2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number 6

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Joining us today in the gallery are a group of entrepreneurs, businessmen and -women from Victoria — Peter Hardcastle, Raj Virk, Malty Devy, Glen Sharky, Erin Usapch, Chris Passero and Johannes van Dieten. I hope members will welcome these folks who, I'm told, are making their first visit to these hallowed halls. Please make them welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today in the precinct we are going to be joined by 40 guests from Royal Roads University — 39 students, accompanied by their teacher. I think they'll be joining us at some point during the next hour of session here in the House. Would everyone please make them very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the House today are three dedicated public servants from the tourism division in the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. Joining us in the gallery are Clare Mason and Richard Porges, who are both committed individuals who've worked very, very hard to make sure tourism progresses forward in the province.

Thirdly, we also have Ray LeBlond, who has spent 13 years working in the ministry and previously in Tourism B.C. He has done a spectacular job. We are sad that he is moving on, back into the private sector. He has been a key contributor in the development of the Destination B.C. legislation as well as the development of the initial board.

I would ask that all members of the House please make all three individuals very welcome.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today are 31 students from the Vancouver Island University's fourth-year business and government course. Accompanying them is their hard-working professor Dana Collette. They're here spending the day in the Legislature, learning how business and government work together. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

M. Coell: I have two guests in the Legislature today — a former deputy minister, Bob Food, and his wife, Liz. They're both from Saltspring. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Ralston: In the gallery this afternoon is a delegation from the Advocis, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada. Advocis is the largest voluntary professional membership association of financial advisers in the country and has 2,000 members across British Columbia. With members in every community, Advocis is uniquely placed to meet with members and discuss issues related to the financial services industry.

I'd ask the House to please welcome President David Webb and everyone from Advocis here today.

M. McNeil: I have two guests in the gallery this afternoon, and I would like the House to please make them feel welcome. Stacy Robertson and Sarah Hentschel have both joined us for question period. Both Stacy and Sarah are legal counsel with Watson Goepel in Vancouver. May the House please make them feel welcome.

R. Fleming: In the gallery from S.J. Willis School in my constituency, from the Access alternative program, we have teacher Carol Aileen and three of her students — Erica Bates, Kim Feilde and Thea Mayrhofer. I would like the House to make them welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Also here today is a constituent of mine, Mr. James Dundas.

J. McIntyre: I have a special guest in the gallery who joined me for lunch today. She's a family friend, and she has shown interest in politics since a young age, in high school, helping me out on my 2005 campaign. Her name is Talia Armstrong, and she's now a third-year student in UVic — guess what — in political science. She's interested in pursuing a law degree and/or international relations. Would you all please join me in making her feel very welcome — her first visit.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School three grade 11 social studies classes with 70 students. They're led by their very capable principal, Kal Gill, and accompanied by two social studies teachers, Autin Lum and Bonnie Burnell, as well as parent volunteers Hung Vu, Vincent Locke, Kim Rebain and Katherine Olsen — also known as Ms. K.

They come to Victoria at a very opportune time. They're very excited to listen to question period. They're also interested and very engaged in the importance of the youth vote. Sir Charles Tupper is known especially for celebrating and welcoming all the diverse cultures in Vancouver-Kensington. I ask everyone to please make them very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: Today I rise to make a different sort of introduction. Usually, members introduce visitors and make note of their praiseworthy qualities, but today I rise to introduce someone who has interesting taste in clothing.
[ Page 13298 ]

On February 7, National Sweater Day, the Ministry of Environment lowered office temperatures by two degrees and challenged staff to wear a sweater to work. Today I rise in the House to congratulate David Tesch, a Ministry of Environment employee, a biologist, who won this year's ugliest sweater contest.

[1340]

I had the pleasure to take David to lunch in the legislature dining room earlier today and learned about his extensive career in the public service. He's been with us since 1996, mostly with policy related to fisheries, and now manages the ecosystem information section of the knowledge management branch of the ministry. Unlike with his sweater, David had some very good taste in where he lived. From '96 to 2004 he lived in the great city of Kamloops.

Today we learned about the history of the sweater, made 20 years ago by his wife. He has worn it to every part of this province on his field trips, and he actually loves his sweater. I want to remind people that when it comes to National Sweater Day — in fact, all year round — let's turn down our thermostats, wear a sweater and congratulate David and his lovely sweater in the gallery here today.

P. Pimm: I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine today, Brad Brain. Brad is here with the Advocis group. He is also president of the Fort St. John Chamber of Commerce. Would the House help me make him very welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I have two guests in the Legislature today. I have Dr. Barb Fehlau and Dave Lapointe. Barb is a physician in the Comox Valley and one of the leaders in the field of palliative care in British Columbia, and I may say that she's probably also a leader in western Canada. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

KEITH MacKENZIE

Hon. D. McRae: On a sad note today as we stand in this Legislature, in the Comox Valley there is a celebration of life for a gentleman named Keith MacKenzie. Keith was the 12-year president for the Courtenay fish and game club in the Comox Valley. He served the club incredibly well. I've known him over 30 years. He was also my scoutmaster when I was 12 years old. Keith passed away at the age of 67. He'll be missed by his family, the fish and game club, and our community.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Today I have the pleasure of hosting four distinguished people from the agricultural sector in British Columbia. Joining us in the House today are Mayor Jon Lefebure, mayor of North Cowichan; Jennifer and Ian Woike of Farmer Ben's Eggs; and Blaine Hardie of Hardie Honey. Between them, they represent two of our 300 commodities right here in British Columbia. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Rustad: It's a pleasure today to introduce two guests to the House, Tony Straquadine and Terrance Kutryk with Alliance Pipeline. We had an opportunity to have lunch today and to talk about the future of our natural gas industry, and the importance. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Dalton: A couple of weeks ago on the ferry I met a couple of very interesting people, Jona and Uri El-Hanany from Tel Aviv, Israel. Uri is working now as a principal scientist with Redlen Technologies in the Victoria area, which is a manufacturer of imaging equipment, including nuclear cardiology, CT scanning, baggage scanning and dirty bomb detection. Jona is a retired pharmacist who worked with the Ministry of Health and spent quite a bit of time in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, and Jona is with us today. Shalom to her, and would the House please make her feel welcome.

H. Bloy: For the second day in a row I have the privilege of introducing my son-in-law, Travis Rawluk, who is here again today to see question period live for the first time. I'm asking the House to please make him welcome.

R. Hawes: I rise today to recognize somebody who has not been recognized in this House, I don't think, and, in my view, should have been. That's a great Mission artist from my hometown who designed and constructed the beautiful bronze statue of the fallen fireman outside on the precinct grounds. That would be Dean Lauze of Mission. Could the House give a big shout-out to Dean.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2013

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2013.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move first reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

[1345]

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, consistent with other
[ Page 13299 ]
supply acts presented prior to elections, Bill 13 will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the first six months of the 2013-14 fiscal year. It also provides interim supply for government's financing requirements for the 2013-14 fiscal year, including two-thirds of the year's voted capital expenditures and loans, investments and other requirements, and 100 percent of the year's requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities.

Again, consistent with the supply acts that have been tabled in years where there are elections, I move that Bill 13 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M205 — SOCIAL MEDIA PASSWORD
PROTECTION ACT, 2013

N. Simons presented a bill intituled Social Media Password Protection Act, 2013.

N. Simons: I move that a bill intituled Social Media Password Protection Act, 2013, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

N. Simons: The Social Media Password Protection Act amends the Personal Information Protection Act to prohibit an organization from asking for personal access information on an individual's social media website and further prohibits asking the individuals to sign on in their presence, a practice known as shoulder-surfing. British Columbia would be the first jurisdiction in Canada to specifically prohibit these practices.

The first such law in North America came into force in Maryland in March 2012. It was in response to the case of a correctional officer who was forced to provide his Facebook password to an interviewer during a recertification process when he returned from a leave of absence. Cases in Washington State, Ontario, Minnesota, here in British Columbia and in the United Kingdom suggest other jurisdictions will follow suit.

Already, since Maryland enacted its first law less than a year ago, Illinois, California and Michigan have followed suit. Nine more states are currently crafting similar legislation.

While we should never assume anything on line will be kept private, privacy is a condition that is threatened in our society. This act reaffirms an individual's right to protect their own privacy as well as the privacy of those with whom they have had communication on social media.

Lastly, it prevents prospective applicants from having to make a choice between protecting their privacy and possible employment, educational or public service opportunities.

I move that the Social Media Password Protection Act, 2013, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M205, Social Media Password Protection Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M206 — STANDARDS OF CARE FOR
BREEDERS OF COMPANION ANIMALS ACT

J. Thornthwaite presented a bill intituled Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that a bill entitled Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read for the first time.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

J. Thornthwaite: This bill declares that breeders of three or more female dogs or cats capable of reproduction will be required not only to understand but to meet the standards of care in handling and breeding their animals.

We all remember the sled dog tragedy and the subsequent amendment to the PCA Act, which made our regulations the toughest in Canada. I've adapted those best practices from across the world.

Since first introducing this bill last year, I've completed a detailed consultation process with veterinarians, animal advocacy organizations and legitimate breeders and have revised it according to their advice. This ensures the bill enforces the highest standards in animal welfare.

The bill does not target the many good and honest breeders in B.C., many of whom support my bill. Rather, it targets less scrupulous breeders who only seek monetary gains from the mass production of animals, with little or no consideration for the animals' well-being.

Recently there was a case of animal hoarding here in Victoria. Forty-five puppies were rescued from inhumane conditions. It is for tragic stories such as this one that I feel the need to act.

This bill gives teeth to enforce animal cruelty regulations and encourages greater levels of self-regulation amongst breeders. It will also protect prospective dog and cat owners by helping them identify good breeders.

I ask for your support, and I move that the bill be
[ Page 13300 ]
placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

Bill M206, Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MERRITT CENTENNIALS HOCKEY TEAM

H. Lali: The Kamloops Rockets, one of four original teams in the upstart Okanagan Mainline Junior A Hockey League, was founded in 1961. When the WCHL Vancouver Nats moved to Kamloops in 1973 to become the Chiefs, the city's team moved to White Rock that summer and was renamed the Centennials.

By November White Rock was struggling on the ice and at the gate. In January 1974 Merritt businessmen Jim Flux, Len Pare, Bill Pooley, John Mulvey and Don Dewinetz formed Merritt Hockey Ltd. and purchased and moved the franchise to the Nicola Valley Memorial Arena in Merritt.

The Cents are one of only five community-owned franchises in the BCHL, run by a volunteer executive and board of directors whose sole objective is to help Junior A hockey flourish in the community. Former Centennials who played in the National Hockey League include Fred Berry; Glen Cochrane; Tim Watters; Don Nachbaur; Ron Flockhart; Alan Kerr; Neil Eisenhut; Link Gaetz; Bill Muckalt; Mike Brown; and, of course, Merritt's own homegrown boys, Paul Mulvey and Eddy Beers, who I went to school with, and Paul Kruse.

The BCHL is arguably the top league in all of Canadian Junior A hockey. The Cents, second in the league this year, trail the reigning champs and their archrivals, the Penticton Vees, by just six points. The Cents have beaten the Vees in four out of six games this year. The playoffs will indeed be interesting.

Since joining the league, Merritt has advanced to the playoffs 33 times, including this year, and won both the Doyle and Mowat cups during the '77-78 season — not bad considering the Vancouver Canucks made the NHL playoffs 25 times in 40 years. And we're still waiting for that elusive Stanley Cup one of these years.

Merrittonians love their Junior A hockey team. While Merritt is the smallest market in the 15-team league, the Merritt Centennials hockey club, now in its 40th year, is the longest continuously run franchise in the history of the British Columbia Hockey League.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Penticton Vees unfortunately ceased operations one year and did not play.

To the Merritt Centennials: here's to another 40 years.

ASSOCIATION OF FORMER MLAs

K. Krueger: The year was 1998, and despite things that a lot of people say, not everything was dismal in the '90s. [Applause.]

Warm applause from the official opposition. Thank you.

On February 10, 1998, Bill 55 passed third reading. Bill 55 was the Association of Former MLAs of British Columbia Act. Soon a number of people presently in this chamber — including me, actually — will qualify to become members of that distinguished association.

Its objects include putting the knowledge and experience of former MLAs at the service of parliamentary democracy here in British Columbia and elsewhere, and also serving the public interest by providing non-partisan support for the parliamentary system of government in British Columbia, fostering a spirit of community among former MLAs and good relations between former and current MLAs.

I was saddened some time ago to read of the death of a former MLA in Mexico. His widow said that he used to say: "There's nothing as has-been as a former MLA." That's a tragedy. It should not be that way.

Folks come into the chamber, every one of us, meaning to represent our constituents well, and by and large, that's what we do. This is a great association. Its work includes awarding scholarships, fellowships and bursaries to students engaged in studies related to an increased understanding of democracies and parliaments, and a variety of recognition and charitable events for those who make significant contributions to our civil society.

Now for the ask. The board of this association is seeking the membership of all retiring MLAs.

Your presence is desired. You are in demand. The invitation is proffered herewith. I was actually asked to do this statement by the association, and I'm pleased to do it. Please contact the organization at ootb@shaw.ca.

BURNABY APARTMENT BUILDING FIRE
AND RESPONSE

K. Corrigan: A nighttime fire destroyed an apartment building on Smith Avenue in Burnaby on February 17, leaving the residents of all 34 units homeless. Luckily, no one was badly hurt, but several beloved animals were lost from this pet-friendly building. Most residents were left with nothing — no home to live in, no possessions and in many cases not even personal identification.

I want to take this opportunity to commend my community and many agencies for quick action on a number of fronts. I want to thank the 41 firefighters that very professionally fought the fire.

[1355]

The city of Burnaby emergency program, the Burnaby Taskforce on Homelessness, the Red Cross, the Salvation
[ Page 13301 ]
Army, the Progressive Housing Society and the South Burnaby Neighbourhood House all went into action to find places to live, clothes and household items. The provincial emergency program provided hotel rooms. Faith groups stepped in as well.

My office worked hard supporting those actions and, in addition, assisted several residents in getting something very basic but very necessary: new identification. It was a very difficult task that often involved working with other provinces. We arranged fee waivers for ID and wrote letters for tenants, connecting people with their MPs' offices and a variety of organizations.

Our call for notarial services was answered by generous lawyers and notaries. The board of trade stepped up and requested assistance from its members, and Scotiabank and others came through with acts of corporate generosity.

I want to thank the Minister of Justice and the Minister Responsible for Housing for personally stepping in and assuring that every effort was made to facilitate assistance to the residents. This was a terrible, life-altering event for the Smith Avenue residents, but I'm proud that my community came together to provide much-needed support.

