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, October 8, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 4, Number 4

[ Page 1107 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Speaker's Statement

rules for private members' statements

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the opportunity for members to discuss matters of interest to themselves and their constituents is well recognized and supported by the rules of the House. Members have an opportunity to raise such issues daily in statements by members, Standing Order 25B, and on Monday morning under private members' statements, Standing Order 25A.

In particular, I would like to address these remarks to private members' statements and the interpretation of Standing Order 25A. While these statements often spark healthy debate and allow members to discuss policy ideas, I would like to remind members of two key parameters of these statements.

Firstly, they should not reflect negatively on individual members or groups in the House. Secondly, they should deal with topics that are not otherwise before the House. As Speaker Sawicki noted, there are other opportunities for such debates, particularly during debate on estimates or debate on bills.

The hour-long session is a unique opportunity which allows eight private members to debate a broad range of topics beyond the confines of what is already before the House. So I would like to encourage members that private members' statements be used to put forward their own vision and ideas rather than use the time as a vehicle for political party rhetoric. Respectfully submitted.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call second reading of Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009.

For people viewing this, I also call estimates debate for the small House. This morning we will be having Transportation estimates up for debate in Committee A.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 10 be now read a second time.

This bill, Bill 10, continues the ongoing work of our government to consolidate the expansion of our parks and protected areas system and fulfilment of the agreements reached through multi-stakeholder land use planning processes and extensive government-to-government discussions with first nations.

This legislation will add more than 111,000 hectares to the area protected by the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act by adding nine new conservancies to the act that were recently established by order-in-council and by establishing one new park and one new ecological reserve and making additions to seven existing parks. The nine conservancies are a result of the Haida Gwaii land use agreement with the Haida Nation.

The creation of these conservancies builds on the implementation of land use decisions for the central coast and north coast that the Premier announced in February 2006. Twenty-four new conservancies were designated in that first year, and a further 41 conservancies identified in the north coast and central coast land use decisions were legally designated in 2007. In 2008 another 70 conservancies were established as part of one of the largest single additions to the parks and protected areas system in the history of British Columbia, both in terms of area and number of sites.

The new conservancies on Haida Gwaii, as well as with the conservancies, recognize the importance of these areas to first nations by ensuring that they will be able to use the resources in these areas to sustain their communities and their cultural connections to the land. These new conservancies also enhance the protection of the environment and opportunities for sustainable recreational uses, such as wildlife-viewing, for all British Columbians and people from around the world.

These areas protect old-growth forests, rare plant communities, geological features, important habitat for a number of fish and wildlife species, and areas and sites of important cultural, heritage and spiritual values for the Haida Nation. There are also features that are a draw for recreational activity, such as hiking trails and anchorages that provide safe havens for boaters.

I would like to describe for you some of the natural, recreational and cultural values that are being protected in some of these new conservancies. Bear with me as I endeavour to properly pronounce a number of these names.

The Daawuuxusda conservancy, 70,293 hectares in size, is located on the west shore of Moresby Island, north of Haida Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. This conservancy contains rare plant communities, old-growth forests and geological features such as limestone formations and columnar basalt formations known as pipe organs. This conservancy is dissected by a number of major sounds, channels and inlets which provide important salmon habitat as well as spectacular recreational opportunities.
[ Page 1108 ]

The Damaxyaa conservancy, one of the smaller conservancies at 822 hectares, is located on the east side of Moresby Island south of Sandspit. The conservancy contains old-growth forests, including large alluvial Sitka spruce. It is also home to the Dover Trail, a regionally significant hiking trail, and is important habitat for hawks and the marbled murrelet.

The Kamdis conservancy, at 1,896 hectares in size, straddles the Kumdis Slough, a network of internationally significant estuary wetlands on the northern part of Graham Island. The protected shorelines and low-gradient foreshores are important migration, rearing and feeding habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species, such as salmon and trout, as well as falcons, great blue herons and sandhill cranes.

The K'uuna Gwaay conservancy, at 1,764 hectares in area, is located on the east side of Louise Island. It contains important cultural, heritage and spiritual values for the Haida Nation, as well as old-growth forests, important limestone formations and endemic and rare wildlife species.

With the addition of these areas, more than 50 percent of the ecologically rich land and foreshore in Haida Gwaii, also known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, are protected for the enjoyment of this generation and future generations.

[1010]

Mr. Speaker, as you will well know, this bill also includes a description for the much anticipated park in the Okanagan region known as Skaha Bluffs park. This park was recommended as part of the Okanagan-Shuswap land and resource management plan. Our intention is to implement this park by regulation, assuming Bill 10 passes the Legislature and following further consultations with the Okanagan Nation Alliance and other stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I know you've had a considerable interest in this particular parcel. At your invitation, I've had the opportunity on a number of occasions to visit and hike the area, and I can attest to its natural beauty and also significance, I believe, for wildlife and habitat protection. At an initial size of 179 hectares, Skaha Bluffs provincial park will protect a popular climbing area and important habitat for wildlife, including bighorn sheep, which is of course a species that you can see from time to time in the South Okanagan.

In 2008 the Ministry of Environment — in partnership with a number of groups, including the Land Conservancy of B.C., the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Mountain Equipment Co-op — purchased 304 hectares of private land adjacent to the proposed park. These lands will be added to the park in the future.

Really, what we have here is a triple win. It's a win for wildlife, it's a win for local residents, and it's a win for tourism, as the Skaha Bluffs are an internationally renowned and recognized rock-climbing destination. This move to put this area into a provincial park will further put this area on the international climbing map and should be a boon for tourism for future generations to enjoy. Just as importantly, it will protect a habitat for the bighorn sheep.

In addition, this move to acquire the private land, with B.C. Parks building new access over the last year, removes the uncertainty that arose every year about whether or not people would continue to be able to access the bluffs by traversing privately owned land. Every year there was concern and consternation about whether or not access would be maintained. By acquiring this privately held land and now building a new access road, parking area and trail to connect the parking to the bluffs themselves, we have taken steps to ensure continued public access to that great feature known as the Skaha Bluffs.

I should also note that a new ecological reserve is being created with Bill 10. Det san, which means "juniper" in the language of the Wet'suwet'en people, is in the Skeena region in the northwest of the province.

Through these amendments, this government is also making a number of small but significant additions to parks located around the province. Almost seven hectares are being added to Alice Lake Park near Squamish, one hectare is being added to improve the access to Cape Scott Provincial Park at the northern tip of Vancouver Island, and 48 hectares are being added to Gordon Bay Park on Vancouver Island.

One-sixth of a hectare is being added to Mount Seymour Park on the North Shore of Vancouver, 16.6 hectares are being added to Naikoon Park on Haida Gwaii, 38.5 hectares are being added to Squitty Bay provincial park on Lasqueti Island, and just over 53 hectares are being added to Enderby Cliffs park in the North Okanagan. All of these additions are the result of private land acquisitions undertaken by the government to improve and maintain park values.

This bill also removes the description of one class A park, Canal Flats Park, near Windermere in the Rocky Mountain Trench. This land will be transferred to the village of Canal Flats for local park purposes.

One park description is being added. Truman Dagnus Locheed Park, which up to now has been established by order-in-council, is located in the North Okanagan. Its addition to the schedules of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will give it increased legislative protection.

Finally, the amendments in this bill contain a name change to an existing park. The name of Brooks Peninsula Park is being changed at the request of the Ka:'yu:'k't'h' and Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nations to incorporate a first nations name alongside the existing name. That park is located on the northwest side of Vancouver Island.

I had a chance to visit that park for the first time this summer, along with the local first nations as well as Chris Kissinger, a long-serving and dedicated B.C. Parks employee and Ministry of Environment employee who
[ Page 1109 ]
continues to threaten to retire from the public service after about 40 years of dedicated commitment to the province of British Columbia. I continue to encourage him to stay a bit longer if he's able, but I understand that he and his wife may have other plans. But I digress.

[1015]

These amendments are the culmination of working partnerships between first nations, conservation groups, industry, communities and this government to find solutions that keep everybody's interests in mind. These amendments reflect our government's continued commitment to being a world leader in protecting our environment and ensuring high-quality management of our parks and protected areas.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there may be other members wanting to speak on this bill, so I'll take my place at this time.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to rise this morning to speak at second reading on Bill 10. This amendment act adds 11 parks and protected areas in a number of regions across British Columbia to the inventory of the land base that is protected already in British Columbia.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Those regions include the Kootenays, Vancouver Island, the Haida Gwaii, the Okanagan region and even, ever so slightly, Metro Vancouver as it relates to Mount Seymour. In speaking in support of this bill, we really must look to the conservation efforts on the ground by civil society, by environmental non-governmental organizations, by local government and by first nations, who negotiated, in the case of the content of this bill, in Haida Gwaii areas that are protected and designated in the province of British Columbia. It is because of those efforts and that work that has been done.

I think every member of the assembly needs to look at the contents and specifics of what we will gain and decide for themselves to support this bill, but it is certainly the main reason why I will be voting in favour.

There's another critical reason to support this bill, in part, that I want to address this morning. That is that now, under this government, what used to be a requirement to add and demand — park by park, area by area — additions to our protected land base in British Columbia…. What used to be common and required is now a rare opportunity.

That is because this government made changes in 2003 to the main bill, which we are amending again today. Those changes took away from this place the tradition that we had going back to the 1970s of identifying and debating and approving new protected areas in B.C. and made it the privilege and the sole purview of cabinet by order-in-council.

That's a bad practice. That's a surrender of the role of the Legislative Assembly. It was opposed by the opposition at the time in 2003. It was opposed by every conservation group in B.C. because the risk and the danger, which is still there even after we approve, if we do approve, Bill 10…. The danger that is still there is that land area protected only by OIC, only protected by a backroom order, can be rescinded in exactly the same manner.

If parks and protected areas have to come to this Legislature — as they should, as they have for over three decades…. If a government wants to take them out or change use or redesignate those lands, then it has to come back to this place. That is a protection that was afforded to British Columbians and to the very organizations that have struggled and worked to get these lands that we're talking about today in law. Unfortunately, today it is no longer in law because of Bill 84 in 2003.

Bill 84 was controversial for a number of other reasons. It not only took away the role of the assembly in having the basis of approval of new protected areas; it gave resource exploitation in our parks access that it has never had before, which it still has today, and that was never intended to occur.

[1020]

Bill 84 allowed, for the first time, the oil and gas industry subsurface rights to every single protected area, including the ones that we're debating this morning. It allowed resource extraction to happen in parks in ways that were never permitted or intended before.

That's the record of this government on protected areas in B.C. — systematically weakening and watering down legislative protections that British Columbians have enjoyed, actually undermining the very definition of protected areas and protected lands and conservancies, undermining the ecological integrity of our parks.

We've had access roads plowed through parks using the new allowances from Bill 84. We have had interest by the oil and gas sector to try and model directional drilling into our parks.

The danger is that when they amended that act in 2003, the government deliberately chose not to put language in the bill that would put the onus on resource companies, put some liability on those companies, in the event that ecological catastrophe occurs, in the event that tailings and contamination of groundwater and disruption of habitat results in stresses on species in those parks and protected areas.

None of that was put in the bill. It was all about permissiveness for resource extraction and not about protecting the ecological integrity of what had been designated by debate. Some of those parks are over a century old. It was not about protecting that land base that British Columbians, through their elected officials, have accumulated over years in this place.

I think that every member of the Legislature supports and acknowledges the value of parks. We all represent constituencies that have provincial, regional and national
[ Page 1110 ]
parks in them. We understand the need for a parks system. We probably all are working with organizations to expand protected areas because there is a lot of land — some of it privately held, as the minister said in his introduction — that has been identified as areas of natural interest to our communities.

Because of the biological diversity and the natural beauty of these areas, parks are also increasingly important benchmarks for scientific research. In the case of all of the parks that we're debating today, there is value here in understanding and interpreting our cultural heritage, and I think the Haida Gwaii have spoken very passionately in this regard to those sections of the bill outside of this chamber.

But in reality, there's another use of our parks too. They are the outdoor classrooms that British Columbians of all ages want access to and want to be able to enjoy. You know, when we are talking about the difficult economic times that we're in, I think it's worth noting, in government reports commissioned by themselves, the incredible economic value of parks, as well as a place for B.C. families to recreate, as a place to attract visitors from all over the world.

There was a study actually commissioned by this government, and it's interesting because it certainly proved how valuable parks are to the diversification of our economy and the economic impact of park-based tourism. Government received that early in its mandate in 2001, and one of the findings was that for each dollar that government has invested in parks — continues to invest in parks and protected areas — it has an impact of $10 in additional visitor expenditures. That's an incredible multiplier effect in the economy.

[1025]

At the time — this is almost ten years ago; this is 2001 — a third of the visitors' expenditures, which had a value of $150 million, was made by out-of-province residents — so a direct influx of money to circulate in our economy, something that we very badly need today.

But as people will recall from the summer that we've just been through…. What has the government done in terms of its support for parks? It has again cut the budget for our park system. It has supervised the closures of all kinds of campgrounds and a systematic reduction in park access for British Columbians. It has laid off park rangers, which already British Columbia has a critical shortage of.

Staff in parks. The levels of staff in B.C.'s parks have never been lower than now under this government. For every one park ranger we have here in British Columbia, Alberta has three.

So while we're debating a bill today that will add over 100,000 hectares of protected area in British Columbia — and that's a good thing — we have to realize, and we have to tell people plainly, that we have fewer people working in our parks per hectare than ever before. It has had a real impact on the quality of enjoyment that people have of their parks. It has had real consequences in that regard.

I hope I can save some time to read some letters from people who have experienced the park system over the last year, because since becoming the Environment critic for the opposition, I have received a great deal of correspondence from people, both British Columbians and people from abroad, talking about how appalled they were at the state of our parks. It's going to get worse under this government.

Another reason that I would support this bill is that it adds very well onto critically important work that was done, that British Columbia should be proud of and is proud of, between the years of 1991 and 2001. During that decade the protected areas of British Columbia went from 6 percent of our land base to 12 percent. It was an incredible period of growth and dynamism for protected areas and for species at risk in British Columbia, for habitat protection for all time, for all generations.

We've actually experienced quite a slowdown under this government in the identification and protection of new areas of our province that are distinct and have immense ecological value. We have seen approximately 75 percent less land being protected by this government during its decade in power than we had in the previous decade. Those are just the facts.

We went from, in the previous decade, being recognized by the United Nations as the first jurisdiction to comply with the biosphere agreement that recommended as a benchmark that jurisdictions like B.C. protect 12 percent of their land base and achieved it. Since then I think there has been a profound sense of complacency and disinterest by this government because they have decelerated new acquisitions and new protected areas in B.C.

Let me just speak to the background and the backdrop of the government's budget on parks. The most recent B.C. Parks budget is barely $30 million in this province — $30 million for 650 provincial parks representing 13½ million hectares. Now, the previous high under the previous government for a parks budget was $42 million, and that was in real dollar terms ten years ago, so significantly more in today's terms. Washington State, by comparison, a jurisdiction with a similar population and a much smaller land base, has 110 state parks and a budget of $100 million to run those parks.

[1030]

Now, do the math. That is a significant investment per capita, a greater investment that Washington State makes than British Columbia. We're both chasing the same visitors and interest and economic benefits that parks-based and wilderness-based tourism provides, and they're outspending us 6 to 1.
[ Page 1111 ]

Look at the national parks budget in B.C. We have a great system of national parks in B.C. The federal government spends on average $1 million per park that they have in British Columbia. In B.C. we spend $43,000 — a mere $43,000 on average per park. That's incredible, and it's getting worse. As we're debating a bill to enhance protected areas in British Columbia, we're cutting the funds to do the work on the ground that actually makes it meaningful and makes it safe for visitors to enjoy those parks. That's a point that can't be missed in this debate.

I mentioned earlier that the province had cut the budget for back-country rangers and the people employed as rangers in our park system. It's been cut by 45 percent by this government. That's what is happening in our park system.

We had last year 63.8 full-time-equivalents in park rangers working in our provincial parks in a 650-park system in B.C. That's how thinly spread it is on the ground.

It's been commented by members opposite in debating a number of bills that by comparison, where we have 63 park rangers, this government has had no problem creating 216 full-time positions in the public affairs bureau, and their budget has grown significantly every year. But those are the choices that this government has made. Well, the public affairs bureau, by comparison to our entire park system, is $36 million. Our park system has just been cut to $30 million.

You know, Madam Speaker, what was interesting with the budget introduced in September is that the minister himself said: "We have to identify $2.4 million in additional cuts by service providers who administer our parks that we have not identified yet."

So here we are three-quarters of the way into our fiscal year, and there's $2½ million worth of parks cuts yet to be identified. What is that going to do to the quality of enjoyment in our parks?

I mentioned the previous amendments this government made to the protected areas act that allowed and made it easier for resource companies to propose directional drilling on the subsurface of our parks. One of the other things that has been made easier in terms of resource exploitation and water diversion is around run-of-river projects in parks. It was only after massive pressure that a company, which was several stages into the advancement of the process, was forced to shelve the project on the Pitt River. I expect my colleague from Maple Ridge will speak more to this.

It gives you a sense of the values that this government has forced into our parks system. They created in 2006…. And it was only discovered through a freedom-of-information inquiry that this government had put together a policy and put it in place, which called for the expansion of lodges and parks without any consultation required or any transparency that the process was going on to be shared with the public. That's what happened in the previous years, and it's pretty critical when we're looking at the backdrop for what this bill represents here today.

[1035]

I mentioned some of the protected areas that were created in the previous decade, the 4.76 million hectares that were identified — places like the Tatshenshini, the Stein Valley, Clayoquot, the Khutzeymateen and areas across British Columbia. We led the world in conservation management at that time.

But now we are in a period where our park system is quietly being diminished because of cuts to managing these lands — an area actually greater than the size of the province of New Brunswick which must be managed by B.C., which I mentioned has seen systematic and sustained cuts to the funding that provides that.

I want to give you an indication of what's happening in the parks because some of the things that are being said and written about British Columbia — and I quote one newspaper in Seattle — are not doing anything for B.C.'s reputation in this regard. I quote a column from the Seattle Times which questions how B.C. can live up to its billing as the super, natural destination "when visitors come here and find roads washed out and campgrounds closed and trash-covered and are forced to use toilet facilities that don't exist."

That's what we're hearing from visitors to the province of B.C. That's what they're writing about our province in other jurisdictions. That's not the stuff you want to put in advertisements and on brochures about how you will find the state of our parks after you book your transportation and your holiday to British Columbia. Word travels pretty fast in this day and age via the Internet, via tourism experience rating systems and special blogs that exist which people consult before they make the decision on where they want to go.

Madam Speaker, you know, what's incredible is that surely the motivation for creating more protected areas in B.C. is to help the climate change mitigations that we must make to help species survive that are under threat and under great stress in British Columbia today.

It's interesting that probably the best promoted and most well-known and at-risk species here on the Island has not escaped the shortsighted and foolish budget cuts of this government. The Island marmot recovery program is being wound down in this budget year at the same time that in two instances of this bill, we're looking at protected areas adjacent to Strathcona Park and in the mid-Island into the Cowichan Valley, which are potential habitat for marmot and other species.

There's no funding for that. The whole point of preserving the land and helping species like marmots recover is that they work in tandem, and here we have government doing something on the one hand and something quite different on the other. That's not going to help the efforts that the public expect government to make on their
[ Page 1112 ]
behalf to protect the natural beauty and the ecological integrity of British Columbia.

I want to conclude by saying this. This government set a goal for itself. They're famous for setting lofty, ambitious goals, which is great. That's what people expect in many instances. They set one when it came to the park system, a vague performance target for sure, but the goal was to have the best park system in the world.

From some of the things I've said today and from some of the things that park users and people who are working to conserve B.C.'s natural land base…. People are writing about it in the journalism profession, and visitor impressions are being made in this regard that are potentially damaging to the economic benefits that tourism and parks bring to B.C. The reality is that British Columbia today is a jurisdiction with a park system that is in decline.

While we'll be voting on this side of the House in favour of Bill 10 in support of the efforts of conservation groups, first nation leaders, environmental NGOs, land trusts and others — most of whom have raised a lot of the cash that has purchased some of the private lands that are being protected in this bill….

[1040]

We'll be voting in support of those efforts because we respect the time and work and the ecological wisdom and the identification process that went into selecting those sites and making it happen. We'll be voting with that, but we will be voting against and continuing to speak out against the government's mismanagement of our park system, the systemic underfunding of this park system and budget cuts that are contained in the budget that is still being debated in this chamber, when it comes to staffing and resourcing our park system.

We will be voting against that at a later date, and we will be approving this bill in the hopes that the government may, one day, actually take steps that will fulfil and make us progress towards actually having a park system that we can boast is the best in the world. Today that is an empty claim, and it's getting worse.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to stand today to address Bill 10, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009, which brings in nine new conservancies, one new park and an ecological reserve. I will be voting in favour of this bill. As a longtime conservationist, I certainly endorse the inclusion of more protected areas, some of which sound quite unique and exciting and good for wildlife as well as for recreational benefits.

I've had the pleasure of working with some of the organizations that are involved with the Skaha Bluffs acquisition, such as the Land Conservancy, when we acquired a couple of parks that are now regional parks in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. These conservancies were designated for protection before as a result of land use agreements, etc. The conservancies, of course, are a lower level of protection than B.C. Parks, and therefore, I have a little bit of concern that the government seems to be moving more and more to conservancies and less to parks.

I want to make a comment on one thing the minister has mentioned with regards to conservancies — that being wildlife viewing and that it'll enhance wildlife viewing. That's a very important issue, both to the enjoyment of more and more British Columbians and people around North America and throughout the world, and also to the economy of British Columbia.

Wilderness tourism has become very large, but I have to say that I am concerned with regard to the effects on wildlife viewing that some of the initiatives of this government, particularly around the independent power projects and around the grizzly hunting up the coast — which is so-called trophy hunting, which I simply do not endorse…. I was a longtime hunter at one time during my life but never a trophy hunter. I cannot understand that philosophy, and a lot of British Columbians agree with that.

Having said that, however, it is an issue that a number of people do support and participate in, and it also has an effect on the economy. So there are two sides to that agreement. But the issue with the grizzly bear, particularly up the coast, is of concern to conservationists.

Of course, the major problem that I have with the Ministry of Environment in terms of…. Well, a major problem, anyway, is the lack of protection on the ground in our parks, and that's reflected by an 18 percent cut in the February '09 budget to the parks and protected areas program. In fact, the budget now is almost 20 percent less than it was back in 1999.

The February '09 budget made an 11 percent cut to the ministry. There were cuts to park funding including shorter seasons, full closures of parks and laying off of park rangers. In my constituency and my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows we have Golden Ears Provincial Park, the largest park in terms of visitors and a very large park geographically, as well, in the province.

I can't tell you how many complaints I hear, Madam Speaker — they are numerous — about the state of that park, the disrepair of the trails, the lack of action to repair them, the garbage that's strewn around and not being collected, the roads being closed.

[1045]

People use that park year-round, or they try to, but the roads are often closed to the park in the wintertime. That has upset a lot of people, and it shows, really, a lack of commitment by this government to put the resources on the ground where it counts. The conservancies count, the park designations count, but it also counts big-time to have the protection enforcement and resources on the ground, and that's what we're not seeing.

So the Ministry of Environment budget dropped 19 percent between budget 1.0 in February and budget 2.0
[ Page 1113 ]
that was presented last month. Mind you, with that cut — and I've outlined some of the important areas that have felt the brunt of those cuts — there was a boost of 63 percent to executive and support services.

Also, of course, we know about the infamous work-free zone that Ministry of Environment officials have been enjoying — apparently, the minister knowing nothing about it or condoning it if he did. That's the last thing that people of British Columbia want to see. They want to see more environment people on the ground, out there working — not having taxpayers pay for big plasma screen TVs, etc.

Prioritization is important. The ministry has got to get it right. The minister has got to get it right. This decrease in the parks budget — this has been going on over a number of years, and the minister, I'm sure, has heard many times from citizens, conservation groups, etc., about this concern.

Of course, we have the pay parking. That's been very, very unpopular. Unfortunately, paid parking in parks has kept users away from the parks — just the exact opposite effect of what you want. You want more people coming to our parks to enjoy the beauties that they have.

So there have been a lot of…. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a positive bill overall, it does not address, of course, the many negative factors in the ministry, and we're looking for that from this government. Hopefully, that kind of legislation is going to be forthcoming before this session is over.

We now have two ministers and a parliamentary secretary heading the ministry but still very little action on important environmental issues like the collapse of the sockeye fishery and important water allocation issues. I've talked in this House before about the collapse of the sockeye fishery and the lack of action by this government. I just want to mention again in passing that it's a disaster, and it's a crime that this government has not picked up…. The minister announced some kind of a public probe — by whom, when and by what terms no one knows, and nothing on the ground.

Water allocation issues are huge in my constituency. They're big in the Okanagan, and we need to see action by the government on that front. This bill doesn't bring in any regulation or law to deal with the incursion into parks by independent power producers. The critic previously mentioned Bill 84 in 2003, which allowed for more and more industrial and commercial use in our parks. The IPPs, the so-called run of the rivers, are a big one.

The minister will know the huge dispute over the Upper Pitt in my constituency now — the Upper Pitt River — and the fact that the power producer wanted to go through the park, a class A park, with a power line. That was ostensibly cut off by the minister. It was for a period of time, but I've talked to that operator, and he's still working on it. Now he's looking at tunnelling under the park. The fact of the matter is the whole project is a disaster.

[1050]

There's nothing in this legislation. We haven't seen any will on the part of this government to address the fact that the people of British Columbia do not want industrial and commercial development in our parks in any way, shape or form. We didn't want to see the expansion. We know that in Manning Park there are some historical facilities and in some other areas as well. But they don't want to see a carte blanche of industrial and commercial development in our parks. They don't want to see the downgrading of the primary purposes of parks, which are (a) for the protection of species and (b) for the enjoyment of British Columbians.

The aforementioned Bill 84 in 2003 amended the Park Act to allow park use permits to be issued for resort or tourism development. That was a huge scare to British Columbians. Then we saw in 2006 the lodges-in-parks policy, and they had one planned in Golden Ears Park. Thank goodness that people in British Columbia were extremely concerned about this, and they raised a great deal of opposition to it, and it seems to be off for now.

But none of this is off the books. The possibility is always there that anytime the government sees fit to raise the issue of more lodges in parks, the commercialization in parks, the destruction of the primary purpose of our parks, that could happen again. So we remain and British Columbians remain worried about that and vigilant to the necessity of….

This government's primary purpose is always for commercial development, whether it be in parks or elsewhere. There are some places that it's just not appropriate to expand commercial development such as resorts, and B.C. parks are one of those areas.

I could say a lot more about this bill, but I know there are a number of other speakers that would like to address it as well. With that, I will take my place.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind members that we are discussing Bill 10 and that we have the opportunity to discuss the Ministry of Environment's budget in other areas, but as it relates to Bill 10.

V. Huntington: I am pleased that the minister has moved to protect these lands. They have unique and very high environmental value, and they are important to the future of this province and its wildlife. The more land the minister can move to protect, the better off this entire province will be.

I'm disappointed, however, that he did not feel that he could move to protect the foreshores of Delta. My municipality is of enormous importance to this province and to the world in that it hosts the Pacific migratory bird flyway. The south Fraser Valley is entirely developed, and without Delta, that flyway would no longer exist. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the minister and his government will not move more urgently to protect the foreshore in the strongest means possible.
[ Page 1114 ]

The Boundary Bay wildlife management area of the Boundary Bay and the Boundary Bay raptor management area are areas that have some protection from the province. The raptor management area is an agreement signed by the province. It has only recently been renewed for I'm not sure how long, but it is an agreement that rests at the discretion of this government.

If that agreement were ever to dissolve, we would no longer have that old field habitat that is so critical. That habitat supports the highest concentration of raptors in this country — not just Delta, not just B.C., but Canada. The minister has not served us well by ignoring the strongest protections available to that area.

[1055]

The Roberts Bank foreshore has not been protected in any way. It is not considered a protected management area at this point. I believe that even during the treaty negotiations with Tsawwassen, there was an agreement that the province would not declare it a wildlife management area, and that is of extraordinary concern to the people of Delta. Without the foreshore and the uplands protected in the strongest ways possible, this province serves to undermine and to lose the population of migratory birds that are supported solely and only by the foreshores of Delta and, partially, the foreshores along Sturgeon Bank in Richmond.

If this minister cannot move to recognize these important things, not move to celebrate the fact that we are the fourth most important bird area in the world…. It is a recognized international fact that without the protection of the Fraser delta, the migratory bird structure on the west coast of North America would collapse, and this government is doing nothing to ensure that it survives in a healthy manner.

I can say nothing more to the minister than we in Delta know that the province is actively attempting to industrialize much of the upland that supports the migratory bird flyway. There is no indication that they're willing to stand firm against the Port of Vancouver and red-list the habitat areas of Roberts Bank.

I would strongly urge that the minister take up the cause of the migratory bird flyway and consider studying with his officials how he might best protect that area.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill, Bill 10, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. I'm rising today to speak in favour of this act — with reservations. And I'd like to talk about those a little bit today.

First of all, I'm in favour because these ecological reserves and the parks that are outlined in the bill, in Bill 10, are very, very important — and I'll talk a little bit about that — as far as the issues we're facing in the future with items like climate change and increasing encroachment on our rural and unroaded areas.

First off, the reservations. I believe that protected areas are important as outlined in this bill, but creating them is not good enough on its own. The minister has pointed out the tourism potential that arises from these protected areas and parks, but the enjoyment of these areas by tourists is dependent on Ministry of Environment–supported staff. Specifically, I'm talking about park rangers. I know that the minister is very familiar with this topic, because I understand that in his background he was a park ranger at one point.

The park rangers provide the experience that tourism visitors find to be great in these areas. For instance, in the Spatsizi, where…. I was up in the Spatsizi region of this province in the northwest, a beautiful area, and that's a beautiful park as well. But the only park ranger for the Spatsizi covers not only the Spatsizi but the whole of northwest B.C. — all the parks. That's because of successive cutbacks by this government in the Ministry of Environment budget.

I'm just pointing out that you can't create protected areas and parks just on their own, without actually also providing the human resources that are behind why we need these parks and protected areas. More important, I believe — and the minister pointed this out as well — in Bill 10 than the tourism aspects is the ecological reserve aspect of these areas.

[1100]

I believe that what biologists…. I have a biology background — quite a few years ago, but I do have a biology background. I believe that what these areas are called are refugia. These are refuges for plants and animals, for the genetic materials that we're going to need to address issues like climate change. It's a refuge for those species to spread out again once the landscape is impacted by man.

Again, without people on the ground, whether it's rangers or conservation officers or a biologist doing inventory work, the worth of these protected areas and parks is not being fully utilized by us and the intent behind them is not being fully utilized.

In this budget alone — a 30 percent cut to the Ministry of Environment. That impacts the staff resources that are required to fully utilize what the intent is behind Bill 10 and behind protected areas. The result of not having the staff is not having the data we need, on the animal species especially, to manage with the degree of confidence that is required.

I'll give you an example. As we speak today, members of the Tahltan Nation in northwest B.C. are restricting road access on their traditional territories to moose hunters from all parts of the province. That's because they don't have confidence in the data that this government is using to make decisions about the moose cull. It's a volatile situation. These are people with guns.

But the Tahltan and the hunters have common ground. They're both concerned about healthy moose populations, but there hasn't been a proper inventory, a real inventory, since the 1980s.
[ Page 1115 ]

We're looking at Bill 10. We're looking at protected areas. We can draw lines on a map and create these zones, and that's a good thing, but without the staff and the inventory work that's part of that, we're not really working towards the intent that protected areas have.

Going back to my example, the area in Stikine, in my constituency, where the Tahltan have their traditional territories, is an area of high unemployment. Many Tahltan depend on moose meat for food. If it wasn't for the moose meat in the fridge, people would go hungry. Meanwhile, the hunters who show up there from other parts of B.C. are caught in the middle.

Again, creating protected areas, ecological reserves, is a great strategy. But without the accompanying resources, we're going to have situations develop like the one I described.

I understand that the minister's staff is working on a resolution to the issue between the Tahltan and the ministry around moose population data and inventory, but once again, the ministry's ability to deal with the situation is impeded by a lack of resources. The issue is the ability to carry out the real work associated with parks and protected areas and ecological reserves, which is the assessment of the populations. In this instance that I describe, it's the moose population.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I shudder to think of…. This is in an area where there is little development right now. I'm on the record here as supporting the federal infusion of dollars towards the Highway 37 transmission line if the B.C. Liberals can get their act together.

This is an example of that. We need to do this kind of inventory work on the ground now in the areas that will be impacted by the transmission line, before the development pressures come. Then we'll have the ability to make informed decisions and avoid situations like the one that we see right now, where people from the province are travelling up to that area with legal, legitimate permits to hunt moose. They're caught in the middle because the data collection has not been done by this government.

That's one topic I'm addressing under this discussion around protected areas around Bill 10.

[1105]

The other item I wanted to address is: yes, these areas are the right way to move forward. In fact, one of them is in Stikine, the Det san ecological reserve that the minister referred to as on Wet'suwet'en territory. It's an ecological reserve to do with the juniper ecosystem, and that's great. It's very close to Smithers.

Again, it's not just the ecological reserves and the parks. It's what's going on around them, and there's another situation in Stikine that typifies this, where there needs to be more communication between government ministries. There's an application for an agriculture lease right on the border of the Seven Sisters Provincial Park, a provincial park that was instituted over ten years ago. I was part of the undertaking, the public consultation process around that.

It's a very good idea. It's a beautiful area, for those who haven't been there, but right in the viewscape, right on the boundary of the park, is an application for an agriculture lease, and this is under review right now.

The Ministry of Environment staff, I understand, is going to be referred as part of the referral process, but again, if you don't have the people on the ground to do the work, then these things can get out of control and impact our protected areas, as Bill 10 has outlined here. It's not just the protected areas. It's what's going on around them and the intent of the protected areas.

I'd just like to summarize by saying that again, these are important components of managing and management on the land base. Land use plans are an important component of the protected areas and parks. The idea behind them is multifaceted — not just for tourism, which is important. The tourism experience is predicated on park staff and having people maintain the facilities properly, and we know that park rangers have been cut back by this government.

But more importantly, it's on the refugia aspect — the ecological reserve aspect and the inventory work that needs to be done as part of that — which allows us, then, to make decisions on the land base further afield. I mean, these protected areas, these ecological reserves, are just boundaries that we draw on a map. The animals don't see those lines, so they use these areas for habitat, which is a great idea, but then they move out into areas where, you know, we might have other activities like hunting taking place.

Without doing that inventory work that the Tahltan have been asking for, for years with this government, we end up in situations like we have now, where hunters are caught in the middle. We have a volatile situation happening in the Stikine in the northwest, and I urge the minister to continue to work towards a resolution in that. I understand that's going to take more resources, and I hope he can lobby within his government for the resources that are required to bring a resolution to this situation.

I speak in favour of this bill.

G. Coons: I rise today to respond to Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, and I'm in strong support of this bill. If anybody reads through the bill, they recognize that a lot of these conservancies — nine of them — are within my riding that I represent and on Haida Gwaii. It follows several years of intensive planning and public processes, and these conservancies' designations coincide with the areas previously designated as protected areas by the Haida Nation.
[ Page 1116 ]

It just goes hand in hand that we come up to this point, and it doubles the amount of protected areas on the islands so that nearly half the islands are protected. Hon. Speaker, if you look at the bill…. It really doesn't do justice to just read it. You've got to look at the map of Haida Gwaii, see where these conservancies are and look at the unique distinct geography of the islands, the jewel of the northwest.

[1110]

There's a lot of history to these islands. Over the decades, 30 to 40 years, basically, these islands have been ravaged by people that came in and logged and decimated the forests and did not leave much behind.

In many, many years of working together, the communities on Haida Gwaii — those that live there, those that work there and especially the Haida themselves, through the leadership of the Council of the Haida Nation — have come to this agreement on something that needs to be done with Haida Gwaii.

Guujaaw, the president of the Haida Nation, basically says that this goes a long way towards reconciling B.C.'s land use policies with those of the Haida Nation. "Our people have long protected these areas because of their natural, cultural and spiritual values. Now we have collaborated to build a more stable platform upon which we designed a sustainable future for Haida Gwaii."

This status gives a higher level of protection to these unique, distinct features of these lands. Finally, finally there is recognition of the importance of these irreplaceable areas to the Haida people.

As I mentioned, it's a long haul in the process to protecting these areas and a new model that's evolved through negotiation and mutual respect. There were extensive community consultations on the islands, and every community was visited and talked to and worked with the land use committee.

But the one concern is that there's a real disconnect between the protection of these valued lands and valued conservancies throughout the province and decreased enforcement — you know, a real disconnect with creating these new parks and not providing the necessary funding to protect them. We see, through the latest budget, that the Ministry of Environment has been gutted, basically — the last month.

On one hand, they introduce legislation to create conservancies and to protect valuable lands. At the same time, they cut funding to environmental protection, to parks, to stewardship, to compliance and enforcement. They actually increase the budget for their executive support services and throw another minister in there — a new minister of state and parliamentary secretary who doesn't seem to have a handle on his portfolio.

Nearly a 20 percent cut in the ministry operations from the last February budget. I think British Columbians and those that understand the importance of protected areas and the conservancies are going to realize that you need to protect them. Many say that this budget deepens our environmental deficit.

Those concerned with the protection of our land, water and ecosystem are in for a shock when they actually realize what has happened in the budget for the Ministry of Environment. It cuts about $25 million, 11.5 percent, from the ministry, with further cuts over the next three years.

As I mentioned, the stewardship division was cut by 14.5 percent. Water stewardship decimated by 77 percent. Environmental protection by 42.88 percent. Parks and protected areas saw funding drop by $2.3 million. It's a real concern — real concern.

When this bill came forward, I talked to Bill Beldessi, who is the manager of the strategic land use implementation for the Council of the Haida Nation. He's ecstatic about this move on the islands. They held two sets of open houses for the strategic land use plan in June of '08 in many of the communities — Sandspit, Queen Charlottes, Port Clements, Masset, Old Masset, Skidegate. On November 8 they held more in Sandspit, Skidegate, Port Clements and Old Masset.

They were pushing towards these conservation areas, conservancies, but the protection has to be there. It's lacking — drastically lacking — with the ministry's commitments.

You know, Bill and his six-person team have been working tirelessly since the signing to work out the details of the agreement, and it's only beginning. There are still many months of work to do and open houses to have, as they need to meet with forest tenure holders to ensure that the new rules for what's happening in these conservancies will occur on the islands and go smoothly.

[1115]

In the timber opportunity analysis that they just completed, Bill says the new rules will more than meet the target for the amount of metres of cut per year. So they need to work together on the islands. They need to work with people to realize what's happened over the years. This is a huge start for the revitalization of the islands and the communities and the Haida working together for a common destiny.

As I said, Bill and his team of six are going to be working until next March on developing the management plans for the areas — what activities will take place — and looking at comanagement agreements.

I need to tie this in with the Pacific north coast integrated management area, which is basically a marine plan not only for Haida Gwaii but for the whole north coast — from the north tip of Vancouver Island right up to the Alaska border. This ties in with these conservancies, the protection of our land, of our water, of our ecosystems and long-term sustainability for future generations.

As I've mentioned in this House before, in December 2008 there was a memorandum of understanding signed
[ Page 1117 ]
by DFO and Coastal First Nations. It guides the planning efforts between DFO, Coastal First Nations, the North Coast–Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society — and they're working together. But what's lacking at the table is somebody from the provincial government to push forward this marine plan.

As we move forward in looking at the stewards of our province and looking at conservancies and marine plans, I believe that there has to be the funding and the dedication of resources that go along with that.

So I stand in support of Bill 10. It's been a long haul getting here, and there's lots of work to do to ensure that the economic and social and eco-based systems are protected on Haida Gwaii. I look forward to even more conservancies throughout the province.

N. Macdonald: I'll just be speaking for a few minutes on Bill 10.

I think, like most British Columbians, that protected areas are critically important. These are areas that are points of pride. I'm sure if you go back and you look at previous governments, I certainly would think that Premier Harcourt would point to protected areas as part of a legacy that he would be proud of — the expansion of parks in that time in particular.

This bill is predominantly about making minor adjustments. One of the adjustments that I'll be focusing on with the third reading will be the removal of Canal Flats as a provincial park. Canal Flats sits at the headwaters of the Columbia River and within the community of Canal Flats. It has been, I understand, co-operated between the community group and the province.

My understanding is that there is going to be a transfer of that area, which is essentially a landing and a beach area, to the community. That's an area that we'll be exploring in third reading and have the minister on record laying out the communications that have taken place there and the agreements that have been made.

In general, just to very quickly echo what many have said here, I do have and have had ongoing concerns about the integrity of our protected area system. Since 2001 there have been a number of initiatives that have been cause for concern.

There is an ongoing need for the public and for the opposition to make sure that the integrity of the protected areas is not compromised. There is strong public support — incredibly strong public support — for these areas. The area that I represent has some of the finest wilderness areas — protected by our parks system — in the world. If you have ever been to Mount Assiniboine or to the Bugaboo or to Whiteswan or St. Mary's, the Purcell Conservancy, these are incredible areas that are world-class.

[1120]

There has been a consistent under-resourcing by this government of the staff that we depend on to look after these areas. That is of course a concern.

I don't want to take very much time on this bill other than to indicate that the bill looks supportable. The only area that I'll be exploring will be with regards to Canal Flats, and I look forward to third reading to get clarification on those changes from the minister.

G. Gentner: I wish to rise to speak about Bill 10. I realize that in many ways it is a housekeeping type of bill, but I want to address some of the issues that aren't spoken to in this which are of some disconcertment to myself. We have problems with it in the view that there is an opportunity here for the government to actually come forward and be more inclusive on some of the needs and desires of people working strenuously to preserve land.

We are hearing today in my constituency…. For many years the government was very much involved in negotiating the purchase of Burns Bog, and it's been on the radar for some time. There's an additional 550 acres that the government could have easily continued in the negotiation. Unfortunately, it was Partnerships B.C. that originally put the package together, and it wasn't inclusive or looking at that ecosystem as a whole and missed the boat.

We were hopeful that with this bill, Bill 10, would actually show some hope that we would have a bill that would recognize the estuary of the Fraser River — a valuable part. It's on the rivers list created by many groups, which suggested that it's very much endangered with the salmon run, and Burns Bog is part of that ecosystem. It's part of the system of the Fraser estuary, and it provides not only nutrients but much of the riparian habitat associated with it as well.

Another parcel of land, a huge parcel that we were very upset with…. In fact, the point is that in Delta we have probably the largest migratory bird sanctuary in the province — namely, that of Roberts Bank and above all Boundary Bay. We expected to see legislation here today with Bill 10 that would at least address that, and it's not here.

When you look at the sandpiper and at many of the birds at risk…. I mean, exactly where Boundary Bay and in particular Roberts Bank is situated — it's part of the Pacific Flyway. Sandpipers and even, for example, the snow geese that come through this area…. They use that area to refuel. It's the halfway point, if you will, between points from California up to Alaska. They come up to migrate, and they need to feed and refuel and fatten up to make it all the way up to Alaska.

We know that for years the federal government and the provincial government apparently…. We hear after Ramsar, which is a United Nations position, that that area should be protected. My understanding was that the province was well underway in trying to negotiate with the federal government. After all, I am the Intergovernmental Relations critic, and we've been following this one. We
[ Page 1118 ]
were hopeful that Bill 10 would certainly give us some hope that this valuable ecosystem, that of Roberts Bank and Boundary Bay, would be secure.

Unfortunately, we don't see that. We don't see it mainly because there are other interests in the way. The Ministry of Environment has come secondary to the needs of the national government. The provincial government's position on global trade and the expansion of Roberts Bank — the port there — and the creation of South Fraser perimeter road, which not only will wipe out valuable aspects of Burns Bog and the riparian habitat on the river but will impact this valuable migratory area — again, designated by Ramsar as a necessity for the flyway.

[1125]

Another one on the hot list that's not here today — and I'm quite surprised — is the Flathead Valley. I'm very upset that this isn't being dealt with in an expeditious way. We've known for some time now that Cline Mining, and also at one time BP, was involved in the exploration of coal, mineralogical coal, in that valley. It's been on the radar for some time. There've been many groups hopeful that Bill 10 would helpfully address all of this or at least be more comprehensive. It's not.

The Flathead is a valuable component. The lack of action by this government really is feeding into a transboundary dispute between the United States and Canada — in particular British Columbia and Montana. I spent some time this summer trudging up in the glacial fields on both sides of the border. It's quite a panorama of spectacular area. It's full of wildlife species that should be protected.

The tailings from this mine, of course, will find their way into the Flathead River, which goes south and crosses the boundary — a border which I spent some at as well — into the American side. The Americans are very, very upset.

That's not to suggest for a second that the Americans have not done some terrible things in aspects to our position on the environment. I do believe there should be some negotiation. One way to have done that is through Bill 10 — to have been able to implement some conservation measures along with the Hon. Mr. Prentice from the federal government, who himself, I believe, has been on record suggesting that there should be some action on this matter. To date we haven't seen it.

Here is an opportunity with this bill to come forward and put on record a position of this government where this valuable jewel could be preserved. Unfortunately, it isn't here today.

We're now seeing a new permit looking into the Flathead Valley that will impact it as well. This government has granted it, in particular the exploration of gold. We don't know yet whether that means cyanide is going to be there to separate the particles.

That's an aspect and piece of British Columbia in the southeast corner that impacts. It impacts perhaps even the migration of animals and birds from our Waterton National Park on one side of the Rockies and the north-south flow between the United States and Canada into the glacier area.

I'm quite surprised, quite frankly, that with all of the prowess and the chest beating on this side about the environment…. Here is an opportunity to push this issue through. I'm quite surprised.

Another one that's quite upsetting is that in the South Okanagan area, another one that's been very much lobbied by many groups to preserve that area just beyond the Skaha. We are now looking at the potential of flooding in the Similkameen by the Americans. We're hopeful, and we hear from the minister, that there is intervener status. However, this one is starting to take legs.

Here's an opportunity, again through Bill 10, to put some measures in place to stop this hideous approach that the Americans are going to try and do — primarily flood the Similkameen all the way up and beyond over to Cawston and destroy not only farmland but valuable habitat. That's very concerning for our side.

We have an opportunity here. It was like yesterday. We dealt with the other bill, Bill 9 — the woulda, coulda bill. It was basically a bill of a page and a half. And I say this is a little more substantial in view of the fact that it is doing the housekeeping end of things.

[1130]

Again, you know, we have limited time in this House these days, and it's unfortunate that the government doesn't take this opportunity and be proactive and do the right thing. I'm hopeful, as I'm going to close now, that the ministry will, through amendments or other measures, take a more holistic view of the opportunities in preserving valuable, sensitive ecosystems through this bill, Bill 10.

With that, thank you for the time, and I'll relinquish to the Chair.

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 10, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009. I speak in support because I believe truly that our province needs more protected areas, and I'm excited at some of the areas that I see here getting that much-needed protection.

I come from Vancouver's west end. Now, it's not an area with a lot of green space, but it's actually an area with an incredible park, Stanley Park. It's an area where my constituents get to benefit from parks and from natural areas all the time.

We can be into the forests of Stanley Park within five minutes or down to the beach and see beautiful English Bay, Coal Harbour, etc. So my constituents know how important these areas are and certainly have been strongly supportive of my efforts to increase environmental pro-
[ Page 1119 ]
tection in the province and to support a better parks system in B.C.

In reading through the bill, I looked at a couple of the parks which are going to see slight increases in size. I think about Alice Lake, the first place where I learned to camp as a child and learned the wonders of the great outdoors with my family. I think about Mount Seymour, where I learned how to ski. Wonderful to see Mount Seymour having a bit of a legal issue resolved so that more people can benefit from the great outdoors.

Or I look to Cape Scott, the first provincial park where I actually was able to go independently with friends, camp out in the beautiful northern tip of Vancouver Island, get to understand what it means to be stranded out on a beach for a week and how to live with nature in that way — an incredible area, one that I'd recommend everybody, all MLAs, if they get the chance, to go and visit. It's truly one of the great parks of B.C.

Now, more recently I got to go up to Naikoon Provincial Park up in Haida Gwaii as well as down into Gwaii Haanas National Park, both areas that are seeing further protection. Those areas are really, really special in our province. I met many tourists there who had come up specifically from all parts of the globe because they'd heard of the wonders of Haida Gwaii.

I got to go up there, and I visited with ecotourism operators and spoke with them about how these natural areas were so important for the local economy but also so important for teaching people about how we live with nature and how we need to be sustainable and understand that we are part of the world — that the economy is not separate from the natural world, that it is in fact dependent on the natural world.

I think it's more important than ever, especially as we hear more and more of environmental calamities, that we'd be spending more time focused on these issues. So I'm happy that this bill has come to the House.

That being said, I think we have many challenges in our province. Our provincial government, I believe, has taken its eye off the natural world. It was a passing fancy. They've decided that, well, times have changed. "Let's change the channel and not focus on how we better improve our relationship with our Earth."

I think that is very disappointing and very shortsighted. Environmental organizations — people who day in, day out work on these issues — spoke about the recent budget as increasing the environmental deficit in our province.

With this bill, we see an increase in the number of parks, park space, but we also see, with this budget, which is still being debated, a decrease in the amount of resources to support those areas — so giving with one hand, taking with the other. In fact, it's nearly a 20 percent decrease in the moneys allocated to environmental protection in our province — this at a time when, I believe, we need to be more focused than ever.

[1135]

We also see a 20 percent budget cut. Then we see in fact a nearly 50 percent increase in the Minister of Environment's office budget. The boots on the ground, the people out across B.C. whose jobs are to protect our natural environment, whose jobs are to make sure that things like poaching aren't going on, things like ensuring that the streams are being kept up in a good way and not being destroyed, things like ensuring that the facilities in the parks are actually being maintained at a good level, that.…

Those services are being cut, which from a tourism perspective — and I am the critic for Tourism, Culture and the Arts — does not make much sense at all. If we're seeing the provincial parks actually forced to close earlier, forced to close completely…. We may have a protected area, but if people are not actually able to understand, able to engage, able to take the benefits of being involved in Mother Earth, in the nature, in the great environment of B.C., we're taking a further separation of our connection to the land.

Now, in my constituency we have the densest neighbourhood in British Columbia, and so people sometimes say: "Oh, that's urban. That's very urban, clogged, people just up in the hubbub of the city." But because of Stanley Park and because of the great seawall and connection to the ocean, we actually understand nature in a very real way.

It is our back yard, after all. When you're living neck and neck with so many people, it's more valuable than ever to be able to get into the forests of the park. I believe that's something we need to have accessible for every British Columbian.

I think of Stanley Park Ecology Society and the stories they tell me of children who get into nature for the first time, who camp out in the forests for the first time, and the wonder. Patricia Thompson, the executive director, was telling me a story the other day about a young girl who had never spoken to her classmates, never spoken to her teachers. She got into the forests of Stanley Park, walking, discovering, looking, digging around in the dirt, and she found a ladybug. She spoke her first words to her teachers, to her classmates.

How did this happen? It was the benefits of nature, of being connected to nature. So it's truly inspirational what our connection to the earth can be if we support it.

I talk to people in the tourism industry who say: "People come to our parks, look at our parks, get out there, compare them to their parks at home and are shocked. How did you let them get this bad?" they say to me as a legislator. I say: "I've been fighting. I've been pushing. I've been trying to get more resources and more focus on our parks."
[ Page 1120 ]

I think of the chamber of commerce, which, I know, the members on that side of the House often use to try and support their positions. The chamber of commerce has raised the alarm about campsites in our province and about the deterioration of campsites and the impact that's having on our competitiveness for the much-needed tourism market.

They've spoken out, and rightly so, as have people who use the campsites, and they're speaking out in a way which is really disturbing and really concerning. They're speaking out by not going anymore, by staying home, by not actually getting into nature, because either the fees are going up and the services are deteriorating and because they're very concerned about the level of service that they're able to get, about the safety, about those kinds of issues.

I think that speaks for itself and is one that…. If we truly want to be a province which engages with Earth, with our natural world in a sustainable way, we need to be sure that people can actually get out there and see it. So next time you go by a provincial park and see the gates closed — park closed — that's a message being sent to a person. You're not invited into this park because it doesn't have the resources.

[1140]

What that does is close down the opportunities to understand our earth, to become part of it and feel part of it and help us get away from the separation that we've created, where the earth is out there, the environment is out there, where we're here in the human world which is somehow disconnected. That only increases the divide and only makes it so that it's more difficult for us as government to work with the population to help them support the earth that we all rely on.

So I think those points need to be made and need to be made by every member in this House. We must do better. We must do better for our natural earth, for our natural world, for the province.

We're seeing a slight increase in certain areas. In some areas that's so that there can be increased parking. In some areas there are other issues. I think it's a benefit that we're seeing an increase in spaces. But if we're seeing an increase in spaces while we're closing off access to those spaces, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I just wanted to say thank you to the hon. Speaker, thank you to all of the MLAs in the House for listening today, and I hope we can all do better for our earth, because it needs it.

N. Simons: I'd just like to add a few comments to the discussion on Bill 10. What we see here are some positive steps. I'm sure the people of Penticton are pleased that finally they have park status for an area about half the size of Stanley Park. It's been in discussion for a long time. It's nice to see that confirmed. As well, it's nice to see other protected areas identified. I'm hoping that they can be ensured that they're protected in perpetuity.

There are some issues that I think need to be raised in conjunction with discussion on this bill. That is the concern people have about…. While we see an increased area protected, we don't see the same level of service or the same level of protection that we previously saw in the existing park system.

In my constituency in particular, we've seen a number of issues raised that impact how we treat the parks that we've identified as being worthy of protection. In particular, I point out, first of all, that many residents are concerned about the shortened season during which provincial parks and campgrounds are open. Concerned because previous enjoyment of these areas allowed people to travel off-season or in the shoulder seasons, and that's going to have on impact on tourism.

I also note that the warden service for Mitlenatch Island, one of British Columbia's beautiful bird sanctuaries, has been cancelled as well. So there are no regular patrols of that wonderful ecological example of what we have here in British Columbia. Rare bird species use that small rocky island in Georgia Strait. I believe that we need to take the announcement of this protected areas amendment to the point where we see that there's an obvious contrast with the government's previous actions.

I also point out that right now people on Gambier Island are concerned about the sinking of HMCS Annapolis in Halkett Bay, a provincial marine park. They're concerned about the sinking of a sailboat in Grace Harbour in the middle of Desolation Sound Provincial Park. The response of government to those issues was neglectful.

It requires a consolidated effort in order to protect the lands and waters that we have already identified as worthy of that protection. So simply by adding a number of more areas does not guarantee, in fact, that we preserve them to the degree that we collectively as a community would like to see.

Just pointing out some possible disconnect between increased area and less protection, I think, is important and noteworthy in this particular example. But I'm pleased to see these areas identified by government. With that, I'm pleased to offer my opinions, and thank you for the opportunity.

J. Horgan: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and participate in debate on Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009. I want to compliment the minister for bringing this back to the Legislature.

[1145]

As many members will know, in the last parliament some protected areas were passed by order-in-council, avoiding this place and preventing members from having the opportunity to discuss the positive aspects
[ Page 1121 ]
of this bill and also to highlight, as some members have been doing this morning, some of the negatives, some of the downsides of adding more hectares with fewer staff on the ground. I know the minister is well aware of this. This is a challenge he faces every day.

I think it's important to have an opportunity — certainly for myself, representing Juan de Fuca in the southern part of Vancouver Island — to talk about some of the areas that we would certainly want to see added to the protected areas inventory as quickly as possible. I touched on some of them yesterday in a debate on the wood-first bill, you'll recall.

I'd like to talk a little bit about areas like Sandcut Beach on the west coast of my constituency, Muir Creek, also on the west coast of my constituency — formerly areas held in trust in a tree farm licence, now privatized and held exclusively by forest companies.

An opportunity exists to negotiate with these companies to secure these lands, as the lands have been secured that are contained in Bill 10. Yet the government has said unequivocally, through the Minister of Community Services, through the Minister of Forests, that they have no interest at this time in pursuing these important protected areas.

I do also want to go back to the 1990s. I know some members, new members to the House, will be interested to know that during that decade we had a massive land use planning process right across B.C., so that we could identify areas where economic activity could take place and areas where we would protect for all time — for generations to come, for wildlife, for species at risk.

During that decade we increased the protected areas in this province from 6 percent to 12 percent. It was, I believe, a massive effort on behalf of all sides of the House at that time. I know the member from Chilliwack, an opposition member at that time, was supportive of those initiatives and continues to be today as minister.

That's all to the good. But at the same time, we have to address areas that are now alienated from the public, these former forest lands. It's not just in my constituency. All up and down Vancouver Island, as a result of forest policy changes, we've been provided opportunities to protect significant areas for all time.

Again, I go back to Sandcut Beach, the surf beach at Jordan River. Jordan River certainly was renowned at the time the lands were removed from the tree farm licence. An international campaign — Australia, Great Britain, Thailand, surf beaches around the world — was focused in on Vancouver Island and the policies of the B.C. Liberal government.

A golden opportunity for the Minister of Environment to step in. I'm sure he made an effort. Of course, what happens in cabinet stays in cabinet unless it leaks out somehow, but I'm sure that the minister took the opportunity, when the tree farm licence issue was debated there, to say to his colleague — at that time, the Minister of Forests from Langley — that this was an opportunity to protect some significant wilderness areas, some significant recreation areas.

Here we are three years later. We have a bill before the House that includes a number of new protected areas, which I certainly support and will be voting in favour of, but there are areas that are missing from this.

Another area I want to talk about is now in the riding of the member for Cowichan Valley. It's TimberWest's property. There are some significant Douglas fir, as big as the Speaker's dais. It's an enormous stand of old-growth fir that IWA members discovered when they were logging in the 1980s, and they refused to cut them down. They said: "We will not cut down these trees." So we've had a de facto moratorium on logging in this area for 20 years.

I've been in correspondence with the minister about this. He's discussed it with his staff. This stand of old-growth trees could be easily attached to the Koksilah Provincial Park. It would be a simple amendment. In fact, it could be done by order-in-council, and I'm hopeful that the minister, as he's taking notes, will be going back and talking to his staff about these old firs in the Koksilah area.

Again, it's not just in my constituency. I've been listening to members talk about the special places in their communities. It's not something that we should take lightly. I understand there's an economic cost to this. The minister will, I'm certain, articulate that when we conclude second reading.

We look at the budgets. My colleague, the Environment critic from Victoria–Swan Lake, has very ably pointed out for the minister and other members that as you add hectares, you should be adding dollars and resources to manage and maintain these areas.

There's a park in the Nanaimo area, in the centre island, where one of the most outstanding examples of freshwater falls on the coast…. The trail has been washed away. There are no resources to get people to it.

[1150]

So we've protected an area, presumably not just for tourism values. You've got wildlife values; you've got just the notion of protecting this for our future generations. That's important. But I think the public wants to see some of these areas.

And that's the added value to our health budget. If we can get people out on trails walking and seeing the pristine wilderness areas that we're protecting in bills such as Bill 10 that decreases the costs of our health care budget.

It increases an awareness of…. My colleague from Vancouver–West End talked about a youngster who discovered the environment in the natural habitat of Vancouver, of all places, and I never, never like to….

I'm getting a look over a shoulder from a Vancouver member. We're a little bit snobby here on southern Vancouver Island about the….

D. Black: No kidding.
[ Page 1122 ]

J. Horgan: No kidding. Yeah, she'll echo that. I'm sure there are a couple…. Even sunny White Rock has areas that are probably interesting for other people, but here in southern Vancouver Island, we tend….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is talking about park creation as well, and of course, why not? Let's do that too.

I'm getting heckled by my own members now, hon. Speaker. Holy cow. Now we've come full circle.

Again, I want to commend the Minister of Environment. I know that that's not something that usually happens in this place. I know that he works very, very hard, and there's never a camera he has met that he didn't want to spend some time with. These are the sorts of issues that he does talk about when he gets the opportunity, advancing the natural environment to people in British Columbia and around the world.

Tourism British Columbia used to do a very, very good job of packaging and harnessing the marketing potential for our wilderness areas. Of course, they're not going to be able to do that now, and if we only had a minister of tourism that would recognize these important natural values — not just skating ovals in Richmond and the downhill opportunities at Whistler Blackcomb — then perhaps we could, indeed, have a marketing opportunity for our wilderness areas.

Noting the time, hon. Speaker, and I see that the little House is wrapping up, I'd perhaps reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I wouldn't mind resuming my place in the debate so that I could give up the floor to the…. I was unaware that we were breaking at lunch. I thought we were going to continue afterwards.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So just one more remark before the minister gets up. I commend him for this legislation, and I encourage him to bring forward new legislation at the earliest opportunity that includes protected areas in my constituency for areas such as Sandcut beach, Muir Creek, the Jordan River surf beach, and let's not forget the massive Douglas firs in the Koksilah basin.

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

Hon. B. Penner: Mindful of the time, I will just take a few moments to respond to some of the comments from members opposite. I do appreciate hearing that members of the Legislature on both sides will be supporting Bill 10 because I do think it further underscores the commitment of all British Columbians to preserving and protecting some very unique places in British Columbia.

I should have, perhaps, included this in my opening remarks — just what the significance is when something is designated under the Park Act — because some of the comments from the members opposite, including the Environment critic, seem to suggest that there is a certain lack of understanding of what happens when something gets legal protection under the Park Act.

Leaving aside issues to do with the Wildlife Act, what happens is that if land is designated out of the Park Act, it means that a natural resource "in a Class A or Class C park must not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited except as authorized by a valid and subsisting park use permit."

In section 9(2), the limitation on issuing those park use permits is that it cannot be granted "unless…it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved."

Unfortunately, some members, in their commentary in second reading, suggest that somehow what we're doing with the Park Act is making it easier for industrial activity. I think that is one of the comments that I heard, but please refer to my comments and how I just described the limitations in the Park Act. There are very significant limitations to what kind of economic activity can take place.

The Environment critic also mentioned that we're slowing down the rate of parks, yet just last year we saw one of the largest single increases in the establishment of new parks and protected areas that the province has ever seen.

[1155]

Since 2001 we've established 58 new parks, when this bill passes, and 143 conservancies and two ecological reserves — representing 1.9 million hectares of additional protected area in British Columbia, so that, when this bill is completed, 14.23 percent of B.C.'s entire land base will be protected through this legislation — which is the highest percentage and the largest area of any province in the country.

The members made many comments about operating budgets that were wrong. The Environment critic needs to take some time to do some homework. He has had the portfolio responsibility now for several months. He has continued to say things such as: "The public affairs bureau budget continues to go up each and every year." In fact, it's gone down by 39 percent since 2002 and, this year alone, is going down, I think, $3 million or $4 million. The public affairs bureau budget is less this year than the provincial parks budget, so he needs to get those facts correct.
[ Page 1123 ]

He also made a comment about Washington State parks. He may not have heard that this year they, in fact, cut funding from their direct budget by more than 52 percent for the Washington State park budget, yet he held that up as perhaps a model that we should emulate here in British Columbia.

In fact, he made comments in a news release — which he did not repeat today, but some of his colleagues did, because they perhaps didn't get updated from him that he was incorrect in his news release of a few weeks ago — where he claimed that the September 2009 budget update reduced the Ministry of Environment budget by 20 percent. I've heard the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows repeat that. The member for Delta North used a different percentage. I think he said 50 percent. In fact, it's incorrect.

What they've confused is the accounting treatment of water rental remissions, and then they further confuse things by saying that the executive branch support services budget has gone up by 60 percent, not noting that that's a difference in accounting treatment and simply reflecting the full cost of how office equipment and overhead is accounted for in various divisions within the ministry. So that's very misleading, in terms of what the members have been saying.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will get ready to move second reading — while noting that park attendance is up and approval ratings are more than 80 percent in terms of our visitors that visit the parks. People continue to enjoy B.C.'s wonderful provincial parks system and, with this legislation, will continue to do so for many years into the future.

With that, I do move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that this bill now be referred to a committee of the House.

Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $755,783,000 (continued).

G. Coons: Good morning, everybody. We left off with highway maintenance questions. Yesterday when we left off, I asked the minister about whether she agrees with the dozens of violations from contractors — safety violations on their maintenance trucks — and with them still getting their bonuses. The minister said, "It's an issue for them, but there's a rigorous monitoring process. Communities have input, and safety is a priority," as it always should be. She looked at bonuses as being determined by the quality of work and the rigorous program as being looked at by jurisdictions around the world.

I did want to comment. You know, there are thousands of people working on our highways in all types of terrain and jurisdictions. It's not the workers out there that we are looking at; it is the companies and the privatized contracts that we have, and the self-regulation that is the concern. Whether it's the model for B.C. Ferries or the model for TransLink or the model for privatizing our highways, we have concerns with this government's policies and the directions they're going. It's never a slight on the workers out there, risking their lives working on our highways and doing the best they can.

The minister talked about input from communities. I listed some of the 39 communities that had concerns about road maintenance and what's happening in their communities. And even though they have input, they feel that they don't have input. That's why they keep coming to the UBCM. That's why they keep writing letters, to the opposition and to the minister, about their concerns over the years, as we move on in this privatized model.

I'm just wondering what the minister is doing to ensure and to determine whether these privatized highway services are offering good value for money. Has she conducted, or has her ministry conducted, a value-for-money assessment?
[ Page 1124 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I am happy, once again, to answer the questions of the member opposite and, again, reflect on my own personal experience. I live in northern British Columbia, and my riding is a fairly large rural-urban riding. Therefore, I actually drive on highways that are maintained by contractors virtually all year long.

I recognize that there may be, from time to time, concerns expressed by municipalities and others. That's exactly why at two times during the year, in fact, there is an opportunity for stakeholder input. That includes the RCMP, school districts and a wide variety of people who can actually come and say to the contractor directly: "These are concerns that we have."

Is that information utilized? Absolutely it is. In fact, it is directly related to the incentive program that we have. So there is rigorous monitoring of the contract, and the expectations are very high. Feedback is received before any incentive is issued. All of that stakeholder feedback is taken into consideration.

[1015]

G. Coons: I notice that the minister didn't talk about the value-for-money assessment. There was a report done last May '09 by the firm Blair Mackay Mynett Valuations which was commissioned by the BCGEU to "conduct a…review of highways maintenance in B.C. with a view to providing a reliable and objective assessment of whether the privatized highways maintenance model measures up to the public service model in meeting the needs of British Columbians over the 20 years since the privatization was initiated."

This report indicated that they could not determine the efficiency of privatized highway services because the government has not been collecting the information that would allow meaningful comparison of public and private service delivery. There is no public sector comparator done at all by the government, and the valuations team couldn't determine whether or not they could meet their objectives in the review.

The report also says:

"Unfortunately, after…20 years of privatized highway maintenance the information is not available on a current enough basis to conduct a meaningful value-for-money assessment. Furthermore, documentation regarding levels of public complaints and operational standards does not appear to be generally available, and what does exist is anecdotal in nature. We have found the type of review requested to be impossible with the…limited information available."

So my question to the minister: is the minister concerned with this lack of information to conduct a value-for-money assessment, and what is she going to do to ensure that an assessment can be done?

Hon. S. Bond: Value-for-money reviews are done every time that the tendering process is utilized. One thing that I can assure the member opposite of is that this government absolutely believes that the best way to get value for money, the best value for money for taxpayers, is to use an open public tendering process. That's exactly what we do.

It would also be helpful to remind the member opposite that highway privatization actually took place in British Columbia in 1988. This side of the House has only been in government since 2001.

G. Coons: Again, the minister says that these audits are done and that they're looking at it through the tendering process, but here's a report…. This same gentleman that was involved — I believe his name was Parks — did a report earlier. Again, still this government….

I'm sure she's read the report and is knowledgeable of it. It was just done last May, dealing with highways maintenance and contracts and value for money. So I am surprised that she would still put the spin on it the way that she does.

Now, the report recommends that the minister provide benchmarks for future reviews and assessments by having the minister "deliver or directly control highway maintenance services in one or two strategic areas."

[1020]

It goes on to say that by "re-establishing the ministry's knowledge about input costs and operational outcomes, it would enable effective value-for-money assessments and administration of services delivered by the private sector."

They indicate in this report — which I'm sure the minister has been briefed on — that this could be done prior to the next contract round of 2014. So as we move forward into another, perhaps, ten-year contract being given to highway maintenance contractors, is the minister considering any undertaking to ensure value-for-money assessments and ensure that taxpayer moneys are being well spent?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, as we prepare for the tender period, which is approaching, our staff has already begun the work of reviewing the model. I can assure the member opposite that we will be looking for the best value for taxpayer dollars.

I think it's important to point out that the report that the member references was generated by the union. What's ironic about the member's questions is that a report produced for the government when the member opposite's government was in place actually reported out that the model that was in place should be left in place.

