destination. To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise: what is the government's plan to maximize business investment immigration to British Columbia?

Hon. R. Thorpe: British Columbia is the location of choice for business immigration and investment. Not only are we a globally competitive destination for investment, as a result of the new-era commitments that we made to British Columbia — most importantly, that we've kept to British Columbians — but we're also the gateway to the world's largest markets: our friends, the United States. Our government, led by the Premier, is committed to increasing business immigration to British Columbia.

In conjunction with our partners the federal government, we have three main programs — namely, the investor program, the entrepreneur program and the provincial nominee program. In the investor category, we currently have $40 million invested and under management in British Columbia. In the entrepreneur category, approximately $80 million is invested each year in companies and therefore job creation. The provincial nominee program for business investment started in September of 2000, and we expect to generate more than $25 million in new investment.

British Columbia is open for business. Business immigrants are coming to British Columbia. They're showing their confidence in British Columbia, in our government, by making investments here and creating jobs throughout British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: On November 7, 2002, the Supreme Court of B.C. awarded $100 to each of the Woodwards protesters that appeared in court. The judge did this because the Housing corporation discontinued con-

tempt proceedings in court without notice. The 39 homeless people who appeared in court were awarded this small sum for their inconvenience. It is my understanding that the B.C. Housing corporation is appealing that decision, trying to get their $100 back from these 39 homeless people.

Can the housing minister say whether that is true? Can he explain, if so, why he's wasting the court's time and money to get $100 back from a group of homeless people? Can he tell us if it's costing taxpayers more than the $3,900 to appeal this decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is correct that we are appealing that decision. I know the member may have some difficulty understanding this, because it is a point of principle, but frankly, we don't believe it is appropriate to reward people for lawbreaking. We think the decision was one we should appeal, and that is in fact what we are going to do as a point of principle. Again, while…

Hon. G. Abbott: …the member may be a stranger to principle, this is a government that is not.

S. Orr: My question is to the Minister for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. I understand that in some communities across the province, including mine of Victoria-Hillside, there is a shortage of affordable housing that offers independent living with supports for seniors. For many seniors on fixed income, the alternative private sector facilities are way, way too expensive. I ask the minister to explain what she is doing to ensure that people on low incomes have access to these services.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition and the minister please come to order so we may hear the answer from the Minister for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

Hon. K. Whittred: I thank the member for her question. The member, in fact, is correct. It's always been that only those people with high incomes could afford, in fact, to live in independent living with supports. That is why we have introduced the Independent Living B.C. program. This program is a partnership between B.C. Housing, the federal government, the health authorities and, in fact, either for-profit or not-for-profit providers. In that program we are supplying 3,500 units that will be there for low- to moderate-income people. They will offer not only housing but meals, services, housekeeping and personal care.

Hon. K. Whittred: These units are affordable. No client, regardless of income, will pay more than 70 percent of their income for that whole basket of services.

K. Manhas: I'd like to table a petition from 23 of my constituents regarding aquaculture in the ALR.

Hon. G. Abbott: Today in the House I call committee stage debate on Bill 24. For the information of members, that will be followed by debate on committee stage of Bill 16, followed by estimates debate for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24, J. Weisbeck in the chair.

I. Chong: I have a very quick question on section 1. I'm wondering if the minister could explain and clarify what quotation and trade reporting systems are and the intent of adding that to this expanded definition.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Quotation and reporting systems display market information but do not perform all of the activities of a stock exchange. These amendments will allow the commission to regulate participants in these systems in the same way the commission regulates members of the exchanges. Currently, there are no systems operating in British Columbia. There is a new one just starting in Ontario. We are anticipating that an expansion could take place to British Columbia, and what we're trying to do here is to be proactive.

The member may look forward to section 3 with respect to these quotation and trade reporting systems.

These amendments expand the commission's power to examine the registrants to see if they are complying with the rules of a quotation and trade reporting system. The commission currently has power to review registrant compliance with the rules of self-regulatory organizations and exchanges.

I. Chong: On section 2. It speaks to the expenditure of funds for educational purposes. I'm just wondering about the purpose of having the use of those funds and what kinds of educational purposes or educating securities those may be. If the minister could just clarify that for me, I'd be most appreciative.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Just to make sure that we're clear on the record, the only funds that would be permitted for educational purposes are not funds that are derived from fees but, in fact, funds that are derived from fines that the commission develops.

What we are looking at here is to make sure that we have the opportunity to develop educational systems for seniors. In the past throughout many jurisdictions, including British Columbia and in certain communities throughout British Columbia, sometimes seniors have been targeted by investor schemes and programs.

What we want to do in British Columbia is ensure that we take a proactive approach and get out into the communities, into the areas where we believe that some people may be targeted, and perform an educational function for them and inform them of some of the pitfalls that they may face.

We also want to look at developing some basic programs on markets and financial matters in conjunction with organizations like Junior Achievement, which the commission currently works with, but also with students in our school system so that they can have a better idea of how the money markets and financing work — in other words, broadening their educational experiences.

I. Chong: Section 5 deals with a matter that I think concerns many people and that, I guess, of late has been highlighted with the default of some of the corporations. That has to do with insider trading. I know I have received concerns from constituents about insider trading.

I'm curious regarding section 5. I'm wondering if the minister can explain exactly what this section will do in terms of safeguarding against those kinds of activities. How might insider trading be more curtailed in the future?

If he can just provide an explanation as to how section 5 is enabling this, I know my constituents would be much relieved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, this is a very, very important part of making sure that insiders report all of their transactions. Some insiders use financial instruments to hedge against any change in the value of the issue or securities while retaining ownership of those securities and have not reported these transactions. Although reporting them is in the spirit of the insider reporting requirements, it is not clearly defined. This amendment would clearly define those reporting requirements to make sure that insiders comply with an increasing amount of declaration on their transactions. This amendment will improve the transparency and will ensure that investors are receiving increasingly more and more accurate information on insider issues.

Other jurisdictions plan to introduce similar requirements by rule. We propose the act amendment because we do not have the authority in British Columbia to do it by rule, and these act amendments are less complex than the proposed rules.

I. Chong: On section 16. I'm reading this, and again I'm seeking more clarification from the minister. It seems to be distinguishing that one segment or one class of registrants should have rules that are different from another class or segment of registrants. That's how it is stated. I'm just curious. Again, what is the intent or the reasoning behind having those differences?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The act now contemplates an employer-employee relationship between dealers and their salespersons. These amendments would allow salespersons to incorporate or operate as independent contractors, and we do have additional classes of those definitions so that we can have a better handle on them, creating some flexibility for a definition and also in assuring people they have the choices and options they may want to pursue rather than just an employer-employee relationship.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 24, Securities Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; R. Stewart in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Most of my discussion is going to come under definitions. I want to start with a quote, if I may, from page 2 of the draft coalbed methane guidelines in the Oil and Gas Commission. They're dated October 21, 2002. Here's what it says:

That's out of the coalbed methane guidelines. It's around that I am going to explore some issues with the minister.

Given that — and that's out of the Oil and Gas Commission — why is the minister pursuing coalbed methane production as vigorously as he is and, particularly, trying to do it as vigorously as he is by sorting out land issues with this legislation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First, I'd like to introduce people that are with me: Barbara Thomson, senior legislative analyst, and Steve Roberts, assistant deputy minister of the new ventures branch.

The answer to the question is that we're, in fact, pursuing coalbed methane in the province because it's a huge untapped resource. There's estimated to be about 90 trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane in the province, almost equal to what's assumed to be in the province in conventional natural gas of about 115 trillion cubic feet.

The member is right when she reads from the book that there are some serious issues we have to deal with as we deal with coalbed methane — the same as we deal with the extraction of any other natural resource, specifically conventional natural gas or oil. That's why we are developing and are using the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act to make sure we do it in the safest possible manner, moving forward for all involved.

J. MacPhail: Good. Those are some of the things I want to explore with the minister here. It says from the draft guidelines, again, of the Oil and Gas Commission: "Since coalbed methane development is new to the province and coalbed methane wells have uncertain lives and gas production profiles, all project applications submitted before December 31, 2003, may be approved as experimental schemes." That's at page 6.

Then it goes on to say: "An experimental scheme is one that uses 'methods that are untried or unproved.' Experimental schemes offer the benefits of flexible well spacing and an extended period for confidentiality of well data."

Conventional wells, as I understand it, are spaced about one per square mile, and I think the Oil and Gas Commission by this is suggesting that up to eight wells could be drilled per square mile. I understand that recently the minister has said he will only allow for four per square mile. Who will decide the density of wells?