Perhaps the most important thing is that the residents found out that people really do care in a time of need. That is a powerful and hopeful message for them and for us.

TECHNOLOGY-FACILITATED PROGRAM
AT SEYCOVE SECONDARY SCHOOL

J. Thornthwaite: Students learn in many different ways. Some learn by reading, others by doing, and some by technology. This is the approach taken by Seycove Secondary, where the FLIGHT program is being offered to students. FLIGHT is a technology-facilitated program based on an open concept of learning. It blends traditional classroom practices with a learning commons model, in which group work is combined with individual projects.

The aim of the program is to engage students with school material to enhance their learning skills, helping them become independent, creative and critical thinkers. The FLIGHT program follows the B.C. curriculum in core academic subjects, but it encourages students to also focus on subjects that they are passionate about. It is the definition of personalized learning. By using technology, students are able to do research, collect information and share their assignments with others, using the Internet in a safe and ethical way.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Seycove and witness firsthand the students' passion for learning. Seycove Secondary is doing a great job of putting students first by creating tools that will engage them with their studies. I congratulate them on their FLIGHT program and look forward to a new generation of motivated students.

IQRA ISLAMIC SCHOOL IN SURREY
AND WORK OF ALI MIHIRIG

B. Ralston: Iqra School is a growing presence in north Surrey. It began in 1997 with 18 students and has grown dramatically to its present enrolment of 386 students in kindergarten to grade 8. Students learn the same curriculum as Surrey's public schools, but they also study Islam and learn to speak and write Arabic.

The school is located on a small site just south of the CN rail yards in north Surrey. Regularly expanding, it now includes 12 classrooms and a new wing, a playground and a recently updated gymnasium.

Dr. Ali Mihirig is the founding chair of the school board and led its growth until recently. Originally from Libya, Dr. Mihirig moved to British Columbia, where he earned a master's degree in electrical engineering from UBC in 1984 followed by a PhD in the same field in 1987. He founded AM Power Systems, specializing in energy and electrical power distribution, and consulted worldwide from his base here in British Columbia over the past three decades.

With the fall of the Gadhafi regime, Dr. Mihirig felt compelled to return to Libya to help the return to democracy and the rule of law. He now serves there as the Minister of Electricity and Renewable Energy. He joins two other Canadians in the Libyan government: Ali Hussein Al-Sharif, the Minister of Housing, and Awad Al-Barasi, the Second Deputy Prime Minister.

Dr. Mihirig hopes to further trade and cultural exchange between Libya and Canada, particularly British Columbia.

Iqra School continues to grow and thrive. Mohammed Sultan Badshah has stepped in as acting chair of the board, bringing his expertise in human resource management. Over the past 14 years Mrs. Amal Shokil has provided strong support for teachers and students alike as the school's administrative assistant. Faisal Ali is the well-regarded principal of the Iqra School.

I ask the House to recognize the achievements of both Dr. Mihirig and the Iqra School.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AND CEO LARRY BERG

R. Howard: Many fly in and out of Vancouver International Airport every day. YVR is spectacularly designed and welcoming to all tourists and travellers. It's also a gateway for our economy to continue thriving.

[1400]

Our government is investing in Pacific gateway projects, which include YVR. Governments at all levels have invested over $22 billion in the Pacific gateway, a remarkable legacy and a foundation for future growth.

YVR is Canada's second-busiest airport, having welcomed over 17 million passengers in 2012. It has 62
[ Page 13302 ]
airlines connecting people and businesses to 121 destinations in Canada, the U.S. and around the world. If that's not impressive enough, it creates over 23,000 jobs for British Columbians. YVR is expanding its operations and services, including becoming the first North American airport to offer a direct flight to China's interior.

I take this opportunity to recognize Larry Berg, YVR's chief executive officer, and his many years at the helm of YVR — and to reflect on his announced retirement. He has assembled and led a great team, taking YVR to new heights and building the Pacific gateway. YVR under his leadership has received international awards and global customer service awards, while also continuing to give so much back to the community. His accomplishments are a source of great pride for all British Columbians, and we thank him for his vision, his persistence and his dedication.

Larry's accomplishments will be celebrated this Friday, March 8, at a luncheon coordinated by the Vancouver Board of Trade. Over 600 people have bought tickets to celebrate this great British Columbian. Would the House please join me in wishing him the very best.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S OFFICE RECORDS AND
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

A. Dix: A question to the Premier. In March 2011, shortly after winning the leadership of her party, the Premier said she wanted to "make sure that open government is something that's a reality, not just something that we talk about."

Yesterday the Information and Privacy Commissioner released a report that showed a dramatic increase in the number of freedom-of-information requests that come back with no response of records — in other words, a blank sheet of paper. In particular, the commissioner documented a 50 percent increase of such responses from the Premier's office. How does the Premier justify this disturbing increase?

Hon. C. Clark: I have the report from the Privacy Commissioner in front of me. I do want to start by thanking her for her diligent work, not just on this but on all the advice she offers government.

She makes six recommendations. Five of them we have accepted as a government. The sixth one is one that is a recommendation for something that isn't contained in privacy legislation anywhere else in the country, so we are considering it and thinking about how we'd make that happen.

In her report she makes quite a number of comments and suggestions. But in answer specifically to the member's question, the number of requests that the Premier's office gets for items that are clearly not likely to be in the Premier's office has gone up quite a bit. You know, included in that are requests for things from other ministries.

My suspicion — and I think the Privacy Commissioner would concur with this — is the reason for that is because we've changed the way people can request freedom of information. There's a checklist now that people can go through. So rather than just asking for something from the Ministry of Transportation, they will often ask for the same information also, at the same time, from the Premier's office — information that is not kept, stored or was ever received by the Premier's office but, nonetheless, information that people often will request.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Of course, hon. Speaker, we're seeing an increase in these requests governmentwide. The Premier's office is only a leader in this regard.

There's an alternate suggestion made in the report of the Privacy Commissioner. It's that it's now, apparently, the policy of the Premier's office not to engage in substantive communications via e-mail. Further, it's the policy of the Premier's office, it would appear, to delete such e-mails because they may be transitory.

Does the Premier think that that policy is consistent with an appropriate response to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

[1405]

Hon. C. Clark: If the member would read through to page 27 of the report, he would find the paragraph where the Privacy Commissioner says: "I have found that the government is in compliance with its duty to assist applicants." She goes on to suggest some recommendations for change, five of which we are accepting and the sixth of which we are considering.

But I do want to give an example of some of the requests that, typically, the Premier's office gets. The receptionist in my office gets a request every month for her calendar. She does not keep a calendar. Every month the Premier's office responds, and every month the request comes in again. That is typical of the kinds of requests that we get.

Many of the requests that we get are for information that we have. When we have that information, we comply with the act. We offer it in as timely a manner as we can because the value that we believe in is making sure that government is as open as possible to the citizens that this government belongs to.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: What we've seen with respect to the Burnaby Hospital issue and other issues, including issues we've
[ Page 13303 ]
raised this week around the multiculturalism policy of the government, is a practice in the Premier's office to use private e-mails for public business. This is something that I'm sure the Premier would suggest is not consistent with the act.

So I'm asking the Premier what her response is to her office's own presentation to the Privacy Commissioner, which talks about a different practice for that, and secondly, whether the Premier's office is taking steps to ensure that this doesn't continue to happen.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I'm pleased that the Privacy Commissioner found that the government is in compliance, and we will continue to work hard to be in compliance. I know that we will, as I said, also act on the recommendations that she has offered, in considering the sixth one and accepting all five of the others.

But I do want the member to just get a flavour for some, in addition to the regular calendar requests that come to the receptionist in my office and other people who don't keep calendars. We have a request, for example, for records regarding the regional telephone town halls on the HST, including briefing notes and scripts for Ministers Kevin Falcon and Blair Lekstrom, contracts, tendering notices and master service providers. That information is not in the possession of the Premier's office. It would be located in the Ministry of Finance or, at the time, the Ministry of Transportation.

The business case, budget, tendering information, contracts, work orders, statement of work and approval for the redesign of B.C. government websites — again not information that's contained in the Premier's office. It's information that would be contained in the Ministry of Government Services.

Documents between January 2011 and August 5, 2011, pertaining to B.C. Ferries funding a training program in support of Vancouver Shipyards, etc. Those are requests that we frequently get.

Applicants will put them to the Premier's office, often not knowing the internal process of government, checking it off on a list. It's understandable, absolutely, how it happens. It's one of the reasons we've made the system much easier for people to be able to use — because we want to make sure that people can get the information that belongs to them. But it does also mean that many of the requests that come to the Premier's office, that have also been directed somewhere else, probably wouldn't have come to the Premier's office in the past.

Having said all that, we will certainly respond to the commissioner's recommendations, and again, I do want to thank her for her hard work.

D. Routley: At the end of 2011 the Premier said: "Open government is about giving people a sense of confidence that the government is working for them, not trying to do something to them." "We are working to make British Columbia the most open provincial government in Canada." Again we see the pattern of the Premier saying one thing but her own officials, senior officials in her own office, acting completely differently.

The Premier must lead by example, but in this case, the administration of that example has fallen far short of the high ideals the Premier likes to talk about. That's the message to her colleagues — "Just don't put it in writing" — and to the rest of government: "Follow my lead. Keep it all out of the public eye."

[1410]

My question is to the Premier. What steps will she take to lift the veil of secrecy around her office?

Hon. B. Stewart: I'm also pleased that the commissioner's report indicates that the government IAO office has very much been in compliance in terms of turnaround.

The number of requests to the Ministry of Citizens' Services and the information access branch has grown from over 8,000 last year to a number that's going to top out at over 10,000 requests this year. As the Premier has already stated, it's very easy to make these requests.

But more importantly, the member opposite mentions about the access to Open Government. That information about those requests is published, and there are literally 10,000-plus pages that are on line at Open Government so that people can find out what people are requesting of government information on line.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Yes, if records exist. But if the position of the government is not to create records, they won't be found.

Also, in July 2011 the Premier said: "Previously, I think governments have sort of assumed that other people's information belongs to us, and we get to interpret it and disseminate it to people, and I don't think that's right. I think the information belongs to the public." After all, it's taxpayers' money, and it's taxpayers' information.

Again, we are seeing the Premier's office acting completely contrary to the Premier's rhetoric, and that is spilling over into the rest of government. The overall increase within government of non-responsive records has almost doubled since 2008-2009. How does the Premier square the record of her office with her rhetoric?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to talk a little bit about the Premier's initiative. Since July of 2011 this government has adopted and taken seriously making certain that it is open and transparent and making certain that documents are published at Open Government, as I mentioned.

But more importantly, just this February in 2011 the public sector leadership award for the Institute of
[ Page 13304 ]
Public Administration of Canada recognized the British Columbia government for the No. 1 ranking in Canada for e-government and open government.

As I mentioned, at Data B.C. there are over 3,000 data sets that we've put up on line to allow British Columbians to be able to access information that was not necessarily something that we had put up on line previously. So that has created something in the neighbourhood of 30,000 requests in access for information.

I do want to talk a little bit about a particular culture. I refer back to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He previously had been in the Premier's office at a time when the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act actually existed. The reaction in those particular days was the media was critical about the fact that there were budget cuts. But more importantly, there was also a culture around memos that were backdated. So I'd like to ask the member opposite what they would do.

Times of India FILM AWARDS SHOW AND
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

R. Chouhan: It isn't just the Premier's office that's obstructing openness and transparency. British Columbians have significant concerns about the Liberal government's manufactured Bollywood awards show. But this government is blocking the public from accessing information about the show by imposing an exorbitant freedom-of-information request fee of $2,800.

To the Minister of Citizens' Services and Open Government: why is this government using fees to hide information from the public about the Liberal pre-election manufactured awards show?

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm relatively certain that the member opposite is going to have the opportunity for a supplemental. So I hope he takes the opportunity to actually tell us why he opposes the TOIFA show, because this is going to be great for British Columbia. Some 200 million people in India will see it on the day that it's broadcast. Two repeat programs, 100 million people in each of those two. So 400 million people in India are going to see what's great about British Columbia.

It's part of a four-pronged strategy that started when our Premier went to India on a trade mission. It was followed up by opening two new trade offices in India. This month we're going to be hosting the B.C.-India Global Business Forum, which is going to start really increasing the activity. It's going to be followed up with 400 million people in India watching the show. It's a great opportunity. We need to build the economy of British Columbia. That's our position. What is that member opposite's position?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: We are not against these awards. We are against….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second, Member.

Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Chouhan: We are against the political shenanigans of this government. This government is pouring $11 million into this manufactured Bollywood awards show, but there is no business plan. We know this government is trying to get political benefits. However, for example, the webpage for the manufactured award show says B.C.'s state dignitaries will be duly honoured…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Chouhan: …on the stage. Will the Minister of Citizens' Services and Open Government ensure all information related to the manufactured Bollywood awards show will be made available today for free?

Hon. P. Bell: I think we just heard a new policy pronouncement from the other side. The only problem is that I don't think that member checked with his leader prior to making that announcement, so it may have been a bit of a surprise.

But think of it. The Times of India reaches out to 90 million people each and every day through their various publications. They have been in the business of producing these shows since the 1950s. We've got a great deal at $11 million. It's already sold out.

What I'd like to know is what day that member got in line for his tickets. I guarantee you he's going to be there to watch the show.

INVESTIGATION INTO PARTISAN
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

L. Krog: British Columbians are rightly concerned about the investigation of the quick-wins scandal. It's an increasingly secretive government, which the Privacy Commissioner frankly pointed out — one that refuses to commit anything to official channels so as to avoid scrutiny. The scandal reaches from government to caucus to the B.C. Liberal Party, and it includes such people as Mr. Bonney and Ms. Haakstad, who left government.

Will the Premier acknowledge that the investigation
[ Page 13305 ]
as laid out does not go far enough and appoint a truly independent investigator to get to the bottom of this whole sordid mess?

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: I am happy to answer this question again for the member, as I did yesterday. The answer is this. The most senior person that was involved in this has resigned without severance. There is a review underway by a highly respected civil servant. That review includes other deputy ministers across government.

We will see the results of that review, I hope, in a matter of days. When we see the results of that review, we will take action.

The ideas expressed in that document were wrong. But I will say this. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the idea of reaching out to multicultural communities. I do not think that there is anything wrong with ensuring that every citizen has equal access to their own government.

The document that was created to try and meet that end was wrong. That is why the deputy is looking into it, reviewing it. We will have the results of that review very soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It's not quite as soon as the Deputy Premier promised last week, when he talked about 24 hours for the review to be completed and available.

We know that the quick-wins scandal involves the Premier's office. Her deputy chief of staff already lost her job, director of research and others have been involved in the discussions of the scheme, yet the Premier herself seems intimately aware of the details of the investigation. She told us yesterday that she knew that Ms. Haakstad had been questioned by Mr. Dyble. The fact that the Premier, whose office should be a target of this investigation, is aware of the details tells us that the investigation lacks even the pretence of independence.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will she step in and ensure that a full, thorough, independent and impartial investigation is conducted so that we can get to the bottom of this scandal?

Hon. C. Clark: We will get to the bottom of it. That's why my deputy chief of staff has quit without severance, and that is why I have asked the head of the civil service, John Dyble, to convene a committee of senior deputies to make sure we understand what happened so that we can correct it — so that we can be accountable for it, take responsibility for it and make sure that we fix it.

But I will say this again: I do not think that the idea of reaching out to multicultural communities is wrong. I do not think it is the wrong thing to do to make sure that everyone in our society, no matter where they come from, no matter what language they speak, is included in our democratic process. That's the right thing for government to do.

In an increasingly multicultural society we need to make sure everyone has a chance to have their say, and I think government needs to reach out to make sure that that happens.

GRADUATED LICENSING
FOR MOTORCYCLES

K. Corrigan: Two years ago the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act was passed, giving government the ability to bring in a graduated licensing system for motorcyclists. Last year this government brought in helmet laws and seating regulations and told us it intended to move forward with graduated licensing that would restrict new drivers from buying high-powered bikes.

As another legislative session draws to a close, what has the government done to keep the promise of graduated licensing for motorcycles?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite would know, we worked very closely with motorcycle organizations across the province, we met with parents across this province who had tragically lost children and were deeply impacted by that. We did make changes to helmet laws in the province, and we continue to do the work necessary to make the changes that we committed to.

There are a number of things that need to take place — in particular, at ICBC. We are working to make sure that we can make a transition as quickly as possible. We are not in the position to do that today, but we continue to work on the commitment we made, recognizing that public safety and dealing with the issue of safe motorcycle behaviour is absolutely critical.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It has been two years since the act passed and a year — April 2012 — since this government held a press conference announcing that these changes, including graduated licences, would soon be in place. But here we are nearly a year later, and graduating licences have apparently slipped from the government agenda. This government has been too busy campaigning instead of governing. They refused to hold a fall session where this legislation, these changes, could have been brought forward.

Will the Public Safety Minister tell us…. If this government commitment to motorcycle safety goes beyond photo ops and vague promises with long timelines, why has it stalled when it comes to graduated licensing that could save lives?
[ Page 13306 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Every member of this House is concerned when young people die on high-powered motorcycles. To suggest that making changes to helmet laws and looking at graduated licensing programs are a mere photo op — that is just simply offensive. I stood in this House, and I said to the member opposite: "We are continuing to put in place a regime that will make that happen."

It has taken longer than we expected, but to suggest for a moment that we met with parents, that we made helmet law changes and that we don't care about the safety of British Columbians is offensive at best and inaccurate.

R. Austin: In 2005 Denise Lodge's 21-year-old son, Corey, was killed only a day after purchasing a high-powered motorcycle. In the 7½ years since then, Ms. Lodge has lobbied tirelessly for motorcycle safety. She has supported this government as they have made promises about meaningful changes. Last spring Ms. Lodge was here at the Legislature when this minister told British Columbians that the government was planning to implement a graduated licensing program and it would be in place by the next spring.

Again, will the minister please tell us when this government will finally bring in the legislation that could have saved Corey's life?

Hon. S. Bond: There are few issues or meetings that are as difficult as ones that are held with the families of people who have lost their children. I've stood in this House. We remain committed to bringing the regime into place. There are changes that are required at ICBC in order to make that transition occur. We continue to press the agenda, and we continue to consider it a priority.

I have met with the Lodge family on numerous occasions and other families that have suffered tragic loss. That's why we agreed to move forward with helmet laws, and we'll continue to press to make the changes necessary to deal with graduated licensing in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Last month Ms. Lodge received a letter advising her that after 7½ years of campaigning, this government has shelved its plans to implement the graduated licensing program she has been fighting for. The letter suggests that the implementation of this idea has been complicated and tells this grieving mother that it no longer has any timelines to offer her. Needless to say, Miss Lodge is deeply disappointed by this change of heart. It has been 7½ years since Corey's death, and this government still cannot commit to bringing in changes that could save the lives of young people like him.

Will the minister responsible please tell Ms. Lodge when she can expect to see this life-saving legislation put into place?

[1430]

Hon. S. Bond: I have made it clear that we intend to proceed with graduated licensing. For the member opposite to stand up and take advantage of a situation where a family has suffered grief and loss, when we have met with them in person, when we have shared our sorrows and concerns for British Columbians who have lost loved ones…. We intend to continue to put the graduated licensing plan in place.

As I said to the member opposite and others who chose to repeat the question, it has taken us, regrettably, longer than we anticipated. There is no intention to back away from that commitment, and I am very sorry if Mrs. Lodge and her family have been led to believe that that is the case. That is not accurate. We intend to proceed, and we are continuing to do the important work necessary to bring it into place.

INCLUSION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
IN GOVERNMENT ASSET SALE

B. Ralston: Financial instruments owned by the government are a revenue-generating asset and are not surplus properties. In last year's budget — that's the 2012 budget — the Liberal government first set out its plan to hold a fire sale of public assets in order to pad the pre-election budget. At no time since then has this minister or a previous minister ever made a reference to surplus assets as anything other than real estate.

This year's budget document specifically says the assets for sale are surplus property. But thanks to the sharp eyes of a Vancouver Sun reporter in the lockup…. He noticed a disparity between two graphs and asked a Finance department official what that disparity was. It became apparent that there was something else on offer in the sale of assets — that is, financial instruments.

Why did the Minister of Finance, in presenting the budget, in every public appearance before and since — until this was pointed out by that reporter — attempt to hide the fact that financial instruments are for sale as well?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the hon. member: it would be an interesting question and a valid observation if it were true. Regrettably, it is not. That's perhaps not the member's fault, because whilst he was in a separate lockup, he wasn't at the one at the convention centre where I pointedly and specifically said that this amount of money relates to property and financial instruments and went on to explain that I was limited as to what I could say, specifically, about those financial instruments.

The member would have the House believe that somehow I was trying to keep something secret. I suppose, except for me and 200 journalists and 200 other people that I specifically referred financial instruments to…. I
[ Page 13307 ]
guess in that circumstance I did. But they heard it, others heard it, and I'm sorry that the hon. member didn't hear it. I'm sorry he didn't comment on it when we had the budget debate.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Thorne: I'd like to present a petition signed by 2,215 people from the Riverview Preservation Society that we save all remaining Riverview lands in perpetuity for the use and treatment of the people of B.C. with mental illness and addictions.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 4. For the information of members, if and when that is completed this afternoon, thereafter, committee stage debate on Bill 5.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — TLA'AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

Hon. I. Chong: Before we begin, I would like to introduce staff who are with me here this afternoon — to my right, my deputy minister in the ministry, Steve Munro; to my left, Cory Hererra, who is the senior negotiator also in our ministry; and then to her left Mark Timmis, who is legal counsel from the Ministry of Justice.

On section 1.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and her staff for being here.

I have a couple of questions just on definitions, if I could put them to the minister. I would note on the definitions of the ownership, talking about the Tla'amin Nation's ownership of land…. I note that in previous treaties, both Yale and Maa-nulth.… In the Agricultural Land Reserve section, there's a section (3) in the Tla'amin treaty where none exists in the Yale and the Maa-nulth.

Can the minister comment? I'm trying to read this correctly. I think I have it correct.

The Chair: Minister, he's referencing the definitions section.

[1440]

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, we're just looking for it, because with that section…. It's section 9, so am I to ask the member whether he is approving sections 1 through 8, and we are on section 9?

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

S. Fraser: In the Agricultural Land Reserve section there's a section (3). It says: "Despite section 2 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, section 21 of that Act does not apply in relation to a subdivision plan of Tla'amin Lands deposited in the land title office on the Effective Date for the purposes of registering those lands in the name of the Tla'amin Nation."

That section does not exist…. No section like it exists in Yale or Maa-nulth. Now, in Maa-nulth, to be fair, there was no agricultural land component, so I guess the comparison would be to the Yale treaty.

There are sections (1) and (2). They're identical with both Yale and Tla'amin, but section (3), under the Tla'amin treaty here in section 9, does not exist under Yale. Could the minister just clarify what that means? It might be obvious, but it's not to me.

Hon. I. Chong: My apologies. I just want it to be very clear that it can be somewhat technical in this regard.

Perhaps I'll just explain to the member in this way. There are certain land parcels currently in the agricultural land reserve, the ALR. They will become Tla'amin lands on the effective date. Chapter 3, "Lands," paragraph 30 of the final agreement, defines those lands as "Former Agricultural Land Reserve" and "Current Agricultural Land Reserve."

The former agricultural land reserve consists of the former Tla'amin Indian reserve lands, which are just over 1,900 hectares, and the former provincial Crown ALR land, which is 471 hectares. On the effective date these lands will not be part of the ALR. This is what has been agreed to.

[1445]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I think I understand that, although there was a component…. Can the minister confirm that this would just apply for the 400-plus hectares involved, the portion that's being removed from the agricultural land reserve as part of this treaty?

Hon. I. Chong: Approximately 744 hectares of provincial Crown land currently in the ALR will become treaty land. Approximately 471 hectares of the 744 hectares will be removed from the ALR, with the remaining 273 hectares staying in the ALR.
[ Page 13308 ]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That helps clarify.

I'd like to ask the question of…. During the negotiations for this land, for the portion that was removed from the agricultural land reserve to facilitate treaty, was there any conversation…? Is it part of the negotiations to consider, from the government's point of view, to compensate that land with, maybe, other land being placed in the ALR — considering that the commission has a role to try to maintain a certain critical mass of agricultural land?

I'm just wondering if that's been part of the discussion during the negotiations or even outside of those negotiations, maybe through various agencies of government.

Hon. I. Chong: First, I should advise the member — and I think he does know this — that when lands are removed from the ALR, there is no requirement to replace. However, having said that, the lands that are being removed from the ALR were not farmed lands as such. They actually were forest lands. As I say, as a result of negotiations that take place, that determination was made as to what lands could or should be removed.

S. Fraser: I'm not trying to belabour this point. I'm aware that the commission…. The act itself dealing with agricultural land is superseded, certainly, by treaty. Regardless of whether the land is specifically arable land or such, it's still a reduction in the overall footprint in the agricultural land reserve. So just for clarification, during treaty….

We've seen agricultural land removed before in previous treaties. Certainly, Tsawwassen comes to mind specifically. I realize that that's appropriate, that the treaty addresses that. But is the minister aware of any discussions, maybe with other ministries associated with agricultural land, where there is consideration to try to ensure that the land mass does not continually shrink in the agricultural land reserve? I realize this might be outside the purview of the minister. I'm just asking if she's aware of anything.

Hon. I. Chong: No.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

S. Fraser: I'm just a little confused on the wording of this section, "Tla'amin Nation participation in regional hospital district." It is somewhat different than the wording within the Maa-nulth treaty.

There were issues. I know that the Maa-nulth treaty is dealing with five nations, and there are some complexities around the role of the regional district and the nations in the Maa-nulth treaty that would be involved with the regional district.

Could the minister just help me and give an explanation of the exact meaning of section 10, what its intent is, please?

[1450]

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the member will recall, from his days on local government, the connection, with respect to…. When you are a member of a regional district, you are automatically a member of the regional hospital district as well.

However, in this particular case, it is somewhat different. A First Nation that becomes a member of a regional district is automatically represented on the regional hospital board by virtue of the regional district membership. This section is required because the Tla'amin final agreement does not require the Tla'amin Nation to join the regional district. Therefore, the final agreement must provide for them to participate in the regional hospital district.

I think the member will understand — as I say, with his involvement in local government — what that really, truly, technically means.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Sorry. The wording on this is sometimes confusing, and I appreciate the indulgence of the minister and her staff.

With that participation on the hospital board, are there taxation implications that go along with that? The role of a board membership usually involves some form of contribution through taxation or whatever. It doesn't say specifically here, but can the minister inform, please?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm trusting, and I make this clarification for the member, that participation in the regional hospital district is mandatory, so that residents on treaty lands paying hospital district property tax do have representation on the hospital district board.

in essence, those who are residents — occupiers of the land who will be paying property tax — will in fact have those taxes paid to the hospital district board for First Nations occupiers on those lands. If, in fact, they wish to have that directly charged to the owners and then have that requisitioned to the hospital district, it can happen. Or the First Nation themselves can make that determination, whether they will provide for that requisition to the hospital district board. But in any event, there will be funds that are required or requisitioned to the district board.

N. Simons: My question is to the minister about what, perhaps, could delay letters patent from being amended. Is that something that is anticipated, or is this just a perfunctory kind of section where it's just in case? Maybe the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development could enlighten us.
[ Page 13309 ]

Hon. I. Chong: There is no expectation that there would be a delay on amendment changes to the letters patent. But I would say, because the professional staff here want to anticipate every possible occurrence, that they have ensured that this section would allow for this to take place immediately, without delay.

[1455]

S. Fraser: Is there a structure or an order-in-council, an OIC, that's anticipated and that would bring the Tla'amin into the district for this purpose? What's the mechanism? If the minister could inform….

Hon. I. Chong: I believe the letters patent itself would be provided to include that. As I say, letters patent would be amended, and if there were a delay, it would be deemed amended forthwith.

S. Fraser: If I could just follow up on this a bit, if the letters patent is the structure that's used for this purpose, when would that occur? This has to get through this House. It also has to go to the federal Parliament. Would the letters patent apply with ratification of this bill here in the Legislature, or is it after it's hopefully ratified in Ottawa?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will likely know, as he's participated in these debates with other agreements, there will be parties that have to agree on the effective date, which is when the implementation of the treaty would then take place. Upon that date, that's when the treaty would therefore be implemented, and the letters patent at that time would likely be a part of the agreement going forward. But it is similar to other agreements where parties are afforded the opportunity to agree as to when the effective date will be.

It could be a year. It could be two. Generally, we have seen that it has taken two years, as with Tsawwassen when it was ratified in 2007. The implementation effective date, I think, was 2009, so it did take two years.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. Just so I have it correct, the letters patent would be enabled as a tripartite agreement. The federal government has to ratify this, so it would be in the implementation of the treaty that a date would be approved for the letters patent to apply in this case?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sorry if I have confused the member. What happens is that upon the passage of this legislation…. He knows that the federal government will also have to pass their legislation, after which time each party will work towards when all the aspects of the treaty and the final agreement can be put in place. They would agree to, based on the time that they require, the effective date of which, then, the treaty would be implemented and therefore come into reality.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

S. Fraser: Does the Tla'amin Nation have the authority under section 12 to make laws for the direct taxation of non–Sea Island citizens living on Tla'amin lands? I guess that's the first question.

Point of Order

N. Simons: This debate reflects concerns in my constituency. Every member of this House represents people in this province. I'm just wondering if there's a rule or some ruling about whether or not a member of this House should be listening to noise-suppression devices while a debate on a First Nation treaty is taking place.

[1500]

The Chair: I thank the member for his point of order. We will take the issue under advisement.

Debate Continued

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would say that this agreement is similar to the Yale and Maa-nulth final agreements. They have similar provisions. This is not about direct taxation. It is about having a section that deals with a tax treatment agreement that sets out and lays out how the Tla'amin Nation, Canada and British Columbia enter into that agreement on an effective date. It addresses the treatment of the Tla'amin Nation under various taxes, which include income taxes, sales and other consumption taxes, but it's not an ability for direct taxation as such.

S. Fraser: I think I got that. For clarification, section 12 does not provide the Sliammon Nation with the authority to make laws for direct taxation. That's not the intent. Did I misread this?

The questions have come to me about whether or not this would enable taxation to occur for non-Sliammon members that would happen to be living within the treaty lands. That may or may not happen. It's a hypothetical situation, I suppose, so just more clarity if I could.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the best way to clarify section 12 for the member is that this section provides for the Tla'amin Nation, the government, to be treated in a similar fashion to other local governments. Other local governments are not taxed by provincial governments and the federal government, and it would be the same tax treatment. If there were taxes that the federal or provincial governments levied on local governments, so, too, would that tax treatment be applicable to Tla'amin, be-
[ Page 13310 ]
cause they would be another level of government.

The area that the member is referring to is for the Tla'amin Nation for dealing with taxation of their members, their residents. That is dealt with in the treaty in other sections.

[1505]

S. Fraser: If there are non–Sliammon First Nations who are residents within the treaty area and there are tax implications, could they apply to non–Sliammon First Nations? I apologize again if the minister has answered that question already. I just haven't quite got my head around this.

Hon. I. Chong: This is about the taxing parts of the government, the Tla'amin Nation, with respect to its relationships with other jurisdictions, other senior levels of government — not unlike what local governments are. As I say, this is about the tax treatment of the Tla'amin Nation.

With respect to the taxation of members and non-Tla'amin members, that is dealt with in other sections in the treaty. Those are negotiations that still take place with Canada and the provincial government. Likely there will be a negotiation to develop or provide for some contractual agreements specifically for those, especially non-member residents.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I got it this time, I think.

So this would be at a later date, presumably after the implementation of the treaty has begun, after it's gone through the federal parliament. I'm getting nods here. If I could just get a confirmation on the record, that would be great.

Hon. I. Chong: That is correct, and that's why implementation or the effective date is sometimes years away, because all the parties have to agree to fulfil particular obligations that they have, and that could certainly be one of those.

N. Simons: My question has to do with when a tax treatment agreement is not a tax treatment agreement, or not part of the act.

Here in section 4, as provided in paragraph 82 of chapter 2 of the Tla'amin final agreement, the tax treatment agreement does not form part of the final agreement. Where is its legislative authority, then, if not in the final agreement?

[1510]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm trying to make this clear for everybody who's interested in section 12. A treaty does require a tax treaty agreement, but outside the treaty, that's setting out how a First Nation government is in fact taxed. It therefore allows it to be changed in the event that taxes are changed.

That's why it's not a treaty or a land claims agreement. It is an agreement that allows and sets out the fact that there is an agreement that sets out how the First Nations government is to be taxed.

I know that it may appear complicated, but it is about the First Nation government, and it's similar to what has been done for Yale and Tsawwassen.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

S. Fraser: I'd like to thank your deputy and his staff for the briefing that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and myself were able to attend. I just wanted to get that on the record. Although it might not seem that we've been briefed, we have been briefed. I'm sorry. We're going over some of this stuff again, and new questions have come up in the meantime. Actually, for those watching, we're looking for clarification on record for questions that have been put to me, as critic. I want to make sure that people understand that.

In the ministry briefing there was a comment on this section 13 that "we're waiting for the Cohen decision" regarding the fish farms. That was discussed in a recent briefing.

Can the minister inform us as to the purpose of waiting for Cohen? How's that going to play out?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the best way to provide clarification for the member is to advise that the negotiations for the Tla'amin final agreement had begun prior to Cohen. Therefore, Canada agreed that the Tla'amin could include fish because the provisions were agreed to before Cohen began — as opposed to what has occurred with others, who were not able to negotiate that until Cohen was complete. But this was occurring prior to Cohen having been initiated.

S. Fraser: So I have this clear, the recommendations to be coming out of the Cohen inquiry on the Fraser River sockeye…. They will, at a later date, inform this section 13 on the harvest documents? Did I get that wrong or get that right?

[1515]

Hon. I. Chong: I think what's confusing is that with Cohen in process, the difficulty was that no one was able to negotiate the matters concerning fish. Therefore, it meant that we could not proceed in getting the final agreement to this stage. I guess that's the best way to describe it.

We wanted to be able to continue to proceed with getting the final agreement, and Canada agreed that we
[ Page 13311 ]
could continue to do that outside of Cohen until Cohen was complete. Now that Cohen has been completed, we will now be in a position to negotiate fish. If we had had to wait to negotiate, we would not be here with this agreement now.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. As the minister noted, the waters bounding the Sliammon territory…. I've looked at the maps. They're very close, if not right on some of the Fraser River sockeye migration routes. Of course, there are other shellfish and other marine species, too, that make their homes within the Sliammon territory.

The final decision of the Cohen Commission — did it influence the fisheries or any other part of the treaty, or will it? I guess that's the other piece of that.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, this treaty was negotiated before the Cohen report, and as a result there had been some allocations, fish allocations, for Tla'amin. Again, Canada had agreed that we were able to continue to move forward and, I guess, accept those fish allocations as opposed to waiting until Cohen was complete.

As a result of this treaty being negotiated before Cohen, and now that the report has been provided for, we don't see anything in the Cohen Commission, in their recommendations, that would conflict with what had been with the negotiated agreement in terms of the allocation.

Had we waited, it might have meant that we would have to negotiate these amounts of fish allocations. Canada essentially gave us the opportunity to continue on. Now that Cohen is out, the negotiated allocations would likely stand, because we don't see anything in those recommendations that would not permit for that to happen. We've in essence been able to continue to move along and have this treaty get to this stage today.

S. Fraser: This is an important issue, so I'm just trying to…. It's wise to move this along. There is the Cohen inquiry, and there are other issues that come up all the time. Certainly on the federal mandate, fisheries are often a roadblock to proceeding with treaties. I get all that, but am I clear? Have there been firm allocations made now that will not change, regardless of Cohen? Is this is all done? When this goes through the federal Parliament, the allocations will stand. These discussions are not to be reopened because of Cohen or any other reasons.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, I am advised that the fish negotiations at Tla'amin are now complete.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification. On the licences, though, are these licences purchased from Canada or from the open market? How does that come about for that allocation for the licences?

[1520]

Hon. I. Chong: Canada issues all licences that are needed. We don't, as a province, issue those licences.

S. Fraser: I didn't see it in here, but for what fisheries in particular?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that it's in the treaty. For the benefit of the member, the allocations for chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, rockfish and ling cod, other groundfish, herring, prawn and crab, and sea cucumbers.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Was there any provision made specifically for aquaculture — shellfish or finfish?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I'm advised that only the Tla'amin Nation may apply to the Crown for shellfish aquaculture tenures, in respect of the foreshore of the Ahgykson.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that.

With current changes in legislation based on court decisions…. Which Crown are we talking about here? There is a significant role now that is being taken by the federal government in aquaculture that wasn't before. It was under the purview of the province. Now really the only role for the province is the actual letting of the tenure, the water lease or whatever.

[1525]

I guess a couple of questions. The Tla'amin — will they apply to the province if they wish to set up a lease, or can they govern that themselves? There's a federal component to this, but I'll just leave that question and wait for the answer.

Hon. I. Chong: When the member asked about the tenures, I wanted to respond that the aquaculture tenures which Tla'amin Nation can apply for would be directed to the federal government, when I referred to the Crown.

The aquaculture tenures would have to be applied to the federal government as the Crown. However, to request a foreshore lease or licence, that would still be under provincial jurisdiction.

S. Fraser: If you want to be an aquaculturalist in the province — if you want to set up an oyster farm, for instance — there are a whole bunch of referral agencies. The applicant has to spend a fair amount of money. They have to advertise in the Gazette federally. There are a number of requirements that go along with that.

Would all those requirements be applied to the Tla'amin Nation post-treaty? Would they have to still do all that?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes.
[ Page 13312 ]

S. Fraser: Then the fees associated with the tenuring — the lease agreements, those sorts of things. There are annual fees that go along with that too. Then there's reporting-out requirements for fish farms that have to report out about disease outbreaks and that. Do the fees go…? Are they required, first of all, for lease fees, tenure fees, and are there the same requirements for monitoring and such?

Hon. I. Chong: The answer is yes, in accordance with federal and provincial laws and procedures.

N. Simons: My question has to do with marine protected areas, such as rockfish conservation zones and the like. Does the Tla'amin First Nation have any authority to establish such protected areas, and what is the impact of the existing ones within the Tla'amin traditional territory?

Hon. I. Chong: The Tla'amin Nation — their ability to protect would be on treaty settlement lands. They can make determinations as to what parts of their treaty settlement lands they wish to provide protection for. That is the authority that they have.

N. Simons: Is that something that the Tla'amin First Nation can do without consultation or on their own initiative, or does that require some sort of dialogue with the federal-provincial government?

[1530]

Hon. I. Chong: Because treaty settlement lands will be lands that are governed by that jurisdiction, that being the Tla'amin Nation, they will have the right to determine what parts of their lands they wish to protect, not unlike what we do can do here in British Columbia when we designate parts of our province which we wish to protect.

Tla'amin will also be given the opportunity or have the ability to protect certain areas within Tla'amin treaty settlement lands.

N. Simons: If, for example, the occasion arose that the federal government embarked on some strategy to protect certain fisheries areas, if they were interested in doing so within the traditional territory — on treaty settlement lands, I guess — is there a mechanism through which the parties will negotiate and potentially cooperate on in terms of designating these areas?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I'm advised that Canada must consult with Tla'amin if their proposed action would, in fact, affect the Tla'amin treaty rights. So there is an obligation to consult if, in fact, any actions that the federal government were to take would affect their treaty rights.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the answers on this. Is there any provision…? Is there a mechanism for a non-Tla'amin proponent to apply for water lease tenures within the treaty settlement lands? Is that something that has been perceived or even considered? Is that possible? Is there a mechanism for that?

[D. Black in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: Thank you and welcome, hon. Chair. Through you to the member, I'm trying to envision where he's trying to seek clarification, so I'm hoping I respond appropriately. There is no obligation for Tla'amin to provide tenures on its treaty lands. It may if it chooses, but there is no obligation for them to do so.

[1535]

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

S. Fraser: Now we've moved into the Forest Act tenures section of the treaty. Is the approach taken with these tenures, the Forest Act tenures, comparable to past treaties under the B.C. treaty process?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, it's the same policy as all previous treaties.

S. Fraser: Is it anticipated this will be a smooth transition? For example, are there concerns of, maybe, disputes arising from other holders of referred agreements? Should this move pretty smoothly? Has there been any discussion of conflicts or anything like that?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, who is asking whether this could be a smooth transition, I would submit that it should be, yes. The impacted third parties have all been consulted, so we do expect to be able to move this fairly quickly along.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Will the annual allowable cut…? Is this a determination, from here on in, within the nation? Is there a chief forester that does this? For the record, how is that, then, determined?

Hon. I. Chong: Once the treaty does take effect the Tla'amin First Nation decides on the annual allowable cut on their treaty settlement lands.

S. Fraser: The Crown, the province, has the authority over forest lands in British Columbia. Is that authority now ceded to the Tla'amin Nation in total? I guess, an-
[ Page 13313 ]
swer that question if you can, and then I'll go on to another question.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, on treaty lands.

S. Fraser: Anticipating…. In this House we have a bill before us — Bill 8, I guess, is the number. It's dealing with a potentially significant change to forestry in British Columbia. It's allowing some pretty big powers to the minister to convert volume-based tenures over to area-based. That's one of many changes that are being brought forward in a bill that's before us right now. I don't know whether we'll get to it or not.

[1540]

Does an act like that…? Would it have any impact on the forestry agreement within the treaty?

Hon. I. Chong: No, it wouldn't.

S. Fraser: In the future, if the province makes changes to forestry acts, if new science comes out, is there a provision…? If the province wants to bring in a new policy that will create healthier forests in some way in the province, is there a provision through the treaty to work government-to-government to deal with that, or is that just dealt with separately, then?

I guess I'm wondering: is it now siloed? Will each nation have total autonomy over forest policy throughout the province and provincial policy not apply at all? I'm just wondering: are we going to end up with a patchwork of forest policies throughout the province that might make it difficult to have an overarching plan?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I suspect he understands that treaty settlement lands…. Once the treaty comes into effect and treaty settlement lands are established, in this particular case with the Tla'amin Nation, those lands will be lands owned by the Tla'amin Nation. They will be treated like private lands. To that extent, if private land owners are permitted to have whatever policies they wish, so too would the Tla'amin Nation, because it is treated like private land.

However, there are always provisions to provide or to offer and have a healthy exchange of information, especially when it comes to forest health. I would expect that if there are issues regarding forest health, the Tla'amin Nation would want to seek provincial guidance and information, and the province would, I would expect, want to provide that information to ensure that we do have a healthy forest.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I guess, I mean…. In some instances there are provisions made on Crown land for silviculture and replanting and that sort of thing so that we have the forests forever. Were there any provisions made within the treaty as the lands are…? I understand that they are turned over fee simple. That's part of the agreement. They're essentially private lands, so the Tla'amin people can do as they see right on the land.

But is there any potential to apply to the province for assistance? Was there any consideration in the negotiations if…? A part of a forestry plan in the province now usually includes provisions for replanting, for silviculture, so that you can have that rotation. Were there any provisions put into the treaty for that, or was that negotiation not considered?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I want to stress that treaty settlement lands will be treated as private lands.

[1545]

The Tla'amin First Nation will have jurisdiction. Obviously, in areas of forest health and things like fire suppression, there is, I would expect, an obligation to discuss and ensure that those policies are well respected and useful. But at the end of the day, as the member has acknowledged, these are lands which are fee simple, which will be available to the Tla'amin Nation to manage as they feel they should, because they will be deemed to be private lands.