G. Coons: Again, as we move forward under highway maintenance — and we've seen what's happening, and we've heard what's happening over the last, say, ten years or so — we know that there are concerns.

We know that there are concerns with the bonuses going to contractors who have hundreds of safety violations on their vehicles and that the vehicles that are
[ Page 1125 ]
supposed to keep the public safe are being pulled off the roads — a major concern with that.

There's a major concern that companies are saving money by doing less maintenance and that regular vehicle maintenance is being done by the companies themselves. So what's the minister doing to ensure that contractors' self-regulation of their own vehicle maintenance is not putting lives at risk?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite continues to make commentary about the safety on our highways. I can assure the member opposite that this minister, this ministry, this government and contractors across the province see safety as their number one concern.

[1025]

As I pointed out yesterday, it's actually us that monitors the safety of vehicles on the road, that issues violations and, in fact, expects contractors to correct the issues that have been identified through that process. There is a rigorous monitoring process, as we have pointed out.

Again, to the member opposite, I had the pleasure of meeting with over 40 municipalities during our meetings at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Highway maintenance contracts did not come up once.

G. Coons: I'm sure that if the UBCM was held during the winter months, there would have been quite a few concerns about highway maintenance during winter conditions.

Now, the minister talks about their monitoring. I realize that, through the commercial vehicle safety enforcement program, it does the inspections. That is being cut by half a million dollars, out of your budget. Instead of going through all of the components….

I'm sure that the minister realizes the importance and the value of the CVSE. How can the minister ensure safety on the roads when she's cutting funding from the program that does the enforcement?

Hon. S. Bond: Just to clarify that. There will be absolutely no cuts to the level of work or service provided. What we are doing, though, is actually changing from paper permits to on-line permitting. We're also centralizing permitting to Dawson Creek, which actually frees up additional inspectors to do roadwork.

We're also looking for reduced costs for overhead, travel, meetings and other administration. So before there's any implication that there should be service reductions, the answer to the question is that, in fact, it will be new technologies and centralization of services freeing up more inspectors to be on the roads.

G. Coons: Well, there's that spin again, where less is more, it seems. You're cutting half a million dollars from the enforcement of commercial vehicle safety, and she says there's going to be more out there. It's pretty ludicrous that the minister would actually think that. I don't think British Columbians who are using their roads in the wintertime are going to believe her at all. I just find it ludicrous.

The previous minister…. At least this minister didn't say that it's going to result in more inspections than before and that the cut is going to be positive savings. I don't understand how you can take a key component of this ministry, the vehicle safety inspection, and cut it by half a million dollars when we've got the maintenance vehicles out there with hundreds and hundreds of safety violations. Their own trucks are being taken off the roads. I find it ludicrous.

So I just want the minister to again reassure British Columbians that the cut, this huge cut of half a million dollars to the commercial and vehicle safety enforcement, will not take a back seat to safety on our roads.

Hon. S. Bond: I'll reiterate for the member opposite that, in fact, what we're doing is centralizing the services in the Dawson Creek office. We will be moving from paper permitting, which makes a ton of good sense when technology is available to do that. We will reorganize the way we provide services, and we will free up additional inspectors, who typically are doing paperwork, to actually do work and inspections on the roads.

So I can assure the member opposite that we'd be happy to keep him up to speed in terms of the adjustments that are made in how we do paperwork in British Columbia. It will result in additional service inspectors on the highways.

H. Bains: At this time I want to take the opportunity to thank the minister and the staff that were here dealing with the different parts of the Transportation estimates. I want to thank you for all the cooperation that we received.

As I understand it, we're coming to the end of these estimates by noon today, but with agreement from the minister that there are a number of questions that I still have to ask. I won't be able to put them in here in this format. A number of MLAs also have questions from their regions, and they may not be able to get all of their questions in.

If the minister agrees, we would put all those questions in writing to the minister, and they will become part of these estimates.

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be happy to do that.

I want to say thank you to the Transportation critic for a thoughtful and respectful dialogue here in the House. It's much appreciated, and it does allow us…. I know there are other questions that will be coming, but I did want to say to the member opposite that I appreciate the respectful and organized way in which he's conducted the estimates. I appreciate it.

[1030]
[ Page 1126 ]

I'm sorry. I forgot the other important part of that. Of course we would obviously entertain those questions. I appreciate the collaboration in the schedule today. We'd be happy to direct those answers back to the member.

N. Macdonald: In the interest of time — first, Minister, it's good to see you — just two questions. These are questions that you would have likely addressed with local government as well. There are a number of road issues. We usually send letters. You have received letters on these. But just to emphasize the importance of two projects.

One is the Akisqnuk turnoff. Essentially, what you have there, especially during the summer months, is that it's very, very busy. There is a left turn that, for a long time, what the Akisqnuk and we have been saying is that there's been a need to address that.

Essentially, there's a child care that has fairly recently opened. There's a lot of traffic with picking up and dropping off children. There's also the band office. So I just bring that to the minister's attention. I drive that road all the time, and in particular, in the summer months, between Radium and Fairmont it is absolutely packed, mainly with the tourist traffic that comes out of Alberta. So it's a safety issue. It's one that is important.

The other issue, which I'm sure that the city of Revelstoke has talked a great deal of with the staff, is on the Big Eddy Bridge. I know that is an issue where there are a number of possibilities. Just to emphasize with the minister, as I'm sure that the city emphasized very clearly, that that Big Eddy connection across the Columbia is an important link. It's a single lane, but it's one that residents depend upon. Going up to the Trans-Canada bridge does present significant problems.

So I just give those as two particularly important issues for the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite can imagine, there are literally hundreds of projects. We are aware, certainly.

I did meet with the mayor about the Big Eddy Bridge, and we had a conversation about that. We're also aware of the left-turn lane and the development issues in the second case.

What we'd like to do, if the member opposite would be okay with that, is that we will get an update on both of those particular situations, the work that our local staff is doing. We were waiting for it to come in by BlackBerry, but they can't type that fast. So we are aware of them. Certainly, we did discuss them with the mayor, and we'd be happy to provide a specific update to the member on both those situations.

J. Brar: As the other member said, I also have one question which I would like to ask the minister.

Minister, I got this letter which has been sent, to the best of my understanding, to all the members of the Legislative Assembly, from Dutar Singh Sandhu. He belongs to A to Z Transport Association, located in Abbotsford. This letter is regarding a need for a rest area on Highway 97 north and southbound from Cache Creek to Prince George.

[1035]

I would just like to read the paragraph that is relevant to this request. They write:

"The routine truckers' schedule for a daily trip to northern B.C. — i.e., Vancouver to Prince George — is having numerous issues for not having any rest area where they can pull out their truck and rest for a bit. Most of these trucks are hauling a heavy load of logs and lumber. These trucks need to stop for a bit and cool down their brakes, check other truck components and tires, etc. So this is a public safety issue, and we should consider this seriously.

"Secondly, having at least two rest areas from Cache Creek to Prince George with running water facility would not only help people to quick stop. Also, drivers can sleep there when their logbook expires their driving hours, so that they don't falsify their logbook, which is another safety issue."

My question is pretty simple to the minister. Has the minister given any consideration to this issue regarding the rest area as indicated in this letter? If the minister needs, I can submit this letter for the record to the minister as well.

Hon. S. Bond: We do have, obviously…. It is important for us to have pullout and rest places for truckers. We understand that. There are a number along that stretch of highway. But I would be more than happy to take the letter and the request. We would go through and have a look at that. We obviously assess the frequency and how necessary they are on our highways, so happy to take that and have a specific look at that stretch of road and respond directly back to the member.

D. Donaldson: Good morning to my colleagues and to the minister and staff. I've found out quite rapidly that transportation is a very important issue for my constituents, and judging by the turnout today, it's one of high interest everywhere in the province.

I have a highways maintenance question for the minister. It was brought to my attention by a number of my constituents about out-of-country workers and the issue of, potentially, those out-of-country workers working for our highways maintenance contractor.

I looked into the issue. These workers were not actually working but were on a training program. This is in the Meziadin area of Stikine. But the question remains for my constituents: training for what? These aren't out-of-country workers with a specialized skill set.

I have no issue with out-of-country workers, and I have no issue with the work not getting done. What the issue is…. As you know, we have an extremely high unemployment rate in Stikine. The constituents are worried that when public funds get expended, well, who should benefit first and foremost from those dollars?
[ Page 1127 ]

I'm sure that the minister would agree that the people living locally would benefit the most by getting jobs from those in the highways maintenance contracts.

Are there stipulations in these massive multi-year contracts to highways maintenance companies that in areas such as mine, where there's such high unemployment, to hire locals first? If there aren't such stipulations, would the minister agree to investigate, with the assistance of staff, about how such stipulations could be introduced?

[1040]

Hon. S. Bond: I think all of us would be concerned that, first and foremost, whenever possible, people who are locally employed…. That is an important concept and something we would all support.

In looking at how people are actually able to work, international workers…. That is regulated by the federal government, so we have no jurisdiction with the contractor in terms of bringing in international workers. In fact, our contracts don't specifically address that issue.

But there are a couple of things that I think would be helpful to the member in terms of the other side of that story. When contractors submit their bids in terms of taking on work, they are required or they do…. Let me just check.

I wanted to just make sure that when we're looking at contracts, there is a requirement for contractors to outline how that work will be completed. They are asked to outline how they're going to hire people and equipment, what their connection or opportunities for first nations would be. They're also asked to look at community benefits. You know, oftentimes contractors support hockey teams, etc.

When we review and evaluate those contracts, all of those things are taken into consideration. So while there isn't a stipulation or a requirement, there is a process that evaluates the benefit to local communities. That's probably the best way to describe that.

In addition to that, we do have…. When we're looking at day labour and the provision of day labour for projects, there is a percentage within the contract that does need to be hired locally. Wherever possible we make that a priority. Having said that, the regulation of international workers, of course, is a federal government jurisdictional item.

D. Donaldson: Well, thank you for taking time with the staff to look into that. I'll definitely be talking to the people back home and relating some of that back.

It's the maintenance contracts that we're looking at, so we'll get the…. We'll have a look at them. They're about this thick — right? We'll have a look through and see what we can pull out.

My other question is on public transit in rural areas. In Stikine we have a big public transit issue, and of course, you know the implications of that on the missing women on Highway 16, and 37 as well. It's a big topic — not only that but access to services.

[1045]

I mean, we're far away from many of the services that people use public transit to get to, whether it's health or social services. In fact, a couple of the villages along Highway 37 have lost a private carrier that used to come down from Stewart along Highway 37. They would use that service to get to appointments in Terrace and even to get to the public bus provided by Northern Health in Kitwanga. They were using that service. Oftentimes they were paying $50 one-way to the private carrier just to get from their village to Terrace, but that's no longer in place.

We do have a small transit bus. As our mayor in Hazelton, Alice Maitland, says: "One size doesn't fit all in the north, especially in the northwest."

So I'll ask three questions related to the public transit, and I'll wrap them up all in one. One of them is: in this ministry's budget is there more funding for the public transit services in the Hazeltons that provide the small bus service to outlying communities?

There's an issue with these buses because they're small. They're the ones that are 25-seaters that are often used in airport runs. The issue there is that the operating costs become high because they're not meant to be going out on long trips all the time. So is there money under the capital component that I noticed in the estimates here for provision of a heavier-duty kind of bus for Stikine and, specifically, for the Hazeltons?

The third part of the question. It has been pointed out to me that many of the villages fall under the Indian Act and DIAND and federal funding. So there is an opportunity for this government to use ministry resources to negotiate with the federal government for those villages, to provide some additional funding for our public transit.

We just don't have the resources in the communities to take on those kinds of negotiations, even at the regional district level. So my third part of the question would be: will the minister in this budget be able to commit staff resources to that process?

Hon. S. Bond: I really appreciate the questions because I represent small communities as well. Not to mention Prince George — so I do represent a large one too. But one of the things that the member has discovered is that transportation is pretty critical in constituency work.

I want to, first of all, point out that there is enormous increasing demand for transit, public transit–type options, in every size of community across the province. So in answer specifically to the questions, we don't allocate dollars in the budget specifically to communities.

[1050]
[ Page 1128 ]

What we do is provide resources to B.C. Transit, who is basically the agent that goes and assesses those needs. So this year the B.C. Transit allocations are $78 million of operating and $99 million of capital. Included in our transportation plan is a commitment to add buses right across the province, so there is certainly going to be additional capital, and we're acquiring those over a number of years. Certainly, what we will commit to doing….

At UBCM I obviously met with Mayor Maitland, and I appreciated the member being there with his constituents. I thought that was very helpful. We will go back and have a conversation with B.C. Transit and then update the member in terms of what their plan looks like for northern B.C. generally. I should point out that the demand is always greater than the resources that have been provided.

We did, however, through UBCM, have some very specific needs identified. One of them I think was Fraser Lake, and there was a significant concern about access for seniors and the disabled. I think we're working to find resolution with B.C. Transit, because that issue was brought forward, and we're going to work to try to find a solution there.

I offer the member the same circumstance. We will go back, talk to B.C. Transit, look at what their allocations are, and again, those dollars will continue to increase over the next couple of years. So we will do that.

I think we're always interested in looking at how, certainly as a government, we can partner with the federal government and urge them to take into consideration the needs of first nations people. Our staff will be in contact with you about how we might facilitate that discussion as well.

G. Gentner: I rise in full view that the opposite side knows my position on South Fraser perimeter road.

I would like to say a convivial hello to Mr. Proudfoot who…. I don't know if it's a promotion from Gateway to here — maybe it's a lateral move — but welcome nevertheless. I'm sure that you're very, very busy these days.

I've been here for four years. I'm not going to belabour my position on this. I think it's for the record, and people understand my position. The South Fraser perimeter road is probably going to impact my community like no other community. The province has seen a billion-dollar project, and it's unfortunate that we have so little time to talk about a billion dollars.

I would like to know what exactly is the budget. We see through the pages, and we heard $1 billion. Is it $1 billion? Is it $1.17 billion? How much of that land is actually being used for land purchasing and assembling, and how much of that has already been spent for land assembly?

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to make sure we recognize that Frank Blasetti, our partnership's ADM, is joining us for this particular section. He has done a tremendous job on this particular project.

The budget for South Fraser perimeter road is $1.147 billion. The assembly of land, the component that's set aside for that, is $370 million, and approximately — it's a moving target, obviously, as we acquire and assemble — $200 million of that has been expended.

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain to me how much land has been assembled and how much money has been spent in my community for land assembly, namely that area between Nordel and Elevator Road in Surrey?

Hon. S. Bond: I need to correct the record. My hearing is deteriorating with my age. The number that we actually have set aside for land assembly is 307, not 370, so I want to make sure that's clear.

We don't have the detailed breakdown of the assembly costs in the area that the member has requested. We'd be happy to put that together and forward that at a future date.

G. Gentner: I look forward to those statistics. I'm wondering, therefore, how much property has been purchased to date and how much is expected.

[1055]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we would have to be carting the entire office over here for those specific details. We don't have the acreage, but again, we'd be happy to find those details.

G. Gentner: I find that astounding. We have an assistant of the minister right here who basically put the project together. I'm quite surprised.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that I have a lot of complaints in my office relative to residents who are negotiating with Gateway that lost their home. I mean, this is basically going to nuke out parts of Annieville, destroy Sunbury. People are losing their homes. They're losing their whole beautiful vistas, the views of the Fraser River — probably the most panoramic views in the Fraser Valley. They negotiate with this ministry in good faith realizing that there's more land that has to be acquired than was originally negotiated.

So again, can the minister at least tell me how many properties in my constituency will be purchased for this road?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, my staff are exceptional at what they do. They have provided enormous information over the course of the last three days. In fact, that detail is not available to us at this moment. We would be happy to make sure that the member opposite receives that information.
[ Page 1129 ]

I'm sure that the member opposite can understand that each of my staff have a number of portfolios that they manage. We'd be happy to provide that detail as quickly as we can possibly assemble that.

G. Gentner: Well, you know, I asked the question because for many years we've heard that it was going to be 70 homes. Some people believe that it's going to be 120 homes. I knock on doors, and people are receiving a courtesy call from the ministry or the Gateway people suggesting that they're going to need a little bit of their easement.

Now, I'm very surprised, quite frankly. That should be information at the fingertips here today. I'm very, very surprised — in light of the fact that people are losing their homes. They're losing their homes. For the minister to stand here and say she doesn't have the numbers on who is going to lose their home and how much property is going to be assembled in an area that is essential to completing this road, I find quite astounding.

I'll have to move off of it, because obviously, I'm not going to get the answer. With all due respect to the minister, we've been waiting for some time to know what the count is. It's an ongoing process. We will never probably know until the contract is signed with the major contractor.

I do want to know, though: can the minister please tell me what the traffic count is today on River Road? What is the traffic count today on the Alex Fraser Bridge? And after the South Fraser perimeter road, what is the expected traffic count on the South Fraser perimeter road, on Alex Fraser Bridge? After ten years completion, what would be the traffic count on the Alex Fraser Bridge and South Fraser perimeter road?

Hon. S. Bond: We have 42,000 kilometres of roads that we do road counts on, so we don't have the specific numbers here today about road counts on those projects, on those particular sections of road.

[1100]

Having said that, I would encourage the member opposite, if he hasn't yet, to actually visit the project office of the South Fraser perimeter road, where the project manager, who actually manages these details, would be delighted to share that information.

I do want to go back, though, and make it clear, on the record, that the acquisition of property is a necessary and challenging task whenever we do large projects like this across British Columbia. I want to be very clear to the member opposite that that process is always conducted in a way that looks at fair market value for the people for whom this is a very difficult decision. There is no doubt about that.

We also know that the vast majority of property that is assembled for these projects is done consensually. In fact, over 90 percent of the property is acquired in a consensual way. We have a process in place so that if the people who are involved in that discussion and negotiation require additional assistance, we also have a provision to provide that for them.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

So we understand that it is challenging, that it is emotional. At the end day, it is a requirement of any major highway projects that are done anywhere in the world, I would assume.

G. Gentner: I find it quite remarkable that we're building a billion-dollar road and that the minister can't tell me what the traffic counts are expected to be. I mean, we're spending a billion dollars on concrete, and we don't know what the traffic count is going to be, how many more trucks we're going to see, how many cars there are going to be, how it's going to impact the South Fraser corridor and, above all, how it's going to create a pinch point at the exchange of Nordel and Alex Fraser Bridge.

We're now seeing back-to-back traffic every day, and we're going to see more traffic funnelling into this pinch point. It's going to be mayhem. It's going to be a problem, and the minister cannot provide the count.

Why are we building it? If the minister cannot provide information on how this is supposed to ramp down the amount of traffic, why are we building this thing?

Again, I'll ask the minister a different way, perhaps. Has there been a proper origin-destination study done on the amount of traffic that's expected to flow on the South Fraser perimeter road upon completion and how it'll affect the traffic on the Alex Fraser Bridge?

Hon. S. Bond: I will simply say this to the member opposite. Of course our ministry has the details, and of course the study has been done. In fact, much of it is public information. I would also ask the member opposite if he has actually visited the project office.

So let us be perfectly clear. This ministry manages, this year, over $2 billion worth of projects in British Columbia. I don't think it should be at all surprising that in the briefcases my staff have hauled to this building, that they have every detail that the member has required…. Our commitment today is, in fact, that we will provide that information as expeditiously as people in our ministry who are watching this question-and-answer session can put that information together for the member opposite.

The South Fraser perimeter road has been part of provincial and local plans for over two decades. We have a detailed and aggressive plan to bring this road to completion. Consultation has taken place with stakeholders and municipalities since 2001, so there is a vast storage amount of data. We have it. We will prepare the answers and share it with the member opposite.
[ Page 1130 ]

G. Gentner: Interesting. The minister mentioned that there're $2 billion worth of projects. So $1 billion of it is the South Fraser perimeter road, and you can't put all that information into a briefcase, if I am correct. I find that astounding. But I'm not going for continue with this line of questioning, because I don't think there is an answer.

I want to know if the ministry has conducted, in light of the fact that there is global change and that container traffic is being shifted…. And it will be shifted up in the northern corridor, etc.

[1105]

We're seeing, for example, areas in the Asia-Pacific where container ships are being tied because of the shift in global trade. The Port of Metro Vancouver has seen a 15 percent drop in the amount of traffic coming through its port. We're see early year sales result in a 25 percent decline in 2008.

So I'm wondering. Knowing all of this shift, has the ministry conducted a comprehensive transportation plan that encompasses global trade and how it is going to impact the South Fraser perimeter road, or if it will at all, knowing it has a greater emphasis these days on the northern corridor? Is there a plan?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact there is a plan, and it's an extraordinary plan. We have brought together, in an unprecedented way — we actually lead the country, and other jurisdictions are looking at the plan we have in place — the Pacific Gateway executive. That group of people represents industry, government. It's brought together an unprecedented group of partners to actually put in place the port strategy for British Columbia.

That port strategy actually will deal with the Ports of Metro Vancouver, Prince Rupert, looking at all of the ports in our province in a very strategic and collaborative way. We are confident that the plan that we have in place will bring benefit to British Columbia for decades ahead.

The member opposite, I'm sure, is aware that we're in the middle of a global recession and that in fact, yes, there have been challenges to container shipping. But the good news that I'm prepared to share with the member is that British Columbia's reduction in container traffic is much less significant than the other ports on the west coast.

That's good news for British Columbia, and if you look at the success of the Port of Prince Rupert, the increases are actually quite significant, considering they are in a new market circumstance. So we have a plan, we have a strategic plan, and in fact all of the partners are at the table making those key decisions.

G. Gentner: I would try to end this. It's my last question, knowing that the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim has a few questions. There are others here as well.

Interesting that there is a plan — interesting. Yet that plan…. The minister can't tell us what the traffic movements will be along the South Fraser perimeter road due to this globalization, this movement. Speaking of which, I have to ask the question that if there is a change, this monumental shift…. My understanding is that the plan hasn't taken into account the seismic shift that's happening.

We're seeing colossal cuts in programs across the board. Yet this road…. In view of the fact that globalization has changed and that there isn't the same type of trade or maybe even the necessity of this road, this government has not considered at least suspending completion of this road until such time as it has completed a comprehensive transit plan that takes in the new millennium, the new situation globally and the new opportunities on the northern corridor.

[1110]

I understand that the plan is more of a hamburger drive-through and a freeway plan than it is anything else. But is the ministry at least considering suspending this plan, and can the minister tell me who is the major contractor in delivery of this road?

Hon. S. Bond: The major contractor for the project has not been selected yet. We have no intention of moving back from our commitment to build the South Fraser perimeter road. It has been a project that has been in local and provincial plans for over two decades.

It is about economic development. It is about economic opportunity into the future. It's about a collaborative port strategy. But importantly, it's also about safety. We look at the South Fraser perimeter road as an opportunity to move heavy industrial traffic out of neighbourhoods and onto a place that's far more appropriate for those vehicles to be moving. So we will continue to move ahead with the South Fraser perimeter road. We expect it to be completed in 2012, and we expect it to be on budget.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today. I'm being mindful of the time. We don't have much time, and a lot of my colleagues have questions.

Two issues I'll just quickly lay out that maybe the minister can get back to me on, because I think they'll be a little comprehensive to deal with now. Then I've got a couple of real fast ones that hopefully I can get a quick answer to.

Bamfield road maintenance level is below public safety standards. It's been an issue I've raised with your predecessor for four years, and it's been an issue key to the chief of Huu-ay-aht, Robert Dennis, and Stefan Ochman, the director, so you've probably heard about this already.

The road conditions have got no better, although there were some assurances from the previous minister that they were going to be working with the Ministry of
[ Page 1131 ]
Forests to get that done. So if I can get a briefing on that or an update at some point. I can wait for that one.

The second issue is, again, a larger issue, so I'll expect the answers coming later. It's around an alternative access to the Alberni Valley, alternative to Highway 4. Charlie Haggard, a longtime resident of the Alberni Valley, has worked on the issue. He has since passed away. It's supported by the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot, the city of Port Alberni and by myself. The previous minister had moved towards actually acknowledging that that would be something he would look at. So I'm hoping…. I'd like, at some point, an update on that, please.

Just on to specifics, then. Highway 4…. Just finishing this off. This one I'd like an answer to right now, if possible. The centre lines were repainted this year, which is great, because it's very important. The highway is a beautiful highway. It's also very curvy. It's quite dangerous if you don't know it. There are fog conditions often, weather conditions, and at night…. I mean, there are cliffs and lakes, and it's magnificent. The centre lines are essential.

As essential, for safety reasons, are the side lines on the highway. They have not been repainted even though the centre lines were done. I've inquired about this already. There are no funds, apparently, set aside to do this work. It is a big safety problem. If the minister could respond to that, please.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I really appreciate the speed with which the member asked those questions. I know he was rushing. I could tell by his voice. I appreciate that. I know you have lots of colleagues wanting questions.

With relation to the Alberni Valley alternate road and Bamfield, what we'd like to do is sit down and have a conversation with you about that, because there has been some improvement. I know there needs to be some additional work done there, and we're happy to have that conversation, so let's arrange for staff to sit down with you about that.

[1115]

I will look at having the lines painted, in terms of the roads. We'll see if that's still a possibility this season. The centre lines are obviously painted annually, and there's more flexibility on those, but I'll ask the staff to have a look at that particular stretch and make sure that concern is taken care of.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I very much appreciate the support on that. So just lastly, then, is an issue, again, I've raised a number of times on behalf of my constituents.

There's a community, Little Qualicum Village Estates, that is right adjacent to Highway 19. It's a growing community. I've been inquiring with the previous minister regarding highway access on behalf of the residents there. Now, there's been acknowledgment that that may happen at some point in time.

I was forwarded a copy of a letter that was sent to the minister by Robert and Annie Donald, who are residents of Little Qualicum River Village. Because there is no direct highway access, it very much increases the length of time for, well, any traffic but emergency vehicles in particular in this case. They required an emergency vehicle. They got an emergency response quite quickly, but the ambulance took 40 minutes. There were potential risks for health reasons.

I understand that you can't have access everywhere, but is there any movement at all on some highway access to Highway 19? Basically, it would be Corcan Road, that section by Little Qualicum River Village.

Hon. S. Bond: Staff are aware of that circumstance, and again, with the indulgence of the member, when we meet, we'll add that to our list. We'll have three agenda items and will make sure that's on there, especially on the emergency access issue. The deputy would like to have some discussion about the emergency access piece.

M. Mungall: The mayor of Sparwood, David Wilks, has recently been quoted as saying: "I think rural British Columbia, for the most part, because of the restructuring of the health care system…needs to think about how they do things." Specifically, he was talking about public transportation.

I want to let the minister know that the people of Nelson-Creston feel pretty much the same way. While B.C. Transit does offer subsidies to municipalities for public transportation, we're only able to then deliver public transportation once a week from some of the more remote areas to the centre, which is Nelson. For instance, we have a bus going from Kaslo to Nelson once a week, a bus from Salmo to Nelson once a week, but none to Castlegar and definitely not from Salmo to Trail, where the regional hospital is.

More importantly, there are people in these outlying areas who are going to the more central areas like Nelson and Castlegar and Trail to go to school — Selkirk College. Or Creston, trying to get to the College of the Rockies. Or to employment — that's a really key concern. As affordability decreases in our larger centres, people are moving to the smaller communities where it's more affordable. Yet they can't get to work. They can't get to doctor appointments.

So my first question. In a time when municipalities are also financially struggling — they don't have the ability to necessarily put more money into public transportation, and they're looking to the provincial government — how will the minister ensure that people in rural communities have the public transit access that they need to not only access the vital health services but, of course, education and employment?

[1120]
[ Page 1132 ]

Hon. S. Bond: As has been the case with a number of questions about public transit, the challenge we face is that there's always more demand than there are resources. The budget for B.C. Transit that taxpayers provide this year alone will be about $99 million on the capital side. That's for acquisition of, obviously, new buses and transportation items. The operating dollars will be $78 million.

B.C. Transit, as the agent, basically looks across the province at the need and determines how best to utilize those resources. We can commit to the member opposite that we will ask B.C. Transit about their future plans for expansion. You know, I live in the north of the province. I understand how important those small communities are, and moving from place to place is very challenging for people.

The candid answer is that there will always be more demand than we have resources. We'll take this issue back to B.C. Transit, ask them to look at what the long-term planning might be in that area of the province and provide that information to the member opposite.

M. Mungall: I could go on and on with many questions about rural public transportation, but in the interests of time and having other colleagues who want to go forward, I have a quick question about a very small community in my constituency, Howser. Howser has one street, it's the most northern community in my constituency, and 15 years ago they were promised to have their street paved.

Now, that hasn't been realized. Of course, this is a problem in the springtime with spring runoff — they're very rural, quite isolated — and in the wintertime with the incredible amounts of snow in the upper areas of the Nelson-Creston region.

I'm wondering if you are going to be able to look into paving their street.

Hon. S. Bond: I have the benefit of having a deputy that has actually lived and worked in Nelson, so I think he knows exactly where that street is. That's helpful.

What we'll do is…. I've asked the ADM responsible for highways to take a look at that, to look at the commitment that was made. As frustrating as it is, it would be the same answer as we've provided in terms of busing and transportation needs across the province — always more than we can possibly manage. But I think a 15-year commitment…. We'll have a look at that, and I've asked my ADM to look specifically at that street.

M. Sather: Recently $16 million was awarded for a RapidBus lane on the north side of the Lougheed Highway — $8 million of that from the province from Golden Ears Bridge to Harris Road. RapidBus lanes were announced as part of the provincial transit plan. This came as a surprise to local government, such as the mayor of Pitt Meadows, Don MacLean, who said that once again the government is not speaking to TransLink.

Mayor MacLean sits on the TransLink council of mayors. Why didn't the government discuss this announcement with TransLink?

Hon. S. Bond: I would urge the member opposite to go back and have another conversation, because according to my staff, TransLink actually asked us to do this project.

[1125]

It is about the widening of Highway 7. It is about preparation for RapidBus. So in fact, while it could be called a RapidBus announcement, because eventually the widening of the highway will be used for RapidBus, TransLink asked us to help improve the flow of traffic by widening Highway 7. That's what we're doing, and in fact they're well aware of this process.

M. Sather: Well, yes, it was called a RapidBus announcement.

TransLink has some major funding issues, as the minister knows. There does not appear to be any money to acquire additional buses for the RapidBus lane. Does the minister think it's a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars to spend money at this time for a RapidBus lane when there doesn't appear to be any money to buy the buses?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that government remains committed to working with the council of mayors to deliver on the provincial transit plan. That's exactly what we expect to happen.

I think the important thing is that while we are building for the future, and we will accommodate RapidBus, this is actually an HOV lane. What it does in the short term is it actually improves the flow of traffic immediately along that corridor. In fact, it allows local bus service to take advantage of the HOV lane that we're creating, and I think even more importantly in many ways, it facilitates use of the Golden Ears Bridge. That helps TransLink, as you can imagine, as people actually choose to use that particular bridge — so a combination of actually seeing immediate improvement for traffic flow for local bus service and building for the future.

M. Sather: Other members want to speak, so I'll just ask one more question. I have a number of others.

Certainly, members of my community will be interested to know it's not actually for RapidBus. But according to Jeff Knight, Transportation Ministry spokesman, the RapidBus lane will run westbound only and there are no plans for an eastbound lane. How are the people who take the RapidBus to work across the Pitt River Bridge in the morning supposed to get home at night when the RapidBus only runs in one direction?
[ Page 1133 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to go back. The comments about RapidBus were correct. It will be a RapidBus lane. In the meantime, as we utilize that lane, it benefits immediate traffic flow — pretty important in terms of that stretch of the highway.

In terms of why the lanes are being built the way they are. Currently there are three eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes. The reason we're adding another lane on the westbound is so that we have three lanes on either side of the highway, which would then accommodate RapidBus. We're balancing the highway so that it has three lanes on either side.

[1130]

C. Trevena: I'll try and be quick, and maybe I'll be able to answer some of these with staff later on. I just wanted to ask the minister: were there any plans for repairs for Highway 19 north in the foreseeable future? It's an issue I've raised with the predecessor for the last four years. Where the logging trucks have been coming down, there's quite a lot of indentation.

In the same frame of question, there's been a notice up for some time south of the Amor De Cosmos bridge, between Campbell River and Sayward — since about April — saying that there are going to be bridge repairs there. People are wondering when those bridge repairs are going to be happening.

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: I know she will indulge us. We are madly flipping through pages and pages of notes, so we will get back to the member opposite with an update and be happy to provide those to her.

C. Trevena: I'd also, then, quite like…. Maybe I can sit down with staff at some stage because I'd like to talk about Highway 28. Again, we've had signs on the roads saying "bumps" every ten kilometres but no sign of road repairs — so whether that's going to be possible.

A couple of ones that I'd just like to quickly touch base with and, again, maybe have a further conversation with staff on. Talking to the mayor of Sayward — very concerned about the Salmon River Main. It is actually a logging road, but it is the only access out of the village when there are problems on the main road.

At the moment there are bridge repairs happening on one of the bridges there, which means people are having to use Salmon River Main on its own. The village is concerned that they're getting the responsibility for looking after that. Again, whether this is something that we can discuss now or separately with staff.

Zeballos road, the Ministry of Forests road. Again, I've raised it several times, like my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim. It's similar to the Bamfield road — the only access to communities.

My final question, which maybe we can get a written response to. The size of the aggregate used in bad weather. I heard a lot of complaints last winter about windshields broken. The claim was that the size of the aggregate was so large. Had chats with Emcon about this, but if we can get some line on that, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite. I appreciate that list of concerns. What we will do is that we'll arrange a time for the member to sit down with our staff. They'll do a terrific job. They'll go back, look at each of those projects and the aggregate issue and spend some time working through those with the member, with her indulgence.

C. Trevena: I appreciate the minister's offers, and I look forward to the meetings.

V. Huntington: I'm finding it so frustrating to have such little time to discuss what obviously in Delta South is our major issue, which is the SFPR and the Gateway project as a whole.

The Gateway project, in our estimation, should have been a cumulative project. We feel quite strongly that all of the projects were divided up so that a cumulative assessment wasn't necessary. Thus, the total social, economic and, especially, environmental impact on Delta has not been considered when Gateway is examined as a whole. It's equally even more frustrating when you know that the SFPR is part of the Gateway program.

[1135]

However, I would like to compliment the minister's staff for the enormous efforts they did make during the consultation process in Delta. I note that her ADM, Mr. Proudfoot, is in the room. I have to say that no one knows better the discontent in Delta with regard to not only the consultation process but to the road itself. No one knows better the discontent than Mr. Proudfoot, and he handled himself with enormous grace, I must say. I'd just like to compliment him for that, even though I hate absolutely everything that the road stands for at this point in Delta.

I should say, however, my argument — and the argument of most south Deltans — has never been that the road should not exist and that there should not be a corridor to handle the industrial traffic. Our argument has always been with the route that the province chose.

Our strongest wish for a long time now is that we would have a minister who would sit down with an open mind and listen to alternative routes that are available. In my case — and I spoke to Mr. Proudfoot briefly about it at one point — it was: why, in heaven's name, other than a land development issue, didn't the South Fraser perimeter road take the bypass?

I think the bypass is necessary, but why didn't it use provincial rights-of-way along Highways 99 and 91? It would have reduced the land costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, and it would have avoided creating an
[ Page 1134 ]
island out of Burns Bog. It would have avoided going through the agricultural land reserve to the extent that it is.

However, I recognize that I could go on forever, and I would like, perhaps, to ask the minister if I could forward some written questions that would complete my questions.

But this is a question for the minister. When Deltaport was being constructed, the process involved a community liaison committee. I wonder whether the minister and her staff would consider endorsing the same type of committee to follow the construction of the South Fraser perimeter road. It's a committee that assists the community in understanding how the environmental process is being monitored and that asks questions and that I know would be very welcomed by members of the community.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to begin my remarks by simply saying thank you for recognizing our staff. They are exceptional at what they do. For me — to be candid — it's very frustrating to see the kind of reaction that takes place at times when we don't have numbers at the tips of our fingers in this room. They are exceptional at what they do.

I want to tell the member opposite that I think it's a good idea. I think what we need to do…. It has also been brought to the attention of my staff by Mayor Jackson and others that there should be some sort of community liaison body. I actually support that idea.

[1140]

So what I would like to do is take the opportunity to invite the member to sit down with us to talk about…. You know, I think we have to be careful about how it's constructed and what its purpose is, because we are moving ahead with the South Fraser perimeter road. I think it would be shortsighted not to do that in a way that is collaborative with the people it will impact.

I think that the more we can mitigate and talk about those potential impacts, that's an important thing. So I think it's a practical solution. I want to make sure that whatever we create is manageable and that it allows us to continue to do the work that needs to be done.

I think it would be appropriate for us to sit down and receive the input from the member. Obviously, we will also be hearing from the municipality. Then hopefully, together we can create something that would be a workable and practical way to have that kind of dialogue.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister very much, and I appreciate the willingness to sit down. I would love to sit down. I think we can construct a responsible, consultative or advising mechanism that would satisfy many of the concerns.

I am cognizant of the time that the critic has. I will want to explore — perhaps with the minister herself, if she could — this issue about route. I recognize that it would be too long a conversation for the moment, but one of the issues that is deeply concerning to people in Delta South is the fact that the road is going through red-listed habitat on the northwest corner of the bog.

In 1948 the last sighting of the little, not majestic, southern red-backed vole…. It was the last sighting in 1948, and it was thought extirpated in lower British Columbia. It was found during the preapplication assessments, the environmental assessments, in that corner. The entire section of that area is red-listed as habitat and should be part of the Burns Bog conservancy.

Could the minister explain how, as late as January, Mr. Freher commented to Delta council that the road would not impact the vole? Can the minister explain how her ministry is able to justify that? You can't mitigate the destruction of habitat.

Hon. S. Bond: I will say right off the top here that I am not an expert in how the protection itself will take place. But I do want to assure the member that I think this, again, would be an opportunity for us to sit down and walk through both the process that has been underway and that we've gone through as a province.

We've gone through the most rigorous environmental assessment in probably the history of any project in British Columbia, including bringing experts from other places in the world to look at the circumstances. I can only convey the information as best that I'm given it by my staff, who say: "You know, Minister, we've had the certificate that says this will not unduly impact…. We've brought experts about the bog to British Columbia."

So I can assure the member opposite that through a four-year, rigorous process, we've been given every assurance and every approval necessary that says we will look at making sure there is not that kind of impact.

What I'd like to do is to offer the opportunity for the member to come and sit down with our staff, to walk through what that process looked like and to look at how we intend to protect that very, very important part of Delta South.

[1145]

I know that sounds like little comfort, I'm sure, to the member, who has, obviously, a very deep, passionate view of this, as do many of her constituents. So I think the question is asked well, and with important intention, and we'd like to sit down and walk through that process and try to find a way to reassure the member that, in fact, we have received approval to move forward, based on extremely rigorous evaluation.

The Chair: Noting the time, we'll have no more questions, but thank you.

Hon. S. Bond: May I make one more closing comment?

The Chair: Yes.
[ Page 1135 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you, hon. Chair, for indulging me. I would like to, at least, assure the member opposite that any written questions that she has, knowing that her time was constrained — basically, thanking the critic for making that happen for me.... We'd be happy to respond to them, and also, we'd like to meet in person to discuss the other issues.

H. Bains: At this time I'd once again like to thank the minister and the staff. I think they've been very cooperative. They provided as much information as they could, and you know, other information that they didn't have here will be coming forth by way of written response.

But I do want to say, going through the estimates…. I must say that I am disappointed with the direction this government is going. People in the Lower Mainland are really worried about public transit. People are worried that the provincial transit plan may not be implemented — or may not be implemented in a timely fashion.

People are worried. It's all because of a lack of leadership shown by minister after minister after minister of this government. They're worried that the resources and the capacity aren't provided to the local mayors or to TransLink.

They worry that the climate change issue that they all worry about, that we all worry about, isn't going to be dealt with because we don't have the ridership increase, as was anticipated through the provincial transit plan.

I think people feel that they have been neglected. People feel that this government failed them in the Lower Mainland. People outside of the Lower Mainland — the rural communities — are worried about their public transit. They're not getting the resources that they need to meet with their needs.

People are worried about highway maintenance. They're worried that the highways are not maintained as they should be, and they have to fight tooth and nail, trying to bring it to the attention of this government in order for them to go and maintain those highways to the level and the standard that they expect.

So people are worried, as the minister has heard, that some of the contractors take shortcuts when it comes to winter maintenance — the size of the materials used. People are really going through the windshield damage and other damages.

I think, all in all, what I've seen in the last eight years is a failure with this government — failure to complete and comply and to deliver the provincial transit plan that is needed.

People in Surrey are saying that we need 500 buses now. The mayor, Dianne Watts, has said repeatedly that we need 500 buses. That was, like, three years ago, and all we got is another promise — another promise and no delivery.

But anyway, noting the hour, I know that we have to end, we must end, and I want to thank the minister and the staff once again for providing us the answer, and I look forward to working with them again.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to end my comments by thanking the exceptional executive team that we have, that have been here over the last number of days — those who were also in offices helping us. They are extraordinary.

I want to also say thank you to the men and women who work in the Ministry of Transportation and our contractors, who are building projects and maintaining highways all across this province. They do an exceptional job every day on behalf of British Columbians.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $755,783,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 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