Hon. R. Neufeld: An experimental project will be something where a company will be able to go and drill a number of wells, the spacing of which may not be what we will have when we have production wells. That's simply so they can find out if there is a commercial amount of coalbed methane in the coal seams. There will be smaller spacing for those small schemes, wherever they happen to be. At the end of the day, the spacing for actual producing wells will be on a much larger basis, and that will be decided taking into account what has historically been done in British Columbia — one natural gas well per section, 640 acres. There's also the ability to have one oilwell on every 160 acres.

J. MacPhail: I understand from the minister's meeting last week in Hudson's Hope that he said that it would be one per 160. Now, I'm — what is it the minister likes to call me? — an urban socialist, but I think 160 acres means a quarter mile, doesn't it, so that means there could be four per square mile. Yet Ben Jones, who owns the drilling company that will be doing this, admits the density would have to increase. What does the minister say to that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If she's spoken to Ben Jones, that's fine, and she puts that on the record. What I said in Hudson's Hope was that obviously the company will have to do a project, and that means they're going to have to do a number of wells in an area that may have more dense spacing than one per 160 acres. At the end of the day, Mr. Jones has told us that he feels one well per 160 acres for production purposes would be sufficient. I committed to that in Hudson's Hope for that area. Remember, that is for farmland that's privately

held or farmland that's presently leased. That does not deal with Crown land. On Crown land we may make some other determinations at the end of the day, but we'll make that determination as the time comes along.

J. MacPhail: Why does the minister distinguish between Crown land and private land?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Simply because it's private land, and the people that were at the meeting and actually in the whole northeast, farmers, are used to having four wells per section — not always — depending on whether there's oil on their land or not. So what I said was that it's one well per 160 acres, and it has to do with agricultural land. Of course, what happens is that people say: "Well, the land is cleared, and it's farmland. We don't want to make it so we can't farm anymore. We understand that activity can take place and it can take place safely, but we don't want to have so many wells that we can't farm." To give them some assurance, what I said is one well per quarter on private and leased farmland.

J. MacPhail: So there is the potential that there would be a different standard for Crown land.

J. MacPhail: And I gather that different standard would be a greater density.

J. MacPhail: During debate at second reading of this bill, the member for Cariboo South, from his position as then chair of the Government Caucus Committee on Natural Resources, said a couple of things. First, the member for Cariboo South said — and this was at second reading on this piece of legislation: "The member for North Vancouver–Seymour reminded me to comment to the people who might be listening to this debate tonight and who may be wondering why so few government members rise to debate Bill 16 and many other important bills at the House. I guess my comment is that the main reason behind that is the government side of the House talks through the subject at many, many caucus meetings."

I appreciate that frankness, but this is the time when we actually — the public — get to see what the parliamentary debate is, and the legislative process ensures parliamentary democracy. But everybody in caucus, I guess, gets to stand up and raise their views in a confidential meeting, and then perhaps there's no need, as far as the Liberal MLAs see, to explain to the House or to the citizens who elected us to the House just what it is the government is doing and why it's doing it.

So I'm wondering, in the caucus discussions that the member for Cariboo South talked about, whether the issue about standards of private land versus public land was discussed. And was the issue around proceeding with coalbed methane production at the expedited rate discussed?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We've had some discussions in our committees in regard to the development of coalbed methane. It was announced — in fact, when I did my second open cabinet meeting — that we would move forward with it in a very public way and that we wanted to do it in a safe manner. But we wanted to have that opportunity in the province to develop this resource.

We've also, through the ministry, had a committee go out — not of MLAs but of people within the ministry. In fact, I think they visited eight communities around the province to talk about issues surrounding coalbed methane and mineral extraction to have people feel a little bit more comfortable with it.

I think it's a good move. It's a move that government should have made a long time ago, but I decided within the ministry that it's time we went out and started talking to people about how we do use this product, how it is positive, how it can create economic development, how it can be done safely and that it can provide long-term, well-paying jobs for people.

So that's the process we've taken to talk to people. I've talked about it across the whole province. I've talked about it in open cabinet. I've had different speaking occasions where I've talked about it in different places in the province, so it certainly hasn't been a secret. It's been out there for quite a while, and in fact, coalbed methane development started before…. Actually, there were some wells drilled before we even got into government. It had happened before.

J. MacPhail: Well, did the government caucus make a report on their findings, and would the minister release that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I think the member is quite well aware of the processes around the government caucus committee.

If you're trying to say that the government caucus doesn't care or doesn't know, that's unfair. The members that are on the Natural Resources committee actually have had a number of presentations made to them. People in our caucus are, I would say, relatively comfortable. We make sure that happens within our caucus.

No, I don't have a report that they went out and made. We have a direction that this government took that we want to actually develop our natural resources in an environmentally sound way so that we can actually benefit in the province and can continue to have health care and education well into the future.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not sure why the minister gave such a rhetorical answer. Was it to avoid answering the question? It was the then chair of the Natural Resources committee that brought up the fact in this

House on the public record that there's been many, many caucus meetings on this. The minister in response said that the government caucus committee — government caucus committee — went out and held hearings on this.

Either tell us what happened in caucus or release the report of these government caucus committee hearings. Tax dollars are used to travel the province to hear these matters. I'm not quite sure why the minister suggested any intent other than I'd like to see the report from the government caucus. Will he release it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let's not confuse it. I don't have any problem releasing to the member the minutes that were kept or the notes that were kept from the eight or so meetings that we had around the province. You're exactly right. That costs the taxpayers money. I think it was a useful process. I don't have that information with me today, but we will get that information to the member.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, and that's why debate is so good in this House. All the government caucus committee meetings minutes I will expect, and I thank the minister for…

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. You said…. Just a second. The minister said: "I don't have any trouble giving the minutes of the eight or so meetings that the government caucus" — public hearings that the government caucus — "had." Well, luckily it's recorded.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is lucky that it is recorded. First off, there are two processes. We have processes within our caucus and within our caucus committees where we discussed these things. We had another process besides that, where we went to eight communities — not MLAs, but staff. People from the Ministry of Energy and Mines went around to eight communities in the province to deliver some of our proposals — what we would like to do not just in coalbed methane but in mineral development and oil and gas development around the province. They were informative sessions. That's exactly what I said I would give to the member. That's not a government caucus committee. That is a group of people who work for Ministry of Energy and Mines, from my ministry, who actually went out and had those eight meetings around the province. I will get that information for the member. The government caucus committees — I'm sorry, no.

J. MacPhail: I guess the minister can understand my confusion. My question was about government caucus hearings, and he gave that answer. Why can't the public have the government caucus meeting record? It's made with tax dollars. They're meetings. We can't have the caucus meetings. Why are those minutes or activities secret?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They're no more secret than when she was in government. I can't remember…. Let's see. I was in here in 1991, elected along with her, and I cannot remember for the life of me one time when that government distributed any kind of a report out of their caucus. There were a few leaked. There was one leaked to us that said you were going to sell B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail and you name it. That was leaked to us by someone from their own caucus, but she knows as well as I do that those discussions are in caucus with caucus members talking about these issues. They've got nothing to do with what we're talking about today. In fact, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we should get back to the bill — to what we're talking about in the bill, which is ownership of coalbed methane.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually debating issues that were brought up by his members at second reading, and this is the place to explore them. I'm not absolutely sure why the minister is somehow suggesting that government caucus committee hearings using tax dollars are secretive. It was the Premier himself that made a commitment to a new way of doing business. That's why the government caucus chairs are paid out of vote 1 — the actual legislative chamber vote. That's why the Premier turns to these every time he possibly can to say: "I've got government caucus committees out there being open and accountable." This minister stands up and tells me how dare I ask for the activities of the government caucus committee.

Let's be clear. Government caucus committees are a creation of this government. It's the first and only time public resources from vote 1 have been used for private government caucus activities. Even Alberta doesn't do that. Even Alberta pays for its government caucus committees out of its own pocket and releases their report. It's only this government that keeps the activities secret.

Let me quote again from the member for Cariboo South — what he went on to say in second reading: "As chair of the Natural Resources committee, my committee and I have had many meetings with ministry staff — the experts in the field of methane gas — and they've been under question many, many times. It is my belief that the government caucus is well aware of the exploration procedures, and its liabilities are well documented."

Maybe I can ask the minister this. He committed to releasing the minutes and the recommendations of the hearings and the consultation his ministry staff did. Does it also, then, mean he'll release the consultations his ministry staff did with the government caucus committee?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm going to say they're two separate, distinct things. Ministry staff have met with those interested in the House about coalbed methane. That's kind of not a bad process. I think if there is some interest shown, we should actually have the experts deliver that information. In fact, we've of-

fered a number of times to make presentations to the Leader of the Opposition on different things, even on this bill. That's what I'm talking about. We've done that.