S. Fraser: There will be a question from the member for Cariboo North on the forestry issues.

I'd like to thank the minister for that clarification. She did mention fire suppression. Again, there are recommendations that have been made for communities in the province. There's the previous Filmon report, following some pretty devastating wildfires on the land base.

Again, are there provisions, anything anticipated within the treaty or any resources that the province would be able to bring to bear to deal with risk zones for forest fires, wildfires and such? If a wildfire were to occur in or near Tla'amin territory, is there any kind of global budget that can be accessed to address those risks to the community?

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to wildfire suppression and control, on the effective date the parties will be required to enter into a wildfire suppression agreement. That will set out how the cost incurred by British Columbia for wildfire control on Tla'amin lands — for wildfires that originate on Tla'amin lands — will be shared by British Columbia, Canada and the Tla'amin Nation.

There will be an agreement, and they will set out those parameters and the costs associated with it. That's to take place on the effective date.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That clarification was very helpful. Just one last question from me on this forestry issue — before I turn it over to the member for Cariboo North — on the value of the land, the timber value of the land.

For those watching, the compensation in the treaty is
[ Page 13314 ]
in a tripartite agreement. The land portion is from the province. The federal government is responsible for essentially matching dollars to the value of the land. So it's based on, to some extent, the resources on the land.

How significant was the forestry value in the calculation of the amount of land that was designated through treaty — and, of course, the compensation, the cash component from the federal government?

[1550]

Hon. I. Chong: The province provided about 6,406 hectares of land, and I think that's in the agreement the member will see. In so doing, we did certainly consider the forestry value on the land. Therefore, as a consequence, Canada, through negotiations, made a determination and is contributing just over $45½ million to provide their matching share.

S. Fraser: A follow-up on that. Thank you for the answer, but is that based on a formula — the value of hemlock at the day on the open market? How is that forest value, the value of the land, determined under the treaty formula — in this case, with the Tla'amin First Nation?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I guess the short answer is that there is no formula, because these are, as he can appreciate, treaty negotiations that occur around the province in many tables that are happening. If you try to establish a formula, it would have to take into consideration a variety of factors.

On that basis, when the parties come to negotiate, certainly they do consider the local situation. They take a look at the availability of land, take a look at whatever opportunities are available. Obviously, lands in urban areas are different than lands in more rural-remote areas, and the availability of land in the more rural-remote areas is very different than those in the urban lands.

So there isn't a formula that negotiators have when they walk into a room and when they start discussing. They take a look at a variety of factors. Based on that, the value is then determined, which all parties would then agree to. That's how the determination is then made.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for this.

I have had questions raised, so for those watching this, for clarity, the timber value of the land has an impact on the amount of land. If the timber has a high value on the land, presumably a smaller footprint of land would be made available. If the timber values on the land were relatively low, the footprint could be larger on the land.

I realize there might be other values — mining or whatever — but if we're just talking about this one resource, there is a direct impact on the value of the size of the land portion of the settlement and the value of the resources on the land, including the timber. Just for clarity, am I correct there?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, those are definitely factors that are all considered.

B. Simpson: Some questions on part 14, the sections from 7 on, with respect to pre-existing licensees in the interest area. Having not seen maps for this, I wonder if the minister could inform us if there are any tree farm licences being impinged and if there are any replaceable forest licences being impinged as a result of this treaty settlement.

[1555]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that there was only one forest-harvesting tenure that needed to be dealt with, with respect to this treaty. Therefore, a portion of the tree forest licence, TFL 39, will become the Tla'amin lands. Through the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations…. They will be the ministry in discussion with the holders of TFL 39, and they will negotiate how to compensate for that. But there was only the one that I'm aware of. I think in the past there have been, but while this treaty was being negotiated, this was the only existing forest licence that was still in place that we needed to accommodate.

B. Simpson: In this case, as far as the minister is aware, tree farm licence 39….

I also asked about replaceable forest licences. Are there any replaceable forest licensees in the timber supply area that will be impinged by this?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised no.

B. Simpson: What area of tree farm licence will be impacted? How big is the area, on a proportional basis, to the tree farm itself?

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, we don't have that specific calculation or figure for the member, but we can certainly get that to him, if he is willing to…. We can provide it to him after the debate, unless he is wishing to have that now.

B. Simpson: Just for the record, if the gross numbers are there in terms of areas in the timber-harvesting land base that are now going to be removed from the timber-harvesting land base, whether in the timber supply area or tree farm area, what is the actual size of the removal? As the treaty states, they become fee simple lands, and it's important, I think, for British Columbians to understand what this does to impinge on the tree farm licence and/or the timber supply area. So what is the area that will be removed from the timber supply available in this particular part of the province?

[1600]

Hon. I. Chong: Sorry for the delay. We're just trying to make sure we have the accurate numbers here.

The member may not have heard me earlier in response to the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim when I indicated that in the final agreement, British Columbia provided about 6,406 hectares — just over 6,400 hectares — of land. Of that, a portion of the tree farm licence, TFL 39 — 600 hectares. I'm advised that it represents less than 1 percent of TFL 39.

B. Simpson: So some process issues of how this works.

TFL 39 is held by Western Forest Products. It's a reasonably large tree farm licence, one of those original ones that appears to have been given in order to get some private lands under control and the mill built.

The question that we have in front of us with another bill in front of this House is: what private rights are accorded to a particular company when they are given a tree farm licence — a prescribed area of the land base, a map drawn and exclusive rights in that land base?

Some of the restrictions that then are imposed on the Crown are the Crown's ability to do things like protected areas, to put other values on top of that land base. In my area, for example, caribou habitat came after a tree farm licence, and it becomes a dialogue between the companies.

Then, of course, treaty. When there are any treaty discussions going on and any treaty lands are expressed as desirable by the First Nations in tree farm licences, then there is a third party that the issues have to be discussed with.

From a process perspective, I wonder if the minister could speak to how Western Forest Products was brought into the discussion. When were they brought into the discussion? Have they been brought into the discussion? Or are these decisions made and then the discussion is had with the company? What's the process of going to a holder of a tree farm licence and saying: "We're thinking about removing some of that tree farm licence in order to settle treaty"?

[1605]

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I understand he's seeking clarification with respect to process. I guess, to be fair, this would be a process that would be, generally speaking, followed in what the negotiators…. That's why there are negotiators at the table.

In this particular case, Western Forest Products has been consulted throughout the negotiations. I understand ten years' worth of discussions have taken place. So they have been advised, have been made aware all along that there would be lands likely from their tree farm licence that would be required for the treaty settlement land. Their consultation…. After they had been made aware and advised over the course of those past ten years, we have identified those lands. We're now in the discussion stage where, in removing that tenure, we're looking at the discussion with respect to providing that compensation for them.

For the benefit of the member, wherever you identify lands that you need to make available for treaties, I would say that clearly the negotiators would know that nobody wants to be surprised at the last moment. Everybody would like to have an opportunity to discuss, to negotiate and to even take a look at whether those are the appropriate lands or whether the size or amount will do or whether it should be larger. I'm advised that negotiators are, I guess, consistently doing that when they're dealing with treaties.

B. Simpson: Just for the clarification…. I don't know if anybody is watching this or not, but clarification for Hansard, too, because people do read the record.

In any given operating area in the province where treaties are being discussed, there are two different portions, if you will, of the timber harvesting land base, which is the Crown's area that they believe is available for companies to cut — get reasonable commercial volume of timber and then take it to processing facilities.

One is tree farm licences — and I do want to come back to the process, then, of dialogue around compensation — and the other is what we call the timber supply area. The timber supply area is where there is this discussion about volume-based licences being issued as opposed to a tree farm licence, which is a specific and exclusive area given to a company to manage, supposedly for better forest management into the future, to attract investment, etc.

Is there a different dialogue that the government has to have with companies that operate in the timber supply area where there are only volume licences? Is there a requirement for the Crown to sit and have conversations with licensees who are operating in the timber supply area and only have a volume licence?

[1610]

Hon. I. Chong: I hope this is the answer he is looking for. After land has been identified and removed from the timber supply area for the treaty lands, the chief forester will then determine if the AAC, the annual allowable cut, needs to be adjusted. Obviously, if you are removing something, then the adjustment would generally be whether it needs to be reduced. If so, then British Columbia would be in a position to provide compensation to those third parties on the remaining TSA.

I'm not sure if that was what he was looking for, but I hope that helps.

B. Simpson: You've gone to some of the compensation aspects of it. What I'm trying to understand is the relative difference between the rights of holding a particular forest licence, because it is in the public domain that we're
[ Page 13316 ]
having that kind of debate just now. As you convert from a volume-based licence to an area-based licence, what rights does that accord?

From a process perspective, in terms of the dialogue that would be going on with licensees in the timber supply area…. They don't have exclusive rights. They have rights to a volume, and then if that area is impinged on a large enough scale, the chief forester would then reset the annual allowable cut. If the annual allowable cut comes down significantly, then he'd have to talk to those licence holders about loss of volume.

Depending on the nature of their licence, that may or may not trigger compensation. That's my understanding of how that process works. But on a tree farm licence we have to treat the holder of that licence as if they've got private land–like rights, because it's a mapped area.

The dialogue that we have to have with the tree farm licence holder…. We know we're heading to compensation in some form — it's a given — the minute that you exclude that land.

[1615]

Just to be clear, what I'm asking for is: when are the volume licensees brought into the process if it looks like the timber supply area is going to be encroached on? When do they actually have to come to the table? When are they involved?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, if I can understand where he is trying to seek clarification with respect to the tree farm licence holders and the timber supply area, I can say this. I'm advised that the consultation and the process for consultation is done in exactly the same way, whether you are a tree farm licence holder or on the timber supply area. The compensation is also provided on the same basis.

The negotiators in our ministry and other ministries…. We work across ministries, in fact, with local governments, with stakeholders, to try and find, as I say, the best possible outcome. But in essence, they are treated in the same fashion.

B. Simpson: I'm not sure that is accurate, so let's try and explore this a little bit more.

The reality is that compensation may not be triggered at all on a timber supply area. If the land base encroaches on there, if it doesn't encroach necessarily too far into the timber-harvesting land base, if there's not a big adjustment in the annual allowable cut, then there is no compensation required, because the annual allowable cut doesn't come down sufficiently. All the licensees can achieve their licence objectives, so there is no compensation.

My understanding is that it's fundamentally different when it comes to a tree farm licence. The minute you draw treaty lands and exclude any portions of the tree farm licence, that automatically triggers compensation because you're excluding areas from the tree farm licence — the fundamental difference between a land-based or area-based tenure and a volume-based tenure.

The trigger in the volume-based timber supply area is whether or not the annual allowable cut adjustment impacts the licensees. If it doesn't, there's no compensation. If it does, then it depends on the nature of the licence whether there is compensation or not. It's a different process.

[1620]

On a tree farm licence, the minute you start creating exclusion areas, it's my understanding that that automatically triggers some form of compensation. I wonder if the minister could clarify that in tree farm licence areas, when you exclude areas of a tree farm licence for treaty, would there ever be a case that compensation would not be paid for that?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm just going back through some of the responses I gave to the member earlier. I had indicated that after land is removed from the timber supply area, the chief forester will determine if the AAC needs to be adjusted.

If it does need to be adjusted, if it has to be reduced, in that case there could be compensation provided. But if in fact the chief forester makes a determination that the removal of lands from a TSA does not in fact reduce the AAC for the remaining lands that are there, there would not necessarily be compensation. So, too, could the situation be for a tree farm licence. The member asked if ever the lands could be removed without compensation.

It could also, in effect, take place where those lands were deemed to be non-productive, were not contributing to the AAC, and they were part of the tree farm licence, yes, they could in fact be removed without compensation.

B. Simpson: Unless, of course, there are roads and bridges and infrastructure that are going through there that require compensation, because that's the different part of a tree farm licence. It's area-based.

You may have a road that goes through an area. I mean, I don't know why First Nations, unless there are some traditional activities on the land base, would want non-productive land. But given that they might want some non-productive land, there could still be improvements on that land that they would get compensated for. The same would not hold true if unproductive land was taken out of the timber supply area where the improvements were there, because we wouldn't compensate, necessarily, for those improvements.

I think we need to be crystal-clear here that what happens is that there's a different form of compensation. In fact, it's in this act in front of us, where it explicitly names a tree farm licence as a special designation for compensation. It's right in the sections that we're dealing with, as
[ Page 13317 ]
opposed to naming volume-based licences.

Let me come to this specific case. As the minister indicated, there has been a long dialogue with Western Forest Products about the potential removal of lands from this TFL, TFL 39. The minister has indicated it's only 1 percent of the total land base. What is the expectation on the part of the government, based on past experience, of the potential compensation from the Crown to Western Forest Products? What's the range of compensation that might occur there?

[1625]

Hon. I. Chong: That is still being negotiated. When I indicated 1 percent, it was the less than 1 percent of the TFL licence, not of the entire land base of the treaty.

B. Simpson: I understand that 1 percent of the tree farm licence is what the minister had indicated. So what is the process, then, for determining that? We're going to be giving assent to a treaty here that does actually designate those lands as treaty lands. Those lands become, in effect, fee simple–like lands. This 1 percent will be removed from the TFL.

When the government goes to Treasury Board for treaty, they have to have some sense of what the cost to government must be for the treaty. Again, I look to the minister to correct my understanding if it's wrong.

Usually what triggers moving into an AIP leading to a treaty is that Canada comes to the table with cash; the government comes to the table with land. And the balance between cash and land has to be somewhat equivalent and has to take into consideration other treaty settlements, either past or pending in the future.

That submission has to go to Treasury Board because there's still a valuation on the land aspect of that. How does the minister make any projection to Treasury Board about the compensation component of that land? If there's compensation required to forest licensees or range licensees or other licensees, how do you make that projection to Treasury Board? Do you do it during the treaty process, or does treasury just sort of deal with it after a treaty is settled?

[1630]

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, I want to confirm with the member that he is aware that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is the ministry that will be responsible for completing the negotiations for compensation.

Having said that, I want to advise, then, that the compensation certainly will be a negotiated amount. It is guided by the legislative framework in this bill and then subject to government approval before any payment is made.

B. Simpson: Again, just for the edification of anybody that ends up reading this transcript or is watching, the actual process for compensation is laid out in section 14 of the final agreement act. Starting in subsection (7), it lays out a process. That process ultimately ends up in regulations established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or cabinet, that will guide the process of compensation.

What I'm trying to determine, though, and what the minister didn't answer is that while FLNRO may have the lead, treaties have a cost to government. There is a Treasury Board submission, as I understand it, associated with treaty. I just need clarification from the minister.

When we know that we're going to trigger compensation, regardless of who leads, it is a cost to the taxpayer writ large. It is a Treasury Board decision.

Is there any quantification of the range of what the potential cost to government will be of compensation for deleted lands from tree farm licences or because of annual allowable cuts being re-established? Is a ballpark figure given in the treasury submission?

[1635]

Hon. I. Chong: If the member is requesting that I provide him with a ballpark figure or a figure, I would have to tell him today that I'm not able to do so, because to do so could, in fact, fetter the negotiations that need to take place with respect to the compensation.

These things are considered, as I say, with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in charge of the negotiations. They certainly are aware and have been aware, as we have done other treaties in the past. But again, if he's requesting a figure today, to provide that would and could hamper and be a detriment to the negotiation that takes place.

B. Simpson: I wasn't asking the minister for the actual, explicit figure. I was asking if, in the presentation, because submissions to Treasury Board are cost-based submissions…. You're saying: "This is what we think it's going to cost us to settle this treaty."

If there was no tree farm licence on the land base that was triggering compensations for excluding from there, if there was no impingement on the annual allowable cut, then there wouldn't be cash required from the province for that compensation. But depending on the nature of the land base that's being asked for, especially if we create more tree farm licences that cover the large portion of the interior of the province, it could trigger larger and larger settlements.

That's all I'm asking. As part of the package in front of Treasury Board, does the submission come with a range kept to Treasury Board — not put in the public domain — of what the costs might be to government because of the deletions or because of the impact on the annual allowable cut?

[1640]

Hon. I. Chong: I'll try this one more time. As I indicated, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations have been authorized to negotiate compensation according to the legislation — as the member has rightly indicated — in section 14(7), where we start.

Our role in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in bringing forward this legislation…. We have already been to Treasury Board, have already provided the framework and the amounts which are indicated in the legislation. With Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, they still have their work to do in negotiating compensation. Once they are complete, then they would return to Treasury Board for that appropriation.

B. Simpson: Effectively, if I understand that, then that's an unknown. On each treaty that we settle, there's an unknown portion, which is the compensation portion. Once there's an agreement that gets you to treaty, the land is committed by the province, the federal government gives cash to the First Nations, but then there's another series, as the minister's indicating, of negotiations. I'm sure it's not just around forestry; it's around other allocated rights — grazing or fishing or whatever those other allocated rights are.

Just a question on this, because from a public perspective it's public land that's being given as part of the treaty process — Crown land, if you will. The dispute between Crown and First Nations aboriginal right and title is settled, and the land reverts back to the First Nations as their rightful land. Using a fee simple model, the Crown no longer asserts control over that land. Yet the Crown can't expropriate that land, right? There's an explicit clause in here that the Expropriation Act does not apply to forest lands.

I wonder if the minister could explain why we can't simply expropriate land for achieving a treaty.

Hon. I. Chong: With all due respect, I think there may be some confusion. If I've not conveyed it to him, then I will attempt again. When he mentioned the Expropriation Act, he's correct that it does not apply, because what we're talking about here is the Expropriation Act does not apply on private lands.

What is happening here is that we are looking at extinguishing a tenure, which is not the same as land. It's important to note that, because the land that is removed for treaty is wholly Crown land and was not held by the licensee as fee simple land. So compensation that is payable to the licensee is not determined under the rules of the Expropriation Act. Because of the extinguishment or removal of the tenure, that is why there is a negotiation that needs to take place and a compensation needs to be made.

[1645]

B. Simpson: The minister isn't being obtuse. I mean, it is a progressive series of answers that are being given as I try to understand what's going on, because this is a topic of discussion just now in terms of what tree farm licences do relative to privatization of the Crown land base. Does the extinguishment of tenure apply equally to tree farm licence tenure as it does to other forms of volume-based tenures?

Let me ask the question differently. As far as I understand — I'm trying to frame the question, so bear with me a second — there's an explicit statement in the Forest Act that does not allow the expropriation with respect to tree farm licences that I'm aware of. So the Expropriation Act does not apply in a tree farm licence, because as the minister has indicated, it's an extinguishment of a right that's been given with respect to that particular land base.

I'm asking the minister if extinguishment also applies to other forms of forest licences, like replaceable and non-replaceable licences. Does the inability to use expropriation apply to those forms of licences as well?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps this will, again, provide the clarification. Compensation is available for loss of AAC, annual allowable cut, and also for unamortized improvements, regardless of the form of tenure.

B. Simpson: Not to belabour the point, I'll actually go and just look at the Forest Act to see about the Expropriation Act not being used, because it's how you do the compensation — whether you can actually just expropriate and compensate at what the government thinks is the fair market value or whether it's a negotiated agreement between the parties, okay?

As I understand it, as laid out in this act, the process post-agreement…. So the treaty is signed. The treaty is going to be implemented. Then within 21 days the chief forester must reset…. So the chief forester would have to look at the timber supply area and reset the allowable annual cut.

That may or may not trigger compensation discussions, as the minister has indicated, led by FLNRO. If it's a small reduction and there's lots of opportunity there for cutting and no volume licences are impacted, then the likelihood of compensation would be minimal.

On the tree farm licence, the deleted areas, then, would initiate a conversation. Again, within 21 days, the AAC implications of the deleted areas would have to be dealt with. Because the government can't use expropriation, then they have to establish regulations, as I understand this act — the regulations by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the compensation process and the regulations guiding compensation in that particular treaty.

If there's any dispute in the compensation process, then this act states that if an offer is made and it's not accepted or whatever happens, the private entities would have the right to use the Commercial Arbitration Act. If you
[ Page 13319 ]
can't get to agreement, they would use the Commercial Arbitration Act to get an arbitrated agreement on the value of whatever they deemed their losses to be.

Let me just check with the minister that that's the process — that within 21 days the AACs have to be reset. That will tell us whether or not compensation is going to be part of the ongoing dialogue. FLNRO takes over, and they begin the dialogue. If the dialogue winds down or gets into a sticky situation, I would imagine the government makes an offer. If the licensee doesn't like the offer, they go through commercial arbitration.

Is that a fair statement of what the process is?

Hon. I. Chong: The member has obviously read the section, and I would characterize that as a pretty fair summation of what's happening.

[1650]

B. Simpson: This is one in a series of treaties. I'm wondering, then…. The question is: where can we find out, on behalf of taxpayers, previous settlements that must have gone through this process? It strikes me there's a cost to treaties that isn't necessarily as transparent as the initial treaty is in terms of the land and cash offers. There are other costs that accrue to British Columbia taxpayers of these treaties.

Have those costs been incurred in the Tsawwassen or the Maa-nulth or other treaties? If so, is there a place that we could go and look for what those residual costs were to taxpayers? What did it cost us to buy back B.C.'s forest land in order to give it to First Nations or to rightly say to First Nations: "Now this is yours again"?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is likely aware, but I will confirm for the record that there were no forest tenures when we were negotiating Tsawwassen, which was our first modern-day treaty under the B.C. treaty process. The following treaty was Maa-nulth, and it would be following the same framework which we now have before us in Tla'amin. However, they are still in negotiations, so there is not a report out yet on that. Yale has not yet commenced.

If we had more treaties, completed treaties, we would have more opportunity to provide that to the member, but we are still working through a number of them.

B. Simpson: I want to give the floor back to the opposition critic here. That's interesting that Maa-nulth has yet to be settled. This is a long post-treaty process of valuing this land base and settling and so on, so I'd be curious to see how that turns out.

For the minister and her negotiators, in terms of the experience in negotiating these treaties that involve land base that is encumbered with a tree farm licence, do tree farm licences make the dialogue more difficult?

When you've got an exclusive map there, you have the land base that's assigned to a private corporation, and if we go and do more of these tree farm licences through the rest of the process, does that make it a more difficult task at the table to negotiate treaties where you're going to start now pulling back and clawing back areas that you're going to have to delete from tree farm licences?

Is it easier to have land base discussions in the timber supply area, or is there no difference between the two?

[1655]

Hon. I. Chong: If I heard the member's question correctly, I think he was trying to ascertain whether it was more difficult to deal with one form versus another one with the negotiators. Let me just say this to the member. Our policy is to avoid third-party interests regardless of form, so that's what the negotiators do, and that's what they will continue to do going forward.

S. Fraser: I had a number of questions around subsection 7, but they've pretty much all been probed and answered. I do have one though. I know you don't know the number of….

Obviously, the compensation issue has been probed pretty well. Because the negotiation on the compensation is done through a different ministry than MARR, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, does that then mean that compensation that would be paid in this treaty for the Tla'amin people or for other treaties, Maa-nulth or future treaties to come…?

Where does the compensation come from? Is it Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations? That's the ministry that does the negotiation, from what I hear. Does it, then, come out of their budget? That's the first piece of this question.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member likely heard in my answer to the member for Cariboo North, I indicated that we have not yet concluded compensation amounts where we have treaties. So at this time, because we have not yet concluded that, the determination as to where the compensation is to be paid from has not yet been determined. We are certainly mindful of that, and when an appropriation is necessary, we will make that to Treasury Board and then that determination will be made. We're not there yet.

S. Fraser: Maybe I didn't phrase the question right. I understand you're not there yet.

The application of the Maa-nulth treaty is underway. It's actually rolling now. Five nations have come out from under the yoke of the Indian Act, and it's wonderful. Two nations have joined the regional district in that case. That's still being negotiated. That compensation for Western Forest Products is still being negotiated.

I guess the question is: where do I find the…? Where is it budgeted for? Compensation from a treaty process,
[ Page 13320 ]
compensation to a third party: where is that accounted for? What ministry?

In this case it's the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations that negotiates the compensation that followed from the treaty. Does that mean that ministry then budgets for that, whatever the amount might end up being negotiated? Like, what budget does it come out of? Does it come out of treaty budget? Does it come out of the package that would be…?

Would it affect the package of compensation for the First Nation? If Tla'amin has this treaty ratified federally and there's a cost to compensation, are they paying for it? Is it coming out of a budget for the treaty settlement, because it's a cost of treaty? I'm unclear. I haven't been able to find a line item on this.

Hon. I. Chong: First of all, I want to say that any compensation that is negotiated will not be affecting the First Nations, the settlement that we've agreed upon in terms of our treaty.

[1700]

In my previous answer I had indicated that because we have not yet had to request an appropriation, it has not yet been determined what exact budget that will be provided for. It could be Forests. It could be Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. But because we do not yet have that dollar amount…. You don't just put a budget in a line item not knowing that or not providing for that envelope.

I think that the best I can tell the member is that once we have our first compensation and that is determined, then we will be able to establish that, going forward. As the other treaties that we have in play also are dealt with, in terms of those compensations, we'll be in a better position to know which specific ministry budget should have to accommodate for that.

S. Fraser: I think I've got it. I think that I'm ready to move on — except, just for my clarity, there's…. We don't have estimates in this session. I realize that. That's somewhat problematic, so that's why I'm just pursuing this a bit further.

In the budget this year, the budget that was just passed in this House today, I could find no identification of compensation money to be paid — from any treaty. There are negotiations happening right now with a number of treaties for compensation to third parties, so there is presumably a cost to that, because there's a negotiation on.

Am I to believe, then, that whatever compensation is out there — for, I guess, Maa-Nulth, Yale and Tla'amin — there will be compensation potentially paid to third parties? It's not identified in any line item in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and I couldn't find it in Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Is it to be a cost identified in a future budget once those numbers are identified? Where is the money going to come from? I just need to know that.

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct. It will be in a future budget with a future determination once we have that. But at present he would not have found it in my budget or in the Ministry of Forests because we haven't got that determination.

S. Fraser: Thank you.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

S. Fraser: On the foreshore agreement, section 15(2) here says: "Within the identified area, the Tla'amin Nation may (a) exercise law-making authority delegated to it under the foreshore agreement." That's in section (a) — "law-making authority." Could the minister just identify what that would mean? Maybe an example of what we were talking about here.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. I. Chong: What we're referring to here is that the delegated law-making authority would be similar to that of local government. As I say, it being similar to local governments if they wanted to have authority with respect to not allowing bonfires to take place, to have restrictions or noise bylaws, issues of nuisance. Those are the kinds of delegated law-making authority that would be similar to local governments and that the Tla'amin would also have the ability to undertake.

The Chair: Alberni–Pacific Rim.

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, welcome back. We're still puttering away here.

So they're essentially a bylaw type of law-making authority.

In section (b) it moves on to talk about enforcement of the laws. How would that enforcement of these laws…? Would that be some form of bylaw enforcement — that sort of thing?

[1705]

Hon. I. Chong: That would be correct.

S. Fraser: Subsection (4): "For the term of the foreshore agreement, (a) the Powell River Regional District may not exercise any of its powers or perform any of its duties in the identified area…." Then there's a list of exceptions. But just for clarification, what powers and duties are we referring to here? Is this just the reciprocal of the duties and powers that Tla'amin would then be undertaking, be given the authority for?
[ Page 13321 ]

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that's correct.

S. Fraser: In subsection (5), it goes on…. I am somewhat confused by this. It says: "If, on the date the foreshore agreement comes into effect, the Tla'amin Nation has not enacted a law under a law-making authority delegated by the foreshore agreement, a bylaw, if any, of the Powell River Regional District in respect of the delegated matter, that applied in the identified area immediately before the coming into effect of the foreshore agreement…." I don't understand that. Can that be explained to me, please? I just can't get my head around the wording on this.

Hon. I. Chong: Subsection (5) is there to ensure that there are no gaps in authority when a foreshore agreement takes effect by deeming the regional district bylaws to be the Tla'amin laws in areas where the Tla'amin has not enacted a law.

Let's say that Tla'amin has not yet had the opportunity to determine what its bylaw is with respect to noise or nuisance. If we don't have someone who is going to, therefore, have that law-making authority, then there could be a lot of nuisance and noises that take place. So in the absence of Tla'amin having put in place their bylaws, in essence, the regional district would be able to have theirs enforced.

So it is to make sure there's no gap — that there is a bylaw that, I think, everyone is concerned about that would carry on.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that. The wording on that I found particularly confusing. So for clarification, just so I've got this right, there is a…. Is it automatic that if Tla'amin does not put in a law — exercise their law-making authority on an issue — automatically the existing bylaw, for instance, of the regional district, Powell River, would still apply without any consultation with the Tla'amin on this?

Maybe the omission of not putting in a law means there would be no requirement for one, according to the First Nation involved. So I'm curious as to how this works. Is this a fallback position that automatically kicks in?

Hon. I. Chong: This is really a stopgap measure. It ensures there is no gap. This, as I say, does allow the regional district's bylaws to be in place until such time as Tla'amin can put in their bylaws. Now, I'm advised that this is only in effect, as well, for six months. So in effect, as the member indicated, if Tla'amin was not interested in a bylaw after six months, that is what's going to take place.

To his point about the confusion, I've expressed that to legal counsel, that they may have to make it more clear next time.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. But let me throw back an example. For instance — this is what confuses me — if within that six months, if there was a previous fire bylaw or noise bylaw, post-treaty a Tla'amin member makes noise or there's a fire, would a bylaw enforcement officer from Powell River would enforce the previous bylaw? I can't see that…. Have I got this right?

[1710]

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps we have to connect subsection (5) and subsection (6). In subsection (5) we are ensuring that there are no gaps in authority — okay? — when there is a foreshore agreement that takes effect by deeming the regional district bylaws to be the Tla'amin laws in areas where the Tla'amin have not enacted a law. So this is, again, to stop the gap.

Subsection (6) provides that subsection (5) be time-limited to the shorter of six months or when the Tla'amin amend the deemed law. If after six months the Tla'amin have not enacted a law in an area of its jurisdiction, provincial law would then apply. The same applies to regional districts that have no bylaws in a given area.

Again, it's to ensure that there is some authority, whether it's a local government bylaw, a First Nation bylaw or whether provincial law would eventually apply.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the clarification. But I'm not talking about provincial law here but the regional district in this case, local government. They're cited here. Their powers and responsibilities are listed here as sort of a fallback position, at least in an interim period.

Was the regional district represented at the treaty table? They're not signatories here. Just how did that come about?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, the regional district was consulted.

S. Fraser: Actually, the reason it…. There was some confusion. There was a gap, I think, from the province's point of view. I think there was a gap when the two Maa-nulth members became members of the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district.

There was confusion about who would do what, how that transition would be paid for. It was remedied, but there was a gap there that wasn't covered off.

Is there presumed compensation for costs to the regional district, for instance, in this case if they're still responsible for enforcement of bylaws post-treaty, even for a six-month period. Was there anticipated compensation for that to the regional district — or some means for covering the costs, at least?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not sure if the member…. Maybe I've not clarified it as succinctly as I should have. As I've indicated, in the absence of Tla'amin developing their own bylaws, the regional district would still have the law-making authority to enforce the existing bylaws in a particular area. If there was not a treaty, they would still have
[ Page 13322 ]
been responsible for those bylaws in any event.

What we're saying here with this treaty is that once this takes effect, the ability of Tla'amin to therefore agree or disagree with those bylaws can take place. They have six months in which to do it, after which the regional district is permitted to remove itself from the authority and allow either provincial law to apply or Tla'amin to develop its own bylaws.

Again, subsection (5) is to ensure that, as a result of these negotiations, there is no gap — whether it's bonfires or nuisance or noise, just as an example — because you would not want a free-for-all for six months for people who are going down to the beaches and making all kinds of problems.

The regional district would have still been responsible for those bylaws. When the final agreement has now been negotiated, is established, they would like to pass that on to the Tla'amin. If the Tla'amin are not yet ready to accept that responsibility, this is why the regional district is able to continue on up to six months, after which time the regional district is allowed to walk away.

If the Tla'amin have still not developed their bylaws, for whatever reason, the provincial laws then could apply to ensure that there are no infractions, as is stated.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

[1715]

S. Fraser: In "Collection of personal information" it says: "In this section, 'personal information' and 'public body' have the same meanings as in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (2) A public body may collect personal information by a method authorized under the Tla'amin Final Agreement."

I guess the question is: what's anticipated here, with section 16, in this or any other treaty?

Hon. I. Chong: I will begin my comments by saying this is the same provision that was provided in Yale, Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. All three treaties had the same provision.

Again, it is a section that authorizes British Columbia to collect personal information from the Tla'amin Nation in accordance with chapter 22 of the final agreement. That has to do with eligibility and enrolment. With chapter 22, paragraph 14 of the final agreement does provide that on request Tla'amin Nation will provide British Columbia with a copy of its enrolment register. That contains personal information as defined by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

So this is all being followed according to the rules of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Again, I would stress that is the same provision that has been provided for in Yale, Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer. So just for clarity again, this information would be accessible through FOI?

Hon. I. Chong: I think perhaps the better way to describe it is it would be protected by FOI.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

S. Fraser: The Municipal Finance Authority Act does not apply in relation to Tla'amin lands. I realize that's consistent with other treaties. I guess I have a basic question: why not? Why does it not apply?

Hon. I. Chong: I just wanted to make sure I had not missed on something here. The member will know, in his term in local government — as I have and other members of this House — that the Municipal Finance Authority Act and the Municipal Financial Authority are available to its members, who are municipalities as such. While Tla'amin Nation will be a government, it is not a municipality. It is just that straightforward.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer. I don't dispute that this is a nation coming out from under the yoke of the Indian Act, as I've said before, so I'm not equating this with being a municipality.

[1720]

However, from my time as critic for local government, when for a while I was doing both portfolios, the Municipal Finance Authority provides a huge service to local government in the sense that they have access to capital at a very reasonable rate. It helps address many of the infrastructure needs, for instance, that local governments face, that municipal governments face.

I guess it's not a rhetorical question of: why not? But it is, sort of. If not the Municipal Finance Authority as a body that can provide funding, then some other model. The needs are there, and the cost of borrowing money has an effect on being able to address those needs. And of course, the Municipal Finance Authority provides very reasonable rates of access to funds for local governments, probably the best you can get, next to the provincial government.

Has there been no consideration for First Nations, as they achieve final treaty settlements, that they have…? Is that being anticipated at all?

Hon. I. Chong: Through to the member, again, he will know that municipalities and regional districts are governed by the Community Charter — in Vancouver's case, the Vancouver Charter, and in the case of the other regional districts, the Local Government Act.
[ Page 13323 ]

First Nations, after the result of their treaty, are not governed by any of those pieces of legislation, which carries with it obligations and inherent risks and a number of other duties. There is a difference. It is a government. It is a form of government, but it is not a "local government" as defined by the Community Charter or the Local Government Act. I would say, though, that there are other sources, such as the First Nations Finance Authority. That has been established. That's the federal government's approach to provide for that.

I expect that perhaps, as more and more treaties are negotiated and are finalized, there may be a role for an opening up of the dialogue and discussion with the federal government — whether that First Nations Finance Authority can be as successful as our own Municipal Finance Authority.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm not trying to be confrontational here. There could be a role for the province, too, because the Municipal Act or the Local Government Act is a creation of the province, of the provincial government, of this place — and so is the act that allows for the Municipal Finance Authority to provide the vital services they do for local governments.

As First Nations, we're seeing…. We've had acts in this House — last year Bill 43, FNCIDA, the Commercial and Industrial Development Act. I get acronyms wrong sometimes, but I think that's right. We're seeing moves where provincial regulations are being asked to apply, on reserve in some cases, with First Nations. We're seeing bridging. There's a blurring of boundaries between how local governments, First Nations governments, the province and the federal government interact together.

Again, there's a distinct disadvantage for many First Nations in having access to funds, whether they accomplish treaty or not. It's just something for maybe another discussion. But you know, I don't believe it's as black and white as: "Well, they're not a municipality, so they don't have the access to this."

Under the act, I get it, but I would suggest that there's still a need there for an efficient model like the Municipal Finance Authority, which might be made available for First Nations as a means for closing the gap. Just maybe a gratuitous comment, if the minister wants to respond.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would just say that there is a First Nations Finance Authority, and perhaps that is an area that can be explored — as I indicated in my previous answer to the member — a bit further.

You know, I'm not trying to be insensitive to the comments the member is making, but we do have, certainly, the local governments and the municipalities, which have their own legislation under which they're governed. The Municipal Finance Authority Act is an act that is provided by the province. They also have their own ability to govern and have members accepted as well.

[1725]

It's not as straightforward as he would say. I know he knows this, as a former member of a local government. If it's something that he believes needs to be further explored, I think that the local governments, the area associations, should obviously be asked about this as well, what their feelings on it are.

As the member will know, the reason why the Municipal Finance Authority has such great success and regard with their triple-A credit rating, as we have, is because they have been very cautious, very careful, and put in very strict rigours in terms of the risks associated with it. Obviously, before they were to…. If they are to make changes, they would want to identify, again, all of those possibilities.

Again, I'm not trying to be flippant about it. I just wanted to let the member know that it is not just, I guess, a directive that we in the province here can make to the Municipal Finance Authority. I do think he knows that, but I'll just offer that up.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I don't disagree, although again, with FNCIDA…. I mean, she's saying that there's a need for security and investment. I understand that. But in the case of FNCIDA, that's the reason for allowing or creating a mechanism where provincial regulations and standards apply on federal land — in this case, reserve land.

I mean, that was already a mechanism brought into play in at least two First Nations in British Columbia — the Haisla and Squamish — to make sure that there were those checks and balances and securities, if you will, for lending money.

I'm not disagreeing with the minister. I'm just saying that movement has been made in that direction already that could help provide the security necessary for a body like the Municipal Finance Authority.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

S. Fraser: It's a wording question, actually, and a spelling. Sliammon and Tla'amin are spelled two different ways in the beginning of this section 20. I'm just not sure why. We don't see that throughout the bill. I'm just curious why it's appearing here.

Hon. I. Chong: I think what the member is referring to is in subsection (1), when it says Sliammon Indian Band. That is their current name, but on the effective date they have expressed a desire to go back to their historic name, which is Tla'amin Nation. That is why we have to make reference to Sliammon, because that is their current name.
[ Page 13324 ]

Sections 20 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

S. Fraser: During the briefing with your fine staff, Minister, I did mention that I would probably stand on these two sections here at least, maybe three — yeah, three.

[1730]

Just so that there is no confusion for those that may be watching or reading from afar…. The section of the Local Government Act being repealed here in the treaty might cause some confusion. I just ask the minister to explain what's actually being said here so that nobody thinks the Local Government Act is being changed through a treaty process in any way that could be seen as a threat.

Hon. I. Chong: Apologies. I was just, believe it or not, having an argument with legal counsel. I should know that that's not always a good thing to do, because we can have quite the debate.

The reason why section 25 is being repealed here is because it made reference specifically to Maa-nulth when the Maa-nulth agreement was there. What it would mean is that every time we did an agreement dealing with the foreshore, we would always go back to looking at making changes to the Local Government Act.

[1735]

What we've been able to accomplish here in section 25 is repealing section 795.5, which was inserted because of Maa-nulth. You will see then in section 26, which subsequently follows, how we are replacing it for Maa-nulth in the Tla'amin agreement. As we go forward, the way we are approaching the foreshore with Tla'amin is the better way to go and more consistent.

In general, what we are doing in 25 and 26 is putting in the correction from Maa-nulth in the Tla'amin agreement, which is why it's in the consequentials as opposed to an act in force. I hope that makes sense to the member. Either that, or he's going to have to have the debate with legal counsel.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

S. Fraser: I never try to argue with legal counsel.

I made a point of not standing on 26 because the minister addressed what was going on in 26, and I had this explained to me already. Your fine staff had to be patient with me because I didn't get it at first, but on the briefing I got it. I thought it was important that the understanding was there for everyone who was watching — what this meant and that it wasn't an onerous thing and that it wasn't something that was trying to be snuck through at the end.

Because there was no mention on 27 of the Yale treaty, we have another amendment here — again, a similar kind of pattern. It's not an end run on the Yale treaty, is what I want to make clear. If the minister could confirm the role for section 27 referring to the Yale treaty here, towards the finish of the Tla'amin treaty.

Hon. I. Chong: Embarrassingly, it really is about correcting a typo.

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

S. Fraser: I wanted to thank the minister and her fine staff for being patient with myself and colleagues here, and thanks for providing us with the information that you have.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:39 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — TLA'AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Bill 4, Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. S. Bond: Since this is my earliest opportunity, I rise to raise a point of privilege related to the member for Skeena's comments during question period today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call committee stage of Bill 5, intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.
[ Page 13325 ]

The committee met at 5:40 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to address Bill 5, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013. This is a bill that we support. It's a conservation bill, and there are many parts in it which I and some other members will be referring to — only in part, I expect, and to the relief of the minister, I'm sure.

Section 1 is with regard to Mount Maxwell Ecological Reserve on Saltspring Island. I haven't been to Mount Maxwell for quite a number of years, but I remember climbing up there. It's a spectacular viewpoint from Mount Maxwell and, as I recall, it has a very steep drop-off. It's quite awe-inspiring.

The minister had a release on this on February 18, 2012, and refers to B.C. Parks and the Nature Trust teaming up to secure threatened lands, those being Mount Maxwell and Burgoyne Bay protected areas. It makes reference, either here or in another part I read, if I recall correctly, with regard to the Garry oak conservation. The minister can correct me if I've got that wrong.

Maybe I'll just ask the minister to give us a breakdown of what the main points are in the securing of this 22-hectare property.

Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to introduce the staff that are here with me today to help us through committee stage. On my right I have Lori Halls, who is the assistant deputy minister for parks and the conservation officer service; and on my left, Ken Morrison, who is the manager of planning and land administration for B.C. Parks.

Thank you to the member for the question. The property is within the relatively rare coastal Douglas fir biogeoclimatic zone. Along with the surrounding parks and ecological reserve, this property protects the largest stand of Garry oak woodlands in Canada. This is significant from a biodiversity and conservation point of view.

M. Sather: That's very exciting. Garry oak is threatened in some respects. I think it is full-on threatened, as I recall. That's great.

Does the minister or staff know exactly or approximately what the size is of that Garry oak stand? What is the size of it?

[1745]

Hon. T. Lake: There is sort of a constellation of ecological reserves and parks in that area in which the Garry oak woodland is found. Mount Maxwell Ecological Reserve is what we're adding in today, but we also have Mount Maxwell Provincial Park and Burgoyne Bay Park.

The total of all three of those areas is over 500 hectares. Now, not all of that is covered with the Garry oak, but the Garry oak is found over that whole constellation of the three properties.

M. Sather: I want to congratulate the minister and the government on making that purchase. Certainly, we have Garry oaks here in Victoria. They're a beautiful species, and I just wanted to thank the minister for that.

Section 1 approved on division.

On section 2.

M. Sather: There are a number of parks mentioned under section 2. I wanted to ask the minister some questions about some of them.

One of them is Bridge Lake Park, which is in the Okanagan. It's a beautiful park, if anybody hasn't seen it. It's got a variable park shoreline, beautiful islands and the like.

It says that the addition of this park is as a result of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. The addition to the park is a large undeveloped shoreline area of Crown land on Bridge Lake.

He will know about a dispute that had been going on around Bridge Lake where a developer wanted to swap Crown land along the shoreline in exchange for an island that the developer owned in the lake, and I've never actually heard whether that had been resolved. First of all, I wanted to ask the minister if this piece of shoreline is that part that was spoken about in that dispute.

Hon. T. Lake: Because I'm from the Interior, I feel the need to correct the member in that Bridge Lake is not in the Okanagan. It is in the Cariboo. And for all members present, Kamloops is not in the Okanagan either. It's in the Thompson valleys.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: I know, hard to believe. The great city of Kamloops, in the Thompson valleys.

The answer to the member's question is no, that piece of land is not included in this.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for correcting me. I do know where it is, and I misspoke there. I've been to it. It's a lovely lake. It's 405 hectares, so it's a reasonably good size.

This is tangential, I realize, but can the minister say anything about the state of affairs with regard to that disputed area in Bridge Lake?

Hon. T. Lake: Madam Chair, I believe that's under the auspices of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

M. Sather: Well, that's fair enough. I guess we won't
[ Page 13326 ]
get to question the minister on it this year, perhaps, but another time.

[1750]

One of the parks that's made mention of here is Inkaneep Park. That's along the Okanagan River. There's an addition being made to Inkaneep Park as a mitigation measure for the small deletion of 0.24 hectares to provide a road to a planned correctional facility. I wondered if the minister could tell me more specifically where the addition is being made.

Hon. T. Lake: The addition is at the northernmost end of the park. It kind of follows the road and squares off. It is 0.9 hectares of additional land at the north end of the park.

M. Sather: There is mention in section 2, also, of a couple of other parks that I didn't see in the backgrounder — the backgrounder is quite helpful — from the website of the ministry. One of them mentioned is McDonald Creek Park. Apparently, this is 468 hectares on Arrow Lakes near Nakusp.

Can the minister explain how much the park is being decreased in size and what the reason for it is?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm told that McDonald Creek Park is not in the bill. It was included in error in the explanatory notes, but it is not part of the bill.

M. Sather: Well, that would clarify why it's not in the backgrounder, then. I'm assuming, then, that Wakes Cove Park and Truman Dagnus Locheed Park are also not in the bill.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, they are in fact part of the bill.

M. Sather: Well, let's look at Wakes Cove Park, then, which I understand is in the north central Gulf Islands area. The same question with it: how much was it reduced by, and why was it reduced?

Hon. T. Lake: This is a correction of an administrative error. It is 0.1 of a hectare that's being removed. That will enable the restoration of an existing breakwater that protects a facility of the West Vancouver Yacht Club.

M. Sather: And Truman Dagnus Locheed Park — a nice title — which I understand is on the northeast side of Okanagan Lake, southwest of Vernon. It's being repealed entirely. How big was that park, and why is it being repealed?

Hon. T. Lake: The area is about seven hectares. It's being cancelled, but the land is being transferred to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, which will negotiate a long-term lease with the regional district of North Okanagan, to be used for regional park purposes. So it essentially will remain a park, but under the auspices of the North Okanagan regional district.

[1755]

M. Sather: I'm afraid I didn't quite catch all that. It's remaining a park, but under the regional district. Was that a request by the regional district, then? It was a provincial park before, I understand, and it's being moved to a regional park. Why did that take place? Did the regional district want that, for some reason?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm told that this land was donated by a family in the 1970s. There are no facilities in the park, and the heirs of the family have asked that the land be transferred to the regional district to be operated as a regional park. I presume that the family would like to see this as a more active park. Under the regional district, as a regional park, that would be more easily accomplished.

M. Sather: Those are all the questions I have on section 2. I believe my colleague has questions on section 3, when we get there.

Section 2 approved on division.

On section 3.

C. Trevena: I've got a couple of questions on section 3 for the minister, just to get some items on the record.

As the minister knows, we are supportive of the removal of this section of park on a temporary basis for the reconstruction of the John Hart dam generating station. I wanted to get on the record how much of the park, the amount of hectares, will be removed. What proportion of the park is that?

Hon. T. Lake: The area that's being removed is 5.65 hectares. The park itself is 1,087 hectares, so that represents about 0.5 percent of the total area.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Is the area that is being removed…? I'm assuming — and I wanted to clarify because of the description — that it is just from Highway 28 over to the construction site, that segment there. It's around where the construction of the dam is going to be.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is mostly correct. Most of that land is coming out at the site of construction, but there is a small existing road that is required for access to the west that will come out of the park as well.

Just to remind the member and those watching, all of the land that comes out will be put into a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act so that it can only be…. It is still protected. Only this kind of work to
[ Page 13327 ]
service the dam can be done under that protection.

C. Trevena: That's good news. So the land will literally just be used for…. Everything won't be torn out. It will just be used for access and for that bit of work.

I understand it is a temporary removal while the construction is going on. Is it foreseen that all the land will be reintegrated into the park apart from, obviously, the construction of the road? Does the minister have any idea for how long the removal will be?

[1800]

Hon. T. Lake: It's difficult to know exactly what land will be put back into the park after construction, because obviously, they have to kind of look at the values of the land involved. The agreement with B.C. Hydro is that they will provide additional land as a grant to the park to make up for any land that is not able to be put back in.

I think the second question that the member asked was about the economic aspects. This project is projected to cost just over $1 billion — 2,000 person years of employment over five years, beginning in 2013 — and expected to provide employment and business opportunities for residents of Campbell River, First Nations and other north Island communities.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I didn't ask the economic impact, which we are all excited about in Campbell River — just the duration. The minister is basically looking at what B.C. Hydro said, so about 2017 will be when we get it back into park status.

Does the minister have any ideas or any plans of how it would be reintegrated, that section that can be reintegrated? How will that happen? While talking about that, the alternate land — the additional land that B.C. Hydro is providing — is that adjacent to the existing Elk Falls Provincial Park, or is it in a different location?

Hon. T. Lake: Just to be clear, the construction is expected to start in 2013 and go for five years, so it will be 2018 when that land gets put back into the park. The exact location and sort of makeup of the land to go back into the park will have to be judged once the project is completed. But Hydro does have some small inholdings in the park that could be used as a donation to the park to make up for any land that isn't able to be returned to the park.

C. Trevena: For the additional land that B.C. Hydro produces, is the minister looking at the value of that land in the trees that are there, the ecological mix that's there? Or would the minister be looking at literally the percentage of acreage there? Would it be quality or quantity, I guess, is my question, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: The considerations are not just the amount of land but the quality of the land, the values associated with the land and how they fit the park management plan's vision. All of that would be taken into account when those lands are put in.

C. Trevena: Just to clarify, then. B.C. Hydro hasn't actually identified those lands. It's going to be a discussion at the end of the project.

Hon. T. Lake: Hydro has identified some potential land, but again, that discussion will be ongoing through the project and finalized as we get close to the end of construction.

C. Trevena: Is there any cost incurred in the removal of the land and then the reintegration of new lands into the park?

[1805]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the process of removing the land obviously requires staff time and resources from the ministry. But in terms of actual costs, there will be some trails that are impacted by the construction, and those will be restored at B.C. Hydro's cost.

The Chair: Shall section 3 pass? So ordered.

My apologies. Member continues.

C. Trevena: Just one final question for the minister, and then we can pass it. The plans for this are solely related to B.C. Hydro's plans? It won't have any impact on the idea and the plans for putting in a suspension bridge up at the canyon?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct. The action that we're taking today is to allow the construction on the John Hart dam. The member is referring to a proposal, I believe, by the Rotary clubs in the region. We certainly look forward to working with them. It looks like a very interesting proposal, and our Parks staff will be happy to work with the proponents as we move that forward.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Sather: This is a section with a number of parks in it. I'm just going to comment on a couple of them. Then, I think, the member for Cariboo North has some that he wants to talk about.

I wanted to talk to the minister, though, about a couple of the parks that I'm fairly familiar with. Well, at least in one case it's a park — in the other case, an area — that being Marble Range Park, which is a really lovely park situated west of Highway 97 and east of the Fraser River. There is a lot of limestone formation on it and, apparently, I'm told, some rare plants are found there as well. Quite a
[ Page 13328 ]
bit of it is above tree line, and a fair bit of it is treed.

The park was created as a class A park in 1998 by the then NDP government. The 1999 management plan for the park — this is just a technical question — lists the park at 17,920 hectares. The backgrounder to the government website lists the park as 19,236 hectares, which would be an increase of 1,316 hectares, but the backgrounder indicates that the park is increased in size by 2,215 hectares.

So we've got a discrepancy there between the 2,215 hectares and the 1,316. I just wonder if the minister's staff can clarify that for me.

Hon. T. Lake: The area of the park…. With new mapping techniques that are available through technology today, we can actually get a better idea of what the actual areas of some of these parks are. So there's no land coming out of the park at all. The area is being increased by 2,215 hectares.

[1810]

M. Sather: I had a look at the map in the Clerk's office, and thanks to the minister for providing that. But I couldn't determine from there where the additions to the park were. Can the minister tell me just where the additions are?

Hon. T. Lake: Thanks to the member for his patience. There are some old mineral claims that have been forfeited. Those are on the southwest corner of the park. If the member will see on the map, there are kind of squared-off areas. These are the old mineral claims that are being put into the park addition.

M. Sather: In the 1999 plan they described special resource management zones, or SRDZs. It says: "These low-intensity areas recognize the sensitive nature of certain lands outside protected areas that contribute a range of values, including natural resource conservation and maintenance; resource development and extraction; commercial and non-commercial recreation and tourism; and fishing, trapping and hunting."

Can the minister tell me: are these zones still in place?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is referring to the 1995 Cariboo-Chilcotin management plan, which described these special resource management zones. And yes, to the member, those are still in place.

M. Sather: That's good to hear.

I know there's been recent logging on the east side of the Marble Range. I'm not too sure about the west side. I haven't been around there lately. Does that logging in that area…? Would it run up to the park boundary?

Hon. T. Lake: With regret, we can't answer that specific question. We certainly can provide a more specific response after consulting with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[1815]

M. Sather: The reason I asked is because, as the minister will know — this is not his ministry — the forest committee last summer decided to look at logging of marginal stands of timber, and a lot of these stands are in subalpine forests. Parks would certainly be interested in that, I think, because it probably would have an effect on a park like Marble Range Park. That's my question. If we look at Marble Range Park — for example, if we increase logging of subalpine forests — isn't that going to affect this park?

Hon. T. Lake: Within the park, obviously, there are the forest values…. The member is referring to the space outside the park. If I have the question correct, what impact would logging have on the park's values?

When assessing or making decisions over cutting permits, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations would consider impacts on the park, visual-quality objectives and, also, guidelines that are outlined in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan.

I know this is an issue in other areas. In Wells Gray Park, for instance, there's an issue there that people are somewhat concerned about with forestry activities outside of the park that may impact the park.

Our ministry certainly will work with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and advocate about the values of the park and how it's impacted by any forestry operations surrounding the park.

M. Sather: That's important, I think, because if they are logging up near the park boundary…. I'm not sure how much forest is in the park. I couldn't tell that from the map, but I'm sure some of it is or a fair bit of it is. They're going to get quite a bit of runoff. It's not a super-high-snowfall area, but still, in some years, you're going to get a lot of runoff. There's more and more concern, of course, about the downstream effects on fisheries — for example, of sedimentation in streams — so that's a concern.

The other thing I wanted to ask the minister about in the bill…. There's a technical wide-ranging discussion here of various mineral claims. He may have already answered this question earlier, when I asked him about the additions. Just so I'm clear on this, what is the upshot of that discussion in the bill? Is it that the park is surrounding these mineral claims, or is it that mineral claims are being taken out of the parks? What is that all about?

[1820]

Hon. T. Lake: In the description of many of the parks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin set of parks that we're adding
[ Page 13329 ]
here, it will talk about mineral claims. These are mineral claims that have not been included in the park and are mostly small slivers on the periphery of parks. So we've designed the additions to the park to exclude those areas that have active mineral claims.

M. Sather: Then, to go back to the additions, why were those additions made where they were?

Hon. T. Lake: Just sort of looking at the rationale behind the whole Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, goal 2, special features. When the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan was approved in 1994, there was direction that goal 2 areas would be identified through further planning at the local level.

Since that time, consultation…. First of all, identifications of proposed areas by the general public, stakeholder groups and by government were put forward. Then they were evaluated by local-regional protected area teams to determine the regional significance of the natural, cultural or recreational values and to determine potential vulnerabilities and viability. Also, First Nations stakeholder groups and local government were consulted.

The values were incorporated. The limitations were looked at. We looked at mineral claims that were expiring and could be put into the park. Those, obviously, that were still active were not put into the park. All of that was considered through this process, which is quite an extensive process, finally coming to fruition here today.

M. Sather: Just to start on some of my comments on the other park I wanted to mention. This is a relatively small park called Copper Johnny Park. It's a little further north across Meadow Lake Road. I haven't actually been to it, but I know that Copper Johnny Creek runs into Meadow Lake.

One of the problems we're having in the Cariboo Plateau is that drought has been quite significant. So Meadow Lake, which is probably two-and-a-bit miles long by a mile wide or so, is receding about 20 feet or so every year. There's hardly any water that comes in through Copper Johnny Creek. The other inlet source of water was actually cut off by a Ducks Unlimited project, which has dammed some of the water further up.

This park is just below, I guess it is, or just adjacent to Clink Lake. Then it includes a larger lake that's unnamed. But looking at it on Google Earth, it looks, like many of the lakes up there, half dry or so. I also noticed that to the north side of it, there were a couple of large clearcuts coming right down near the lake. There's a concern. With the drought conditions, we're seeing dieback in aspen, and that's probably — at least, in part — caused by drought, or so I've read. For the whole area, it's a concern.

So the question I wanted to ask the minister is around the logging. We know that we've had a lot of beetle-kill logging. From what I see of it in that area, it takes out a lot more than just the dead pine trees. There's a lot of the understorey that's removed as well, which is going to further dry out the lands at a time when we seem to be getting a drought cycle anyway — which is likely, I expect, or may be, climate change–related.

[1825]

Have Parks done any studies themselves — or are they familiar with any studies by, maybe, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — to measure the dynamic between these large-scale logging operations and drought in that area and, furthermore, what effect that's having on everything from wildlife to cattle to people?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, mitigation of climate change and adaptation to climate change are important components of our ministry service plan, as well as many other ministry plans across government, particularly those in the natural resource sector.

As the member well knows, this government invested $90 million in the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, and they encourage various studies on mitigation and adaptation. That work is ongoing, and certainly, the research and the information are used in the decision-making process across government.

I was at an interesting lecture at UVic last week by a leading climatologist, looking at the effect of Arctic warming on the jet stream and how that affects the climate and essentially leads to longer periods of drought in areas that are susceptible to drought and longer periods of moisture in those areas that are susceptible to moisture.

The member is correct in noting that climate change does affect the land base. I can assure the member that it is part of the decision-making process when we look at parks and when Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations looks at the cutting permits that are issued.

With that, I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:28 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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada