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)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 5, Number 1

[ Page 1277 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Heed: Good morning. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming two guests today who have dedicated their careers to making our streets safer in British Columbia.

First, I'd like to welcome RCMP Supt. Bill McKinnon. Superintendent McKinnon has led and continues to lead one of B.C.'s busiest municipal detachments for the city of Kelowna and now uses those leadership skills to benefit all of British Columbia as head of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

Also in the gallery today is someone who is a vital part of Vancouver's charge against crime, and I make mention of him. He and I joined policing at the same time. Insp. Brad Desmarais of the Vancouver police department's gang and drug section is joining us today.

Please join me in giving a warm welcome to both Superintendent McKinnon and Inspector Desmarais.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — BODY ARMOUR CONTROL ACT

Hon. K. Heed presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Body Armour Control Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Heed: I am pleased to introduce the Body Armour Control Act. . The introduction of this bill fulfils one of the legislative commitments outlined in the throne speech.

[1005]

As you recall, on February 13, 2009, the Premier announced a seven-point plan to combat gang and gun violence. One component of that plan was to tighten controls on the use of body armour.

This current bill introduces those controls by making it difficult for criminals to possess body armour, providing police with the authority to seize body armour from those not authorized to possess it, and setting fines and jail time for those convicted of an offence under this statute.

Gang members are out on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, hiding behind the added protection of bulletproof vests, as innocent bystanders remain unprotected and vulnerable. I am proposing new legislation so that individuals wanting to possess or sell body armour will now need a permit or licence to do so.

We recognize that there continue to be legitimate uses of body armour. Individuals whose employment roles require them to wear body armour, including law enforcement officers and many employees of the security industry, will be able to possess body armour without a permit.

Those not exempt will have to apply to the registrar of security services, provide reason as to why they need to possess body armour and undergo a criminal-record check. Individuals and businesses that contravene the Body Armour Control Act will be subject to serious sanctions.

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

Bill 16, Body Armour Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Good morning. I call, in Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, ongoing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands — and in this chamber, committee stage of Bill 10.

[1010]

Committee of the Whole House

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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:13 a.m.

On section 1.

M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009.

Section 1 refers to Det san ecological reserve. What I wanted to find out first from the minister…. This one is close to the town of Smithers and is some 5.8 hectares in size. There's an interesting part of this that has struck my attention. It says that "det san" is the Wet'suwet'en name
[ Page 1278 ]
for juniper, as it contains a regionally rare example of old-growth juniper.

For those of you that may know about juniper, it grows in two different forms in our province — a spreading mat form plant and a tree form. The berries, although not edible, apparently are good for your…. If you've got an outdoor toilet, it's a good thing to put in. I'm told it's a natural composter.

[1015]

But what I really wanted to know from the minister is if he could describe a bit about this old-growth juniper and exactly why this is significant.

Hon. B. Penner: This particular property was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Environment by a number of local ecologists a number of years ago. The ministry assessed the property and agreed with those who had contacted the ministry that there were some unique values to be protected here.

The member has asked some specific questions around juniper. I noted a particular use that he has found for juniper. I can advise the House that "det san" is the Wet'suwet'en name for juniper. This particular ecological reserve, should the Legislature agree to pass this legislation, will contain a regionally rare example of old-growth juniper.

In addition, these 5.8 hectares that we're looking at protecting here in the form of an ecological reserve also will protect rare and sensitive grasslands, shrub lands and savannah ecosystems on a steep south-facing slope. This particular ecosystem provides critical winter and early spring range for deer and excellent habitat for moose as well as for resident and migratory songbirds.

I should note that the transaction to purchase this previously privately owned land was concluded on March 31, 2008, and involved the acquisition of 5.99 hectares of land. If you're looking at the notes in the bill, you'll see we're actually looking to establish 5.8 hectares as an ecological reserve. The remaining 0.19 hectares will be protected through a variety of legal encumbrances restricting what can happen on that remaining land.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that elucidation. First of all, I want to say that I'm a very strong supporter of our ecological reserve system in British Columbia. It's a higher order of protection and certainly does protect many unique ecosystems in our province, at least one of which I have in my constituency.

I just want to ask the minister, though, about the legal encumbrances of the 0.19 acres, I think he said, or something of that nature. Why did that part have to be preserved via that mechanism, whereas the rest of it is done in another manner?

[1020]

Hon. B. Penner: For the 0.19 hectares I referred to earlier, I am advised that there is a pre-existing right-of-way to accommodate what we believe is a power line, although I'm subject to correction on that. Because of the pre-existing right-of-way and the rights or opportunities for selective tree removal to maintain that right-of-way for what we believe is a power line, those types of uses are not consistent with an ecological reserve. So it was determined that it would not be appropriate to include that right-of-way in the ecological reserve.

M. Sather: Of this 5.8 hectares then, what is the juxtaposition of the right-of-way? Is it along one side? Is it through a part of it? Where is it?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm being shown a small schematic which indicates that the power line right-of-way is located on the western fringe of the area to be designated as an ecological reserve — again, assuming that the Legislature approves the legislation.

The Clerk reminds me, as well, that maps are available for members to peruse in the Clerk's office. There may not be a map of this ecological reserve, however, I am advised by my staff. But for the remainder or the balance of the areas contained in Bill 10, I am told that there are maps indicating what those areas look like, and those are available for members to peruse at the Clerk's office.

M. Sather: So just that I'm clear then. For a provincial park, of course, we have legislation requiring a boundary adjustment if a power line was to go through it. The minister will recall the discussion we had around the Upper Pitt and a power line that a company wanted to put through a provincial park there.

When the minister said that the power line would be inconsistent with an ecological reserve, do I understand correctly that an ecological reserve and a class A provincial park have the same statutory limitations, then, with regard to boundary adjustments?

[1025]

Hon. B. Penner: Ecological reserves are governed by a separate statute than parks and conservancies. There's an existing law on the books called the Ecological Reserve Act of British Columbia, and that governs what activities are permitted, or not, in ecological reserves.

The parks and protected areas act governs what types of activities are permitted with respect to parks, conservancies and other protected areas in British Columbia.

In both cases, if an area is established pursuant to that legislation — either the Ecological Reserve Act or the parks and protected areas act — and is added to the schedule to the act, the boundaries can only be adjusted by virtue of a statutory amendment brought here to the floor of the Legislature.

In both cases, there are those types of restrictions — significant restrictions on what type of activity can take place. But I think it's safe to summarize that with ecological
[ Page 1279 ]
reserves, the type of activity that's encouraged or permitted is even more restrictive than what's permitted in a class A provincial park.

For example, in parks we encourage public outdoor recreation activities. We at times have built boat launches and campsites and picnic areas. That would not be the case for ecological reserves.

M. Sather: I certainly concur with the minister that ecological reserves have…. I know the government tries very much and is successful, when these are created, in making them have the least amount possible of the touch of humankind on them.

This ecological reserve — the minister has said it has a higher level of protection. If I understood him right, that would apply similarly, although under different legislation, to how it would to a class A park with regard to a power line. There's no power line there yet, but this power line right-of-way is within the boundary of the ecological reserve, as I understand it.

Oh, it's not. Okay. Thank you very much. The minister is shaking his head. That clarifies that for me. It's not within the boundaries.

The other point on that one of interest to me is that this ecosystem provides critical winter and early spring range for deer and excellent habitat for moose and resident and migratory songbirds. I just wanted to comment. I'm so glad to see the inclusion of songbirds in here. We're losing our songbirds in North America at an astounding rate, so any habitat that we can preserve, especially unique habitat like this, is a tremendous bonus to us.

I wanted to ask the minister, with regard to preservation of this critical winter habitat: was there a need for special protection of these species? I know moose and deer are generally fairly abundant in the province, but not necessarily in each part of the province. Was there a particular reason in terms of preservation that this critical winter and early spring habitat…? I'm assuming that for songbirds, it's probably also spring and summer habitat — fall perhaps. Was there a particular concern, or was this more of a general type of…?

I know that when we form ecological reserves, there often is a real focus on a particular issue. In this case I'm thinking it's the juniper, and this other part is not so critical. I just wanted to find out whether there was any specific reason why that habitat needed to be protected for wildlife or birds.

Hon. B. Penner: The member for Stikine will likely correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that in the area where this ecological reserve is to be established, it's relatively rare to encounter savannah-like grasslands or ecosystem types.

[1030]

This particular piece of land, as I noted, is on a steep south-facing slope. Because of that attribute, I would imagine it attracts a fair bit of summer heat and can be relatively dry compared to other areas, which opens it up as a grassland and shrub land, providing excellent opportunities for ungulates to graze in that area — in particular deer, but the member also mentions moose.

I'm told that the primary motivation for acquiring this particular piece of land is the existence of the juniper, which is where the member began his questioning, and also the fact that it is this sensitive grassland-type ecosystem which, my guess is — and I'll stand to be corrected — is relatively rare at those latitudes and that far west in British Columbia.

M. Sather: I'm going to have to consult the member also because I'm not sure about that. I know that in the Cariboo and in the Chilcotin there are, of course, a lot of grasslands. The minister will know that. I spent some time around Smithers, but I'm not exactly sure about the rareness of it. Thanks very much to the minister for his comments on that ecological reserve.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Sather: The first park — and we're still on parks and ecological reserves — is Alice Lake Park, which is 6.8 hectares in the Sea to Sky corridor, which of course is the Vancouver to Whistler route — a very well-used park indeed.

It says that the acquisition of this forested parcel on the shore of Edith Lake, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the park, fulfils a longstanding park management objective. I wonder if the minister could fill me and the House in on: what is the longstanding park management objective that they have at Alice Lake that they're helping to fulfil?

Hon. B. Penner: This is a situation where I think a picture or map is worth more than a thousand words for me in explaining how this piece of property fits in the overall puzzle of the plan for Alice Lake Park.

By virtue of the acquisition of this piece of land, which is about 6.8 hectares, we are securing public access and park protection for — it looks to me like — almost half or certainly more than a third of the shoreline and surrounding area of Edith Lake.

Now, while Alice Lake Provincial Park is named after one particular lake on the map I'm holding in my hands, there are at least four other lakes of note: Stump Lake, Fawn Lake and Edith Lake. It's that last lake, Edith Lake, where previously there was a significant chunk of property, 6.8 hectares, that was privately held, roughly coinciding with the eastern boundary of Alice Lake Provincial Park.

[1035]
[ Page 1280 ]

I'm told that the management plan had been to try and secure public access to that eastern shoreline of Edith Lake. By virtue of this property acquisition and now, hopefully, the inclusion of this property in the park and protected areas act and the schedule thereto, we will be accomplishing that management objective for Alice Lake Provincial Park.

It's far easier for me to demonstrate this visually than verbally. If you see where the little yellow chunk is, that was the piece kind of missing out of the park — with your single-lens glasses. Anyway, that demonstrates, I think, fairly succinctly why B.C. Parks felt it appropriate to acquire that piece of land. That transaction was completed…. I don't have the date when we acquired that property, but it was something that we had hoped to do for a period of time.

B. Routley: I ask leave to introduce some students.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: We have with us today a group of grade 10 and 11 students and several teachers and adults with them — teacher Miss Carrie Craig from Queen Margaret's School. They asked some very pointed questions, so we've got some up-and-coming MLAs. Please join with me in welcoming this fine group from our Queen Margaret's School in the Cowichan Valley.

Debate Continued

M. Sather: That's helpful — in part. I know that different parks…. I've been to Alice Lake, but I must confess it's been some time, and I don't recall specifically the role of recreation in that park. With regard to the access to Edith Lake — and perhaps even to the park more generally — does the management plan, then, have a strong focus on recreation and that would be part of the reason that we would want or that B.C. Parks would want greater access to Edith Lake?

Hon. B. Penner: Like the member, it's been some time since I've spent any recreational time at Alice Lake Provincial Park. However, I do recall that was the first time I felt angry at raccoons. I was probably seven years old and had caught a number of small trout and had left them on the picnic table, only to find them disappearing, courtesy of some visiting raccoons. However, I digress.

There is a popular campground in Alice Lake Provincial Park. I don't recall if there are established hiking trails to Edith Lake. But I'm advised that all sides of Edith Lake are forested lands. By virtue of the amendment we're seeking here, we will be able to secure public access and B.C. Parks' ownership and management authority over all sides of Edith Lake, thereby making sure we have the ability to permit recreation as well as conservation initiatives.

Previously that 6.8 hectares was privately owned. It was forested land. I don't know if there were harvesting plans or proposals. But given the nature of the forest in that area, it could have been valuable from a forestry perspective. By virtue of B.C. Parks acquiring that land, we'll be able to manage it for both recreation and conservation.

[1040]

M. Sather: Well, I can sympathize with the minister's crisis over the raccoons. When I moved to British Columbia from Alberta, I started raising some geese, and I thought: "Oh, those big geese could fight off a raccoon — no problem." Well, I soon learned otherwise and found a few feathers in the morning. I know about that kind of angst that raccoons can bring upon one. Thanks to the minister again.

Now, there's a lot of controversy these days in our parks and a lot of conflict as the population rises, particularly in the Lower Mainland, between recreation users and conservation objectives. The minister has said that in this park we're trying to achieve both objectives.

I notice that it says, with regard to the parcel, that it connects Alice Lake Provincial Park to other natural areas to the east of the park's boundaries and to an extensive system of mountain bike trails. Are those mountain bike trails, then, completely outside the park, or are they inside and outside the park?

[1045]

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. I've been able to access a different map showing the park.

For the interest of members, if you're ever planning to visit any provincial park, including Alice Lake Provincial Park, you can visit the B.C. Parks website, which I find to be a handy resource. You can seek out different parks by alphabetical order and click on that and print out a brochure at your leisure.

If you do that in the case of Alice Lake Provincial Park, you'll learn that the park is named for Alice Rose, who was the first woman settler to hike and fish in this area, and that the park is surrounded by towering mountains, dense forests and grassy areas. Four freshwater lakes dominate the landscape, offering plenty of excellent family fun and adventure activities.

The member was asking about mountain bike trails. From what I can see on the map, there are a couple of trails that are designated for use — including mountain bikes, including one in the general proximity of Edith Lake. But according to the map I have, they're not officially designated as going into that previously privately owned area to the east of Edith Lake. When this legislation passes, if it's supported by the members of the House, then I guess
[ Page 1281 ]
it's possible that trails will be established more formally on the east side of Edith Lake.

One of the more popular trails, apparently, is the Four Lakes Trail, which is eight kilometres in length and takes what is described as a circuitous route past all four lakes. Biking is permitted September 15 to May 1. Presumably, that restriction is to try and avoid conflicts on the trails.

It is my view that recreation and conservation can go hand in hand and that they're not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. That's one of the benefits we have with the B.C. Parks system. We do try to manage for multiple objectives.

[1050]

I think Alice Lake is one of those areas where, obviously, we are encouraging recreation. There are more than 100 campsites that are enjoyed by many members of the public, particularly families.

But also, it allows us to restrict the type of activities that take place — for example, limiting the time of year when bikes are permitted on trails and also prohibiting various types of activity that are prohibited under the Park Act. We've already touched on that earlier, that there are significant restrictions on what type of activities are permitted in a provincial park by virtue of the park and protected areas legislation.

M. Sather: The minister mentioned that, as I understand it, the mountain biking or cycling in general…. Certainly, mountain biking, by the sound of it, is restricted to the fall, winter and maybe spring area time frame. Of course, on the west coast that's the time we have the most rain and the most amount of mud, which can lead to serious deterioration in trails.

Does the park management plan for Alice Lake have any protocols, including enforcement provisions, to ensure that the trails are maintained in good condition vis-à-vis the use of mountain bikes and preserving the other half of that two-pronged approach that we all want — that is, the conservation part?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have a copy of the park management plan for Alice Lake Provincial Park with me here in the House, but I would be surprised if the management plan got into that level of detail. Typically, they set broad objectives.

The day-to-day management of a park is something that's different and would likely take into account what types of impacts are being noticed or not in the park and what changes are suggested. I would have to believe that there is a reason why the brochure and the map, actually, that I've been handed…. As I look at it closer, right on the map it's indicated in a couple of places next to the little icon indicating somebody on a bicycle. It says September to May only. There must be some reason why that restriction was put in place.

[1055]

I do note that a couple of these trails seem to extend from or incorporate what's marked on here as a gravel road on the map — not suggesting all of the trails are on gravel roads but that some of them certainly seem to stem from what's just simply identified on here as gravel road, without any other name attached.

Given those apparent restrictions on the time of use or the seasons of use for mountain bikes, I have to assume that the people responsible for the management of this park on a day-to-day basis have seen fit to permit mountain biking at certain times of the year but not others. Again, it's another example of the multiple use that you can find in our provincial park system.

Again, we do try to encourage recreation. It's a healthy thing for people to do, generally, if they can avoid falling off their bicycles and hurting themselves or hurting other people due to encounters on the trail.

Other activities the member may be interested in that Alice Lake Provincial Park is well known for…. In addition to trout fishing, which is something I remember doing with my father, I'm told that now canoeing and kayaking are popular activities at lakes in the park. As well, fishing and shellfish harvesting and the removal of other marine life is permitted but only where you have an appropriate licence to do so.

M. Sather: I suspect the minister is absolutely right that the timing of trail use is to try to minimize conflict between users.

The minister brought up an interesting facet, an important facet of course, of biking or mountain biking, and that's the risk factor. It can be a spill, or it can be, as happened to a good friend of mine who is a very avid mountain biker…. He's about my age, and he had a heart attack during a mountain-biking expedition. So there are, of course, a number of risks.

With regard, then, to preservation of the trails and attendance to individual users, whether mountain bikers or others, that could become injured, can the minister inform the House as to what sort of range or contingent or other management contingent there is for Alice Lake Park?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have that information here with me, and I don't have the appropriate staff for that.

M. Sather: We're aware that there have been cutbacks in rangers, in some parts of British Columbia at least. Have some of those reductions in rangers been in the Lower Mainland and Sea to Sky corridor parks regions?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I don't have that information here with me, and the staff who…. I should introduce Ken Morrison, seated to my right, and Peter Trotzki, to my left or to the viewers' right. They work assisting us in defining park boundaries and legislative amendments
[ Page 1282 ]
generally, but they're not the staff in the ministry that are well positioned to answer questions around staffing. They deal with park boundaries and the like and legislative amendments.

The Chair: Member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I would remind you that we are discussing Alice Lake Park and the changes in the boundaries as specified in this bill.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Chair. We certainly are. The formation and the expansion of our parks is strongly supported by this side of the House as well as the government side. However, it is an issue. It's great to expand parks, but unless we have the management contingent to look after them, it can become a bit of an exercise in futility.

[1100]

I would like now to move on to subsection (a) of section 2, which repeals the name of Brooks Peninsula Park and substitutes the following. This is where I'm going to get into trouble with my pronunciation, so I'm going to depend on the minister's superior linguistic capabilities in this regard. It's substituted with the name Brooks Peninsula Park, also known as Muqin Park. I don't know if that has anything to do with the venerable Maquinna or not.

I wanted to ask the minister just what process took place, resulting in the change of the name of Brooks Peninsula Park.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll attempt to assist the member with pronunciation efforts. I have a bit of an advantage, perhaps, in that I was up in that area a couple of months ago and had a briefing at that time.

To assist the member, we are retaining the name Brooks Peninsula Park but also adding the name Muqin Park, which is in recognition of one of their elders. There's a significant history to that part of the west coast of Vancouver Island, according to the Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation.

As I recall from my visit there, there had been, I believe, a significant battle that had taken place on that peninsula. Obviously, it was a significant turning point in the history of their first nation. They have communicated to B.C. Parks their interest in recognizing the role that their elders had played and the significance of that peninsula to their first nation.

It was an honour for me to travel to that area. I think it was in July, but I stand to be corrected. I was greeted by a significant contingent from the village that had ventured out to that area. Among other things, we enjoyed a fabulous salmon feast. The salmon had been barbecued or roasted on an open fire, and it was a very special afternoon that I had an opportunity to participate in.

Suffice to say, the first nation felt it was appropriate that B.C. Parks recognize the first nations interest in that area by incorporating into the official name of that provincial park a recognition of their elders' past involvement, and that explains the name.

Now, exactly when these discussions were concluded or took place, I'm not immediately familiar. I would be able to get that information, though, for the member if he's interested in the timelines and the sequence of events.

[1105]

M. Sather: That's very interesting and to be applauded.

In 2(c) the description of Canal Flats Park is repealed. Can the minister just explain why that was done?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that back in about 2004, at the annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the village of Canal Flats had approached the ministry and asked about the potential transfer of this small park to the village.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There was then some subsequent correspondence between the ministry and the village where the mayor of that community formally requested transfer of the park to the village. There was an assessment undertaken of the park values and just what role that particular park played in the overall provincial park system.

Subsequently, in April 2005 there was a letter sent to the mayor and council of the village of Canal Flats indicating that the assessment supported the request for the transfer of this community-oriented park to the village, and such a transfer would take place subject to various consultations and approval by the Legislative Assembly.

That brings us to today. I can indicate that there have been subsequent conversations with the village and the Ministry of Environment — including, I think, most recently just last month in Vancouver — where the people from the village of Canal Flats continued to seek this transfer. It's something that fits with their community plan in terms of trying to operate it as a community-oriented park.

M. Sather: On section 2(d), Cape Scott Park, this is an addition, to a very popular hiking park on Vancouver Island, of only 0.8 hectares, which appears to be solely for the purpose of a parking lot. Can the minister inform me on that issue?

Hon. B. Penner: This piece of property was acquired by B.C. Parks by way of a donation from Western Forest Products. The approximate value is $30,000, so we're grateful for that donation of land. This particular area had been used previously as an informal or somewhat ad hoc parking lot, giving hikers access to the North Coast Trail.
[ Page 1283 ]

I know that the member for North Island — I hope she doesn't mind me saying this — was, I think, quite pleased when the legislation was introduced that this particular piece of land was going to be added to Cape Scott Provincial Park because of the growing interest amongst hikers, not just in British Columbia but elsewhere, in traversing the North Coast Trail.

The Ministry of Environment has invested significant funds — hundreds of thousands of dollars, in fact — in the last couple of years to upgrade and extend the North Coast Trail to provide additional tourism opportunities and attraction to that area so that people can complete a loop trail.

By formalizing the previous ad hoc parking lot arrangement, we're giving greater certainty to visitors to the area, to hikers, that they can properly park their vehicles in order to access the fabulous vistas that are available along the North Coast Trail through Cape Scott Provincial Park without having to worry that their vehicles would actually legally be in trespass because they're parked on private land.

[1110]

So thank you to the donation from Western Forest Products. If this legislation is approved by the Legislature, then people who are accessing that area can park with a certain degree of peace of mind that they're on publicly owned land within a provincial park and are parking their vehicles in an area that's now officially designated for that purpose.

Just to go back to the member's previous question around Canal Flats, I should also indicate and would like to put on the record that if the Legislative Assembly approves this legislation and the amendment regarding Canal Flats Provincial Park, the Ministry of Environment will Crown-grant the lands to the village of Canal Flats for park purposes. There will be a reversionary clause in the Crown grant directing that if the lands cease to be used for park purposes, they revert back to the ownership of the province.

Certainly, in the communications I've had with the village of Canal Flats, they have told me they intend to use it for park purposes. But this added provision that I just mentioned will ensure that those lands continue to be used for a park purpose.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for giving that further information on Canal Flats. That's an important piece.

On section 2(g), which is the Naikoon Park addition, this is an interesting one to me. I've spent some time up there. It's a beautiful area of windswept beaches on the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands. One of the things that has always interested me about the Charlottes — and I didn't know this until I visited — is that there are sandhill crane populations up there.

I wondered if the minister could tell me a little bit more about the sandhill crane population on the Charlottes and in Naikoon Park in particular — any information he might have about the relative abundance, if it's going up or down. I know there have been some studies up in the Charlottes area recently on cranes, I think at least partly in relation to a wind farm development. I just wonder if the minister or the people with him today can give me any more information on the crane population in Naikoon.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm afraid I don't have any information with me right at the moment on how the sandhill crane population is faring. I do note, however, that the establishment of the parks and conservancies on Haida Gwaii generally will go some distance to protecting their habitat.

I, too, have some fond memories of Naikoon Provincial Park and can certainly attest to the fact that it is windswept. It was quite windy the day that I was standing there on the beach. I suppose that helps explain the interest of some people in developing the wind power project off the coast there by the same name — if not spelled somewhat differently than I think the provincial park name is spelled but pronounced the same way.

I'm sorry. I don't have the particular details about how the sandhill crane population is faring. I do note that I saw a number of black bears on the day that I went to the beach in Naikoon Provincial Park, but I don't recall seeing any sandhill cranes that day.

M. Sather: Yeah, I remember being in a cabin up there and thinking that that thing was going to blow right off the spit. It's tremendous the way the wind can blow up there.

[1115]

Moving on to section 2(h), the Squitty Bay Provincial Park addition, Squitty Bay Provincial Park is on Lasqueti Island. It says that "this acquisition protects extensive shoreline habitat and uplands within the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, which is the most rare and least protected ecosystem in B.C."

So coastal Douglas fir ecosystem. I'm not sure if I'm understanding that sentence right, because the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, I think, would be quite common, wouldn't it? Can the minister just tell me a little bit more about this least protected ecosystem in B.C.?

Hon. B. Penner: Just a little bit of background, first, on this particular acquisition, which I know was some time in the making. I'm told that the total purchase price was just in excess of $1.5 million. Four partners contributed to the acquisition, and I would like to recognize their efforts and thank the following: there's an eco-gift worth $178,000; the Islands Trust Fund board, $143,000; the Nature Trust and the Land Conservancy, $107,000; and then the province of British Columbia coming in at just over $1 million in terms of contributions to help acquire this addition to the park.
[ Page 1284 ]

The addition represents 38.5 additional hectares, which will more than triple the size of the existing Squitty Bay Park. So it would go from 12 hectares currently to in excess of 50 hectares.

The member asked some questions around coastal Douglas fir ecosystem and why that ecosystem is as small as it is. I'm just advised by staff that it's a question of geography and climate. It's never been a particularly vast part of British Columbia that's had that particular ecosystem, constrained by geography and climate more commonly found in the southeast part of Vancouver Island as well as the Gulf Islands and perhaps pockets in the Lower Mainland.

I'm told that one example that some people in the Lower Mainland may be familiar with is the area around Lighthouse Park in West Vancouver as an example of coastal Douglas fir ecosystem type in the Lower Mainland.

Obviously, this part of British Columbia has also experienced the greatest population growth of humans. This is where people have tended to migrate, probably for the same reasons. Geography and climate have attracted people here and put them in conflict with this type of ecosystem in terms of the trees themselves.

So this acquisition was deemed appropriate for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that it helped us add further legal protection to this Douglas fir ecosystem type.

[1120]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Sather: Section 3(b) is Skaha Bluffs park, which, from reading the press and knowing a bit about Skaha Bluffs, I think is considered one of the real scores in this legislation.

This is a class A park. We have had, it seems to me, some changes in designations A, B and C of parks over the years. Can the minister just tell me: do we still have those classifications A, B and C? Just briefly, what are the differences between them?

[1125]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. Under the Park Act — park and protected areas act, pardon me — there are different categories of provincial parks. The vast majority are identified as class A provincial parks, and 604 is the total, in fact, in British Columbia. I'm not sure if that would include Skaha Bluffs. If this legislation passes, we'll actually have 605 class A provincial parks, I'm now advised.

The difference between, for example, a class A park and a class B park, of which there are only two now in British Columbia, is the test that must be met under the park and protected areas act.

If the member is interested, he can direct himself to section 8 of the park and protected areas act. It talks about the different legal tests that must be met before any types of activities are permitted. I did some of this in summing up second reading debate on Bill 10, where I read some of the definitions or descriptions of activities that would be permitted, or the legal test that's applied, in a case of class A provincial parks.

In the case of a class B provincial park, it says in section 8(4): "A park use permit referred to in subsection (3) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park concerned." That's the legal test for activities in a class B park.

There are also class C parks. There are now, I'm told, 14 class C parks, which tend to serve more of a local purpose, a more community-oriented purpose, and that's why in section 10 of the park and protected areas act it states, "(1) Every Class C park must be under the jurisdiction of a separate park board appointed by the minister" — typically with representatives from the local community. Then it has some further descriptions of how the board must be constituted, etc.

By far and away the most prevalent type of provincial park is a class A provincial park, where, in section 8(2) of the park and protected areas act it states: "A park use permit referred to in subsection (1) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved."

So there are different legal definitions of what the test is before activities are permitted to occur in those parks.

I would like to take this opportunity just to correct something that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake said during second reading debate that I think was incorrect. He said that there is an increasing reliance on using orders-in-council to establish provincial parks in recent years by this government. That, in fact, is not correct.

About ten years ago there would have been approximately 16 provincial parks that were established only by order-in-council or by regulation. Today that number is, I believe, seven. With the passage of this legislation, I believe that number will be six.

Increasingly, what we're doing is adding parks to the schedule, to the park and protected areas legislation, which means that to make changes to those park boundaries or descriptions requires a visit to the Legislature here for debate amongst members and possible approval. I just wanted to note that.

[1130]

We did use the order-in-council mechanism in order to initially establish conservancies, particularly in the Haida Gwaii area, to meet a commitment the government made in response to a request from the Haida that these conservancies be established by the end of last year in terms of legal protection. We did that.

Now we're here with this legislation to add those areas to the schedule, to the park and protected areas acts.
[ Page 1285 ]

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Sather: Now we get into a number of conservancies in Haida Gwaii, a.k.a. the Queen Charlotte Islands. The first one: Daawuuxusda conservancy, perhaps? An interesting part of it…. It says there: "Biogeoclimatic zones within the conservancy include subalpine as well as low altitude hypermaritime variants."

I'd never heard that phrase before — hypermaritime variants. Can the minister enlighten me on what that means?

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for identifying that interesting phrase. I can only assume that for those that make a living in defining biogeoclimatic zones, there's some particular significance to that phrase.

My estimation is that it's referring to areas very close to sea level. When you read the full sentence there in the backgrounder talking about: "Biogeoclimatic zones within the conservancy include subalpine as well as low altitude hypermaritime variants," I'd have to imagine that that's got something to do with being extremely close in proximity to the ocean and the waves, but I stand to be corrected.

I do note that there's talk here about the pipe organs and the columnar basalt rock formations which, again, are the result of the interaction with the ocean and the significant wave activity in that area. Anyway, that leads me to believe that that description refers to the interaction with the ocean or being in close proximity to it.

[1135]

I note that this is a pretty large conservancy that's proposed here — 70,293 hectares in size. For the interest of members, to draw a parallel, that's approximately the same size as Manning Provincial Park that many people in the southern part of British Columbia will be familiar with if they ever drive through the park on Highway 3 or spend time hiking in and about that area. So it's a significant addition to protected areas on Haida Gwaii.

M. Sather: Moving on to the Damaxyaa conservancy. It says that it's an important habitat for marbled murrelets. Marbled murrelets, of course, are one of the three species that came under species at risk. They came under the species-at-risk coordinating office, formerly under Agriculture and Lands, now in this ministry. Can the minister tell me: has there been any research on marbled murrelets in that conservancy?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have information with me at the moment here in the House to address the member's question with respect to marbled murrelets in this particular conservancy, but my general understanding is that we have seen some encouraging signs, generally speaking, with respect to marbled murrelet populations in British Columbia. To the extent that we can establish additional habitat protection, which we're proposing to do here through this legislation, it should further assist in the recovery efforts for the marbled murrelet.

M. Sather: I'd love to talk to the minister later about the encouraging signs for marbled murrelets. That's good.

Moving on to the Kamdis conservancy, which is a network of protected estuarine wetlands which have been identified as internationally significant. I wanted to ask the minister if these wetlands had been or were threatened in any way, and will this conservancy help to alleviate that?

[1140]

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have too many specifics here with me, except I can say that there's been interest expressed for a considerable period of time in establishing protection for what we're calling the Kamdis conservancy, 1,896 hectares in area.

I'm being shown a map here by my capable staff in the ministry showing that it's right along an inlet, and it, I believe, comprises lands typically known as estuary in nature. By their definition, estuaries tend to be sensitive. Also, because they provide access to a water course, they are sometimes an attractive place for various forms of development. By virtue of this addition in terms of a conservancy, we're seeking to protect that foreshore from future development.

M. Sather: On K'uuna Gwaay conservancy. This one contains endemic and rare wildlife species habitat — endemic being that they evolved in that place. Can the minister tell me what any of these endemic and rare wildlife species are?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't have a list here of the endemic wildlife species found in that conservancy, but I would be happy to provide the member with that information. I'll make a note to follow up and to get the member that information.

M. Sather: On the Sgaay Taw Siiwaay K'adjuu — oh, this is a mouthful — conservancy. This one also supports a wide variety of rare, endemic and disjunctly distributed plant species — the minister may not have the specifics, but I just would like to ask him — including the alp lily, Taylor's saxifrage, club-moss, mountainheath, Queen Charlotte twinflower violet and Queen Charlotte avens. I think there might be a mistake there — Queen Charlotte twinflower and then violet. So there's a violet as well, but it's not a twinflower violet. I know enough about botany to know that. Does the minister know, or can anyone there assist him on what that means?

[1145]

Hon. B. Penner: We'd be happy to provide clarification on these names, along with the other information that I indicated in response to the previous question.
[ Page 1286 ]

M. Sather: The last conservancy on this section…. Oh, hang on. No, it's on the next section.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Sather: The Tlall Conservancy contains a rare Sitka spruce, devil's club ecosystem. For most hikers, they'll want to keep that rare. If you've ever hiked through devil's club, that's some mean plant. I should know where Tlall is, but I wanted to ask the minister just exactly where it is. I've forgotten.

S. Cadieux: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Cadieux: In the gallery this morning we have a school group — a grade 5 group from my riding — from Panorama Park Elementary, along with their teacher, Miss Diana Jarvis, and a number of parents that have taken the time today to accompany the students. I'd like us all to make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: The Tlall Conservancy is proposed to be located in the Tlell River watershed and encompasses much of that watershed. It appears, from a map I'm looking at, to be located upland and to the west of the Hecate Strait.

Just to further respond to the member, sometimes I'm led to wonder what causes certain species, whether they're plant or animals, to have the names that they've been given, but devil's club is not one of those things. It is entirely appropriately named.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Sather: This is the "Rescission of orders in council," which is a good thing —transferring orders-in-council to park. A lot of these conservancies — or, I guess, all of them — probably were created by order-in-council.

Members of community groups have expressed their concern that those were susceptible to deletions and boundary changes. Some of those, like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, fought hard in the 1970s to ensure that it would have to go through legislation, through the Legislature, to have major changes or boundary changes.

[1150]

This increases their level of support, a level of comfort, because they oftentimes…. I think some of the groups felt that they weren't — or, perhaps, weren't — party to the formation of some of the conservancies.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

M. Sather: These are final agreement consequential amendments, and 7(b) is repealing the descriptions of Big Bunsby Marine Park — once again, I haven't been to it, but I've seen pictures of it, and it's really spectacular — and Tahsish-Kwois Park.

I can't really figure out what the reason is for repealing those descriptions. If the minister can explain that to me, that'd be helpful.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that this is merely a drafting matter. In effect, what this section, section 7, purports to do is amend section 28 of what was known as Bill 45 back in the year 2007, which mentioned the names of three particular parks in the context of that legislation.

It mentions Brooks Peninsula Park, but because of what we debated a little bit earlier this morning, we're adding to the name of Brooks Peninsula Park a parallel name of Muqin Park. This is, in effect, a consequential amendment tidying up the reference to Brooks Peninsula Park that was made in Bill 45 from 2007 so that it's consistent with the new name that we're providing to this area in response to a request of the first nations.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1155]
[ Page 1287 ]

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND LANDS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $82,634,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to start, to recognize and introduce the staff that are with me here: Larry Pedersen, deputy minister, and behind me is Denise Bragg, who is the assistant deputy minister for the executive financial office.

I also wanted, to start, to provide a couple of quick points of clarification, to follow up on our estimates of October 20, just to correct a couple of things for the record.

One was my mistake. I introduced one of our staff members, Allan Lidstone, as being with the aquaculture and fisheries branch, which was my mistake. He's our director of strategic land use policy. I mixed him up with another Al — Al Castledine, who's in our aquaculture branch. So just to get the record straight, and I apologize to Al for that.

I also just wanted to provide some clarification on one of the answers I gave to the member opposite on Crown land sales. We were asked what the amount or the value of the Crown land sales was for 2009-10 — an estimate for 2009-10 and the number for 2008-09.

I gave a number that was a total value that included other revenues and licences and tenure fees related to those Crown lands, so I wanted to provide the specific information which I think the member asked in terms of the value of Crown land sales specifically.

That number for 2008-09 was $21.7 million, and for '09-10 it was $31.4 million. So those are the two specific numbers that are the correct numbers for the record.

L. Popham: It's great to be back here today to finish these estimates off. We don't have that much time today, so I'm going to start right away with Vote 13 and look at the sustainable aquaculture management line item.

First of all, I would just like to know if the…. It's just over $3 million. I want to know if that has decreased from last year.

[1015]

Hon. S. Thomson: The number was $3.126, million. The number that the member opposite was asking about is $3.076 million — so down slightly.

L. Popham: Can you tell me what has been removed from that line item as far as the budget goes?

Hon. S. Thomson: The reduction involves the general operating reductions that have been applied across all ministries: reductions in travel, reductions in contracts, etc. — so those general administrative savings that have been applied across all ministries.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me: will this line item continue in '10-11, '11-12, or will it be removed from the ministry budget?

Hon. S. Thomson: The current fiscal plan, as you can see in the Estimates, projects a continued line item for sustainable aquaculture management. We expect that that line item will continue to be there in the future.

L. Popham: I'm going to move on to the status of the transfer to DFO. I would like to know if the minister can tell me why this transfer has taken place and if he thinks it's a good move for aquaculture in British Columbia.

[1020]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm it — your opening question. A transfer has not taken place. As you know, there was a court decision called the Hinkson decision, which ruled that finfish aquaculture is a federal jurisdiction. We're currently in the process of responding to that court direction for the transfer of that jurisdiction to the federal government as per the directions of the court.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me if the province will be challenging that decision?

Hon. S. Thomson: The province did not appeal that decision. As I said in response to the previous question, we're now in the process of discussions with the federal government for an orderly transfer of that jurisdiction
[ Page 1288 ]
to the federal government as per the direction of the court.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me why the province will not be appealing that decision?

Hon. S. Thomson: There was legal analysis by the Attorney General on the decision not to appeal that decision, and I think that questioning would be more appropriately canvassed with the Attorney General at the time of his estimates.

L. Popham: I think there has been a statement by the Minister of Environment on the lack of confidence in DFO that the public has regarding the aquaculture management situation and the collapse of our wild stock. I'm just wondering if the minister has confidence that DFO is capable of sustainable aquaculture management and is capable of protecting and helping bring back the salmon stocks in B.C.

[1025]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I don't think it's appropriate in my estimates to comment on the competency of a federal regulator, but what I can say is that, as part of our discussions that we are having and will be having with the federal government over the next months, responding to the decision, provincial interests will inform the discussion and be a significant part of that discussion.

I also can say that we are working closely with my colleague the Minister of Environment as part of these discussions, ensuring that the concerns that he has raised are taken into account as we work on this arrangement with the federal government.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me how long he expects the transition to take? I know that there has been a discussion that it might be February, but in the briefing I had prior to these estimates, there was an indication that it could take longer than that. Is there an end date for these discussions?

I would like to know the nature of those discussions — if there have been any stakeholders invited into those discussions. And I would also like to know, while the discussions are happening and while our province is still undertaking the management of the aquaculture and fish industry: will the minister be putting a hold on the permits that are pending right now? And I would also like to know: how many pending permits are there?

[1030]

Hon. S. Thomson: A number of questions there, so just to go through them. First of all, the court decision set out that the jurisdiction was to be transferred by February 9, 2010. That was the direction of the court, and that is the objective that we're continuing to work towards with the federal government.

You asked about stakeholder engagement or consultation, and I can let you know that the federal government, as a courtesy, has advised us that they intend to have broad consultation on the new regulation, and in the process. That will take place over the next few months.

You asked about the nature of the discussions. The nature of the current discussions are around essentially how well the federal government regulates and administers that portion of the regulation that is to be transferred to them as a result of the court decision.

If you look at the court decision, you also know that in that transition period between now and then, the courts directed that the province will continue to administer and have responsibility for the industry under our current set of regulations and current management structure. We will continue to do that over that time period. That was what was directed by the courts.

You asked about the number of new applications or number of applications. There are currently seven finfish aquaculture new applications that are in a process now of review, consultation. It involves very significant first nations consultation, environmental assessment. Those processes are continuing on those seven new applications.

[1035]

B. Simpson: As the minister may be aware, I have responsibilities as Aboriginal Relations critic for the opposition. Within that context I would like to explore a little bit around the status of aquaculture transfer to the federal government.

Are the discussions that are going on directly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? As I understand the minister, he indicated the Ministry of Environment is involved. So is it Agriculture and Lands and Environment on the province's side and Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the federal side?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, the discussions at this point are between the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and the Ministry of Environment on the provincial side. The reason for that is that as part of the court decision, the waste management regulation, which was part of the regulatory regime for the industry under the Ministry of Environment, was struck down by the courts, as well, and was to be part of that new regulation on the federal responsibility. That involves our Ministry of Environment.

So on our side it's the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and it's directly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the federal side.

B. Simpson: That's the staff level negotiations. From a first nations perspective, as well as many other com-
[ Page 1289 ]
munities, the minister kind of brushed off the trust issue. But a member of his own cabinet actually raised the question of trust with respect to DFO.

What I hear, as I go around the first nations communities, is that DFO does not have sufficient budget to do what it is currently doing with respect to managing wild stock. They also believe that DFO has been heavily politicized with respect to both wild stock and its support for aquaculture.

So there's a predisposition on the part of the federal government, and I'm sure the minister must be aware of that, to promote aquaculture, when people in the province of British Columbia want a rethink of aquaculture — hence, the concern that the government of British Columbia did not challenge the appeal and look at alternate ways.

We don't always do what the court tells us to do. We can come back into the Legislature and reframe our own regulations and legislation to drive our own agenda. So there is a trust issue out there that's very significant.

My question to the minister is: what's the nature of any political discussions that are going on to make sure, if we are going to go down this path, that DFO is actually going to be given additional resources and additional budget to take on the additional responsibilities of aquaculture, and they're not going to have to subsume a brand-new responsibility under an already limited budget?

Are there political discussions underway, and what guarantee do the people of British Columbia have that DFO will actually be adequately resourced to take on a new responsibility?

[1040]

Hon. S. Thomson: To the member, to advise you that at this point the discussions are at the technical level, not at the political level. As I mentioned earlier, our objectives are going to be to ensure that provincial interests are reflected in the regulatory and management regime that is negotiated out of the discussions with the federal government.

I think, in terms of resources, it's not appropriate for me in these estimates, and in my estimates, to comment on or to speculate on what the DFO budget or resources may be for this. We are responding to the direction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and we will work in that process to ensure that provincial interests are reflected in the outcome of the discussions.

The Chair: Just a general reminder that these questions should focus on those things relevant to Vote 13.

B. Simpson: Thank you, Madam Chair. There's an explicit line item budget under Vote 13 for sustainable aquaculture management, and that's what we're canvassing.

Part of what will happen here is we will either continue to have some of those costs associated with the provincial government, depending on the nature of the deal we strike with DFO, or they will disappear, in which case resources are freed up, which are some of the questions we're getting to. But we need to know the nature of the discussions that are going on with the federal government in order to understand what's happening with this line item.

With respect to the minister's answer, I guess there's an argument to be made that if provincial interests are what's at risk here, again, we could have taken an alternate path and made sure those provincial interests were taken care of by maintaining it as a provincial responsibility.

Where I live there are court rulings that say that we should settle land claims issues, and we don't pay attention to that. We go appeal it.

It's a little bit of a weak argument to say that provincial interests need to be reflected. I don't think we're defending provincial interests by not appealing the court case. But that's my personal opinion, and that of many others.

To the minister's point on DFO staffing and budget, I'm sure the minister must understand that in the transfer to protect provincial interests, we need to eyeball the politicians at the federal level, who are in the same fiscal constraints that the province is, and make sure that the provincial interests are going to be protected through additional resourcing and staffing.

[1045]

The minister has already indicated that in the go-forward years this line item in the appropriations vote continues.

Is there any discussion whatsoever of a transition period where the ministry — through secondments, through a memorandum of understanding, through some form of agreement — will continue to make sure that ministry staff are eyeballing what's going on and provincial staff are making sure that, whether it's an 18-month transition or a two-year transition, "provincial interests are protected," using the minister's own words? One of the concerns that people have is that we may end up….

If it's a cut and dried deal, DFO takes over on X date, and the ministry no longer has responsibility on X date. Then you put finfish aquaculture into no man's land for a period of time while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans tries to figure out the beast that they just inherited.

So is there any discussion about a transition window? Is there any discussion about a continued presence of ministry staff so that we actually do make sure that provincial interests are taken care of during that transition period?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question, because I think it's a very good question. We share the member opposite's concerns, and that will be part of the discussions as we work towards an orderly transition of the responsibility.
[ Page 1290 ]

I think the other point that needs to be recognized here is that we're responding to the court decision. The court said February 9. Any extension beyond that point will require court agreement to do that. So as part of the orderly transition, we're working towards that date, but I do…. You know, I think it's a very legitimate question and legitimate concern, and we share it within our ministry, and that will be part of the discussions.

I think one of the other areas — and if you have looked at the court decision — where provincial interest will continue to be maintained is the fact that we…. The court did not strike down our responsibility, our role as far as the Land Act and the Land Act tenures for the operation of the farm. So we will still continue to have that responsibility even under the new regulatory authority. Provincial interest will still continue to be maintained there.

[1050]

We will have…. That means, as I think you were inferring: will we still have a role and a line item for sustainable aquaculture management? Yes, we will, but the nature of that will depend on the outcome of the discussions.

L. Popham: Regarding the seven new finfish permits that are pending, I would like to know if these are separate applications from expanding current sites, and if there's a different number for those. I would also like to know if the minister believes that any of these permits will be approved before the transition is finished.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, the seven are separate. There are a number of other amendments in an application, requests in for…. These are amendments to tenures, licences — a number in the Broughton area, which I think is an area you may be asking about.

[1055]

In terms of the approval process, as you know, those applications go through a rigorous environmental assessment, a very significant level of first nations consultation — requires local government involvement in that. I'm not in a position to be able to speculate as to whether any specific number or any of the new finfish applications may be approved within that time frame. Those depend upon that very rigorous process.

We've got the strongest, strictest environmental regulation on the industry probably in the world and with the level of consultation that's required before an approval. I can't speculate as to whether any specific number of those will be approved within that time frame before the February 9 date.

L. Popham: Could the minister tell me how many permits are expansion permits?

Hon. S. Thomson: We're having some difficulty in very quickly getting that specific information for you. I think what I would like to say is that we're prepared, as a follow-up, to provide you with that information.

There are a number of different kinds of applications, as you know, related to licensing renewal. Some, as you said, asked some expansion. I think to be fair, rather than provide a number that may not be completely accurate here, what we can commit to do is provide you that as a follow-up — a breakdown of the number of additional applications that we have currently in the system and under review, in addition to those seven new finfish applications that I talked about earlier.

L. Popham: I would just like to state that it makes me very uneasy to think that we would be considering giving permission for new finfish aquaculture operations to begin as we're transitioning into a different type of jurisdiction with those.

I think the constituents around B.C. are very concerned about the sustainability of the current aquaculture situation. I think people are really concerned that we should be moving from open-net containment to closed-containment aquaculture. I want to know if there's any money in the line item to help fish farms transition to closed-net containment systems.

[1100]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: No, there is not a specific allocation of dollars for closed-containment work, but we have committed and have our staff resources working in that area. We have significant expertise that we have built up over the years in the industry within our staff — some very, very good staff who are working with organizations and people interested in closed-containment technology. Part of the work of our staff is to do that and to work, looking forward, and researching that technology.

We do work with organizations directly, like the coastal association of aquaculture reform and the Save Our Salmon society. We're working with those. I've recently met with them, as well, to discuss their interest in these areas.

We'll continue to ensure that our staff resources and expertise that we've built up continue to contribute to the research and the investigation of that type of technology.

L. Popham: I would like to know…. Given the court ruling that open-net salmon farming is a fishery and not agriculture, will the industry's tax assessment change from farm tax to industrial tax? Industrial tax is much higher than farm tax.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, a good question, and not one I have a specific answer for, but I think it's certainly something we can look into. I think it was also one that
[ Page 1291 ]
was appropriate to be canvassed under the Ministry of Finance estimates, as well, because that's where the tax policy decisions rest. But I think it's a very good question, and I thank you for raising it, and it's something we'll look into.

L. Popham: What does the minister believe will be the status of the B.C. sustainable aquaculture report now that there is going to be a transfer to DFO? I am concerned that all of this work and the money spent and the hours spent will be lost in the shuffle, and I'm hoping that the minister will be bringing it to the table.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that report and information will be used to help inform our discussions with the federal government.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Being from the north coast and working on this issue of open-net fish farming for close to ten years now and being on the committee…. It was a long, long process — a lot of time spent, dozens and dozens of communities visited, thousands of submissions and dozens of expert opinions — and we came up with a number of recommendations.

About the only recommendation that was followed up on…. Well, it was half of one. One of the recommendations was: no more licences issued north of Cape Caution. What ended up happening was that there was a moratorium placed on the north coast. From our perspective up there, that was a great move.

[1105]

I'm just wondering. That was about the only recommendation that actually came from the Aquaculture Committee. Can the minister confirm that this moratorium will remain in place after the transition to federal responsibility?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, as you know, there was a legal instrument in place to effect that moratorium under the Environment and Land Use Act, and that remains in place.

G. Coons: So I'm under the impression that that moratorium will remain in place during the jurisdiction changeover.

Thank you, Minister.

Another question I wanted to ask about is ocean ranching. During the Aquaculture Committee's tour that we did, that came up on a number of occasions. As we know, ocean ranching is huge in Alaska, and they've been doing it for many years. It's a key driver to their economy, along with protecting their wild stocks.

Again, it's based on the concept of common property versus private ownership, and I'm just wondering if the minister or the ministry, along with their expertise in closed containment, is pushing towards any expertise in ocean ranching and the impact it could have on British Columbia.

Hon. S. Thomson: To respond to the member's question, no, the province and the ministry are not contemplating, and we do not have any resources in the ministry dedicated towards ocean ranching.

[1110]

Of interest, I thought I might draw your attention to — and you may be aware of — a report that was out by Robert Wager, who you may know from Vancouver Island University, commenting on the ocean ranching and indicating that Japan, Russia, Alaska plan to release over five billion smolts into the North Pacific. His concern and worry is that that goes beyond the caring capacity of the marine environment and will actually damage wild stocks.

It's something that needs to be looked at very carefully, but at this point, the ministry does not have any resources in our budget, and we're not working on that policy.

G. Coons: Yes, and right now there is a small ocean ranching type of facility happening on Haida Gwaii at Pallant Creek, where the Haida have been operating that for a number of years. When the fish come in, it's an open fishery. A third goes back into the revenue of the organization.

Their funding is being cut. It seems that as we try to enhance our wild stocks, we just have these roadblocks put in our way, whether it's open-net fish farms coming into migratory routes, or it's a lack of funding to come to programs and initiatives that are serving the enhancements of our stocks.

I do believe, as we move forward, that that is something on the north coast which is a huge topic of conversation. I'm sure the minister or ministry, during the UBCM, have had discussions or will have discussions with groups that are contemplating ocean ranching on the north coast. I hope that the minister and his staff prepare for that discussion.

Now, the other thing that's huge, I believe, is again getting back to closed containment. As the minister and his staff know, Agrimarine, a B.C.-based company that has had pilot projects on the Island in Nanaimo and the upper Island, is now working cooperatively with a Chinese company in closed-containment systems. I find it fairly ludicrous that we have a B.C.-based company that has the technology, and they are having to go offshore to push the technology of closed containment.

I'm just wondering. Has the minister talked to, met with, Richard Buchanan of Agrimarine?

Hon. S. Thomson: We're certainly aware of the work and of the project. Staff meet regularly with Richard Buchanan and look at that project. I personally have not met with him yet but have had a number of meetings
[ Page 1292 ]
with groups and companies and organizations interested in this technology. That is one that I haven't had yet.

G. Coons: Again, when we start looking at our wild stocks and the concern that we have, and I referred to ocean ranching and perhaps the push towards that initiative, closed containment is something that's dear to a lot of people. I'm just wondering — and I'm not too sure if you answered the question — is there any funding put towards any strategies or initiatives for closed containment throughout the province?

[1115]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that question was previously canvassed. I did indicate that there are no specific dollars in our resources, in our budget, this year for that. But I did indicate that we have significant staff-level expertise and involvement in researching closed-containment technology, working with those organizations that are interested in that, which I mentioned previously.

I also just wanted to make a little further comment on the ocean ranching. You're expressing a fair amount of interest in there. I think we need to really understand and know the risks of that before proceeding too far down that road in terms of looking at that. I think we're prepared to continue. I know there are interests, but I think it's an area that you would need to significantly understand the risks before investing significant resources or staff resources in those areas.

L. Popham: I'm going to switch now to the Agricultural Land Commission. The first question that I'm going to ask is if there are any plans or any budget money going towards a review of the agricultural land reserve.

Hon. S. Thomson: Chair, I just ask for some guidance. This is a separate vote. The line commission funding is under a separate vote, Vote 14. We haven't put the motion on the floor yet for debate on that portion of the estimates. So I seek some guidance as to whether we have now completed Vote 13 and are moving on or….

B. Simpson: Often what ministers will do is put the various votes they have on the table so that we don't have to discriminate vote for vote in estimates debate. The minister can, if he wishes, stand up and put the motion forward. That way we have all the votes on the table at the same time and don't have to close the previous vote.

The Chair: Is that the will of the committee?

Hon. S. Thomson: Certainly. I'm quite prepared to do that. I'm just looking for the piece of paper with the specific number on it to do the motion.

Sorry, I'm just looking for procedure here. Do I need to specifically put that motion on the table for that vote?

The Chair: No, Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Okay, so we'll proceed.

Could you restate the question? In sorting out a bit of the procedure here, I've lost the tenure of the question. Could you restate it? Then we'll answer it.

L. Popham: Thank you. I'd love to restate the question. We're both getting used to the rules here.

I'm wondering if there's going to be a review of the agricultural land reserve and if there's any money set aside to work…. Maybe I'll preface my question by saying that the topic of the agricultural land reserve came up in the Ranching Task Force. That's just one example where I think that there is some discussion about a possible review, an idea that maybe it's time for the agricultural land reserve to be reviewed on its effectiveness.

Is there any money in the budget going towards a review at this time?

[1120]

Hon. S. Thomson: Reference the discussion at the Ranching Task Force around ALR. I'm aware that those discussions have taken place within the Ranching Task Force, but as you know, the task force is continuing its work. We haven't at this point seen the specific recommendations from that report. We'll address those when they come, and whatever recommendations there may be related to the ALR will be considered in the overall context of the recommendations for the report.

At this point in our budget we do not have specific dollars for a review. I think it's fair to say that regulations and operations of the Land Commission…. Parts of those regulations get reviewed as part of their regular operations, part of their general operations. Within their current existing budget, that can be done, within limits, within the limits of the budget.

We're not contemplating an increase to the Land Commission budget for a specific review of any kind. As a matter of good practice and as they do their work, various areas of their regulations and operations get reviewed. It's just part of their ongoing activities. No, we do not have specific dollars for a review.

L. Popham: The next question I'm going to ask is coming from the constituents that represent the Peninsula Agricultural Commission here on the Island. There have been years of work done regarding the problem of construction fill and industrial fill being dumped onto agricultural land reserve land. It seems to be very vague who is responsible for allowing this fill to end up on farmland. I think that in a lot of cases it seems that there may be more money in fill than in farming.

My concern is that there doesn't seem to be enough money in the budget for monitoring these activities. I'm wondering. I know that there have been some staff
[ Page 1293 ]
decreases in this current vote, and that's due to retirements, I believe. Is any of the time that's being taken to review things like the fill situation being affected by this year's budget, or will there be an increase in the staffing for monitoring?

[1125]

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a concern that we share. As you may know, since 2007 we have enhanced the compliance component of the ALC. We've received over 700 inquiries. We've investigated and acted on 500 of those.

Now, to be fair, those are not all fill issues. There are other issues that the enforcement and compliance group works on. But we recognize this is a continuing issue, a continuing concern, and we will need to work within the resources we currently have in the Land Commission.

As you'll see in the estimates, we're not contemplating an increase to their budget, but we do have the enforcement and compliance staff. We'll need to make sure that we work closely with local governments in addressing this issue. We need to work closely with the complaint-driven process. I think it's a very fair question and a legitimate concern, something that we need to continue to pay attention to.

V. Huntington: Just to follow up on that question of fill, it is an incredibly serious problem. In some municipalities and areas it's almost out of control. The enforcement of it is basically nil.

In Delta much of the municipality's ability to enforce is restricted by the OIC that the province has initiated in Delta's regard. One of the areas that I have felt the minister and his department could assist in the issue of fill on agricultural land is by examining the soil deposit act. I've felt for a long time that the definition of "soil" is one of the big problems that face areas on agricultural land.

Were the ministry to consider re-examining that definition, you might be able to assist the municipalities and even the ALC in their enforcement duties. I wonder if the minister could give me some idea of whether he would consider examining that definition.

[1130]

Hon. S. Thomson: So just for clarification…. We're just sorting out the legislation here. The soil deposit act that, I think, you referred to…. I think you were probably referring to the Soil Conservation Act, which was then moved into the portions that were moved under the Land Commission Act, to be able to deal with…. That's where the definition of "soil" currently rests.

We can look at that, but I think — to go to your bigger question of dealing with the overall issue — what I'd like to indicate is that I'm quite prepared to work between the ministry, the commission and local government and look at what we may need to do or what can be done in terms of strengthening our capacity to deal with that in terms of the definition, in terms of the bylaws of local government. I think that could play a significant portion of being able to address this issue.

Both the question earlier and your questions, I think, have flagged an issue that is of significant concern to the ministry as well. So I can indicate that I'm willing to commit myself and staff to look at this issue and see if there are things that we can do in terms of strengthening our capacity to deal with that within existing resources.

V. Huntington: I really do thank the minister. I think it is a significant loophole within the act, and I'll have to look up the new legislation. I'm a little bit out of time.

I did want to ask some questions about aquaculture, but given I was in a meeting earlier and I don't want to be redundant, I'll skip over those.

As the minister would know, Delta has the order-in-council placed on it and the municipality's jurisdiction on its agricultural lands. One of the issues that is starting to arise again, because of our early evenings and the cloud cover, are the greenhouse lights again. I believe that there was some agreement finally reached between the greenhouse growers and the ministry that the lights wouldn't go on until later at night, maybe closer to midnight, and they would be on all night long.

I'm not sure if the minister and his staff have ever been in Delta on a low cloud cover evening when those greenhouse lights are on. When they are allowed to be on at night, the entire sky glows orange. There is no night left in Ladner, and it looks as if there is a giant fire across the entire horizon. It is unhealthy, and it has disrupted the circadian rhythms of the wildlife. It is an improper — how can I put it? — assault on a community. It is permitted as a normal farm use and a normal farm practice.

Could I ask whether the minister would commit — and I'm extremely grateful for his comments on the soil-depositing issue — to again examine this issue of greenhouse lights in Delta and consider whether the industry, especially in Europe, has moved ahead with its ability to cover the ceilings of those greenhouses if they are going to commit to grow lights all winter long?

[1135]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the member opposite is aware of the very significant economic contribution that the greenhouse industry makes to the province throughout the Fraser Valley and around the province. I know that this has been an issue in the past. I know that the industry has set industry standards and best management practices related to screening and hours of operation.

What I can say is that I will ask my staff for a comprehensive briefing on this, on the current standards and on this issue. I think it needs to be done in the context respecting the economics of the industry, the contribution that the industry makes to our province. I'm prepared to indicate
[ Page 1294 ]
that I will ask staff for a comprehensive briefing on the current standards. We do have a good relationship with the B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association and local government, and I'll take that briefing and then determine a course of action from there.

V. Huntington: I appreciate that. It is a significant problem for community, and I think the screening issue is one that has to be looked at again. We're not suggesting that the greenhouses don't have a huge economic generator opportunity for the communities, but neither should they assault the communities on a continuing basis if there are alternatives to their activity.

[1140]

I have one other short question, given the time. I'm very concerned about the number of decisions the ALC has been making on non–farm use applications. Rather than wait for the minister's reply…. I suspect further questions will be asked in this regard, but I would like to ask the minister if he would consider reviewing the numbers of decisions in that regard that have been made recently at the ALC.

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, the commission is an independent tribunal, and it's not appropriate for me to review the decisions. The decisions are a matter of public record posted on their website. But for the member opposite, what I can indicate that I would do is to have the commission staff be made available to meet with you to review any specific decisions that may be causing you this concern.

G. Gentner: This year's, or last year's, Agricultural Land Commission budget was slashed about 6.5 percent once again, with the majority of that being reductions to employees and technical-legal services.

In light of the fact that the hon. member for Chilliwack is under investigation regarding transactions of land development of farmland while he was mayor of Chilliwack…. This investigation is underway and is partly being conducted by the Agricultural Land Commission. Last June…. In 2007 the city of Chilliwack sent 176 files to the ALC in order to conduct its own investigation.

My question is in light of the fact that Brian Underhill from the ALC executive suggested that to implicate the member "has been time-consuming and that the ALC has a limited number of staff." How much time is actually being spent on this file, and how much money, and are there investigations being outsourced by the ALC?

[1145]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member knows, this process is under review by the commission. It would be inappropriate for me to comment any further at this time. This commission is an independent process. Given the review, as I said, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

G. Gentner: The question was more to the view of how much money is being spent and how much staff is being used. This is before the courts, since the RCMP is conducting a separate study from that which the ALC is conducting.

Here we are. We're going into another B.C. Rail situation. We went six years on that one. This thing has been hanging around now for two years. It's a matter of the ALC.

My question is this. Why is the ministry running the Agricultural Land Commission and its funding in this case into the ground, when the probe into the member's alleged impropriety — and this is a serious matter — needs appropriate support assistance? My question is: why is this ministry deliberately delaying this matter?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated earlier, I don't have a role in this matter, so it's not appropriate for me to comment.

In terms of the land commission budget, they have taken a general reduction in budget, as most ministries across government, in terms of administrative costs and services, consistent with all other areas of government.

D. Donaldson: I have a question for the minister about access to agricultural lands. It's a specific situation that relates to these budget deliberations, but I believe the implications could be more widespread across the province.

[1150]

I note that the mandate of the ministry is to promote and support agricultural land development and agriculture in general. The situation is in my constituency, where a landowner owns private land and has in the past been able to bring quite a large amount of hay, 120 round bales, off this piece of property.

The road access leading to this land is on Crown land. It was a Forest Service road, no longer being used in that situation. There's a bridge that's in a state of disrepair, which makes it impossible to cross with the kind of vehicle needed to remove that amount of hay.

Now, I suspect, with the inability of the Forest Service to maintain these kinds of roads, that this situation might not be an isolated event. It might apply around the province to people having access to the agricultural lands that are privately deeded but the access to them is across Crown lands along roads that were previously maintained to a certain standard by Forest Service. This is a traditional use of these roads.

My question is: is there money, resources, in the budget for the upcoming year that we're considering for improvements to access to privately owned agricultural lands across Crown land access? If not, would you investigate with other ministries so those kinds of resources could be included in future budgets?

We know that we want to be able to maintain the agricultural base that we have, and it's very important for my constituency that that's done as well.
[ Page 1295 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thanks for the question. Are there provisions or is there budget within our budget for capital work on access roads and things? The short answer is no, not within our budget.

But I think that as Minister of Agriculture, I can say I'm always interested in ensuring that we have the right policies in place for agriculture development. I'm willing to discuss this with my colleagues.

I think you need to recognize and I'm sure you're aware of the overall fiscal challenges facing all ministries, but it's certainly something that I'm prepared to discuss with my colleagues. If you had more specific information, we'd be prepared to receive that and be able to use that one as an example.

We need to make sure that when decisions are made around roads, we understand and are aware of agriculture's needs and those processes.

[1155]

L. Popham: This will be my final question regarding the estimates for agriculture. I would appreciate a letter in writing instead of an answer right now. My question is this: how much money is being used from the Agriculture and Lands budget in total to promote our B.C. agricultural products? Thank you.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $82,634,000 — approved.

Vote 14: Agricultural Land Commission, $2,276,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 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