I don't know what this has to do with ownership of coalbed methane, to be perfectly honest. What we do is that we will have meetings, and people can come and ask some questions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. They can ask all the questions they want, and we don't keep a written record of all of those questions and those meetings, the same as I'm sure the member didn't in her caucus committee when she was in government.

She knows full well what I'm saying. She's just trying to do I'm not exactly sure what, but we'll carry on with the questioning.

The Chair: It is the Chair's hope that we will return to debate over section 1 of Bill 16.

J. MacPhail: In fact, we're talking about coalbed gas, we're talking about disposition, we're talking about natural gas, we're talking about natural gas tenure, we're talking about parcel, and we're talking about surface owner. Could everybody just settle down? My questions are relevant.

I'll tell you something. This minister…. I love it. I love it again. I don't know how many times, but it actually is sinking in. This minister excels at this. He goes: "Well, we're no worse than the previous government." That's what his refuge is in terms of his response. He campaigned over and over and over again on a new era and saying things would be so much better.

In fact, the previous government didn't have secret government caucus committees paid by the public purse. They didn't. If meetings were held where ministry staff attended, there were written presentations that were made public. That's what the thing was. I'm sorry. I think the minister has been hoisted on his own petard. First of all, he says: "Oh no, government caucus meeting discussions aren't going to be released, but my ministry staff's consultations are going to be released." Then, when it turns out the ministry staff have had consultations with the government caucus, he says: "Oh no, I didn't mean that."

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Deregulation over there is finally contributing to the debate. I didn't think he was still with us in a way that means…. I know he's always been present in the House, but it's nice to see that he actually has an opinion on something. It doesn't actually have to be a helpful opinion, but he's got something on that.

Again, here we have a secretive government. Now, I do know that the member for Cariboo South has been removed as chair of the Government Caucus Committee on Natural Resources. I hope it didn't have anything to do with what I thought was a frank and honest contribution to the debate at second reading.

Can the minister elaborate on just what the liabilities are for coalbed methane extraction?

Hon. G. Cheema: Today I have the pleasure of introducing students from Boundary Park Elementary School in the great riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Rosenthal, Alex Dewar, Sherry Crippen, Garry Jones, Kelly Jowett and Christina Unrau. These constituents of mine are in grades 5 and 6 and show a keen interest in the democratic process. I wish them well in their studies and anticipate some of them may run for a public office one day. Hopefully, they will wait until I'm ready to give up my seat. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are some environmental aspects around conventional natural gas, conventional oil, coalbed methane — almost any natural resource extraction. We have environmental impacts just driving our cars to work, driving to the Legislature or flying an airplane back and forth from Vancouver to here. What we're saying is that there are, in fact, some impacts environmentally. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which has been in place in the province for quite a long time, will actually govern how we drill for coalbed methane.

J. MacPhail: The member for Cariboo South also noted that Hat Creek coalfield is in his riding, that one of the reasons for this bill is B.C. Hydro has ownership of the Hat Creek coalfield and that a lack of certainty about the ownership of the methane in the coalfield has hindered development of that methane. How will this bill assist in ensuring a definition that will ensure the development of the Hat Creek site?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, across the whole province, not just across Hat Creek, what we are doing is putting into legislation what has been policy for some 25 years — that coalbed gas is natural gas and not part of the coal. What this does is establish ownership for coalbed methane in legislation.

J. MacPhail: My next question is a historical question. Does Suncor still hold mining or drilling rights at Hat Creek?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll research that. I don't know whether Suncor still has any rights that are available to

them in Hat Creek. There is a sunset clause to those rights when they do buy them where they expire.

J. MacPhail: I noted in my research that Suncor had drilling plans in 1998, so that's why I'm asking the questions about whether those are still alive.

Has the minister met with the Bonaparte Indian band regarding the extraction of coalbed methane on their traditional territory?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the ministry has contacted all the first nations in the area of the Hat Creek.

J. MacPhail: What was the Bonaparte Indian band's position on extraction of coalbed methane?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There were numerous meetings held with bands. At the end of the day, I don't have that information with me — how they felt about it. We can find out what that is. They may have wanted us to keep that confidential. I'm not sure.

J. MacPhail: No, they don't. They made it public that their long-term plan for coalbed methane is to leave it in the ground. The reason why I'm asking these questions is because this bill is supposed to bring clarity and certainty to land use for coalbed methane extraction. That's why I was asking about Suncor. These arose out of points that the member for Cariboo South made. That's why I asked about Suncor, and that's why I asked about how it could possibly bring certainty when indeed the Bonaparte Indian band — Hat Creek is on their traditional territory — say they're not going to allow extraction of coalbed methane. Has the minister met with ranchers in the Hat Creek area?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the ministry people have met with the ranchers in the Hat Creek area also.

The purpose of the bill is to establish ownership, which used to be in policy. We're putting it into legislation. That is not to get certainty on the land base all the time. Obviously, with first nations there are treaties. The member knows quite well there are treaties to be done all over British Columbia. We move forward in a lot of areas in the province with natural resource extraction taking into account, consulting with and working with first nations. Those that want to produce the coalbed methane would have an obligation to consult with first nations also, as does the government. What this does is bring clarity to the ownership of it, and that has been part of the problem up until now.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and that's why we're discussing this. That's why we're having this debate. What was the response to this type of land use by the ranchers in the Hat Creek area?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No different than the landowners in Hudson's Hope or the landowners in northeastern British Columbia north of Fort St. John or around Fort Nelson or Dawson Creek. They want to know what impact it will obviously have on their land base. The ministry people are continuing to work with those people to make sure that we take into account their concerns and that we try to deal with them in the fairest manner possible, remembering that we want to extract the coalbed methane so that those same people can continue to enjoy health care and education in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: The ranchers in Hat Creek raised some of the same concerns as the people of Hudson's Hope?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not sure. I wasn't in Hat Creek. I was in Hudson's Hope. There were staff who went to Hat Creek.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know, and that's why staff are with the minister. Could he consult with them and answer my question, please?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I assume they had many of the same concerns, such as spacing and how you deal with water. Those are two of the major concerns regardless of where you go in the province. They would have those concerns.

J. MacPhail: An update prepared by a geologist in the Ministry of Energy and Mines in June of 2001 noted that in the Hat Creek coalfield, "the low rank of the coal means that the generation of thermogenic methane will be small to nil, and the ability of the coal to absorb methane will also be low."

I guess what the report also said was that the good thing about this coalfield is that it's so large, the small concentration of gas is offset by the size of the coalbed. Can the minister tell the House just how many wells would have to be drilled to recover the necessary amount of gas to make exploration economically viable in Hat Creek?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If the whole basin were totally developed on 160-acre spacing, it would have actually 250 wells.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Was that the basin of Hat Creek? The minister is nodding yes.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill also entered the debate at second reading to claim that the development of coalbed methane on Vancouver Island will be a big creator of jobs. How many jobs does the minister anticipate to be created with any development of coalbed methane on Vancouver Island? Of course, Vancouver Island is one of the areas where certainty of ownership is promoted by this bill.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As in Hat Creek, in Hudson's Hope or on Vancouver Island, until the companies get some sense of being able to drill some wells and get some sense of how much coalbed methane is actually

in the coal seams, it's hard to put an estimate on that. I can tell the member that the communities of Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, to a degree, and the communities of Taylor and Fort Nelson actually have thousands of jobs in those communities that are related to the extraction of conventional natural gas and oil.

Our economy in the northeast is actually doing fairly well because of the activity of the oil and gas industry. Of course, that isn't to say that the activity of the agricultural industry and the forest industry aren't important, because they are just as important. To put the number of jobs on it, I can't…. I'm not going to stand in the House and take a wild guess at it until we even know what's there.

At the end of the day, they may drill it and find out there's not enough there to produce. It's exactly the same as conventional natural gas. Companies buy the right to drill in different areas. They don't know how much is going to be there, but they'll go out and drill it and find out whether it's actually commercially viable. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

J. MacPhail: That's fair enough. I understand what the minister is saying. I was just wondering why the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill would make the claim that coalbed methane will be a big creator of jobs on Vancouver Island. I was wondering on what he was basing that, because I agree with what the minister is saying.

The minister and many in his caucus, including the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, have claimed that coalbed methane is an alternate fuel because it burns cleaner than natural gas. I'm wondering whether the minister can tell the House if the burning of methane, whether it be coalbed or natural gas, contributes to the accumulation of greenhouse gas. If it does, is there a difference in how the two contribute to the accumulation of greenhouse gas?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Coalbed methane and natural gas will both put into the atmosphere the same kinds of greenhouse gases, yes.

J. MacPhail: I expect that what the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill meant to say was that coalbed methane is a cleaner fuel because it is a natural gas. It's not an alternate fuel. What I understand alternate fuels to mean is those that are typically alternative to fossil fuels, but he probably meant a cleaner fuel.

The minister says this bill is about getting certainty on Vancouver Island, about who owns the coalbed methane. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill made some grand statements about job and wealth creation from coalbed methane on the Island, but I'm sure the minister will know of the estimates of the potential coalbed methane. Those estimates are about 90 trillion cubic feet for the whole province.

He will also know from his own reports that about 20 percent of that amount will actually be recoverable, and he will probably also know that of that 90 trillion cubic feet, 74 percent is in the Peace River. Can the minister tell the House just how much coalbed methane there is estimated to be on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I didn't finish that last question as thoroughly as I should have. I think the member was talking about it as cleaner because it doesn't have H2S in it. Conventional natural gas has lots of H2S in it that has to be stripped out of the natural gas. I'm sure he was referring to that, because that is not in coalbed methane.

J. MacPhail: That's about 1.4 percent of the total in the province, and it looks like only about 200 billion cubic feet are actually recoverable. As I understand it, much of this coalbed methane gas is situated directly under the cities of Nanaimo and Comox and may, for that reason, not be recoverable.

Before we conclude with this section, I just wanted to note that by comparison, the Duke Energy main line moves about 1.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day from northeast B.C. to the border at Sumas.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the Duke Energy pipeline from the northeast part of the province delivers 1.1 trillion cubic feet of conventional natural gas on a yearly basis.

J. MacPhail: Section 5 is entitled "Minister may issue natural gas tenure of coalbed gas rights." It reads: "Under section 72 (2) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the minister may issue a natural gas tenure of coalbed gas rights to any person with respect to specified coal deposits underlying a parcel."

Under section 5, how does this bill address subsurface ownership issues on Vancouver Island? I'm thinking specifically on the old Esquimalt and Nanaimo lands — E&N.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct. There are a lot of titles on Vancouver Island, and in fact, there are titles to the ownership of minerals, petroleum and natural gas, specifically, on the railroad grant lands and some of the land that was granted prior to the 1900s.

What you have to do is actually research the titles. The ministry is researching titles on Vancouver Island. It's a fairly extensive job, but they are researching it to try and determine where actual ownership is, whether it's with the province or with the landowner. Or it could be with the proponent that's purchased the right to drill in some part of the province.

J. MacPhail: Do we know who owns the subsurface rights on the old E&N lands?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm advised that…. I mean, we're talking about 100 years of history and some records not being as good as others. If you determine that the surface owner owns the coal, they don't own the coalbed gas.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that, except the minister is saying this bill will bring certainty to those kinds of questions. In fact, that's the purpose of this bill.

I can understand this government wanting to send a symbol to the mining industry that the province is open for business, but what I'm trying to find out is exactly what this bill does to alleviate existing claims on Vancouver Island.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We are trying to establish clarity to the ownership of coalbed gas across the whole province, not just on Vancouver Island. The E&N Railway grants obviously make it a little more difficult on Vancouver Island, and there are also some in the Kootenays. But it's a component of clearing up titles on Vancouver Island and who owns what. At the end of the day, if someone owns the natural gas rights, they own the coalbed gas. If they just own the coal, they don't own the coalbed gas.

J. MacPhail: I'm aware that land ownership issues around Vancouver Island certainly require certainty, but what other areas of the province will be affected by this legislation?

J. MacPhail: Are there other issues that are as contentious as Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the most, shall I say, difficult places would be Vancouver Island and the coal lands in the Kootenays, because of the CPR land grants at the turn of the century.

J. MacPhail: Under section 5, the section we're debating — "Minister may issue natural gas tenure of coalbed gas rights" — does the minister have a duty to report to the public, either through the local newspaper or by the erection of a sign, the disposition of that land?

J. MacPhail: I'm aware that in 1986 the Social Credit government passed the Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act, and that act required public reporting of disposition to the local community. Is that still in effect?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I'm told, the act is still in effect. In fact, it has only been used for two parcels, and that was for British Petroleum — I believe the member is right — in 1986. That was brought forward, and the act was used to say they had the rights to drill for the natural gas.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Let me just read the title of this section. It says, "No compensation or right of action" — basically the principle this government is taking on pretty much everything. It says: "A person has no right of action and must not commence or maintain proceedings, as a result of the enactment of this Act or the exercise by the minister of powers referred to in section 5 or 7, (a) to claim damages or compensation of any kind from the government, or (b) to obtain a declaration that damages or compensation are payable by the government."

It's becoming a standard clause. This clause really protects the government from a person who may seek compensation due to disposition of tenure or as a result of methane venting. It is what I have referred to in debate as a CYA clause. What's the purpose of this section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm informed…. It's not expropriation. We're just confirming and defining to say that that coalbed methane is a natural gas. If someone out there has and can confirm with the government that they actually own the petroleum and natural gas rights, this doesn't take anything away from them. They actually own it. But all it does is confirm what's been the practice and what's been policy for the past 25 years. So what it says is, to the coal owner: "You don't own the coalbed gas."

J. MacPhail: Then let me ask this question. What protection does an individual landowner have if their property is damaged as a result of coalbed methane extraction or exploration?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's actually a process that has to happen when rights are sold and a company purchases those rights to drill for coalbed methane. We'll use that as an example. That doesn't mean they can just go out and start drilling for coalbed methane. There's a process that is put in place. In fact, on the title, when they bid for the right, there will be rules and regulations put on, caveats, maybe some special things that are on there, so they know it basically in a broad sense before they buy it.

The second part is that they would have to go to the Oil and Gas Commission to get permission to get a well licence to go out and drill. Part of that process is that the Oil and Gas Commission and the proponent have to deal with first nations issues. They also have to deal with the landowner issues and actually go to the landowner and make some kind of deal. This is commonly done all over northeastern B.C. where we do conventional natural gas and oil well drilling. In fact, I

believe most people that have gas wells on their land get probably an average of $6,000 a year — somewhere in that neighbourhood — for the right to use that small portion of land, although it may be larger in some areas, depending on how the private land owner can deal with the proponent.

J. MacPhail: So given that, will the Oil and Gas Commission be in charge of regulating this, or will it be an industry-led practices regime?

J. MacPhail: Now, I'm wondering…. We did discuss in estimates the Oil and Gas Commission's record of compliance for 2002. The minister and I debated that. There was a 44 percent increase in non-compliance of water regulations, and investigations had fallen by two-thirds. The minister did explain that. But I'm looking to the minister now to see what guarantees are there in regard to the safety of landowners and the environment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Oil and Gas Commission, as the regulator, has the responsibility to regulate the industry. There is a set of regulations, and as I said, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act applies. They also have the responsibility to make sure that the environment is being monitored and that all the things that are on the permit are actually being adhered to. As the member noted, in some cases it isn't so.

I guess it's like getting a speeding ticket once in a while. You have made a mistake. There are actually regulations within the ministry that if it is a serious mistake. They can shut the operation down, carte blanche — that quick. If it's not serious, if it's minor in some way — what they call "determined minor" — they will ask for compliance to actually make sure that whatever was being done wrong is actually looked after in a satisfactory way to the Oil and Gas Commission. There are some pretty stringent rules.

I just want to go back to the oil and gas compliance review. Actually, this was a compliance review done with Water, Land and Air Protection, Sustainable Resource Management, the Oil and Gas Commission and the Ministry of Energy and Mines. What they did and what they do is go across the whole northeast, because that's where the drilling takes place, and they actually go to different places and see if they're living up to what they should be living up to.

I just want to say a few things into the record. Stream crossings were 93 percent compliance; 96 percent compliance with well sites; specialty wastes, 100 percent compliant; forestry, 96 percent compliant; gravel, 100 percent compliant.

The major problems — and the member is right and, rightfully so, should bring them forward — were identified for two activities. One was sewage management and disposal, 62 percent. That's definitely not acceptable, and the Oil and Gas Commission has clamped down on that. The second one is water usage by camp rigs and seismic, 56 percent. It didn't have to do with water disposal. I'm not trying to say what they did was right, but it didn't have to do with water disposal or any of those kinds of things.

I don't want to get people to think that the companies weren't adhering to what they had to do with water that was produced from wells. Actually, I read the whole report. There were quite a few places where the water hauler for the rig — that means the truck that goes out and loads water in some river or something and hauls it to the rig, because they use a fair amount of water when they're drilling for natural gas — didn't have the permit with him or her in the truck.

That's a minor infraction. Another one, which is more serious, is that they were going to a place where they were taking water out of creeks that had beaver dams on them. That's a no-no. The industry knows that. What they had done was actually drained some beaver dams. That was taken care of, and you can't do that anymore.

It ranges from those kinds of things. A lot of it was: "I don't have a permit in the truck," or "I didn't have a permit to actually go get the water."

J. MacPhail: What's the view of the minister on surface owners being at risk and/or surface owners having to absorb risk?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Risk is a pretty broad definition. Maybe she could define it a little bit more. What do you mean by risk?

J. MacPhail: Sure, I'd be happy to. For instance, does the Oil and Gas Commission collect a security deposit from the owner of the rights to coalbed methane that perhaps would cover cleanup of the land, environmental impacts — something like that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the Oil and Gas Commission collects a fee for every well drilled. I believe it's $7,800 a well. Part of that goes to first nations to help with capacity-building to deal with issues in regard to oil and gas, and the other portion is held within the Oil and Gas Commission to actually operate the commission and to look after the operations of the commission.

J. MacPhail: As I understand it, we're entering new territory here as a province where the surface rights and the subsurface rights are being separated, or the coalbed rights and the coalbed methane rights are being separated. There's different ownership. I'm wondering whether there's any sort of security deposit taken from the coalbed methane operators that will save the surface landowners harmless from cleanup costs or environmental impact costs.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is right: there are times when oil and gas companies actually don't live

up to their responsibilities and their agreements with landowners and with the province. There are, I believe, one dozen wells that are what we call orphan wells in the province. It's actually the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission and the government to make sure those orphan wells are looked after in a proper way if they are to be, as they say, put to bed or the land reclaimed. Part of the permit is that the land has to be reclaimed to the same condition it was prior to the drilling. Those kinds of things are in place. Part of the $7,500 goes to that.

We're actually developing, prior to it getting to be a problem in the province, an orphan well fund so that we can actually have that fund paid for by the oil and gas industry to make sure we have that funding moving forward to look after any places where there may be some damage that hasn't been looked after properly. But at the end of the day, the province is held liable for those 12 sites today.

J. MacPhail: Section 7 is entitled "Exception for safety reasons." It says: "If the minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for safety reasons, the minister, may, by regulation, authorize coal owners or the holders of crown coal dispositions to vent or dispose of coal bed gas as directed."

I understand that this clause is permissive, but I've also, in my research and talking to people and receiving correspondence from people…. People are very concerned about methane venting. How frequently does the minister expect this clause to be utilized?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, this is for underground coalmines. We actually have, I believe, one in the province today. That's in Strathcona Park — Quinsam. What they have to do is vent the coalbed methane so they don't have an explosion in the mine and kill miners down below. That's the safety reason. Actually, coal methane, or the gas, is lighter than air, so it vents up fairly quickly.

J. MacPhail: I assume by the minister's treatment of my question…. Methane venting is controversial, isn't it? The reason I say that is I would expect that the ministry would try to use or permit a minimum amount of methane venting.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct. The ministry doesn't, I'm informed, want to just have all of it vented. If there is some other way of capturing the gas and removing it out of the underground mine rather than just venting it to the airshed, that's preferred. That all depends on, I guess, how much gas is actually in the coal.

J. MacPhail: This section allows for the minister to do this by regulation, so how will those regulations occur? What process is the minister going to engage to make regulations for methane venting?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm informed that would be in the mine health and safety code. And actually, maybe a little further to that, it's been there for quite a long time, so it's not…. Quinsam has been operating for a while, and there have been other underground coalmines over the years in the province, so there was a need for it. But as I said earlier, we don't want to vent all of it if we can possibly capture it.

J. MacPhail: So the regulations for methane venting are already in place, and they're the ones that will stand?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The answer is yes, and from here, we're not trying that the minister takes that away from the mine health and safety code. It's for some other reasons.

Hon. R. Neufeld: This section, I'm informed, is really not to take anything away — the minister taking any right away from what's actually already in place with the mine health and safety code. What it does is it doesn't prevent someone with ownership from not having to deal with the venting of coalbed gas.

J. MacPhail: I'm just hoping, and what I'll be watching for is to see whether the regulations that have been in place forever are modern enough to deal with an expansion of methane coal production. That's where I was coming from on it.

The minister said in second reading of this act that he's learned from the experience of the United States. Venting is quite frequent in the United States, and that's where I got my feeling, my bent, that it was controversial. How will he apply what he's learned from the United States to protect against the destruction that occurs where venting occurs? That's what I meant when I wanted him to explore with me how he's modernizing the methane venting regulations.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I might not have been as clear on this as I should have been. This is not to develop a set of regulations around the venting of coalbed gas. What it does say, by regulation, is that the minister can say to someone that the mine health and safety code must be abided by when you're venting gas from coal, because they don't own the gas. What we have to do is tell them that they can actually vent it or collect it, whichever makes good sense.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So this section doesn't apply to the new producers of coalbed methane.

I don't think the minister and I are talking at cross-purposes, but I want to be clear on this. My under-

standing is that methane venting should be minimized or avoided as much as possible, and that if anything's to be learned from the U.S. experience, it's that. The minister said he learned from the U.S. experience, but that U.S. experience has taken place — we've learned from that — since those regulations were made to which the minister refers.

What I'm looking for is reassurance that whatever regulations are in place around venting are modern enough and have been modernized enough to learn from the adverse experiences of the United States around this issue.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult either. We actually do want to do it in the best fashion we can, as we learned from the U.S. The mine health and safety code regulations will be updated all the time so that we actually use the best technology and the best available advice we can — up to date all the time.

I agree with the member. We're not wanting to say you can vent at any time. We want to make sure it's done in a safe manner.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and one of the issues that occurs with methane venting is an exacerbation of greenhouse gas. Has the minister consulted with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on trying to get agreement on what's an acceptable level of methane venting?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Venting, as it's talked about in section 7, has to do with underground coalmines. We only have one underground coalmine in the province, and that's, as I said earlier, Quinsam on Vancouver Island. They are already regulated under that mine health and safety code. I'm not exactly sure how much they vent at the present time, but the ministry could certainly get that information for the member.

That's what this is to deal with, not with the production of coalbed methane. The production of coalbed methane is not to vent it. It's actually to capture it and sell it.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but it's also my understanding — and I could be off base — that even in the production of coalbed methane, there's venting as well. Am I off base on that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually not. It's flaring. There is a certain amount of flaring that takes place in the production or in the early stages of trying to find out, in a project, how much coalbed methane you actually have. So that's flared; it's not vented.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Is there regulation around flaring and limits to flaring? Or will there be?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. In the Oil and Gas Commission, there are regulations around flaring — how much you can flare, where you can flare and for how long. All those are in place, because there's flaring that happens in other conventional and oil extraction.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 16, Coalbed Gas Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Cheema: Can we call the Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management?

Hon. S. Hagen: This morning the member asked for a lot of information that I didn't have at the time, and I apologize for that. However, I do now have the information. I'm going to just read it into the record.

I want to start with a correction. The correct number for the forest investment account, the amount of money we're spending on inventory collection, has been corrected to $22 million. The rest of these are questions raised during the debate.

The number of relocations this past year of salmon farms is one. The number relocated since 1999 is five. Which sites are relocated? The Stolt farm from Eden Island to Humphrey Rock, and the tenure at Eden Island

is no longer in place. I think I mentioned that this morning. How many in Broughton will be relocated? Two currently in progress/completed; five not yet started.

Ocean Falls record of consultation: the aboriginal interest assessment was completed. The agency followed the aboriginal interest assessment procedures that were in place at the time, which I'm filing.

Omega has applied to a conversion of their existing licence of occupation for the fish hatchery site to a lease. This request has been referred to the Heiltsuk first nation and will be assessed in accordance with the new provincial consultation policy that was released in October of 2002.

The Humphrey Rock–Gilford Island record of consultation — if you'll forgive me for not listing the names. Eden Island was identified for relocation due to being within one kilometre of a first nation reserve and being subject to severe weather patterns. Referrals for the Humphrey Rock site were sent to all of the first nations in the area and the tribal council, the MTTC, on April 10, 2001. Responses were received from all. An open house to discuss siting impacts was offered via the MTTC. This was declined. A public open house was held in Alert Bay on June 20, 2001. Many of the MTTC hereditary chiefs did attend. Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff were in attendance. All information relating to Land Act tenure siting was considered during the adjudication. All information gathered through the open house process was shared with provincial and federal agencies.

It is our understanding that after the Land Act offer for tenure, DFO conducted separate first nation consultations via the CEAA process. This included meeting or attempting to meet with the Gilford band on Gilford Island. The CEAA process is complete, and a positive result was given.

I am also giving the member opposite the aboriginal interest assessment, to say that that was completed, and also a copy of the siting requirements — which I think you may have had, because they're on our website — the coordinated compliance and enforcement agreement, and the consultation guidelines.

I also have some numbers with regard to the scientific positions, and I'll also give this sheet to the member. In scientific positions at the end of '02-03, we had 388 positions. The reductions that took place were 54, which is a 14 percent reduction. In '03-05, we now have 334 scientific positions, and it's broken down to LSOs, hydrologists, biologists and scientific technical officers. I'm pleased to give all of these over to the member.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much. I appreciate those, and I'll examine them when we adjourn for today.

While we're still on the issue of tenure, I want to talk about the effects of the government's decisions as they relate to how they consult. As I understand it, there are several methods by which this government consults local governments, first nations and citizens. I want to explore the situation that's been reported of a citizen and the issue of tenure. I'm referring to the land and forest situation…. No, no, I'm sorry. That's second.

I want to go over, first of all, the situation in May of 2002, when a local businessman in Victoria was told that he must vacate a piece of land on Victoria's harbour. The business was located in this spot for 18 years before Land and Water B.C. decided to sell the land. It is reported that Land and Water B.C. never asked if the man wished to buy the land, nor was he informed when he renewed his tenure earlier in the year that Land and Water B.C. was negotiating to sell the piece of property. That's one situation. I want to ask how that matter had been resolved. It was reported publicly very recently.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not aware of the details of this piece of property, but apparently the file is fairly old. I'm more than happy to give the member a detailed briefing note on that. My understanding is that any of the deals that Land and Water B.C. does are subject to the ombudsman's review, and if there was anything that wasn't done properly, I'm sure that would have come to light. I'm more than happy to provide a very detailed briefing note on the file.

J. MacPhail: Yes. The report on it was May 25, 2002 — the Les Leyne column out of the Times Colonist. There hadn't been any update in the last three or four months on this matter. Is the minister saying that the man has the right to go to the ombudsman, or is it at the ombudsman?

J. MacPhail: I also want to explore the situation of Lannan forest. The Lannan forest is a 16-hectare property alongside Crown Isle Golf Course in the minister's riding. It was recently sold to Crown Isle to develop either golf holes or residential housing. In the process of the sale it is reported that Land and Water B.C. did not consult the community, the Comox Indian band or the municipal government. I want to just explore that particular one in terms of how efficiency also meets the test of transparency. I also want to put to the test whether new tenure policies mean faster access for the few at the expense of the environment.

I know the minister has stated in a public written question and then a public written answer that the sale of Lannan forest did not represent a significant threat to the environment and that the government considers all possible options before deciding a course of action. I just want to go through this. The public written question to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was from Jim Abram, regional district of Comox-Strathcona. I think the question was put on the record in the last week or certainly in the last couple of weeks. He asked the hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, regarding the minister's responsibility for Land and Water B.C., the following question: "As the minister responsible for Land and Water B.C. Inc.,

why have you allowed an agreement to sell the Lannan Crown forest to a private company to be signed without consulting local government, first nations or local community groups?"

The public written answer to the public written question was submitted to the Speaker and went on the books this week: "Thank you for your public written question submitted to the Speaker." The answer is from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, and I want to break it down. He says: "I have been informed by Land and Water B.C. Inc. that they consulted with the city of Courtenay commencing in the spring of 2002 and with the Comox-Strathcona regional district commencing in the fall of 2002. The Comox-Strathcona regional district had been advised in the spring of 2002 that Land and Water B.C. was reviewing options for the 16-hectare Lannan Road property."

I just want to pause there for a minute and offer the minister this. According to a Courtenay councillor, Land and Water B.C. never consulted with the city until the sale was final, and a director in the Comox-Strathcona regional district, Barbara Price, claims the district only found out about the sale of the property in February of 2003.

Hon. S. Hagen: Those two statements by two politicians are inaccurate. I'll read from a text of the letter that was sent to Her Worship Mayor Starr Winchester and councillors, city of Courtenay, dated April 7, 2003. This is a paragraph from page 3: "Land and Water British Columbia Inc. advised the city of Courtenay of its intention in April of 2002 and advised the regional district of the negotiation with Crown Isle in November of 2002. The regional district had previously advised that LWBC was considering options for the land and property and that LWBC did not support the transfer of the land to the regional district as a park."

Hon. S. Hagen: That letter is signed by Bill Valentine, the CEO of Land and Water B.C.

J. MacPhail: And it's dated this week. Well, don't we just have…? How does that make the minister correct? We have a dispute of fact. I'm not sure why the minister…. I'm sure he was using in the most positive sense — "two politicians." I'm not quite sure how the minister uses — in defence or to say that these people are wrong — a reiteration of Land and Water B.C.'s original position with which these councillors disagree. So we have a dispute of fact, and no matter how many times Land and Water B.C. try to say that they think they're right, I guess there's got to be some sort of substance, some sorts of tangibles that we can put our hands on — minutes of meetings or correspondence — that prove that the CSRD was consulted or the city of Courtenay. But a letter from Land and Water B.C. just restating what they already did doesn't do that.

The minister's answer to the question goes on to say: "Where public consultation processes already exist, such as public rezoning hearings, Land and Water B.C. would prefer to use such opportunities. Land and Water B.C. reviewed available information about aboriginal rights and title and treaty concerns in accordance with established provincial practices as part of its decision to make the Crown land available to stimulate employment and investment in the Comox Valley." That's the minister's response. I just pause for a moment. It's an interesting use of words: "Land and Water B.C. reviewed available information." Well, what is that information? The facts are that the Comox Indian band was neither told nor consulted on the sale, despite established provincial practices to carry out full consultation with first nations before removing the land from the treaty negotiating table. So in his reply, reviewed what available information?

Hon. S. Hagen: The first obligation that Land and Water B.C. has is to review all the information pertaining to the particular piece of property and from that, and following the consultation guidelines of the day, make a decision whether or not they consult with the local first nations band. In this case, they did not feel the information they had was something they would do that for under the guidelines.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The minister didn't think this qualified for consultation?

J. MacPhail: How does the minister respond to, from the Comox Indian band: "We are objecting to the alienation of the 16 hectares of Crown lands, on land and road, in the Comox Valley until our member nations have been fully consulted"? So the minister disagrees that they have a right to be consulted?

J. MacPhail: Sure, I can get it for you. I can certainly get it, but it's recent.

Hon. S. Hagen: The reason I asked for the date is that it may have happened after the sale.

J. MacPhail: It may have, but how does that take away from the statement they made? The issue here is that the city, the regional district and the Comox Indian band feel like this was done in secret — that the sale of this land was done secretly. Was there any notice of intention placed on the property? I'm told not.

Hon. S. Hagen: There was no sign placed on the property, I'm told, but as I mentioned before, the city of

J. MacPhail: Yes, okay. Well, it would be easy…. How did that advice occur? Wouldn't it be easy to just produce the letters of that advice rather than reading another letter from Land and Water B.C. dated April 7? We can solve this right now by showing what the advice was.

Hon. S. Hagen: The consulting that took place between the regional district and the city took place through meetings between staff of the city and the regional district and staff of Land and Water B.C. and is documented.

J. MacPhail: Was that documentation included to accompany the letter of April 7 that Land and Water B.C. sent to the regional district?

Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the member's question, it's not included in the letter, but when Land and Water B.C. senior staff met with the city of Courtenay last week, they reviewed the file with the city. The city of Courtenay now, I think, understands that there was, in fact, consultation that took place.

J. MacPhail: So the chair of the regional district of Comox-Strathcona shouldn't have asked this question, then? Is that what he's saying? By the way, the statement made by the Comox Indian band was March 6 of this year. Is it the minister's view that this has all been cleared up? My information is different and fresh.

Hon. S. Hagen: The sale, I'm told, is conditional upon the city of Courtenay bringing it inside the city boundaries of the city of Courtenay and conditional on the city of Courtenay zoning the property.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. That seemed to be a little bit of a non sequitur, but it may not be. Was that an answer that this matter has been resolved?

J. MacPhail: My information is different, so I'll pursue this matter. There was no notice of intention placed on the property. The chair of the regional district of Comox-Strathcona would dispute the minister saying that they were notified. Then we have a councillor, as well, disputing that. There was no intention placed on the property. Was a survey of the land done?

J. MacPhail: Where was that published? My information is that there wasn't a survey done. Where was it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am advised that there is, in fact, an actual survey of the property.

J. MacPhail: We can clear up a lot of this stuff by the minister just producing all these documents — it will be good news — and not documents from Land and Water B.C. saying we did do this, Land and Water B.C. producing documents showing that the events actually did occur.

This particular site wasn't listed as a property for sale on the Land and Water B.C. website. Why was that?

Hon. S. Hagen: Only 10 to 15 percent of the properties available for sale by LWBC are listed on the website. I'm told that we have a total of about 1,500 properties that are available for sale.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that one of the criteria for listing is when there is seen to be an active market interest in the property.

J. MacPhail: It certainly seems that there was a lot of active concern after this sale was made. Active market — some of that might be, if people actually knew it was up for sale.

I understand the value of the timber in land and forests is estimated at between $1 million and $2 million. Did the government receive fair compensation for the land?

Hon. S. Hagen: The information that Land and Water B.C. has indicates that the value of the forest on the property is about $40,000 net.

Hon. S. Hagen: The land deal has not closed yet. I'm not sure of the legalities of releasing that, because no prices have been released.

J. MacPhail: Okay. It's the minister's riding, and openness and transparency will only affect him. What other offers were considered?

Hon. S. Hagen: There were no other offers. There was no other interest. LWBC was working through the local government to maximize, through their zoning, the value of the property.

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that the regional district attempted to purchase the land in both January 2002 and August 2002.

J. MacPhail: The minister has some record of that? There must be a file on all of this — right? This is important land —16 hectares. The range of value of the timber goes from $40,000 by the ministry to $1 million to $2 million. Isn't there a document, a file of all this being recorded? Why is there so much confusion? The regional district, who are listening now, say they attempted to purchase the land in January 2002 and August 2002.

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a big file on this with lots of information, but the contents of that agreement relative to the purchase price and appraisal and everything else will not be released until after the sale has closed.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but the minister is asserting that the regional district wanted it free, and they're asserting that they wanted to purchase it. I guess there's a huge gulf here, is there?

J. MacPhail: Was an environmental assessment performed on the land? I just want to ask if it was Crown Isle that purchased this. Was it?

My understanding is actually that the regional district first asked for a free Crown grant. That was declined, and then they made an offer to purchase.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that if there was an offer to purchase, and I don't know that there was, it would have been made after the agreement was signed with Silverado.

I also wanted to answer…. The member asked a question with regard to environmental assessment. I'll just read you a paragraph here:

That's a letter from Land and Water British Columbia to the editor of the Comox Valley Record.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that I have to ask every single question in order to put this in context, but I'm not sure that it's going to wash with local citizens, Indian bands, the regional district and the city of Courtenay if the minister keeps putting forward justification of arguments made by Land and Water B.C. who were the ones being charged with the secret sale here. I think what the people who are concerned about this are looking for is some openness and transparency and some independence of decision-making.

Hon. S. Hagen: I understand it was not part of the greenbelt. It was part of the provincial forest.

J. MacPhail: I've heard that a representative from Land and Water B.C. recently said that a golf course represents green space. Of course, Crown Isle and Silverado, who I understand are integrally linked, own a golf course or want to develop a golf course. I think the minister knows them quite well. Is that true? Does Land and Water B.C. see that a golf course represents green space?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, what I just read into the record was the technical report, which says that the only way this property is going to be developed in the short term is if it is annexed to the city of Courtenay and coordinated with the Crown Isle development. I believe the property is next door to the Crown Isle development.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I asked a question about a golf course. A Land and Water B.C. representative is reputed to say — alleged — that a golf course represents green space. Annexing could mean that it stays as a forest, or it could be expanded to be a golf course. Does a golf course represent green space?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not going to respond to a comment that the member thinks she might have heard or might have read. If she wants to show me the comment in writing, I'll respond to it.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Does a golf course represent green space according to the minister?

J. MacPhail: This government doesn't have any determination about land use, golf courses — that kind of thing?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm trying to figure out what the question is. That's why Land and Water B.C. works with local government. In this case, they came to an understanding and a conclusion that the best use for this property would be to have it brought into the city of Courtenay and sold to Silverado.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure it will be interesting to see on record the minister's views on green space and golf courses.

Land and Water B.C. makes a number of assumptions in its service plan. Included in these is the assertion that the public and business community want a more open, accountable and transparent Crown land and water allocation process. How do you think that went with the allocation and the sale of Lannan forest?

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly, with the use of the website and other means, we're continuing to make the processes that are followed more transparent. There are always improvements that can be made. I know the corporation is always looking at how to improve the system it has in place. Certainly, on the number of transactions that are carried out a year by Land and Water B.C., whether they be land or water tenures or sales, the number of complaints is extremely small.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I ask the question about greenspace is because the regional area plan designates this property as greenspace. I'm told that the Land and Water B.C. representative said a golf course would qualify for that. That's why I asked the minister's own view of this. This is in his own back yard. I have to say it is an issue that was brought to the opposition's attention by not one, not two, not five but lots of people in the area. I expect that they will judge whether the minister's answers are satisfactory or not. Certainly, I think the people may say that there are still some questions left to be answered, but we'll have time to do that when we get back in a couple of weeks as well.

I'm going to move to the LRMP process. What's the status of the Central Coast land and resource management plan?

Hon. S. Hagen: The Central Coast LRMP is proceeding extremely well. The table, as I think I mentioned in my last estimates, has been reduced to about 17 individuals, six of whom are first nations. The first nations are totally engaged in the process.

We have a coast information team doing the science to back that up. The science is taking a little longer than we projected, so I've postponed the final date for the completion of the LRMP to December 31 of '03.

At the same time, we're commencing government-to-government consultations and negotiations with first nations with the science that we have available. We'll have the science available, I think, as we need it. The first nations have agreed to this, and we're proceeding.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I did check Estimates from last year, and it was actually a performance measure of this ministry to complete the Central Coast LRMP by the end of '02-03.

The minister has extended the deadline for a specific reason. Was that the reason why he didn't meet his performance measure? Is there a performance measure concerning this in this year's plan?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I explained to the member, the reason the time line was extended was that the scientific information that we need to back up the plan was not ready. We wanted to give the scientists and the coast information team the time to give us the science. If we don't have the science, the plan isn't worth much. We have to have that science.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand what the minister is saying. I'm asking him why. What happened to delay the completion of the scientific information? It was a performance measure. I would imagine this would be taken fairly seriously.

I'll be asking the Premier, in his estimates, about all performance measures and the value and meaning of them. A performance measure for this ministry was that the Central Coast LRMP would be completed by '02-03. There's no performance measure that I can find this year in the minister's service plan. I'll be questioning the Premier about how valuable these performance measures are.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member opposite knows, the Central Coast is a very complex area of our province. The coast information team has been working very, very hard to gather the information they needed, but they would not be able to guarantee that they could complete that information by March 31 or June 30.

In order to keep the process moving ahead, we've engaged with first nations, who have agreed with us. As a matter of fact, I think we have a protocol now to move on with government-to-government negotiations with first nations. All of the three things will come to a completion by December 31.

Hon. S. Hagen: I was advised by the chair of the table in December of '02 and met with the first nations involved in February of '03 and came to an agreement with them at that time to extend the deadline until the end of the year.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister on track for interim planning measures by June 30?

J. MacPhail: What other LRMP completion deadlines have been altered this year?

Hon. S. Hagen: The only other one that's been altered is the Lillooet land use plan.

J. MacPhail: What's the status of the North Coast land and resource management plan?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I forgot to ask what the value is of the resources that the ministry is putting into the Central Coast LRMP and then also for the North Coast LRMP.

Hon. S. Hagen: If you'd like to make note of these numbers. Central coast information team funding is $700,000; $700,000 from the forest investment account; $250,000 from the ministry; and in planning on the central coast, approximately $1 million.

J. MacPhail: That's a commitment of almost $2 million in government resources. For the North Coast LRMP…. I'm actually going to ask these details of each land use planning mechanism. I'll just tell the minister this. I'd like to know the status of the…. These are the plans that in the performance targets need to be completed by this fiscal year: Queen Charlotte Islands LRMP, Sea to Sky LRMP and the Morice LRMP.

Hon. S. Hagen: The only one that we're not going to make our target on is the Queen Charlotte Islands one, which is going to go until June '04. The rest, we think, are on target.

Hon. S. Hagen: The total cost of all of the LRMPs underway is about $9 million.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister put on record the reasons for the change in the deadline for the Queen Charlotte Islands LRMP?

Hon. S. Hagen: At the February meeting that I had with the first nations, Guujaaw, the Chief of the Haida, asked if we would defer starting the land use planning process in the Queen Charlottes, and I agreed to that.

Hon. S. Hagen: We needed to complete a framework agreement that we had with Land and Water British Columbia, and the Chief needed more time to consult with his people.

J. MacPhail: What's the status of the Lillooet land and resource management plan and the Southern Chilcotin Mountains park?

Hon. S. Hagen: The status is that for the first time in the history of British Columbia, we've engaged with the Lillooet first nations. That has taken a lot of work on my behalf and my staff's behalf, but we're progressing extremely well. We've had several meetings, going back as far as September of last year. I'm very, very pleased to be able to say that we now do have or will have an agreement signed with them. We want to make sure that they are fully consulted and accommodated as we proceed with this plan.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could expand on this new wrinkle, because a decision was expected in March of 2002. He knew about the Lillooet first nations then. He said the decision was going to come in July of 2002, then October of 2002. When will it be ready, and what effect does this — what the minister calls for the first time consultation with the Lillooet first nations — have to do with the decision?

Hon. S. Hagen: Good question and an important question. The fact of the matter is that when the Lillooet land use plan was released by the former government in April or May of 2001, there had been no consultation with first nations. We were starting from square one, and it took us a while to start building the relationships of trust and respect that it takes. We've been doing this in the central coast. We're doing it on the north coast. We're doing it in the Queen Charlottes–Haida Gwaii. We're doing it in Sea to Sky. We're doing it in the Morice, and now we're doing it in Lillooet.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will come as a surprise to a lot of people that the Lillooet first nations weren't consulted in the five-year process that led to the land use decision of April 2001. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to a huge amount of people that the five-year process didn't involve Lillooet first nations. Is that what the minister is suggesting?

J. MacPhail: I think that's probably a convenient interpretation of this minister's failure to deliver on his commitment to the mining industry. This is very interesting. When did the minister announce this wrinkle?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Did the minister announce it was because of the Lillooet first nation that he was revisiting this whole issue?

J. MacPhail: I expect that will come as a big surprise to a lot of people — a lot of people. I'm sure it will come as a surprise that the minister is now advocating this position as a delay in putting forward a five-year process in which communities reached a decision — including first nations. The minister is now relying on using first nations as a reason why he's not proceeding with making a decision or enforcing the decision that was made in that five-year process.

J. MacPhail: It's a change in that the land and resource management plan passed by the previous government made it a park. Am I correct?

J. MacPhail: I'm going to put these questions on the record. The minister is being advised by, I guess, the man who's the expert in this area. But boy, I'm sure this debate that he and I are having will come as a big surprise to many, many, many in the community.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to correct her definition. It's not a park; it's a protected area.

I'm not aware of any logging underway in the park. I know there was a small encroachment quite a while ago, a year and a half ago or something like that. That's been straightened out, but to my knowledge there's no logging underway in the protected area.

J. MacPhail: So the Ainsworth company that was taking advantage of the political change in November of 2001 had begun logging in Bonanza Basin. What did the minister do to stop that?

Hon. S. Hagen: My staff worked with Ministry of Forests staff and stopped the logging.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not aware of any compensation paid. If there was, it would have been done by Forestry.

Hon. S. Hagen: If there was an approval given, it would have been under the Forests ministry, under the forest plan that would have been filed. But I'm not aware of that, because it's not in my purview.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm asking these questions is because of the new-era commitment to make all cabinet decisions on parks public, but I guess the minister's hiding behind the fact that he's claiming this is a protected area.

Will the minister make the decommissioning of parks on science-based decisions, and if so, who makes those? What scientific evidence will he rely on to make those decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: If a decision like that is going to be made, the values of the resources are taken into consideration, whether those resources are mining, oil and gas, forestry, agriculture or whatever they are. We compare those with the biodiversity values. A socioeconomic study is done. A first nations consultation takes place. A recommendation then comes to cabinet and then to open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Everywhere I've read — everywhere, and there's no challenge anywhere — it refers to a 72,000-hectare South Chilcotin Mountains park that was protected by the former provincial government on April 17, 2001, and that this was overturned by this government, now, on November 15, 2001.

Hon. S. Hagen: On countless occasions as I meet with environmental groups and as I have done ever since I've become the minister, ever since we commenced discussions on Lillooet, I have continually pointed out to them — in correspondence as well — that this is not a park. It has never been a park. It's a protected area.

J. MacPhail: And so the minister is suggesting that there was no decommissioning by his government?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have not made any changes to that piece of property as far as designation is concerned.

J. MacPhail: Not even…. He said no change in designation, so there was no change from them reversing the land use plan?

Hon. S. Hagen: The land use plan has not been reversed. It's being reviewed. It has not been reversed.

J. MacPhail: It was on the parks website, and I don't think it's there anymore. I checked today. Why was it removed from the parks website if there has been no change whatsoever?

Hon. S. Hagen: I suggest that's a question to pose to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. I don't do their website.

J. MacPhail: Then that last answer he gave is ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous.

The Lillooet first nations are happy, I guess, that this plan has been deferred and that they're now being consulted. What's the nature of that consultation? What's the nature of the new consultation?

Hon. S. Hagen: The discussions taking place with the Lillooet first nations involve engaging them in coming to an agreement on the objectives of the land use planning we're doing. We're looking at how they would be accommodated. There are 28 bands in the Lillooet nation, and we are working with all of them to make sure they're fully engaged at the table.

Hon. S. Hagen: There is no consultation going on with Cominco or Teck, but there is a mining representative who represents the industry.

J. MacPhail: In my research I found a letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail from Teck on December 13, 2002, and it's about this planning process. Here's what they write:

Hon. S. Hagen: Teck Cominco or the person who signed that letter is incorrect with their designation as a park. As I've said, as the records show and, certainly, as people who are engaged in this debate know, the 71,000 or 72,000 hectares in question are a protected area.

J. MacPhail: It's surprising how much misunderstanding there is on this issue — that after five years of consultation, only the minister has it right. It's quite interesting.

Hon. S. Hagen: There's no formal table as such, as in the central coast, but the staff is consulting with the first nations, with the community resource group out of Lillooet, and we've invited comments from any and all interested parties.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware, given this letter to the editor, that Cominco wants the government to commit to a 3,000-hectare park along the lakeshore instead of a 71,000-hectare park?

J. MacPhail: Does the Mining Association of B.C. have it wrong when they called on the government to tear up plans to create a park in the South Chilcotin Mountains park if it is serious about attracting mining investment to B.C.?

Hon. S. Hagen: If that's the position of the B.C. Mining Association, they're entitled to that position, just like any other group is entitled to a position. That does not mean it will be or is the position of government.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm just adding the Mining Association of B.C. to the list of people who have it wrong, according to the minister. That's what I'm doing. So far everybody has a different view than the minister of what this is.

It's my understanding that the area offers no or limited economic activity. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: There are high mineral values in that area; there are high recreational-conservation values in that area; there are some forestry values in that area. These have all come out in the socioeconomic study. They've been pointed out to us by COTA and by the Mining Association. There is a conglomerate of value in that resource.

Hon. S. Hagen: There is a socioeconomic document that I'd be pleased to share with the member.

I'm wondering. We've all attended MLA schmoozes about the South Chilcotin, which the tourism association thinks is a park as well. Of course, the tourism association — I attended that breakfast — is lobbying hard for this government to implement the plan that's already been agreed upon. They produced evidence that showed there's been no economic value out of this area for decades — none.

I also understand that phase 1 of the LRMP around Lillooet, which was put in place by the previous government and overturned by this, set aside 80 percent for uses such as mining. In fact, representatives from people like Placer, Phelps Dodge, Chevron, Dupont and BHP-Utah Mines have said that's plenty to ensure economic activity. What was it that disturbed the minister about needing to review that part?

Hon. S. Hagen: Actually, the decision to review came out of the campaign of 2001, in which case both the person running for the MLA's position and the leader of the party, who became the Premier, made a commitment to the community, at the request of the community, to take another look at the plan. The community was really worried there would not be anything left for economic development in Lillooet. The commitment was made during the campaign, and the commitment was fulfilled and carried out after the campaign, after we became government.

J. MacPhail: I have many, many more questions, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Deputy Speaker: We're going to take about a 15-minute recess. The Lieutenant-Governor will be arriving at 5:45 p.m. I will call the House back to order at that point. Thank you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. I. Campagnolo (Lieutenant-Governor): I wish you all a fine Passover and a very happy Easter. Enjoy the spring in all the parts of British Columbia. I'll look forward to seeing you when we go into the next session.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY