2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 3

[ Page 5237 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will lead us in prayer.

J. Kwan: Courage comes from the heart and speaks to the strength of the mind. To quote Nelson Mandela: "I learned that courage was not the absence of fear but the triumph over it. The brave is not one who does not feel afraid but one who conquers that fear."

This prayer today is for all the brave men and women who are participants of the domino kidney transplant initiative and a special prayer for the member for Kootenay West, who is embarking on this selfless act and will be preparing to undergo surgery this time next week. Because of her courage, she may be saving a life. Her journey is a demonstration of the best of our human spirit and what is core to our humanity. It is also a reminder that by becoming an organ donor, you can give that gift of life. To our friends, Ed Conroy and his better half: we send you our thoughts and best wishes for a successful procedure and speedy recovery.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: Today in the House I have a group of very special guests. I would like to introduce Gerry Karagianis and his partner, Michele Buchmann; Jack Karagianis; an old friend, Kurt Nielson, that I haven't seen in many years; and a very special gentleman, in the truest sense of the word, visiting here from Halifax today, Mr. Les Karagianis. Would we please give them all a very nice welcome.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions today. On behalf of yourself, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery. They are participating in a full day of parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1335]

My second group of guests: Jean Blake, who is the CEO of the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia; she's joined by Barbara Lindsay; the Lovicks are with us, Ed and Barb, who are part of the VIHA pilot project of First Link; Susan Sharp is the coordinator; and my dear friends Jim and Alice Mann. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me a great pleasure to introduce Mr. Balwinder Singh Fidda, Arjuna Award winner, national and international kabaddi champion and currently working as superintendent of police in Punjab. Mr. Harbhajan Singh Lakha is a former MP from Punjab, and they also have two other friends with them, Balvir Bains and Jagmal Singh. So please join me to welcome them all.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy School, one of the best schools in North America, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Joining them are their teachers Rick Bath and Grant Wirtz as well as 30 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule to accompany their students and learn about the government, how the government functions. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the precincts is Wayne McCrory. Wayne is a renowned biologist in British Columbia. For years and years he's worked on conservation of grizzly bears and was instrumental in getting the Khutzeymateen reserve and many other conservation efforts in the province. Will members please join me in welcoming him.

R. Fleming: It's my pleasure to introduce a number of guests here today from the South Island Health Coalition, including a number of health care professionals that are employed at Mount Tolmie and Oak Bay Lodge residential care facilities.

With us in the House today are Jessica Van der Veen, Jenny Ewing, Bhajan Tathgar, his son Sunny Tathgar, Dan Rowe, Susanne Francoeur, Phil Lyons, Liz Belsten, Janice St. John, Tracey Gallant and Wendy Strong. Would the House please make all of these guests welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health, I'm sure this is a very important introduction.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you're right. This is a very important day for me. For the first time in this House I am joined by my lovely wife, Jessica. I'm also joined by our 3½-month-old daughter, Josephine, who is here today.

Maybe you can hold up Josephine.

I promise I'll behave myself in question period. So if I get any tough questions, I will be my usual diplomatic, thoughtful self.

I'm also joined by my father-in-law, Sanday Elliott, and another of his daughters, whom many in this House would know, Caroline Elliott, otherwise affectionately known as Boomer. They're all here today too. Will the House please make them welcome.
[ Page 5238 ]

H. Bains: Two very special friends are in the House: a friend of many on this side of the House, Bruce Ferguson, the president of Construction and Specialized Workers Union Local 1611; and along with him, Manuel Alvernaz. He is their chief organizer. They are both here. Please help me extend our warm welcome to the beautiful House here to both of them.

I'd also like to join with my friend from Burnaby-Edmonds, to all those folks that he introduced, but especially one person…. I spoke about his game last week in this House, about kabaddi. This person, Balwinder Fidda, can be compared to Wayne Gretzky. He's the Wayne Gretzky of kabaddi in Punjab, so he's so special. Please help me welcome him.

J. Kwan: Visiting us in the visitors gallery today is a good friend, a special friend, a mentor, someone who I say was responsible for getting me involved into electoral politics. For all the mistakes that I make, I don't blame him; I blame myself. But all the good things that I have done on behalf of the people that I represent are as a result of the guidance that he's provided me. I ask the House to please make very welcome Jim Green.

[1340]

Tributes

Spud murphy

Hon. M. de Jong: Every community represented in this chamber probably has someone that represents the living history of that community. In Abbotsford — and more particularly, what was formerly Matsqui — such a man was Spud Murphy.

Today hundreds will be gathered to remember Spud Murphy. They will remember how he grew up in what was then Matsqui; how he acquired his nickname on the bus to Matsqui Elementary; how he served his country in the Second World War; and how he served as reeve, mayor and on council through the '60s and into the '70s. They will remember a man who was gregarious, loved a good argument and never lost his sense of community duty.

I know that all members of the House send best wishes and condolences to Spud Murphy's family.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ROLE OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN
LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

D. McRae: How many visitors to Victoria hear the hourly chimes from the carillon tower in front of the Royal B.C. Museum and realize that the Netherlands Centennial Carillon is a gift from the B.C. Dutch community? When you hear the distinctive G note, it is in recognition of Canada's role in the liberation of the Netherlands during World War II.

After Canadian troops landed at Juno Beach on June 6, the Allies slowly pushed the German army back. Canadian soldiers fought bravely in France, Belgium and parts of Germany before Canada was tasked with playing a key role in freeing the Netherlands from Axis control.

For nine months Canadians fought to free the Dutch people. As the Canadian army slowly pushed the Germans back towards the sea in the northeast and towards Germany in the west, the Dutch people were suffering horribly. Five years of German occupation had left the population lacking the barest necessities.

The Canadian army stopped its advance in early April 1945 due to concern for the well-being of the citizens of the western Netherlands. With the population that had been weakened due to lack of adequate food for months, combined with a severe winter, it was decided that the risk of the German army opening the vital dikes and flooding the country was too much. On April 28 the Canadians negotiated a truce with German commanders, and much-needed relief supplies were able to enter the western Netherlands and save the lives of countless innocent civilians.

May 5 marks the official day when the Netherlands was liberated by the Allies. Over 7,600 Canadians died during the campaign, and the people of the Netherlands have never forgotten the sacrifice. On May 5 the Netherlands recognizes Canada and the Allies' role with a national moment of silence, and on May 6 there is a celebration of the liberation.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the Netherlands liberation, and this week our Premier is in Europe to recognize one of Canada's greatest military contributions to World War II. The Premier, along with our Prime Minister and other government leaders, is in Amsterdam to commemorate this historic event that has led to strong relations and a lasting friendship between Canada and the Netherlands.

I ask members of this Legislature for a moment of silence to recognize the sacrifice and contribution made by the Canadian servicemen and -women for their efforts in this historic endeavour.

Mr. Speaker: Please stand, Members.

Please be seated.

CANADIAN NAVY CENTENNIAL

M. Karagianis: This week marks the 100th anniversary of one of Canada's proudest, longest-serving and most important organizations. The Canadian navy was formed on May 4, 1910, to defend the longest coastline of any nation in the world.
[ Page 5239 ]

I'm proud to represent Esquimalt and MARPAC, the home of the Canadian Fleet Pacific of the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The naval tradition runs long and deep in my community, beginning with the Royal Navy in 1856.

The Canadian navy centennial is bringing enormous pride and celebration to our community. Yesterday thousands of Canadian Forces marched through the city as they proclaimed it the Freedom of the City Parade. It was the largest military parade Victoria has witnessed in more than 50 years. The community came together to watch, cheer and give thanks for 100 years of naval service.

Yesterday also marked the unveiling of The Homecoming statue, which portrays a joyous sailor returning from the sea to his family and community. Special events will continue in the weeks and months to come. Ships from as many as 25 navies in the Indo-Pacific region are expected to gather near Esquimalt Harbour as part of the celebration from June 9 through 14.

The Karagianis family has a long and proud history of service in the navy. Brothers Aubrey, Les and Jack were all navy career men. Aub was a lieutenant commander. Uncle Les, who I introduced just a few minutes ago, signed up in 1930. He was a supply lieutenant and was involved in numerous convoys in World War II, among many other events in his illustrious career.

[1345]

He also has an even more momentous tie to the navy, as he also this year celebrates his 100th birthday. So I wish all members…. [Applause.]

YOUTH BASEBALL IN SURREY

D. Hayer: I want to talk about the boys and girls of summer, our Surrey baseball players, and those who work so hard as role models to keep our children healthy and off the streets, out of gangs and on the path towards being contributing citizens.

Last month I was honoured, as I have been in the past many years, to be part of the season opener at the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association held at the Lionel Courchene Park in Surrey. All the baseball organizations, organizers and all volunteers provide an exceptional learning environment in athletics and ensure that Surrey's baseball parks are among the best maintained.

The organizations also encouraged parents to participate on the playing field and in keeping the fields, diamond and parks in top shape. Those great volunteer organizations are dedicated to promoting, teaching and perpetrating the game of baseball, developing sportsmanship and encouraging fair play while also teaching the need for mutual respect among players, officials and spectators.

I would like the House to join me in thanking the following, who have given a great amount of time in developing community spirit in Surrey: Brian Davis, Bob Petersen, Steve Cramer, Richard Lawrence, Lynn and Pierre Legris, Silvana Dodd, Karen McKearney, Frank Love, Trevor Haqq, Rob Masson, Don Schwartz, Kevin and Sandi Phelan, Roger Roy, Rick Hunter, Vito Mussio, Peggy Aulenback, Tony Nan, Cathy Farmer, Rose Kilpatrick, Tom Lowry, Pat McHugh and Al Taylor.

I also want to thank all the coaches, umpires and many other volunteers and parents and the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association for their great success and wonderful example of developing health, fitness and sportsmanship among the children. They do great work in Surrey and in British Columbia.

ROLE OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN
LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

C. Trevena: In Campbell River this evening and in communities across the country commemorations are taking place for a significant event, the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands.

It will be an emotional time for many. As the years pass, the memories of those who were there, Canadian soldiers and Dutch citizens alike, do not diminish. Canada is seen as a friend of the Netherlands, taking the role of family during the Second World War and as the country which ended the German occupation. It was on May 5, 1945, that the Canadian general, Charles Foulkes, and the German commander-in-chief, Johannes Blaskowitz, reached agreement on capitulation of the German forces.

But that was more than just a signature. For the people of the Netherlands it was the end of the Hunger Winter and a brutal war. Across villages, towns and cities, food had run out, there was no fuel, and thousands of people had died. As Canadian troops moved through the towns, those who made it through the bitter years came out to cheer. Many people painted "Thank you, Canadians" on their roofs for those pilots making the food drops and providing immediate relief.

The friendship that blossomed over the years is marked in many ways. In Ottawa there's the annual Tulip Festival, with thousands of bulbs donated by the Dutch. In Campbell River and other communities, there are sombre ceremonies at cenotaphs. It's important that we remember those times; that we continue to honour those who fought for freedom that we all enjoy; and that we remember those civilians who, caught up in the midst of war, lost their lives.

That's still the case for millions of people around the world — children and adults, the unhappy victims of conflict, forced from their home, forced out of school, forced out of work, people who don't have a Canada to come to rescue them. For their sakes, we need to do all we can to revive that Canadian spirit which searches for solutions to bring peace rather than conflict in our world.

[1350]
[ Page 5240 ]

IMPORTANCE OF MOTHERS

N. Letnick: All of us here, regardless of political beliefs, alliances or adversarial positions, have one thing very important in common: our mothers. We all have mothers that brought us into this world, the mother that raised us or a mother that influenced who we are today. In honour of all mothers in our lives and in the lives of everyone back home in our constituencies, I would like to speak to the importance of mothers.

Sunday, May 9 is a day to honour mothers and motherhood. Diana the Princess of Wales spoke of motherhood as: "A mother's arms are more comforting than anyone else's." Mothers are the founders of generations. They are the cornerstones of many family structures and beliefs.

Our mothers find the kind words at the right times, the comforting gestures and, at the same time, are a force to be reckoned with. Both their power and their gentle nature are reflected in the formidable emblem of motherhood: Mother Nature herself. I would like to thank all the mothers for those characteristics and for being the creators of the generations and the leaders to come.

Through their actions, whether they are our stay-at-home moms, work-away-from-home moms, single-parent moms or moms serving in our Armed Forces, we honour them all. In the words of Rev. Albert Baldeo, an icon back home: "My mother was a tower of strength. She was a source of inspiration, and what I am today is because of my mother's love and devotion. Mom, without you, there would be no me. Thank God for mothers."

ROLLER DERBY

M. Mungall: Since 1922 blockers and jammers have been whipping it. Since 1885 women have been racing on roller skates, and now you can watch a bout of roller derby in at least 12 countries around the world. The gals organize the leagues for this full-contact sport. Once the skates are on — plus the tutus, the tattoos, the makeup, the hair dye, the helmets and the elbow pads — these women athletes head out on the track with jammers looking to score points while the blockers look to block their opponents and assist their sister jammers, all at the same time.

The big moment comes when a jammer needs some extra help to pass the pack. The most powerful whip would have blockers on one team hold hands to form a chain and then grab the jammer's hand to create a whip that sends her flying fast on her skates. If it's your team doing the whipping and all goes well, you'll be cheering for some big points and athletic art.

I hope to catch a good whip this Saturday, May 8, when the Eves of Destruction meet up with the Taco Kickers at the Archie Browning arena in Esquimalt. Last time I went to a bout I stood with advance tickets in hand in a long line that stretched for a few kilometres, so now I know to get there early to find a good spot to watch the local girls smash their way to victory.

Of course, Salmo in my constituency couldn't be left out of the roller derby world with my friend Shelley Grice-Gold, who started the West Kootenay Women's Roller Derby. The team recently went to Armstrong to connect with B.C. roller girls, including the Okanagan-Shuswap league known better as the Raggedy Rollers.

Now with honed skills and the name Babes of Brutality, my neighbourhood team will be doing a demo at the Salmo Slamo on Saturday, May 15, at the Salmo Valley Youth and Community Centre. All are welcome to whip it and whip it good.

Oral Questions

REAPPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

L. Krog: Yesterday at 4:26 p.m. the special prosecutor, Terrence Robertson, sent a letter via fax to the Attorney General's ministry resigning his appointment. We learn today that the former Solicitor General was sworn back into cabinet at 8:15 p.m. last night. That was nearly four hours after the special prosecutor had resigned.

The government, the Premier, had nearly four hours to consider their ethical and moral responsibilities. Can the Attorney General explain why the government proceeded with the appointment despite knowing that the investigation was tainted?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the House will indulge me a moment to provide a chronology of what took place. I think most members know that back in January Mr. Robertson was appointed as a special prosecutor. At that time, I could advise the House, he was asked and confirmed that there were no circumstances or potential conflict issues that might compromise his ability to do his work.

[1355]

In early April the then Solicitor General became aware of the appointment of a special prosecutor and a day or two later tendered his resignation. He stepped aside when he became aware of a few more of the circumstances involving the work of the special prosecutor.

On May 3 of this week a criminal justice statement was released, disclosing that the special prosecutor was recommending charges against several individuals and making observations about the then member from Fraserview that there was no evidence that the member was involved or had any direct knowledge of the activities under investigation. Even with the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have known of those activities.

Yesterday at approximately four o'clock the member from Fraserview accepted an invitation from the Premier
[ Page 5241 ]
to retake his seat at the cabinet table, and that process began immediately, with the signing of the required order-in-council. Within a few moments of that process beginning, the document that the hon. member refers to became available publicly and to us for the first time.

This morning the member from Fraserview, having had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Premier, took the step that he took earlier in the month of April to preserve the integrity of his office and has stepped aside.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: We know that at 6:30 p.m. yesterday the Attorney General and the Premier spoke by phone. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for this province. He is the chief legal adviser to the Crown, to cabinet. What advice did the Attorney General give the Premier about the reappointment of the Solicitor General?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may have missed this part of my answer. The process of reinstating the Solicitor General had begun prior to the conversation he is referring to. In fact, the order-in-council, which is the key instrument in securing the reinstatement, had already been executed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General was sworn in at 8:15 p.m. This knowledge was before government, before the Premier, before the Attorney General. They knew about the tainted investigation at that point.

Can the Attorney General explain to this House why, with that knowledge, they proceeded with that appointment and allowed the Solicitor General to be sworn in at 8:15 p.m.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, I would have hoped that the hon. critic would have taken a moment to consider the circumstances in their entirety as they relate to what took place yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: They were, to be sure, extraordinary events. They were, to be sure, unusual in the sense that the member from Fraserview, the Premier, the government were relying upon a report that had been made public, a release that had been made public 24 hours previously, a report emanating from a process that is entirely independent of government, entirely independent of the Attorney General's office.

Yes, the decision was made to rely upon that report. And this morning, having had the time to consult with the Premier — who, I might add for the benefit of the House, is nine time zones away celebrating the very event that two members just spoke about, the liberation of the Netherlands….

[1400]

K. Corrigan: This scandal has its roots in a B.C. Liberal smear campaign, and it culminated last night with the Premier reappointing the Solicitor General despite a tainted election and a tainted investigation.

Again to the Attorney General, who spoke to the Premier last night: on what basis was this decision made?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, I hope, is purposely choosing to ignore certain facts and is not ignorant of them.

The independent special prosecutor process is deliberately conducted at arm's length from the Attorney General and from the political arm of government. That was the recommendation made by Stephen Owen in 1990, and that is the process that is in place today.

I don't mind saying in this chamber, as I said last night, that the process failed. The process failed, most importantly, the public; it failed the government; and it failed the member from Fraserview. He has responded…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …by doing the appropriate thing and protecting the integrity of the office of Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: By last night this whole investigation had been called into question, yet the government pushed ahead and reappointed their star candidate to the role of top cop. Can the Attorney General explain what this decision says about the ethics and morals of this government?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's clear and disappointing and perhaps a bit predictable that the member chooses to try and capitalize on the extraordinary circumstances….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to try and explain to this House how it is that someone was appointed
[ Page 5242 ]
as a special prosecutor in circumstances where their business had made a donation to the very campaign that was the subject of the investigation. There is actually no excuse for that, and to that extent, the process failed. But to suggest somehow that the member from Fraserview was part of some deliberate scheme to pervert the special prosecution service does a disservice to this House.

J. Kwan: The timeline speaks volumes. It is a total disregard of any moral and ethical conduct by this government. The Premier and the Attorney General knew that the investigative process of the Vancouver-Fraserview election campaign, smear campaign, was tainted by the former special prosecutor because of his issues of conflict. As such, the Attorney General ought to have known and should have accepted that the exoneration of the former Solicitor General is also tainted and therefore meaningless.

In spite of that, the government plowed ahead and went on to reappoint the member from Fraserview as the Solicitor General at 8 p.m. last night. What possible explanation could the Attorney General provide to British Columbians to justify the reappointment of the former Solicitor General — knowing this information four hours in advance of the swearing-in ceremony?

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: The problem with the thesis presented by the member and some of her colleagues is that it ignores the fact that the reinstatement process had actually begun hours earlier, with the signing of the appropriate OIC.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: Some of the members, hon. Speaker, seem to derive some pleasure or humour out of this circumstance, but I can tell you that the government views it very seriously. I view it very seriously. And yeah, I can tell you someone else that views it very seriously — a member of this chamber, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who did the right thing early in April and this morning did the right thing again because he believes in preserving the integrity of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: What the Attorney General described as "a few moments" was actually four hours. There's a time lapse of four hours for the government to take action. He says: "Oh no, but we couldn't have done that because things had started to roll."

Well, we live in a society at a time where there's technology. All the Attorney General needs to do is pick up the phone and contact the Premier and say: "Hold it. This has actually come in. You know what? We need to stand down, and the appointment cannot be made today." The Attorney General could have done that and stopped that, and he didn't.

So what we now have is a complete disgrace of an investigative process, the appointment and reappointment and resigning of the Solicitor General again and again. Will the Attorney General please tell this House and explain to British Columbians why he didn't do just that — tell the Premier that it is time to stand down and that it is not acceptable to reappoint the Solicitor General under this cloud?

Hon. M. de Jong: You know, I think what really upsets the opposition is that they expected to come into question period today and pillory the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. He took the right step, and he protected the integrity of the office. I think that's what upsets the opposition.

Look, I am the first person to admit to this chamber, Mr. Speaker, that events unfolded very quickly last evening. I'm also the first person to alert the House, as I did in my first or second answer, that the Premier, representing the people of British Columbia at the liberation ceremonies in the Netherlands, was nine time zones away. It was three o'clock in the morning when this was unfolding.

That may not matter a whit to people who are interested in scoring political points, and it doesn't alter the fact that something went very wrong with this special prosecution, but what took place this morning does speak to the integrity of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN INVESTIGATION
OF FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

D. Black: Clearly, the Liberals knew that this investigation was tainted, just as the election in Fraserview had been tainted. The Liberal Party received tens of thousands of dollars from this law firm. In fact, the special prosecutor himself made a personal donation to the Liberal Party just last year.

[1410]

Can the Attorney General explain how this could happen and why no one — no one on that side of the House, no one in the leadership of the Liberal Party — raised a red flag? Why didn't someone on that side blow the whistle on this?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to recommend that the member for New Westminster leave this chamber and review the Crown Counsel Act. If after reviewing
[ Page 5243 ]
the manner in which an independent special prosecutor is appointed, if after reviewing the severe and absolute restrictions that exist on contact between the special prosecutor and the Attorney General's office and the Attorney General she still has that question, she can come back tomorrow and ask it again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Black: Clearly, the Attorney General, the Liberal Party, this government know well this law firm. They have a long history with them. In fact, this law firm has donated more than $50,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 1998, including a $1,000 contribution to the election campaign in Vancouver-Fraserview. The special prosecutor himself donated a thousand dollars just last year to the Liberal Party.

Again to the Attorney General: why didn't the Attorney General take the appropriate action to ensure the investigation would not be tainted? Did he really think that no one would notice this record of support for the Liberal Party from this law firm?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think when I listened to the submission and the question made by the member for New Westminster, she is in a not so veiled way attempting to suggest that I or some member of the government was aware of this before it became public yesterday. Since that seems to be a widely held view on the opposition benches, I will encourage them to step outside this chamber and make that assertion out in the hallway.

S. Simpson: What we know is that this law firm, Harper Grey, has given over $50,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party since 1998, including donations to the campaign of the member from Fraserview. We also know that Terrence Robertson, the special prosecutor, gave a thousand dollars. This Attorney General wants us to believe that nobody over there twigged to the fact that a major donor — a law firm, one of the senior members of which vets Liberal candidates — in fact had this responsibility as special prosecutor.

The question I have for the Attorney General is not, why didn't he talk to the special prosecutor, but why didn't he or somebody on that side call the criminal justice branch and say: "We have a problem"?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member for Vancouver-Hastings reveals much about what he either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand about the operation of the independent special prosecution branch and process in this province.

But I heard and saw the member thumping his desk as his colleague next to him made her assertion, made her allegation. If he is as confident of that allegation as he seems to be, then I encourage him to step out into the hall and make it absent the kind of protection that exists for members in this chamber.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What I understand is that the cover-up continues by the B.C. Liberals led by the Attorney General. That's what I understand.

There are two words to describe the sleazy tactics that led to the tainted election of the member from Fraserview. The first one is that it is unbelievable that the two most senior members of that campaign, now charged under the Criminal Code, could be behind this sleaze and that the candidate doesn't know. It's outrageous that this government allows the appointment of an insider law firm to, in fact, conduct the special prosecution.

How can the people of this province have any respect for this government or this minister?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not continuing. The members should take a minute or two to reflect on these last few minutes.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a prediction. In about 6½ minutes — but who's counting? — the member from Hastings will leave the chamber, and he will be approached by members of the media. He will be asked to repeat what he has just uttered in this chamber, and I predict that he will not. He will not, because it is not true.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Attorney. Just take your seat for a second.

INVESTIGATION OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN
FOR FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

M. Farnworth: What has been clear since the first emergence of allegations of dirty tricks and a smear campaign in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview last year was the fact that the B.C. Liberals and the Premier of this province have been in complete denial. Even when a former ministerial assistant to the Attorney General of British Columbia and campaign manager in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding is charged under the
[ Page 5244 ]
Criminal Code and the Elections Act, along with the financial agent — deny, deny, deny from the B.C. Liberal Party.

The only thing that mattered was "How fast can we get the former Solicitor General back into cabinet?" That's the only thing that mattered. No contrition, no apology, no remorse. So my question is to the Deputy Premier. Do what the Premier has not done. Apologize to the voters of British Columbia and, in particular, to the voters of Fraserview for the B.C. Liberal dirty tricks and smear campaign that took place during the election.

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have no hesitation in saying that I regret very much that an independent special prosecution process that was designed to ensure the integrity of a prosecution, designed to ensure that examinations and investigations could take place at arm's length from the political arm of government, did not operate as it is intended and did not operate in a way that instils confidence in the people of British Columbia. For that, I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: That answer just follows in the answer the Premier gave a couple of hours ago. He was interviewed in the media. He had the opportunity at that particular point in time to apologize to the people of this province and the voters of Fraserview for the dirty tricks and smear campaign that took place during the election. He chose not to. He didn't do the appropriate thing, demonstrating that not only is he out of touch, he's yesterday's man.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

M. Farnworth: The people of this province expect the Premier and the B.C. Liberal Party to be accountable. I will give the Deputy Premier one more chance to stand and do in this House what the Premier wouldn't do, and that is to apologize to the voters of Fraserview for the dirty tricks and smear campaign that the B.C. Liberals conducted in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

Hon. M. de Jong: Unfortunately, what the hon. member the Opposition House Leader has chosen to do — and I'm saddened by it — has been to predetermine the outcome of matters that are very much the subject of an investigation, the subject of a review by a special prosecutor.

An Hon. Member: People are charged.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says people are charged. Yeah, actually, they are. I don't know if the member has ever been before the court as a defendant. Maybe he has. Maybe he has been before the court as a defendant. Maybe he's before the court as a defendant right now, in fact. But on this side of the House, we will not be commenting on matters that are the subject of a trial.

We will not be commenting on matters that are before the court and will receive the proper consideration by an independent adjudicator of the facts, which is the court of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: Well, for half an hour….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

N. Macdonald: For almost a full 30 minutes the Attorney General has minimized what has happened here. Let's be clear what's gone on. We have an election that is tainted by vile — there are no other words to describe it — actions and possibly criminal acts by the B.C. Liberals. A supposedly independent investigation comprehensively undermined by B.C. Liberal insiders. Those are the facts. A Premier that is so out of touch that when he comments, he portrays the member for Vancouver-Fraserview as a victim in all of this. Those are the facts.

The question for this minister is: when is someone from that government…? Maybe the Deputy Premier could stand up and do this on behalf of the Premier. When are the B.C. Liberals going to stand up, take responsibility for what has gone on here, which every British Columbian feels is a complete disgrace, and apologize to the people of British Columbia?

Apologize for what has gone on. Apologize for what they've done to democracy here in British Columbia. Stand up and do that now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is an independent process that revolves around the appointment of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Member, withdraw that statement, please.
[ Page 5245 ]

N. Macdonald: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Unconditionally, please.

N. Macdonald: Unconditionally.

Hon. M. de Jong: ...a special prosecutor. That process did not operate as it should. It did not operate as the people of British Columbia are entitled to expect that it would. But to seize upon that and come into this chamber and cast the kind of aspersions, malign the character of individuals the way these opposition members have today speaks volumes about the regard that this opposition has for the justice system and that this opposition has for the notion of the rule of law.

We will let that process unfold as it should, independent of any interference by any member of this government.

[End of question period.]

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have a petition here signed by hundreds of people whose statement is: "We believe that seeking government support for a partnership that is working well makes more sense than the planned rent hike. Salmo Children's Centre should not be forced to choose between increasing the burden on families and eliminating the entire program."

R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Fleming: I have a petition here with 1,609 signatures from citizens of greater Victoria calling on the MLA of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and all MLAs to put a stop to the sell-off and privatization of publicly funded and owned seniors care facilities in our community and further calling on the Vancouver Island Health Authority to cease and desist with plans to sell off Oak Bay Lodge and Mount Tolmie hospital properties.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment continue — and, in this chamber, committee stage of Bill 16, the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and
After-Market Compartment
Control Act

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

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On section 1.

A. Dix: Most of the definitions here are essentially definitions in other legislation, but the key question is the question of after-market compartments. I guess the question we have here is that it's obviously addressed as a specific and difficult issue that often comes up, and we've seen it in very serious criminal cases recently — how the definition was developed.

Does the minister think the definition here is comprehensive in addressing the various problems that are developed by the placing of compartments, which generally would hide guns and other things? How is the definition developed? Is it consistent with the definition developed in other provinces, and does the minister think it's sufficient?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I agree with the member that insofar as section 7 of the bill, this is the key phrase, the key term — and tricky in terms of getting the balance right because there are circumstances in which people will have valuables and want to tuck it in somewhere behind where people can't find it. Then the question is whether or not we have met the objective with the drafting.

The objective is to get at these elaborate compartments that are being installed and built in, not just behind a stereo system but by turning a button and opening the door and putting the radio station to a certain frequency. Then a secret compartment slides open. So there really is an installation quality to that.

I don't think the challenge here is whether it's sufficiently broad. The challenge is: is it too broad, and are you unintentionally capturing things that you don't want to capture? A certain amount of that will be answered in the application, but that, quite frankly, is more my concern — not whether it's broad enough but whether it's too broad.

A. Dix: The minister will know many people who play around with their cars. They do things. You know, they add custom material to their cars. This is not infrequent.
[ Page 5246 ]
I assume the message from the legislation…. To some degree, what the minister says in this House provides the direction required. We all know that a secret compartment that holds a handgun is consistent with this.

Has the minister heard anything from any other group — any concern about this? Presumably, most groups and most organizations of car lovers — car organizations, driver organizations, the CAA — would be supportive of this kind of measure. On that question of definition, has he heard from anyone who has expressed any concern about this? We certainly haven't on our side of the House. I just ask the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Three things I'll convey to the member. We too, in the development of this in this legislation, have not received specific concerns. We'll continue, obviously, to be in touch with relevant organizations through the implementation stage. There is, as a safeguard, a mechanism by which exemptions can be granted.

The third thing that the member asked in his first question…. We're not aware of a similar provision in other provinces, so there's a bit of new ground being tilled here.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

A. Dix: This provision exempts people who have valid security worker licences, and so on, and peace officers from the provisions of the legislation, for obvious reasons.

[1435]

There is subsection (d), which suggests "a person who is exempt under the regulations." How does the minister envision that? Does he have regulations in mind now that would provide an exemption to any other groups other than those listed in the legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Some examples might come to mind. I tend to think of this in terms of "armoured" as it relates to guns. Another circumstance that might arise where an armoured vehicle is deemed appropriate would be one located near a blast zone in a mine development area. That could be an armoured vehicle within the meaning of the act.

I don't pretend to have thought through, nor do I think the ministry has thought through, all of the possible examples of that sort — and therefore the means by which we can deal with them if and when they present themselves.

A. Dix: So the minister doesn't have any regulations ready to go ahead. This would be an open process in those circumstances. Well, the minister is nodding his head. We'll take that as a yes and pass the section.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

A. Dix: In terms of the application for an armoured vehicle permit here, when we dealt with the body armour legislation — I think it was in the fall — at that point there were regulations on the sale of body armour, people who could sell body armour. I think that was the case.

Can the minister just explain the difference in approach here — why in this case it seems to be a control on the user of the vehicle but no control on the sale of the vehicle? Is there any purpose for that? Is it because the concern is adaptions after the fact — in other words, that one transforms a vehicle into an armoured vehicle? Or is this just seen as the more efficient regulatory tool?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's probably a combination of both. The relative value is significant. There's the fact that motor vehicles themselves are regulated by the Motor Vehicle Act and ICBC. Purposely, the intention is to focus on the people that are purporting to get behind the wheel. We think there is value in requiring anyone who seeks the right to operate one of these vehicles to be subjected to the kind of review contemplated in the act, recognizing that for certain people the review will be perfunctory — peace officers and security personnel.

A. Dix: I just want to ask a question because, of course, the definition of armoured vehicles that we passed deals with vehicles that are sold as armoured vehicles but also with vehicles that are adapted as armoured vehicles. Has it been the case that the issue is often one of adapting existing vehicles to become armoured vehicles?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I think that is the case.

Section 3 approved.

[1440]

On section 4.

A. Dix: I just wanted to ask the minister about any appeal process here, what the appeal process would be of decisions further to the refusal of an armoured vehicle permit. What would the process be? Maybe he could just take us through what would happen. The permit would be refused under the conditions we see here, under one of the explanations here. What would be the process subsequent to that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can refer the member to section 17, dealing with reconsideration. There is a formal mechanism for a review of the decision.
[ Page 5247 ]

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

A. Dix: With respect to this, there is, I guess, a process here by which an individual could install an after-market compartment. Can the minister just tell us under what circumstances that would make sense, that there would be an exemption provided?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the first thing I'll confess to the member is section 7…. I spent most of my time reviewing section 7, because it's one of those provisions where, like the definition, the concern is not whether or not the provisions are too narrow. It's whether or not they're too broad. And are they enforceable, and under what circumstances are they enforceable? Again, I confess this is somewhat new territory, and we will undoubtedly learn some things relating to the enforcement.

What's contemplated in terms of possible exemptions: businesses involved in the transportation of medical goods, pharmaceuticals, registered firearms by definition. Now, whether or not that needs to be a hidden compartment or just a secure compartment is probably a valid point for discussion. Cash and financial instruments for businesses — again, my thinking is the preference would be to seek a secured storage area as opposed, necessarily, to a secret, hidden area, but there's a range of possible areas where the section might be applicable.

A. Dix: I guess because it's a little bit ambiguous — in a sense, we're touching on new ground — presumably an alternative regulatory approach would be to send the message out to people that: "You are installing after-market compartments. You should think twice." Presumably, that's a little bit of the message on the side of those whose business it might be to install such a compartment. I assume it would be probably too difficult for me to install one. I just know that for a fact.

So is there a message out to the people whose work it might be to install such a compartment? Is there going to be an effort to say to people: "Look, let's just not do this"? And that if you are doing it, that process might also presumably allow people who do install compartments for what one would describe as legitimate purposes, such as the one…. These aren't really hidden compartments at all. If you have a compartment that's going to keep pharmaceuticals or prescription drugs cold, for example, we already have…. That's not a hidden compartment. That's not what we're talking about. That's the original purpose of what a vehicle was sold for in that case.

[1445]

Is there any discussion in terms of getting information out to those who might install? Presumably, there's a very small industry of people who do this. Presumably, the government knows a little bit about that, whether there are kits available or whatever. Have the minister and the government thought about regulating this on the supply side as opposed to just on the user side?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes, and a reflection of that is in 7(2) where actually the positive obligation accrues to the individual or the business that is involved in this. Probably the best trapline of information for the folks that might be involved in this business lies with the policing agencies. Our expectation is that that's where we'd derive the best information for providing notification of this legal obligation which, if you fail to abide by it, does constitute an offence later in the act.

Sections 7 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

A. Dix: In terms of the transition, the coming into force of the legislation, can the minister just explain why 90 days? I presume what he's doing here is giving people the opportunity to correct what might not be illegal behaviour now but will become illegal behaviour. What actions in the next 90 days is the government going to take?

Obviously, there's been interest around the legislation, and there was publicity on the tabling of the legislation. Are there any actions that the government will be taking in the interim period to inform people about the changes in the law? There may be, as the minister has suggested in our discussion of whether the law is too broad or not, some people who in an unintended way are violating the law.

I don't think for a second that the police or others who have lots of things to do are going to be looking around for people who have compartments that are legitimately used. Nonetheless, what actions are going to happen in the next 90 days, given that that's probably the period where you're trying to inform people, let people know what's going on?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. There are a range of issues wrapped up in the member's question.

First of all, enactment of course occurs via regulation, and there is the body of regulations that will occur first. So it will not necessarily take effect immediately upon royal assent here.

[1450]

I might do this in reverse. I know what we're not planning to do. There won't be an advertising campaign of the sort we saw with the hand-held electronic devices and a warning period. We don't think the numbers warrant that kind of broad publicity campaign.

In a circumstance where someone is genuinely innocently driving along in an armoured vehicle contrary to this act without a permit, once it takes effect they will
[ Page 5248 ]
expose themselves to the violation ticket and the possibility of seizure. These are generally valuable vehicles. They will have an opportunity to retrieve their vehicle. Some of that will be tied to whether or not the Crown believes there is a civil forfeiture action that they wish to pursue. They can dispute the ticket. As they say, ignorance of the law will not be a defence for that, so they will be exposed to that liability.

My sense is that amongst those for whom operating an armoured vehicle is an important feature in their life, word will get out reasonably quickly. I don't think I have an entirely satisfactory answer for the member. We're not looking to advertise widely that if you have an armoured vehicle, be careful. We think the word will get out, though.

A. Dix: I misspoke. The minister is quite right. The regulations come into force. They have 90 days to get into compliance, and the argument there is that it may not be widely known immediately that the regulations have come into force. You're giving people a lead period, and then you better not be operating a vehicle after 90 days.

Presumably, what will happen is, at least on the security side — because that's one — there will be some communication with industries that might be connected. It will be not a general campaign or an advertising campaign — the minister is right; it wouldn't make sense — but a focused campaign. Is that right?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. There will certainly be communication with the professional bodies that are subject to the standardized exemptions here.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

A. Dix: Just quickly. The minister is developing regulations. When might we see the regulations published and the law come into effect?

Hon. M. de Jong: July is the target date.

Section 27 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and
After-Market Compartment
Control Act

Bill 16, Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 8.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources Statutes
Amendment Act, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; L. Reid the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On section 22 (continued).

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just before we begin, I would like to introduce my staff. Joining me is Mike Lambert, who is the executive director of the oil and gas division in the ministry, as well as Barbara Thomson, who is the director for marketing and aboriginal community relations.

J. Horgan: It seems like an eternity since we were here going clause by clause through Bill 8. I won't remind those at home that our purpose here today is to make amendments to a bill that was passed but not brought into force by closure two years ago. The minister is well aware of that. I think we canvassed that fairly thoroughly last time we were here.

I know my colleague from Delta South has a number of questions on subsequent sections. In the interests of keeping current with each clause, I'll ask the minister again, although I'm certain he responded to section 22 last time. I'm not going to compare what he says today to what he said a month ago, so he can have some licence to explain to this Legislature and to British Columbians why this amendment was necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Speaking to section 22. This section actually removes reference to fees in the act, as they will be dealt with by regulation. Subsection (8) allows the landowner to determine to allow access onto the land earlier than the 15 days, which is contained in the
[ Page 5249 ]
permit. That would be at the discretion of the landowner only, though.

J. Horgan: Does this amendment increase or decrease any fees that will be brought forward in regulation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, it does not.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

J. Horgan: As we get into the groove and the rhythm, we have some people in the gallery who are probably going to be wondering what the heck we're doing. I certainly know that those ten or 20 people across British Columbia watching on their television set will want some sense of why we're going through clause by clause.

[1500]

Just for the members present who were not here for the riveting debate some weeks ago, we're amending two acts with this bill: the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act — which I now have a hard copy of and don't have to refer to my right to the bound statutes — as well as the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Those are two fairly weighty and substantial pieces of legislation that were designed to bring together a whole host of what were considered to be archaic laws and regulations around the oil and gas sector predominantly located in the minister's constituency. I know he has a particular interest in ensuring that there's a thorough and complete and comprehensive discussion of these amendments.

With that in mind, can the minister advise this House why, through section 23 of Bill 8, we are repealing subsection (2) of a previous act? It says here in the definitions that it's made redundant. Again, it's a reference to fees. Can the minister explain why this is necessary?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Subsection (2), as you've referred to, refers to fees. We are removing all references to fees, and that will be done by regulation.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

V. Huntington: I'm wondering if section 34 that was repealed contained the same right of the specified permit holder to expropriate private land.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The previous section 34 had the same right.

V. Huntington: I could go on at length why I think this is not a good thing to have in any law within the province. I feel you're elevating a permit holder, a private company, to the status of the Crown.

Why any permit holder would be allowed to expropriate is beyond me. So I'll ask if there are consequential amendments intended for the Expropriation Act. Is the specified permit holder intended to be an approving authority under the act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hopefully, I can help clear up your concern somewhat. What we're talking about has been in British Columbia statutes for about 55 years now. What this section does is actually…. Expropriation used to be dealt with….

A pipeline, from the Pipeline Act. When expropriation took place, it was done by the Railway Act. This is bringing it into line. That type of discussion and movement would be dealt with under the Expropriation Act today.

V. Huntington: Just to satisfy my obvious lack of knowledge in this area, what type of firm are we looking at? One of the transnational pipeline firms that has the status within something like the Railway Act?

[1505]

Is it a specified type of firm? Are there any regulations around which they may move to expropriate if they haven't reached an agreement with the landowner?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This would be for any company that is covered under the Pipeline Act. Most times they will try and reach agreement. They go out on the land base. They negotiate with the landowner. The vast majority of times agreement is reached. When that can't take place, they will now go through the Expropriation Act to reach agreement — or, I guess, would not reach agreement — to try and reach a parcel of land for the pipeline to be put in subsurface.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I'll just say one last word from my own perspective on this section. I must say that whether it's been in place for 55 years or not, I have a philosophical problem with a private entity being entitled to expropriate, especially when they're not mentioned, as I understand it, in the Expropriation Act as an approving authority. I would far rather see a section like this where the government could expropriate on behalf of the entity rather than elevate the entity to the status of Crown. That's my opinion on the section.

J. Horgan: Further to section 24, I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House how the now called or will be called surface rights board…. We did spend some time on that catchy title to replace what is known today, I suppose, as the mediation and arbitration board. What rights are relinquished or given to surface rights holders as a result of section 24 of this act?
[ Page 5250 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, this does not take any rights away from the landowner. What this says is that the operator or the pipeline company, in the case that we're talking about, has to have consent from the landowner in order to access their land to come on to it. So no rights are taken away. Failing that, that's when you would go into an expropriation discussion and also based on whether it's a gathering line or not. There are two definitions there.

J. Horgan: Again, I know that the minister will easily get my colleague from Delta South and me into a place of comfort on this. But we spent some time, at the last opportunity to debate this clause by clause, on the merits and the activities at the mediation and arbitration board, soon to be called the surface rights board.

I'm wondering if perhaps, to ease our concerns and for the record and for those who will potentially use this debate to determine what the government's intent is with this clause, he would explain at what stage in the process expropriation or availing oneself of the Expropriation Act supersedes the rights of the surface rights holder and the operator or the oil and gas company that can't be done at the mediation and arbitration board. At what point do we leave that process and get into this process?

[1510]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: For a pipeline that is not a flow line, the negotiations would take place with the landowner and the company. If they couldn't reach an agreement under the Pipeline Act, they would then go to the Expropriation Act to deal with that.

If it was a flow line, which is a different form of pipeline…. Really, I refer to them as a gathering line — ones that will bring wellheads together into a main pipeline. If they can't reach an agreement on that, then the mediation-arbitration, which will soon be the surface rights board, would deal with that section rather than the Expropriation Act.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his explanation. I appreciate there's a distinction between a gathering line and a flow line, but I don't know why there would be a distinction in the act when it comes to the rights of the landowner or the surface rights holder. In my consultation with members of your constituency on this issue, it's been brought to my attention that from their perspective, it's intrusion by industrial activity on what is, in most cases, agricultural activity.

Whether it's a small pipe or a big pipe or multiple pipes, it's still an intrusion. Reverting to arbitration prior to, or instead of, going through the traditional or the more common mediation-arbitration process between the company and the landowner…. Why not have that process open to both pipes, and as a last resort, expropriation with some direction from the mediation-arbitration board or the new-named board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: A pipeline that we're speaking about and the two differences…. I do want to go back. I said that I refer to a flow line as a gathering line. They're one and the same. A pipeline is different.

A pipeline is more permanent in nature. It wouldn't be a gathering system. So you would have a larger pipeline that may take a facility, gas…. Everything is flowed into the facility through gathering into a main-line flow. It's traditionally a larger pipeline, more permanent in nature. It certainly has a longer history, traditionally, than a gathering line that would be from a wellhead that may flow for a number of years.

That's the difference. It has been that way, as I said, for I think it is 55 to 60 years in British Columbia. We thought that it was important that as we move forward, we bring it up to date — into the Expropriation Act, for example, under pipelines — which is the reason for this.

J. Horgan: I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on that because we've got a lot of work to do this afternoon. But I just want to read into the record for those who don't have access and for those in the gallery who don't have access to the clauses…. As my colleague from Delta South pointed out, for the uninitiated, this is draconian and stark.

I'll just read it. It goes as follows. This is section 24, which is amending section 34(3). It goes: "Subject to subsection (4), if a specified permit holder has failed to obtain an entry agreement" — that being entry onto private property for those of us who don't own or hold subsurface rights — "the specified permit holder may expropriate, in accordance with the Expropriation Act, as much of the land or interests in it of any person as may be necessary for constructing and operating the pipeline authorized by the permit."

The next section says: "The land that may be expropriated under subsection (3) must not exceed 18 m in breadth."

[1515]

That sounds draconian, and it carries on. "On application by a specified permit holder, the commission may authorize, on any conditions the commission considers appropriate" — any conditions — "an expropriation, in accordance with the Expropriation Act, that exceeds the breadth specified in subsection (4)."

I appreciate that the people in the Peace country have been living with this activity for a considerable period of time. People adapt. The legislation does need to be updated so there's a clear understanding of what the intent is so that landowners understand their rights and permit holders understand their obligations.

Again, the minister must appreciate and his staff must appreciate that for the uninitiated, that sounds horrific
[ Page 5251 ]
for those who assume that the land they own doesn't include just the grass on it but the rocks beneath it. I understand that's not the case. But for the benefit of those in the gallery, for the benefit of those watching at home and most importantly for the benefit of myself and my colleague from Delta South, can we go through that one more time? Why is this an improvement over previous practice?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This really is about bringing it up to date into this act, actually, as I said. I have watched, and I know the member has spoken to people in my region. This has operated for the better part of 55 years. Again, we should talk about what the intent of this act is, which I think is really to try and bring a greater balance to the landowner. I've certainly heard that for the years I've grown up there. I think it does that.

There is no intent to take anything away from landowners in this — just the opposite, to be honest with you. But it is a very technical bill, without question. As the member has said, there is lot of culmination of work in this bill and a lot of discussion with the people in the northeast.

On the issue of subsurface, I want to go on record. There are very few British Columbians that hold subsurface rights. That has been the case since…. Even post-war, I think, is when some actually were granted some subsurface rights. This is really just a gathering and bringing into the bill as we've pulled it together and a continuation of what we've been doing for 55 years.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

J. Horgan: I'll just throw a comment on the previous section as we move on. I know that as we go toward budget estimates in the next number of days, I'll be able to speak about subsurface rights with, I think, the fourth Minister of State for Mining since I've been the critic over these past four years. I'm looking forward to seeing if we get a new answer to some of those questions now that we have a new minister.

With respect to section 25, the explanatory note says that it replaces an undefined term with a term defined in section 1 of the act. What's disconcerting is that we're striking out "measures" and substituting "environmental measures" and striking out "for the protection and effective management of the environment." And we're not substituting.

Can the minister ease the concerns of those who are concerned that we're removing these measures? What's the purpose, and why are we doing it?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we're doing is striking out "measures" and, as he said, substituting "environmental measures." Environmental measures are defined, which will actually deal with the protection and effective management of the environment in section 1, as he pointed out.

J. Horgan: As I read section 1, it's section 15 where we have the specific definition for "environmental measure." It says it "means an action a person must take or refrain from taking for the protection or effective management of the environment."

[1520]

As I read that definition and then read section 25…. The definition says that you must take or must not take. I'm wondering how you can do both. If it's only one, which one is it with respect to this clause? If it's both, how do you do that?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason it says that…. It will either say "allowed" or "not allowed," but it will be determined under section 104 of OGAA. What will take place there…. There are three different ministries that could be involved. The Minister of Environment, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands or the Minister of Forests and Range could determine the environmental measures.

The question you asked. It will have to say what is allowed and what is not allowed.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his answer. I'll remind him that as much as he and I appreciate the acronyms…. OGAA, for those watching at home, is not a character from Shrek but in fact is the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I'm certain that the minister from this point on will speak in plain English so that those of us not steeped in this will have an understanding of what he's talking about. Likewise, I'll try and do the same.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You knew OGAA? The member from Fort Langley knew what we were talking about — didn't need a sheet to follow along.

As I look at the Oil and Gas Activities Act, section 104…. Again, the challenge for dealing with complex amendments to complex bills is that the section strikes out terms and makes reference to another bill. So section 104, "Authorizations respecting environmental protection and management," is the section that's being amended.

I'm wondering if the minister could, again, give an explanation as to why these changes are being made at this time. As I read section 104, it seems fairly clear to me what the intent is, and I'm curious as to why these amendments are being brought forward now.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason this is being dealt with is that we are changing the word "measures" to "environmental measures," and then we are putting definition to "environmental measures."
[ Page 5252 ]

J. Horgan: Then, "measures" was not sufficient to describe "measures." We want to now describe them as "environmental measures." That's an additional word that gives additional meaning, I assume. So what was lost in that definition prior to the amendment?

[1525]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It really can be summed up as partially a housekeeping measure, to be honest with you. The work that the ministers were involved in, in this was primarily environmental measures, so rather than leaving the term broadly reflecting measures, we have fine-tuned it to reflect environmental measures, which more closely reflects the duty of what takes place here.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

J. Horgan: We're now discussing section 38 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. It will be repealed, and a new section, under "Records, reports and plans," will be added. I just want Mr. Lambert and Ms. Thomson to know that I appreciate the work they've done, and I'm going to guess that the amendment here is to remove the "may" from former section 38(2) and replace it with "must." That's a good thing, inasmuch as the commission "must disclose records, reports and plans to the public in accordance with the regulations."

Am I correct in assuming that the current minister has more interest in openness and transparency than the previous minister?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: With all due respect to my critic, the previous minister, a friend of mine, I think did a tremendous job for us. I know that the critic does his job well and has delved into this. Precisely. This is a vast improvement — "may" versus "must." We have changed it to "must."

J. Horgan: Just for the record, for those members on the opposite side, I did get a Christmas card from the hon. senator. I'm not certain, after the last debate, that I'll get another one. I just wanted to seal that with making the reference.

I'm pleased that I am correct and that the current minister wants more transparency for residents than was previously available through this section, which the previous minister brought forward.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

J. Horgan: Section 27 — again, another consequential amendment to the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Could the minister explain the necessity for this amendment?

[1530]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this refers to is…. It is a cross-reference. There is a new section, 34(2)(b), which makes a new reference to an authorization, and that is in the Oil and Gas Activities Act. This cleans that up to make the cross-reference match.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

J. Horgan: In this section we’re now back to the Oil and Gas Activities Act, amending section 41 of the previous act. "Certificate of restoration" is the heading for that section. Again, as with the many clauses that we'll be discussing over the next number of hours, I'm wondering if the minister could advise: what is the purpose of this amendment at this time, and will it have an impact on the rights of surface land owners?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No. This goes back to a similar answer I gave the member. We have removed reference to fees in the act itself. This has no impact whatsoever on the landowner.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

J. Horgan: So we're now moving to amendments of section 44, which is, again, definitions of the previous act. "Section 44 is amended by repealing the definition of 'surface lease' and substituting the following: 'surface lease' means…." I'm wondering why this definition change was not placed at the front of the bill. Can we anticipate further definitions throughout the legislation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason this definition is here is that it applies only to this section, that being orphan sites. You did ask if this will appear in any other areas of the act. Yes, it will. As we go through it, I'm sure the member will either ask the same question, and we can give that answer. But the reason it's here is that under section 44, the definition only refers to orphan site sections of this bill.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

J. Horgan: This section, I think, is of interest to many members of the House. It certainly was of interest to the Auditor General, recently, in a report outlining the potential impact to the treasury of orphan wells and the reclamation and rehabilitation of those sites.

As I look at section 30, we are repealing sections of the Oil and Gas Activities Act under the heading of
[ Page 5253 ]
"Reclamation of orphan sites." "The commission may restore orphan sites." And it goes on. Can the minister, with his staff, advise the House of the necessity of these changes? And what, if any, impact will it have on the treasury in terms of addressing orphan wells in the future?

[1535]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This section actually is a significant benefit, I think, certainly to the environment. What this does is it expands the right of the orphan well fund to be utilized for more than just an orphan well site. If it is determined that a piece of property is contaminated by the oil and gas activity, the fund can be utilized to clean that up as well, so it is a very positive step.

J. Horgan: Can the minister direct either myself or other members to who will be making the decision as to whether resources from the orphan well fund will be used for other purposes? I think the minister will agree that the establishment of the orphan well fund was for that purpose. If I read him correctly, hon. Chair, this section amends that purpose.

I'm wondering: although I don't disagree that having access to resources to remediate environmental challenges brought about by the industry is a good thing, will the fund be replenished by the industry? Are we planning on keeping the costs to industry at the same levels, or are we going to increase them? And if so, can I find those sections in the act, or can he direct me to them?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll first give an example of the expansion of what this is. For example, we talked about the orphan well site before. An example could be the contamination to land resulting from an illegal dump that may take place and that is found. Previously, the orphan well fund wasn't allowed to be utilized to do that cleanup. Under this amendment it will.

Is the fund going to be replenished? Yes, it is, on an ongoing basis. Should that fund not be sufficient to meet the needs as the Oil and Gas Commission would see fit, the government has the ability under section 47(2) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act to raise that tax that is in place today.

J. Horgan: Well, prior to the amendment of the Oil and Gas Activities Act section 45, "Reclamation of orphan sites," if a scenario as the minister put before us did occur, what recourse did the Crown have in terms of remediation of that contamination, and where would those funds have come from before you had access to the orphan well fund?

[1540]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Previously what would take place…. I can speak to this. This actually was an incident that took place in my riding of Peace River South. There was an illegal dump that took place, and the treasury of the province of British Columbia had to fund that. The reason you wouldn't fund it is, of course, if the RCMP or an investigation found out who was responsible. In the case where you can't find that out, what we're saying now is that it makes sense. It's an oil and gas activity. It would fall under the orphan well fund.

J. Horgan: I don't know if, through regulation or other sections as we proceed, the minister contemplates an increase in the levy to permit holders to not just replenish the fund but to provide additional resources for the very situations that the minister suggests.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We believe that right now, when you look at the orphan well fund with the tax rate that is set, the money is sufficient to meet the demands on this fund. Should it not be sufficient as we move forward — if, for some reason, we find out there is more money being consumed out there — we have the ability to reset that tax rate, but because it's a tax rate, it would be by statute.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

J. Horgan: Can the minister advise what the purpose of this amendment is and how it will affect the Oil and Gas Activities Act in a positive way for the people of his constituency?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know that people are tied to their television, watching this riveting discussion. This is an amendment that's being made. It's really a housekeeping amendment in nature. The current terminology is not grammatically correct, and we're ensuring that it will be.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

J. Horgan: Now we're entering into…. Section 32 "authorizes the commission to make orders of a technical nature relating to specific locations." These are technical orders, and a following section is added. I won't read it out. I know members now who are seized of this debate are racing to their computers and downloading this bill so that they can follow along.

For those who aren't able to do that, perhaps the minister could advise the purpose of this amendment, and if he could give me some scenarios, one or two, where technical orders would be issued.

[1545]
[ Page 5254 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: These technical orders are dealt with today under the act by regulation, I believe it is. This is a day-to-day operation. It's a very technical part. These orders are made by reservoir engineers who determine different geological formations. We have different zones which you drill into. It was felt that, certainly, it was better dealt with this way, because it is really a day-to-day activity made by these professionals, who are reservoir engineers. That's the reason for this section.

J. Horgan: As I read section 32, "Technical orders," it's an amendment to section 49.1 of the previous bill, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I accept the minister's explanation, but as I read subsection (4).... It goes as follows: "Subject to subsection (3), if a regulation is made concerning a matter with respect to which an order has been made under subsection (1) (c), the order, if it has not been rescinded, is no longer valid to the extent of any inconsistency between the order and the regulation."

I'm tempted to go on at some length, and I know those in the gallery would wish me to do so with respect to potential inconsistencies between orders and regulations. If I understand what the minister said, what you're trying to do with this amendment is take out of regulation and put into statutes these very issues. But as I read that, I'm wondering which inconsistency we're correcting with that subsection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will refer the member to 49.1(c) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. When we're talking about the inconsistency between an order and a regulation, the regulation would trump the order in this case. I will read 49.1(c). It refers to: "control and regulate the production of petroleum, natural gas and water by restriction, proration or prohibition." So the regulation would actually trump an order under this act.

J. Horgan: So these technical orders by statutes supersede regulations when it comes to that prescribed list — "production of petroleum, natural gas and water by restriction, proration, or prohibition." I'm repeating it back to the minister because I think that's what he said. I just want to make sure that I understood it completely. Orders written under this section are designed to supersede regulations that are already in existence?

[1550]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Speaking to this, it is a technical issue. There is still a regulation under the act, 49.1(c). What we're saying is that regulation under 49.1(c) would trump any order in this act. So it would be the control — the regulation — because there is regulation-making authority under 49.1(c).

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

J. Horgan: I know that members are desperate to dive into this debate. Never have a minister and a critic smiled so much through the deliberations in this chamber. We often say, hon. Chair, as you know, the minister and I, that we want to set a new tone — Happy 1 and Happy 2 — here as we proceed through this important piece of legislation.

We're on to section 33. In the explanatory notes it says that section 57 "requires certain persons to provide officials entering land under the act with the means and assistance necessary for the purposes of the entry." Could the minister explain how this will affect surface rights holders?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this is really directed at is the permit holder and the official. If an official needs to go and inspect a site, for example, and the only way to get to that site would be by helicopter, for example, it would be up to the permit holder — and in this case the permit holder being the oil and gas company — to provide that access and transportation to get the official there.

J. Horgan: Those officials would be only representatives of the Oil and Gas Commission, or would there be other officials that could be contemplated in this section?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under this act other government officials can be named as officials. If it was — I'm trying to think — maybe a member of the Ministry of Environment, for example, that needed to go out there, that's how that would operate.

J. Horgan: I know that the minister used one example, but I'm assuming that it's open-ended. An official could be a federal government official. Would that be contemplated in this act, or would it only pertain to provincial government officials?

[1555]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The official has to be named by the commissioner under this act, and that is dealt with under section 7(5). What we're referring to here is a provincial public servant — Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forests, somebody from the commission — to go out and deal with this.

No, I would not envision that we would be dealing with a federal employee here.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

On section 35.
[ Page 5255 ]

J. Horgan: I know the minister's disappointed that I didn't give him an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of section 34, but perhaps, if we have more time, we can come back to that later on.

Within section 35 we are striking out the word "commission" and substituting "board." I'm to assume that's the surface rights board, and the commission being the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is not a real exciting change. It was a typo in the original act. The board that's being referred to is the board of the commission. It shouldn't have referred to "commission." It should have referred to "board." The board they're referring to is the board of the Oil and Gas Commission.

J. Horgan: I'm looking at "Lieutenant Governor in Council…." This is the Oil and Gas Activities Act, sections 74 and 75. We're amending section 75, but section 74 is, "Lieutenant Governor in Council may order extension of pipeline," and then section 75 is "Special projects."

So we have in that section, section 75, the commission on its own in section 75(1). We have another reference to the commission at the start of subsection (2), and the section that we're amending here refers to the commission under subsection (4), if I'm not mistaken. We're amending 75(4). It says, "For the purposes of a special project or of special projects generally, the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the commission may each, in exercising a regulation…" etc.

So if we have the word "commission" referred to multiple times in section 75, why are we only amending the word "commission" in section 75(4)?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason the other sections are not being changed is that all operational issues are dealt with by the commission. All regulations can only be dealt with by the board. That's the difference under 75(4).

Section 35 approved.

On section 36.

J. Horgan: We're going to need to spice it up, Minister. The galleries are emptying.

With respect to section 36, the explanatory note says it "establishes that orders or approvals made under section 76 of the act prevail over regulations made respecting the section to the extent of any inconsistency between the two."

Can the minister explain the purpose of that amendment?

[1600]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under section 99 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, government has the ability to make regulation. That is a broad authority. What we're dealing with here under 76(6) is that an OIC can be made, which would actually trump the regulation under section 99 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. For example, it may be that a cost is incurred, and the OIC can incur that cost on the company, which may be more direct and more specified than what the broader regulation in section 99 from the Oil and Gas Activities Act wanted.

J. Horgan: As I read section 99(m), the specific section that's being amended: "...the order or approval prevails to the extent of the inconsistency." As I read that section, it strikes me that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or order-in-council would amend prescribed works, activities and distances for the purposes of section 76, which we have to go back to.

It's those distances that cause concern, as the minister knows, to residents in his region — the proximity of the industrial activity to their home, to their farm, to their barn, to their livestock. Again, this is one of those examples that I think, with his experience in the sector and in the region, would benefit from perhaps an anecdotal explanation as to why an order should be superior to a regulation in this instance.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This does not deal with setbacks. I think that's what the member is referring to. This actually is about costs related to moving a pipeline; that's what we're dealing with here. I know we've had discussion on setbacks, and I certainly have had numerous discussions in my region with the people I represent. I think we're making some very good progress on that. I know that when we do make changes that are upcoming, the member is going to be very happy with that as well.

J. Horgan: If it's not setbacks that we're referring to when we talk about prescribed works, activities and distances for the purposes of section 76 respecting how costs incurred by a person to whom an approval is given under section 76 of a pipeline permit holder referred to…. So if that's not a setback, what are we doing?

[1605]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 99(m) deals with more than costs. When we talk setbacks, in this case we're talking…. The member is referring to setbacks of a pipeline, what a permitted use is. And 76(6) is only costs on pipeline relocation. So an example would be a road being built and an OIC is issued to tell a company, for example: "You may have to move that pipeline in order for the Crown to relocate a road." That relocation cost would be at the company's expense.

Section 36 approved.
[ Page 5256 ]

On section 37.

J. Horgan: We're now looking again at regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, general power to make regulation, section 94. This section, this amendment, adds the following: "with or without directions on how the delegated power is to be exercised."

Again, just for the benefit of the scholars in the gallery watching the debate today, "(a) delegate a matter to a person" is the start of the clause, and it's completed with: "with or without directions on how the delegated power is to be exercised." Can the minister advise on the purpose of this amendment?

[1610]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is allow the government to give someone the authority — an official, obviously — under this act. But it also gives them the ability to limit that. It may be a clear direction that says, "You may want to consider the impact of the environment based on this," for example. So it actually allows clearer direction in that.

J. Horgan: The following section, section (b), adds a subsection to the regulations under section 94, and it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations establishing criteria that a person must use when exercising a discretionary or delegated power conferred on the person by a regulation under this Division."

So this is, I think, redundant when you look at what we just discussed in additions to…. As I read it, the addition to section (2)(a) makes the addition of section (2.1) unnecessary, but I might be wrong. Maybe the minister could tell me why he and the Leg. counsel believe this is necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: An example I will give you under section 94, the first one we talked about, would be a specific direction. I'll use one that is relevant to the area and the region. You may speak to the issue of noise, and you may set a set decibel level that must be considered in that. The other one is a criterion where the direction is given that you must take noise into consideration. Very similar — one is more specific; one is broader.

J. Horgan: Well, again, if we're looking at the power to make regulations, usually regulations are specific. Using the minister's example, if a decibel level is prescribed under WorkSafe, that's covered somewhere else, or we would be looking at consequential amendments. So I don't know if that's the best example.

[1615]

Maybe if the minister could use the benefit of his staff to find another that would give me some comfort that this clause is not nefarious but is in fact in the interests of peace, order and good government.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll try this one more time. The member knows it's a technical amendment, to a degree. I will go back to the noise issue, and I'll try and make reference to what takes place now.

The first one would be more specific. For example, and I'll just use it as an analogy, in determining the noise level that would be allowed — and we'll use, for the sake of this explanation, within one kilometre of your home — the noise level will not exceed X decibels. That's under the first section we have talked about.

The next one would refer to when looking at this, it may be beyond one kilometre. But we're still directing you that noise is something you have to take into consideration and mitigate. Because it's outside of the direct one kilometre analogy I'm using, it would be broader in its context but still have to be taken into consideration.

[1620]

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

On section 39.

J. Horgan: Again, I know we're keeping track here. Section 39 provides "regulation-making authority respecting the definition of 'pipeline' in section 1, surveying and information for the purposes of section 77 of the act." Again, the act referred to, I'm assuming, is the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Although I know this bill we're debating today amends two acts, I believe we're still on Oil and Gas Activities Act. I'm getting a head shake. Thank you for that.

So under that section 99, we are repealing and substituting. Can the minister explain the rationale for the repeal and the substitution?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We changed or expanded the definition of "pipeline" in 15(g) of Bill 8. That really deals with what a pipeline can carry. As a result, we have to deal with section 99 and amend it to reflect that change in 15(g) of Bill 8.

J. Horgan: Again, since many of the amendments we're making are to sections that are not yet brought into force, it's important that we ensure that we get it right this time. I know the Chair will indulge me on this for a moment. Section 39, the definition makes reference to section 99 in the existing act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I look at section 99, and we're talking about regulations, the ability to make regulations.

But in the explanatory note it says: "surveying…for the purposes of section 77 of the act." So when I go to section 77 of the act, it says: "Registry. The commission must maintain a registry containing…." So I'm not clear. Am I looking at the wrong section 77?

Interjection.
[ Page 5257 ]

J. Horgan: I'm looking at the right section 77. Well, if that's the case, I don't get what we're doing here. Maybe the minister could enlighten me.

[1625]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The first section we were talking about was (a), and when I referred to section 15(g), it was of Bill 8. I think the member has moved on to (b), which refers to a change. Section 77 that he's looking at there is in reference to the Oil and Gas Activities Act, not Bill 8. Hopefully that clarifies that.

J. Horgan: I'm looking at section 77. We're dealing with section 99 initially, and an explanatory note refers back to section 77, same act, the existing Oil and Gas Activities Act. What I have in front of me is: "The commission must maintain a registry containing the prescribed information about oil and gas activities." Then we move to section 78.

So when I read section 77, we're maintaining a registry — good. How does this amendment affect that? If it doesn't affect it, then perhaps we should remove section 77 from the explanatory note. As I see, we're dealing with the ability to make regulation and maintaining a registry, and I can't reconcile the two.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm going to go through this again, if the member will indulge me. We're dealing with 99(b)(p). That's what the member is referring to here. This will prescribe information that the Oil and Gas Commission must keep with respect to an activity. The authority was previously held by the Oil and Gas Commission board.

[1630]

We are now transferring that authority to the government, which is in the broader public interest — okay?

J. Horgan: Well, I helped myself a little bit by turning to page 10 and found that section 77 is referred to as (o). So that follows the (m) that exists, with an (o) and an (p).

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's before the (p), isn't it?

J. Horgan: Yes, before the (p) that we're dealing with. So I'll accept that as a sufficient explanation for section 39.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

J. Horgan: On section 40, we are now dealing with section 103 of the existing act, and we're expanding "the list of subjects about which environmental measures may be taken and provides regulation-making authority respecting the government's environmental objectives." How are we determining environmental objectives?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The environmental objectives are being recommended by a multiministry committee, and then they will be approved by government through OIC.

J. Horgan: As I look at what we're doing with section 40, we're amending section 103 of the existing act. As we move down, in section 41 we're amending section 104. But I'm curious if the minister…. I mean, all of these objectives are positive and useful and good, and certainly, I support them.

I'm wondering what led to amending "scenic features" to be "scenic areas, as established under section 104." We could have just made a longer list, put it in one section and called it a day. But in the interests of, I assume, certainty, we have now gone across sections.

So we had "scenic features," which is nebulous. I can appreciate that we want to clear that up, so "scenic areas." That's better. But rather than just defining the scenic areas in that section, we're moving to another section in the existing act. I know that the objective of legislative counsel is to streamline and smooth these things over so that there's a better understanding by the public. Certainly, those watching, as we've said a number of times over the course of the afternoon, are riveted.

However, the objectives I have no quarrel with. As I read the previous sections, I had no difficulty. I supported sections 103 and 104 as they were. Now we're amending them, and I'm confused. Can the minister explain why we couldn't have perhaps, in the interests of simple language, put those two together and called it a day?

[1635]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The first question regarding scenic features. The term "scenic features" is also being changed to "scenic areas" for consistency with the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is being empowered to name these. That's that part.

You talked about sections 103 and 104 as well. Section 103 is a general regulation, whereas section 104 is specific to a confined space or a specific species.

J. Horgan: Ungulate winter range is as broad in subsection 103(v)…. Well, the amendment is 40(a)(v), "ungulate winter ranges, as established" in 104. I don't see us in section 104 specifying which ungulates. They are, as you know, numerous in the region. I appreciate that I should have conceded the point to the minister and accepted his rationale.

Again, I understand that we need consistency across legislation. That's the objective. But I don't see how we're clarifying issues here. It strikes me that we're just adding another section unnecessarily.

[1640]
[ Page 5258 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will try this one more time. Under section 104 — and I'll try and cover this — the Minister of Environment could set an ungulate winter range, for example. Under section 103, he could actually deal with the general regulation under that, which would encompass all winter ungulate ranges.

Also under 104 — I know this is somewhat confusing; I'm trying to do my best to explain it — he could actually be specific to the individual winter ungulate range, whether it be something within that winter ungulate range or a species specific to that winter ungulate range.

V. Huntington: The multiministry committee that is developing the environmental objectives…. Do you anticipate those objectives going out to the public for consultation in any way before they end up with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The objectives are part of the environmental protection and management regulations under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and there have been various stakeholders engaged over the last two years — NEEMAC, for example, the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee, located in the Peace. The Provincial Environmental Forum also has had input, as well as local government.

V. Huntington: Well, you could see my concern if it's an industry-led discussion on environmental objectives within the oil and gas framework. I'm really concerned to hear that, and I would hope that those objectives that are being developed would be able to be discussed in a much broader public forum.

These are terribly important subjects that are affected here, and I think that the public would deserve to be involved in setting those objectives.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I may be able to bring some comfort to the member. Actually, the public is heavily involved. This is not industry led. Actually, as I indicated…. The Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee, for example, is ranchers, farmers. We have individuals on there.

[1645]

Also, the Provincial Environmental Forum is environmental groups that have the opportunity to bring issues and discuss with the ministry themselves, as well as local government. We have broadened this out to deal with the exact concern the member has raised.

V. Huntington: Chair, just let me say that now you will understand why I haven't stood up too often. I'm learning a lot from both of my colleagues.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I want to take the opportunity. To the member: you know, this is a very technical bill. I think that was a very good question. Through our ability to have that dialogue and have people ask questions, the people that are watching this and that will read the transcripts I think can learn a great deal. I appreciate the questions, and there is no bad question. So thank you for that.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

J. Horgan: I'll be very brief on this, because I was hopeful that we were canvassing 40 and 41 together because of the synergies between sections 103 and 104 in the existing act.

I want to ask the minister if he could assist me with the explanatory note for this section, which "authorizes the imposition of conditions on exemptions granted under the section and authorizes regulations respecting the consultations and notification required before a minister exercises" a delegated authority.

Following on the questions from my colleague from Delta South, that consultation and notification — would that be with NEEMAC? Would that be with regional districts? Would that be with other government agencies? Can you give a comprehensive list for the House, please?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The process will be defined in reg, but the intent is similar to what I've just talked about. It will be a broad range, whether it be local government, residents, industry. We want to be all-inclusive, to go out and have that discussion.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

J. Horgan: We have a consequential amendment of a definition. Again, this is for those who are paying attention in the galleries and those at home that are still tuned in. We've had environmental measures defined in the definitions. I raised this a moment ago in an earlier section, one of the sections between section 22 and this one. The minister suggested that we would see definitions sprinkled throughout.

I'm wondering. We're repealing and substituting again with a definition that's at the front of the bill, and as we are going through we are going to see it a number of additional times. Can the minister explain the rationale for this repealing and substituting?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is one that I touched on earlier in the definitions. This actually is changing the term "measure" to "environmental measure," the same as what we've done in the previous sections.
[ Page 5259 ]

Section 42 approved.

The Chair: The committee shall recess for five minutes for a break.

The committee recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

On section 43.

J. Horgan: We're now back into amendments of section 106 of the previous act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. We've got "Regulations of the Board" as the heading in that previous act. We're authorizing "the board, in making a regulation under part 10 of the act, to delegate a matter, confer a discretion and make different regulations for different persons, places, things, decisions, transactions or activities," which strikes me as fairly comprehensive.

[1655]

I'm wondering if we have any challenges with board and commission in this amendment. In addition to that, can the minister explain the necessity of this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This deals with the same changes to the delegation authority that we saw for OICs in section 94, which would be section 37 of Bill 8. The section refers to regulations of the board here.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that explanation. We're repealing an entire section and replacing it with a larger section that adds, I believe, the powers that the minister suggests. There are exemptions contemplated in section 106(3), and I'm wondering if the minister could explain what those exemptions might be.

[1700]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This one, as the member has read and recognized, they did have the ability to exempt before. What we're doing is adding the ability for the board of the commission to add conditions to that exemption. For example, it may be an exemption on a record to indicate that you don't need that record or it's not necessary, but if this changes, you will have to do that. That's the authority we're granting here.

J. Horgan: On the example the minister cited, what type of record would you contemplate?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I guess what I would say is a record such as a well log. We're going to multi-well pads now, which is very good in the sense that it is less footprint on the land base, but for instance, before you had a well log, a single lease had a single well on it. Multi-well pads now — you may have ten. You wouldn't need ten of the same records, for example. They're identical, so that's the example I'm using here when we talk about this.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response, but when I look at how we've broadened the definitions to include decisions…. It says: "make different regulations for different persons, places, things, decisions, transactions or activities."

[1705]

We had all of the things referred to with the exception of decisions in the previous act. I'm wondering what decisions are contemplated with this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is really about allowing the board the ability to have the decisions…. I'll give an example. It could be related to flaring, for example. If you are within a set distance of a residence in an area, the board may make regulation regarding that decision.

[1710]

If you're within a distance further than that, there may be something else. What this is doing is allowing the decision to be made and the regulation to be set by the board.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate, I think, what the minister is saying here. But if the board has the ability to make regulations, they have it. Well, had this section been brought into force, they would have had it. Were we not to pass this bill that we're debating today, Bill 8 — and had the previous Bill 20, the Oil and Gas Activities Act, been brought into force — the ability to make that regulation would still exist in, more or less, the form the minister just suggested. That's why I draw attention to the word "decisions." Every time you make a regulation you're deciding to do that.

I know I'm quibbling a little bit here, but it strikes me that…. I know leg. counsel, and I know your able staff. This word was deliberately inserted, and I'd like to have a better explanation as to why this word was chosen in this place at this time.

[1715]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The board's authority was not as broad as that in the OIC authority. This actually is trying to broaden this out to allow the flexibility for regulations based on decisions. I can't think of one. I'm trying to, I guess, bring an analogy based on a flaring issue, where it could be that the setback is 1.25 kilometres from a residence, for example, or a set distance from a gathering pipeline or a flow line.

We wanted the flexibility for the board to be able to make regulations regarding decisions, and those decisions may be different in site-specific circumstances. It is a technical issue, but I'm sorry I can't give something
[ Page 5260 ]
broader. It really is about flexibility for the board, and that's where this one goes.

J. Horgan: If we don't have a clear definition of decisions, perhaps it would have been useful to put that in the definitions at the front end so that we had a better understanding of just where we were going with that.

I'll accept the minister at that and see if we can get a good definition.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

On section 45.

J. Horgan: Section 45 authorizes the board to make regulations requiring permit holders, rather than just producers, to pay a levy to the government, and it's repealing section 110 of the existing act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Can the minister explain the rationale for this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This deals with a drafting error made in the original section 110 which made reference to a "producer" paying the levy instead of the broader term "permit holder," to whom the act applies. All permit holders are subject to the regulatory environment need to contribute towards the administrative cost of the commission as well.

J. Horgan: I see that in the amendment we've carried over the requirement that this is subject to approval of Treasury Board. Again, we've got…. Of course, Treasury Board is capital-T, capital-B, so we won't be confusing that with the "board" reference at the front of the section, I'm hopeful. Is that the minister's intent?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

J. Horgan: Again, we are into what I'm sure the minister is going to say is housekeeping, but there are significant amendments to various subsections of the existing act, section 111, which is defined as oil and gas activities. Again, if the minister — for the benefit of members here and others in the future who will be using this debate to understand the intentions of government with respect to this act — could walk through sections 46(a) through (i) and justify each of those.

[1720]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is a very technical portion. I will start and give the member that section 111 empowers the board to create operational regulations to address the technical and safety matters for all oil and gas activities. The changes to this section are identified by subsections (a) through (i). I can read each of them, Member. It may take a little time just because of the technical, if he so wishes, but I think that the intent is really safety on this.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

J. Horgan: Again, we're onto safety with section 47, which will be amending the existing section 112 of the act. I want at this time to table an amendment to section 47, section 47(c)(d.3).

[Amend section 47 of Bill 8 Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act 2010 by adding the following subsection(s):

47. c (d.3.) requiring that records of preventative maintenance regarding quality of equipment, such as regular ultra-sound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings, and regular infra-red testing to detect leaks be made mandatory and;

(d.4.) that the records in section 47.c(d.3.) be reported regularly to the commission and held for public inspection.]

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: The minister will have had an opportunity to review the section that I'm proposing.

This is a friendly amendment designed to address the issues that the minister referred to in section 46. Rather than read those into the record the minister quite rightly said that the motivation and the focus here is safety for people in the region and people working in the sector.

In my consultation with residents and interested parties in the area, some have suggested to me that the amendment that I'm proposing, what will be 47(c)(d.3), is consistent with, I believe, the thrust and intent of the minister and his government to ensure safety in the sector.

The proposal is that we require that records of preventative maintenance regarding quality of equipment such as regular ultrasound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings and regular infrared testing to detect leaks be made mandatory, and that the records in section 47(c) be reported regularly to the commission and held for public inspection.

Now, the intent here is to ensure that the catastrophic event of last November can perhaps be avoided in the future with the addition of these preventative maintenance records being available to the public — ultrasound testing and infrared testing.

[1725]

The minister will know that corrosion was the likely cause or the suggested cause of the rupture in his community back in November. Members of his community have suggested this amendment to me, and I put it before the House for consideration now.
[ Page 5261 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: With all due respect, I will speak against this, not for the fact of the intent but because of the reason that the authority already exists. It exists today under section 111(1)(e) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, which deals with your amendment for (d.3).

For (d.4) it already exists under section 112(1)(d), and the commission already, by pipeline regulation, follows the CSA standard Z662, which addresses the concerns — but very legitimate concerns relating back to the issue that the people just outside of Pouce Coupe dealt with when the pipeline ruptured.

J. Horgan: I was furiously trying to note the sections that the minister suggested this amendment refers to, and I don't see in section 111 any reference to regular ultrasound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings and regular infrared testing to detect leaks being made mandatory. Perhaps the minister could repeat those clauses again, but I don't see ultrasound testing or infrared testing anywhere in the existing act.

[1730]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What sections 111(1)(e) and 112(1)(d) do is allow the drafting of regulation. The regulation, actually, is drafted and utilizes the CSA standard Z662. I certainly will endeavour, if the member would like a more detailed briefing on this, on how we can actually accomplish that and what Z662 entails — that it's there…. It doesn't have to be encapsulated the way the member has put forward the amendment to this bill.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's attempt to comfort me in this regard, but again, I look at those two sections in the existing bill, and I don't see a reference to that. The regulation Z662 I don't have at my disposal. Perhaps if the minister has a copy at his disposal, or some of his staff that may be in the other room as we debate this bill might be able to draw it to my attention.

As I understand the intent of the amendment at section 47, it's designed for increased transparency with respect to the activities being reported and records delivered to the commission for public review. I mean, we're specifying specific ungulate wintering areas in one section of the act and then broadening that in another section of the act.

It strikes me that these specific safety measures would not go astray to be directly recognized in the legislation, and it strikes me that this is the appropriate section for that to happen. If the regulation Z662 makes reference to efforts on behalf of permit holders or producers to do regular ultrasound testing for corrosion of pipes and fittings or regular infrared testing to detect leaks, then I would be satisfied. But if the language is not consistent with the amendment, I would suggest we have an impasse, and we would probably have to put that to a vote, hon. Chair.

[1735]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will do this one more time, because I think, without question, we both are pursuing the same issue, and that's safety. The issue that you have raised is one that if it wasn't available today and utilized, I think would be a worthy issue to be debating. But I'm going to try this. Sections 111(1)(e) as well as (h) — one deals with wells; one deals with pipelines — under that, as well as section 112(1)(d) under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, allow for the establishment of regulation. The commission has set the regulation to be the CSA Z662 standard, which sets the integrity management requirements for pipelines. The new pipeline regulations — once this is adopted, this bill, we get through it — will be utilized to cover that.

The Z662 — we talk sometimes in funny language, I think, for the population to follow — is the Canadian Standards Association, which is used across the country, and that is what we follow here in British Columbia as well for the integrity management requirement for pipelines.

J. Horgan: Certainly, I don't have the expertise to challenge the Canadian Standards Association, and I don't propose to do that. But in my consultation on this bill…. And the minister would have heard these issues before. It's not new to him that I put this. It's new that he sees it today in the form of an amendment, but these issues have been discussed as recently as this spring in his community. I'm bringing them forward at the request of those that live in the area that want to ensure that safety is the highest priority.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I don't quarrel for a second — and the minister knows that — with his commitment to protecting the people in his community, whether they work in the industry or they're just residents that have this industrial activity on their land. But it's my view that if the technology exists, as I believe it does, to ensure that corrosion and leaks can be avoided or mitigated, we should take steps to ensure that that happens.

Being able to access these records as the intent of this section…. I mean, what we're trying to do with the amendments with section 47 is to ensure that the public does have access — that producers and permit holders maintain accurate records of the quality of their equipment, the standard, the shape of their equipment, and that that is easily observed by the public through the Oil and Gas Commission.

By adding this amendment, I believe we in this place will be doing a service to the people in the community, in encouraging industry to ensure beyond the shadow of a doubt. With the fracking that's going on — and the minister knows this — the corrosion is going to increase, not decrease, in my view. As we find more shale deposits,
[ Page 5262 ]
there's going to be more opportunity for corrosion with the product as it's moving from wellhead to plant. I believe that this is an opportunity. The minister can correct me — I'm hopeful — if I'm wrong, but this strikes me as a useful amendment.

And with that, I'll give the minister an opportunity to respond, and then we might want to call a division, Chair.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, recognizing that this is all about safety and something that I think we can all concur on, I want to…. In section 38, when we discussed the issue, 38(2) is where we moved a "may" to "must."

[1740]

I want to read this. It says, "The commission must disclose records, reports and plans to the public in accordance with the regulations," and that's what we're talking about.

I understand, I believe, what the member, in the discussions he's had possibly with members of my community and in the region…. They've said: "Look, we want access to those. We want to know that that maintenance was done." The act is actually going to permit for that without this amendment that you're proposing.

You're right. I mean, the issue of safety…. It's not one I don't think anybody would argue against. It is something…. I live in the area. Our friends do. I know, Member, you've visited the region. We've travelled around there and looked at this.

We believe that this actually is covered. It will certainly be enhanced, as we implement this act, under section 38(2), as I've just read out.

[1745]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

J. Horgan: Just as staff take their place with the minister, I regret very much he didn't see the wisdom and the reason of my amendment, but that's fine. I'm hopeful his constituents can take comfort in regulation Z662 and the certainty that the "mays" will become "musts." That is a positive move in the right direction. Perhaps over time, as regulations are developed, the wisdom of the amendment will be clearer to the minister.

[1750]

As we go through section 47 in more detail, the explanatory note "clarifies the board's power to adopt by reference a regulation, code, standard or rule of other bodies and makes other amendments consequential to amendments made to section 38 of the act by this bill."

Could the minister advise, particularly with respect to section (c)…. We're repealing paragraph (d), and we're substituting. Can he explain the substitution?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As a result, we broadened section 38, which deals with reports, records and plans. So we have now broadened the commission's regulatory authority to match under this.

The second question. The new subsection (1)(d.1) is added to empower the commission to create a regulation respecting emergency response plans and response contingency plans, which must be maintained and submitted to the commission under section 38 of the act. Then the new subsection (1)(d.2) is added. Really, it's just brought over into this act from, I believe, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

Section 47 approved.

On section 48.

J. Horgan: Again, we are repealing "sections of the Act, consequential to amendments to the Expropriation Act and Petroleum and Natural Gas Act made by this bill." Again, we're repealing four sections. Can the minister
[ Page 5263 ]
direct me to where we're going to replace them in this act, or are we not replacing them at all?

[1755]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 124 is not being replaced. That is the one that we talked about earlier under expropriation. The Expropriation Act will now apply. Sections 154 to 159 are being replaced by changes being made to the PNG, or the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, following in this. As well, section 171 is amended through section 52 of Bill 8.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. Can the minister confirm that the remaining sections 49 through 181 are now amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We do go to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, but there are three consequential amendments at the end.

Section 48 approved.

On section 49.

J. Horgan: Again, I suspect that section 49 is a series of consequential amendments to provide consistency in the second act with respect to the mediation and arbitration board now becoming the surface rights board. But I was wondering if the repealing of definitions of "occupant" and "surface lease…." If the minister could explain those deletions.

[1800]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think the member made a comment that these may be consequential. No, these are significant changes to the act. But as to your specific question on 49(b), we will actually be dealing with those. Although they are repealed here, they are part of part 17 of the bill as we move into this.

J. Horgan: Well, then the minister has invited me to ask him to outline the substantial nature of the changes that are contemplated in section 49.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In my explanation I wasn't referring to substantive changes. Not just section 49 but certainly the entire Petroleum and Natural Gas Act is what I was referring to. Really, what it focuses on is enhancing and expanding the authority of the mediation and arbitration board, which will soon become the surface rights board to better reflect the needs of the landowners, certainly in the Peace region, where the activity takes place now, but should it expand to other areas, this would be, as well, utilized there.

J. Horgan: That's sort of what I thought we were doing. I thought that I perhaps had missed something in section 49, based on the minister's comment.

Before we depart this section…. I know we're going to be getting into a series of definitions that are more or less self-explanatory, and I know we're trying to wrap by seven o'clock, so we'll try and get through as much as we possibly can.

There are some issues that I think require clarification, certainly for me and for those who will be looking to this act in the future, seeking clarification, potentially, from the remarks the minister makes at this point.

When we look at adding the following definitions…. So "restricted land" means the following: "(a) Crown land that is used or occupied by or on behalf of the government; (b) land granted by the government to a railway company under an Act…" and so on.

Could the minister explain the addition of these definitions of "restricted land" and "unoccupied Crown land?"

[1805]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm going to ask the member opposite to bear with me. I'm going to read under "restricted land." This is a new definition created for the purpose of part 16.

Under the current section 6, found in part 3, the definition of "Crown land," defined in section 1 to be "ungranted Crown or public land that belongs to the government, whether or not any water flows over or covers it" is modified to exclude categories of land from Crown land for which the Oil and Gas Commission, referred to as the commission, can allow a right of access under section 7. That is the restricted land.

Then I'm going to go to the "unoccupied Crown land" definition. This definition is new and defines the Crown land for which the commission has the authority to allow a right of entry under what was formerly section 7, now section 138 of part 16.

J. Horgan: I think we need a law to ensure that two members don't have so much fun in passing a piece of legislation.

So the entry on Crown land formerly in part 3…. When we get to section 50, part 3 is repealed. I'm jumping ahead, and I think it might be in the interests of the committee that I do so. If we're assuming that all of part 3 is repealed, we have a number of clauses that are now gone. I'm wondering if we're satisfying some of these issues with the restricted land and the unoccupied Crown land, and if there are other explanations beyond section 50 that will explain why we're doing away with this big chunk of the existing Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Part 3 is being repealed but is being replaced with new parts 16 and 17. There were significant changes. Rather than go through each one of
[ Page 5264 ]
those, it certainly made more sense to replace them with new parts 16 and 17.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

On section 51.

J. Horgan: Section 51 is a consequential amendment. Can the minister again give me an explanation for the purpose of this amendment?

[1810]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a housekeeping clause. The opening phrase of the provision is being amended to make it consistent with modern standard drafting.

Sections 51 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

J. Horgan: Now we're arriving at the section of the bill that is replacing part 3. I'll pose the questions with respect to section 138, which is now new. I can't go to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and find section 138. This is the one following 137. Can the minister explain the necessity for this amendment and its intention?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 138, "Entry on unoccupied Crown land." This provision is a rewrite of the former section 7, which empowered the commission to allow the use of Crown land to carry out the exploration, development or production of petroleum and natural gas or a storage reservoir.

As well, the provision has been modified to exclude Crown land in the category of restricted land from the lands to which the commission can allow entry. Subsection 2 was to be added to section 7 through a consequential amendment under section 154 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

J. Horgan: Still on section 56 of Bill 8, we've got "Development roads." Can the minister…? The new section 139, I believe that…. I'm satisfied that the minister made reference to entry on restricted lands in section 140, but can he explain to me what section 139's purpose is?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is a rewrite of the former section 8. The only difference is unoccupied Crown land being…. The provision enables the commission to designate Crown land as a development road, also known as a petroleum development road or PDR.

J. Horgan: So moving off of development roads and entry to restricted land, we've got part 17, "Entry on private land and the surface rights board." As I understand it, what's intended here is to be consistent with…. These definitions are consistent with the changes we've made to the Oil and Gas Activities Act and with respect to the surface rights board?

[1815]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, this section is consistent with the Oil and Gas Activities Act discussion that we had. This just brings this act in to make some continuity.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. When we get to sections 142, 143, with respect to rent and compensation, I note that we get to section 143 and we're talking about orphan sites and termination dates. Can the minister explain in particular — I understand where we're going with the orphan site — "termination date"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is it determines an end date for the obligation to pay rent for the surface lease. For example, a lease agreement has been negotiated with the landowner. The lease is in operation, for example. There may be an end date to that well, for example, I will say. Then, once they receive a certificate of restoration, that would be the end date on the surface lease payments.

J. Horgan: How do we determine the termination date? Obviously, the expiry of activity at the well site — the certificate follows that. That's determined by the end of activity? There's no agreement between the subsurface rights holder and the surface rights holder?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The certificate of restoration is the end date. It is issued by the commission but not until there has been consultation with the landowner to ensure that all the obligations have been met.

J. Horgan: I keep wanting to go to section 144. For those who don't know, the minister and I have been standing here poking each other for a few hours, and I thank the Chair for her indulgence.

[1820]

Section 56 is the largest section in the bill, and I'm going from number to number. So I want to now move to section 56, clause 144: "A person may not enter, occupy or use land to carry out geophysical exploration unless the person has entered into an agreement with the owner of the land authorizing the entry, occupation or use." Is this reaffirming a right or is it establishing a new right?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a continuation of the existing law.

J. Horgan: We move to clause 146, under division 3, "Surface rights board."
[ Page 5265 ]

"The Mediation and Arbitration Board is continued as…." This is a continuation of the earlier sections of Bill 8, and it outlines the formation of the board, how it's established. Is there anything in this clause that's inconsistent with previous clauses?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What section 146 does is it continues the mediation and arbitration board as the surface rights board. It allows the same for the governance structure, when you look at that. Any reference to the mediation and arbitration board in any document or record is a reference to the surface rights board, and really, it just carries that on to make sure of the continuity as a result of this name change, which truly does, I think, better reflect — for the landowners in the Peace country for sure — what this is really about.

J. Horgan: Well, the minister and I had some discussion previously on what the new name did or did not do. I prefer, as you know, hon. Chair, mediation and arbitration as a better descriptor of what was going on. The minister has a different view, and I accept that. But the jurisdiction of the board remains unchanged. So is clause 147 a continuation of existing jurisdiction for the newly named board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Actually, this expands the jurisdiction and does some very good things, and I want to touch on that briefly. Now, as we operate today, claims of damage by neighbours is not allowed. This expands the authority to allow a neighbour to apply for damages as a result of activity. Also, surface lease disputes for the money can now be taken as well to the surface rights board.

J. Horgan: I hope I didn't mishear the minister. Would these surface disputes be among neighbours? We were talking about neighbours and then surface disputes. So if the minister could just clarify that for the record.

[1825]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will do a much better job this time, Member. A surface lease is with an oil and gas company, for example. So if, for instance, the company was not in compliance with that lease, the landowner can then take that to the surface rights board and seek clarity and clear it up.

J. Horgan: Much better.

Clause 148 under division 4, "Operations of the Board." Clause 148 lists a host of sections under the Administrative Tribunals Act that apply to the board. Did these sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act apply to the mediation and arbitration board, or are these new applications?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act continue to apply, but we have expanded them. We have expanded them to include…. I can read the list for the member. They would be the practice directives, interim orders, failure to comply, organization of the tribunal, tribunal staff, dispute resolution, summary dismissal, interveners, recording of tribunal proceedings, applications with similar questions, and decisions.

J. Horgan: With respect to organization of the tribunal, I'm wondering why, under the previous, more apt name of mediation and arbitration, that did not apply, and why it does now.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Previously in the governance structure under section 13 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act there was a provision dealing with the organization of the tribunal. It is now covered under the organization of the tribunal under this section.

[1830]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that inventory of new applications.

I'm now looking at clause 149, "Powers of board." "The board may sit in any place in British Columbia." I think that's good, but if the minister could assist me in clarifying the intention of clause 149(2).

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a continuation of the authority previously held by the board. It allows the board to actually go out and visit the site to see an issue they may be dealing with.

J. Horgan: Clause 150, "Form and service of application." There is no explanatory note, so I'm wondering if the minister could explain the purpose of clause 150.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 150 is a continuation of the requirements previously found in section 16(2). What it does is allow the board to determine whether they've received the appropriate information, whether it has been served properly and, if it hasn't, to go back and require that further work be done.

J. Horgan: Clause 152, "Mediation and arbitration," which formerly was followed by "board" in the name of "surface rights board." As my colleague from Kingsway has pointed out, we have a number of subclauses in this section. Could the minister advise if these are enhancing the previous mediation-arbitration activities with the board or diminishing?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will start with absolutely no loss whatsoever on this. This is the process. I'll go back. The member touched on it earlier. The name "surface rights
[ Page 5266 ]
board," I think, better reflects the issues. The process is the mediation-arbitration process. This helps clarify that you will start with mediation, and if that's not successful, you'll go to arbitration.

[1835]

J. Horgan: And that wasn't clear in the previous…? I'm sorry. That wasn't clear? Okay. Thank you, Minister.

On to clause 155, "Reconsideration by board." Could the minister give an indication what this implies?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 155 is a continuation of the former section 26(2), and it empowers the board to reconsider an order that has been made either on an application by a party or on its own motion.

J. Horgan: Moving to what's now division 5, "Authority to Enter Land." As we proceeded quite meticulously with the various sections in this bill, we've been trying to focus on the real issue at hand. The minister is well aware of it, and that is permit holders wanting to access subsurface rights and those who don't own those rights but own the land on top of which the subsurface rights exist.

The challenge is: when do you access? I think we canvassed it fairly thoroughly on the Oil and Gas Activities Act, but as we get into division 5 and the authority to enter, I'm wondering if the minister…. We can go through a number of clauses — 157, 158 and 159. If the minister could clarify, for his constituents and those who will be affected by these clauses, what rights are either reduced or expanded as a result of this amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You can only enter land if you have a surface lease with the landowner or if you have an order of the board under this division. So it is not new, but it's 157, 158 and 159 that deal with it.

[1840]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response. "Security deposit," clause 160(1). "A right of entry order may…." I thought we were going to "must" on all this stuff in the interests of surface rights holders. I wonder if the minister, with respect to a security deposit, can explain why this is a "may," and we've been moving aggressively and quite rightly toward "must."

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I just want to relate back to clause 159. So 159(4) says that the "right of entry order made by a mediator must, as a condition of the order, require the person who is seeking the right of entry to pay to the landowner, on account of rent…."

Now, what section 160 refers to is that may not be the full amount because the process is still going on. So they may require that, and that's the reason the word "may" is here: "…as a condition of the order, require the person who is seeking the right of entry to deposit with the board" an additional amount as they go through resolving the issue.

So X may be paid to the landowner. As they go through it, there may be additional moneys that will have to be paid. That money may be required to be put on deposit with the commission or with the board.

J. Horgan: Clause 161 refers to an order when landowner does not participate. I find that interesting, and I know that would be a big challenge. Many people like to run away from these things rather than face them head-on. I note that conveniently this clause addresses that by just making a decision without the participation, or at least that's how I read it.

Can the minister clarify for me my concern that if a landowner does not participate in the discussion, a decision will be made on his or her behalf?

[1845]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It does deal with that. There are very few people that would not come to the board. Primarily what this would deal with is an absentee owner, possibly an out-of-country owner of a piece of land that the tribunal would make a ruling on. But it does not in any way take away their right, once they come forward, to receive compensation.

J. Horgan: But the negotiation for what that compensation may be will take place absent their participation, and that's what this allows for. The board makes a determination based on inputs in terms of the impact on the surface rights holder — is it a pipeline, is it a wellhead or is it multiple wellheads? — and makes a determination based on the going price, basically, for that activity on that size of property. Is that how you would effect compensation to someone who's not participating?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What would take place is the board would require security to be deposited, but then when the landowner did come forward, in the case of an absentee owner, they would go through the full process to determine the compensation at that time. It isn't strictly determined that here's what we determine; that's it. The landowner still has the right, but they would take security on deposit to ensure that that funding is there. They would then go through the full process once they came forward to determine, and it may very well be a different number.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's response, but I guess I'm thinking of those people who just don't want to have the activity on their property. They don't want to acknowledge that subsurface rights exist. They don't participate.

As I read this clause, it suggests to me that the board may well make determinations absent that landowner
[ Page 5267 ]
based on the going price. This is the value of the amount of activity taking place, and this is the compensation that we do to the landowner. As the minister suggests, a deposit will be taken, activity will take place, and at some point a resolution will have to flow from that. But if someone just doesn't want to do it, what's the recourse in this section, or is there any?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Ultimately, if a landowner made the choice to not come forward, they wouldn't receive the money. I'm not aware of that. There are, I think, very few that I'm aware of.

So they would take the security on deposit. If a landowner for some reason — whether they be absentee or the landowner, as the member suggested — doesn't accept that subsurface rights are not owned by themselves and makes the determination that they're never coming forward, they wouldn't receive the compensation until they do. But that security would still be held on their behalf until they made the decision eventually, and hopefully they would.

[1850]

J. Horgan: Division 6, "Board Orders Relating to Rights of Entry." This refers to clauses 163 and 164, "Application relating to loss or damage caused by right of entry." Again, I note for the minister that these are his constituents, so he's hearing the issues on a regular basis. As a periodic visitor to his community, I guess I get rapid-fire information from his constituents about their views on certain subjects. One of the challenges, and the minister knows this, is the industrial activity compensated at agricultural rates.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me clause 163, the application relating to compensation for loss or damage caused by right of entry. In other words, the permit holder has a plan. There's agreement. The permit holder attempts to fulfil that plan, and damage is done. Is this what this section is in place for — to protect landowners or surface rights holders from unintended consequences of the industrial activity?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it is.

J. Horgan: Again, more agreement between the members for Peace River South and Juan de Fuca. It just doesn't stop. The hits keep rolling as we get closer and closer to seven o'clock.

Clause 164, "Board orders relating to surface leases." Could the minister explain the intention of this clause?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is the section that allows the landowner to go to the surface rights board to say: "You know, they're not in compliance with the surface lease." It is a very good clause, something the people in our region have asked for, for some time, and I think it will be well received.

J. Horgan: Clause 165 is on negotiation of amendment to the lease or order. I believe this is also a new clause. Is its intention to further give rights to surface rights holders to protect them from harm by subsurface rights holders?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Clauses 165 and 166 are a continuation of renegotiation provisions formally found in sections 11 and 12. Anytime after four years, a party may seek to renegotiate their rental provisions for the surface lease.

J. Horgan: Clause 167, "Termination of surface lease or order." Again, is this an addition to existing rights, or is this a diminishment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This actually is an expansion of the right given to the landowner. For instance, if there is a permit given and something hasn't happened within two years on that, the landowner can now go and ask for a termination of the surface lease.

J. Horgan: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.
[ Page 5268 ]

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,104,000 (continued).

The Chair: Welcome to Committee A this afternoon, everybody. I welcome you. We are in the continuing estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.

Hon. B. Penner: It's nice to be back. Feels like only yesterday that we were doing this.

C. Trevena: I have a question in a moment that will take us up that coastline, but first up, I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions.

One is…. The Cetus Research Society in Alert Bay has held a B.C. Parks contract for the Robson Bight marine water program since 2005. It's now the time when they're starting to hire their staff and need to get going on this. I was wondering whether the minister could give me assurances that the contract process is underway and that Cetus will soon be able to start hiring their staff again.

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member giving us a heads-up about this question. It gave us a chance to track down some details to make efficient use of our time. The member will be aware that this organization had been contracted to do some work following the spill that took place — I believe it was — in August 2007 in Robson Bight. No one is contradicting me, so I assume that my memory is correct.

The previous monitoring contract was a one-year contract with the option to be extended for an additional year. The extension was granted for last year's operations. For this year, the contract will be tendered through a competitive bidding process. That's because the financial value of this service exceeds the $25,000 threshold, or at least we anticipate it will. We'd be pleased if we got a bid that was under that amount, but it may well be over.

Therefore, the ministry feels that it's appropriate to put this out to competitive bidding. Apparently a letter has been sent by e-mail to Cetus Research and Conservation Society letting them know that there will be a request for proposals posted for this opportunity, and I presume that will take place fairly soon.

C. Trevena: If I might ask the minister if there is any time frame for the proposals to be evaluated, because it is the time when people are coming out of college looking for work. Then the research organization obviously wants to find the best people to be working in the area and doesn't want to lose good candidates. If there is any possibility that it could be sped up….

Hon. B. Penner: We expect that the bid request, the RFP, will be posted very soon, perhaps imminently, and then there would be a two-week turnaround period. In other words, there would be two weeks for people to respond to the request for proposals and then, I suppose, it would take us a short period of time to evaluate those proposals before awarding that contract. But we are moving as quickly as we can.

[1445]

C. Trevena: So we'd be looking possibly within a month, four weeks. Two weeks to get the proposals in, look through them and hopefully be able to award this within another couple of weeks. We'd be talking about the end of May, really, the beginning of June, to get this process completed?

Hon. B. Penner: We expect it would be somewhere in that time period.

C. Trevena: I want to move to another area that I also forewarn the minister about, and that's the issue of arsenic at Quinsam Coal. I think that the minister is mostly aware, through conversations with the Minister of State for Mining and others, that Quinsam Coal is looking at developing new seams in its underground operation.

That has raised some concerns with environmentalists in the Campbell River area — the Campbell River Environmental Council, Greenways Land Trust and others — of the level of arsenic that could come through into Long Lake and No Name Lake in the area, as well as the Quinsam River. There have been extensive studies by Dr. William Cullen about arsenic in the Quinsam watershed, and he's raised some concerns about this.

Quinsam Coal is pretty confident that there won't be increased levels of arsenic in the watershed, but I wondered if there are any thoughts to having an independent Ministry of Environment environmental impact study so we can get this sorted out, because I know this is one expansion that Quinsam's looking at doing. It will extend the life of the mine. Then there are other plans for other expansions over the coming years, so if we can get some environmental impact on the levels of arsenic and how that's going to affect expansion.

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: Sorry, it took some time to go through various pieces of paper here, trying to assimilate the information to give a concise answer.

As the member, I believe, is aware, the company had expressed an interest in some type of expansion to their operations. They submitted an application to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Ministry of Environment did not receive an application, but it did go to MEMPR. At a meeting on March 5 of this year, at something called the Vancouver Island
[ Page 5269 ]
Mine Development Review Committee, the Quinsam Coal Corp. was advised that their application was lacking certain information and that more work would be required before a permit would be granted.

As to the status of the lake, it's true that there are elevated levels of arsenic detected in the sediment, I believe, at the bottom of Long Lake, if I have that correct. If it's any comfort, apparently these elevated levels of arsenic were not detected in the water itself, though, and there's no evidence of it reaching the Quinsam River. There were not detectable levels of arsenic in the Quinsam River. So that's the good news. However, because of the levels found in the sediment at the bottom of Long Lake, additional work is required.

Golder Associates has been retained to further investigate the levels of arsenic and something known as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, better known as PAHs, in Long Lake sediments and to determine bioavailability, toxicity and impacts. That work is being overseen through a technical steering committee which includes the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, the city of Campbell River, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, as well, Quinsam Coal Corp. The information will be made public once that's complete.

[1455]

I think that pretty much sums up the information that I have.

C. Trevena: As I mentioned, it is the issue of expansion and the concern when the mine does expand whether there is going to be any further leaching. So the work being done by Golder Associates — is that a requirement of the expansion through the Ministry of Mines? Or is this something that has been instigated by the Ministry of Environment?

What I'm really looking for is to have the involvement of the Ministry of Environment. I know this is unusual, because it's not like a new mine; it's an expansion. It's already underground — like, no new entries to it at this area where they're going into. So it's just forward-looking — whether, when we start getting possible heavy rains or whatever, there is an impact there. It's whether there would be that possibility of Ministry of Environment oversight here or whether it's going to be staying with Golder.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for the question. This mine advisory committee that I referenced a moment ago was established as a result of concerns that members of the local community had expressed. As noted, it includes stakeholders such as local government and federal agencies, but also the provincial Ministry of Environment. I'm advised that this recent study by Golder Associates was instigated by the Ministry of Environment, which is serving on the environmental technical review committee.

I should stress that the company, Quinsam Coal Corp., cannot proceed with their planned expansion unless and until they receive approval from both the Ministry of Energy and Mines for mining activity and the Ministry of Environment for waste discharge.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that answer. I'd like to move on to my last topic with the minister, and that is the issue of independent power projects and, particularly, the Klinaklini project that is being developed. It's a very specific question of whether, when these projects are being developed, conservancies and protected lands will be respected — whether land conservancies will be respected in the development of those projects.

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will be aware, there was a long and complex set of negotiations that went on for about ten years for a land use plan involving the mid- and north coast of British Columbia. That area has become known as the Great Bear rain forest.

As a result of agreements that were reached between the provincial government, local First Nations, industry and environmental groups, those ten years of negotiations concluded. That agreement was announced in February 2006 by the Premier and a number of other people on the stage with him. Following that, the provincial government moved to complete those agreements by enacting legislation to establish conservancies in the areas that had been identified as a result of the many years of sometimes arduous negotiations.

[1505]

I believe now that all of the conservancies that had been agreed to in concept in terms of location have now been enacted through protected areas legislation and the establishment of conservancies — more than 100. I'm advised that there are about 111 for the central and north coast as a result of that land use plan.

Other conservancies have since been established in some other locations as a result of other land and resource management plan processes, but for now we're just talking about the ones on the midcoast. From time to time, people, organizations, local governments or, sometimes, governments themselves seek to amend existing boundaries for protected areas. The provincial government, since 2004, has tried to codify that process by establishing a policy that people can see, a policy framework for assessing these types of requests.

Previously there wasn't much of a process, at least externally known. It was a bit random. I know that there was some criticism in the late 1990s when a number of park boundaries were adjusted without public consultation to facilitate a variety of purposes that the government of the day deemed to be important from a public policy perspective — a corridor for a pipeline, highways or a logging road to get through to a forest on
[ Page 5270 ]
the other side of a protected area. So we felt that it was appropriate to come up with this policy.

You can find that updated policy, known as the "Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines," on the B.C. Parks website. It's there for people to peruse, and you can see the number of factors and steps that we would take in assessing potential applications to amend existing boundaries. As noted, the Upper Klinaklini conservancy is now an established boundary.

Clearly, not all applications get approved. I reference the Upper Pitt River issue that came to light a number of years ago, also involving a potential independent power project, where the proponent was seeking to have the boundary adjusted for Pinecone Burke Provincial Park to allow the construction of a transmission line corridor. Following public consultation on that process, I concluded that that was not a proposal that I was prepared to support.

In this case I can advise the member that the government has given careful consideration to this request. There has been an expression of interest and support from the local First Nations, who have told the government very clearly that they would support this amendment for this proposed power project.

I have carefully considered the benefits and potential impacts from this proposal and can note that the anticipated benefits include a $2.5 billion investment in British Columbia, mostly in capital costs; 3,904 person-years of direct employment; 4,372 person-years of indirect employment; 1,718 person-years of induced employment — I guess that's better known as spinoff employment; and total wages during peak construction years of between $120 million and $200 million.

Those are some of the positive benefits, including a new source of renewable electricity for British Columbia without emitting carbon or other forms of air pollution.

On the other hand, there are also potential negative impacts from this project. I've also taken those into consideration. These include, depending on exactly what the proponent was communicating, an increase in the water elevation of that portion of the river in the Upper Klinaklini conservancy from 1.5 kilometres to 2.5 kilometres or possibly six kilometres upstream, and expanding the wetted area of the Klinaklini River from about 50 hectares to perhaps a hundred hectares.

From that flow a number of other potential consequences. There are, apparently, a number of — perhaps 20 — fish-bearing tributaries that would be backwatered to some extent by the proposed construction of the intake structure, which would back up the water so that you could fill an intake pipe — a penstock, as it's known in the industry.

[1510]

There are apparently up to 57 hectares of riparian habitat that could be affected, 65 percent of which, we've been told, would be old-growth forest that would be submerged or inundated or affected by the increase in water levels as a result of the project.

There are within that area a number of conservation data centre red- and blue-listed species in the old-growth plant communities. There's a grizzly bear corridor that exists in the area, which serves an important function of connecting the coast to the Interior. In fact, reports that we have seen indicate that there are several bear mark trees that would be within the area of the project and within the conservancy.

There's also evidence that moose use this corridor. For example, I'm told that moose tracks were observed during a 2009 field assessment and that moose activity has been observed in the wetland on the east side of the river, which would also be within the proposed headpond area, so behind the intake structure.

There were other concerns about whether or not the impacts to fish habitat could be mitigated, and there's concern that perhaps it could not be. Then there's a related issue that the project's proposed transmission line was proposed or is proposed to go through the Stafford Estuary conservancy. The transmission line would also be adjacent to, although not through, the Wahkash Point conservancy.

Those are some factors that I took into account. It's always difficult to weigh competing interests, and certainly our government is very committed to a strong working relationship with First Nations, and those First Nations in particular. We've enjoyed a good working relationship.

We want to continue to work with them, but after carefully considering all of the factors that I've enumerated, and probably some that I haven't, I have decided that I will not be recommending that the boundaries of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy be amended in order to facilitate this project.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for going through this and for his confirmation that the boundaries won't be amended and that he won't be recommending the amendment. For the project to continue…. If the project wants to continue and finds some different routing, would that mean another look at it, or is it only because of the impact on the conservancies that we're talking about not changing the boundaries of the conservancies?

The minister has spoken quite clearly about the impact of the project itself on the river and on much of the habitat. Some of it is in conservancy, and some of it isn't, so I'm just wondering if the minister is taking it to the next step and saying that this is a project that really is not suitable for the area because of the environmental impacts, even where that impact is outside the conservancy.

Hon. B. Penner: The reason that the decision came to me at this point in the process — unlike other run-of-river
[ Page 5271 ]
projects or other major industrial proposals, whether they be pipelines or coal mines or other forms of activity — is that the proponent had concluded that the project could not go ahead without an amendment to the conservancy boundary. Otherwise, the proponent's trajectory would have been through an environmental assessment process dealing with the federal government and so forth — the routine process.

What's different about this one is that the project requires a legislative change to make it happen — to be clear about that. For other types of projects that still require permitting, detailed analysis and review by a multitude of federal and provincial agencies, that's a rigorous process. You have to submit lots of information. There's scrutiny, and you may or may not obtain your permits, but legislative changes are not required.

[1515]

What was required in this instance was a change to the conservancy boundary, and that could only be done through a legislative change. I've indicated, as I noted in my previous answer, that I'm not going to recommend that to my cabinet colleagues or to yourselves as fellow Members of the Legislative Assembly.

So now it will be up to the proponent to decide what their course of action is and whether or not they have a project that they still wish to pursue.

M. Sather: It's very interesting to listen to the comments of the minister regarding this proposal for a huge, private hydroelectric project in the Klinaklini River, which for the information of listeners is in the Knight Inlet area, up the coast.

It reminds me of, from what the minister said so far, and he made reference already to, the Upper Pitt power project that was proposed by Run of River Inc. As the minister alluded to, they needed to put a power line through a provincial park in order to make the project a success. They would have required an amendment of legislation — to, I think it was, the Park Act — to allow them to do that. The minister indicated, as he said a few years ago, that he wasn't prepared to do that amendment.

Now, because it's in my area, I do see the proponent from time to time, and I believe it was last summer that I saw him. We spoke briefly about that project, and he certainly doesn't consider it done. He doesn't consider that he's finished there. He's talking about a tunnel through Burke Mountain to reach his desired goal and to complete what he had begun.

So I'm trying to understand, comparing that situation to what the minister has said now about the Klinaklini. I'm very clear, I think, that the minister has said that without him changing the legislation to allow an amendment to the conservancy, it wouldn't be possible to proceed.

I just want to clarify a little bit more, though, with the minister. Where does that leave the proponent? Is this project dead? Or is it open to further discussion with the government? Just where is the proponent at, now that the minister has made public…? I'm sure he's probably already told the proponent — I don't know — about that decision. Anyway, here today he's told us that he's not going to amend the conservancy. Where does that leave the proponent?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: As indicated, I've made my decision based upon the proposal that we received or the request that we obtained from the proponent along with the input from the First Nations. I'm not aware of any other proposal, so I can't prejudge what the proponent may or may not do at this point.

I can confirm to the member that the proponent has been notified of my decision. So if the member would like to inquire of the proponent as to what their plans are, you're free to do so. I'm not in a position to speak to them, and I have not heard what their plans are.

M. Sather: Well, it sounds good, as far as I'm concerned, because I have great concerns about that project and have had since I've heard about it. I want to put a few of those concerns briefly on the record. As I understand it, the minister has made a decision, but it is conceivable — although I would hope not, but I think that it is conceivable, unless the minister tells me otherwise — that he could reverse his decision at some point.

I want to talk for just a minute about this project. This project, if it would have proceeded or if it is to proceed — and I haven't had any conversations with the proponent about it — would be a mammoth project, producing upward at the high end of 800 megawatts of power. Now that's compared to Site C, which is 900 megawatts of power production. So it was a very, very large proposal — as far as I'm aware of, the largest proposal in the province.

The dam, which they refer to as a weir in the business, would be 30 metres tall — a 90-foot-high dam. The tunnel would be 27 feet in diameter, a mammoth tunnel.

Here's the part, though, that concerned me the very most about this project. And for listeners, they have to understand a little bit about the structure of a power project like this. You have a dam. The water is behind the dam. Then, where the water is gathered at the dam, you have a pipe, a tunnel that runs down to a power station. There's a lot of water that's diverted in the process, so where that water is diverted the river is affected, and that's the important part.

Now, this diversion would have been huge — an 18-kilometre diversion. I've never heard of one so long; there may be in other locations. The concerning part for me, however, is that there was an impassable fish barrier. And I must say that the minister commented yesterday that most of these projects are above impassable barriers to fish, but that's not what I've seen so far.
[ Page 5272 ]

I certainly haven't looked at as many of them, I'm sure, as the minister has. But in the Upper Pitt it wasn't the case, and that was a series of smaller streams there. In this one the impassable barrier would have been about three kilometres below the dam. So that means that of the total 18 kilometres, you're left with 15 kilometres where the fish would be in the water and the water would be being diverted around the fish.

Not all the water, of course, but a good portion of the water gets diverted around the fish habitat. As we discussed a little bit in this committee yesterday, that can be very problematic, because the shallow areas on the edges, the side channels and so on, are where the salmon and the other species of fish spawn. That can very much affect their spawning and their rearing of young.

One needs to know that all five species of B.C. salmon are in that portion of that river. That's how significant that project would have been, and that's the kind of effect that it could have had on a resource in British Columbia which is severely impacted and stressed now, as we already know.

[1525]

In addition to all five species of salmon, there are steelhead, cutthroat and Dolly Varden. So I don't understand why the project even got consideration at all. I just don't get it.

But I am pleased, very pleased, with the minister's announcement today. I hope that it won't be reversed and that the proponent will have gotten a clear message from the government not to proceed with this — what I believe would clearly have been an environmentally devastating project — and that they will pull up stakes and find greener pastures. That's my hope.

Hon. B. Penner: Just to respond to the member. He's right. I have made an effort to try and get out to see these projects in preconstruction, construction and post-construction operation, to get a good idea of how they work.

I can tell the member — and I think we've had this discussion before — that proponents typically look to site these projects on rivers above a naturally occurring fish barrier. So the idea is that within the diversion reach you won't have fish occurring, or certainly not salmon species such as the five that you referred to. If that approach is followed, then there shouldn't be the issue that the member identified around the side channel habitat if the fish aren't there to begin with. That is the objective.

But back to this particular application. Again, for the reasons that I noted and the fact that the law is in place and it was a result of ten years of land use planning process and negotiations to establish those boundaries and that those boundaries now represent the status quo, I was not prepared to recommend to the member, to the chair or other members of the Legislature that those boundaries be changed to facilitate this project.

I understand that we're not supposed to debate legislation that's before the House when we're in other committees, but I do just want to reference that the members will have a chance to vote on a piece of legislation in the next few weeks. I'm referring to the Clean Energy Act, which has a provision in it giving direction to B.C. Hydro and to proponents not to consider proposals for power purchase agreements for projects that would be located within protected areas such as parks and conservancies.

That's to address the issue that the member just mentioned here about why it was being considered by B.C. Hydro.

N. Macdonald: Just an issue that I've met with the minister and spoken to the minister about, and it just relates to the Windermere elk fence. This again is an area that the minister is responsible for, of course, but also is familiar with, because the minister has been in the area and, in fact, the minister did intercede in a particular issue and got a fix.

Now, on the issue that I'll lay out for the minister, there are certainly complexities with it, and there are a number of values and interests that need to be balanced, but I'll just lay it out.

There's a gentleman that has built an eight-foot elk fence. The fence is not complete, and elk are continuously getting caught behind it. The elk have been herded with pickups out of the fence area, and what neighbours are saying to our office — and I think have conveyed to the minister as well — is that they feel that the elk are getting stressed and caught in the fence sometimes.

The conservation officer has visited the property and requested that the gentleman put in a four-foot jumpable fence so that the elk could escape. There was compliance with this, but since April 1 the gate has been closed and locked, once more trapping the elk.

I guess the first question is: from what the minister knows, why is the gentleman not required to keep that four-foot drop fence open? Or is this something that the minister will be aware of at all? I'm sure that the minister has files in front of him, and I know that people have regularly been in communication with the minister. So maybe that's the first question.

[1530]

I have five questions, and they're all pretty straightforward, but if the minister has that answer we can put it on record here. If it's something that the minister can put on record later, that can be an efficient use of time as well.

Hon. B. Penner: I wonder if the member could confirm if the four-foot drop fence you are referring to is built across the creek or is proposed that it be built on the creek or elsewhere on the property and if the intention is, as far as the member knows, to prevent elk from entering the person's property or from exiting.
[ Page 5273 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: I would apologize if this is inaccurate. My understanding, from driving around — I'm going on my memory — is that the fence is on the normal part of the fence and is not across the creek. My understanding is that the intention was to give a place for elk to leave the property because the fence is not complete.

Therefore, you get elk into one part of it. They panic and can't move out, so the owner tries to push them out. That's my understanding, and I would apologize if that's not accurate. But further to my understanding is that this was seen as a solution to allow the elk to get out without being trapped in the one area.

[1535]

Hon. B. Penner: I apologize to the member. We don't have all the details here. It sounds like, from what we do have and from what the member has indicated, it is the rancher's intention to complete the fence around his property, which hopefully will prevent further ingress and, therefore, the problem of how the elk would escape his property. I don't know if that is the member's understanding.

Our regional staff have been dealing with it. It turns out the people behind me have not been familiar with this file to date. I expect they will do some digging to find out a bit more.

We do understand, of course, the concerns of ranchers who want to protect their crops and their private land, but obviously there is the unintended consequence of posing some hardship for wildlife in the area as well.

The member and I have had this conversation before. It's a vexing issue. It's tough to strike the balance, but it's something that we're working to do. I know that Ministry of Environment staff in the region have also been working with Ministry of Agriculture and Lands staff on this issue because it touches both ministries on the wildlife and the agriculture side.

N. Macdonald: Of course it's unfair. The minister has so many files.

The peculiarities of this are that it actually is being rezoned, and it's going to be made into a residential area. So there are all sorts of complications with that that have to be worked through, and there are possibilities that the fence will be ordered to come down. The eight-foot fence is there for agricultural reasons. If the zoning happens, then it would no longer apply. So there are all sorts of….

Hon. B. Penner: The rezoning may not allow any sort of fence?

N. Macdonald: That's right. There are those sorts of complications.

The other thing that residents have asked me to ask you about is they have complained about the fact that the elk are being driven off the property. They cite the Wildlife Act, section 27(3), "Use of conveyance." "A person who herds or harasses wildlife with the use of a motor vehicle…." The minister would be familiar with that. They have been told that it doesn't apply to private land, so they wonder about that.

I guess the question for the minister is: is that accurate? And then the follow-up would be: if that is accurate, why is that? Why would that distinction be made? They feel that it shouldn't happen. So those two questions.

Hon. B. Penner: We'd like to review this matter in some more detail and check with the local staff on this to see if the local conservation officer service can provide us with information about their approach to this particular issue. We'll seek some clarity about your question pertaining to section 27(3), I think you said, of the Wildlife Act, and we'll get back to you on that.

N. Macdonald: Maybe what we'll do is I'll just give you the other questions that the people are asking, and then from there, we can deal with this in a different venue.

Basically, there's also concern about an area that the minister would have gone to. This is near the creekside where the fence is being held up by barbed-wire supports. The concern is that elk seem to have run into this, and they wonder why you would have a guy wire there in the first place. It's there to hold up, and why would it be barbed wire? There's the concern there.

Hon. B. Penner: The guy wire is barbed?

[1540]

N. Macdonald: It's barbed, yeah. There's concern about that.

So a fairly particular issue, but there is a tremendous amount of interest from people on the Windermere Loop road. There is a degree of frustration. There is a recognition that you've got issues like this around the province which are complicated, but there's also a sense that it's not going the way that it needs to go.

The other issue I'll put to you is that it is not as easy as an MLA to speak directly to a conservation officer as would be useful. I don't know where that comes from, but there's a sense that we need to go directly into the main office and then come back down. Sometimes that's not the case. But I just put it out to you that often it would be simpler for our office and for us as individuals to just go and deal directly with the conservation officers without that restriction.

It might come from a time, maybe five years ago, when the conservation officer issues in a few communities were highly politicized, where that might have been
[ Page 5274 ]
a protocol that made sense. But it does make these issues more complicated for us to solve.

With most of the issues we're dealing with, we're actually looking for solutions. I know the minister is, as well, since you came in and actually solved personally one of the problems that we had in the past. So I'll just leave that with you, and then I'll continue with the correspondence and look at if we can find a solution that works for people in the area.

Hon. B. Penner: I thank again the member for his interest in this issue. Just pertaining to the conservation officers, it's our understanding that anybody is at liberty to ask our conservation officers technical questions any time and to have that kind of conversation.

R. Fleming: I have some questions for the minister about some hunting issues, particularly in the Kootenay region, that the member for Kootenay West would probably be asking but because of circumstances is not here, which I know the minister understands and appreciates. So I will ask them on behalf of her constituents.

They have to do with changes to hunting regulations for two ungulate species in the Kootenays — it's in the Okanagan boundary area but particular to some of the urban parts, like Grand Forks — and how the ministry is, with regards to white-tailed deer, gathering its population statistics.

The concern is that there's no differentiation between, apparently, an abundance of deer in people's back yards and such in urban areas and relatively sparse and perhaps declining populations in the mountainous areas in these regions. Obviously, hunters can't hunt in people's back yards, where apparently most of the deer now are. The concern is that the ministry is actually managing the wrong herds of deer by expanding the hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer in the Grand Forks area.

[1545]

The first question would be just around the statistics-gathering. Did the ministry or does the ministry differentiate, within this population of white-tailed deer, where they reside and where the populations are concentrated, between the urban areas and the surrounding areas?

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for his question on behalf of his colleague. We all wish her well. I did have a chance to talk to her a couple weeks ago, and she told me at that time about the medical adventure that she and her husband are embarking on. I wish her and Ed all the best. I got to know Ed fairly well during my first term here in Victoria. So we all wish them very well, and I hope they keep us updated.

As to the question around Grand Forks, the member may be interested to know that just in the last three weeks or so we did have a ministry biologist going out and doing a deer count, particularly north of town towards the Gilpin grasslands, which includes an area that was recently established as a provincial park a couple of years ago.

I had the privilege of bringing in legislation to establish the Gilpin Grasslands Provincial Park, but the Gilpin grasslands are bigger than the provincial park. They go up the hillside and provide very excellent habitat for a range of ungulates, including, I believe, bighorn sheep.

[1550]

On this occasion the biologist noted not only mule deer but a preponderance of white-tailed deer — so many, according to the report we got back, that the biologist stopped counting after a while because there were so many white-tailed deer.

That's not completely unexpected, given the provincial trends that we've seen. A few years ago the total white tail population was estimated at somewhere between 60,000 to 65,000. More recently now the population estimate is 100,000 white-tailed deer. They seem to be pretty adept at avoiding people and hunters. They've learned a few strategies to kind of disappear into the woods when hunters come along.

It's on that basis that we felt comfortable in the ministry moving from an LEH hunt for white tail to open season.

R. Fleming: The minister's answer, of course, is informed by a population count that was just done a few weeks ago, but there have been third-party population estimates done. One has been done by a Penticton biologist based there who has done population counts along the Grandby River and has a comparable amount of data going back a decade — at least that I'm aware of — in which his conclusion is quite dramatically different than the scientist that the minister has just quoted, which shows a 40 percent decline in the white-tailed deer population.

I wonder whether the ministry is working with guide-outfitters and other organizations that are the eyes and ears on the land base in that area and are conducting their own surveys.

In this case it was a spotlight survey done at night where they counted the animals. They're using a methodology that appears to be quite feasible, quite rigorous, but they reached a completely opposite conclusion to what the minister has just stated.

In support of, I think, what the minister has just said, the ministry has posted on its website a comment in their document White-Tailed Deer: Management Choices and Options for B.C. Quite an aggressive recommendation or a thought there suggests that sport harvest may no longer be adequate to manage deer population and that culling may be required.

[1555]

How does a conclusion like that square with what we're hearing from people who are registered hunters,
[ Page 5275 ]
who form the various clubs in the region and who are calling and working with the regional managers in his ministry to urge a much more cautious approach and a more restricted hunting season?

Hon. B. Penner: In my short five-year tenure as the Minister of Environment, I've noted that virtually any change that's ever made to hunting regulations tends to provoke some controversy. When we're dealing with the new allocation policy, there were those that felt we gave too much to resident hunters and those that felt we didn't take away enough from guide-outfitters.

Others have complained at length about the LEH system, feeling that the random draw is not fair because they can submit their application for a draw and pay the price to do so year after year after year and not be successful, while their neighbour could be successful on the first go.

In this case we're talking about moving from an LEH to an open season. I've heard plenty from hunters that would prefer more open seasons, restricted to certain times a year, with limits and the number of days, as opposed to so many LEH-regulated hunts.

In this case I think that one of the other areas, perhaps, of sensitivity is that the change pertains to the doe, the female white-tailed deer. Some hunters understandably have some hesitation about hunting for the female of the species as opposed to the male of the species. That's one element.

I don't deny that there are some who may have concerns about the population levels, but our ministry has done surveys. Also, we collect information from the hunts that are completed as to the success rate and the number of deer being harvested.

[1600]

All of those numbers and the data get assessed by ministry biologists and form the basis for our decision-making around harvest levels and whether or not we're prepared to move from an LEH hunt to a limited open season.

In this case the change would result in a 21-day open season in the fall. So it is constrained by time and place, and there are other limits as well.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's comments. I would ask just maybe one more question on this particular hunt and respond to his comments. I think that in this case and in this region it is both a large number of resident hunters and guide-outfitters who feel that the limited entry hunt is more appropriate. It's based on the literally thousands of applications that have occurred in previous years — last year as well — in which only hundreds of licences were released through a lottery-type system.

Potentially, if demand is strong, you could have many, many times more hunters going after this species. The ministry won't be able to control the numbers of hunters with the new regulations it's proposing.

I would ask him maybe to comment on that. Whether the ministry…. What is the increase that they anticipate in issuing licences for this hunt under the new model? Also, to maybe make it explicit, has the ministry approved antlerless hunting for this species, as he seemed to indicate, although it wasn't definitive in what he said? Just about antlerless hunting — is that now allowed in the new hunting regulation?

[1605]

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted previously, whenever we make changes, there can be a difference of views as to whether or not those changes are supported. As I noted previously, we consistently hear from people that they'd like us to change from an LEH to more of an open season. Now that the ministry has been consulting on that…. And we did consult. I think we received something like 200 responses, which we considered, and as a result, the proposal has been modified.

Nevertheless, we do get a variety of views, but having said that, I can indicate that a majority of the individual clubs in the Kootenays and the Okanagan support this change, as does the B.C. Wildlife Federation itself. They support the change that we've been proposing.

The initial proposal, which brought us the 200 or so responses, was for a 30-day open season in November, during the rut, when the animals are more vulnerable because they're distracted by other things. The proposal now has been modified, in response to some of the concern, to 21 days in October, at a time of the year when the animals are not as distracted by other activities.

I can also put this in a broader context. When you compare what we're suggesting to other jurisdictions, where whitetail are present, this would put us in a position like Alberta, where they also have an antlerless general open season, as do Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Idaho and Montana.

R. Fleming: Just to go back to the question that I think I opened with, which was about this occurrence of potentially — and this is based on observations in the region — quite a large population of whitetail deer in urban areas but not such a strong concentration in the mountainous wilderness. Is that the situation? Have ministry scientists observed that? Can they confirm that? Do they distinguish that dispersal of the population at all?

If it is the case, it suggests a very tricky management situation, and I just want to get the minister's comments on it — whether that is something that ministry officials can confirm and have taken into account with these regulations.

[1610]
[ Page 5276 ]

Hon. B. Penner: The situation involving urban deer, whether in Grand Forks or Kimberley or even the outlying areas of greater Victoria, is a vexing problem, and it seems to have been increasing in recent years.

Certainly, whenever I attend the annual meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, I hear a lot from the local councillors concerned about deer, either in their back yard or their neighbour's back yard, and the havoc that results to their gardens and the concern they have for public safety when some of the large bucks are intermingling with school children in the morning. So it is a serious issue.

That said, our biologist that was doing the work near Grand Forks was surveying outside of town, so our decision was influenced not by the number of deer within the city limits or in people's back yards but rather by the numbers outside of town, up in the mountains.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask about a different hunt and a change in the season that has been announced by the ministry, and that is for bull moose. The question is just for the minister to quickly confirm if the general open season for spike fork bull moose is from October 15 to November 15 for this year — the dates which I believe are the ones that are advertised on the ministry site.

Hon. B. Penner: Before I provide my answer, just to seek clarification. I think the member is still referring to the area near Grand Forks or the West Kootenays?

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: South Okanagan?

A Voice: Yeah.

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that there is a proposal that's been posted for the dates that the member mentioned, and that is a change from what has been the scheduled date previously. A final decision on that has not yet been made, but that is what's been proposed and what public input has been sought on.

The thinking there, behind that proposal, is that the change in the dates would, again like the whitetail deer, avoid the rut period. Evidently, the moose get into the mood sooner than the whitetail and do it earlier in the fall. This proposal would move the hunting period to later in the fall and avoid that period of time when the moose may be more distracted by other activity.

[1615]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the information. Just as a follow-up question on what the minister has just said. He's confirmed that what's under active consideration may be a 30-day hunt for bull moose. My understanding is that it goes against internal advice that has been received, from the ministry, by its Penticton office. They're recommending a shorter hunt of 17 days, I believe — from October 15 through to October 31. I wanted to ask him about the discrepancy.

He's said there's been no final decision. I appreciate that, but it appears that what's under active consideration for approval is something that is a considerably longer season than what the ministry's own internal advice is. I just want to ask him to comment on that.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that no decision has been made yet, but there has been a proposal. Just to explain that a bit further, previously the season has run from September 20 to October 31 — more than 40 days of open season for moose in that area. It is limited to antlered moose, males.

The proposal would change the date. Instead of starting September 20, it would start on October 15 and end November 15, so you'd have about 30 days of hunting instead of more than 40.

In addition, moving it back later in the season, outside of the rut period, would make it more challenging for a hunter to be successful because the moose will be more aware of their presence and, as indicated, not as distracted by the presence of the females. This proposal is intended to reduce the vulnerability of the antlered moose population.

[1620]

R. Fleming: To the minister: I appreciate his answers.

I think we would like to move on to talking about the climate action portfolio of his ministry. It may be the case that he will take some of those questions or that the minister of state will, in which case we can wait for him and ministry staff to get settled in a second.

The Chair: This committee will stand in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister of state for being available and patient. I'm sure he learned about hunting and other things that were equally fascinating for all involved here.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I want to ask him about things that are directly under his responsibility within this ministry. To begin with, the report came out recently, Canada's greenhouse gas inventory report, which the federal government, as a responsible party or a party to the Kyoto accord, publishes
[ Page 5277 ]
annually. It had a ranking of provinces and territories, and I think it was disappointing for everybody in B.C. to see that alone amongst the provinces, B.C. had seen an increase in its emissions in this province in the aggregate in 2008 and an increase on the 2007 numbers.

I want to begin there, in that context, about the short-term trend that we appear to be on in British Columbia, which is headed in the wrong direction from where international discussions and the hopes of an agreement to secure binding cuts to greenhouse gas emissions will take us.

I want to ask the minister. These are 2008 numbers — not too long ago. They're the most up to date that we have, using the accounting and facility mechanisms that the federal government has. I want to ask him if those results have triggered any discussion or any revisions in the climate action plan of the province of B.C., particularly as they regard the projections that we have to cut B.C.'s emissions, the 33 percent target, by 2020. I'm particularly interested to see if these 2008 numbers are going to put the province off course for the 2012 and 2016 interim targets for the province.

Hon. J. Yap: It's my honour to participate in the debates on the estimates for the Ministry of Environment as they relate to the climate action secretariat.

With respect to the member's question, it's important to note, first of all, that of course there will be year-to-year fluctuations, and it's the long-term trend that we should focus on. The member will know that British Columbia launched the climate action plan in 2008. Included in the plan is the neutral carbon tax, which we know started about the middle of the year, July of 2008. That's a key part of our climate action plan.

[1630]

This was also a time when the economy was very strong, a lot of activity, and other jurisdictions also experienced increases. Just to share with the member, Nova Scotia saw an increase of 0.8 percent; Manitoba, 0.9 percent; and Saskatchewan, 1.4 percent. Of course, British Columbia, as the member noted, had an increase of 0.9 percent, but we're working hard on our climate action plan, and we look forward to achieving our interim target, which is coming up in 2012.

R. Fleming: I appreciate his timeline on the carbon tax implementation being only available in place for six months of that year, but that was also around the same time that gas prices, fossil fuel prices in general economy-wide, were $140 a barrel, at the very same time that the carbon tax came on. So there were significant drives in energy prices that would impact behaviour, price changes that were many, many dozens of times higher than the rate at which the carbon tax was implemented.

It was also a time of economic slowdown, or the beginnings of one, in the third and fourth fiscal quarters of 2008. In fact, the report from the government of Canada shows that the somewhat impressive, at first glance, look at the decline in Ontario's emissions was related to the economic slowdown in that part of Canada, which is the manufacturing base.

I'm not sure that that explanation works well for British Columbia. The explanation given by the government of Canada in this report is that the increase was largely due to conventional oil and natural gas extraction — an increase in activities for at least a good portion of the 2008 year. That brings an interesting point to the minister and how he works with his colleagues, the Ministry of Energy in particular.

This minister is responsible for achieving interim targets, the long-term targets. How is he going to account for disappointing numbers not only in 2008, which were attributed to natural gas activity, but now the rapid expansion, potential expansion, of even more process emissions and new plants coming on stream that are producing natural gas?

If the minister could again tell me…. Now that B.C. has to, by 2012 — and it's 2010 today, of course — not just make a 6 percent cut of provincewide emissions but something like a 7.5 percent or 8 percent cut in emissions, because we now know the 2008 numbers showed an increase, is the minister confident in holding to the projections for our emissions projections in 2012, 2016 and 2020?

[1635]

Hon. J. Yap: It's important not to place too much emphasis on yearly results. Having said that, we know that the B.C. economy was the last to go into a slowdown during 2008, and indications are that we will be the first to come out from the recession into recovery.

I would refer to the 1990s when, in fact, during the '90s we saw an increase of about 30 percent in emissions. We have the climate action plan, and we are confident that we're implementing the plan and will achieve the reduction targets. In addition, since 2001 the emissions have increased by about 2.2 percent.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask a follow-up question. The government of Canada attributed the rise in 2008 over 2007 to the oil and gas sector in particular, for the megatonnage increase in B.C., and that is a challenge for B.C. Fossil fuel energy activities are incredibly intensive in terms of their greenhouse gas production, and as we can see, it's responsible for the increase in emissions in B.C. for that year.

Earlier this year, at the end of January, the environmental assessment office issued a report on the Cabin gas plant in the Horn River basin, an EnCana project that is a shale gas production facility. The plant is extremely large in terms of its….

The environmental assessment office made a comment that but for the carbon dioxide emissions attributable
[ Page 5278 ]
to that project, they were issuing a certificate. Now, the carbon dioxide emissions from the Cabin gas plant are significant. They would represent a 3½ percent increase in the provincewide totals. It is about the equivalent of 450,000 cars being added to our road network annually. It's huge.

In light of emission numbers results going in the wrong direction and in light of emission targets being fast upon us, 2012 being the first interim benchmarking year where a 6 percent reduction has to be achieved, what discussions did the minister have with his counterparts — with the Premier, perhaps — about how approval of this plant and potentially other projects which are taking us in the wrong direction on emissions was allowed to proceed, and what discussions have they had about how that will be managed?

[1640]

That's an awful lot of carbon mitigation that is going to have to happen elsewhere in the economy to accommodate projects like that, and I'd like to know how the minister squares that with the climate action plan.

Hon. B. Penner: As one of the ministers that signed the environmental assessment certificate, I thought I would respond to this question.

As the member noted, this is a very significant project and has some significant economic benefits but also some environmental implications. So this was not a decision that was made lightly.

Just to quote from the information bulletin that was issued on January 28, 2010, partway through. I'll quote from here.

"To address this" — and that's a reference to the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions — "the plant will be built to capture-ready, and the proponent has committed to working further with government and industry to explore carbon-capture-and-storage options. In addition, the plant will be subject to B.C.'s Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, which is a key pillar in B.C.'s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

"The issuance of an environmental assessment certificate does not limit government's ability to restrict GHG emissions through the cap-and-trade system or other applicable law. The proponent will also be required to comply with 60 other legally binding commitments."

Then there's a list of what those commitments are.

One of the things to note here is, of course, the economic benefits. The project is estimated…. I'm quoting now from the second page of the release.

[1645]

"The project will also help generate $4 billion to $6 billion in provincial revenue over its 25-year life span and approximately $1 million per year in taxes to the Northern Rockies regional municipality. The 28-month construction phase is expected to generate an estimated total of 267 person-years of direct, full-time employment. The operations phase is expected to generate an estimated total of 1,000 to 1,250 person-years of direct, full-time employment."

That's part of the equation that goes into an environmental assessment. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, environmental considerations are certainly considered, but so are social and economic. Those are some of the tests that must be considered under the Environmental Assessment Act.

In addition to the requirements in the certificate and what's identified in the information bulletin, which I just quoted from, our government is actively exploring the potential to increase the use of electricity in the oil and gas sector in the northeast part of British Columbia, but to do that would require significant additional work, including a northeast transmission line. Then, of course, there's the question: where will the electricity come from?

The government recently announced its intentions to move to stage 3 of the process of reviewing the potential for a Site C dam. That proposal will enter the environmental assessment process review, we expect, sometime in the next year, and it holds the potential of generating more renewable non-greenhouse-gas-emitting electricity. That's one way we can help to reduce emissions that take place from processing plants.

Currently the processing of natural gas in British Columbia consumes significant quantities of fossil fuel to operate those plants. One way to help reduce emissions from the plants as they operate is to switch to electricity, especially when it comes from a renewable source like hydroelectric power.

Speaking of switching, we should also note the potential that natural gas has to facilitate a switch to less carbon-intense fuels. Increasingly, there's interest in using natural gas as a transportation fuel to displace more carbon-intense diesel fuel. That can be a real win for the environment, not just in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but in reducing particulate matter, because natural gas burns cleaner than diesel. It's also a win for the economy of British Columbia, where we have some world leaders in terms of Westport Innovations and their compressed natural gas engines and now liquid natural gas engines, and also for the jobs that are created in the northeast part of the province.

R. Fleming: Just on the Cabin gas plant, one of the things that was signed off in the environmental assessment was, as the minister said, that the plant will be built capture-ready. It's not quite clear what that means in terms of carbon-capture-and-storage technology. We have a statement from an EnCana representative who represented the company at the regulatory hearings, who said that the only current economically and technically viable plan is to vent the processed carbon dioxide and that that is in accordance with existing regulations. That's their plan for the foreseeable future.

We don't know when this plant will come into production, but it will be during years of very imminent provincewide emission reduction targets. Those are emission reduction targets, by the way, and this plant is massive in its scale.
[ Page 5279 ]

It's interesting that elsewhere, EnCana says that while they have carbon sequestration options available to them at other locations in their oil facilities that could be utilized, they make the argument that it costs too much to do it. My concern, really, is that the province, because the regulations are weak on process emissions, is giving a free pass to major, new, large emitters that could come on stream in British Columbia and that that is going to knock off course the targets that are set in law now and the climate action plan of the government.

[1650]

I'd like the minister to specifically comment on that and why government gave them a free pass instead of requiring sequestration. I know that government was negotiating, I believe in another instance, a much smaller plant, but with Spectra Energy, where that would be a requirement, and in EnCana's case, it was not — if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. B. Penner: Just at the outset, I need to point out that I take some exception to the member's comment or description that somehow this company got a free pass, to use his words. If he had been listening as I read the summary of the conditions that have been posed as a result of the environmental assessment certificate, he would have heard that the issuance of an environmental assessment certificate does not limit the government's ability to restrict GHG emissions through the cap-and-trade system or other applicable law.

The proponent will be required to comply with 60 other legally binding commitments, including…. I'll read a couple here: "Requiring contractors to use energy-efficient equipment, such as premium-efficiency electric motors and energy-efficient natural gas generators to reduce the project's CO2 emissions." There is a further list of 59 additional commitments, and I won't take up all the committee's time here with that today.

As mentioned, we believe natural gas is actually part of the climate solution — and not just in British Columbia, as I was alluding to earlier. Clearly there are opportunities for greater use of it as a transportation fuel and displacing much more carbon-intense and particulate-emitting diesel fuel, whether it's for large trucks or port vehicles to Port of Vancouver, or school buses. There's some interest in that, development of that right now in British Columbia.

But outside our borders B.C. is a net exporter of natural gas. To the extent that we can help others also displace the production of greenhouse gas emissions by burning more carbon-intense fuels — whether it's coal outside of our province or diesel — natural gas is part of the solution to helping reduce our emissions over time.

My colleague the Minister for Climate Action was alluding to this earlier and pointing out how the curve has been coming down in terms of the rate of increase in British Columbia. He's right to point out that you shouldn't dwell too much on any one year's worth of data, in part because it's subject to future revision.

Environment Canada tends to retroactively, sometimes, adjust the numbers as they get more data for previous years. That's why a few years ago it looked like between 1991 and 2001, greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia had increased by 24 percent. Now, according to the latest inventory report from Environment Canada, which is up to the year 2008…. They've gone back and adjusted the numbers, and it indicates an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 1991 to 2001 of 30 percent.

[1655]

However, since 2001 to 2008 those greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 2.2 percent. It's a slower rate of growth, not a decline like we would like to see, but a slowing of the rate of growth. That is a positive development, particularly when you consider how strong the economy was between 2001 and 2008 compared to the 1990s, when our economy was, frankly, on its back, yet we had a very significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

What that indicates is that the economies have been performing well, but also, we've been getting more efficient in our use of fuels. There's clearly more work to be done. Natural gas is one way we can do some of that, but it's not the only way. Our plan is more multifaceted.

I mentioned earlier the opportunity for Site C. If it passes an environmental assessment review, and subject to First Nations consultation, it could be a very large addition to our supply of renewable electricity in this province.

I note that the NDP is officially opposed to that project, but it is one of the things that people like Prof. Andrew Weaver, from the University of Victoria, point to. That is a project that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the long run by providing a way to switch not just from diesel or gasoline to natural gas but to switch from fossil fuels entirely to electricity. In British Columbia our goal is to produce zero-emission electricity.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask another question about this project, because it is significant. The minister has just quoted statistics showing the emissions increase over the last decade — well, through 2008, '01 to '08. This one project will exceed the better part of a decade's emissions increase.

I'm not going to get into the 1990s, when emissions grew at the rate of economic growth, because it was about the same, and that was the same throughout Canada. We're talking about here and now, when the government has legally obliged emissions targets. This plant is almost a 3.5 percent increase to the tonnage of the entire province. It's 2.2 million tonnes that are projected to increase.

Now, in the environmental assessment process, information was brought to government about the potential
[ Page 5280 ]
for CCS technology. If it were a requirement, if it were written in as a condition of the EA, the approval that the minister signed, it could have displaced 73 percent of the process emissions at the cabin gas plant. That would be 1.5 million tonnes less than what is projected. Again, I have to ask the minister why he didn't insist on that technology being a condition of this plant becoming operational.

EnCana's response, by the way, wasn't that it couldn't be done. It was that it would be "burdensome and expensive" for them to do. Meanwhile, we have Spectra Energy, which has brought in CCS technology for a number of its existing operations. They are planning to retrofit their Fort Nelson facility to be CCS, and in this case, the province granted the approval for what is going to be a massive new jolt to emission levels in B.C. — 3.5 percent in one fell swoop from this project.

Why didn't the minister make that a condition of approval for the shale gas plant?

[1700]

Hon. B. Penner: I've just been consulting with officials. They're not aware that what the member is saying is correct when he's characterizing what Spectra is currently doing. We're not aware of them currently retrofitting existing plants. We have been in discussions as a government with Spectra for a number of years and have provided some funding through the Ministry of Energy and Mines in the past to help do research to explore the options for carbon capture and storage from their existing facility. I think it's near Fort Nelson, if my memory serves correctly.

In addition, we've had discussions with our federal government, who have offered up a $1 billion clean energy fund. One of the things they've said that money could be eligible for is to help fund carbon storage, sequestration, because there are very significant financial costs associated with that work.

I do want to acknowledge that Spectra has been interested in this, and again, we have had conversations. But I don't think the member's characterization of it is quite correct, because I'm not aware of any of the work already having been done physically to implement carbon capture and storage at Spectra's existing facilities in British Columbia.

There has been perhaps in the oil and gas sector some redirection of some of the process gases to recharge the oilfields or the gas fields to increase production. That is something that certainly has taken place, but I'm not aware of a retrofit along the lines that the member is describing.

Our preferred approach, and I talked about this earlier, is to use market mechanisms by putting a price signal on the price of carbon emissions. One way of doing that is through a cap-and-trade system, because it provides for a limited number of authorizations or allowances of emissions around greenhouse gases. That's another way of saying it creates a restricted market, a limited supply or a quota. We all know that when there are quotas put in place, it tends to drive up the price of those individual quotas, because you're restricting the supply.

That is one of the reasons why British Columbia has been a founding member of the Western Climate Initiative and has already passed cap-and-trade legislation despite the NDP's opposition to it. We passed that legislation in 2008 to help establish the framework to put together a regional cap-and-trade system for western North America. Now it includes the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, and I know that a number of other provinces have joined as observers. We hope that more will join.

With the ongoing uncertainty about what's happening at the U.S. national level, with proposed energy legislation and the potential for a U.S. federal cap-and-trade system being in some doubt, I think it puts greater emphasis again on regional efforts.

[1705]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister and the minister of state, if he's going to answer questions. One of the things that we have heard from ministers across this government is that money is tight. Things that we should be doing, we can't afford to do. Make do with less — all sorts of things, whether it's cuts to education or other programs, whether it's appropriating money that used to be available to charities and societies through gaming grants, etc. That's been the government's rationale.

I want to ask a minister here why in this budget process emissions continue to be exempt from the carbon tax, and also whether he or one of the staff can verify the estimated value of that based on the per-tonne fee that everybody else is paying on the carbon tax.

I think the market value of that is suggested to me to be $200 million. Is it the case that a potential revenue source of $200 million was not enacted for carbon tax revenues that apply to everybody else in the economy? If that is the figure, could the minister verify it and explain the thinking on why process emissions continue to be exempt from the carbon tax?

[1710]

Hon. J. Yap: As the member knows, we have one of the world's broadest-based carbon taxes, which is based on the consumption of fossil fuels and which covers three-quarters of all emissions.

There's ongoing research with respect to measurement and improving the measurement of process emissions. And we've introduced regulations that will require reporting of the process emissions with the view that when we have our cap-and-trade system in place, that will cover the process emissions under the Western Climate Initiative. As the member knows, a cap-and-
[ Page 5281 ]
trade system would cover the large emitters and then cover the process emissions.

R. Fleming: Just the other part of the question that the minister didn't answer. Were it subject to the carbon tax, what would the value to the treasury be this year, the following year and every year in which we don't have a cap-and-trade system functioning? Would it be approximately $200 million a year from the process emissions?

Hon. J. Yap: First of all, I'm pleased that the member is supportive of a carbon tax, carbon pricing, putting a price on carbon. We're not in a position to talk about the value of the carbon, as the member has requested. But what we can say is that the reporting regulation was put in place in December of 2009, and for the full year of 2010 large emitters will be required to report. We'll be looking at the quality of the reporting as we move forward to a cap-and-trade system, which would capture the value of these emissions by the large emitters.

[1715]

R. Fleming: In the climate action plan of 2008, Mark Jaccard was retained to do the modelling that formed most of the assumptions and policies behind the plan that would then meet the legislated GHG reduction targets that are in legislation.

At the end of the plan Mr. Jaccard concluded that the sum total of his actions and recommendations and policy could account for maybe between two-thirds and three-quarters of the target of the 33 percent by 2020 and that the rest would have to come from elsewhere. Government, in its wisdom, created a Climate Action Team, which was tasked with bridging the gap the rest of the way.

I wanted to ask the minister about the status of the Climate Action Team's recommendations, because it's unclear that very many of them have been, in fact, adopted and are being worked on in government. Since that is the situation, how does the minister then expect that we're going to meet the 33 percent target by 2020?

[1720]

Hon. J. Yap: The main purpose of the Climate Action Team was to recommend. One of the main recommendations was interim targets, which have been adopted by government. They provided some high-level recommendations from which we are working with a number of working groups to help us with our climate action plan.

Our approach really has been to implement our climate action plan — whether it's policies like the carbon tax, which is in place now; programs like energy retrofit, through the LiveSmart program, which was highly successful and, as the member knows, fully subscribed. With this budget, through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, some new funding is provided to help British Columbians with their energy retrofits.

Also, a very important piece is the public engagement that we need to do to reach out to British Columbians to spread the message that we all, every one of us in every community around the province, have a role to play in taking action on climate change. So we've had efforts in public engagement.

The member knows about our citizens councils on conservation, which have consulted with communities around the province and come out with recommendations on how we can engage British Columbians and spread the very important message that this really is about individuals and communities taking action — all of us collectively — as well as the policies which we have implemented. I mentioned the carbon tax, work through the Western Climate Initiative for the cap-and-trade system and a carbon-neutral public sector — a whole range of initiatives that we're implementing.

R. Fleming: I'm glad the minister mentioned LiveSmart in his comments, because I was going there. The question was really about the gap between the Jaccard modelling, which is the basis for the climate action plan, and the Climate Action Team's recommendations, which were to fill that gap. That's a gap that's worth approximately eight million tonnes of carbon emissions annually, so it's a big one. It's integral. The targets won't be reached by 2020 unless we take that kind of action.

Some of the central recommendations of the Climate Action Team were in fact around LiveSmart and those types of energy conservation programs. In fact, it called for an expanded LiveSmart program. By expanded, it meant perhaps increased by five- or tenfold annually. What we've seen in this budget is that LiveSmart has been reduced by about 40 percent over its previous incarnation. So LiveSmart is actually being ramped down when the Climate Action Team of the government recommended a dramatic ramping up.

I'd be curious to get the minister's opinion about how we might do that — how we might secure the revenues to be able to fund the kinds of ambitious retrofit programs that we need in public buildings as well as private dwellings in B.C., funds that can't be cut at the whim of government or, as we saw last year, cancelled entirely for a temporary period. This is going to have to be sustained.

We all know the year 2020 is going to come, probably a lot sooner than we would like, and it requires government to take a running start at these sorts of things. I think we're seeing a backing away from that in government.

My question to the minister is around LiveSmart, now that it's been sort of brought back on life support from previously being cancelled. When it was a $60 million,
[ Page 5282 ]
three-year program, a full $7 million, 12 or 15 percent of the budget, was for advertising. I appreciate that it was an election year, and government really wanted to get out the idea that things were being done. It was a significantly large advertising budget.

Can I ask him: out of the $35 million that has been budgeted over the next two fiscal years for the new and a little bit diminished LiveSmart program, how much is budgeted for advertising of that program? I would hope that it's almost zero.

[1725]

As the minister rightly reminded the committee in his comments, LiveSmart's problem has been that it is oversubscribed. I think the word has gotten out that this is an investment that people want to make in their homes. I would suggest to him that we don't need any advertising budget, but I would be curious all the same to see what of the $35 million portion over the next two years in funding is going to be for that kind of overhead.

Hon. J. Yap: To be very clear, the LiveSmart energy retrofit program was not cancelled; $60 million was the budget. It was so well received that it was fully subscribed in a much faster time frame. But as homes are energy retrofitted with that first phase — the $60 million — meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases will result.

To be clear, again, that was the budget — $60 million, fully subscribed. We realize that members of the NDP may not find that a budget is something they should respect, but on this side of the House, when we set a budget, we live within the budget. It was not cancelled. The budget was $60 million for the LiveSmart retrofit program, and it was fully subscribed.

With respect to the $35 million that has been allocated in this budget for the energy retrofits on the LiveSmart — this program is, as the member knows, under the purview of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. As a general statement, though, I would say that it is important to continue to do outreach and provide information to British Columbians as they make decisions on how they can reduce their carbon footprint.

As a final note, when the NDP were in power in the '90s, there was no such program as LiveSmart or something akin to LiveSmart that would provide some support for British Columbians as they might have chosen to retrofit their homes.

R. Fleming: The question I'm trying to get the minister to comment on is that LiveSmart is a very small program. It's smaller than it was at its introduction.

It was originally ascribed a role in the climate action plan of only displacing something like 200,000 tonnes of carbon annually, which is good but not significant in the grand scheme. It was seen as a startup program. What we're seeing now is that it's a stalled program. It has gone nowhere except down in terms of its funding levels.

[1730]

This budget overall gives over a billion dollars in oil and gas royalty reductions to that sector. Over the next two years it's investing a grand total of $35 million into LiveSmart — two fiscal years — and annually $1 billion for the oil and gas sector to reduce the royalties that otherwise would be payable to the province.

This has to be put into context, and what I would really like the minister's thoughts on, because I believe he would want energy conservation programs to be significantly more ambitious — if he believes in his Climate Action Team's recommendations. What I would like to understand is how we might be able to do that, how we might be able to find stable and secure revenue sources for aggressive energy conservation initiatives in the province of B.C.

Some cities like Vancouver are asking for certain powers and authorities like local area improvement charges to be changed legislatively to enable them to play a bigger role than they are right now. Part of the recommendation here looks at revolving funds. Other jurisdictions like the U.K. have a variety of interest-free loans that are available to the public for these sorts of things. There's an entire menu of programs out there that could be implemented.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I want to ask the minister: in his mind, as we move toward 2012 and 2016, does he see us growing out those programs on the conservation side, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector, which I believe is the second-largest source of emissions in B.C. after the transportation sector? Does he see that happening and being integral to achieving the climate action plan goals on emission reductions?

[1735]

Hon. J. Yap: First of all, as I had said previously to the member, we need to have a strong economy so that we will be able to have the kinds of revenues that will allow us to make the investments in the areas that are important, clearly, to British Columbians — in health care, education, public safety and initiatives like investing in programs to encourage conservation.

Those are great programs that the member has alluded to. However, we on this side of the House believe in respecting budgets and being fiscally prudent. So with respect to our climate action plan as it relates to encouraging conservation, we do have the carbon tax, which we believe the opposition now supports, when at first they were very strongly against. The carbon tax is actually an economy-wide carbon tax, which does provide a price signal on carbon and works its way throughout the economy.
[ Page 5283 ]

With respect to the building code, we're constantly working to improve and to green the building codes. That is another avenue to encourage and lead to conservation, reduced energy consumption.

Really, the key is to continue to do outreach and engage British Columbians, to work with British Columbians to continue to spread the message that we need to work throughout the province to reduce our carbon footprint. We believe that our climate action plan, as we're implementing it and working with partners throughout the private sector and public sector, will achieve the targets that we've established to reduce our carbon emissions.

R. Fleming: I think we're very fortunate in British Columbia that people are very conscious of a warming climate and of their contributions as individuals to that. People are making efforts to reduce their carbon footprints to live differently. That is fortunate, because it's not an argument that government or society and our culture have to make to those people. That's a good platform for people to abide and support government actions that may lead in those directions.

The discussion that we're having here this afternoon is in light of a 2008 climate action report that government has where, in a variety of sectors of large emitters, we're seeing things that are going to be very difficult to account for that are increasing the megatonnage of emissions in B.C.

We're seeing government — and we've heard the rationale this afternoon that it's for fiscal reasons — ramp down its commitments to green energy, the green economy, and the area we've just been talking about on retrofits for commercial and residential buildings.

LiveSmart, I think, had a take-up rate of about 40,000 homes that completed energy audits. Something like 12,000 buildings were given rebates. Now, we have two million dwelling units in B.C., so unless government has a 125-year plan to accomplish this….

[1740]

I'll suggest that one of these years, they'll get around to a stronger green building code that we see in the United States and in the U.K. now. It won't take LiveSmart to do that.

I want to get the minister's thoughts, because he raised it, on the green building code. B.C. is behind a number of jurisdictions on a number of fronts in terms of its green building code. It was certainly a key part of the Climate Action Team's recommendations about how emissions in that sector can be reduced in meeting our overall targets.

Can the minister give an indication of whether new legislation is being drafted and what some of the key changes are in order to catch up with other jurisdictions that have a stronger green building code?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Committee A will recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 5:41 p.m. to 5:51 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. J. Yap: First of all, in the earlier discussion the member had canvassed the LiveSmart program. I just wanted to clarify for the record that it's great to see that the member is very interested in the LiveSmart program. Just to be clear, the NDP Environment critic and his leader and members of his caucus voted against funding for the LiveSmart program.

I believe the question is with respect to…

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Member, please.

Hon. J. Yap: …the greening of the building code. The work is ongoing. We're working with the federal government and making continued progress in greening the building code.

[1755]

Some examples. We're looking to have housing built to EnerGuide 80 standards by 2011 and also, by 2010, to have solar hot water–ready, roughed-in homes. Another example: thermal resistance and airtightness performance standards to be improved.

The work is ongoing, and we'll continue to work on greening the building code. As the member is aware, the minister responsible for housing has already discussed some of the approaches with respect to this initiative of greening the building code.

K. Corrigan: I had a couple of questions about the Olympics and Paralympics. I think, in the interest of time, what I would like to do is simply read in the questions that I have. I'd be happy to receive the information, a response, later. If that's agreeable to the minister, I will simply read about four different questions, and then it'll be in Hansard. I'd be happy to receive the responses later.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I saw a nod, so I assume that that's okay.

My questions are about the hosting program and Olympic tickets. As the minister knows, the hosting program was intended to engage business leaders, potential investors and dignitaries, through their visit to the games, to promote B.C. industry, regions and communities, and job creation potential. Associated with the Olympics and Paralympics, there were a number of networking and showcasing events. This included the purchase of 3,244 Olympic tickets to be used for the hosting.

My questions are: did the minister or any of his staff receive Olympic tickets? If so, what events did they at-
[ Page 5284 ]
tend, and what guests did they take using taxpayers money? Did any other MLAs attend with the minister? What expenses were incurred for direct Olympic tickets and also for hosting either at those Olympic events or other meals, hotels, travels or other costs for events associated with the Olympics?

My second question has to do with the employee loan program. In 2009 VANOC announced that it would be launching an employee loan program to fill approximately 1,500 short-term positions for the games from the private and public sector. My understanding from the estimates with the Minister of State for the Olympics was that there were about 250 employees loaned through this program.

My question is whether or not there were employees loaned through that program from this ministry and, if so, what the total number of paid employees this ministry loaned to the games — this is to VANOC — and the cost that that would have represented, including benefits.

The next questions that I have are about the volunteer leave matching program. That was a program wherein the government would contribute an equal number of hours of paid leave to the number of hours that the employee contributed of their own leave to volunteer for the 2010 Olympic Games. My questions there would be: did any ministerial employees receive this extra time off to volunteer for the games, what the total expense that would have been for this ministry and, finally, whether there were any other costs that I haven't mentioned associated with the Olympics that this ministry undertook or incurred.

That would be the total of my questions. I'm wondering if I could get a commitment from the minister to provide answers to those questions in writing and perhaps a date by which I could expect those answers.

[1800]

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's questions. I was tempted to say: "That's all?" That shouldn't take long.

We will be responding very shortly to the member's questions and getting that information out. I can tell the member that I was quite busy during the Olympics. I recall attending quite a number of receptions and meetings and other things, including a trip to Porteau Cove to see how our provincial park campground was doing during the month of February, when it's normally not open. That was an unusual thing. We did that for the Olympics to see how that would work, to give people an option.

I attended, as I recall, a number of meetings and multitudes of receptions and meet-and-greets, and three particular events where I was representing the province, including two sporting events and one of the evening awards ceremonies, where they hand out the medals after that particular day's events.

In addition, I attended two more sporting events: the men's downhill at Whistler, which was interesting — I'd never seen that before in person, although as a youngster I was an avid fan of the "Crazy Canucks"; and a hockey game. Both of those, the two latter events, I paid for myself.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the responses. There were some other questions and some very specific information. Just a confirmation that I will receive that information as it was laid out.

Hon. B. Penner: It is our expectation that there'll be some fulsome information coming very soon.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm sorry, I need a little bit more clarification. When the minister says there will be some fulsome information coming soon, the fulsome information that's going to be in the report that's to be published, that the Olympic Secretariat has put together, talks about ticketing. I appreciate that that information is going to be in there, and I have been assured by the Minister of State for the Olympics that that will include all the tickets that everybody received, including the names. I'm happy enough with that.

I also asked about the volunteer leave matching program. I also asked about the employee loan program and other Olympic costs as well. I'm wondering if I can receive an assurance from the minister that that information will be provided and when.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by my staff that they are working to pull that information together so that we can provide it to the member.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the Minister of Environment a few questions about Site C. What studies were done or are being done on the ungulates — the moose, deer and elk — that occupy the Peace River Valley? What studies are being done?

[1805]

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for his question.

The announcement, about two weeks ago now, that the government was prepared to have B.C. Hydro move to stage 3 of their review of this possible addition to B.C. Hydro's network of power generation assets meant that B.C. Hydro is entitled to put forward a proposal to the B.C. environmental assessment office. At this point we have not yet received such an application or a proposal, so we do not have a project description, which would be one of the first steps in initiating an environmental assessment office review. We haven't even entered the preapplication stage at this point.

However, if the member has reviewed some of the material that B.C. Hydro has put out over the past little while, they issued a stage 2 report in the fall of 2009
[ Page 5285 ]
summarizing the work they've done on consultation and technical reviews of various issues. On page 76 they list some of the work that they've done during stage 2. I'll just quote from the document here.

[1810]

During stage 2 B.C. Hydro set out to identify potential issues and characterize the current physical, biological and socioeconomic environment in the potential Site C project area. Environmental and socioeconomic studies, primarily baseline studies, were completed for the following topics: fish and aquatic habitat, vegetation and wildlife, water quality, local climate and greenhouse gas emissions, heritage, community services and infrastructure, economic, land use and resources. "Based on this work, B.C. Hydro has built on its historic understanding of issues and current conditions in the potential…project area."

My understanding, from talking to staff, is that there are literally volumes of reports and research that go back several decades to the 1980s when this proposal was being seriously considered at that time.

Obviously, B.C. Hydro, it appears, has been busy updating those reports and studies. I can advise the member further that the Ministry of Environment is aware of work that was done this past winter, because the Ministry of Environment was actually involved in some of it. This involved looking at fish, wildlife and biodiversity issues and potential impacts.

So there has been considerable work done over the past. I expect that there will be more work done as this proposal gets ready to enter the preapplication stage of review by the environmental assessment office.

M. Sather: Well, my understanding is that B.C. Hydro is undertaking a two-year GPS-collar study of 40 elk, 40 moose and 40 deer. Is the minister not aware of that?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry was actively engaged this past winter in a program of collaring a significant number of large ungulates — moose, deer and elk. That was work that was funded by B.C. Hydro. If the member is interested in accessing some of the studies that I mentioned previously that were done during stage 2 of the review by B.C. Hydro, they are available, I am advised, through the B.C. Hydro website.

Some of those studies include the following: Peace River Fisheries Investigation, Peace River and Pine River Radio Telemetry Study 2007; and under vegetation and wildlife, Peace River Site C Hydro Project Stage 2, Baseline Vegetation and Wildlife Report and Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping of the Peace River Study Area, Baseline Inventory Surveys 2007. Those reports are publicly available.

M. Sather: Did the ministry staff play any active role in the B.C. Hydro project in actually doing the radio collaring?

[1815]

Hon. B. Penner: It's our understanding that the project was supervised — or at least designed, in part — with oversight by Ministry of Environment wildlife specialists or a specialist.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister another question about another area up there, this being Big Pine Mountain and the remnant caribou herd there — about 11 animals, as I understand. This is along Williston reservoir. The minister will know that when the area was flooded, the West Moberly First Nations culture and food source was very much upset by the fracturing of these herds. This is the result of what happened to one of these herds.

Now, First Coal Corp. had been clearing caribou habitat without a permit, and the West Moberly, the minister probably knows, have a longstanding dispute with the province over dealing with the after-effects of the Williston reservoir years before. They say that the province promised they would do planning for a recovery of these caribou herds, but the province has not followed through.

My question to the minister: is this accurate? If so, why hasn't the province followed through?

[1820]

Hon. B. Penner: The member was asking if we'd done some planning around…. I think it was the northern caribou the member was referring to.

M. Sather: …Pine Mountain. There are two kinds on the mountain.

Hon. B. Penner: I believe that's the domain of northern caribou. The member will know that we have also, in the last few years, put significant focus on mountain caribou.

It was our intention, now that we've done the steps around mountain caribou in terms of the 2.2 million additional hectares of area that have been allotted for the mountain caribou and a number of other steps that we've taken, to put more emphasis on planning for what our staff think are northern caribou.

But we can both be right if we agree that they're woodland caribou, as I've learned that the three different ecotypes of caribou fall under the broad heading of woodland caribou. There are mountain caribou, northern caribou and boreal caribou, but all of them are woodland caribou — all members of the same family.

N. Simons: My question, just to relate to an issue of yesterday. I want to ask about mud-bogging. But first, I want to clarify an issue about the Halkett Bay proposed sinking of the Annapolis. That may or may not be on the table, but I believe that the minister assured us that it was not something that was being considered by the Ministry of Environment.
[ Page 5286 ]

The United Church sent a letter to the Ministry of Environment. I'm informed that they actually didn't get a reply from the Ministry of Environment. They got a reply from the Attorney General.

The concern the residents of Gambier Island have is that if in fact the project goes ahead, we lose some of our marine park. I've just seen an announcement to say that Buccaneer Bay provincial marine park is expanding. I want to say that that's appreciated.

Other land was donated up in Francis Point for expansion of the park, so we wouldn't want to see us going backwards when it comes to the Halkett Bay Marine Provincial Park, the closest marine park to the Lower Mainland.

I'm just wondering if the minister could assure residents once again that they will have an opportunity for input, should the situation change.

[1825]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just awaiting some further information that should be here shortly, but as I mentioned yesterday, I have asked my staff at B.C. Parks to proactively contact DFO to seek out the information that they apparently have already compiled about the potential environmental impacts to the seabed and fish habitat in that vicinity. I'm advised by Mr. Scott Benton, the executive director for B.C. Parks, that this morning he did communicate that desire of mine to his staff and that they are in the process of communicating with DFO in order to get that information.

On the member's other point, around whether or not a response was forthcoming to the United Church, my understanding, in going back to the debate yesterday, is that for a reason I'm not exactly clear on, they were in contact with a person from the public affairs bureau on this issue.

I'm not sure if they were e-mailing him or not, but a response came from me to the United Church addressing some of the questions that they had, or responding to some of the questions that they put. If my memory serves me correctly, that e-mail or letter was dated December 9, 2009, and was addressed to the United Church. I don't know if perhaps it didn't arrive or if there's some technical glitch that prevented it from being transmitted, but our records show that it was sent sometime in early December.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response. To move on to the issue of mud-bogging, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Forests and Range about enforcement against people who wilfully damage delicate ecosystems through irresponsible use of their usually motorized vehicles.

I'm just wondering what the status is with respect to enforcement against people who mud-bog. I guess that's the simple question.

[1830]

Hon. B. Penner: Enforcement of the provisions that the member refers to is something that conservation officers are empowered to enforce under the legislation. I've just requested some information from our quarterly compliance and enforcement summary. As the name suggests, it's put out every three months. You can see a detailed listing there of the types of tickets issued. I don't know if the most recent summary captures or indicates tickets of the type that the member is referring to, but it is there for public review.

Just to go back to the member's previous question. I've been provided with the correspondence that I was referring to. It was sent on December 11, 2009, not December 9, 2009. The miscommunication here could be this: the incoming e-mail was addressed to a person at the public affairs bureau, and the subject line was "United Church takes bold stance." It's about the proposal to create an artificial reef by sinking this former navy destroyer escort. I think the ship is called the Annapolis.

While the subject line is about the United Church, the e-mail originated from the Save Halkett campaign, and so the reply went to that address, info@savehalkett.com, which was this campaign to raise awareness about this proposal, so it is possible that the United Church was not aware of my response.

N. Simons: We'll make sure that the appropriate correspondence gets sent to the right people, and that's great. With respect to mud-bogging, I really want to make sure that it's clear that most people who do use the outdoors and who take advantage of our super, natural British Columbia do so responsibly, and we're glad about that.

I wondered, with respect to the compliance and enforcement budget, if there had been any sort of impact on the type of enforcement. I noticed in the quarterly compliance documents from 2008 that there were some tickets issued under section 46, 1.1, which is the Forest and Range Practices Act, for wilfully causing damage to the environment.

[1835]

I'm wondering if that should be something that's included in the programs that are set up to counteract poaching and polluters, and whether or not this is something that needs to have some more public awareness around it. One aspect of my question is that.

The second aspect is if the minister could…. In his own review of the compliance and enforcement, if he would notice that there's not a bias as much as there's a regional focus, apparently, on the Interior and the Kootenays. The Sunshine Coast is well known for its wonderful network of trails and roads into the back country. I just want to make sure that for what compliance and enforcement there exists…. Is there any way of ensuring that it's standardized, and is it in the minister's budget to address that kind of issue?
[ Page 5287 ]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. I've just been provided with a copy of the quarterly compliance summary for one quarter. For example, for July to September 30, I see there that there are several tickets issued for $575 under the section that the member referenced, 46(1.1) of the Forest and Range Practices Act. It's described as engaged in unauthorized activity resulting in damage to an ecosystem. My guess is that that is what we refer to in this room as mud-bogging.

We do certainly encourage members of the public to report on violators that they become aware of through the RAPP line, as we call it — Report all Poachers and Polluters — at 1-877-952-7277.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Operators are standing by to take your call. Seriously, that is an important tool for us because we can't be everywhere all the time.

One thing that will help the public, though, in giving us information that we can act on is what we have announced our intention to do, which is to move forward with greater regulations around ATV use.

[1840]

In particular, my interest — and that of the conservation officer service — has been around an identifiable decal or sticker or licence plate so that if our members, our enforcement staff, or any other representatives from government or members of the public are able to witness someone engaging in unlawful conduct that is reckless and irresponsible with respect to the environment and/or wildlife, they can get that registration number or the licence plate number and report it to us.

It's important then, of course, that there be a database behind that that links that licence plate number to the registered owner or the operator so that we can take enforcement action. That is something that I think needs to happen, and I'm pleased that the government is moving towards that.

N. Simons: In fact, I have been contacted by constituents who have referred folks to some video that's widely viewable on Facebook and on YouTube of what looks like mud-bogging and going through estuaries and up stream beds. I believe that was in Powell River–Sunshine Coast. There appeared to be very visible licence plates and such, and I just hadn't heard if there had been any enforcement on that.

I know that unfortunately this kind of incident does paint a wide swath of brush against other people who enjoy the outdoors responsibly. But to me, the lack of enforcement in some areas of the province seemed to indicate, perhaps, the lack of resources for enforcement. If that is in fact the case, I'm hoping that people who phone the RAPP line are met with responses that provide them some assurance that action will be taken.

I'm just wondering if the minister could provide us with the information on who is authorized to enforce this. The latest information in 2008 was a pamphlet put out by the Ministry of Forests and Range on this issue, and if in fact it's now the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, it could cause confusion. I'm just wondering if there's consideration for public awareness campaigns with respect to this activity.

Hon. B. Penner: The compliance and enforcement staff from the Ministry of Forests are also able to enforce and write tickets for offences under the Forest and Range Practices Act. We have been involved in a cross-ministry effort to broaden our cooperation or coordination of compliance and enforcement personnel between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, and that has involved additional training with respect to C-and-E staff in the Ministry of Forests so that we can get a better reach on the land base.

Also, RCMP or other municipal police officers, I would expect, given their status as peace officers, would have the ability to write tickets or take enforcement action under the Forest and Range Practices Act, as they do under the Park Act or the Environmental Management Act or the Wildlife Act. They have that status by virtue of being peace officers.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the Minister of State for Climate Action a question. We've had some discussion today — and we'll have lots more later — about the province achieving its interim targets on greenhouse gas reductions. We have the first target in 2012, just around the corner.

I wanted to ask the minister: what percentage of the province's greenhouse gas reductions — the first target, 6 percent over the 2007 baseline — does he anticipate will be achieved by the purchase of carbon offsets?

[1845]

Hon. J. Yap: Member, 2010 is the year when our commitment is for the public sector to be carbon-neutral. Carbon neutrality, as the member knows, involves measuring our emissions, making reductions as best we can.

Where we're not able to reduce our emissions as a public sector, we will use credible, verifiable offsets through the Pacific Carbon Trust — which, the member knows, is the Crown agency that will invest in quality offsets for the province. Some examples of the Pacific Carbon Trust's offsets include quality offsets such as installation of hybrid heating systems in hotel facilities across the province. Another example is the introduction of biomass boilers and energy-saving curtains in greenhouses. A third example is the use of cleaner fuels in a cement plant actually in my community, in Richmond.

These are some examples of the quality B.C.-based offsets which Pacific Carbon Trust will invest in on behalf
[ Page 5288 ]
of the province to allow British Columbia, our public sector, to achieve carbon neutrality in 2010 as part of our climate action plan. As the member knows, we've received recognition internationally, as a province, for the leadership we're showing in taking action on climate change.

R. Fleming: I don't have any closing remarks. I think there are lots more questions to ask, but alas, we'll have to wait for another venue to do that. I want to thank both ministers for responding to members' questions. I want, in particular, to also thank staff members of the Ministry of Environment, the senior management that were here over the last few days to be available. Thank you very much for their resource in these budget estimates.

[1850]

Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,104,000 — approved.

Vote 31: environmental assessment office, $8,816,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 52: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,088,000 — approved.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you again, Members, for that vote of confidence. With that and noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the estimates for the Ministry of Environment and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.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 © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175