2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 3, Number 4

[ Page 775 ]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Representative for Children and Youth, Honouring Christian Lee: No Private Matter — Protecting Children Living with Domestic Violence.

Hon. C. Hansen: I have the privilege of tabling, in accordance with section 21 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the report of the Budget Process Review Panel.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Protected Areas of
British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: The Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009, contains amendments to the protected areas of British Columbia to continue our government's expansion of British Columbia's parks and protected area system. This bill carries forward the work that has gone into the balancing of environmental stewardship with economic development based on collaboration that has taken place between first nations, industry, conservation organizations, local governments and many other stakeholders.

Nine conservancies on Haida Gwaii that were established by order-in-council in December 2008 are listed in this bill for addition to the act, to provide increased protection for the conservancies and to complete a commitment to the Council of the Haida Nation.

[1005]

There are presently 143 conservancies established in this province, with the first of those established in 2006. The addition of these conservancies to the act means that all conservancies in the province are now listed in schedules to the act.

The provisions in this bill also include — Mr. Speaker, you'll take particular interest in this — the establishment of a new class A park in the Okanagan region in accordance with the Okanagan-Shuswap land and resource management plan, known as Skaha Bluffs provincial park; a new ecological reserve in the Skeena region; and additions of land to seven existing class A parks around the province.

In addition, a change in the name of one existing class A park is included in this bill as a result of discussions with first nations.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 4 in this chamber, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act; and in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates discussion for the Ministry of Forests.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 4 — Wills, Estates and
Succession Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

Section 59 approved.

On section 60.

L. Krog: As my reading of these sections…. With respect to 60, 61, 62, 63, they are simply the sections of the existing Wills Variation Act. If that's confirmed — and I'm sure it is — then we can pass those sections at once.

Hon. M. de Jong: First, I can happily reintroduce to the chamber Ms. Nancy Carter, to my left, and Mr. Tyler Nyvall, to my right, assisting us with the discussion today and confirm for the member that he is correct. There are no substantial changes to the provisions from the existing Wills Variation Act.
[ Page 776 ]

Sections 60 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

L. Krog: Briefly on section 64. That is essentially section 7, as I understand it, of the Wills Variation Act, but it also allows the court to order a trust be created in favour of the will-maker's spouse, which is a bit of a change. Is that correct?

[1010]

Hon. M. de Jong: The existing Wills Variation Act allowed for the payment of a lump sum. The member is correct. It is the enabling provision around the trust that is added to this section.

Sections 64 to 80 inclusive approved.

On section 81.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm that the effect of this section will be to abolish the doctrine of renvoi, an interesting legal principle. That's my understanding of this, and I wonder if the Attorney General can just explain that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Another interesting body of law that has arisen with respect to the existing section 42…. The purpose and effect of this section 81 is, first of all, to carry forward section 42 of the existing Wills Act, but with this addition or this alteration. That is the ability to examine the law of the testator's habitual residence as a body of law that can be consulted as well as the testator's domicile. In the event that there is a difference between those two, it allows consultation of the habitual residence as well.

Sections 81 and 82 approved.

On section 83.

L. Krog: My understanding is that section 83 is essentially going to adopt the provisions of the convention providing uniform law in the form of an international will. Apparently, Canada acceded to that convention in 1977. Everybody in Canada, so to speak, except British Columbia, Quebec and the territories, has passed implementing legislation. I'm just confirming that this is in fact strictly an implementation of the convention.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. This section 83 makes the convention providing a uniform law in the form of an international will domestic law in British Columbia. I'm advised that every other province except Quebec has taken a similar step.

Section 83 approved.

On section 84.

L. Krog: This deals with the issue of benefit plans. My reading of the section is that it's to prevail over inconsistent benefit plan provisions, but benefit plans under other legislation, in fact, will prevail over this section. I'm just wondering if that's not going to prove somewhat confusing, although in the event of a further conflict or inconsistency, other legislation will prevail over this part. It's one of those back-and-forth situations. I just wonder if the Attorney General can explain the impact of it.

[1015]

Hon. M. de Jong: Why don't I try it this way. I'll sort of offer the rationale or explanation for what is intended. If the member believes that there are provisions that either contradict that purpose or if he disagrees with the purpose, we can then explore that.

The intention is to ensure that designations involving RRSPs that are administered by insurance companies are governed by the Insurance Act. That's the first thing. I'm told that that has historically been the case but that there has, at times, been some ambiguity around this. So the section is intended to remove any ambiguity and clarify that fact. That is the primary purpose of the section.

Section 84 approved.

On section 85.

L. Krog: Again from a general perspective, this is a fairly technical section. A person entitled to a benefit plan may "designate another person or persons…for whose advantage the benefit is payable as a designated beneficiary," unless it's irrevocable under section 87, which we're coming to.

It also goes on to provide that it's effective and can be revoked only if it's in writing or if it's signed by the person making it. It "may be made in a will, but if it is, (i) the designation is only effective if it relates expressly to a benefit plan, either generally or specifically, and (ii) Division 3…applies to the designation, and (c) is subject to section 89," when designations can't be changed. Those are irrevocable ones.

I take it that the effect of this is to avoid the possibility of an accidental designation by virtue of the standard residuary clause in a will. Is that essentially the effect of this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that the member's description is partly correct, but I think that the section goes beyond that. I think it creates some additional mechanisms as well. In a situation where a designation has occurred in an RRSP, this makes it clear that via testamentary instrument, that designation can be changed. It's generally accepted that that can happen now. There seems to have been
[ Page 777 ]
some ambiguity around that. This makes it clear that that is possible.

[1020]

But it goes a little further than that, and it indicates and clarifies that a designated person can also exercise that power. Where it is a designated person exercising the power, there is a supervisory responsibility bestowed upon the court to ensure that there was no abuse of the exercise of that authority.

Section 85 approved.

On section 86.

L. Krog: Section 86 provides that if there are two or more designated beneficiaries who are designated other than alternatively and no division is made, then they get it equally. To jump ahead somewhat, just so I'm clear, under section 91, should one of those predecease, I take it, then it's going to go to the surviving designated beneficiaries. In other words, there isn't a benefit that flows on, and those sections are in fact related.

If the Attorney General can just confirm that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the first part of the member's statement is clear on the face of the section — what happens. Part of the rationale for having the default rule was the belief that that would reduce the need for resorting to the courts to decide what happens.

I'm just checking on the second part of the member's question, which I think relates to what happens in the event one of those initial beneficiaries predeceases. If I can just have a moment, Madam Chair.

Yes, I think the member has correctly highlighted the interplay between sections 86 and 91, with the proviso that within the will there may be provisions that trump the provisions of section 91.

Section 86 approved.

On section 87.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear on this section and on section 88 as well, if we can deal with them at the same time, with respect to irrevocable designations.

Often separation agreements provide for an irrevocable designation of what will turn out to be a former spouse to receive a benefit. I gather this provision…. Particularly 88 says, in sub (1): "While a designated beneficiary of an irrevocable designation is living, the participant" — in other words, the plan holder — "may not alter or revoke the designation without the consent of the designated beneficiary."

Is that essentially the import of those two sections?

[1025]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has described it accurately. It's an important section, I think, because it imports the notion of an irrevocable designation from insurance law, where it presently exists, into testamentary law via these sections.

I think the member said this, but to be clear, once the irrevocable designation of a beneficiary has been made, then that designation cannot be altered except with the consent of the beneficiary. The second part of that is the proceeds or the benefits associated with that no longer form part of the plan member's estate.

Sections 87 to 89 inclusive approved.

On section 90.

L. Krog: I take it that this will enable persons acting under a power of attorney or a committeeship to…. If there's a long period of incapacity or a situation where a power of attorney is going to have to act, they can change the plan as long as they maintain the existing beneficiary. In other words, you could transfer the RRSP or whatever, the RIF, from one bank, one institution, to another.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the language that emerges from the jurisprudence relates to administrative changes, which, of course, are different than changes to the beneficiary.

Sections 90 to 93 inclusive approved.

On section 94.

L. Krog: I take it this is strictly a protective section for administrators. It provides that "if a benefit plan administrator transfers a benefit in accordance with the benefit plan to a designated beneficiary or to the trustee...under section 92," which we've just approved, then they are "discharged in respect of that benefit even if the benefit plan administrator later receives a…change of designated beneficiary." That's simply to save their bacon. Is that essentially it?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. It is a section designed to provide protection to plan administrators.

Sections 94 and 95 approved.

On section 96.

L. Krog: I think this may be a bit of a change. It's pretty straightforward. It says: "A designation in a will may be altered or revoked by a later designation that is not in a will."

Essentially, what this means is if I have a will that says that I direct my proceeds of my RIF to go to my
[ Page 778 ]
cousin George, I can change that later without having to actually alter my will. I can change the designation outside of my will with what, arguably, is another testamentary instrument.

[1030]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, a section that tries to make clear the abilities that one has to designate a beneficiary in two different kinds of instruments: one a testamentary — their will — and the other a plan, an RRSP plan.

What this is designed to do is ensure that if you have designated someone in your will as the beneficiary under, for example, RRSP, one is not precluded at a later date in the plan itself from designating a different person, and that latter designation will take precedence insofar as the plan is concerned.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, it takes precedence over a valid will. As long as the designation is subsequent and in writing, it will take precedence over a provision in a will that has neither been revoked nor altered in the strict sense.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct, insofar as that particular plan is concerned.

Sections 96 and 97 approved.

On section 98.

L. Krog: This section provides that a "designation or revocation of a designation contained in a purported will is not invalid merely because the instrument is invalid as a will" and (2): "A designation in a purported will is revoked by an event that would have the effect of revoking the instrument if it had been a valid will."

My reading of this section is that I can draw a will subsequent to my designation in the belief and comfort that it is a valid will. Turns out it's not a valid will. But if, in the body of that invalid will, I have changed the designation, that change will in fact govern.

[1035]

Hon. M. de Jong: It's an important point. As I understand the statement that the member has made, I was looking perhaps for inaccuracies. I don't think there are any. I think that is an accurate statement of the effect of section 98.

L. Krog: One other point arises here. We have provisions now that allow the court to recognize as wills instruments that are not traditionally seen as wills, as long as they reflect an intention. So it's the e-mail; it's the whatever.

I'm just wondering what interplay might exist between those curative provisions and this. In other words, if I'm terminal, so to speak — and it can be shown that I was in a terminal condition — and I'm near my computer and I know I'm dying and I do something as best I can to reflect my testamentary intentions, and it turns out that the court doesn't recognize that as a will for whatever reason, will the designation in that document or record as it's referred to in the statute…? It seems to me it's capable then of being recognized as a designation for the purposes of this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with the member that there is potentially an interplay between the two sections. I think the first point worth emphasizing is that section 98 has a more narrow focus as it relates to the designations of beneficiaries in particular kinds of instruments. So section 98 is of use to a person in that respect only.

The other advantage that I'm reminded section 98 has over the other curative provisions, which are a broader application to documents, is that an individual can rely on 98 or, more particularly, rely on the document as being valid on its face. The curative provisions require a submission to a court for a determination — so more limited application, but less onerous in terms of proof.

Sections 98 to 101 inclusive approved.

On section 102.

L. Krog: This provides that on the death of a person, the deceased person's estate vests in the court if the estate is an intestate estate or an executor is not named in the deceased person's will. It goes on to provide in (2) that: "The estate of a deceased person vests in the person's personal representative when the personal representative assumes or is appointed to that office."

Does this represent any change from the existing law? You know, the general position given by lawyers to clients is that you want to have a will because the executor can start acting immediately. If you die intestate, when the court grants letters of administration, the authority of the administrator is deemed retroactive to the date of death of the deceased. So you have what I call the neverland period, where in theory you could have several parties competing. Until the court says one of them gets to be administrator, there is no proper ownership.

I don't think this section changes that law at all. I just want the Attorney General's comments on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention was to make clear, without in any way changing the substantive provisions that presently exist in section 3.

[1040]

Sections 102 and 103 approved.

On section 104.
[ Page 779 ]

L. Krog: I believe this does represent a bit of a change. I read this to say that essentially you can conditionally renounce your executorship, which is a bit different than what's existed before. You could renounce; you're out of the picture. This section says: "(2) The renunciation of executorship, unless a court otherwise orders, terminates the executorship of the person renouncing it, and the administration of the estate passes as if the person had never been appointed…."

I think this opens up that possibility, and I just want the Attorney General's comments on that. In other words, it's basically saying: "Look, I'll renounce, but only if George gets to be administrator of the will."

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I think essentially again that the member is correct in the assessment, and to this extent, the change here is that it allows a person to apply to have the court give them the right to re-assert their right to be an executor, and probably it would help if I provided some of the rationale.

Apparently, a common phenomenon where there are joint executors is that one of them will be elderly or ill, and it is almost a conditional renunciation. "I don't want or need to be involved as long as George is prepared to carry forward with his responsibilities as executor. If that's not the case, then I guess I'll have to step in." These provisions allow for that to happen.

Sections 104 and 105 approved.

On section 106.

L. Krog: This section is very straightforward. "A person may, in accordance with the Rules of Court, oppose the issue of a representation grant." But of course, that's dependent on what the rules of court say.

So I suppose the question is: is there some intention to change the rules of court? Obviously, there will be as a result of the passage of this bill at some point, but are there some further changes contemplated?

Hon. M. de Jong: Short answer: process should be the same. The name of the document will likely change. The filing of a "caveat" — that word applies to other legal documents and instruments, and it probably isn't the best label for the kind of document that would be filed in this case.

Sections 106 to 108 inclusive approved.

On section 109.

L. Krog: Again, this is a fairly…. It's not nearly as significant a reform as other aspects of the bill but certainly a reform nevertheless, allowing for the administration of small estates, which as I recollect from the Attorney General's comments yesterday, will be designated to be $50,000 or under.

Again, this provision allows for the prescription of documents, obviously by regulation, and sets out some basics. The first section applies, I take it, 109 and 110, covering the situation without a will.

[1045]

I'm just wondering — this is obviously a question — has the Attorney General turned his mind to any fees that might accompany such an application to court?

Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing conclusive at this stage.

I'm reminded that presently, for estates valued at up to $25,000, no fees are payable. I think that one of the issues we'll have to deal with is whether or not, with a prescribed form and a simplified process, that exemption on fees should be extended to $50,000. But I can't tell the member whether there's been a decision or that there hasn't been a decision in that regard at this point. I'll probably need to get some input from court services as well.

L. Krog: So I take it from the Attorney General's answer that although there is nothing definitive on whether there will be a fee or the existing fee schedule will be extended, it certainly leaves open the possibility of some increased cost to those who file for small estate applications.

Hon. M. de Jong: The best I can do for the member today is to assure him (a) that I have heard his submission; and (b) the initiative here is to simplify the exercise for small estates below $50,000 in value, not to complicate it or add cost to those embarking upon that exercise.

Sections 109 to 111 inclusive approved.

On section 112.

L. Krog: This provision says: "A declarant must not, in respect of the estate of a deceased person" — again, with respect to a small estate — "file a small estate declaration with a registrar of the court (a) within 21 days of the date of the deceased person's death, (b) within 10 days of the date the notices of the proposed filing of the small estate declaration are given."

I'm just wondering: what's the rationale behind the timing in terms of the three weeks and the ten days?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer, I think, is that the rationale for including any kind of a waiting period was to allow an opportunity for someone to apply for probate or a grant of administration in the regular manner or to file an opposition to the issuance of a grant under the rules of court. So providing for an intervening period during which either one of those actions could be taken.
[ Page 780 ]

Sections 112 to 114 inclusive approved.

On section 115.

[1050]

L. Krog: I realize it may seem completely — how shall I say? — shocking to those who live in the Lower Mainland, but there are places in British Columbia where you can purchase land for under $50,000 still. This provision provides that unless "the court otherwise orders, the authority of a declarant to administer a small estate…" etc.

You can't do it if "land, as defined in subsection (2), is found…personal property is discovered to be part of the estate and its value…" etc. Land here — mercifully, I see in subsection (2) — doesn't include a manufactured home, because that is often a bit of a problem.

You've got, frankly, an aging manufactured home, which in fact has been the residence of the deceased person, and people have to go through a certain number of hoops in order to deal with that now. I'm just wondering why the Attorney General didn't consider the possibility of land as well.

You've got a lot on some obscure lake in some part of British Columbia. You live in an apartment in Nanaimo. In other words, did the Attorney General consider simplifying the procedure there as well? If it's value-based, and that's the issue — we are talking value-based; it's $50,000 — why are we worried about whether it's land or personal property or money in a bank account?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have the member's point. It actually arises not just out of this section but out of the definition of small estate itself, which I'm reminded precludes the inclusion of real property. The advice I've received is that at this stage the land title office, ever vigilant about preserving certainty around title, was hesitant about acceding to this simplified process.

That's probably something worth exploring. The purpose was to simplify the administration exercise for small estates. I have to think that there probably is a way to deal with whatever concerns might have arisen at the land title office. But at this point that was the rationale for the blanket exclusion of real property from the definition of small estate.

Sections 115 to 117 inclusive approved.

On section 118.

L. Krog: Unless I've missed something, this section doesn't provide for any prescribed forms. It just talks about an account.

[1055]

Right now in British Columbia if you wish to pass the accounts of an estate, there's a prescribed form. You have to have that available for the registrar when you attend at a hearing. Arguably, that simplifies it for persons wishing to have their accounts passed.

I'm just wondering: is there any reason not to have a prescribed form or forms for small estates, as well, given that the object of this whole portion of the bill is to provide for a simplified and presumably user-friendly system for persons acting on behalf of small estates?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the member's point. I have to say that I think there are times when a prescribed form can be very helpful, and then there are times when it can be very intimidating — especially a government form that tries to anticipate every conceivable kind of record. This might be one of those times when it is less onerous and easier for the people involved to keep records as they deem appropriate — basic records — without giving them what might end up being a three- or four-page prescribed form that they look at and go: "I don't know what all of this stuff means."

I'm not arguing with the member that there are times when a prescribed form can actually simplify the process. This might be one of those times where, given the relatively small amounts involved, it is better simply to say to people: "Keep some basic records, keep some receipts, and take it from there."

L. Krog: I'm conscious of the time this morning. I don't wish to waste it, but I would suggest to the Attorney General for consideration that when you're dealing with these very small estates, you're often dealing with individuals who I describe in a kind way as unsophisticated. The person attempting to administer their estate will likewise likely be unsophisticated — not always. In fact, a simplified form might provide great assistance to someone like that, as opposed to the whole process of even doing this, which might seem intimidating.

I leave it with the Attorney General.

Sections 118 to 120 inclusive approved.

On section 121.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This provision makes it clear that "An applicant or personal representative who, in accordance with the Rules of Court, makes reasonable efforts to discover the existence, identity or whereabouts of persons to whom the notice under subsection (1) is required" — and that would be the usual persons entitled under necessity, persons entitled to make a claim under what is now the Wills Variation Act which will be what? I think it's part 6 of this bill — "to be given, but is unsuccessful, is not liable for any loss or damage arising from not giving the required notice except for claims (a) to recover property or enforce an order, or (b) under Division 6…."
[ Page 781 ]

Just what exactly does that section mean? Does that mean that…?

I'm just going to read it again, carefully. "An applicant or personal representative who, in accordance with the Rules of Court, makes reasonable efforts to discover the existence" — etc. — "is not liable for any loss or damage arising from not giving the required notice except for claims (a) to recover property or enforce an order, or (b) under Division 6…." — in other words, the wills variation claim.

That means you can, or you can't?

[1100]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry — can or can't what?

L. Krog: Be liable.

Hon. M. de Jong: Oh, okay.

To the specific question, a reading of the section would seem to confirm that there is a general forgiveness of exposure to liability — except in the two situations described in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), where there can be a lingering exposure to liability.

L. Krog: The question naturally arises: how does one protect themselves, then, against such claims if you've taken on the responsibility?

[1105]

Hon. M. de Jong: Subsection 121(2) draws a distinction between circumstances in which there is an exposure to liability and not an exposure to liability, and we are dealing with the first of those two as set out in sub (a) and sub (b).

Dealing with sub (b) first, I am reminded that under division 6 of part 4, there are specific provisions dealing with notice. The obligation to abide by those requirements continues.

Under sub (a), dealing with a situation in which property is transferred improperly, it would seem that what the section contemplates is the possibility of maintaining an action for the recovery of specific property that was improperly transferred to a third party.

Sections 121 to 127 inclusive approved.

On section 128.

L. Krog: Again, this represents a reasonably significant change. It provides: "No security for the administration of an estate is required to be provided by an applicant for a grant of administration unless (a) a minor or a mentally incapable person without a nominee who has authority to represent the mentally incapable person in estate matters is interested in the estate, or (b) the court, on application by a person interested in the estate, requires security."

Then it goes on to provide that if the court is satisfied the condition of security of an assignable nature provided has been breached, the court may order that it be returned. I take it that what we're seeing is the ordinary rule will now be that you're not going to have to provide security unless there's a minor or a mentally incapable person without a nominee. In other words, we're going to avoid the situation of having to put up security in the case of an adult who is a beneficiary.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that's roughly the case. The present practice sees the requirements for security generally dispensed with. The rationale here was that requiring a person to either provide or dispense with bonding or security was adding a measure of complexity and delay and was increasing the overall costs. So the default position has changed, as the member points out.

Sections 128 and 129 approved.

On section 130.

L. Krog: With respect to 130, this is a new provision, I gather. It simply confirms the order in which persons may apply for a grant of administration, which has formerly often been what I referred to earlier as the never-never land. We don't know who is going to apply. The courts have certain presumptions in favour of a spouse, a child, etc. But this now sets out a prioritized list so that in many cases of what might otherwise be a dispute over who gets to apply for letters of administration, this in fact codifies it and, therefore, simplifies it. Is that essentially this?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's it precisely. The member should know that similar provisions exist in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

[1110]

Sections 130 to 132 inclusive approved.

On section 133.

L. Krog: Just to confirm again. This is a new provision, and what it provides, as I read it…. "If a person dies leaving a will and the will does not give away or otherwise dispose of all of the deceased person's estate, the grant of probate of the will or the grant of administration with will annexed also operates as a grant of administration of the part of the estate that is not given away or disposed of by the will."

What I just want to understand is…. Where you might be forced in a situation to apply for probate and letters of administration, we are now saying that a grant of probate, in fact, gives you, legally speaking, letters of
[ Page 782 ]
administration, as well, for that part of the estate that isn't disposed of by will.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's right, to cover the residue.

Sections 133 to 139 inclusive approved.

On section 140.

L. Krog: This section relates back to the curative powers under section 58. As I read it, it's very straightforward. "The court may make an order under section 58…in relation to any will for which an application for grant of probate or administration may be made."

That, I take it, will extend to the issue of so-called foreign wills as well. Arguably, what that means is that….

Just so I'm clear, will that in fact allow the court to deal with deficiencies of foreign wills that wouldn't necessarily meet the legal requirements of that foreign jurisdiction as well, or is it limited only to curative provisions that relate to documents that might not constitute a will in Canada? This is a bit problematic, and I just need to hear the Attorney General's comments on it.

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually have an example that was provided to me, as opposed to one I'm making up on the fly, that may help illustrate both the rationale and how the provision is intended to be used.

There's a holograph will, a handwritten will, executed in Ontario — they're valid in that jurisdiction — and the estate for the individual includes a condo at Whistler. Lucky person. The condominium, of course, is immovable property, and succession is governed by the laws of British Columbia.

Under the present law, I am advised, the Ontario probate could not be resealed, nor could an ancillary grant or original grant be obtained in a British Columbia court. At the present time the foreign representative or attorney must apply for administration in British Columbia as if the deceased died intestate with respect to the Whistler condominium.

[1115]

This provision, coupled with section 58, makes for a change and would give the court the discretion to admit the document to probate despite its formal defects if the court is satisfied that the document embodies the testator's, the deceased's, final testamentary wishes. So that's quite a change in terms of both the process and, possibly, the outcome.

Section 140 approved.

On section 141.

L. Krog: This provision says, and it's mandatory: "(1) The court must not revoke a grant of probate or administration on the sole ground that a notice could not be given to (a) a person described in the Rules of Court who could not be discovered, identified or found, or (b) a person to whom notice was not required to be given under the Rules of Court."

Basically, this is changing, reversing a presumption, I take it, that created some uncertainty in the past. So now we're working on the presumption that the court, when presented with that arguably technical issue only, in fact cannot — must, cannot — revoke a grant.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct. This provision essentially reverses the current state of the law in that area.

Section 141 approved.

On section 142.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear in understanding the import of this section. This, basically, clearly sets out that the personal representative can do anything that the deceased could, within the constraints of carrying out his or her obligations as a personal representative. Is that essentially it — can't be overridden by any contrary intention expressed in a will?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the section gives the personal representative the same powers to deal with the estate as the deceased. Also, what I think has become something of a practice of listing, enumerating specific powers…. The need for that is dispensed with.

Sections 142 to 145 inclusive approved.

On section 146.

L. Krog: This is essentially, as I understand it, section 66 of the existing Estate Administration Act. It's setting the limitation period for claims against an estate at six months. I take it that what it really does is give the personal representative the authority to put them on notice, much as you have an insurance claim now where if the potential plaintiff is a minor, you can require someone on their behalf to commence the action for a motor vehicle claim, for instance.

Essentially, this is the same kind of thing. We're putting you on notice; you've got to make your claim. If you don't make the claim, then you lose the right to make the claim. That's my understanding of it. I just needed the Attorney General to confirm that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, it does provide that notice. It's an attempt to balance interests — obviously, the interest and the right of creditors or potential creditors to pursue their remedies, but also the interest that the estate and the estate representatives have in concluding the administration of that estate.
[ Page 783 ]

Sections 146 to 149 inclusive approved.

On section 150.

B. Ralston: I want to ask a series of questions about section 150. It repeats the prohibition from previous statutes against a deceased person's personal representatives bringing action for pain, suffering and loss of life of the deceased, and that's in subsection (4) of section 150.

[1120]

I am aware that there was a consultation initiated by the previous Attorney General in relation to the Family Compensation Act, but these provisions merely repeat some of the prohibitions that are in the Family Compensation Act.

Can the minister explain why section 150(4) prohibits the personal representatives of the wrongfully killed deceased persons from claiming damages in respect of non-pecuniary loss and damages for future loss of income for a period following death?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies to the member for the delay. What I wanted to be sure of was the general state of the law today versus what is presented in the new section 150.

I think the short answer to the member's question is that, pursuant to section 59 of the existing Estate Administration Act, the limitations and prohibitions against seeking the kinds of damages, having an estate seek the kinds of damages, that the member has alluded to exists today, and this section would not alter or remove those limitations.

Now, there's a broader discussion, I think, that the member may have an interest in — I think he does, and many people do — around creating an entitlement, an estate entitlement, to a broader suite of compensation in the event of death. This act and this section do not purport to alter, though — or, well, change — what is presently the law and set out in the Estate Administration Act.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the response that's been given. I think the issue and the concern is why the present…. I think that it's been expressed by a number of groups, and I'll refer to them somewhat later in some further questions. Why the state of the law is…. The government is content with the state of the law and is not prepared to, at this time, given that this statute is being opened up for substantial reform, consider reform.

Non-pecuniary loss includes damages for pain, suffering and loss of life that the deceased person suffered. Can the minister explain why a wrongdoer should get away with not having to pay damages for causing death when clearly such a wrongdoer would have to pay damages for having injured his victim rather than killed him?

[1125]

Hon. M. de Jong: In addressing the member's submission, I don't want to convey the impression that I am dug in and hostile to the discussion that is taking place around the principle of a new cause of action, if you will — wrongful death. I think that is something that I am prepared and the government is prepared to examine and look at.

I think it's a broader discussion, though, and not one that the government has decided to address in the presentation of an act designed to consolidate estate administration and wills and testamentary instrument legislation.

I take it from the submissions that he is making that the member has ideas and strong opinions. I'm obviously interested in what they are, but I also don't want to mislead the member by not conveying at the outset that the government does not intend to alter the state of the law or create a new cause of action via the statute that we are debating today.

B. Ralston: Well, I understand that position and that's…. I think the Attorney General has clearly identified the position that I disagree with. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities issued a report several years ago that sets out personal stories of individuals and families whose lives have been devastated by the present state of the law.

They are calling for, and have been for some years, together with the Coalition Against No-Fault and the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, a new wrongful death act in British Columbia. In particular, they're seeking that the prohibition that is set out in 150(4) here be removed and either incorporated in a new act, a wrongful death act — or a substantial revision of the Family Compensation Act, which is legislation which dates from approximately 160 years ago. Time might seem right for some reform in that area.

So is the minister aware of this report? Has he or his staff received representations on this, and is he prepared to consider appropriate amendments to eliminate this unjust provision from this bill?

Hon. M. de Jong: Like the member, I, too, have had discussions with organizations like the Trial Lawyers Association, who have advocated in the past and continue to advocate strongly in favour of the significant change in the law that a wrongful death act would represent.

I'm walking a bit of a line here, Madam Chair, because I want to say honestly to the member that it is a discussion I am interested in pursuing. It is a concept that I am interested in pursuing. But I am not in a position today to provide the member with the answer or the policy position that I think he is a strong advocate for and therefore not, obviously, in a position to entertain or support the kind of amendment to section 59(3) or (4) that I think he or those advocating on behalf of wrongful death causes of action would be looking for.
[ Page 784 ]

B. Ralston: Well, just to pursue this further…. I appreciate the position that the Attorney General is taking at this stage, but I want to encourage that process of examination, and perhaps it might proceed with more dispatch.

In the report that was prepared by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities called In Their Name: The Call for a Wrongful Death Act in B.C., they propose a definition which would expand the heads of damage in the legal terms.

[1130]

Just so that it's clear here for the record, I want to just provide that here to the Attorney General at this point. I'm reading from a page. I'm not sure that the pages are numbered, but it is from their report, and I'm quoting the court. This is the proposed amendment that they propose. I'm not moving an amendment formally at this point. I just want to be clear for the record, for the Clerks.

"The court, notwithstanding any other damages that may be awarded, may award damages generally to the decedent's estate and/or survivors for (1) solace and bereavement; (2) personal anguish; (3) emotional stress; (4) loss of companionship, comfort, love and affection; (5) loss of advice, counsel, guidance, protection and care; (6) the decedent's mental anguish, pain and suffering from the date of injury to death.

"(b) The court may also award punitive damages to the decedent's estate for wilful, wanton or reckless conduct shown by a preponderance of evidence."

The report goes on to show in a number of cases that, whether under this act or under the Family Compensation Act, where the person is not regarded as a wage earner — or breadwinner, I think it's sometimes called — their death is basically, in monetary terms, worth nothing under the existing act.

They have provided in this document a number of particularly compelling cases where people, loved ones, have died, and the opportunity for any claim for damages, given the Family Compensation Act and the predecessor legislation to this, now incorporated into section 150(4), is in their view very unsatisfactory and worthy of reform.

Again, I appreciate that the Attorney General isn't about to announce a change in policy at this opportunity, but I suppose what I'm seeking on behalf of those who have requested and suggested that I raise these questions in the Legislature is: what is the Attorney General able to provide in the way of guidance to those who would seek this reform? Beyond a commitment that was made here earlier, what positive steps are being taken?

In the report there's a reference to a consultation initiated by the Attorney General in 2007 concerning the companion piece of legislation, the Family Compensation Act. I believe that was set out in June 2007. There was public consultation and a review initiated of that piece of legislation. So reform of that would obviously invite consequential amendments to this particular section that we're discussing now.

I'm wondering: what assurance can the Attorney General provide, or what further news of the state of that consultation can the Attorney General provide to the Legislature at this time?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his specific intervention on behalf of those many British Columbians and interested parties who are calling for this kind of change.

Probably, the best I can do for the member and those individuals now, in responding to a call for further reform, is highlight the fact that we've not been hesitant about trying to embark upon significant legal reform, even over the last two or three months, where we moved ahead with the civil court rules project. The member — at least his colleague, I think — happily was there to celebrate that moment.

It's a big issue, and it's a big question. I am, thanks to the kinds of reports that the member has referred to and the work that has been undertaken within the ministry and submissions from organizations like the trial lawyers aware of the various jurisdictions who occupy various places along the continuum of recognizing different heads of damages as it relates to wrongful death….

[1135]

I'm not hesitant to assure the member that a careful analysis will take place. The work that the member has referred to continues, as it does relating to other large bodies of law like, for example, family law and the Family Relations Act.

These are big tasks that necessarily involve the receipt of ideas and input — submissions from groups beyond the family of lawyers and professional practitioners. We will proceed on that basis, and I'm grateful to the member for highlighting the fact that were changes of the sort he is seeking to be made, they would necessarily invite changes to the section that is presently before this committee.

B. Ralston: I thank the Attorney General for his comments.

I suppose the other issue that this does raise is in connection with those who advocate for the rights of victims and the families of victims, particularly where they have suffered a death of a family member as a result of criminal conduct by the person who kills their relative.

At present the anomaly that's pointed out is that a person who kills someone is able to avoid being held accountable in civil court for the damages they have caused. So there is a concern that criminal conduct…. A criminal committing that murder gets a benefit by not being held accountable under this particular section.

In addition to the concerns that are raised by the groups that I've mentioned, there's that additional concern. From what I understand in my brief review of this law,
[ Page 785 ]
the genesis of the statute in question dates back to deep in the 19th century — Lord Campbell's law of 1846.

So it would seem that while one often appreciates that law reform moves slowly, it may be more than overdue in this particular case. I'd invite any concluding remarks that the Attorney General may have on this section, but those are the comments that I have.

Section 150 approved on division.

On section 151.

L. Krog: This, likewise, would appear to be a bit of a benefit, because these sections now provide that a beneficiary can, in the case of a reluctant personal representative, actually take proceedings now to protect what might be their interest, whereas previously an administrator or a personal representative might not have a great interest in pursuing a claim or defending a claim vigorously.

But where the interest of a beneficiary is included now, this section in sub 151(3)(b) makes very clear: "it appears to the court that it is necessary or expedient for the protection of the estate or the interests of a beneficiary or an intestate successor for the proceeding to be brought or defended." I gather that is a change and is an improvement — yes?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is a change. It is intended to overcome a gap that was identified in the present state of the law, and I believe it is an improvement.

Sections 151 and 152 approved.

On section 153.

L. Krog: This allows the public guardian and trustee in an appropriate case to actually transfer a minor's interest in the estate to a minor, and that interest can, in fact, be real estate. That's my reading of the section. Is that correct? And if so, the sense behind that, I would appreciate hearing from the Attorney General.

[1140]

Hon. M. de Jong: It is a change, and I actually was not aware that under the old section 75(1), the interest was restricted to money. It seems to me that the obvious rationale, and one I agree with, relates to the fact that by expanding the definition to include an application to include things other than money and other forms of property in which a minor has an interest, we are recognizing the fact that there are things beyond money that a minor would have interest in and that would deserve to be protected against misappropriation.

Section 153 approved.

On section 154.

L. Krog: This is a change, as well, when it comes to the issue of advertising for creditors. Formerly you had to publish in the Gazette and a paper circulating in the area where the deceased resided. This, in fact, on one level simplifies it.

But with great respect, I don't think there's a person in this chamber who's probably ever flipped open the provincial Gazette — apart from myself, maybe the member for Surrey-Whalley and the Attorney General at some point during his career, and no doubt the able assistants to the Attorney General. No one looks at the provincial Gazette except parties who understand its importance.

Effectively speaking, there will be no notice to creditors, in my respectful submission. If you had deleted the provision for the provincial Gazette and said you had to publish in a local paper, that would have made a great deal more sense. I'm just wondering what the Attorney General has to say about that.

I appreciate that it simplifies the process for a personal representative, and arguably, it's certainly cheaper, because publishing it in the Vancouver Sun gets pretty prohibitive. But maybe in the Parksville-Qualicum News, it's not so bad. Again, if the intent is to allow creditors to make their claim, restricting it to the Gazette makes no sense at all.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have some sympathy for the observations presented by the hon. member. The section was crafted in a way that responded to some of the frustration that practitioners were expressing around the utility of advertising in a local newspaper versus a newspaper with provincial coverage, and the cost associated with that and the usefulness of it. I think the member and I probably won't quarrel with the challenges associated with that.

The member's second point, though, is: are you addressing any of that by maintaining the obligation to publish in the Gazette, and how many people are consulting the Gazette? Probably, today, very few.

[1145]

I can advise the member that the Gazette, if it isn't already, will very soon be available electronically. I don't have this information, but it seems to me that with the advent of technology, which I am horribly ill-equipped to utilize myself, the day may not be far off when having a central repository of this kind of information and creditors having the ability to identify a key word or a name that, once it appears in the Gazette, pops up on their…. There may be some value in utilizing the Gazette where people have relatively easy access to it and certain triggering names or words can alert a potential creditor.

Neither structure is perfect, and neither structure reliably, I think, can be said to fulfil the obligation of notice. Clearly, the requirements for newspaper advertising weren't and were adding significant costs to the process.
[ Page 786 ]

Sections 154 to 157 inclusive approved.

On section 158.

L. Krog: Section 158 represents a fairly significant change. It's a provision that allows for persons to ask to have the personal representative passed over, so to speak, and specifies various reasons for doing so. Certainly, removing someone is often extremely difficult. It is, in fact, next to impossible to have them removed.

These provisions, I would suggest, are certainly timely and should be well received by the bar. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General…. I would ask him to keep in mind that it may even be necessary to expand the provisions of this section, because as much as I appreciate that it's nice to have the certainty of your appointment, there are some extremely difficult executors out there in the real world, who often take it on themselves, and having them removed is, as I say, virtually next to impossible.

Hon. M. de Jong: I take the member's advice and point out something, as we move through these sections, that I think I said earlier. Both during the 18 months between the passage of this bill and its taking effect and in the days following its taking effect, there will be an important function of assessing how various of these provisions work in practice and of being willing to address any changes, deficiencies or difficulties that reveal themselves during either of those periods.

Sections 158 to 160 inclusive approved.

On section 161.

L. Krog: This, again, is a new provision. It provides that if a person ceases to be a personal representative and another person is substituted, within 30 days of making the order, they must provide all of the documents, etc., so that that person can take over their position. Again, that is an entirely new provision, I take it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sections 161(1) and (2) are new provisions; (3) alters appreciably the provisions of the old section 22(2) of the Estate Administration Act.

[1150]

Sections 161 to 270 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to members who participated.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Wills, Estates and
Succession Act

Bill 4, Wills, Estates and Succession Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $464,137,000 (continued).

Hon. P. Bell: I'd just like to correct one statement from yesterday or one set of numbers I provided to the critic. I'd indicated that the Forest Investment Account had decreased by $32.5 million, and I had said to $79 million. The correct number is actually $88.1 million, not $79 million.

N. Macdonald: Just to again pick up where we left off. One of the questions that we talked about just before we left was around the audits. The minister had mentioned that there were three external audits that he could think of, off the top of his head. It was the Merit Commissioner.
[ Page 787 ]
From the Forest Practices, there were two audits I think he indicated. Then he also said, of course, the Auditor General's report on the giveaways on the Jordan River. So those are the three external audits that he talked about. If there are any other audits that the minister has…?

I presume all of these are public. But the other audits I'd be interested in are the internal audits, either around what's going on within the ministry, and also, the minister talked about taking back a contract from PricewaterhouseCoopers. Presumably that would have happened.

The minister talked about the savings that taking the contract back and doing it internally would have produced, so obviously there'd be an audit around that. Any of the contracts that the ministry has that have been audited — how many are there of those, and are those publicly available?

Hon. P. Bell: There's quite a bit to talk about here, so we may have to go back and forth a couple of times on this. The first thing I wanted to touch on is that the characterization the member made of the Jordan River lands would not be the exact same characterization that I would use.

The member opposite did say that I had suggested that there were two Forest Practices Board audits. In fact, they do many audits, six to ten per year, and those are all publicly available on the website, of course — so just a slight correction there.

[1015]

The member mentioned PricewaterhouseCoopers. That was not an audit that was done. We made that decision internally that we thought there were savings to be had by bringing that service in-house. It actually came as a recommendation from a staff person on a ministry office tour that I did in the Clearwater office. It was one of the suggestions brought forward by the staff that we accepted and implemented. We thought it was a good suggestion.

There are a number of BCTS audits that have been done. There have been seven safety certification audits. There have been, I think, 15 environmental management system audits. There are sustainable forest management audits. There were two audits by the Forest Practices Board specific to B.C. Timber Sales, and there was one contract management audit of BCTS. All of those are available publicly. All of those are on the B.C. Timber Sales website.

In terms of the Forest Investment Account audits, there were two conflict-of-interest audits of PricewaterhouseCoopers from the office of the Auditor General. Those are publicly available, of course. There was an audit of PricewaterhouseCoopers on the land base investment administration program. Pardon me. That was from the Auditor. That was the same as the one I referred to.

I'm just trying not to be repetitive here.

So that's kind of a summation of the ones that we've been able to pull together incrementally. All of those are publicly available. All of them are on our websites now.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for that.

Is the minister lobbied directly, or do lobbyists meet with staff?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to look for a little more direction on the question, on the member's definition of lobbyist: if it's a registered lobbyist or, as an example, if it's just someone that works in the forest sector — kind of how you would define that.

Everyone from clerks on up in the ministry, of course, meets with people in the industry who are looking to advance their issues, ranging from cutting permits all the way up to major policy change. I just need a little direction so that I can better answer the question for the member.

N. Macdonald: There are obvious weaknesses with the present Lobbyists Registration Act. There are many that wouldn't be included that likely should be included. So just around the major companies. Do the CEOs directly lobby the minister, or do they hire lobbyists? Just how does that happen? Do they meet directly with the minister or with staff?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to take a stab at this when I think I understand what the member is trying to get at.

I would say, as a general rule, I meet with industry representatives, including CEOs of forest companies; including senior union representatives — I've met with the Steelworkers on a number of occasions; including leads from environmental organizations — I meet with ForestEthics, Suzuki, Greenpeace, on a pretty regular basis; including people like Brian McNaughton. I'm not sure of his official title, but probably…. He represents the woodlot associations across the province.

So I'm trying to think if there are any specific companies or registered lobbyists that work for forest companies. There's only one that we could kind of think of quickly. We think Western Forest Products perhaps has someone under a retainer.

But generally speaking, I would suggest that we meet with representatives of the companies directly and that there is minimal formal representation. I'm not sure, you know, COFI, John Allan. I don't think he's a registered lobbyist — he might be; I'm not sure — but he certainly represents the interests of the industry. But the union leaders and so on….

[1020]

I would say, generally, it appears to me that there are not a lot of registered lobbyists that work directly for the forest industry.
[ Page 788 ]

N. Macdonald: So just to wrap this piece up. The legislation, such as it is, then: can the minister provide a list of the lobbyists that he has met with since taking over as Minister of Forests? Understanding that that doesn't include many of the organizations that the minister would regularly meet with but those are that within the parameters of the law, such as it exists — registered lobbyists — can the minister provide the lobbyists that he has met with and that senior staff has met with since becoming minister?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy, certainly, to provide a list of the registered lobbyists, which are the ones that I think that the member is referring to. I know that the member opposite requests my calendar on a regular basis through freedom of information, and he's readily able to identify the folks that I meet with.

I would say to the member opposite: in my personal experience in dealing with the agriculture sector, the mining sector and the forest sector, as a general rule, the forest sector does not appear to have as many lobbyists. They seem to do that work themselves — whether it's a guy like Steve Hunt from the Steelworkers, a guy like Jim Shepherd from Canfor or someone like Candace Batycki or Valerie Langer from ForestEthics. They seem to kind of have created that internal capacity, and they tend to work directly.

I don't consider them lobbyists. I consider them stakeholders. I think they're there to represent the interests of their respective organizations. I do my best, and I know that the senior executive team does their best, to meet with them when they have issues that they want to discuss.

N. Macdonald: I just want to move now to the issues around the fire season and, as the staff come, just to begin again by commending fire personnel, both those that were directly working for the ministry and those that were involved in what took place this summer, what takes place throughout the year — just to commend their work and to say, certainly, how much people of British Columbia appreciate it.

Coming from a rural community and representing communities that are directly within the forests of British Columbia, the issue of safety related to wildfires is of course of primary importance. I can remember in 2003 sitting on a farm — I guess it would have been a good 20 kilometres south of Golden — and having the highway actually filled with cars that were coming back on the long weekend, trying to get out of British Columbia. They were just going back to Calgary, but it was at a time when Highway 5 was blocked by a fire. This was 2003. The highway that takes you through Kootenay park…. Highway 3 was blocked.

There was a significant fire season. We all know, as well, that many communities were threatened and were damaged by wildfire. Now, at the time government was really clear. There was a recognition that wildfire would be an ongoing problem.

We were reminded of that again this year, and the minister with statements quite accurately says that the fire seasons that we have been used to are going to clearly intensify, that what was the exception in 2003 and 2007 will likely become far more normal before it's likely to settle into a different pattern. That's related to climate change and the forest health issues that we have and the fact that over many years there's been a buildup of fuel.

Now, I want, as we get into this issue, to just put a context for what we're going to talk about. The documents that I'll be referring to, of course, will be the Filmon report. The Filmon report, as the minister knows, was put together by the former Premier of Manitoba, Gary Filmon.

[1025]

He was asked specifically…. It talks in the report about the terms of reference for Mr. Filmon, and the terms of reference from this government were really clear. Mr. Filmon, after the 2003 season, was asked to come and have a report completed by mid-February 2004. So there was a very clear sense of urgency about getting the work done. It goes on. These are the terms of reference.

Mr. Filmon was asked to put together a very tight timeline, and that tight timeline would give the government, then, the ability to act on the recommendations with a view to getting things done for the following fire season.

So that's the context that the government set for Mr. Filmon to work in. Mr. Filmon did complete the plans and made a series of recommendations. Those recommendations were put forward so that in February of 2004, in the throne speech, the government said: "The government will act on all 42 of the Filmon fire review recommendations." So there was a clear promise to do that.

In April of 2004 a press release from the Premier indicated that Filmon's recommendations…. All of them would be acted upon and most would be in place for the fire season of 2004. I think what we saw from 2007…. It's still anecdotal. I'm sure the ministry will be looking at what took place this year. Anecdotally, what we heard repeatedly were that the elements of the Filmon report that were acted upon were things that were very much appreciated.

Here we're talking about the communication — the ability — and the fire attack. People said that those were areas that seemed to work better. That's all anecdotal, and I'm sure the ministry will be going through and evaluating.

The focus that I'm going to take is around the fuel management issue primarily, and I don't think that's a surprise to the minister. That's something that we've talked about.

It's now 2009. It's been five fire seasons, and I would just point the minister to the recommendations that
[ Page 789 ]
are in Filmon that talk about…. In fact, I think it's the lead item under forest management, and I'll just read it for the minister. It says that the province is to lead. So there's recognition that there are many different levels of government that are going to be involved in this. But there's also clear recognition that when you have many levels, there has to be one level of government that takes the lead.

The experts that Mr. Filmon reached out to…. I think we would both agree that British Columbia has tremendous resources in terms of being a world leader in terms of understanding fires, and we had people that we had tremendous confidence in, in terms of giving us advice and that that went towards this report.

The first recommendation is that it's clear that of those levels of government, the province is supposed to be leading in terms of the strategic plan development. This is exactly what it says: "The provincial government should lead the development of a strategic plan." There should be cooperation with local government, but there need to be improvements to "fire prevention in the interface through fuel management." And it talks about a requirement for each community to come up with a community protection plan.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

The question that I have for the minister is: how many communities does the ministry recognize as being communities that have interface issues and need a community protection plan? What is the percentage of those communities that have completed that plan?

[1030]

Hon. P. Bell: One of the issues with identifying the number of communities that may require a fuel management plan is to come up with the definition of a community. I'm sure the member will be able to think of areas in his riding, coming from a rural riding as do I, that members of that community probably consider to be a community, but it may not register on the map anywhere. There may not be a governance model for that community. It may be part of a regional district or some other thing.

As an example, in my riding there's a community called Nukko Lake. I don't think it actually shows up on a map anywhere. There's no governance in that community. There are probably 400 people that live in the area. So it's kind of hard to drill down and say: "Is it 200 communities, is it 300, or is it 150?" It's hard to define — easier for first nations. I have some better statistics for the member opposite specific to first nations communities, because those are more readily identifiable on a map.

What I can tell the member opposite is that there are a total of 105 communities that have either initiated or completed their community wildfire protection plans. Across the province there have been 26 pilot projects that have been initiated or completed. There are 94 operational projects in terms of fuel-loading mitigation.

On the first nations front, there are 100 first nations communities that have been impacted by the mountain pine beetle. Of those 100 communities, 81 communities have initiated or are working on securing funds for their plans, and 69 communities out of that 100 are proceeding with fuel management projects through this initiative.

I'm not trying to be coy in any way. It's just very hard to identify what is a community. How do you define that community in terms of the member opposite's question?

N. Macdonald: Just remembering the context. You had Mr. Filmon rushing to complete this with the idea in his mind — maybe it was unrealistic…. But certainly he had the idea that much of this work would be taken the next fire season. It's five years later.

What the minister is standing up and saying is that the definition hasn't been worked out. So 2005 — surely there was a definition of the communities this would apply to. What is the ministry's definition of a community that should have this work done? What's the ministry's definition?

[1035]

Hon. P. Bell: I want to correct a statement that the member opposite made. He said that he was surprised that we hadn't defined communities yet, when, in fact, the question that he previously asked was unclear. He was expressing the notion of communities. I was asking him to better define that. So I was not attempting to evade the question in any way.

There are a couple of points I wanted to make here, if I may. It still may not satisfy the member opposite in terms of his question. But the actual Filmon recommendation I want to read into the record, because I think that's important.

It starts out by saying the province is to lead the strategic plan development.

"The provincial government should lead the development of a strategic plan in cooperation with local governments to improve fire prevention in the interface through fuel management. The plan should" — and then there are a number of bullets underneath that — "focus on identification of those areas of the province where communities, infrastructure and watersheds have the greatest potential to be impacted by large-scale fires."

That work is done. That's been fully completed.

"Identify and assign fuel management priorities based on threats to human life, property and resource values."

That work has also been done. That's been completed.

"Require" — I want to focus on that word "require" — "a community protection plan in those communities with a high probability and consequence of fire…interface zone."

Certainly, we've encouraged communities to do that. We've not put that in legislation. I'm not sure if the member opposite would suggest that or not.
[ Page 790 ]

The fourth bullet is: "Be cost-shared with local governments." As the member knows, we've provided funding there.

And the fifth bullet: "Give priority for funding, fire management planning, fuels mitigation and protection to these areas."

Mr. Filmon didn't contemplate that all of this work would be done in 2004. In fact, it is ongoing work. I'm sure the member opposite appreciates that — that this is not something you do and put a tick mark beside and suggest that it's been completed forever. Fuel loading is an ongoing issue and something that will have to be addressed as long as we put out fires, as long as we're not allowing fire to play its traditional role in the ecosystem.

So a lot of work has been done. The member is focusing on some components. I think it's important to look at the entire context of the recommendation.

N. Macdonald: Well, let's be clear. The province has the obligation to do the preventive work. That's the obligation. It is clear in there that the province is to lead this, and so let's focus on the question. The question is: what is the ministry's definition of a community that needs a fire management plan? What is the definition of a community that needs a fire management plan?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, Filmon didn't say that, and that should be clear. What Filmon did say — and I'll reread the two bullets that are relevant here — is: "Require a community protection plan in those communities with a high probability and consequence of fire in the interface zone" and "Be cost-shared with local governments." I think that's important for the member to be aware of. It's in the recommendations.

The member does ask, I think, a valid question, though. I'll answer it as best I can. Filmon did recommend in his report that we "focus on the identification of those areas of the province where communities, infrastructure and watersheds have the greatest potential of being impacted by large-scale fires."

That work is done. It's been completed, and there are maps publicly available that we've produced. We communicate that with each of the individual communities that have interface exposure or a high risk of fire activity. So that work has been completed. That was the first bullet.

"Identify and assign fuel management priorities based on threats to human life, property and resource values." That work has also been done, and those communities have been advised.

[1040]

I think that, actually, this fire season has been an incredible success story. In 2003 there were about just under 350 structures lost across the province. As a result of the Filmon recommendations and the implementation of the Filmon recommendations, this year we lost seven structures.

I should mention to the member opposite. He's been using the year 2007 in reference as a bad fire year, and I think he means 2009.

N. Macdonald: I think that the question could not be clearer. What is the ministry's definition of a community that needs a fire management plan?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I understand the question better, so I'll try and be more direct in my response this time. I think we do have some information that we could probably share with the member, as well, after today that may be helpful in getting at what the member is looking for.

As part of the Filmon report, we did a threat analysis on the entire province. We looked right across the province. We looked at things like the nature of the fuel type that's associated with any areas — whether it's just wild grasses or whether it's specific types of trees, whether the trees have been impacted by mountain pine beetle or they've not been impacted by mountain pine beetle, the general ecosystem in the area and what that looks like, and the historical incidents of fire in those areas. So we did a detailed threat analysis over the entire province.

Now, I suspect where the member may want to go with this…. I'll just offer it up, and it may provide what he's looking for. There was a technical piece of work that was done in terms of the development of that threat analysis, and we don't have that with us here. It was done in 2004. But we'd be happy to share that with the member if he's looking for that level of information — what that looked like and how that work was actually done at that point in time.

If you go to the Filmon report, again, Filmon talks about key areas like communities, infrastructure, watersheds, human life structures, those sorts of things. So all of those components get added into the decision-making process around the threat analysis. The threat analysis is then done, and communities are identified on an individual basis. We work with those communities to develop their wildfire management plans. So I hope I've answered the question for the member.

N. Macdonald: Well, you haven't at all. I don't know how I could be clearer. The question is this. It was clear from Filmon that communities needed to deal with the fuel management in their areas. Communities needed to. I mean, I could give you a list of communities that I think would be communities that the Minister of Forests should be concerned about.

The question I have is that…. Surely, after five years of something that is supposed to be looked at urgently, and where Filmon is clear that the province is supposed to take the lead, there can at least be a definition from the ministry in the ministry's own words.

[1045]

Which are the communities, or a definition of the communities, that the minister feels are communities that need
[ Page 791 ]
a management plan? That's a simple question: what's the definition?

Hon. P. Bell: I believe that I actually answered that question. The definition of communities that need a wildfire protection plan is done as a result of a threat analysis.

The threat analysis combines all of the various factors that indicate the exposure or risk of that community in the event of a wildfire. If the member would like to dig into the detail of how that analysis was arrived at, we'd be happy to share that with him. I did indicate that in my previous answer, and we don't have that level of information. It was prepared in 2004, and then the work was carried out. But I'd be happy to provide that.

I'm not sure if the member…. Perhaps his frustration is being expressed because he's looking for a list of communities across the province. If that's the question, we can certainly provide a list of the communities that we've been in touch with and that we've talked to.

I apologize if that's why the member is feeling frustrated. It's not my intent to be evasive here. If he's looking for a list of communities across the province, we can provide that to him, certainly, by Monday.

The Chair: Member, please ask the question through the chair.

N. Macdonald: Okay, well, it has been — what? — five years. It has been five years, and it is a simple question. The minister has said that there are communities…. The Filmon report is really clear that the province needs to lead this. There are communities that need the fire management plans.

Now, the minister has not given a definition of which of these communities are communities that need that sort of planning. So it's just a question. Does 100 Mile House…? Are they supposed to have a plan? Is Alert Bay supposed to have a plan? Is Anmore supposed to have a plan? Is Peachland supposed to have a plan? Is Golden supposed to have a plan? Is Revelstoke supposed to have a plan?

Surely the ministry that is supposed to be leading this would, after five years, have a definition of the communities that are supposed to have plans, and they would have a clear idea of how many of those communities have completed the plans. So can the minister tell me how many communities, by the minister's definition, are communities that need the plan?

That was the question. And the minister then asked me: "What do you mean by community?" And I said: "Well, how do you define the community?" If the minister cannot define the community, then give me the list of communities that need a fuel management plan or fire management plan.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite, I believe, has requested that we provide him with a list of all communities that, first of all, have risk or exposure and, second of all, all communities that have had either initiated or completed wildfire management plans. We're happy to do that, as I've indicated in my previous answer. We think that we should be able to have that for him by Monday.

N. Macdonald: Surely, in indicating that I was going to ask about fires — and the minister has heard what I've said all summer and knows the concerns that I have — to tell me that you're not going to give me that information until a week Monday, because we're not back here next Monday….

Surely, that's something that if you don't have it here, you can bring it down in a matter of minutes. I mean, it is a straightforward question for the ministry that is supposed to be leading this initiative, where communities are supposed to have fire protection plans.

[1050]

I know that in the area I represent — the status of those various reports — you phone. It takes — what? — 20 minutes. This is five years later, and the ministry that is supposed to be responsible for making sure that this work is being done…. We're not even talking about the work being done. We're talking about the plans to do the work where, presumably, you would have the work done in a timely fashion.

It's five years later, and the ministry and the minister don't even know a definition of the communities that should have these plans. It just seems absurd to me. So what is the quickest…? I mean, I don't think that Monday is acceptable. I think this is information that the minister either has or doesn't have. The minister, clearly, should have. If it's around, it should be able to be presented in 15 or 20 minutes. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Is that something that the minister can provide, or does it not exist? You don't have a list of the communities that have — the actual communities that should have — a protection plan?

Hon. P. Bell: I've been pretty clear already that we would provide that list by this coming Monday. That's not a week from Monday; that's this coming Monday. That's two business days.

We still have estimates, as I understand, scheduled after that. So if the member wishes to ask further questions as a result of that information, I think that will give him plenty of time. He can continue to show all the indignation he wishes over there. I think that we've more than filled that request.

N. Macdonald: There is every reason for indignation. I represent communities that sit in the forest, that are supposed to have this protective work done. We had Filmon. The government is on the record, and they say that on each of these recommendations from 2004 — the throne speech — that the work is going to be done.
[ Page 792 ]

The public would presume that the work is going to be done, and we're told here today that the minister doesn't even know the communities that are supposed to have one of these fire management plans. We're told by the minister that he doesn't know who does have them. The next question is: how is the minister possibly going to know?

Does he know which of the communities have actually completed the work? Which communities have actually completed the work that they're supposed to have completed with the fire management plan?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite continues to allow his blood pressure to get the better part of him. I would suggest that he wait until Monday. We'd be happy to provide all that information to him at that point.

N. Macdonald: It seems unbelievable to me. It absolutely seems unbelievable that this work is not available. The minister knows exactly the questions that I've been asking all summer. The minister was informed of what I'd be asking about, and what is….

The first part, the very first point of the 44 that the Filmon report is supposed to address, is about the province leading the strategic plan. The main part of that is for community protection. The minister cannot define the communities that need protection, the minister cannot tell me whether the plans are in place, and the minister cannot tell me whether any of that work has been done.

Is the minister aware of any of the issues that communities have raised around doing work, including work on Crown land, around liability issues and around cost issues? Has the minister met with communities that have indicated that those are problems that need to be addressed?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite has used a variety of numbers in his comments around the number of recommendations that Filmon made. I just want to make sure that it's clear to him that it's 42 recommendations. He just stated 44 a few minutes ago.

[1055]

I have clearly indicated that we're happy to provide that information, and he can continue to try and suggest that I've said different things, none of which I've said.

I meet with communities on a regular basis. The communities that I meet with continue to be committed to ensuring that their communities are protected. In fact, I met with the mayor of Lillooet just shortly after the fire that Lillooet faced, and he was very pleased with the service that was provided.

The member opposite — I'm happy to respond to him — is going to have lots of opportunity to continue to ask questions when we return to this wonderful place in a week and a bit. He'll have had a week or so to review the information that we'll provide him next Monday on which communities have done the work, and we'll leave it at that.

N. Macdonald: There's a difference between the work done to put out the fires and the work done in terms of doing the preventive work. So $400 million was spent this year. There is a cost, as well, to any preventive work. There are issues that have been there.

Has the minister met with the UBCM and discussed any of the issues that local government has raised about trying to put in place the community protection plans that he should know about? Has he met with UBCM? Have they raised any of the concerns that they have on behalf of communities trying to do the preventive work that the province is supposed to lead them to do?

Hon. P. Bell: I did meet with the leadership of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I have to go back and look on my calendar. I think it was six or eight weeks ago — somewhere in that range, certainly in the midst of fire season. In discussions with my assistant deputy minister, who also attended that meeting, we don't recall that being on the agenda. In fact, it was about a number of other issues, including things like property taxes and the round-table report.

N. Macdonald: I have no doubt the property tax issue would have come up, but at the same time, over the course of the last five years, community after community must have been in discussion with this ministry about, first, how to put in place these management plans and, then, how to not only come up with the plan but actually do the work. It will be around cost. It will be around liability issues. Much of the land — not all of it — is going to be Crown land. So there are obvious questions and an obvious need for the province to be part of that planning process.

The ministry is supposed to be taking the lead, and what we're hearing today is that you don't even know which communities you would define as communities that need a plan, you don't know who has completed a plan, and the minister doesn't really know some of the obvious complications about putting into place these plans.

Has he met with communities in his tenure as the minister, or has his staff met with communities that have indicated clear problems around how any work that needs to be done is going to be paid for, and around liability?

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

There are jurisdictional issues. A lot of this work is Crown work. It's Crown land. It's provincial work. Can the minister explain who he has met with and what some
[ Page 793 ]
of the issues are that they've raised? Does he recognize that those are legitimate issues that the minister has a responsibility to deal with?

[1100]

Hon. P. Bell: A few things that the member opposite raises. He says that we don't know — or that I don't, as the minister, or that we don't, as the ministry — where the threat is. That's not true. We have a very clearly articulated outline of the areas that are facing challenges across the province — about 1.7 million hectares.

The member opposite said we don't know who is impacted. That's not true. We know all the communities that have been impacted and, in fact, have met with all of the communities across the province that are impacted, at a staff level, and that communication is ongoing. We work with them at a technical level to prepare the wildfire management plans.

The member may be pointing out that we didn't bring that level of information here with us today. I would concur with him that we didn't bring that level of information with us here today, but I've already said that we are happy to do that, to provide that information for them in plenty of time to continue this discussion when we return to the House after UBCM.

I think one of the things that's important for the member opposite to note is that there's been a very strong partnership created through the wildfire management branch and UBCM. I think that partnership is a very positive one. Typically, in this political world, we tend to hear communication at a political level when things have not gone well at a technical level.

I would suggest to the member opposite that the technical work that's gone on at a community level has been very successful and that the types of questions the member is asking relate to the technical aspects of how you deal with fuel loading in and around each of the communities, and the liabilities that may be associated with that work. I think that at a technical level that's been dealt with very successfully. That's perhaps why it hasn't been as high on the radar screen for communities, because they do have a degree of confidence that we've met our objectives.

It is very challenging. I don't want to minimize, for the member opposite, what we're faced with here. We have a forest that is increasing in age each and every year. We've been very effective in this province historically, under all governments, at putting out fires. We have the largest amount of old-growth forest that the province has ever seen as a result of that wildfire management across the province.

We've got a great team of folks working on the ground, but this is going to be an ongoing challenge. I don't think anyone should assume that any government or any minister has the ability to make sure that we never have another wildfire. It is part of our ecosystem, it is part of nature, and we do our best to make sure that we protect people's homes, their lives, their businesses through all those periods of time.

Again, when I look at the 2009 wildfire season I think one of the real success stories is the minimal loss that we've had of structures — a total of seven structures across the province that we've lost so far. That compares to 2003 when we lost just under 350 structures altogether.

[1105]

That, I think, is a testament to the work that's been done, the delivery on the Filmon report and the very good work — and I know the member opposite has already pointed this out — of the wildfire protection branch and all of the staff on the ground, literally a huge army of individuals who delivered those services across the province this year.

Not quite through the season yet; we're nearing the end of it. We're hopeful we will get to the end of the season this year. It's been very challenging. But the member's assertions, I would suggest, are incorrect. The information is there. It's largely technical in nature, and we're happy to provide the member with that information.

N. Macdonald: This is the time to provide information, and the minister has provided practically zero information that should be readily available. For the minister to stand and assert that he has provided anything close to answering the question….

I thought the question was pretty clear. Has the minister met with any communities that have spoken to him about the issues on Crown land? And much of this work needs to be done around Crown land. Although I don't think the minister is confused on the issue, we are talking about the preventative work that Filmon talks about needing to be done, needing to be done as urgently as possible, and he made that recommendation four, five fire seasons ago.

Has the minister met with any communities who have laid out the problems in trying to do this work with funding it from a very limited tax base that the local government has, and has he been informed about the liability concerns that local government has?

Hon. P. Bell: I've already answered that question. I did meet with the leadership of the Union of B.C. Municipalities some time ago, in the last six or eight weeks. They prepared the agenda for that particular meeting. My recollection is that this wasn't on the agenda, certainly not as a primary item. It was primarily about the round-table report and about the taxation issues that they faced — those challenges.

I meet with communities all the time, and I would be hard-pressed to say that I hadn't met with communities that wanted to discuss fire mitigation. I recall one in particular was the community of Logan Lake. They actually
[ Page 794 ]
presented a very unique pilot project and an option for how they would like to mitigate their fire concerns, and we have been working with them through a variety of programs, including the job opportunities program, to see how we can implement that.

On a community-by-community basis I'd be hard-pressed, over the last 15 or 16 months that I've held this role, to go through each and every meeting. I have several notebooks full that I would have to go back through to review all of those meetings. By and large, I think communities have been reasonably pleased with the work that's been done, understanding that there is much more work yet to do.

N. Macdonald: Does the minister understand the difficulty for local government around paying for the work that is identified in the fire management plans, assuming that the community has completed a fire management plan?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite, I think, knows these numbers, but in 2004 the province allocated $37 million to fuel management. There remains $14.5 million. One of the Filmon recommendations, the fourth bullet down on the first recommendation, is to be cost-shared with local governments. While I have had some cursory comments from some of the communities that are outside the mountain pine beetle area, I have not had any formal representations from UBCM or anyone else requesting that the funding formula be adjusted.

I will say, though, that that money was granted unconditionally to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and they, of course, have the authority to make decisions as to how the money would be distributed as a result of that unconditional grant.

[1110]

N. Macdonald: Does the minister understand the liability issues around doing work on Crown land — with local government doing work to put in place a community protection plan, presuming that they have one?

Hon. P. Bell: We did work with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, at their request, to seek legal advice on liabilities that could be associated with wildfire management strategies and protection in local communities. We did receive legal advice. That legal advice was provided to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, was accepted by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and is publicly available, and it indicates that that legal liability should not be of concern for communities.

N. Macdonald: So the minister doesn't know which communities actually have a community plan. The minister is saying that he doesn't know how much work has been done in each of these communities. He's saying that there are no liability issues, and yet you still hear communities concerned about that. The minister is saying that somehow he has given a sum of money that went somewhere, but he has no idea of how much work has been done around communities that are clearly exposed.

By my definition, I would think that the community I come from in Golden is a community that is at risk. It's a community that Filmon indicates is an area of high fire risk, and yet those are issues that still have not been addressed there.

Although the minister doesn't know it, they actually have a community protection plan, but it is one that is largely something that they've been unable to act upon. The leadership should clearly come from the province in making sure that the issues that prevent it from being acted upon are actually acted upon.

We come back to the funding issue. Communities are facing tremendous strain in terms of having to pay for what would be the basic services that they are already required to spend. Is the minister saying here today that there are adequate funds to deal with the community protection plans?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite seems to think that if he repeats something often enough, it becomes true. That's simply not the case.

Clearly, we do know exactly which communities have risks. We're more than able to provide that information. I've already told that to the member opposite. He continues to indicate that we don't know where the risks are associated. That's incorrect. So he seems to think by repeating it that, perhaps, somehow it becomes true.

The issue with regards to liabilities. We've already indicated UBCM has accepted that information as a legitimate piece of legal advice, and they've distributed that information to the communities that had concerns. I'm not sure whether the member opposite would have us commission three or four or five pieces of legal advice on this, but certainly we're confident in the work that's been done.

[1115]

In terms of the funding envelopes available to communities, there was $37 million initially provided to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They have the authority as to the distribution of that money. There remains $14.5 million, and I've not had a formal representation from the Union of B.C. Municipalities suggesting that they'd like to change that. They would have the authority to make that decision anyway. It's certainly not a decision that's in my hands. The fact that there remains dollars in that fund available for communities would suggest to me that communities are doing the work as they see fit.

N. Macdonald: We have a minister, after one of the biggest fire years, and he cannot come here and tell us
[ Page 795 ]
the situation for communities like Quesnel, Revelstoke, Golden or Canal Flats. He can't tell us what the status of the protection plans for those communities is. He doesn't know how much work has been done around any of those communities.

All of the preventative work that Filmon calls for and that the province is supposed to lead…. This minister is not able to come here after his mind must have been focused on fires over the past summer. He cannot come to the estimates and give accurate, timely information about any of those things. It seems ridiculous to me. It seems absolutely ridiculous.

He talks about first nations communities. He says he's got a handle on that. How many of those communities would he define as at risk?

Hon. P. Bell: The member continues to bluster away in his effort to try and make people believe that something is true that's completely inaccurate.

He's asked the question on numerous occasions: would we provide him with that information? I've already indicated the answer: we will provide that information to him by next Monday — which, I will also mention, is prior to the end of the scheduled period for these estimates. So he will have an adequate opportunity to review that material and get back to us if he wishes to discuss it in estimates at a further stage.

I don't intend to continue answering questions of this nature. If the member has a different question, I'd be happy to answer it.

N. Macdonald: I did have a different question. I asked you. The minister said that he had a handle on first nations communities. He clearly doesn't have a handle on any of the other communities around. He said he had a handle on four first nations communities.

The question I asked: how many, by his definition, are communities — first nations communities — at risk?

Hon. P. Bell: At the risk of being redundant — I'm sure if the member looks back in the Hansard record, he'll find that I've already answered this question. There are a hundred mountain pine beetle–affected communities that have been directly contacted. Planning is underway, as 81 of those communities are working on securing funding, and 69 of those communities have proceeded with fuel management activities through this initiative.

N. Macdonald: Of the total of first nations communities, what is the percentage of communities that this minister defines as at-risk communities?

Hon. P. Bell: There are 203 first nations in the province of British Columbia. A hundred of them have been defined as within the mountain pine beetle region that we're concerned about.

N. Macdonald: Is the minister saying definitively that communities that are first nations and that are outside the mountain pine beetle area are communities that have absolutely no risk of wildfire? Is that what the minister is saying? If he's not, then how many total communities are communities that he considers at risk? Not communities that are in any defined area, but how many first nations communities are communities that are at risk?

Hon. P. Bell: As I mentioned to the member earlier, we have spatially identified all of the areas across the province that are at risk. If the member opposite…. I think we would have included it anyway, but when we provide him with that information on or prior to Monday, we will ensure that all of the first nations communities are identified — the ones that we consider to be at risk, the ones that have had work initiated and the ones that have had work completed.

[1120]

N. Macdonald: How many first nations communities were evacuated this summer?

The Chair: I'd just like to remind both minister and member to direct your comments through the Chair.

Hon. P. Bell: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I always appreciate that reminder.

The communities that immediately come to mind as ones that were under an evacuation notice, not an alert — because there are two levels here — but an evacuation notice, which is I think what the member opposite is referring to. The first nations communities were three: Lillooet, Redstone, and Nazko.

N. Macdonald: Was there any property loss on first nations?

Hon. P. Bell: We're not aware of any major structures that were lost in any first nations communities. We think there may have been a bit of an outbuilding or something in the Nazko fire. Not absolutely sure of that one. But the seven structures that were lost were in the Clinton area, the Glenrosa area and I think one at the Fintry fire, if I'm not mistaken.

N. Macdonald: Did all of these communities have fire protection plans?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't believe that any of these communities had wildfire protection plans in place.

N. Macdonald: So none of them had plans? So presumably none of the communities had any fuel management work done that the minister is aware of.
[ Page 796 ]

Hon. P. Bell: Each of the three communities that I mentioned — Lillooet, Redstone, and Nazko…. The wildfire protection branch had been working with those three communities prior to this year's fire season and had been in contact about the development of wildfire management plans and fuel mitigation strategies, although that work obviously hadn't been completed.

[1125]

We're not aware of any funding that had been provided to those three communities for fuel mitigation through the UBCM fund, but there are several other sources that we use for fuel mitigation, including the job opportunities program, and also how we sell our timber in the province through the B.C. Timber Sales program.

So it would be hard for me to say that there hadn't been work done through either of those programs. I wouldn't have that level of information here. But in terms of the fuel mitigation strategies through the UBCM fund, there were no applications to that fund from any of these three communities.

N. Macdonald: So as far as this minister knows, no fuel mitigation work was done around these communities. Minister, as far as you know, no work was done.

Hon. P. Bell: Again, not trying to be coy here at all. I can't confirm for the member opposite that there was not work done through either direct B.C. Timber Sales or other initiative, or through the job opportunities program. I can confirm to the member opposite that there was no work done through the UBCM fund.

N. Macdonald: How many communities by any definition, not just first nations, in British Columbia…? Here again, it would come to the minister's definition of a community. How many communities were under threat from fire this year?

Hon. P. Bell: It's 214.

N. Macdonald: How many of those communities had community protection plans?

Hon. P. Bell: That will require some work for us to do that analysis. If the member would like us to do that, we can, but it will require some matching up in terms of identifying that.

I'm actually surprised that we could come up with the answer, 214, as quickly as we did. But through the fine work of Brian Simpson and his knowledge as the director of our wildfire protection branch, we were able to get that answer very quickly. Again, if the member needs or feels that that information is something that's important, I'd be happy to provide that to him.

N. Macdonald: At the same time — and here again, it's information presumably that the minister has to go and get — how many of those communities had fuel management work done around them?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: We can add that information for the member opposite.

N. Macdonald: When is that information going to be ready? Will it be ready on Monday? Is that what the minister is saying? Or is it something that the minister is going to say is going to take longer than that?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to be a little cautious on this commitment, because we are, as the member will appreciate, still in fire season, with a couple of starts in the last 24 to 48 hours and some aggressive blowouts that we've had. We've had to issue a couple more evacuation notices.

[1130]

Our first priority, and I'm sure the member would concur with this, is to make sure that those fires are dealt with. So I don't want to pull resources off of those fires, and I know the member wouldn't suggest that. I'm not at all trying to put words in his mouth, but just being a little bit cautious whether we can get that work done in the same time frame that we've committed to the other work.

We'll do our best to get all that information to the member by the end of next week, but I just want to be a little cautious about overloading staff at a time that it is still important for us to be on the fires. We'll do our best to get that information for the member opposite by the end of the week. But I do want to caution him that if the workload is starting to build as the requests continue….

N. Macdonald: The minister, in an interview with Sean Holman, indicated that the minister has the ability to phone a contact person in each of the communities as they're threatened. That contact person would be in charge of the community protection plan. Implicit in that is that there are protection plans for each community — and on Monday we'll see if that's the case — and that there is one person that can be phoned in each of the communities.

I don't know the definition of community the minister is using in arriving at the number for communities that were threatened this year. I don't know if he's including villages or just incorporated or also including unincorporated and first nations. It would be interesting to hear what that is.

If it is simply a case of making that one phone call, even if it's 200, then we're talking about 200-odd phone calls to that one person the minister knows is there, and
[ Page 797 ]
that person presumably would be able to tell you if there is a plan and how much work has been done. If that's the case, it doesn't seem like we're going to threaten our forest fire response by getting that information, unless I misunderstand it.

A couple of things here. What is the definition of the communities that were at risk this summer? Is it just incorporated areas, or is it incorporated and unincorporated and first nations? And what is the complexity, if in each of those communities there is a contact person that the minister knows is there and would have the information on the plan and on how much work is done?

Hon. P. Bell: Two questions there. The first one is: would it require 200 phone calls — I think is what the member suggested — to determine that information?

Actually, we don't have to phone anyone. We have that information. It's just a question of collating that information, putting it together in a format for the member that makes sense so that he can read through the communities that have had that work done and understand what work has in fact been done. So we're not in a position where we need to contact those people. We have that information readily available.

The second question with regards to the 214 communities. I may have misstated the definition. That 214 is the number of interface fires that occurred this year. An interface fire can be anything from a cabin on a lake that could have been at risk as a result of the fire to a community like Lillooet, which is actually multiple communities…. In Lillooet, of course, if you actually looked for the definition of communities, you would come up with at least two, if not three, in the Lillooet situation.

The 214 that I quoted the member is the number of interface fires. The definition of an interface fire is: any fire at which a building or a human life would be at risk. I answered the first question as well.

[1135]

N. Macdonald: Just for my benefit and for public benefit, I appreciate the clarity on the definition. Obviously, the part that I'm trying to understand is around communities.

We will come back and revisit this. I think the frustrations that I have are…. We're going to disagree on whether they're valid frustrations or not, but my expectation would be that that information should be readily available. The minister says it will be on Monday, and there is opportunity to canvass those questions later.

The importance for me and, in fact, for the minister as well, coming from a rural community, is that that preventative work is done. I think the example that the minister would have heard me use in the summer is that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

The minister recognizes that the threat from fires is not something that is going to go away. It will be an ongoing problem, and it will require significant funds that we should put out. We should be spending this money to deal with the issues that we have in front of us, but we also need to do the preventative work.

I will assert, as I asserted during the summer, that I don't think the minister or the ministry have done that work in the way that they need to, and it's my intention, once we get that information, to try to make that case. The reason for that is to push the minister to do the work that he needs to do within government to get the funds to get the work completed.

Where we'll go in the ten to 15 minutes we have left this morning…. I'd like to just look at some of the costs and contracts we had over the summer. Just to begin with, the number of external crews. If you could identify the number of external crews, where they came from and their numbers, please.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm just going to ask for clarity from the member opposite — if he's looking for external to British Columbia or external to the Forest Service, because there are two levels of crews that we hire.

N. Macdonald: Actually, the question was around external to British Columbia, and then later on I was going to ask external to the service that you have. So if you have a way of easily combining those questions, that would be useful.

[1140]

Hon. P. Bell: I've got some very, very detailed level of information and then some that's more higher-level information. We actually do have day-by-day numbers in the province — I receive them every day — in terms of who was actually on the ground and working and from what locations.

But altogether, out-of-province resources during the entire fire season, a total of 1,321 individuals, and 26 of those 1,321 were from Australia, and two were from New Zealand.

I will point out to the member opposite that those 28 individuals were fire specialists, not people physically out on the ground with shovels. They're individuals that have a high level of technical expertise in terms of fire management and to look strategically at how to address the fire, so those individuals were specialists.

There were roughly 75, plus or minus a couple, individuals from the U.S. The majority of those individuals, not all of them, were type 1 firefighters. Those are individuals that are highly skilled but do physically go in and do the work on the ground in terms of helping to address fires, particularly fires that are very challenging with significantly active fire behaviour.

This is where I get into a little bit rougher numbers here. There were about 700 individuals that came from Ontario. If the member wants the exact number, we can go and get that, but hopefully, that will suffice.

Every province in Canada, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, provided individuals to us at
[ Page 798 ]
some point in time throughout the fire season through our shared agreement arrangements that we have with all of these respective jurisdictions. So the total number of out-of-province individuals: 1,321

In-province but not Forest Service individuals — these are contractors that we bring on. Typically, these contractors are brought on. They're either type 2 or type 3 firefighters, not type 1 firefighters. They're individuals that would come in, and they wouldn't be working on highly active fires. They would be coming in and doing a lot of the work afterwards, the mop-up stuff — going around and putting out hot spots, demobilizing the camps. There's another good example.

This is a huge army, as I know the member well appreciates, that goes out. It's a huge amount of food and fuel and tents and camps that all get set up. So we take those type 1 firefighters and move them to another situation, and then we use these additional services.

Altogether, 1,294 contractors or contract services were used. That includes about 550 emergency firefighter training program individuals that we trained. Those folks were in that group of people as well. That was from the displaced forest worker program that we initiated. I think early July, late June maybe, we started that program.

Altogether, I think it was about 4,400 people that were deployed at some point in time or another.

Inside the ministry as well, the member opposite might be interested to know, we asked people to volunteer to go out and work on the fires — some in an administrative capacity, some actually on the fire lines. We had a significant number of staff leave their regular positions within the ministry and go out and work on those.

I apologize. I had said about 550 emergency firefighters. It was actually 772 altogether, I believe, in the end.

I'm sure we'll continue, but that's at least a start on those numbers.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

N. Macdonald: Could I just have one more question? It will be very, very quick.

Actually, I'm just going to turn to one of my colleagues that has a question. And there will be a few of these questions that are…. Simply, people have asked us questions, so it will be more just to take that information and then provide it back to the people who have asked. That will be the purpose of it.

[1145]

I think the one other thing is — you have said it many times, and I have said it — just how much we appreciate the efforts. I think you have staff with you that led some of those efforts over the summer. I think all British Columbians…. Not only for those that came to the province, but also those that are constantly working on this issue….

The fact is that there were such a limited number of structures actually lost and, for the ferocity of the events, that we came out very fortunate in terms of what we experienced. So I think we appreciate that.

I just want to turn it over to my colleague. I think it's just one question.

L. Popham: I took a tour this summer through Cache Creek, Kamloops, 100 Mile and Quesnel, and this question was posed to me from the agricultural community.

As you set up fire camps and bring food purchases into the camps, I am wondering what percentage of food is B.C. product or if you're sourcing B.C. farms. This time of year, the height of fire season, is the time when B.C. farms are brimming with produce and are looking for markets. If you could talk to me about that, it would be great.

Hon. P. Bell: It would be hard for us to come up with a percentage of local product consumed, because we move around every year and we don't necessarily know where the fires are going to be.

We do use local contractors throughout the province to provide our food supply, and one of the principles that we articulate to those local contractors is a preference to locally purchased product. But because of the nature of the work that we do and how much we move across the province, it would be very challenging to identify a specific percentage of local purchase.

As someone who was previously the Agriculture Minister, certainly I'm a big proponent of the hundred-mile diet. We do what we can to support the local agricultural community.

I'll also say, as an example, we had a very aggressive fire in May of this year, prior to any of the local produce in the 70 Mile House, 100 Mile House area being available. But it is a principle that we follow.

I will just conclude by acknowledging our wildfire branch and staff. Brian Simpson and his team do a phenomenal job, and British Columbians should be proud of what has been accomplished this and each and every year.

I was at an event on Saturday night in Prince George, and I had a mom come and talk to me. She said: "I just really want to thank you and the wildfire protection branch for focusing on safety. My son has worked for the protection branch, and he operated on three different fires this year. He's kind of a bit of a cowboy anyways and someone that might not be all that careful."

But safety is drilled into each and every one of the people within the protection branch. I think that's a real success story.

I just, again, want to acknowledge, as did the critic, and thank Brian Simpson and his team for all the work that they did. [Applause.]

With that, Mr. Chair, I'd ask that the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175