2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. S. Anton: Madame Speaker, I move that Bill 15 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm pleased to introduce the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014. The aim of this bill is to enable government to begin implementing some of the recommendations stemming from the liquor policy review and to transform B.C.'s outdated liquor laws.

While there have been many updates and amendments to the legislation over the past century, the B.C. liquor policy review is the first comprehensive overview that has drawn so heavily from public input and consulted so extensively with stakeholders. British Columbians and stakeholders in all areas of the province were interested and engaged in providing direct input and thoughtful advice, making this one of the B.C. government's most successful public engagements.

The goal of the liquor policy review recommendations, and by extension, this legislation, is to transform B.C. liquor laws in a host of different ways — enhancing convenience, sparking the economy, cutting red tape, creating new opportunities for businesses and continuing to protect public health and safety.

The current regulatory regime has become outdated, overly complex and excessive at a time when the public has a far more diverse and evolved set of tastes and is acutely aware of the damage and dangers caused by overconsumption of alcohol. British Columbians and the industry spoke, and our government has listened. And as promised, we're moving quickly to make these changes.

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

Bill 15, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. S. Cadieux: In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, we call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and in this chamber, second reading is continued on Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to continue my presentation and speech against Bill 4 as it's presently constituted.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As I mentioned earlier, I have profound concerns about the actual definition of research being contained in policy, as opposed to being contained in the legislation itself. Policy can change; legislation is the law.

However, the proposed legislation will also overrule previous clauses of the Park Act which ensure park use permits are not to be granted unless it's clear that the permits will not be "detrimental to the recreational values of the park." Current legislation also states that permits "must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved."

[1340]

By allowing park use permits to be issued around the rather vague concept of "research," particularly research focused on undertaking a "feasibility study" for virtually any type of "prescribed project," we're opening our parks — or rather, we're potentially opening our parks — to special interests whose intentions may not align with the interests of British Columbians or, in fact, the reasons why these parks were developed in the first place.

I recognize that there are many good pieces of proposed changes in this bill. I recognize that within our communities, outside of this House, there is a diversity of views and concerns about what this bill means.

There is no social licence for this bill, which is why I will move an amendment to the Park Amendment Act that would send the subject matter of this bill to a committee. Moving the bill to a committee would allow for the multipartisan engagement of stakeholders. It would show that the government is listening to the concerns of British Columbians, and it would ensure that the development of language of this bill satisfies the concerns of its many critics.

In essence, it provides a process that gives government the means and ways of developing a social licence for the introduction of this bill.
[ Page 1948 ]

Therefore, I move that:

[The motion for second reading of Bill (4), The Park Amendment Act, 2014 be amended by deleting all the words after "That" and substitute the words "the Bill be not now read a second time, that the order for second reading be discharged, and the subject matter of the Bill be referred to The Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders, and Private Bills."]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: Very briefly, if I could just take a moment or two to address the amendment itself. It was very clear to me yesterday that the government wants this bill to move forward without delay, and I want to be clear that I'm not making this amendment merely to delay the bill. I want to provide the government a structured and expedient process which will allow it to earn the public trust that this bill needs.

I hope that referring the subject matter of this bill to a committee will meet the government's need to continue to move this bill forward without needless delay, while also providing an opportunity for the bill's many critics to be properly engaged and have their concerns heard and addressed.

Just to briefly comment on why I'm suggesting that this bill be sent to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, at this point in time there is no committee that could deal specifically with the subject matter contained in this bill.

Furthermore, the standing committee that I am referring to already has, buried within it, a mechanism to conduct stakeholder engagement, given that it fulfils this purpose for private bills already.

S. Chandra Herbert: You'll remember, of course, that yesterday myself, a huge number of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and the members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and Delta South also stood in this House and spoke in support of a motion to refer this bill six months hence so that the government could do its own consultation with the public, with those who care very deeply about British Columbia's parks, on all sides.

It was to give the government the chance to make its case for why this is necessary, to develop a social licence for the bill, and to change, modify and amend the bill, if the public will is such, if the government sees that maybe the concerns we've raised about the fact that the amendments to the Park Act included in this bill are so broad that they could amount to pretty much anything, depending on what government decides to do.

[1345]

I think it's wholly appropriate that we vote in support of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head's amendment today. It's a reasoned amendment. It's an amendment that would give the government to chance to talk to the public, that would give the opposition and all members the chance to engage with their constituents.

The bill could come back, potentially, in a modified form or not at all, depending on what the government heard from the public. We would have a better act to begin with, a better act to start again on how we engage B.C. parks and how we engage the question of research, the question of industrial development, the potential of boundary changes in parks and the question of how to better protect our parks. Many, many, people want to improve the quality of our parks. They see this bill as a threat to the quality and preservation of the parks that we all hold as a public trust.

I think this amendment is very supportable. I was disappointed that the government, including a number of cabinet ministers, laughed at the idea of consultation yesterday — literally, in a number of cases — and voted unanimously against consulting the public on a change that could have very big impacts on our provincial park system.

We on this side of the House will be supporting this amendment. I thank the member for bringing it, and I also thank the member for his support of our amendment yesterday, calling for the government to delay passage of this bill for six months. Bringing this to a committee is wholly appropriate, and it's how this House should function more often.

We should be engaging the public on our bills. We should be doing that. We have a fall session coming up, where we could have this bill brought forward in some form again, after consulting the public, whose parks they are and whose parks this bill will affect.

I will be voting in support of this amendment.

R. Fleming: I want to join my colleague and support the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head's amendment here. I know we had a debate about a hoist motion yesterday, and we had that vote. This is a different amendment. I think it's a different mechanism and a different process that may accomplish some of the same things that I think we gave reasoned arguments about yesterday on the hoist motion.

Essentially, I think the point that we've heard from members that are scrutinizing this bill here and that we've heard from the public, as well as prominent conservation organizations across British Columbia, is that this bill suffers a complete lack of legitimacy because there has been no comprehensive consultation behind it.

When you look at the inventory of parks around B.C. — we just celebrated the 100-year anniversary here in British Columbia — we have the careful work of citizens working together in every part of the province to create a wonderful diversity in B.C. of significant lands that support a species of animals and iconic fauna in this province.

That took decades, years, of work by ordinary British Columbians and by the scientific community and by others and by government working with it, and it makes absolutely no sense to, in such short order, potentially
[ Page 1949 ]
put all of that at risk with this bill because of the overly broad definitions contained within it.

Members here have talked about the catch-all phrase of "research" in parks being subject to interpretations that may undermine the integrity, ecologically and otherwise, of B.C.'s park system, one by one, where there are industrial interests, perhaps. That is not satisfactory to legislators here, and by referring this matter to a committee, it gives us an opportunity to give the proper oversight that this bill deserves.

There's nothing worse in the legislative process than passing legislation that is unfit to become law. We've seen that happen here in recent years, where court interpretations have forced those bills to come back and be modified. I suspect that we're looking at exactly the same kind of thing here in regards to Bill 4.

[1350]

I listened to the minister speak against the hoist motion yesterday, and I imagine her position is against the referral motion that we're discussing now, to committee. I was not persuaded by the arguments.

The argument went something like: British Columbia is facing enormous pressures on its land base, and much of that is connected to land that is in protected areas and class A parks. I did not follow the logic that because there are pressures on our land base, we should relent to those pressures and reduce protections on the integrity of those parks.

I could understand an argument about a better process for certain types of activities, where the impact is small, perhaps. But what we're talking about here is a blanket opening, potentially, in B.C. parks, and I'm not persuaded that under the catch-all legal phrase of "research," government has done its due diligence to make sure that that is not in fact the case. Giving less scrutiny and more ministerial discretion on permitting activities that could potentially describe any type of disturbance of a very large scale and a very large footprint could fit under the catch-all phrase of "research" in our parks.

It's not that there are proposals that may not come forward that are legitimate and deserve the province's cooperation, but those parks were created by an act of the Legislature, each and every one of them. Legislative oversight should continue to govern any significant alterations in those parks as well, and potentially significant alterations under the catchphrase of "research."

You look at the responsibilities that we have as the 85 members of this Legislature, representing the province in the corner of this continent with the greatest biodiversity anywhere in North America in terms of species diversity. We have an extraordinary responsibility to make sure that the lands we have set aside here….

We're all very proud, I think, that British Columbia was the first jurisdiction here to meet the United Nations goal of setting aside at least 12 percent of its land base in conserved areas. We're proud of that, and we have to be careful to make sure that those things that were done in good faith are not undermined by amendment laws that are not specific enough to be trusted.

I think the context of this referral to committee is also important, because the committee will be able to have a wide-ranging latitude to look at things that form the context for this legislation. And when you look at parks management in British Columbia, I think the last decade of activity is worth looking at as a context for this amendment bill.

The Auditor General looked at how well parks are managed just a couple of years ago and concluded that something like 75 percent of B.C.'s parks do not have a management plan in place, or they have one that is hopelessly outdated. They found that, of course, in a province that is only one of two in Canada that has no species-at-risk act that gives specific provincial legislative protections to endangered species, this was an unacceptable practice.

We know that funding has declined for parks. We know that there are 50 full-time-equivalent park rangers for a land base that's in park space that totals something like 14 million hectares now in British Columbia. It's an absurd number in terms of the responsibility for those park rangers. There are simply not the significant eyes and ears in our park system today. That is all important background to an amendment that could have very sweeping consequences in British Columbia.

I support what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is trying to do, just as I supported the hoist motion yesterday from my colleague the member for Vancouver–West End. This is a bill that government has failed to convince members here needs to be passed immediately. The reasons that have been offered raise even more flags of warning that, essentially, the government wants to smooth the path and reduce the legislative oversight for a potentially broad range of activities in protected parks. None of this is compelling to the Legislature.

I would suggest to the minister that given that protected drinking water is perhaps the most important right and obligation — right of citizens and obligation of government — for life in our province, for citizens to live properly…. They have found a way to delay, for five years now, bringing protections and a new modernized Water Act into this place — five years.

[1355]

That's inexcusable. But to now argue that there is such urgency on this parks amendment that the Legislature simply can't afford an extra six months, perhaps, to look at the implications of this bill and to listen to British Columbians who have expertise in parks management is a spurious argument.

With that, I would like again to suggest that this is something that is no threat to government — to support the referral to committee. In fact, it's a vote of confidence in the Legislative Assembly itself and one of its core functions, which is to make sure that the laws that are passed
[ Page 1950 ]
here are the right ones, that they've been well considered and that we've heard from British Columbians, and that's not the case today. This amendment would allow that to happen, and I speak for it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I put the question to the House. The motion is to refer Bill 4, Park Amendment Act, 2014, to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders…. The subject matter.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

[1400]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1405]

On the main motion.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize for the gravel nature of my voice today and thank the members all for their considered comments. I know parks are something we're all very passionate about.

In closing, I want to point out something extremely important, and that is that regardless of this amendment, there is a 30-page Park Act that contains all the guidance necessary to ensure that we don't have mining in our parks, that we don't have drilling for oil in our parks, that we don't have major industrial activities taking place in our parks.

This amendment doesn't change that, but it will allow for the minister to permit activities that will provide us with useful information when making the very important decisions we need to about the management of our parks.

In fact, the method for adjusting park boundaries will not change. Those still need to come to this chamber and be the subject of legislation in order to be achieved.

With that, I move second reading.

[1410]

Second reading of Bill 4 approved on the following division:

[ Page 1951 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

Please proceed, Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Park Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, second reading on Bill 12.

BILL 12 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act. As I've said to some of you, it's the most groundbreaking, exciting piece of legislation I have ever seen in legislative history — not. But I thought I would give you that anyway.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Bill 12, actually, amends provision to three statutes: the Oil and Gas Activities Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Strata Property Act.

The Oil and Gas Activities Act is British Columbia's regulatory framework for oil and gas sector operations, such as drilling wells and constructing pipelines. Today we are making minor amendments to give private landowners a right to an appeal process, increase clarity around the appeals to address a drafting oversight and ensure pipelines are regulated consistently under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

[1415]

The amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act contained in this legislation have not…. This particular act has not been substantially updated since 1982. Modernizing its provisions will improve our tenure system, increase clarity and certainty for industry and streamline the rules for permits and leases. It will clarify the legislative authority for drilling licences, one of the most common forms of tenures issued by the province.

These amendments are expected to improve our long-term competitiveness. Industry was consulted and supports the proposed improvements.

On the Strata Property Act, there are approximately half a million residential strata lots and 29,000 strata corporations in British Columbia. Minor changes to the Strata Property Act are designed to remove regulatory barriers and make it easier for strata owners to carry out their responsibilities.

We will reduce the required three-quarter vote to a majority vote for any expenditure from the strata's contingency reserve fund, provided it is recommended by their depreciation report, which they now do. We'll make it easier for strata corporations to pay for needed repairs to common property. Expenditures from the contingency reserve fund unrelated to depreciation reports — for example, a new swimming pool — would still require a three-quarter vote.

We're also changing the wording of the act to make it clear that certain rights and responsibilities do not end when the title changes hands. Proposed amendments to the act result from the consultation with the associations representing strata owners and councils.

I look forward to the comments from members of the opposition in the closure of this debate.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for his comments. I would like to spend a few minutes just speaking to the oil and gas portion of Bill 12.

It was interesting to note that the minister got up and almost apologized for not standing up here to bring a groundbreaking and exciting bill to the House. After listening to all the speeches from the other side over the budget for the last — what? — ten days, you'd have thought that by now we'd be bringing some really exciting stuff here around liquefied natural gas and not simply a bill that, I guess, the minister would describe as a housekeeping or a technical bill, making a few amendments to laws that are already in place.

In fact, when you sit and listen to what the government has put into the LNG industry as part of their promotion of it, you'd think by now that we'd have had not simply a couple of numbers thrown out in the budget documents — where the taxation might be up to 1.5 percent and then up to 7 percent after the capital of these projects is paid for.

You'd think that by now we'd have a government here — when it hasn't sat for 200 days — that would be bringing forward legislation around liquefied natural gas that would be speaking to all of the issues. That's what we were certainly hoping for to happen.

Interjection.

R. Austin: Absolutely.

The minister says that we don't support it. Well, I can tell you, as somebody who represents the city of Kitimat, that we certainly look forward to seeing a liquefaction plant happening, not just in Kitimat but, I believe, in other parts of northwest. We have always been supportive of us finding an ability to access new markets for our natural gas.
[ Page 1952 ]

I think one of the things that people need to understand when it comes to our gas industry is that it was the NDP, in the 1990s, that brought in a whole series of actions that helped the natural gas industry develop and become what it is today. As a result, there are millions and millions of dollars invested, particularly in the northeast of B.C., and tons of jobs that are at stake there. And if we don't find alternative markets to the United States and sending the gas out east, that will all come to a crashing halt.

So when the minister tries to make out that we're not supportive of having an LNG industry, he's absolutely wrong. What we have said on this side of the House, though, is that we would like to see it done not with a sense of hoopla and trying to pretend that it's the panacea for all of our problems. What we've said on this side of the House is that we'd like to do it responsibly.

We'd like to have a plan in place — to know how much is going to happen and how much isn't. We'd like to have a plan in place on this side of the House that recognizes that it's going to increase our greenhouse gas emissions. What's the plan for that? We'd like to know what's going to happen, on this side of the House, for the increased water usage that's going to come about as a result of increased drilling.

Those are the kinds of things that we'd like to have here, and I hope, when we have a fall session — because, apparently, the government is behind in its agenda on LNG — that all of this will be brought into place.

[1420]

As the minister mentioned, this is largely a technical bill or a housekeeping bill. We will go through it in detail in committee stage.

I think it's important to note that, obviously, in the changes that we look at in this bill, it's very important to make sure that the oil and gas industry is regulated so that it is extremely safe. That, I'm sure, is the will of the minister. It certainly is on this side of the House, so we'll be looking at provisions for setbacks.

We'll be looking at the changes in landowners' rights. I'm sure that the minister would agree — we spoke to people when I visited up there — that there are some disputes that happened between landowners and oil and gas companies. Obviously, making sure that the appeal process is a fair one on both sides is important.

I'll be speaking much more to this in committee stage. I'm going to cede the floor now to my colleague from Vancouver–West End.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm happy to speak on the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014. My family has a number of connections to the oil and gas sector, primarily in Alberta. It's been interesting for me to be able to travel to the northeast of B.C. and see similarities to work that family members are engaged in, in the province of Alberta, but also the differences in terms of how we regulate and how the industry has developed in this province.

When I looked to this bill, I had thought the minister might be bringing in better setbacks — better protections for schools, for public buildings, for businesses, for farmers and others — as the government promised to many years ago. Approximately four years ago the government and the member at the time for Peace River South, I believe it was, spoke about the need to protect school children, the need to protect community members, from potential gas leaks.

Of course, as we know, you cannot measure just benefits without thinking of potential costs or potential risks. I think all too often we get locked in just on what could be the best thing in the world for some, while not thinking about what could be the greatest risks to others.

There are costs when you develop natural gas, as the minister knows and as the minister, I believe, has stated in the past, and those must be weighed. Just as the cost of pollution is a real cost, so is the benefit of selling gas. You need to measure all of those things, just as you need to consider climate change implications, water use implications and other things.

Of course, as Environment critic on this side or as an advocate for the environment, I think you do need to measure all those things, because there are business costs to the business, but businesses can put costs onto the public and onto the people of British Columbia.

I think what I would hope to see, as the government had promised before…. The Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources minister, Peace River South MLA Blair Lekstrom at the time, promised and announced in a press release that his government would be ensuring 1,000-metre setbacks from schools and residences, something that I know, for example, Texas, the city of Dallas and a number of other jurisdictions all across the world have raised concerns about.

They know if there's a sour gas leak, if there's an emission leak or maybe, as one resident in Peace River South raised with me a number of years ago…. He was the bus driver for an elementary school. That was one of his occupations. He told a very scary story, actually, about how one of the wells had a blowout and how there was a fire. He had been alerted. He got a phone call, but the bus was not where it was supposed to be.

There were a number of issues of contacting parents, contacting safety supervisors and others to be able to respond quickly to get the kids out of the school, get them onto buses and drive as far away as they could from the well. The well was quite close to the school, so they had a lot of concerns that there could be a worse reaction and potentially put their lives in danger.

I think members will know about issues that occur in Alberta. There have been a number of issues with livestock and other challenges where gas has leaked, emissions have come out and have poisoned a number of
[ Page 1953 ]
livestock. Thankfully, in B.C. we've not had a lot of these occurrences. We've not had a huge amount of this kind of activity, but saying "never" is something that I think we've got to be careful about.

[1425]

You cannot promise never. You know, the Titanic was never supposed to sink. It was the greatest ship ever, and of course, everybody said it was the best thing ever and would never have any problems. I rarely use the word "never." Actually, I don't know if it's impossible, but I never say never. Oh, wait. I just said it, so I guess that's not true. But I would say that to say such a word predicts the future, which, as far as I know…. While the minister may know many things, I don't think the minister is able to predict the future. My apologies to the minister if I've disabused him of the notion.

I think the challenge here is that the government has not done what it said it would do. They have not decided to create a greater setback to protect schoolchildren, to protect the public. They have not taken that step to provide greater certainty for people in the northeast and for the public who were promised this. I think there are legitimate concerns around safety. The industry works very hard to ensure safety, but the government has to, as well, take leadership to ensure safety, and that includes fulfilling their promises.

It's important to note that at this time a permit holder could drill a well, potentially, 101 metres away from a permanent building, a place of public concourse or a reservation for national defence, or 41 metres away from the right-of-way or easement of any road allowance or public utility. So you could get quite close.

Folks in my neighbourhood, of course, will not see that because we do not have these gas wells in our community, but people in the northeast have raised this issue with me when I travelled through there, that they were concerned for their own children. They worked in the industry. They supported the industry. But they also said there had to be some semblance of safety — some reality, I should say, of safety — and were quite supportive of the former member for Peace River South's call and promise to the public for a 1,000-metre exclusion zone so that they could have greater safety.

That's that on that section of the bill. The other section, of course, is on stratas. I know that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will speak, probably more effectively and more knowledgeably, about this section, but I would just say that constituents of mine want greater certainty in the Strata Act. They have called for greater support for strata disputes and certainly are supportive of these changes. They just wish that the government had done more fulsome consultation on the original Strata Act, which this bill is also supporting amendments to, so that we wouldn't have had to do this again later.

D. Donaldson: I am happy to take my place in second reading of this bill, Bill 12. I'll specifically direct my comments regarding the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act to the portions that deal with the natural gas development area of the bill. It's a chance to give a general overview and reaction.

I, like my colleagues, look forward to the committee stage where we can drill down a little bit more into this bill — perhaps that was a bad use of words, but anyway — and have a closer look at some of the intentions of the government and what the terminology means and what they're trying to get at here.

I say that because although the bill has been characterized as perhaps not earth-shattering by the minister and maybe more of minor amendments, I think any time these days that we get a bill before the House that deals with natural gas activities, it's very important to very strenuously and rigorously look at what the intent is and what the government's trying to do with the bill. It's a major topic on people's minds. We haven't seen a lot of legislation introduced yet regarding this subject matter, so this is a time to actually scrutinize what the government's intentions are.

[1430]

I see that in the bill, the amendments are purported to be in regards to allowing industry to adopt new operational improvements. There are parts of the amendment bill that apparently remove the risks associated with unnecessary appeals which could delay oil and gas development. Really, I would look forward to committee stage with the minister, getting answers on what would be typified as an unnecessary appeal. We hope that that will be very strenuously defined in the bill, because that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Some of the other parts are around permits to be retroactively issued around natural gas and oil activity. I think these are important topics to really have a look at in the committee stage, because we know that there's a lot of concern about the issues of, specifically, natural gas production, in the northeast especially.

Both of my colleagues outlined areas of concern around safety, but I have some — from my critic role as the critic for Aboriginal Relations — in regard to this bill. The Fort Nelson First Nation is located in the northeast, and they have three large shale gas deposits in their traditional territories. In fact, these shale gas deposits are covered by treaty. They're part of treaty 8.

If the LNG facilities go ahead as proposed, or if they come online as has been proposed, then 10 to 25 percent of the gas produced for these new LNG facilities will come from Fort Nelson First Nation's territory. This is information that the Fort Nelson First Nation, in phase 1 of a study that they've just completed, have put out. They've done a very thorough analysis. That would mean, from a gas production perspective, a three to ten times increase in the level of activity greater than 2012 on their territories.
[ Page 1954 ]

They have, I would say, and I think the minister would agree, legitimate concerns about the massive water withdrawals that this would require for that kind of increased activity there. Fort Nelson First Nation is estimating a 600 percent increase in fracking if all the projects go ahead. They've got an increase in seismic line activity, roads and pipelines, truck traffic and increased air pollution. These are all concerns.

Although the Fort Nelson First Nation sees the potential benefits of this industry, they also are charged by their own people and their ancestors and future generations to ensure that the land base is still usable for their activities and to support them and sustain them once this natural gas extraction has taken place. So they have proposed three ways of dealing with these kinds of issues. One is to negotiate, one is to litigate, and one is to agitate.

They have been negotiating with the provincial government, they say, on shared decision-making and capacity to manage land use agreements. My question is going to be, during the committee stage, around what consultation took place with the Fort Nelson First Nation and even other First Nations affected by the amendments proposed.

If the government is true to their word in pursuing shared decision-making with the Fort Nelson First Nations and other affected First Nations in the area, then how did they consult on these new operational improvements that are in this bill? How did they consult on the other amendments that are proposed in this bill with the Fort Nelson First Nation and with other First Nations affected? That's of interest to me.

I think that what the Fort Nelson First Nation…. I know this is what they've said. They have signed agreements in 2012 with the provincial government around benefit agreements and others. But they are saying that based on the potential increase in activity that was unanticipated, these agreements have to be opened up for renegotiation.

We're talking about some amendments to a bill, but the implications are multiple and are exponential. We need to know if the government did its consultation work with First Nations affected by the amendments in this bill.

[1435]

The Fort Nelson First Nation were first to negotiate. They have litigated. And they recently were advocating, through litigation, removal of Nexen's Tsea Lake water licence because they said they weren't adequately consulted and that Nexen failed to comply with the licence, resulting in a draw-down of one-third of the lake's volume. That litigation is in front of the Environmental Appeal Board. So you can see that they prefer to negotiate.

We want to know: in the shared decision-making atmosphere that the government is trying to create with First Nations, how were they approached on the amendments in this bill? We know that they're not shy of litigating, if that's the answer to getting the government to listen when it proposes amendments like this. But they prefer to negotiate.

Then, finally, their third prong of the strategy is agitate. Again, they prefer to negotiate over litigation, and they prefer to negotiate rather than agitate. But they do have a history of standing up for what they think is right on their lands and ensuring that their lands will still be usable after industrial activity takes place. I'm quoting from their February newsletter regarding agitation. "When government and industry don't listen, we are left with few options and are forced to take a stand to protect what is important to us."

Those are just some statements, some facts, some analysis from the Fort Nelson First Nation — just one First Nation that could be impacted by the amendments proposed by the minister in this bill. I think that if this government has sincerity in their words around consultation — and we've seen some failures on shared decision-making with other First Nations — and especially if they're true to their word on shared decision-making, then it'll be interesting to hear from the minister on how the decision-making was shared, before these amendments were proposed, with First Nations such as the Fort Nelson First Nation.

I'm going to limit my comments to that for the second reading of this bill. I look forward to any bill coming that has to do with LNG, because I think we have to have a very, very serious, informed debate on this topic. So I look forward to committee stage where we can get to more detail on it.

G. Heyman: I'd like to add a few words at this stage of the bill, add some words to my colleagues', particularly with respect to the LNG section of the bill.

I've been listening for many months now — many, many months before the election, since the election — to the government's talk of the tremendous opportunity in this industry while at the same time accusing members on this side of the House of being opposed to the industry, of not knowing how to say yes, of putting up roadblocks. In that respect, I just find, given the enormity of the role LNG plays in the government's plans for development in this province…. In fact, we hear of little else.

We, in this spring sitting of the Legislature, see so little of substance around which the people of British Columbia can begin to understand the role that this industry might play and how the various issues that have been raised by members of the public, whether they live in the northeast of the province along a proposed pipeline route or anywhere else in the province — how they can see their concerns being dealt with.

We proposed, on our side of the House before the last election, that to address some of these concerns — whether it's water use; whether it's greenhouse gas emis-
[ Page 1955 ]
sions; whether it's a concern of people in the northeast and First Nations around the proliferation of wells — we commission an independent expert study, we support people to make submissions and we listen carefully to what was said so we could understand what was recommended as best practices in the development of this industry and the extraction of natural gas.

Notwithstanding the fact that that was characterized by members opposite as calling for a moratorium, which we did not do, or being opposed to the industry, which we have not done, many people involved in the industry, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, welcomed our proposal and said that they had no problem with improving practices if experts recommended better practices or issues around water use or anything else.

[1440]

The then candidate and now MLA for Peace River South also said that he saw no problem in listening to the advice of experts.

Certainly, I know that in the case of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the reason they made that statement is the understanding that there are many controversies around the process of extracting gas and concern around the industry as a whole and that in order to proceed we need social licence as well as acceptance of First Nations in the area and along the route.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is not the policy of the government, we had hoped that we would see more of substance to discuss on behalf of the people of British Columbia during this session, given the role that LNG plays in the economic development plans of this government.

We would hope that we would see some process or mention of how we will address the concerns of massive water use that this industry entails and what the implications of that are for the region.

We had hoped that we might see more information about how we might balance the emissions of this industry versus the legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets that this government itself introduced and stood by proudly and still talks about.

We know that the people of British Columbia want to see economic development but want to see it done in an environmentally responsible way. We also know that the vast majority of people in British Columbia want to ensure that we do not, in an overall sense, a cumulative sense, increase our greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, they want to see us meet the legislated reduction targets.

I, like my colleagues, look forward to further discussion of these issues in committee stage and over the coming months, because they are important issues. As this industry develops, if it is to develop, I think there are questions that British Columbians want answers to.

There are questions that residents in the Peace want answers to. There are questions that First Nations want answers to. That's how we get the social licence to proceed and develop the economy and industry in British Columbia.

We can't make light of the significant issues of water or the significant long-term and immediate threat of increased greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Let me simply close by saying there is one further deep disappointment. It will be a deep disappointment not just to me and members of our caucus on this side of the House. It will be a deep disappointment to people whose lives revolve or residences are near to the areas in which gas wells exist and will be drilled.

In 2010 the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Blair Lekstrom, made a commitment. A minister of this government in the previous term made a commitment that legislation would come in to ensure that there was a setback area of 1,000 metres from inhabited areas, from schools and residences.

That's important. People are concerned about the health impacts of the massive drilling that has taken place and that will take place if this industry goes ahead and expands.

Of course, that is the plan on the government side. So why do we not see an amendment to this act, contained in this bill, that would meet the strong commitment given by the minister in 2010 — to put at ease the minds of residents in the Peace who live in the drilling areas — that there would, in fact, be an adequate setback of 1,000 metres from schools and residences?

That is a notable absence. We look forward to discussing this further in committee.

J. Kwan: I, too, would like to join the debate on Bill 12, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014. In addition to the comments that my colleagues have already made with regards to the setback, to which I concur, I'd like to add a few comments around a funny little section of the act that's tucked in the very back of this bill, entitled Strata Property Act.

These are, essentially, very technical amendments to the Strata Property Act. I say it's funny because the bill is entitled Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, and here we have strata property changes in that act.

[1445]

That said, I would, first of all, like to acknowledge what the minister had said in his opening remarks. My understanding of the bill is that this amendment essentially makes it easier for strata councils to carry out their responsibilities by removing regulatory barriers for strata corporations and owners. It also provides for and explains requirements and clarifying definitions within the act. These items are rather technical in nature.

It does, though, allow for and confirm that paying for and accruing funds to pay for a depreciation report is, indeed, a legitimate operating fund expense and can be approved by a majority vote. This is, while technical in its
[ Page 1956 ]
nature, an important change that I know strata corporations have been asking for.

The act also makes it easier for strata corporations to pay for repairs recommended by their depreciation report by reducing the required approval for contingency reserve fund expenditures from three-quarters to a majority vote — also an important change that I know strata corporations have been calling for.

The act also changes the definition of "purchasers" to make it clearer and, therefore, specified rights and obligations do not end when the title has actually simply changed hands. So these are the amendments that are before us.

Now, I have to also point out that some of the strata associations that we've been in touch with, particularly the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, had pointed out that the government, of course, back in 2009, when they brought through the strata amendment act, failed to actually bring forward a number of other changes.

While they agree with the changes that are being proposed under this act, Bill 12, they are also noting, though, that there are a number of areas that they wish to see changes as well. I don't see them in this bill.

What are some of those changes? I'll give you a couple of examples. They cite that the issue of non-compliance with the Strata Property Act is a major source of disputes among owners. Under British Columbia's legislation there are no penalties for those responsible for even the most flagrant non-compliance.

It is noted that, of course, Alberta and Ontario have defined offences and penalties to deter specific kinds of non-compliance and the disputes that they can cause. However, in this act it does not speak to penalties at all.

The other issue that had been raised from the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association is that the standards of disciplinary processes applied to strata property agents — who are also known as strata managers, licensed under the Real Estate Services Act, who advise and sometimes control strata councils — are unclear, ineffective, unenforceable and/or nonexistent. That is a concern that has been raised, and it is noted that there's a lack of clear and enforceable code of ethics and conducts.

To that end, it would be useful, I think, to look at this issue, because it could have serious implications for strata owners, as well, if there is not a clear set of enforceable code of ethics and conduct.

The other issue that has been raised involves penalties for developers who make a misrepresentation to a strata buyer under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. It is also known that Ontario enables a substantial fine for such behaviour. Again, these measures that are being called for are meant to be a deterrent for potential offenders. Then, of course, ultimately, on the flipside of that, it's for the protection of the strata owners themselves.

The suggestion, which I think is actually a good one, from the strata owner association, is to call for a process that the government will initiate so that people can actually come forward with ideas, with their concerns on what changes ought to be contemplated and to work in a cooperative fashion with the opposition.

Certainly, the opposition would welcome those opportunities, should the government undertake that. I certainly hope that the government will take that into consideration.

[1450]

Finally, I would just simply ask the minister, of course, in his closing response to simply advise the House on the level of consultation that he has done with respect to these amendments and also to advise the suggestions which I believe the minister would have received from the affected strata property owners association as to give us an understanding on why he didn't move forward on some of the other measures that the association has been wanting and advocating for, for quite some time. I'll be very interested to hear those comments from the minister.

With that, I know that my colleague from Saanich South also had a couple of comments related to this portion of the bill as well.

L. Popham: I wanted to take this opportunity to address some of the Strata Property Act, and specifically, depreciation reports and how often they're required by the government of British Columbia.

At this time strata depreciation reports are due to be completed every three years. They're extremely important and the responsible thing to have those reports done, but in other provinces we see that the requirement is every five years. These reports are quite expensive to undertake and are a burden on a larger strata for sure.

The Broadmead Area Residents Association, which has 20 different stratas belonging to BARA, are requesting that the three-year requirement gets moved to a five-year requirement. At this point I would like to…. I hope that the minister can consider this in any further amendments that he may make to this.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you very much to the members for their comments. We will deal with the details of the legislation as we go through committee stage.

I think one thing that the members probably don't understand is that most of the things that would actually allow natural gas development and LNG in British Columbia are already in place. It doesn't require a big passel of legislation. LNG is another industrial opportunity, no different than a smelter or an aluminum smelter or other activities that we would see in other communities.

There might be a little lack of understanding there, and I understand that. I found it interesting that the member
[ Page 1957 ]
for Skeena has finally stood up and said he supports LNG, but I never heard it from the other members opposite. They actually don't, among themselves, have a cohesive answer to that, which is fine.

I get that. I understand it. That's not what this bill is about. It's not actually about liquefied natural gas.

I do think that some of the other comments with regards to water…. There's certainly an education opportunity here for members opposite. Less than 7/10 of 1 percent of the groundwater in northeastern B.C. is used for fracking. In actual fact the members might want to take the time to go to the website — the website that I have — because I think it would be very good for them.

There's a little section in there called LNG 101. I send constituents to it. People have questions about it. It's actually very informative, and people get the opportunity to get those questions answered so that they understand it.

It's not new that we drill for natural gas in British Columbia. We've been drilling in British Columbia for over 50 years for natural gas, and we'll continue to do so.

I'd suggest the members take that opportunity. We will concentrate on the sections as we move forward on to the sections of the actual bill. On the Strata Property Act piece, I know the member said it was under this bill. That's only because, as the member knows, miscellaneous statutes pick up whatever is in the ministry. This ministry also has the responsibility for Housing.

I'm looking forward to the committee stage of the bill, and with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I call committee on Bill 6, an act intituled Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — PROVINCIAL CAPITAL
COMMISSION DISSOLUTION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister here…. This is a clause that talks about aspects of dissolution of the commission and the transfer of property. The section on how many staff will be affected here — I think at this stage of debate this is an opportunity to ask about that.

I just wonder if the minister could clarify. I know that the Provincial Capital Commission, the last time I looked in its service plan, has declined by something like 27 or 30 staff to approximately 11. How many FTEs will be affected by the transfer of staff to government in this section?

Hon. C. Oakes: No full-time employees will be affected by this. They'll be transferred into our department, and one staff is taking retirement.

R. Fleming: Can the minister clarify what the combined salary package and benefit package, the combined compensation costs, are of the staff that will be transferred to other branches or departments or ministries of government?

[1500]

Hon. C. Oakes: The salaries and benefits are approximately $840,000.

R. Fleming: Government comments — and a characterization, I think, of the core review of the Provincial Capital Commission — suggested that the dissolution of the PCC is going to "save government about $1 million per year." But what's going to happen is they're going to take staff costs that were formerly covered by revenue sources within that Crown corporation, sell those assets or transfer them, and now the staff costs will be moved somewhere else to government — I think in the amount of $860,000.

Tell us how you're going to "save $1 million" by moving these staff costs to another part of government. I'm failing to understand the minister's math on this.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: We will be absorbing the staffing and programming costs within our existing budgets. Further, the revenue that currently is accrued will continue to come to government.

R. Fleming: Well, I hope that I'm not jumping sections but…. I understand the model of the PCC right now. There are a number of properties, including parking lots on the Inner Harbour, that make revenue. The Crystal Garden, which is now being swapped for a parcel of land that the city owns on the other side of the harbour that houses Point Hope Shipyard, is going to be sold, and the
[ Page 1958 ]
money is going to be directed towards general revenue of government.

Something like 17 other properties that are part of the beautification assembly on the provincial highways coming into the city are for sale on the market as well. All of these assets are going to be cashed in. They'll be sold. That money will be directed in this operating year or perhaps the one after — the year in which it is sold — and the lease revenues will be untethered from the admin costs.

I'm failing to see how government can say they're saving $1 million — I think the figure sometimes even grows to $1½ million or $2 million, depending on the press release — when this is the way government intends to proceed.

[1505]

Can the minister do a little bit better than that and tell me how this is going to be absorbed into the operating costs of government and that that represents a savings?

Hon. C. Oakes: Some of the ways that we're able to…. First of all, I should reiterate that, again, the salaries and the programs will all continue, and it will be managed through the existing funds of government. Again, the CEO is retiring, so we'll be effectively having cost savings with his retirement. The employees of the Provincial Capital Commission will be moving into our ministry on different openings that we have.

Finally, the commission had previously budgeted close to $580,000 per year for corporate support and governance. That funding will no longer be required, that corporate support, as it is being moved into government.

R. Fleming: The $1.5 million figure — it's not consistently used but mostly used in justifying this bill. Can I ask where that figure comes from? It's attributed to the core review. The numbers the minister has offered just in a few questions here this afternoon don't seem to add up to any particular figure.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am looking at the financial statements as of year-end for the Provincial Capital Commission. Again, the outreach programs and the staffing will be absorbed in our budget, and we are able to do that.

The other, around the corporate support and governance, will no longer be required, and that's what effectively makes up the $1.5 million.

R. Fleming: I think we're aware of some of the activities of the Capital Commission. There's a number of festivals that it supports: Symphony Splash, Canada Day celebrations, International Buskers Festival, dozens of others.

Those are covered by the operations of the Provincial Capital Commission right now, from revenues that are tied to land management. So I'm wondering how the minister can suggest that a transfer of cost to some other department in government represents a savings. I'm just not quite following her answer thus far.

Hon. C. Oakes: There will be no change for stakeholders. We have programs available within our ministry, whether it be for arts and hosting programs, whether it's through community gaming grants or whether it's through programming abilities that we have within our ministry. Stakeholders will not be affected.

[1510]

R. Fleming: I guess I should ask the minister, then: will the contributions to these various festivals decrease? The costs of those contributions right now are part of the mandate and the core programming of the PCC. They're now going to move to various other ministries.

Given that many of these ministries are in a very tight spending environment right now, I would like to ask the minister for assurances that those activities that the PCC has historically funded on behalf of the various arts organizations with which it has historically partnered are going to continue at, at least, the same funding level in the future.

Again, I fail to understand how this represents a savings to government — by moving the costs of these contributions away from a managed property portfolio, where those costs are covered, to a disbursement from another ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we would like to reiterate that this is a priority for us — to ensure that these programs continue. You have my assurance that there will not be a decrease in this funding.

We will be finding efficiencies. We will be eliminating duplication. These are already programs and services that we provide in government, so we are eliminating duplication. That is how we will be able to assure you that we will not be decreasing the funds for those stakeholders.

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned that the CEO was retiring. Presumably, the cost of her or his salary will no longer be required. Can the minister explain what that salary was? Is it in the range of the CEO of B.C. Ferries — over $1 million? Or is it in the range of a senior deputy minister? Or is it in the range of the wage of an average worker in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Oakes: The salary of the CEO of the Provincial Capital Commission is below that of government's deputy ministers. It is below that of assistant deputy ministers, and it is within the strategic leadership band.

B. Ralston: What would that be in dollars?

Hon. C. Oakes: It is under $130,000.
[ Page 1959 ]

R. Fleming: I'm just piecing the answers together that we have so far. The minister says there's $580,000 in corporate admin savings. We have a retiring CEO that's at approximately $130,000, but we also have staff being transferred that will be absorbed and paid for by the taxpayer, as opposed to covered by administered properties, of $860,000.

I'm not seeing $1½ million in savings anywhere in her answers today. I've seen it in a press release, and I've seen it in the media, but I don't get that by adding up the figures that she's giving me today.

Can she again go into her answer and explain where this $1½ million of savings to the taxpayer is coming from?

[1515]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the numbers I've been providing you come straight from their financial statements. The cost savings, with the efficiency and duplication that we'll be able to address through our programming dollars, come from a variety of different avenues that we have that we'll be going through in our budget, whether it's hosting programs or whether it's programs through community gaming grants. We could provide you with more clarification on that.

B. Ralston: I'm having a little bit of difficulty following the minister. She mentioned $580,000 in what was described as corporate support, whatever that may be, and then $130,000, approximately, for a CEO, which adds up to about $710,000. That would seem to be the savings that are stated, yet as my colleague has pointed out, the consistent representation publicly has been savings of $1.5 million.

The gap between $1.5 million and $710,000 is about $800,000. Can the minister explain why public representations of savings of $1.5 million were made when, in fact, it's clear that the savings are only $710,000?

Hon. C. Oakes: I understand the question around the financial questions that are coming forward, but again, when we look at the $560,000 a year through the administration costs, the outreach programs and the staffing costs, we are able to absorb those into our existing budgets. As well, the revenues that currently go to the Provincial Capital Commission will be coming into government. So that is how we are able to have those cost savings for $1.5 million.

B. Ralston: Let me try this again, then. The $580,000 — we could probably put that aside. I'm not sure. It's not terribly well described. But the minister has mentioned salary costs of seven people. I think the total figure was about $860,000. Those people, we're advised, will continue to be employed; they will simply be transferred. I don't think anyone would rationally describe that as a savings. People are being paid $860,000 in salary. They are moving somewhere else within the government reporting entity, and they're being paid, presumably, the same salary.

Can the minister explain how that's a savings? Because it isn't. Is that how the minister has come to this figure of $1.5 million — by taking the $710,000 and adding to it the salary cost? It seems to me to be very misleading. I'm sure that's absolutely not the minister's intention, so perhaps she can clarify the record here, and we'll await a following news release to make the necessary correction publicly.

[1520]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the salaries and the programs will be absorbed into our existing budget. There will be no increase to our budget. We won't have the corporate costs. Based on absorbing that into our ministry — not having the corporate costs — and being able to do the functions more efficiently without duplication will result in those savings.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can just confirm again what the minister said. About $860,000 in salary will be going into the ministry. Those seven people and all the attendant benefit costs will be paid for by the ministry. Is the ministry saying that seven other people are going to be laid off to make that a net zero change in the ministry's budget? That seems to be what she's attempting to offer here.

It doesn't seem very likely, because we've already heard earlier in this debate that those seven people will be doing the same work, just being transferred into the ministry staff. Really, isn't this figure of $1.5 million a mere fiction put together, perhaps, by the 299 people in the public affairs bureau, and it's really not real at all?

Hon. C. Oakes: We will be streamlining our services. No one will be impacted.

Again, to go over our fiscal year for this following year, on the programming and outreach and how we're able to maintain that within our existing budget. We currently provide $24 million to the B.C. Arts Council, $350,000 for the arts legacy fund, $2 million for arts and cultural programs, $2.2 million for the art branch operations, $17.5 million for arts and culture community gaming grants and $2.5 million for Creative B.C. Through these funds, we'll be able to deliver the programs, which currently the Provincial Capital Commission has delivered, within our ministry.

B. Ralston: Is the minister then saying that in order to accommodate this transferred expenditure of $860,000, $860,000 will be hacked out of the programs that the ministry offers, whether it's the Art Council…?

Otherwise, based on what the minister says, the budget would increase by $860,000, the cost of those staff that were transferred. Is that what the minister is saying? In
[ Page 1960 ]
order to accommodate these seven people, who are not going to be laid off — we have that assurance — program spending in the ministry, in the funds that the minister spoke of, will be reduced by $860,000 to shoehorn that into the budget. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. C. Oakes: That is not what we're saying. What we are saying is that we have two streams of funding. We have vacancies that are currently existing within our ministry, and we are streamlining that to bring those staff into our department. Then we have outreach programs, which we had talked about before. Those programs, based on the efficiencies and eliminating duplication, we will be able to do within our existing budget.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister uses the usual bafflegab of "streamlining" and "efficiencies" without being very specific, if I may say so with some respect. I'm interested in a straightforward answer to a very simple question. By streamlining, then, does the minister mean that $860,000 worth of spending will be reduced in her ministry in order to accommodate the salary expense that the ministry is taking on? Is that what she's saying?

Hon. C. Oakes: Mr. Chair, no.

B. Ralston: Then can the minister explain how the expenditure in her ministry…? If she's not going to be streamlining and, therefore, reducing expenditure by $860,000, how is it that the budget would then be net zero, as she's apparently claiming?

[1525]

Hon. C. Oakes: Within the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development we have approximately 200 full-time employees. Within that, we have room within our salary budget for Community, Sport and Cultural Development for the salaries for the people that we'll be bringing into our ministry.

The programming, the type of work that the Provincial Capital Commission does, is in many respects duplication to the type of work that we do within our ministry. That is how we will be finding those efficiencies, by bringing them in.

Again, the programming dollars are separate. The Provincial Capital Commission, to put it in perspective, is about $400,000 a year. That's what the programming costs are to do the programs for the Provincial Capital Commission. We'll be able to absorb that into the programs that we have listed previously.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. Then, these seven people will be taken on as part of the permanent complement of the ministry, and there will be no increase in salary cost in that line item of the ministry. Is that what the minister is saying, then?

Hon. C. Oakes: Correct. We'll be doing it within our existing budget.

B. Ralston: Then, presumably, in order to accommodate these seven people, there will be savings made elsewhere. The minister has spoken of streamlining and efficiency, the usual buzzwords that we hear somewhat vaguely in many ministerial pronouncements.

Can the minister explain where the $860,000 is going to be saved? I had understood that we were in a period of austerity and that all conceivable unnecessary spending had been clamped down upon years ago. So I'm astonished to find that there's $860,000 worth of fiscal room in this ministry. Can the minister explain where those savings will be made?

Hon. C. Oakes: Our ministry, again, has over 200 full-time employees. Within such a large organization, there are always people that are looking at retiring, people that are on leave.

[1530]

We have the salary room within our budget to absorb the Provincial Capital Commission employees into the salary budget that we have allocated.

B. Ralston: Does the minister, then, mean that by ordinary attrition — that is, people retiring, people quitting, people being fired — there will be space found for these seven people? Is that what the minister means? Is that what she meant by streamlining? That sounds just like ordinary business operation, but if that's a new definition of streamlining, please, can the minister enlighten me?

Hon. C. Oakes: Streamlining for us is the fact that we're looking at not having two entities doing the exact same thing, that we don't have two entities looking at providing the same arts and cultural programs.

Streamlining for us means that we're looking at ways that we can deliver the services so it takes place in one area and one place. That is how we will effectively, efficiently, ensure that we're able to have cost savings while continuing the great programs that our ministry will continue to do.

R. Fleming: I think what we've heard from the minister there is that for the savings that come from transferring employee costs that are covered by a self-sustaining Crown corporation to the government reporting entity and to her ministry, they're going to have to manage their budget in such as way that they have to let as many people go as they are agreeing to transfer in. Otherwise, it's not a savings; it's an additional cost.

Hearing the minister sort of mouth the word "no," maybe I'll let her explain, then.

Hon. C. Oakes: As we said before, we have vacan-
[ Page 1961 ]
cies existing currently within our ministry. That is one of the ways that we will be looking at how we find these efficiencies.

But I also go back to the commission. The provincial commission's financial statements had budgeted corporate support and governance, and this will no longer be required. So these are also part of the efficiencies that we'll now be able to save by not having that corporate cost.

R. Fleming: I want to ask, then, about another savings area that the minister referred to earlier, and that's on corporate support. So $580,000 is what she anticipates the dissolution of the PCC will save. I'm just wondering if she can give a breakdown of what functions or cost areas might be included in reduced corporate support.

[1535]

Hon. C. Oakes: Any time you have a Crown corporation and you have board members that sit on that Crown corporation, you'll have expenses such as travel. Often you'll have accommodation.

In this particular instance — I'm looking at the financial statements for this year — for board and committee costs for the Provincial Capital Commission you have $40,000. Professional services — you have $140,000. Office and actually having office space…. We all know, whether it's the expenses to run a particular office, you've got several hundred thousand dollars of cost there. These are the types of costs that are incurred when you have a Crown corporation with expenses attached to it.

R. Fleming: I heard specific amounts for board support of $40,000 and professional services of $140,000. I wonder if the minister could…. She mentioned office costs but without a figure. I'm wondering if she could go a little finer and break out some other areas that are lumped into corporate support.

She has given us additional clarity on $180,000 of the $500,00, but there's still $400,000 that I'm not following, and I don't think that that could all be ascribed to office costs, because I'm familiar with the office on Pandora. It's a very small, modest building that the PCC owns, so they are their own landlord. I'm just wondering if she could describe that.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again I'm looking at the financial summary as provided to me by the Provincial Capital Commission. What we have is, more specifically, the outreach program contributions of $415,000; the office and business — $200,000; professional services — $140,000; board and committees, again — $40,000. You've got the salaries and benefits of $840,000. That's a little over $1.5 million, if you have any questions on how we got over $1.5 million.

R. Fleming: On the outreach cost, which I think you've also described as programming costs, of about $400,000 or $415,000…. It just got a little bit bigger. That's going to move over to the ministry. So $860,000 worth of staff costs is going to move over to the ministry.

The member for Surrey-Whalley was asking whether the existing grants for the B.C. Arts Council and the other organizations that she mentioned that receive funding both from her ministry currently and where they overlap with the Provincial Capital Commission — whether the money is going to be clawed back that historically has been given by the PCC. She has counted outreach/programming activities as a savings by the dissolution of the PCC.

Does that then mean that amounts that are disbursed to non-profit organizations and arts organizations are going to be cut by that amount?

[1540]

Hon. C. Oakes: There will be no reductions to the $24 million that we currently provide to the B.C. Arts Council.

R. Fleming: Let me just clarify, then. There will be no reductions to the $24 million plus the X number of dollars that the PCC has provided to that organization combined. If you're just talking about your ministry grant, and the PCC grant disappears, then that's a reduction. I want to be clear that we are talking about the combined total and if that money is indeed going to be transferred and continued and now part of a bigger envelope, slightly bigger, in her own ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: There will be no reduction in the $24 million that we provide to the B.C. Arts Council, and we will be continuing the $415,000 for outreach programming that we are contributing to outreach programs that were previously accomplished in the Provincial Capital Commission.

R. Fleming: One of the things that the minister referred to in an answer a moment ago was savings around professional services from the dissolution. My understanding is that a couple of years ago the Provincial Capital Commission, like a lot of government organizations, was required to participate in the Shared Services programs of government. I know that includes payroll, accounting and perhaps legal services and other things.

Is the minister referring to things that have already been transferred to Shared Services? I know that property management portfolio functions and such were sent there as well. Or are these different costs that continue right up until the current fiscal year that are now going to be discontinued?

Hon. C. Oakes: These are current costs based on '13-14's financial statements.
[ Page 1962 ]

R. Fleming: The minister referred in a previous answer to ongoing revenues that will continue. In terms of continuing to defend the "$1½ million a year in savings," she's suggesting that there will be revenues that are still available to government. Now, I understand how there might be one-time revenues available to government from the sale of the properties. That could be done quickly or could take a couple of fiscal years.

But I fail to understand how revenues from the current model of managing properties, which is primarily lease revenue, will continue to be available to the government, because those properties are going to be sold off. Many of them are on the market currently. There will be no ongoing source of revenue left for government after that occurs.

Hon. C. Oakes: Properties such as St. Ann's…. I know that you talked passionately, as did colleagues previous, about the great importance of that. That will remain within government, and we'll be maintaining revenue from that. We are looking at ways that we can be more supportive of St. Ann's in their business model by utilizing some of the efficiencies and outreach abilities that we have within government. Again, that's an example of how we will find continued revenues.

R. Fleming: The minister brings up a good example. I know that the PCC has collected revenues from community rentals at St. Ann's Academy for some of the public spaces that are available there. But government also has costs to running St. Ann's. It's a large building with a number of fixed costs.

Now that all of these assets are being put into general government property, there's a small amount of revenue that used to go to the PCC, but it's attached to building costs that were paid elsewhere, presumably by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education, who were the largest users of floor space in St. Ann's Academy.

Again, in terms of the plus or minus, if you take that small amount of revenue from the small public spaces that are rented in St. Ann's and put it against the building costs, what does that add up to?

[1545]

Hon. C. Oakes: When I brought up St. Ann's, it's an example of properties that are moving into government that will provide us with revenue — St. Ann's, Belleville ferry terminal. These are opportunities for us to continue looking at revenue generation with new models, partnering with existing ministries, such as Shared Services, which do these types of property management. That's where we'll be able to eliminate duplication and look at new efficiency costs.

R. Fleming: I noticed there are no numbers in that answer, but she'll have another opportunity, maybe, to provide them.

I would just ask the minister about section 2. One of the things that's in this section of the bill is the agreements that currently exist between the Capital Commission and local councils. I just want to ask some questions, to begin here: which agreements, how many of them are there, and what are the sorts of broad categories between the PCC and local governments within the capital regional district?

Hon. C. Oakes: Subsection (6) provides that where there's an agreement between a municipality and the commission, the municipality is bound to honour these agreements when the commission's assets and properties are brought into government. And that goes both ways.

At this point, because this act has not gained royal assent and we're going through that debate…. We're in committee stage right now. Some of that information will not be available until we move through this next process.

R. Fleming: I would just ask the minister, again, to give an idea of what local agreements exist. If there's any description that she could provide at this stage of debate, I think that would be useful.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, subsection (6), what it discusses — the member opposite wanted the information. Examples would be property leases or park maintenance contracts.

R. Fleming: The minister referred to discussions between the PCC and the local councils around this and that it's premature to discuss some of this until this bill is passed. But is it not the case that no matter what those discussions look like, this section 2(6) essentially gives the minister a unilateral ability to waive any and all of these agreements that have been legally made between the Provincial Capital Commission and local councils?

[1550]

Hon. C. Oakes: Subsection (6), again, talks about agreements between the municipality and the commission. Those, again, will continue.

The other thing that is important for many of the folks that come from local government is that the Community Charter sets out land use planning empowerment for local governments. This was significant change from when the Provincial Capital Commission was first formed in 1956, because now under the Community Charter a local government's municipalities have access to more abilities around land use planning.

R. Fleming: Could the minister describe or give a number as to how many agreements in total there are that exist between the PCC and local councils?
[ Page 1963 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: At this point the contracts with the various bodies exist within the Provincial Capital Commission until this act moves forward. We would be happy…. Once the dissolution of this act, if it's the will of this House, moves forward, then that information on contracts…. We would be able to begin that exploration and start identifying what that information is.

R. Fleming: Well, before dissolution, I would think that this is information that could be readily made available. Considering we're talking about contracts between two public bodies — we're not talking specifically about the contents of the contracts — to know exactly how many there are and with which different municipalities….

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, because these are still contracts that exist between local governments, other property or other parties and are in contract form, we do not have access to that information. But as soon as this process moves to dissolution, where it moves into the government, we'll be gathering that information, and we'd be happy to provide you with that information at that time.

The Chair: For clarity, I believe the subject matter we're currently discussing is contained within section 8. Shall we move to that section, or shall we continue on section 2?

R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, the questions that are being asked right now are very clearly under section 2(6). We still have additional questions around that and may have additional questions when we get to section 8 as well.

What I wanted to ask the minister is just from her previous answer. She's the minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. I know that the PCC, the board chair and the CEO — there was a change of practice, I think, a couple of years ago — need to review any and all major decisions and even set the agenda of the commission by consent and with permission from the minister.

So I have a hard time believing that the minister isn't privy to contracts and any obligations it has to local government through this Crown corporation. Yes, this bill is about its dissolution, but surely she's aware of how many contracts and with whom, in terms of local councils, the PCC currently has, especially since this section of the bill is going to give her the ability to unilaterally waive all of those obligations.

I'd like to have some information at this time about what those may be and how many indeed there are.

[1555]

Hon. C. Oakes: The Capital Commission has the contracts currently. That information, again, we would be happy to forward when this act goes through and that information is made available to us.

When we talk about section 8, which is a little bit later on, it establishes the transfer of the Capital Commission's rights, properties, assets and obligations to the government authority. There is that requirement for us to continue on with our obligation that the Provincial Capital Commission currently has with local governments.

R. Fleming: I just want to go back to revenues. When I asked for examples of what revenues will continue…. I think that's part of the equation government is using to tell the public that this is a bill that will save the taxpayer $1.5 million a year. We've asked some questions and heard some problems about it.

She gave one example, which was St. Ann's Academy revenue. I'm wondering if there's any other lease revenue that government is counting on in terms of achieving a figure of $1.5 million savings that it's used publicly on repeat occasions now.

Are there any other properties that will continue to be owned by government that will earn revenue? Of course, we know the details now of a comprehensive land swap. Some of those properties at Ship Point and the Crystal Garden conference centre will be transferred to the city of Victoria. They'll no longer be with the province of British Columbia.

What are some of the lease revenues that may exist besides St. Ann's and the properties that will no longer be available because they're being traded to the city?

Hon. C. Oakes: The other one that I alluded to when we talked about St. Ann's was the Belleville wharves. That's a great example of how revenue will be generated. I think there was a great news article about how the new formula will create great revenues, great partnerships for all parties involved.

R. Fleming: The properties are being transferred to the government, but specifically Belleville to the transportation authority of the Ministry of Transportation. That was the only property that was specifically assigned to an area of management within government. The rest will be sold and put into general revenue, presumably.

In terms of her ministry the Belleville wharves will not constitute a lease source of revenue upon dissolution. I'm just wondering whether the costs that will now go to the Ministry of Transportation, and not the PCC, of Belleville terminal, as well as the lease revenue — what that amount may be and how that's going to be counted as ongoing revenue.

Hon. C. Oakes: All the revenues will continue. We'll be moving the properties into Shared Services B.C. The Belleville will be moving into the Ministry of Transportation, so those revenues will continue.

Section 2 approved.
[ Page 1964 ]

On section 3.

[1600]

R. Fleming: I want to ask a few questions now about the Belleville wharves, the condition of these properties and how those will be managed.

I think the minister is aware…. Certainly, this is the easiest site for her to visit because it's just 150 metres from these buildings.

She has probably seen that this is a site that is dated. It features infrastructure and pilings that are beyond their useful life span. It's not an attractive site. It is ringed by rusted chain-link fencing.

Yet the Belleville terminal still, in its decrepit condition, plays an important role in our transportation system and is an important link between the United States and Canada. It's important for tourism. It's important for trade, for goods and services to flow between those two borders.

It is a project that has long been identified and advocated for by business leaders and others in greater Victoria to be redeveloped. It has not had any success with this government over the better part of a decade.

I wanted to ask the minister, before we dissolve the Provincial Capital Commission and take this asset and move it somewhere else into government, what the plans are. What is sort of the strategy of government at this point in time to finally pursue and move ahead with the redevelopment of the Belleville terminal?

Hon. C. Oakes: The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure will take the responsibility for the Belleville ferry terminal properties in Victoria. Any plans or decisions about the wharves are under the purview of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Let us just remind ourselves that the Coho and the Clipper ferry services are very important to our economies. The government will continue to work with these partners to ensure the safe and reliable movement of goods and people. They are pleased with moving forward. They'll be working in partnership on the plans on the wharves.

R. Fleming: I just want to maybe get the minister's opinion on this. Transport Canada divested its properties that are now on the Belleville consolidated site. The city of Victoria has also contributed property. There were even commitments at the time of comprehensive rezoning in 1999 to refurbish boulevards and look at streetscape redesign on the property that continues to be owned by the city.

I think the opinion at the time, when Ottawa divested these properties to the Provincial Capital Commission, was that it was doing so specifically because it was not giving them to the province per se to put into a large portfolio of property around B.C., but it was specifically giving them to a Crown corporation that had responsibility for beautification and infrastructure in the capital regional district, in the legislative precinct and those sorts of things.

The MP who was the minister in the federal government at the time who led that property disposition and transfer to the province was doing it, I am sure, in large part because the Provincial Capital Commission was seen as the appropriate lead agency to rezone, which was done successfully, and then redevelop this property.

Now with this bill before us, government is trying to sever what was an important part of the backdrop around the transfer of those properties. Before we do that, I would ask the minister: what is the plan here for Belleville? It's not good enough just to shuffle it off, I think, to the Transportation Ministry, as if it's some kind of highway right-of-way.

We need to know that the Crown corporation that's been responsible for leading its redevelopment — that government is going to take its vision and find the means to achieve what the PCC was entrusted to do by the federal government, by local government and by all of the partners who have hoped for action and approval from the provincial government so far and have never received it.

[1605]

Hon. C. Oakes: You asked what my opinion was on this particular one. I would much rather respond with the fact that there is an actual plan. My opinion really doesn't matter.

In this particular instance, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is taking the responsibility for the ferry terminal properties in Victoria. They're working on developing a plan, which includes partners, on how we ensure that we have a great ferry service that's important to our economy and that will ensure that we have safe, reliable movement of goods and people. The partners that are involved with that are pleased with the direction that is happening.

R. Fleming: There don't seem to be any conditions in this section that obligate the ministry with any special instructions around a duty of care or a future intended use of these properties. That has very much been a responsibility of the PCC — a core planning function.

There has been a number of convened efforts by government that were delegated to the PCC to lead. Those are available on the record. There have been several ministers, including the late Stan Hagen, who worked on this, who appointed a blue-ribbon task force panel. Those are part of the recent history of the Provincial Capital Commission on this property.

I think the attention and the eyes of greater Victoria, if there is any interest in this bill, is on exactly this section. And there doesn't seem to be anything in this section that
[ Page 1965 ]
obligates the Ministry of Transportation to carry on the strategic management and future planning that has been the responsibility of the PCC.

Hon. C. Oakes: Later on in the bill you'll see that we are amending the Transportation Act to provide more ability for them to address the concerns that were raised around the wharves.

R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, actually, I'm going to let this section pass, if there are no other questions over here.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

R. Fleming: Again, we're dealing with the transfer of property in this section. My interest in section 7 is to give a greater direction to the Belleville ferry terminal site in particular.

I understand what this bill is trying to accomplish in relation to the other properties that have been held and assembled by the PCC over many decades. It's to sell them off at whatever price the market will bear and to move on and to put that money into government's revenue in this fiscal year and into the next year.

But I think the concerns we've raised at the previous stage of debate and that I'd like to raise again in this section is around making sure that it's done — since it is will of government and they have a majority here and will get their way — in an orderly fashion, in a way that makes the most business sense, that is consultative with municipal parties and with the private sector in Victoria.

I think that given that there has been a land swap already announced on some of the property portfolio…. We know the green spaces that have been assembled in other areas are for sale.

[1610]

Again, I come back to the Belleville international ferry terminal, because this is a very, very strategic asset that was assembled in the way I just described — in the 1990s with Transport Canada, with the city of Victoria playing a lead role. It's an area that has been comprehensively rezoned already. My concern is that government, in winding down the PCC, is solely seeking to strip out money to give the illusion that they're balancing their budget this year.

The proof of that is that in a $450 million line item in Budget 2014 which is titled "Land and assets" — $450 million, $200 million in the next fiscal year. That's a considerable sum. It's larger than the contingency that the government has planned for government overall, and the PCC is a small piece of this puzzle that the government is trying to do. It's a one-time accounting trick. It's fraught with peril.

Government has sold land aggressively in the past. I can remember the dissolution of the B.C. Buildings Corporation in 2004. Land was put on the market in vast blocks — buildings and assets — and it was sold at a time when real estate was at a relatively low valuation. Taxpayers missed out on the next seven, eight years of growth. They could have achieved easily twice the value of property.

We're now into another place in the real estate market where, again, values have flatlined, and as time goes by, those properties will appreciate again. But government is, for a second time, selling low after they acquired these properties and held them for a time for strategic values and for economic interests.

Again, my concern is that with the land that has just been swapped and assembled and announced in advance of this legislation even becoming law, government is trying to take sums of money outside of the PCC and is not using it in a way that finds the highest value for the taxpayer or, indeed, respects the strategic uses for assembling that land in the first place.

I focus on the swap deal. Let's talk about that for a minute before I pose the question. We don't know how much money government is going to make from selling land that is traded with the city at the Point Hope Shipyard site, but let's suppose it's somewhere between $10 million and $20 million. That's a significant sum of money for government. It's also a significant sum of the total asset value of the PCC.

For that money, which represents property that was assembled over decades, just to disappear into general revenue, to go into a single fiscal year to help government achieve the illusion that there's no deficit this year, is problematic, because that is money that's not going to be available for economic development in the future.

Now, government, I think, has responded to this criticism and this suspicion by publicly saying, even in its own publications…. In explaining the land swap, they've said: "The province will sell the shipyard to the current leaseholder…providing the necessary certainty for the new owner to continue investing in the shipyard properties." Fine. But where is that money going to go? This is about following the money.

There's an additional commitment here that isn't worth the paper it's written on. It says: "The province will continue to invest in local infrastructure as part of its fiscal plan."

What I'm seeking to get at here this afternoon is some kind of assurance from the minister. She has got to discharge her responsibilities in dissolving this PCC and make a wise decision not just move on and wind this thing up but to ensure the legacies that were attempted to be created by the PCC are achieved going forward.

I accept that it can be done by a different model. Nobody is arguing that. But these things must be done.

I would ask the minister whether there is any interest to look at the sale of properties in the PCC and put
[ Page 1966 ]
them into some kind of fund that will be available for local infrastructure and economic development that is in the original capital improvement district that the PCC had responsibility for.

[1615]

Hon. C. Oakes: All the properties will be transferred to Shared Services, and they'll be putting forward an economic plan on how these properties will be developed.

But I do believe we're talking about section 7. Really, what we're talking about is dealing with the transferred rights, properties and assets. What this does is it establishes that the government, B.C. Transportation Financing Authority or any official dealing with the rights, properties or assets that are transferred from the commission to the government are given the same effect as they had when they were in the commission.

R. Fleming: I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 6 at this time. The amendment would be by adding a section 7.3, which would read:

[7.3 Any proceeds derived from the sale of property or assets that are vested to the government through this Act must be directed to a special account for infrastructure improvement within the Capital Improvement District.]

If I may continue, speaking in favour of the amendment, if that's appropriate at this time…. I know the minister is just getting a copy of the amendment now, and the Chair has it.

The Chair: Proceed.

On the amendment.

R. Fleming: The debate around the dissolution of the Provincial Capital Commission is one that has failed to influence or persuade government to do otherwise. We're now at committee stage of this debate.

If I could summarize, I think where government has made some utterances that give some assurances to sections of the business community, pays some respect to the original intent of the Belleville land assembly and has an opportunity for at least there to be some silver lining out of Bill 6, should it pass — and it will pass, because government has its majority — it is to give long-term future direction around the sale of the PCC's historically accrued assets.

I know we've spoken in earlier stages of the debate about the incredible achievements of the PCC since it was founded by W.A.C. Bennett in the mid-1950s, till now. Government has failed to have any vision as to how it can author any further future chapters for the PCC to accomplish in this region. I get that. That's where we are at.

They want to wind it down. They have no vision for that in the future. But there's one obvious area that remains to be improved in what has been the responsibility of the PCC, and it's standing right in front of us, literally, in these buildings. That's the Belleville international ferry terminal.

This is a gateway to the Island, to the capital regional district that needs to be redeveloped. I haven't heard government argue otherwise. They've simply stalled and studied and blue-ribboned — if that's a word, an expression — the need to do this for year after year, minister after minister, and they haven't made a move on refurbishing that facility.

It's at a point right now where whether it could continue to function is an open question. There is a great deal of urgency for Belleville international ferry terminal to be redeveloped. It's a good-news story, potentially, for government to finally make that investment, because we know that through this one gateway to the capital regional district there's as much as $180 million in GDP activity associated with the traffic that goes through that terminal. Hundreds of jobs in the capital region are directly tied to the success and the ongoing operation of that terminal.

Government will have their way on Bill 6. I understand that. But I think everybody wins — including the government, which will collect more taxes — if that facility is refurbished and redeveloped in a way that will allow its expansion. Government has studied this to death. I mentioned it earlier, but one of the studies that was very persuasive was the blue-ribbon panel under the late Stan Hagen. I mentioned his name earlier.

[1620]

It suggested that by redeveloping Belleville international terminal you could double the number of passengers arriving every year. That's huge. We could accommodate perhaps 1.6 million or two million visitors if that facility was redesigned, if it was made safe and was part of a comprehensive redevelopment. The city of Victoria is on board. It has already been rezoned. The federal government divested the property for that to happen. It remains undone, though.

People in the capital regional district aren't going to just take an empty promise from the government, like the one that appears on its press release, which says: "The province will continue to invest in local infrastructure as part of its fiscal plan." They aren't going to take that as good enough.

The capital regional district recently did an analysis of what infrastructure investment has looked like in the capital region. They compared a ten-year snapshot of this region, of the south Island, to Metro Vancouver. You know what the findings were? It said that for every $1,000 spent in Metro Vancouver on transportation infrastructure….

You're talking about Golden Ears and Port Mann Bridge and all kinds of projects. For every 1,000 tax dollars spent in Metro Vancouver, $1 was spent here in the south Island. This is what we have put up with over the last decade — 1/1,000 of infrastructure investment in a vibrant part of the province's economy. It's utter discrimination, and it's shortsighted and foolish.
[ Page 1967 ]

We've got an economic winner on our hands here that is ripe for redevelopment, that has been identified strategically by a Crown corporation that will no longer exist. I think people in this region and tourism interests right across British Columbia want a little bit more than a line in a press release that says: "The province will continue to invest in local infrastructure as part of its fiscal plan."

That's what this amendment does. This says that government doesn't have to commit to anything right away. It's okay to continue to plan. It's good to go out and make partnerships and identify money and revenue sources and come up with a comprehensive redevelopment plan that fits with all the other players you might expect to be at the table.

But it says that a special account for infrastructure — not just for Belleville, but it would probably be used primarily for Belleville — must be created that keeps that money from the sale of the properties its just swapped out within the capital improvement district.

I think that's fair. It's fair in light of government's underinvestment in this region for 12 years now compared to other parts of the province. It's fair because it pays homage to what the PCC was intended to accomplish all those years ago under W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Bennett and governments of every stripe.

It gives us something to accomplish as a future. It's an economic development opportunity for government, and it will reduce the utter cynicism that most people in this region feel for this government around what it's trying to do with Bill 6, which is just to sell stuff off and take the money and run — take more money, tens of millions of dollars, out of the capital region and continue to ignore our infrastructure needs in this region.

What would give them a little bit more assurance would be to take the money from the properties it intends to sell — they've already got agreements in place; I get that — and put it in a special account so that they can be accountable for it, so that it's transparently monitored, so that it's segregated away from general revenue and is not part of the vast sell-off across British Columbia of property and land.

It has strategic purpose. We want the sale of assets in the PCC to have strategic purpose — to create jobs and economic activity to finally redevelop the Belleville international ferry terminal. We risk the business tenants we have there right now leaving. I mean, God knows the patience they've shown in continuing to run their businesses and to invest in their fleets and to provide the service they've done.

They've been told time and time again, year after year, that this facility, this critical piece of infrastructure, is going to be improved. We've had Homeland Security from the United States show patience for the better part of a decade at this facility, working in substandard immigration clearance areas. It's a mess. This site is a disaster.

[1625]

It is to the detriment of the beautification of this capital. It's the blight on the Inner Harbour, and it's owned by the provincial government.

Selling off all the other properties that the PCC has historically managed — I disagree with that. I think that's a bad decision. I think the green spaces that have been assembled for the enhancement of the capital are ones that will have value in perpetuity. But this government seems to be bent on selling those out from our children and our children's children deciding what should happen there.

At the very least, I propose a modest amendment — instead of allowing the dissolution of the PCC to be part of a great asset-strip of British Columbia, that it have purpose, that it take the money and funds from the lands that have been assembled over decades and put it to some future use, specifically the Belleville international ferry terminal refurbishment. That will at least create jobs and economic activity and contribute to the sustainability and vibrant economic activity that exists in greater Victoria.

That's why I propose this amendment. I hope it will pass. I hope government will listen to it and prove otherwise to its critics, who say government is just doing this to make some quick cash and pull all that money out of the capital region. Prove otherwise, and vote for this amendment.

This will not tie government's hands. This will focus the proceeds from its sale to do good in this region and to accomplish things for transportation in the province of British Columbia.

C. James: I rise to speak in support of this amendment. It's an interesting discussion that occurred when we were in second reading debating the bill. It was focused on the worry of the capital region about what could happen with the sell-off of lands and where those resources would go.

It was certainly an area that a number of us stood and spoke to and expressed concern about on behalf of the people of the capital region. If you are taking a look at the selling of land and the selling of assets, will that money just go into general revenue?

I think it's a reasonable worry when we take a look at the record of this government, when we take a look at what has occurred over this past year, where a government has decided that the selling off of land, one-time resources, is an opportunity to be able to try and balance its budget. We all know that the loss of that land means one-time money goes in and that that money is gone the following year. You've lost that forever.

What I appreciate about this amendment is that it speaks to any sale of assets or property actually remaining in the capital region, actually remaining in the area where the land is, where the resources are. I think that would provide a strength.

I think there still continues to be concern about the selling off of assets and whether there's good planning
[ Page 1968 ]
that is going on around those assets. But I think that the little bit of comfort that it will provide for the capital region is to say those resources at least are going into the capital region.

As we know, the Provincial Capital Commission has been in place since the late 1950s and is an organization that was put in place to provide support to the capital region. As I mentioned in the second reading of this bill, it's important to note that the capital isn't simply the capital for people here in Victoria. It's not simply the capital city for people here in Victoria. It's capital city for all of British Columbia. It belongs to the entire province.

The assets, the land, the historic buildings — those belong to the people of British Columbia. Any opportunity we have to be able to maintain those resources, to be able to hang on to those resources, to continue to put those improvements in place will be important.

We're not talking about these dollars being put into frivolous programs or frivolous services or being used to simply try and balance the budget. We're actually talking about these resources going into continuing the good work of the Provincial Capital Commission — which, with the passing of this bill, will be gone — in maintaining that history, in maintaining those buildings.

My colleague talked about the Belleville terminal. I want to take a few minutes, because this amendment would in fact provide some support and some protection for resources that could be used for one of the jewels of the capital region, which really is the Belleville terminal.

[1630]

I think it's very interesting to note that both the Coho and the Clipper are two different boats that come in at the Belleville terminal. The Coho goes to Port Angeles. It's very interesting. If you meet with folks from the Port Angeles area, they will tell you that the government put the resources in to redo the terminal in Port Angeles.

That was a commitment of the state, because they recognized the huge economic opportunity that is provided by the Coho bringing visitors back and forth. When those visitors ride on the Coho or those visitors ride on the Clipper, they do it in order to bring their resources to the community and spend that — economic growth.

I mean, if we're talking…. As we like to hear from this government, if we're hearing a discussion around jobs, if we're hearing a discussion around economic growth, what a perfect opportunity, with the Belleville terminal, to strengthen that. I find it interesting that Port Angeles, in fact, saw that — putting the resources in themselves, as a government, to upgrading the terminal. I would encourage members to take an opportunity to have a trip on the Coho and the Clipper simply to see that terminal and to see the improvements that need to be made.

An amendment like this would provide that opportunity. It would provide the opportunity for those resources to go into an improvement fund that would provide strength, that would provide certainty for people who are concerned about those resources being sold off and the money just going into general revenue, and could provide that kind of improvement that is so needed in the capital region.

I think the other interesting piece about this amendment is that it really also values the original reason that the Provincial Capital Commission was put in place in the first place, which was to provide that support to the capital region — put in place by W.A.C. Bennett, who recognized the value of a capital city.

I think it's not out of reach to talk about the comments that you hear in this region about a lack of support for the capital region — a worry from a Premier who doesn't often like to come to Victoria, who doesn't often like to be here, who has made comments about this being a sick culture.

When you have a Premier who makes those kinds of comments, I think it's quite reasonable for people in the capital region to believe that, with the elimination of the Provincial Capital Commission and with the potential sell-off of lands, those resources could disappear into general revenue and no one would ever see them again here in the capital region. And once again, the capital region would be ignored by this government.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Well, in fact, this amendment would provide that protection — would say that, yes, there are times when it makes sense to look at land swaps. Yes, there may be times when it makes sense to look at land sales. Rather than that money simply going into general revenue from a government that is desperate to be able to say that they balance their budget, those dollars will actually be protected.

They'll actually be put aside for heritage, for history, for protecting buildings, for improving existing buildings like the Belleville terminal. Anyone who has visited the redo of the CPR building and seen the kind of work that was done there will know the benefit that that provides to a community, will know the strength that that opportunity provides.

So I would certainly urge members to support this amendment. I think that it has great strength in a number of ways. It has strength in ensuring, as I said earlier, that the resources will stay in the capital region, that those resources won't simply disappear into general revenue.

It provides support for the principles of the Provincial Capital Commission, which I think, again, were valuable principles put in place by W.A.C. Bennett, back in the '50s. Those are principles we should continue to honour, and this amendment would honour those principles by saying the money will stay in the region.

And it deals with some of the cynicism that the public feels with this government when it comes to the capital city. It would deal with some of the cynicism, of people
[ Page 1969 ]
saying this government doesn't pay attention to the capital region.

I thank my colleague for bringing forward this amendment. I certainly would urge people to support it. I think it does not have an impact on the budget. It does not have an impact. This is talking about money in lands that may be sold, resources that would be put into a special fund.

[1635]

And it provides an opportunity to really live up to the principle, as the minister said when she first introduced the bill, of maintaining the programs and services in the Provincial Capital Commission. I heard the minister say that they were going to maintain those programs, that the programs and services would be protected, that this wasn't about eliminating the role of the Provincial Capital Commission; it was just government taking it on to do that role.

Well, if that's accurate, if government really is taking on the role of the Provincial Capital Commission and isn't looking at cutting programs or services and is still going to provide that support to our heritage and to our history, then I would suggest that they support this amendment, because that's exactly what this amendment does. It provides that support, and it actually says to government that they're putting their money where their mouth is. They're actually agreeing that these resources should stay in the capital region.

I would urge support of this amendment.

G. Holman: I'm pleased to speak to this amendment, which I do fully support. The point that my colleague made here about the original intent and purpose of the Provincial Capital Commission, I think, is really something that we should all take very seriously.

These commissions exist throughout Canada for the purposes of enhancing capitals throughout Canada. We really do need to respect the original intent of this body. I would point out that — while a couple of my colleagues have referred to the potential or opportunity to reinvest in the Belleville terminal, which would be a great opportunity to enhance and improve tourism in the region and also in British Columbia — those tourists are coming from the United States. That means new dollars. We're not just recycling dollars within the economy. It's an excellent idea.

Now, I would argue that government should be supporting those improvements regardless, without having to allocate revenues from asset sales from the Provincial Capital Commission. I think it's a valid investment to make in any case. But this is a completely reasonable suggestion — to use at least some of the revenues from asset sales to enhance that terminal.

I'm not sure if my colleagues have mentioned, but I would like to point out that the government objective of balancing its budget on the basis of these asset sales would not be affected in any way at all by earmarking these funds for the capital improvement district. The funds — whether they stayed with the Provincial Capital Commission or stayed in government at large — would still remain within the government reporting entity, which means the objective of using one-time asset sales to balance the budget would still be intact.

Now that's an objective that I don't have a lot of sympathy with. I don't think it's sustainable or good business or good governance practice — these one-time sales. But if you are going to do it, at the very least, government hopefully would respect the original intent of the Capital Commission and retain the funds within the region.

Although we are speaking of a great investment opportunity for the Belleville terminal, I would point out that the amendment being proposed is much broader than that. It doesn't specify specific reinvestments.

In fact, as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands…. Funds from the Provincial Capital Commission have gone to establishing parks in the Saanich Peninsula. The Gowlland Tod Park was created, at least in part, with a contribution from this entity.

The benefits, potentially, of reinvesting in the capital improvement district could extend much more broadly than just Victoria. Although the Belleville terminal is, I think, an excellent investment for government to make, the amendment is much broader than that.

Furthermore, the amendment does not detract from government's objective of balancing its budget for this year with one-time asset sales. So I would urge the members opposite to support this amendment.

[1640]

A. Weaver: I, too, rise in support of this amendment, an amendment that I only realized was going to be put forward a few minutes ago. When I look at this amendment and when I see what it's proposing, to me, it makes sense. It makes common sense, it makes sense for the people of Victoria, the people of the capital region and the people of British Columbia.

The Provincial Capital Commission was put forward by W.A.C. Bennett as a legacy for British Columbians. The sale of any assets within the commission and using those for general revenue or disposing of those by other means would destroy the legacy that was built and started 50 years ago.

To actually require that a special account for infrastructure improvement within the capital improvement district be used is entirely reasonable. It keeps the original intention of the properties that were acquired within the region that they were originally required to enhance.

I cannot see any rational reason to do anything but support this. I truly urge my colleagues from all parties to recognize that this is not a partisan issue. This is not an issue that's only being raised by the official opposition. This is not an issue that would only be raised by independents. It's an issue that affects all of us, it's a
[ Page 1970 ]
critical issue, and it's crucial that we maintain the intent of keeping these moneys for what they were meant to do, which is improve our capital region.

J. Horgan: It's a real privilege to stand and join in the debate on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake. I'm also particularly pleased to be following the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I think we will have run the table on capital regional district MLAs when I've concluded my remarks on this.

I think it's this speaking with one voice that's important in this instance. I know that the minister — who is from a CRD, as well, but the Cariboo regional district — understands the importance of hanging together.

What we're trying to do with this amendment is to ensure that the resources that are coming back to government as a result of the sale of these properties don't go to just meeting this year's budgetary requirements but, instead, as they were collected over a long period of time for the interests not just of the capital region but for the entire province, that the resources from those sales be put in a segregated account and be managed over time, in my view, in the interests of the capital regional district or the Provincial Capital Commission area.

It could also be used for other purposes. That's not something, I believe, that this amendment constrains the government to do. The objective we're trying to achieve here, to those listening here in the Legislature today, is to take the moneys that will accrue to government over the fire sale of these assets and make sure that we don't just, in a frivolous way, expend them on shoring up the budget for this fiscal year.

We've appreciate — we've heard many, many times over the past couple days; in fact, couple of weeks — the importance of balancing the budget, to the people on the other side of the House, and that's fine. That's a laudable and reasonable position for them to take.

But we as members on this side of the House who live in the region that's going to be affected by this sale feel very, very strongly that those assets are not just there to stop the red ink on the other side. They have been there over time, historically, and to this very day to promote and protect the heritage buildings that we see, the greenbelt coming through my constituency of Langford — coming out of the spectacular Goldstream Park, through the highway, into the centre of the capital regional district. It's important, in our view, that the government recognize that.

Accepting this amendment would be, I think, a giant step forward for the government, which doesn't have representation in this area. I think we've said a few times, over and over again, that to have the seven members of the Legislature for the capital regional district making the case with one voice that this is an appropriate amendment to a piece of legislation — which ultimately, I believe we're going to support — is, I think, a show of support with the government.

I think that if the minister has been listening carefully to our interventions today, she will join with us and support this amendment when it comes to a vote in a few moments' time.

[1645]

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment to section 7.

[1650]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

[1655]

R. Fleming: On section 9. The clause is about regulations that are now allowed to be made, or would be allowed to be made, regarding a number of things. I'm just seeking to get some clarity from the minister, maybe by way of examples that she could provide, of the types of regulations that may result from the passage of this clause.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is just a tech-
[ Page 1971 ]
nical provision. There is no change expected in regulations. This is just a technical clause in case there is anything that is necessary that comes out after.

R. Fleming: I understand that this is in contemplation of things that may not be known, that may arise, but it's being put into this act specifically on the understanding that certain things may happen. I just want to know what the safety valve is that had the legislative drafters include this — if she can give any sort of further insight.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a standard provision in this kind of an act to address any unforeseen issues that may come up in respect to the transfer.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister, as well, then, under what standard or for what purpose section 9(3) has the specific date of December 31, 2015, as a drop-dead date, really, after which a regulation cannot be made.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is just meant to be transitional. It's not meant to be in perpetuity.

Sections 9 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

The committee rose at 5 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — PROVINCIAL CAPITAL
COMMISSION DISSOLUTION ACT

Bill 6, Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Coleman: I now call committee stage on Bill 3, intituled Missing Persons Act.

Madame Speaker: The House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:06 p.m.

On section 1.

K. Corrigan: I have quite a few questions, actually, about the definitions section. I'm going to start with one that I have a particular concern about, a concern that I have let the minister know about, and that is the definition of "missing person." I'm going to ask some questions about the definition of "missing person."

This act, the Missing Persons Act, essentially provides police forces, police officers, with the ability to demand records related to a search for a missing person. Sometimes the devil is in the detail.

With regard to the definition of "missing person," it means:

"an individual whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate the individual" — so their whereabouts have to be known — "and (a) who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual, or (b) whose safety and welfare are feared for given (i) the individual's age, (ii) the individual's physical or mental capabilities, or (iii) the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence."

The first question that I have for the minister is: who could be the person who could declare somebody as a missing person?

Hon. S. Anton: The missing person is in relationship…. I think the question is: to whom is the person missing? It could be a parent. It could be a child. It could be a friend. It could be someone in regular contact with that person who reports that person missing or who understands and knows that that person is missing and goes to the police or goes to others with that information.

K. Corrigan: But this definition doesn't require that anybody initiate this process. In fact, it could be the police who initiate the process themselves. Is that correct?

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: Technically, if the police themselves came to the realization that someone was missing, yes, they could be the entity that reported the person missing. I think that more commonly, it's going to be that it is a friend or a family member who realizes that someone has gone missing.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go back to that in a second, but I want to actually ask a general question first, because it does relate to this definition and the overall concern about privacy issues and constitutional rights and how sections of this act could be interpreted — maybe not the intention but how they could be interpreted.

I guess I'll ask the minister generally: has the minister satisfied herself — through constitutional advice,
[ Page 1972 ]
through advice from the Privacy Commissioner — that these provisions, all of them in the act, are constitutional? Has the Privacy Commissioner…? Well, I'll start with that. Are all these provisions constitutional, and has the minister assured herself that they are?

Hon. S. Anton: We have indeed run this through legal advice.

K. Corrigan: You've run it through legal advice, and that's good to know. I know that in the past and certainly very recently as well…. We've been dealing with a number of bills in this House where we've received advice from the minister when we've been going through the bill that the ministers have in fact assured themselves that the sections are constitutional. I think of a couple of the acts with regard to teachers.

It is satisfying to hear that the minister has taken the time and has received the assurance that each and every section of this act is constitutional. I'm assuming that there's no possible way that anything in this act is not constitutional, and that's satisfying.

I'm wondering if the minister could let us know whether or not, prior to tabling this bill, the minister sought advice from the Information and Privacy Commissioner as to whether or not the proposed provisions of the bill were satisfactory to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Hon. S. Anton: Going back to the previous response, the consultation with legal on the bill was through staff, not myself personally. It was framed that it was me personally, and I just want to clarify that.

[1715]

I would like to, also on the legal issues, observe that other jurisdictions have a similar kind of legislation. They have not run into constitutional issues that we are aware of, which is not to say that there might not be one somewhere in the future. But so far, we are not aware of any problems with similar legislation in other jurisdictions.

With regard to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the staff have had several consultations and worked with her on the development of this Missing Persons Act.

K. Corrigan: Well, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern about several sections of the act, and we will later be bringing forward some amendments to address the concerns.

Is the minister saying that prior to this bill being brought to this Legislature, there were previous discussions and consultation with the Privacy Commissioner about the contents of the bill or the proposed contents of the bill — prior to this act coming to us?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer to that question is yes. As part of the legislative development process, which took place over a period of time, the practice was to meet with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and in fact, that was done.

K. Corrigan: There's a committee. I think I've got the name fairly close to correct. It's the police standards committee. I'm wondering if the minister or the minister's staff…. Were the provisions of this act, or the proposed provisions, taken to the police standards committee for input from that organization?

Hon. S. Anton: As part of the legislative development process, the police standards committee was not met with. However, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police — there was a meeting with that group with regard to the legislation.

At the same time, just for the information of this committee, there was also a consultation with the Uniform Law Conference, which is a group of lawyers who are looking at common missing-persons legislation across Canada.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if there was any consultation with the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. or the criminal law subsection of the Canadian Bar Association.

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is no for the two groups mentioned by the member opposite. Again, I'll say that this is a public safety bill, and it was written consistently with the legislation of other jurisdictions — although not identical but in many ways very consistent.

[1720]

K. Corrigan: Well, it may be consistent with other jurisdictions. My understanding is that the minister said previously that there hadn't been any challenges. I just wanted to confirm that there are no challenges to similar legislation, as far as the minister knows, in any other jurisdiction.

Hon. S. Anton: The two provinces which have acts of a similar nature are Alberta and Manitoba. I am informed that we in the ministry are unaware of any challenges to the acts in those jurisdictions.

K. Corrigan: In preparing this bill, did the ministry or the minister consult with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy association?

Hon. S. Anton: No, we did not.

K. Corrigan: Was there any consultation with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association?

Hon. S. Anton: The B.C. Civil Liberties Association was reached out to. There was contact with a person at
[ Page 1973 ]
that agency, but the request for a meeting never happened. Or I should say that the meeting itself never happened. There was a request for a meeting at the end of January, and that meeting did not occur.

K. Corrigan: The request was made by the ministry, or the request was made by the association?

Hon. S. Anton: The request was made by the ministry for a meeting. A person was reached there, but they did not get back with a confirmation of the time or place for the meeting.

K. Corrigan: Is it correct that a representative of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association sits on the police standards committee?

Hon. S. Anton: I'm not able to confirm the membership of that committee. It's a broad-based committee. Certainly, they may very well be a regular member of the committee.

K. Corrigan: It is my understanding that the B.C. Civil Liberties has — and I believe continues to have — a spot on that committee. It would be my guess, considering the comments that have been made about this bill, that if it had gone to the police standards committee, there probably would have been some discussion, and it may or may not have made a difference to the content of this bill.

It's important to consult, I believe. I will compare what I perceive to be a lack of consultation with a certain number of organizations that might have offered perspectives on the legislation.

[1725]

I compare that with the recommendations of Justice Braidwood to do with the Robert Dziekanski inquiry and the fact that, frankly, I've given government a lot of credit for the broad-based inclusion of a number of people in consultation in terms of implementing the Braidwood recommendations. What it meant was that organizations like B.C. Civil Liberties, and so on, really bought into the recommendations and, as well, that the concerns of the organizations like B.C. Civil Liberties were certainly addressed.

By comparison, when you have a number of organizations expressing concern about a bill and you find out that the broad base of consultation hasn't happened, it makes you wonder: why not? Perhaps some of the issues that are now of concern — in fact, I would say grave concern — to us on this side of the House and to numerous organizations could have been avoided.

Anyways, with that I'm going to go back to the definition section. I want to go back to the definition of "missing person." I read out the definition before. I'm wondering…. The minister confirmed previously that the initiation of the demand for records does not necessarily have to come from a family member, a service provider or some other party that has concern about the safety and welfare of an individual and that in fact it could come from the police.

That's fine. That is perfectly legitimate if for some reason the police knows that there is a concern, but what is missing here is that under section (a) you can have an initiation of the demand for records without having a concern for the safety and welfare of an individual.

Would the minister confirm whether it's possible that somebody whose safety and welfare is not feared for could be declared a missing person?

Hon. S. Anton: There are two parts to the definition of "missing person." Let me start, actually, with part (b), "whose safety and welfare are feared for," given their age, physical or mental capabilities, or the circumstances surrounding their absence. But (a) is a more general provision for someone who has simply disappeared for some reason — someone, for instance, who comes home every night to their family, and then stops coming home and has just vanished, as far as the family is concerned. That more general provision is included in (a).

K. Corrigan: It is indeed (a) that concerns me, and I'll explain why. There are people who do simply disappear, and it concerns me. I think the minister, in previous discussion about this bill, in previous debate, has made the point that it's okay, that it's legal, that it may be harmful and scary to family, but that it is okay for people to simply make a decision in their life that they are going to disappear.

There are a couple of concerns with the fact that you don't have to have concern for their safety and welfare. It's clear from the definition: it's either (a) or (b). Of (b) I'm fully supportive. If somebody's safety and welfare are feared for — given their age, their physical or mental capabilities and the circumstances — well, then absolutely, we want that person to be found.

[1730]

But what if a person doesn't want to be found? What prevents an abuse of section (a) if a person doesn't want to be found?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of the act, of course, is to find missing persons — persons who are genuinely missing, not who have gone off grid or who have chosen to go missing. I'll come back to that in a moment.

The language in the definition of "missing person" is consistent with Alberta and Manitoba. In fact, it's almost identical. They have the same two-part provision.

I will remind the member opposite that at the same time, I brought in the other day — still not yet debated — the changes to the Police Act, which has provision for establishing standards for the principles, practices and strategies around finding missing persons. So there will
[ Page 1974 ]
be standards set for police in these circumstances.

Thirdly, I would like to emphasize that this is what police do every day. Police look for people, and they find people. They find people who are lost and take them home, or they find people who have gone away from a certain situation and don't want to go home.

The police exercise their discretion in that every day by reporting back to the family. For example: "Your loved one is well, but they're not here, and they're not coming home." That's the kind of discretion police exercise as part of their normal duties, and as I said, they do it all the time.

K. Corrigan: This bill, which we generally support, is a bill that extends police powers fairly significantly. It doesn't give me a lot of comfort when the answer I get from the minister about the extension of police powers is: "Police have discretion already. Let's provide more powers, and let's assume that it is going to be fine." It will be fine in most cases, but I do think that when you are extending police powers and extending, potentially, the invasion of the privacy of individuals, you have to be very, very careful about it.

I don't understand the necessity of section (a), frankly. To me, the test should be whether or not somebody's safety and welfare are feared for. Would the minister agree that it is necessary and would cover all instances where we want to give the police power to demand records if we required that the safety and welfare of the individuals that we're talking about, the missing persons, are feared for?

Hon. S. Anton: The legislation is responding to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry recommendation to pass missing-persons legislation. In fact, the legislation that Commissioner Oppal was referring to has, as I said, been passed in a couple of other provinces.

[1735]

The definition of "missing person" needs to be broad enough to cover people who are not conforming to their usual habits. In the cases laid out in the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, Commissioner Oppal laid out some extremely tragic circumstances where the women were known to be missing almost immediately and their friends were puzzled and mystified as to where they were. This more general definition in part (a) is the tool that police can use to go and find that person.

There are other standards in place, and there's a discretion that police use on a regular basis that will determine — and we'll come to that later on in the act — the use of the records and the use of the police officer's discretion as to when they find the person. All of those things are encompassed in the act and in the regulations. But the provision in (a) is required to make sure that the act is broad enough so that it can be used in cases where people are gone and others around them are looking for them and worried about them.

K. Corrigan: What the minister just said is that people are worried about them. That was what the minister just said — that people are reporting and people are worried. So would that not be satisfied by subsection (b): "whose safety and welfare are feared for" — and you can go to sub-subsection (iii) there — "given (iii) the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence"?

I don't understand yet why all of those cases that the minister has described would not be covered under subsection (b). I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me again what it is about subsection (a), where there is no worry about the health and welfare…. Give me an example that would not be covered by subsection (b).

Hon. S. Anton: It is my view that the broader abilities to find a person who has just gone, which are encompassed by section (a), are an important part of this act.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister didn't really answer the question. The question really, specifically, is: could the minister provide any example of a case where it would be necessary to have that person defined as a missing person under (a) that would not also be covered by (b)?

Hon. S. Anton: This section (a) encompasses circumstances where, for example, an adult living in a house with other adults comes home every night, is always there, but for some reason hasn't come home. It's that kind of example. It's that kind of broader scope, where a person is just gone and people around them don't know where they've gone and are reporting it to police and are requesting that the police help them find the person.

[1740]

K. Corrigan: It sounds to me like the situation that is being described by the minister is one where people are concerned about the safety and welfare. The only circumstance to me, where you're talking about somebody who has wandered away, would be where you're worried about the safety and welfare. If you're not worried about the safety and welfare, it concerns me.

The minister has only come back with examples that, to me, fall squarely within subsection (b). Number (iii) under (b) says that they're feared for, given "the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence," which could include the fact that they hadn't "been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual."

The reason why I'm pressing this point so much is that it concerns me that in (a) there is no requirement that anybody is worried about the safety and welfare, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to include it.

Maybe what I'll do is read an e-mail that I received from a person. Sorry, this was a posting on my Facebook. I'm going to leave some of it out, because there are names, and there's no need for that.
[ Page 1975 ]

"I have some concerns about this new legislation. How thoroughly were these recommendations researched before the minister proposed this new legislation? Are they considering people who purposely go missing, fleeing abusers? Based on my personal experience…."

I'm going to leave a sentence out, because it names a name. To paraphrase, somebody said:

"I was concerned about an officer. She couldn't differentiate between an abuser and victim."

I'm not suggesting that this person is right or wrong, but this is the perception.

"She used poor judgment that further victimized and wasted police resources. It resulted in working with a women's organization to develop a safety plan against the RCMP and recommendation from the provincial protective measures unit to avoid them because there are no resources or supports for high-risk-profile victims of abuse. This proposed legislation can potentially put them at further risk."

I'm wondering if the minister, in the context of the questions that I'm asking about the definition of "missing person," shares or does not share the concern of the individual who contacted me.

Hon. S. Anton: There's no question that a person who is fleeing an abuser may possibly be reported as a missing person. That's where police judgment and discretion on reaching that person, and the other provisions, which we'll come to later on in the act, are important.

Yes, that does happen, and it's a genuine concern. I think that the person who corresponded with the member opposite raises a genuine concern. That's why we need to have provisions in the act, adequate safety provisions, so that if that person is located and says, "No, I don't want to be found," they will not be reported back to the abusive relationship.

In fact, that happens today. It's something actually common enough in our world that that happens. But in this case, the case here is whether or not the person could be reported missing in those circumstances, and the answer to that question is: yes they can.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask about another scenario under (a), as opposed to (b). The first test is that their whereabouts have to be unknown "despite reasonable efforts to locate the individual," and the second, under (a), is that they haven't "been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual."

I'm not suggesting that this would ever happen under this act: that the police were seeking a suspect in a case, and they went to the relatives of that person that they were seeking, and those relatives said, "That person, my son," — whatever — "isn't around, and they haven't been in contact with me for a while," which a parent being protective might well do under those circumstances.

[1745]

Not what the discretion is and what a police officer would do, but simply under the wording of this act, is it possible that that suspect could be declared a missing person and that records could be accessed?

Hon. S. Anton: The example the member opposite has raised is in the context of a criminal investigation. That's not the purpose of this act. The purpose of this act is civil remedies for finding missing persons. It's not for carrying on a criminal investigation.

K. Corrigan: Is there anything in this act — and I may have missed it — that would preclude the provisions, as they are now written, being interpreted that way and used that way?

Hon. S. Anton: The hypothetical situation being raised by the member opposite I think would be an issue of conduct. We have high expectations of our police officers, and I'm happy to say that the police officers deserve those high expectations. For a police officer to abuse an act to gather evidence that would not otherwise be gatherable would, I think, be an issue of conduct.

The Chair: Member.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you, Madam Chair — or thank you, Mr. Chair, sorry. My colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds would not appreciate that, and I'm sure I'll hear about it later.

Is the minister saying that if this act was utilized in that way, that would be conduct unbecoming an officer, even though it is presumably legal under this act?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of the act is to find missing persons. The purpose of the act is to give police officers civil remedies to find missing persons. The hypothetical of an abuse of the act I think would be the same kind of hypothetical that we could apply to the abuse of any act or any statute that we have. As I said, the goal of this act is to help police officers, to give them the tools that they need to find people who are missing.

K. Corrigan: The law, an act, is interpreted on the basis not of the minister's statement about what the purpose of the act is; the law is interpreted in a court of law on the basis of the words in the act and how they are interpreted.

My question, then, again — not exactly the same question…. I just want to confirm: is it possible that, lawfully, the act could be used by police officers to find suspects who have not been in contact with their family? Is it legal — not, is it ethical? — under this act?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, the member opposite is talking about a criminal investigation. This is a civil remedy.

Chair, given the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.
[ Page 1976 ]

The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 1:42 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $372,345,000.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make some opening remarks?

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to start the process for the estimates debate on our ministry. It has been, I think, about eight months since we debated the '13-14 estimates for our ministry, so I'm pleased to be here.

I firstly want to thank the members opposite for providing us with a general schedule of the themes and the areas that we'll be canvassing during the estimates. That's been very helpful in terms of helping organize staff, given the diverse nature of our ministry. I really appreciate that.

We do, as you know, have a very diverse ministry — so lots of different staff areas. We'll be moving staff, probably, in and out of the chairs behind you. I'll try to keep that organized and introduce them as they come through, but I may miss it sometimes. I'm sure that's probably all right, too. I'm not sure what the protocol is in terms of having to introduce them or not, but we'll try to keep everybody informed.

I'll just introduce the staff I have with me, to start: Tim Sheldan, the deputy minister; Dave Peterson, the assistant deputy minister and chief forester; Murray Stech, who's our director of timber pricing branch; Tom Jensen, who's the ADM of timber operations and pricing; and Trish Dohan, who's the ADM of corporate services. That's the way we'll start, and we'll see how the questioning goes and the information goes, and we'll adjust accordingly.

In the last eight months we've seen very positive changes in the industry. B.C.'s forest sector continues to show steady improvement from 2009, which was the most difficult and worst year of the global economic downturn. In 2013, 58,200 people were directly employed in the forest sector, up 13 percent from 2009. In 2013 forest products exports totalled $11.6 billion, an increase of 53 percent from 2009, and accounted for over one-third, or 33 percent, of B.C.'s total exports by value.

[1345]

On the heels of a very successful forestry trade mission — which I had the opportunity to lead, along with forest industry representatives and association representatives both in Japan and China in October — we've also set new records in total softwood lumber exports to China, which exceeded $1.4 billion by the end of 2013.

Of course, forestry is only a part of the ministry's mandate. In our role as one land manager, we review and process applications for a variety of natural resource development projects. Since July we've worked closely with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and have managed to facilitate approvals for the new Roman coal mine near Tumbler Ridge and the new Yellow Giant Gold mine near Prince Rupert, which was just announced yesterday.

We've committed to processing natural resource authorizations in a timely manner while upholding strong environmental standards and meeting our duties and our obligations to consult with First Nations. We're continuing to streamline our permitting process by moving more applications on line. So far, notices of work, notices of deemed authorization, water licence transfer applications for new water licences, name change notifications and certain low-impact exploration notices have been moved on line, resulting in quicker approval times.

Changes to the legislation have resulted in a simpler process for clients by exempting certain low-impact exploration activities, such as time extensions for previously approved exploration drilling, from having to participate in the same process the larger projects are subject to. As well, new multi-year area-based permits allow the mining industry to avoid applying for multiple permits when working in the same exploration area.

Also during 2014 we'll continue to streamline permitting processes for major projects, for water licence applications, for range tenure replacements and for Crown land authorizations, and continue to move more applications on line.
[ Page 1977 ]

Earlier this month we introduced legislative changes to the Range Act to streamline the Range Act tenuring processes; amendments to the Wildlife Act to provide guide-outfitters with more business certainty, which they've been asking for; and amendments to the Forest Act to help continue to streamline our processes.

I was also pleased to introduce the new Off-Road Vehicle Act to replace the outdated Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act, which will improve safety for all users and also help with insuring environmental protection and compliance.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is, as I said, a diverse ministry with a wide range of responsibilities, including managing our forests, Crown land and water resources, overseeing provincial fish and wildlife, heritage, archaeology and outdoor recreation activities.

As the minister, I'm very, very proud — well, humbled — to be in the position of leading this ministry, but I'm also very, very proud of being able to work with a group of qualified professionals, dedicated professionals, across many disciplines, who are all dedicated to ensuring that we meet the mandate of our ministry and dedicated to ensuring that we help grow our economy while ensuring environmental stewardship for future generations.

With those opening comments, I'm looking forward to the questions and the discussion that I know we're going to have. I look forward to the time I have, and I hope, as we have done in the past, that we'll continue to do this in a very engaging and respectful manner. This is about going through the process of being transparent and making sure we provide the information, and that continues to be the focus or the approach that I look forward to taking into these discussions and into these estimates.

With those opening comments, I'll take my place and look forward to getting the process underway.

N. Macdonald: I thank the minister for those opening remarks.

My colleague here, the co-critic, from Cowichan Valley and I have done this now for five years. To begin with, I think we'd like to start by saying that we take the job very seriously. We've tried to do our best to come in here prepared.

A few things that I always want to thank…. Of course, as the minister will know, this is a field that is tremendously technical. It's a very, very difficult field. As time has gone on, we've always been helped by people who have passion, who are professionals, who have tried to guide us, and we've tried to make sure that the work that we do here is something that is reflective of the expertise that's here in the province.

[1350]

I see all the professionals that you have here, many of them that we've come to know in different things over the past five years. We appreciate very much the expertise that's there. Our intention here is to be as aggressive as possible in putting forward ideas but, as always, to be as respectful as possible. If there's any language that sounds disrespectful, it's certainly not intended. We don't think it's there — we're prepared — but if there is, it's simply us trying to do our jobs.

There's one thing that is not part of anything I've prepared. Today we met with families from Burns Lake and from Lakeland. I know that the minister would feel exactly the same as we did when we met. They asked us to make sure that we did everything we could to make sure that the mills are safe and that they feel justice has been done.

I know that the minister feels the same way, so I pass on to him the same obligation that we felt when they spoke to us — that in the corners, in the offices where key decisions are often made, you would keep in mind what needs to be done there.

Certainly, the minister talked about the improvements that we've seen in forestry since 2009, which was a very difficult period for the province. I think we need to remember, as well, that between 2002 and 2013 we saw a 58 percent fall in value-added exports. Under the B.C. Liberals, what we've seen with lumber exports is that overall, with the last figures that we could get, they're down 23 percent — shakes and shingles down 51 percent, plywood and other panels down 30 percent.

The trend that we see here is the real growth in raw log exports, which in 2001 were at about one million cubic metres. A cubic metre, of course, is a telephone pole. This year it's a record, going up to 6½ million raw logs. What that's translated into is 151 mills closed and 25,000 forestry jobs lost. I think that if there was an area to focus on for government, there's opportunity there.

My colleague here talks about Sweden. Sweden has Ikea and can point to value-added. It seems that we're not even as ambitious as British Columbia was 100 years ago in terms of making the most out of what is an amazing resource.

In the preamble to the 2013 estimates debate we made what we felt were important points about how one could secure revenue, how one could plan and manage forests sustainably and ideas around rebuilding a secure and viable forest sector. I think it's fair to say that, from our perspective, the government chose to ignore most of those recommendations.

From what I can see in the letter of June 10, 2013, when the Premier outlined her government's priorities and 12 expectations — in a letter that the Premier sent to you — the government seems still to be intent on plans to go against what I would say are the people's wishes by privatizing some of the land into the hands of about five or so corporations — the right to harvest public timber on Crown forest land through the creation of more TFLs.

The Premier's letter is instructive in that it convincingly shows the public that this government, in our view, has
[ Page 1978 ]
lost sight of the ministry's mandate to act as the public's forest agent in managing forest resources in the financial interest of the people of British Columbia.

I think what's most striking about the Premier's mandate letter is what she does not address. Here I'll mention 15, among many, critical issues that we feel are facing this ministry and facing the province.

The first is the ministry's internal staffing crisis and the loss of corporate memory, both exacerbated by the government's failure to implement its own staffing succession plans.

Secondly, declining levels of funding for the ministry's statutory obligations for forest resources management. This budget continues that trend.

We see greatly reduced emphasis on and inadequate laws for stewardship. We see pending mill closures facing some Interior forest-dependent communities, resulting from unsustainable rates of logging.

[1355]

We see community safety as it relates to fire protection around towns and cities and to clean and safe drinking water, and as I've already mentioned, there are concerns that we have about safe employment in local sawmills.

Another issue is the increasing economic dependency on the foreign log markets and on log exports instead of creating what I think would be advantageous — an open and honest B.C. log market and rejuvenating primary, secondary as well as value-added manufacturing industries on the coast.

Another issue is the outrageous wood waste throughout the province, in light of government-acknowledged fibre shortages in some areas of the interior of B.C. Unacceptably large areas of productive forest land, known as NSR, are left devoid of forest cover because the government fails to connect the dots between planting trees for future timber supply and the positive effect that tree planting has on mitigating the present timber shortfalls for communities worst-affected by the mountain pine beetle as well as climate change.

Another issue is turning a blind eye to corporate concentration, monopoly control of timber supply and the many mill closures throughout the province and the resulting negative impacts that all three of these have on timber pricing, on the ability of contractors to negotiate fair rates of remuneration and on community health, both economic and social.

Another issue is failure to address First Nations interests in securing replaceable forest licences and access to timber. Another is the findings and recommendations of two recent audits by the Auditor General on forest management, on biodiversity and on the task of the species at risk.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called, so Committee A will recess until the completion of division.

The committee recessed from 1:57 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll continue on again with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

N. Macdonald: Just to continue with a list of things that my colleague and I felt needed to be dealt with and that we don't see either in the Premier's letter or the….

[The bells were rung.]

Okay, democracy in action. We're back for, presumably, another vote?

The Chair: Yes, thank you.

Division has been called again, so we are going to have to recess until completion of division.

The committee recessed from 2:06 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: We'll continue with the opening, where we had talked about the Premier's instructions to the ministry. We're just pointing to what my colleague and I see as the deficiencies in terms of what is not included in the instructions to the ministry, which does not have the resources actually, we feel, to do many of these things that need to be done.

I'll just repeat what may have been missed with the bells — the findings and recommendations of two recent audits by the Auditor General on forest management and on biodiversity and on the task force on species at risk.

We also have concerns about the potential catastrophic economic damage posed by invasive zebra and quagga mussels if they were to become established in the province.

We have concerns about delay in introducing a bill, the natural resource road act, and the critical issue of road density and, related to that, the need for deactivation plans; the systemic problem of centrally controlled forest governance and what many are calling a failed tenure system; and finally, British Columbia's emerging reputation as an international laggard in sustainable forest management.

Now, the Premier's stated emphasis is on jobs. But her mandate letter to the minister, the ministry's service plans and the estimates before the House all fail to make the connection between investment in manufacturing facilities, adding value to timber and manufacturing, and the creation of new forest industry jobs.

All three documents chart an economic trajectory of
[ Page 1979 ]
continued loss of manufacturing facilities and jobs both on the coast and, in our view, in the Interior as well. Really, the only thing we have is a plan — an unwritten plan — for failure.

If the government were truly sincere about creating a sustainable forest sector for the social and economic benefit of British Columbians, it would plan for, fund and achieve these three priority policies.

The first is the resolution of outstanding treaty claims by groups of First Nations.

The second is public discussion of alternative models of governance to the status quo, which would devolve jurisdiction of our local forests to forest-dependent communities and First Nations so that they could manage local forests sustainably to meet their needs, as well as those of the forests, the waterways and wildlife.

The third is the drafting of new forest legislation and policies that would allow a resident of British Columbia to hold politicians, bureaucrats and forest professionals accountable in the courts for poor forest practices, for unsustainable management and for aiding the extirpation and extinction of animals and plants; require a provincial conservation plan and protected areas strategy based on science, to which all land use planning and resource use decisions would be subordinate; require assessment of cumulative impacts on the landscape to inform resource use decisions to protect a full range of environmental values while enabling land use by multiple groups and interests, even though they might have conflicting objectives.

I think we're in a place now where we can say that we should be looking at replacing the Forest and Range Practices Act, FRPA, with new forest practices legislation that is compatible and aligned with internationally accepted criteria for sustainable forest management and provides visions, goals and standards against which performance can be measured.

[1420]

I think we need to define clear mandates, responsibilities and standards of forest practices for all levels of government, including First Nations, over the management of public forest lands; establish a provincewide open and honest log market; accord proper value to the services provided by the ecosystems; and mandate effective public consultation processes for each level of government, commensurate with their respective mandate and responsibilities for forest management.

Perhaps the single greatest indicator of this government's failed forest policy in deregulation is the social impact on human health in many of the forest-dependent communities around the province. Here the minister will know that very often in these communities there are social problems that are more profound than one might find in other parts of the province.

The sound management of B.C.'s forest is, of course, in our view, a matter of utmost public importance. Its management moving forward will be even more so given the known challenges around biodiversity decline; climate change; failure of second-growth stands; our vitally important water resources; and escalating competing demands on our forest land base, most notably in the energy and mining sectors.

All are made the worse for uncertainty resulting from what, in our view, is an outdated forest inventory and questionable processes for the determination of AAC harvest levels. We hear routinely about the number of trees killed over the 17-million-plus hectares of land and about the timber supply challenges that such tree mortality poses.

What we rarely hear talk about are the implications that such tree mortality poses for our province's vitally important shared public water resources, biodiversity and growth-in-yield modelling. Yet it is this ministry that bears stewardship responsibilities for our publicly owned forests, the province's biodiversity and fresh water resources.

It's a responsibility that was given added weight and public concern by this government just last year when it transferred those responsibilities for allocating public water resources to energy company applicants from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to the Oil and Gas Commission, which many would say is putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

It strikes me as key, then, that we have a full understanding of both revenue streams moving forward and how investments in forests will benefit the land, water and animal life, especially some of our iconic species, such as salmon, caribou and grizzly bear — all important to regional and provincial economic accounts.

I want to emphasize my approach to the estimates before us. British Columbia's Crown land base is immense. It is a public asset of the first order. Some of the figures we have used are up to a value of $1 trillion — our most valuable asset. British Columbians own 94 percent of the land, the entire fresh water in the province.

The challenges ahead are enormous given the rate of climate change, the status of biodiversity and the absence of a clear vision for a sustainable forest sector.

The government, on behalf of the people, has a responsibility to — and this is a quote — hand down to future generations "their vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

Here we are talking primarily about the province's renewable resources, for which this government has progressively cut funding by over 52 percent over the past 13 years while having increased the total provincial budget by 56 percent and the provincial debt from in the neighbourhood of $20 billion up to what is now $62.5 billion.

When viewed from this perspective, the health and well-being of our communities are tied very closely to the health of our forests. If our forests are healthy, then the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean and safe, and the communities we live in are safer and more resilient because
[ Page 1980 ]
the land surrounding them is resilient as well.

Realizing this vision is not easy, however, it is made more difficult when the government persists in very short-term thinking around the electoral cycles. If our forest-dependent rural communities, in particular, are to have a future, the province does need to embrace a longer-term vision with goals and strategies in keeping with the healthy rotation cycle for our forests.

These visions, goals and strategies should be embodied in a clear and transparent provincial plan that sets out how key objectives relating to our forests, land and water resources will be met.

Our Auditor General, who has since gone back to Australia, did some good work. He sounded the alarm.

[1425]

The people of British Columbia are also concerned, yet this government fails to see the forest for the trees and often seems to be trying to convince itself that it somehow knows where it's headed. In our view, that's not the case.

At the 2013 estimates debate the opposition did an examination of the estimates, and we tried to provide strong evidence that the budgetary allocations in our last budget in the summer were grossly inadequate for ensuring that the ministry, which is a relatively new super ministry, is able effectively to undertake the enormous number of statutory responsibilities to care for our forests, soil, water, salmon and other wildlife resources that sustain all British Columbians.

During this debate we're going to illustrate that not only is the ministry grossly underfunded and understaffed but that in many areas that they should be in control of, they're not.

With that, we'll move to the first series of questions. I thank the minister for his patience on that, but I wanted to outline where we're going with this.

The first question for the minister is: can the minister confirm that the revenue projection from forests for the fiscal year is $752 million and that the updated actual revenue from forests for 2013-14 is $637 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: I can confirm that the revenue forecast for '13-14 is $674 million and that the forecast for '14-15, estimate, is $785 million.

N. Macdonald: Can the minister further confirm that in the 2013 estimates the projected revenues from forests in 2014-15 were $657 million and in 2015-16 were $693 million? This is from the 2013 estimates.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

[1430]

To confirm the forecasts from the fiscal plan that the member opposite is referencing, in '13-14, $618 million; '14-15, $659 million; and '15-16, $702 million.

N. Macdonald: Will the minister further confirm that in the 2014 estimates the projected revenues from forests in 2015-16 are $792 million, and in 2016-17 are $824 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: The forecast revenue for '15-16, according to the fiscal plan, is $825 million, and for '16-17, $857 million.

N. Macdonald: If we compare the projected revenues from 2014-15 and 2015-16, between the 2013 estimates and the 2014 estimates, the projected forest revenues for 2014-15 — I can't do the math — has increased by, it looks like, over 10 percent. I think, similarly, for 2015-16 we have an increase that is ballparking about 10 percent more, in terms of the projections.

We talked about this in previous estimates. Does the minister still attribute this upward revision in projection to which factors? Is it to improving markets, to increased harvest levels, to continued growth in export markets? What are the factors that are driving this? Are these explanations no longer the drivers for the upward revision of projected revenue from forests, and if not, what is it?

Hon. S. Thomson: The ministry is confident that as the forest sector continues to improve, the forecasted revenues from the forest harvest activities will increase steadily through 2016-2017. The 2014-15 budget estimates forecast reflects the slow but steadily improving North American recovery and the global economy. North American demand for B.C. lumber and forest products exports continues to show steady improvements. Lumber product price increases are showing sustained strength by remaining above historic norms.

B. Routley: I, too, want to join with the others in acknowledging the amazing staff that work for the ministry. I'm sure all of the challenges they have in this day and age are unique.

I did want to add that my experience with the Timber Supply Committee that went around the province, while it was unique, was also, to me, encouraging — the fact that four Liberals and three NDP could actually come to an agreement and forward that on to the government of British Columbia as recommendations.

[1435]

I do want to add that I feel those recommendations have been cherry-picked and that I was shocked and surprised. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that the budget was actually cut as a result of the outcome of the recommendations, some of which were dealing
[ Page 1981 ]
with things like the need for additional forest stewardship and planting, dealing with not sufficiently restocked areas, that kind of thing. Yet the government chose to cut the budgets.

Again, I get that. That's the nature of the government of today — to choose to cut, no matter what kind of a swashbuckling approach to slashing whatever is in the way of getting to what they want, and that's a budget that, as they call it, balances.

But I do want to insist that the people of British Columbia, and certainly in forest communities, are not well served by a plan that ultimately is not doing the work that's necessary — even agreed by four Liberals and three NDP when we travelled the province and saw an area, 18 million hectares in the province of British Columbia, with dead and dying pine.

We know that there are continuing disease challenges, that kind of thing. But we also know that there could be a lot more done in terms of dealing with forest health.

I think generations today, certainly forest workers today that are facing challenges with layoffs and mill closures…. I don't see a plan to engage forest workers and forest communities in actually renewing the forests of British Columbia, making them safer — whether it's dealing with fire issues, helping deal with all of the huge volumes of down and dying trees or even the areas that are difficult to get at. There is no real plan to connect displaced forest workers with what I see are tremendous opportunities, huge opportunities.

Back when I started in the forest industry in 1970…. I guess I have to put the minister through this again. Back in 1970, when I first started at the Youbou sawmill, I must say that I never imagined myself here. It's an interesting path. After years of involvement working on everything from the chip plant and cleanup to….

I remember most fondly the years spent in the veneer plant cutting great big fir peelers. It was great work. It was dignified work, working with ordinary working-class type of people. I learned from that — particularly from the experiences of Youbou — that with all of the changes, the one thing that we can take for certain is change.

I've seen dramatic changes, just in my lifetime in the forest industry — everything from that veneer plant that I once worked in, which I'm sure at the time I thought would be there forever, closed. The veneer plant closed first, lost 84 jobs. We went then down to an A mill and a B mill. Those mills soon went from what used to be three A-mill shifts and two B-mill shifts down to either-or — one mill or the other working, first three shifts then down to two. Of course, that wasn't economically sustainable, and eventually we saw those mills close.

Sadly, those mills were operated by a private land owner who saw the advantages of exporting logs and laying off the masses of people, first at Youbou and then it was Fletcher Challenge, then TimberWest that closed the Elk Falls mill. Still, when I go back to my community, there's a certain part of me that twinges every time I drive down the road and see those logging trucks headed for the export market.

[1440]

I want you to understand that when I speak passionately about issues like that, I think you would understand me a lot better and where I'm coming from and where that passion comes from if you could spend those years with me working, taking your lunchbox to work every day, working with those same people day in and day out — first, as I say, in the chip plant and then in the A mill and the B mill, also in the veneer plant — for years on end, getting to know and remember those guys.

I actually represented the workers at the time as president of the local. We had 3,000 to 4,000 workers. I had to deal with the mill closure. It was very painful, a very difficult experience. There are workers today going through the same experiences, whether it's in Quesnel or in Houston, that are now looking at the end of their futures. It's difficult stuff.

Again, this is important. What we've done is focused on, to start, the budget questions. I want to carry on in that vein, but I did want to emphasize for the minister that this is important work that we're doing, not just for British Columbians for today but for the future.

As a former forest worker myself, I'm in awe that I get to stand here and say anything about that at all. But I'm also glad that I can convey, on behalf of the forest workers I knew and worked with, that they would want us to do more in terms of planning for the future of their communities and the communities where their families live, work and play. There's a lot of feeling that we could do better. Together, we must find a way to do that.

My question, Minister, is…. During the 2013 estimates debate the minister forecasted an average percentage increase in stumpage for the Interior of $2 and a more modest increase for the coast. What are the adjusted average percentage increases in stumpage for the Interior and for the coast in 2014-15 and in 2015-16?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: The average forecast stumpage rates to be billed for '14-15 for the coast for the majors is $3.80 and for '15-16, $4.73 per cubic metre. For the Interior for the same time period, '14-15, $10.87 and '15-16, $11.28 per cubic metre.

I think you may have asked for percentages. I haven't forecast percent. I've given you the actual rates. You can quickly do the math if you need the percentages.

B. Routley: Almost seems like it should be backwards to me as a coastal guy. But anyway, for the coast, $3.80 and $4.73?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, for average revenue forecast stumpage rates.
[ Page 1982 ]

B. Routley: Okay. Popular perception is that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations relies wholly on revenue from forests and for the last 12 years has not generated revenue sufficient to cover needed expenditures on the land. I would like to explore the truthfulness of this perception.

The 2014 estimates before us detail the expenses by ministry and revenues by source, not by ministry. The revenues we have been discussing so far in this debate are from forests, largely derived from stumpage and from B.C. Timber Sales. Over the past six or so years expenditures for the ministries closely match forest revenues.

My question for the minister is: what is the real, all-inclusive revenue for the ministry for fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16?

Hon. S. Thomson: We're just getting the information for 2012. We'll have it shortly. I'll provide it as soon as it's received. But for '13-14, $1.266 billion; for '14-15 estimates, $1.409 billion; for '15-16, $1.432 billion; and for '16-17, $1.394 billion.

B. Routley: Given the ministry's total revenues listed on page 28 of the ministry's 2014-15 service plan and the corresponding ministry expenses of $622 million, $591 million, $592 million and $603 million listed in the estimates before us, the government has chosen to invest in the land about 45 percent on average of the ministry's present annual revenues, down 8 percent from the 53 percent on average invested in 2013-14.

[1450]

With the stumpage rates and resulting forest revenue forecast to rise in fiscal year 2014-15, could the minister explain his decision to invest in the land 8 percent less on average in 2014-15 than the ministry did in 2013-14 when the need has never been greater, especially in the interior of the province?

Hon. S. Thomson: Before responding to the specific question, I just want to provide the information that was requested for 2012, which is $1.061 billion.

I should correct for the record, as well, the previous answer that I gave with the forecast for '13-14 and estimates for '14-15, '15-16 and '16-17. I think I said $1.394 million in each case, which should be $1.394 billion — just to make sure it's correct on the record. Thank you for that.

In terms of the revenue that's derived from the forest sector and across the ministry in other areas of revenue that make up the revenue portion of our ministry, what's important to recognize is that these revenues are part of contributing to important social programs, education, health care and social services within the provincial government.

The important focus is on ensuring that we have a balanced budget, so it's making the decisions about the basis between what is invested within our ministry operations and programs and the important contribution that the resource sector makes to the broader imperatives of social services, education and health in the province.

B. Routley: During the 2013 estimates debate the loyal opposition pointed out a number of areas in which the government had the opportunity to increase revenue to the Crown. A subsequent media exposure of the giveaway water rental rates to oil and gas companies and to Nestlé corporation underscored the point for water.

During the 2013 estimates debate the minister provided the House with a breakdown in revenue estimates for other resources as follows: water resources, $482 million; Wildlife Act fees and licences, $20.2 million; Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act licences and permits, $19,000; land registry fees, $25,000; and land tenure revenue and other income and interest earned in relation to those, $123 million.

[1455]

Is the forecasted revenue from water resources for 2013-14 still $482 million? And what is the estimated revenue for 2014-2015?

Hon. S. Thomson: The 2013-14 revised forecast for water revenue is $415 million and for '14-15, $401 million.

B. Routley: Given that the statutory law requires the government to act in the financial interests of the Crown, would the minister please explain why these estimated revenues for water resources are not greater than they are?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the members will know, B.C. Hydro makes up roughly 90 percent of the water revenues received from major producers. The corporation's power generation is impacted by the previous year's snowpack and rainfall, and as a result, the revenues fluctuate from year to year. Also, as I'm advised, this is based on the previous year's utilization. That lags from year to year. That will explain the variations in the revenue forecast.

N. Macdonald: Just to follow up on the question from my colleague. I recognize that a vast majority of the revenue comes from B.C. Hydro. I think the premise of the question is: is there not an obligation for that 10 percent — here again, we're talking about a vast amount of publicly owned resources being used — to get more revenue from that? Has the ministry considered that in any way?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the greatest majority — close to 97 percent — of this is from the hydro rates, hydro rental. Our rates are amongst the highest in Canada, and that's being confirmed through the reviews.
[ Page 1983 ]
The remaining, as the members opposite know…. The commitment to bring in a new water sustainability act and government's…. All of the reviews as part of a new act will replace the outdated Water Act. Fees are part of that consideration, and that will be appropriately canvassed with the Minister of Environment.

N. Macdonald: Let's turn to a few of the iconic species that we have in British Columbia — first with the grizzly bear. The question that I have for the minister is: would he please confirm that revenues from the trophy hunting of grizzly bears fall under the Wildlife Act fees and licences collected by his ministry? And would the minister please tell the House what the estimated revenues from trophy hunting of grizzly bears are for fiscal year 2013-14 and 2014-15?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the question was: are they part of the revenue estimates on the fish and wildlife revenue? The answer is yes, they are. The direct revenue varies from year to year, but between $414,000 and $500,000.

N. Macdonald: So that I make sure I have it in the right place, for the Wildlife Act fees and licences, the total is $20.2 million. Am I looking in the right area? What you're saying is that of that $20.2 million, between $400,000 and $500,000 would be for grizzly bear trophy hunting in terms of revenues. Is that accurate?

If not, maybe the minister can give me the total for the area that this would be shown. I have, of course, the figures that the minister gave me for the fees for the grizzly bear hunt.

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the hunting permits and licensing for '13-14 is $9.2 million; for '14-15, $9.2 million. As I have advised, the royalties and licences from the grizzly bear hunt are $500,000, or it fluctuates between that range of $414,000 to $500,000.

N. Macdonald: Does the minister concur that the best available science can influence policy decisions on wildlife management that affect revenue to the Crown? For example, does the minister apply the best available science to estimating grizzly bear harvest rates and to decide on the reopening of areas to limited entry trophy hunting of grizzly bears, such as those recently reopened in the Flathead and south Rockies and in two management areas in the Cariboo?

Does the minister agree with that idea, or not?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I can confirm that I'm confident that our decisions and the management decisions with respect to the management of grizzly bears through the population units are based on the best available science. It's the same principle we apply to wildlife management across all of the species that we manage.

N. Macdonald: The government claim, then, is that its management of the trophy hunting of grizzly bears is sustainable and, as the minister said, based on the best available science. The government recently trumpeted this assertion in a press release on December 18, 2013, when it announced a peer-reviewed study entitled "Predicting Grizzly Bear Density in Western North America." It was published in the science journal, PLOS One.

The minister had good reason, I think, to be enthused. To his credit, the ministry had largely funded the study, and two ministry wildlife biologists are listed among the authors, including the lead author.

Unfortunately, the minister and his executive staff told the media and the public, in their view, what the scientific study showed. I think there are questions as to whether that's really accurate.

Just for the minister's reference, I'll table copies of the press release, which I have here, and the PLOS One paper to which I refer. I'll just ask if I could table these and give copies to the minister and his staff for reference.

If ministry staff remember this press release and the study, in the press release the minister suggests the study shows that grizzly bear harvest rates in British Columbia are set conservatively. I think that's the language that's used. That, in fact, is not stated anywhere within the scientific study. It references a study. It makes an assertion that I and others have not found in the study.

In fact, the abstract of the paper states that: "Because our predictions are static, they cannot be used to assess population trends." In other words, whether the populations are stable, growing or shrinking, this is clear admission by the authors that while their methods might prove useful information to inform management, they do not provide any indication of the sustainability of current harvest levels.

The authors further highlight concerns about kill rates in the discussion section of the paper, which the minister can refer to, where they point out that 12 management units in British Columbia "appear to have annual kill rates higher than allowed by policy."

I guess the question is: if we've read it properly, and that's the understanding, how would the minister justify a press release that makes claims that appear to us to be unsupported by the study that it supposedly describes? By making these claims in a press release, is there not the danger that the minister will appear to be intentionally misleading the media and the public on the state of the science on grizzly bears?

That's the question I have for the minister. If staff are familiar with this, or if we've misread it, I would be interested in hearing. If it's something that the minister wants to come back to at a later point, that's possible as well.

[1515-1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, we base our management decisions on the best available science and stand by the statements in the release. The estimates, when we…. The study informed, was part of, the decisions with respect to those management units.

But it's also recognized that when we look at each unit, we consult with regional biologists, with other information, with the wildlife specialists and biologists and take all of that into account to ensure that we continue to manage each of those units on the basis of sustainable populations for those units. We're confident that that is the case. As we've stated previously, where we do not have that confidence, we will adjust the rates of harvest in those areas or close those areas, as we have in many areas of the province.

N. Macdonald: The minister will know, of course, and he's received the same e-mails and seen the same stories that I have, that the grizzly trophy hunt is highly contentious in the province. Upwards of 80 percent of people…. Some polls — and I don't know whether they're accurate or not — suggest that British Columbians are uncomfortable with the hunt, and of course, we have people from outside looking in.

I think what the minister has said and what seems to be the position of government is that the hunt is conducted with good science, right? Now, the problem with this is that when you look at what the ministry put out to back up that assertion, it appears in many ways that what is asserted in the press release does not match what is there in the study. I've given the minister a few examples, and I can give more.

In the press release it is stated: "The number of bears killed by people was not related to population density, which suggests that current levels of mortality do not measurably reduce population size." In the paper the authors do state that human-caused mortality explained little of the variability when other factors were accounted for, but they are careful to point out that reductions in population size might be masked by immigration from adjacent populations.

More importantly, the authors admit that populations that have historically been reduced by excessive human kills and are now unable to recover due to low population sizes would confound their analysis. This is what the study is saying, in my view and in the view of others, and it doesn't appear to correspond with what the ministry is asserting in the press release.

Due to the study design, the effect of human-caused kills might be masked. The authors are quick to point out that the results do not necessarily suggest that human-caused kills have no effect on population sizes. Why does the minister in his press release state otherwise?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I mentioned, we manage the populations based on the best available science. The use of population estimate, combined with a conservative human-caused mortality rate, ranges from 4 to 6 percent.

On the average, maximum allowable harvest rate is 4.2 percent, and our current provincial harvest rate is 2.1 percent. About 50 percent of the 135 hunts have a 6 percent maximum allowable morality rate, while 24 percent have 5 percent, and 26 percent have 4 percent.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

We take all the measures, as I said, to ensure we have a management regime through the population units that ensures that we have a sustainable population, based on those conservative estimates and based on sound science behind the population estimates.

N. Macdonald: But something has to give when you cut these budgets constantly, right? I think everybody who follows this knows that on the ground, we do not have people doing the inventory work that needs to be done in a whole host of areas, including with grizzly bear populations.

Here's the problem with the trophy hunt. There are some people that just have a moral position that it's the wrong thing to do. I come from an area where there's a lot of hunting, so that's not a position that would characterize how I feel about it. I'm used to people hunting. But when I talk to people who hunt, the one thing that they will always say is that they do not support hunting if it's going to damage the population.

Here we have the assertion from the government that people who are concerned about that shouldn't be concerned because there's a study that backs up the government assertion that these decisions on the trophy hunt are made based on science. And it seems to me that what the government is asserting in a written press release is inconsistent with what one finds in the study that's cited.

[1530]

I'll go on. The minister's press release finishes with the sentence: "The study released today reaffirms that grizzly populations in B.C. are being sustainably managed and with the best available science." I think this clearly could be what the government wants it to say, right? That may well be what the minister would have liked the study to find, but unfortunately, the study doesn't find that.

In fact, it is not about whether populations are being managed sustainably or with the best available science. It is simply a study about determinants of grizzly bear population size.

Why is it that we're in a place where it appears that the government is misleading the media and the public on what this study is about? Why does he ignore the findings of the ministry's professional staff, on which he should be ostensibly relying, who are telling him that we don't have the data that we need to properly manage this im-
[ Page 1985 ]
portant and iconic species, the grizzly bear?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: What's important to point out here is that this study is only one piece of the information that we use in making the management decisions, as I pointed out earlier. This is information that is taken into account by our regional biologists and by our provincial specialists in making the decisions around the harvest, or not to harvest, in each of the population units.

We've spent over $7 million since 1997 on grizzly bear research. We have taken other steps to protect the family units in any area where harvest of females exceeds 30 percent. Those areas are closed. Every kill, every bear is inspected. So we have all the information on the harvest and monitor that very, very carefully.

As I said, we continue to make decisions that are based on best available science, population estimates that are combined with a conservative grizzly bear mortality rate, to make sure that we continue to maintain the sustainable population of the province. What the study confirmed with the estimates of population is that we're being successful in that approach, because there are over 15,000 grizzly bears in the province.

N. Macdonald: I mean, the minister and everyone here knows that the trophy grizzly hunt is contentious. The minister also knows that beyond simply getting away with making an assertion, the minister would need to provide evidence.

What the ministry chose to provide as evidence, I think, as the minister and staff go through the press release and the study cited…. There is an inconsistency. The ministry and the minister and the government chose this study as evidence for an assertion that they were making about the proper management of the grizzly bear. I think what you can see is that to me and to my colleague and to many who have looked at it, the study cited does not prove the things that the government asserts it does.

That's a problem, because credibility is at stake here. If you're going to disregard science simply to have something meet a government agenda, that is clearly not appropriate management and not what the ministry should be doing.

What I would suggest the ministry could do is if you look at November 2013, just one month prior to the publication of the study featured in the press release, another study by Artelle and five other B.C. scientists was published in the same PLOS One journal. I want to stress that from what I've been told, the study is the only independent peer-reviewed audit of the rigour of the management of grizzly bears by the minister and his agency.

[1540]

The study, for the ministry's reference, is entitled "Confronting Uncertainty in Wildlife Management: Performance of Grizzly Bear Management." It assesses the inherent uncertainty in population and harvest rate estimates of grizzly bears, using techniques that have been common in fisheries management for decades.

The study finds, one, the targets are not set conservatively, and two, there is considerable risk that due to management unknowns, current harvest rates could be far greater than those rates the minister and his staff have deemed to be sustainable.

I guess the thing is with these…. I guess the problem with government making an assertion based on a study that doesn't seem to be accurate is that suddenly we're left questioning everything that the government asserts. On this issue that's particularly problematic.

The minister claims to have management based on the best available science, but then the ministry seems to ignore the only peer-reviewed audit to date of his ministry's management practices. The question is: why is that the case? Has the minister looked at that study? Are there problems with it, or is it simply one that they're not aware of?

I'd be interested in hearing what the minister has to say.

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: Certainly, as the member opposite referenced, the study which he talked about, "Confronting Uncertainty in Wildlife Management," was published in 2013 in the journal PLOS One and was critical of B.C.'s grizzly bear harvest management. Ministry scientists who conduct research and management of grizzly bears have reviewed and do not share the conclusion of the paper, because our harvest procedure does recognize and accommodate the scientific uncertainty.

Furthermore, the authors did not consider all the information that we use to help ensure our grizzly bear populations are sustainably managed. Again, as I've said, we base our decisions on all of the best available science.

The current population estimate of 15,000, which is a result of refinements in the methods used to estimate populations, does not represent a decline in grizzly bear population. Each year, as we've indicated, about 300 grizzly bears are harvested by hunters, another 60 are taken as a result of conflicts with humans and other human-caused mortality, and that level is well within sustainable limits of mortality for grizzly bears.

N. Macdonald: Of course, the problem here is that, on the ground, what the minister likely will hear is the same as we're hearing, where the work that needs to be done is simply not being done in terms of counts on wildlife. It's not being done because the people that are crucial to doing that work simply aren't there in the numbers that they need to be.

You do have that general sense that things are not being managed properly and that the numbers that the government is citing are simply not accurate. Then you
[ Page 1986 ]
compound the problem with what, I would say, is a press release that cites as its single source a study that does not conclude in the way that the government asserts. Once the trust is gone, once the credibility is gone, that's a very difficult thing to get back.

Now, the minister is saying that the study that I cited is one that the ministry has no confidence in, and that could be true. That could be true. I don't have the expertise or the training that the minister has available to him.

I think the lesson that needs to be learned here is that it's always a question of credibility. People want to go to government, especially on an issue like this. This is not an issue that should be confused with more common politics. It should be straight science. If the ministry asserts that grizzly bear populations are understood and that decisions on the trophy hunt are made based on science, then it has to be the fact. It has to be something that seems credible.

I guess the question for the minister is: going forward, can he assure people here that there will be an explanation for what I've brought forward here? It is possible that in the limited time you and staff have had a chance to look at it, it wasn't enough time to fully explain.

It's possible that I've misunderstood what is found here. That's possible, but if it is the case that this was a study that was misrepresented to meet the government's agenda, would the minister commit to making sure that the media and the public are properly informed about the status of grizzly bear management and science?

[1550]

The minister can…. He doesn't have to answer that. We can move now to the moose. But that's where I'll finish off. I'm sure the minister would like to say something to retort to that, and then we'll move on to moose population.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've pointed out, I'm confident that the decisions we've made are based on the best available and sound science and are decisions that ensure that we continue to have a sustainable population.

We have experts in the field, regional biologists on staff, provincial experts and, in fact, experts who are not just provincial experts but that are recognized internationally as experts in the field. We rely on the research and the sound science. The studies are part of that. I do agree with the member opposite that we need to ensure that there is credibility in our policies. That's why we rely on that expertise and that sound science.

We will — and I think it will be important to — provide a more detailed explanation in this report, how we use the model for grizzly bear management in British Columbia. We'll undertake to provide that and hope to have that available for you when we resume estimates next week.

B. Routley: We've got a series of questions about moose now.

On the subject of revenue generated from hunting licences, on February 5 the minister launched a comprehensive five-year study to investigate the serious declines in moose populations in B.C.'s interior. The decline of moose appears to have occurred across all three interior regions, and all three regions have been subject to increased logging road or industrial road construction at the same time as there was ongoing accelerated forest harvesting for the pine beetle.

While we applaud the government for undertaking this study, many hunters and members of the public question the delay in launching it.

My first questions to the minister are…. Maybe I'll ask three at once, because we've got a number of questions to ask. I'm sure you would appreciate having a lump of them to deal with.

The first bunch are:

(1) How much total funding will the government be allocating for this five-year study, and how much funding is earmarked within the 2014 estimates that are before us?

[1555]

(2) Why was the contract for the study let only for the Cariboo-Chilcotin?

(3) How much revenue did the ministry accrue through the sale of moose hunting licences in 2013, and how much revenue does the ministry expect to generate in 2014?

You can tell me if you'd prefer them not lumped together like that.

Hon. S. Thomson: That's fine.

In response to the first question, in fiscal 2014 the study will cost $430,000. The financial resources for the study for this current year — $430,000.

Our ministry is contributing $350,000 to that; First Nations and industry, $35,000; and the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, $45,000. It's anticipated that approximately $1.5 million will be required over the next five years. Sources of the funding for each of those years have not been confirmed, but we anticipated that it will continue in a partnership approach with funding being contributed by the ministry.

In terms of the study area, it's not limited to the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It includes the Thompson, Bonaparte Plateau, the Cariboo, Skeena, south of Prince George and north of Fort St. James, so it's broader than the Cariboo-Chilcotin, as the member opposite referenced.

[1600]

In terms of the specific revenue, I don't have that figure available directly. I will undertake to provide that. That was around the estimates of revenue from the moose hunt licences. We'll undertake to…. I'm sure we'll be able to. We just don't have it directly here, but we'll provide that.
[ Page 1987 ]

B. Routley: The last few hunting seasons resulted in many complaints from hunters, especially First Nations, on the alarming and deplorable state of the moose populations across the province. In light of the serious nature of the population decline, was any thought given to a complete closure of hunting in the 2012-2013 moose-hunting seasons to allow the population a best chance to recover?

If the ministry did consider closure, what was the compelling reason not to close moose hunting? And if the ministry did not consider closure of moose hunting, would the minister explain why not? Will the minister implement closure of moose hunting in 2014 until he has the findings of the five-year study?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the quick answer is yes, in terms of: were full closures considered? What we have done in the areas…. We have eliminated in the Cariboo-Thompson region the cow harvest. In the Omineca in 2011 the cow harvest was reduced by 40 percent and in 2012 reduced down to 90 percent of the original — so only 10 percent of the previous harvest levels. We've reduced LEHs on bull moose in many of the management units through the area.

Currently, as you know, the hunting reg synopsis comes out in every second year, but we can also make decisions off the schedule of every two years. We are coming up to the next synopsis, and we're considering further reductions and closures as part of that current review of those regulations. We'll be making those decisions shortly.

It's also important to point out that we do have healthy moose populations in a number of areas and maintain the hunts in those areas. But in this area where we've seen the declines, we've taken the specific action to reduce the hunts, eliminating cow harvests and, as you pointed out, launching the study and the review, because we do want to determine what the reasons were and the factors that resulted in that decline of this important resource.

B. Routley: We've heard from a number of residents about the probable causes of the decline in moose population across the three interior regions. To many, they feel it's only too obvious.

They referred to the vast landscapes of salvaged clearcutting resulting in high snow density; the loss of shelter; excessively fragmented landscapes; the spraying of pesticides to kill aspen fodder; excessive road densities resulting in ATV and UTV access by poachers; climate change resulting in tick and other insect infestations; abnormally large wolf packs where the ministry has not secretly culled them — I'm not sure about the "secretly," part so you can use your imagination; and the ministry's reluctance to impose closures for moose-hunting seasons, to deactivate roads or to ban the use of ATVs and UTVs for hunting.

Some may reasonably ask why an extensive five-year study is needed to find out what they believe is obvious. They're asking why the ministry does not take immediate action where causes of the decline are so obvious — in short, unsustainable forest management, some of it brought on as a result of the pine beetle in many regions.

Other points that they make are the declines in moose population are a case study in the ministry's failure to manage at the landscape scale for cumulative impacts, something the Forest Practices Board has repeatedly pointed out and the ministry seems to continue to ignore.

Since many resource professionals are of the opinion that a major cause of the moose decline may have been the gold rush mentality behind the type of salvage logging that took place after the mountain pine beetle epidemic, would the minister tell the House what kind of input did the government solicit from biologists to direct and guide this salvage logging before it was permitted, and precisely who was contacted for input?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the reference to the wide range of points that the member opposite made in terms of impacts really points to the fact that there are lots of theories about what may have caused the decline, and that's why the study has been undertaken. That's why we've taken decisions around reducing the harvest levels, the limited-entry hunts and the closures that I've talked about specific through those regions. That's why we're undertaking and why we've initiated the study.

It's really one of the key factors in all of this. When you look across the regions, it's different in each region. There's not a consistent factor that you can point to across there.

[1615]

For example, I know that in the Burns Lake area, which is one of the original mountain pine beetle significantly impacted areas, moose populations are stable in that region, so you can't point to the logging as being the specific reason for the declined harvest.

Wildlife considerations are taken into account in forest stewardship plans. That's part of the planning process, part of the wildlife management areas, and those values are taken into account.

I think the important thing here is the fact that we have initiated the study. There is a need to determine the range of factors that may have impacted all of this.

I'm advised by those behind me that moose populations go through cycles, but this one, certainly, appears not to be necessarily a normal cyclical change in the population there. I don't want to use that as any defence at this point in terms of what's happened with the populations there. I think there are a whole range of impacts.

As the member opposite pointed out, the study is a very important process in order to determine that so we can learn from that. That's why we've initiated that, and
[ Page 1988 ]
that's why we have the partnership in the approach with industry and with First Nations and with the support of the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund.

B. Routley: The minister has a template to be followed for the protection of ungulate winter range. In general, licensees are reluctant to participate voluntarily in the development and finalization of agreements on ungulate winter range within the charred areas within TSAs.

Would the minister please explain why he has not imposed a time frame by which licensees must agree to a workable plan? And would the minister provide one good reason why he does not make the protection of ungulate winter range mandatory by law?

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: We have a target of 127 ungulate winter ranges. About 65 percent are complete, about 72. We're working on another 20. We work in active partnership with industry on this.

In our view, by working through this approach, through the consultation with industry on the approach, we believe we have more durable agreements in place, because that brings in all of the information, the research. In my view, imposed timelines would result in less progress and less durable agreements.

N. Macdonald: We'll switch to wolves now. Just a couple of questions, about three or four, on wolves. Would the minister please provide us with the amount of revenue generated from wolf-hunting in 2013 and how much he estimates the revenue will be in 2014?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as we referenced in an earlier question, the overall figures don't have that level of specific information broken out, but we will undertake to provide it. It includes revenue from hunting and from trapping. We can undertake to provide that for the two years that the member opposite requested.

N. Macdonald: The minister's assistant deputy minister of stewardship is on record as stating: "Any future management policies or decisions regarding wolf management will always be made with conservation as the foremost priority."

Would the minister please explain the incongruity between the ADM's conservation statement and the ministry's hunting and trapping regulations, which allows for the year-round killing of wolves and, where restricted to only 45 weeks of wolf killing, for the hunting to occur during the birth of wolf pups and the raising of pups in April, May and June?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Wolf populations in British Columbia are conservatively estimated to be over 8,500 in total. Evidence is increasingly showing that the wolf populations are increasing, with distribution into other areas — Okanagan and Kootenays, in particular.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

We harvest about 1,300 to 1,400 per year, 15 to 20 percent — sustainable population levels. Global populations are resilient, are around 30 percent. We're well below the sustainable levels of harvest with respect to the population, so it's not a conservation concern.

The harvest during the time period referenced is a small percentage of that total. In our view, there is nothing inconsistent with our current management approach.

The statement that was referenced, the management approach or the harvest approach to wolves is not a conservation concern.

N. Macdonald: One of the questions that I was asked to relate to the minister was if he could please explain how legal baiting of wolves for hunting accords with the principle of fair chase that the ministry champions and that I think most involved in hunting would say is a principle that has to be followed.

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: I agree that the issue of baiting is controversial. But what we need to recognize here is that in the effective harvesting of wolves, much of it is focused on reducing predation livestock conflict, much of it focused on ensuring mitigation around impact on endangered species and other wildlife species.

I recognize that it's controversial, but what we want to ensure is that there is effective harvest, particularly when we're addressing those issues of livestock conflict and impacts, and impacts on wildlife species that was referenced earlier when we were discussing the moose population and moose declines. One of the factors that was referenced by the members opposite was predation as one of the potential factors in it.

We do need to make sure that the harvest is effective. As I pointed out in response to the earlier question, the overall harvest is well within the levels that ensure that we continue to have a sustainable population and not a conservation risk.

N. Macdonald: Thanks for the answer, Minister. Again, a question that came to us, and the wording of a secret wolf cull is one that comes. Perhaps that's something that the minister will be more familiar with than I.

The question is: can the minister confirm that his ministry has initiated secret wolf culls in the Quesnel area? If the minister characterizes them as something different, maybe we can describe why people in that area have described them as secret.

[1635]

Hon. S. Thomson: There is no — as has been asserted by the members opposite — secret wolf cull. Everything in our approach to wolf management is transparent.

In fact, we have recently gone through an extensive process, a public process, around a wolf management plan that's been out for public review and comment. All of those comments are being considered, and we look forward to bringing forward the management plan in the not too distant future.

There are reasons, as I pointed out earlier, where, in areas of livestock mitigation and conflict where there are risks to wildlife populations and endangered species, there is more intensive trapping or more intensive hunting taking place. But again, we need to point out that the overall management approach is to ensure that there is not a conservation risk. The harvest rate's set between 15 and 20 percent, well below ensuring that we maintain a sustainable population of wolves in the province.

So this is not a conservation concern, and there is nothing secret about a wolf cull. Programs are transparent.

[1640]

N. Macdonald: Very quickly, how extensive is the cull in the Quesnel area? Is it more extensive than in other areas? Just give me a sense of how many animals are being culled over, let's say, the next year or have been culled over the past year, just to give me an idea of how extensive the cull in the Quesnel area is.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I will reaffirm that there is no cull program underway.

In terms of the specific numbers from that region, we don't have that specific information here, but we can undertake to provide an estimate of the numbers in that specific region.

Again, I want to point out that in the management regime here, the regulations are designed to ensure that the population is sustainable, with harvest and trapping levels well below sustainable levels for the population. Again, more intensive activity can occur where there are significant livestock conflict problems, where there are impacts on endangered species.

The members opposite will understand the significant impact that that has on ranching and livestock operations, the negative economic impact that can occur, and work with the ranchers, with the conservation office services to help mitigate those impacts, work with the Cattlemen's Association.

Again, all designed and transparent in terms of the approach and the regulations and at levels of harvest that ensure there continues to be a sustainable population.

C. Trevena: Minister, I'm sure you've had a number of letters from my constituent Gary Allan from Sointula about wolves and wolf-hunting. I have a couple of question on his behalf.

I've been listening to the conversation about the hunting in the interior, and I wanted to know, from the minister, if there is any count of the number of wolves, particularly on the Island and islands, and if the minister would consider prohibition of a wolf hunt on the Island and islands.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Recess.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:59 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: In response to the question, the population estimate on Vancouver Island, which includes the islands, is between 230 and 430 wolves. That population is stable.

[1700]

Since 2004 the harvest is approximately 20 per year. This is well within sustainable limits. It is, in fact, below levels in other areas — less than 10 percent — so we're not currently considering a hunting or trapping prohibition on Vancouver Island.

B. Routley: Now I would like to turn our attention to revenue from caribou. The caribou is an emblematic animal of Canada. It's also an animal that is well known to be in trouble. In 2002 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada listed the caribou as endangered in Canada, while the B.C. conservation data centre currently lists it as threatened. Also, 98 percent of the world's caribou are resident in British Columbia.

Would the minister tell the House how much "blood money" — I've heard it referred to as this — in the form of a levy applied to oil and gas production in caribou habitat was paid to government in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014? How much revenue does the minister estimate will be collected from the levy in 2014-15? And would the minister please acknowledge that, by applying this levy, the government, in what some would call a perversely odd way, is financing the destruction of caribou habitat and the continued decline of the boreal caribou?

[1705]

Hon. S. Thomson: In support of the boreal caribou implementation plan, there is a contribution from industry. It's collected through the Oil and Gas Commission. It is approximately $2 million per year. Those funds support research, inventory, rehabilitation work in support of the boreal caribou implementation plan.

B. Routley: Would the minister tell the House by how much the government financially benefited from what his ministry euphemistically refers to as habitat impact offset
[ Page 1990 ]
charges from coal-mining development in the northern caribou habitat in the northeast part of the province in 2012-13 and 2013-14? How much revenue does the minister estimate will be collected from habitat impact offset charges in 2014-2015?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, just to make the point that the ministry does not benefit from this; it's the caribou that benefit from this. The moneys go into a trust. The trust is specifically for the benefit and support of the boreal caribou implementation plan. I don't have the specific numbers from that impact offset, but we can undertake to provide those for the two fiscal years that the member opposite referenced.

B. Routley: I'm not exactly sure how I'm going to communicate that to the caribou — that they're the ones that are benefiting from this after all.

Anyway, during 2013 estimates debate we asked the minister: "What is the actual number of herds that reached the recovery objective" — at the time, four — "in 2012-2013?" The minister followed up with a response on August 12, 2013, in writing: "In 2012-2013 ministry staff measured five herds that had ceased declining. However, we chose a conservative approach and reported four herds with stable populations because long-term trends with this species can be difficult to predict, and the year-to-year variations are common."

Now, as I understand it, cabinet directed or ordered the ministry to recover caribou herds. To define recovery as a herd that has ceased declining seems to me, as a layperson, to be…. Instead of jiggery-pokery, I will call it weasel wording.

[1710]

Apparently, you consulted leading scientists. Or we consulted leading scientists. I've got to get my facts straight here. It's scientists we heard from in the field of biology. We asked for their views on this, and these biology scientists wrote.

Scientist 1 writes:

"Technically, recovery means that a population has returned to historic levels, which is the definition employed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and, I think, by the federal Species at Risk Act. A population that has ceased declining can hardly be said to have recovered."

The same scientist went on to write:

"Population levels invariably fluctuate over time. If by recovery we mean that a caribou population is no longer in decline during time X, then how can we be certain there are enough caribou to prevent a population of them from crashing to zero at some other point in time? The only way to be certain to accomplish this would be to bring a population back to its prestressed levels. Certainly, that's the stated goal of the B.C. government recovery plan."

Scientist 2 writes:

"It is generally accepted a population of any species is recovered when deemed viable and self-sustaining. Essentially, that means a sufficiently large effective population — i.e., of reproductive animals — so that the likelihood of extinction is nil in the next 100 to 5,000 years. There is a disagreement on the period where some say it would be in perpetuity, so a population that has ceased declining would not be considered recovered unless it met other criteria mentioned."

In light of the possibility that the ministry might be misleading cabinet in its reporting to the service plans, annual reports, on the number of caribou herds that are in recovery, I have four questions for the minister.

One, specifically which four caribou herds does the ministry claim to be in recovery? How does the ministry define recovery? Question 3 is: does the definition of recovery that the ministry uses adhere to generally accepted criteria for recovery?

If the minister is confident in how he is reporting the recovery of caribou herds to the cabinet and to the public, then perhaps he would commit to having the ministry's number of caribou herds reported to be in recovery assessed for their accuracy by independent third-party scientists.

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the mountain caribou recovery plan, in 2007 in the plan there were two objectives set. One was by 2014 to stop decline, and by 2027 to recover to 2,500. These targets were developed, as the member opposite will know, with input and expert advice from the science team. These are world-leading caribou specialists that have informed those objectives. That team continues to provide the input and oversight on the work of the plan.

Again, two objectives set in 2007: 2014 to stop decline and by 2027 to recover to a population of 2,500. The targets, as I said, were developed with world-leading caribou specialists that are informing the plan and continue to provide the advice through the scientific team.

B. Routley: Well, thank you for your answer. I would like to remind the minister that because his ministry was perceived, at least by some, to be fumbling the caribou recovery file, cabinet had to step in and order the minister to recover caribou herds across the province by 2014. As I understand it, the target was set for the herd recovery by 2014-15 to 14 herds. Now I've heard something different, so I'll be interested in your response on that.

During the 2013 debate last July the minister said: "I think it's important to set those targets so we keep the focus, again — the ability to achieve those when we have a very, very complex relationship that's impacting not just the caribou herd but caribou herds around the province." Here the minister was trying to take the focus, some believe, off of logging as one of the main impacts on the Wells Gray mountain caribou herds.

[1720]

The minister talked about the complex relationship with wolves, but the root cause of the decline, as seen by some, in the caribou herds is human impact. As we understand it, the minister knows that most people believe that in that region the root cause of caribou herd
[ Page 1991 ]
decline is human impact.

For the three ecotypes of caribou in British Colombia — the mountain, the boreal and the northern — the largest human impacts are timber harvesting and recreational snowmobile use for the mountain ecotype, oil and gas activity for the boreal ecotype and coal mining for the northern ecotype.

Again, in spite of this knowledge, the ministry gave the public the opinion that by relying on wolf kills, which is not working, rather than imposing restrictions on industrial development and on the use of snowmobiles, ATVs or UTVs in the caribou's habitat….

Would the minister please tell the House what specific actions he has taken since 2010 to curtail the industrial development and recreational activity in habitat areas for all three ecotypes of the caribou? And would he confirm Canfor's intention to log mountain caribou habitat in its TFL adjacent to Wells Gray Park?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: We have taken very significant action in support of the caribou and of working towards caribou recovery plans in the mountain caribou area — 2.2 million hectares of area with no logging, no roads. In the mountain caribou area we've got one million hectares of no sledding.

In the Peace northern caribou region we've got hundreds of thousands of hectares of reserves. We can provide you with that exact number in terms of the total number of hectares of high-elevation reserves. In the Wells Grey area we have the park but also over 110,000 hectares of caribou winter range.

So across the province, there are very significant protections in place to provide habitat protection for the caribou herds.

In response to the specific question around Canfor's intentions in their TFL that the member opposite referenced, we will need to get back to him with that specific information. I don't have that available with me.

B. Routley: I would like to turn now to talk about fish. In 2013 estimates debate last July the minister told the House that as part of the B.C. Liberal platform, he was committed to providing the full amount of revenue from fishing and angling licences to the Freshwater Fisheries Society. My question to the minister is: has he honoured that commitment?

Hon. S. Thomson: As was indicated, the government has committed to transferring the balance of the angling licence revenue to the Freshwater Fisheries Society. That commitment was to be by April 2015. Negotiations to formalize the transfer of the funds have been initiated with the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. executive and our resource stewardship division.

[1730]

We expect those negotiations to be completed, anticipated in early summer 2014, at which point a decision note will be brought forward to me as the minister to allow for implementation of a new agreement for 2015.

N. Macdonald: We're going to switch now to public consultation on TFL rollover and TFL rollover legislation. On March 12, 2013, the minister commented in the House on the withdrawal of sections of Bill 8 dealing with forest licence rollover.

I quote the minister from Hansard:

"As a result of the need for broader public consultation on this, as was mentioned by the Attorney General, in committee stage we'll be setting aside those sections of the legislation directed at area-based tenure change and initiating a process, a broader public consultation, this summer based on the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply special committee and this proposed legislation."

Then three months later, at the height of summer in July 2013, on the very same issue the minister is on the public record, saying: "As I committed earlier this spring and as is noted in the mandate letter, the ministry will launch and engage in a public engagement process this summer to raise awareness about the differences between the volume-based and area-based tenures and will solicit the feedback from communities, First Nations, the forest industry and the general public."

Then, during the same estimates debate, the minister began to prevaricate. I quote from Hansard, "My expectation is that the time frame we're looking at would probably be getting into September, which depending on your definition of summer, still includes the summer" — which is true, of course.

Next, we heard that the minister had postponed the public consultation process until the fall of 2013, and his staff were underscoring the fact that by official definition fall does not end until December 20. Well, summer and fall 2013 have long since passed by any definition. The minister really has failed to conform to his previous mandate letter, and it has raised speculation as to the reasons why there was a choice to delay initiating a public consultation process on TFL rollovers.

During the 2013 estimates debate the minister is on the record as optimistically saying, "The member opposite asked whose interest is being served by considering this," in reference to TFL rollovers. "I think that very, very clearly, the interest that's being served is the interests of workers, the interests of communities, the interests of everybody involved in the industry through that area."

Now, I suspect that, during the extended delay in mounting this public consultation, the minister has heard from forest workers, contractors, communities, licensees and First Nations that TFL rollover and more entrenched privatization of rights to timber on Crown land does not necessarily accord with their interests quite as well as the minister confidently asserted that they would last July.

Will the minister confirm that the reason a public
[ Page 1992 ]
consultation process has been repeatedly postponed is because the backroom lobbying by his deputy minister and ministry staff with the forest industry, with industry associations, with the mayors of targeted communities and with selected groups of First Nations did not go according to plan and these special interest groups, like the general public, have deep-rooted concerns about the policy agenda of the government toward further privatization of the rights to public timber on Crown land?

[1735]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I disagree with the member's characterization of this as a TFL rollover. The member was part of the mid-term lumber committee process that made the recommendation that we look at increasing the diversity of area-based tenures. I still believe that this could be one of the tools in the toolbox to help address mid-term timber supply in the future and the many attributes that support the basis of area-based tenures.

As committed, and as the member opposite knows, we have communicated publicly that we are not intending to bring in legislation with respect to that in this session. We are committed and remain committed to a public consultation process around this to clearly receive the input and to clearly identify the provisions and the criteria and the approaches that would be utilized here.

We are taking the time to make sure that when we go into that public consultation we have all of those criteria and options developed and as part of the consultation process, because I think it is going to be important in that process to not only just talk about the attributes of area-based management but also how it would be implemented and what criteria would be utilized in terms of considering options to ensure that it does meet community and public and industry and stakeholder and First Nations interests in the process.

We're taking the time to make sure that we have that full criteria developed. That's the work that's underway, and we intend to move forward with the public consultation process in the near future.

N. Macdonald: Of course, we have this debate a lot. As the member will know and as many people in the room will know, the recommendations that the committee put forward were very carefully crafted and don't align with the legislation that was presented nor the concept of a TFL rollover. That's not what we were talking about.

I think that's part of the reason there's been a tremendous amount of public resistance to what the government put forward, which forced, prior to the election, the removable of the TFL rollover legislation — or the element, the sections, within the act that had that in there.

Can the minister give us definitive dates for the public discussion on TFL rollover enabling legislation? The second part of that is: whom among the public does the minister plan to engage?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I disagree with the member's assertion that this is a process around rollover conversion. What I've said is that we are committed to a process of consultation. We're not talking about introducing the legislation, as I've said here and publicly, both at the truck loggers annual meeting and the association of professional foresters annual meeting.

What we are committed to do is to have an engagement process, which we will be launching shortly. That engagement process will include all parties and stakeholders. We'll gauge those in that way through a variety of means. This will be a public engagement process that we will be launching shortly.

N. Macdonald: The Premier's letter, as well as documents that we have here — the service plan — put it as a priority for the ministry. I think there's no question that it's a flawed policy.

The recommendations that the committee put forward I think give us a place to go in consideration of what we could be doing differently. Clearly, what the government has been talking about and what we saw in the legislation benefited only a few companies and represents poor public policy. I think that's likely what the minister is hearing again and again as he consults and talks with various groups.

During the 2013 estimates debate last July we pushed the minister to provide evidence that area-based forest management on TFLs is better than on TSAs. The minister was unable to provide that evidence because it does not exist.

In fact, one can go back on the public record. During the discussions that we had with the Timber Supply Committee, I know that I and my colleague asked this question many times. We had the resources of the ministry available to us, and that question was never satisfactorily answered. It doesn't exist.

The minister also committed to provide a follow-up answer to our request for the average investment per hectare in TFLs and in TSAs. The minister responded in writing on August 12, 2013: "The ministry has no direct means of recording or comparing silvicultural investments on area-based tenures to those on volume-based tenures. There is little difference in the intensity of management between area- and volume-based tenures." That's the answer we had back.

It seems pretty clear to me that the political spin around area-based forest management being better in TFLs than it is in TSAs is nonsense, frankly. That's not to say that area-based management might not be better than volume-based management under a different form of governance than TFL tenure. But the TFLs as a means of area-based management are clearly a failure, with a few exceptions to the rule. That was all part of the discussion that we had in formulating the recommendations from
[ Page 1993 ]
the Timber Supply Committee.

My question to the minister is: does the promised public consultation process make it clear to the public that, in the minister's own words, "the ministry has no direct means of recording or comparing silvicultural investments on area-based tenures to those on volume-based tenures," and that the ministry has no evidence to support the assertion that forest management is better in TFLs than in TSAs?

[1745]

Is that going to be made absolutely clear at those meetings, or are there going to be meetings where something that's better described as propaganda is simply presented?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, we're intending on initiating the public consultation process. That process will have extensive information and will have the evidence on a publicly available website.

We will ensure that there is a broad discussion. I'm sure that discussion will include all the pros and cons with respect to that. But the discussion paper, the evidence will be thorough in this process.

As I indicated, we believe and continue to believe that this is one tool in the toolkit that can have benefits. That's why the recommendation was made by the mid-term timber supply committee to look at increasing area-based management.

We know that there are differing views. We also know that it will be important to ensure in that process that it is clear what approach and what criteria would be utilized in looking at any movement from volume- to area-based tenure.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada