Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1992

Volume 4, Number 18

[ Page 2669 ]

The House met at 6:03 p.m.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 61.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 61; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name in the possession of the Clerk.

The Chair: The amendment deletes paragraph (d) and substitutes the following: "(d) in paragraph (c) of the definition of 'small business forest enterprise revenue' by striking out 'section 18' and substituting 'section 18(1)(e), (f) and (h), (1.1), (2), (3) and (9)'."

On the amendment.

L. Fox: It's a procedural matter. I would hope that, for an amendment tabled at the last moment, copies would be given to the two critics, so that we could see it in writing.

The Chair: We'll arrange for some copies.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister would welcome this opportunity to explain the nature and thrust of the amendment being proposed under section 1, in the absence of written copies available to the opposition, to be sure that the position of the government in moving this amendment is clearly spelled out.

Hon. D. Miller: There's an amendment in section 1 and an amendment in section 11. The amendment in section 1 deals with the direct sales, the awards that can be made now at the regional level under the amendment. The amendment to section 1 simply defines those sales for administrative purposes to ensure that the revenue from them goes into the small business program. It's an administrative amendment, if you like. The substantive issue raised by the amendments occurs in section 11, and it deals with the issuance of direct awards.

W. Hurd: Further to section 1, we are just asking for a clarification of definitions here. I note the repeal of the definition of farm woodlot licence and the requirement that holders of those licences come under the management plan umbrella. Is that going to be, then, a requirement of farm woodlot licensees, that they provide a more detailed working and management plan than was required by the terms of the existing farm woodlot licence under the previous act?

Hon. D. Miller: It simply acknowledges that farm woodlots no longer exist. They were converted in previous changes to the Forest Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

W. Hurd: Again I request clarification. "The minister may (a) designate land as a timber supply area, and (b) order the consolidation, division or abolition of timber supply areas or order their boundaries changed." One would assume that what's being granted here is additional latitude to the ministry to make those decisions. Is there any concern expressed that there needs to be some public involvement process on this particular section of the act? As the minister is well aware, the boundaries of timber supply areas and the designated lands as such are matters of some controversy in the province, and we'd certainly be happier if there was something under section 2 to suggest that they would be done in consultation with the various stakeholder groups before the boundaries of such timber supply units are arbitrarily changed by the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: The powers that the member talks about currently exist within the act. The amendment simply deletes the reference to a public sustained yield unit, which is a management unit that no longer exists. That's the entire thrust of this amendment.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Fox: I have some difficulties with this particular section. It appears to give the chief forester new powers to change the AAC on his own. On its own it's a good measure, but in conjunction with section 48, which takes away the rights of compensation for timber withdrawals made under this section, it's a dangerous measure. Presently the AAC is approved by the chief forester, who may approve or reject harvesting plans submitted by the licensees. Now the chief forester will dictate the AAC to the letter and offer companies no choice but to accept that. I question whether this measure is conducive to maintaining a healthy relationship with the industry, and I'm concerned that it may in fact scare off investment. Perhaps the minister can respond.

Hon. D. Miller: I did speak in second reading about what this change means. Really, very simply, it means that the chief forester can require the holder of a tree-farm licence to submit information in a form that's consistent with the information that's developed for timber supply areas. I did explain that in one instance I was aware of, the holder of a tree-farm licence used an entirely different method for calculating growth and yield curves. As the member may know, that's essential 

[ Page 2670 ]

in determining an annual allowable cut. It was unacceptable to me that on tree-farm licences, which are public lands, the holder of a licence could use a system that is not consistent with our system and that could potentially cause some confusion, particularly for members of the public.

In the case that I'm aware of, when members of the public attempted to obtain information from the holder of the licence so they could analyze the data the licensee was using, they were told: "Sorry, you can't have it. It's proprietary information. It belongs to us." I would hope that all members would agree that it is clearly unacceptable that members of the public who tried to obtain information about what's happening on public lands -- albeit tree-farm licence lands -- were denied that opportunity on the basis that it was proprietary information. Pretty clearly, I would think the members would welcome this amendment, which requires, in its simplest form, that tree-farm licence-holders submit information in a form that is determined by the chief forester. I think that makes eminent sense and is good public policy.

[6:15]

W. Hurd: Further to section 3, however, the minister is certainly aware of the accelerated timber supply area analysis currently being undertaken by his ministry and the chief forester, who has arbitrarily reduced annual allowable cuts in preparation for this information being available by 1995. The minister would certainly recognize that the reverse holds true: where the chief forester lacks the appropriate information, he appears to possess the ability to arbitrarily reduce the annual allowable cut as a sort of safety margin, so to speak, without accurate information being available. Perhaps the minister can clarify exactly what will be happening under section 3 during the course of these accelerated timber supply area reviews. Will the chief forester be able to continue to make these rather arbitrary decisions while he acknowledges that he doesn't have the appropriate inventory data on which to base a sustainable annual allowable cut?

Hon. D. Miller: I want to say, first of all, that the chief forester of the province does not run around simply making arbitrary decisions for the sake of it. Anyone who tries to characterize the chief forester in that light is dead wrong. The chief forester already has the power to reduce annual allowable cuts. It's a power that we should vest in our chief forester for specific reasons. He has the power to increase. If there's a beetle kill, for example, we have the power to increase the level of cut to deal with that beetle kill. If the beetle kill comes to an end, we have the power to reduce the cut to what it should be. That is right and proper.

The chief forester and the ministry have determined.... Anybody who has followed events relative to the establishment of annual allowable cuts should be aware -- and members of the opposition should be aware, because we offered them a briefing on the review process that we're going through -- that it is absolutely fundamental that we establish annual allowable harvest levels on timber supply areas and on tree-farm licences that are sustainable. That's what we're doing in this accelerated review. We are saying that we are going to go through these and establish those cuts. From then on, every five years those cuts have to be re-established. That's a good, proper system.

We should have done it a long time ago. Quite frankly, there was a lack of attention paid to those details. Areas that had clearly been removed from the working forest had not been accounted for in establishing the annual allowable cut. That was false and misleading. All that means is that at some point you pay a heavier price.

So let's do our job, and do it properly. That's what this amendment says. It states what the chief forester is going to do with respect to that accelerated review, and our requirements when that review is conducted every five years on those licences and in those timber supply areas. I would hope the members would see the wisdom of this and be prepared to accept it.

L. Fox: The minister talked about offering a review. How and when was it offered? I have never received the offer.

Hon. D. Miller: I was referring to an offer that I have made. I was under the understanding -- I sincerely apologize if it's not the case -- that my office had contacted both of the opposition caucuses and indicated to them that we were willing to make the chief forester available for a briefing. We have done that on a number of issues: the issue of the accelerated review, the issue of the establishment of annual allowable harvests. That's an open offer that I make on issues I think are important. The opposition clearly would want to have that kind of technical briefing. I sincerely apologize for the oversight if that offer was not made to the Forests critic for the third party. I was under the understanding that it had been made available.

W. Hurd: For the record, I certainly did have the opportunity to attend that briefing. I thank the minister for making his chief forester available.

There were a number of questions, however, that I had with respect to the briefing, which we see dealt with under section 3. Perhaps I could address them to the minister now as some concerns that I had at the time.

One was the apparent lack of any industrial strategy or manufacturing capacities being factored into this timber supply area review. It seemed to me at the time -- and I refer again to this section of the bill -- that without an analysis of where the logs are going and which manufacturing plants are relying on them, while the inventory data is valuable, surely, if there were no manufacturing capacity to factor in, there wouldn't even be any need to set an annual allowable cut, because there wouldn't be any timber being cut in the first place. Again I return to the point that surely, when you provide the chief forester with that kind of amplified power to make cut reductions without necessarily having to adopt an industrial strategy or a determination of how the logs are being processed, where they're ending up -- whether they're ending up 

[ Page 2671 ]

in timber supply areas hundreds of miles away, which can sometimes be the case in this province.... I might add that those arbitrary cut reductions may not factor in silvicultural potential for the land, since I understand this review is merely an assessment of standing timber. Surely there should be some requirement by the ministry to direct the chief forester in these rather important areas before cut reductions are arbitrarily made. I use that term "arbitrarily" because if I interpret this section of the act correctly, the chief forester does in fact have the power to arbitrarily cut the annual allowable cut if he doesn't get the information he needs or if the TSA analysis is not going as fast as he had hoped and he has to extend the cut reductions further.

I'd just like to get the minister's explanation for why there's no requirement here for some sort of industrial capacity or manufacturing capacity to be factored into these types of cut reductions.

Hon. D. Miller: In fact, the criteria are there in the Forest Act. Just before I read them out, because we will deal with that in section 12.... It does touch on another issue, I guess, in the sense: should annual allowable cuts be driven by the needs of industry, or should they be driven by a sustainable plan for the land base? My view, of course, is the latter. We should determine an appropriate and sustainable harvest level from the land base which will provide certainty for the industrial sector. They will know how much timber will be available, they know the types, etc., and they'll know that that will be over a long time-horizon. Certainly we're in a period of uncertainty now because, having delayed making the right decisions for so long, we of necessity are going through this accelerated review.

I would just remind the member that the chief forester already has.... If you read the Forest Act, in terms of the criteria on timber supply areas, those areas managed directly by the Crown, all of those considerations are contained in it. The further amendment in this act here today would apply those criteria to tree-farm licences.

For the member's information, the section we will be dealing with broadens the range of criteria that the chief forester must consider when establishing an allowable annual cut for a tree-farm licence, by deleting the existing criteria and substituting the criteria in section 7(c) of the Forest Act. This amendment will ensure a similar consideration for both timber supply and tree-farm licence areas in the long-and short-term implications of alternative harvest rates, milling capacity, social and economic objectives of the Crown and any pest infestation. Clearly all of those criteria that are currently contained in provisions governing timber supply areas will, in the amendments to this act, be used to govern the establishment of allowable annual cuts on tree-farm licences.

L. Fox: I don't have any further discussions with respect to section 3, but I wish to apologize to the minister. Upon reflection, and discussion with the Liberal critic, I was at the session offered some three and a half weeks ago. So I was given the opportunity, and I had lost it. I wanted to make that point for the record.

W. Hurd: Continuing this debate on section 3 of this act, the minister must surely recognize that under the various subsections in section 3, the chief forester is not only empowered but required to undertake a setting of the annual allowable cut, based on some fairly specific parameters. I would suspect that this particular section of the act was put in place specifically to cover eventualities in the accelerated timber supply review. Unfortunately, of concern to the opposition is the fact that the chief forester is not responsible to the communities and certainly not responsible for determining whether there's enough harvest to run the existing manufacturing plants, and there's a feeling out there in the communities, where there have been these arbitrary reductions in the annual allowable cut by the chief forester -- as, the minister is quite correct in pointing out, he has the right to do under the act -- that they are being victimized, where there may exist no direct evidence that the kind of cuts being suggested are in fact necessary over the long-term sustained yield of that particular timber supply area.

In other words, the chief forester is saying here that he doesn't really know how bad the situation is, but he's going to cut the annual allowable cut by a certain percentage just to err on the side of safety. The expressions of concern that the opposition is hearing are that there has been no consultative process available to communities which may be losing mills as a result of this particular decision by the chief forester, who, as I point out, bears none of those responsibilities. Perhaps the minister can just clarify whether the chief forester will be directed by the kind of economic dislocation that may be occurring in some of these communities as a result of these cuts in the annual allowable cut in the various TSAs in the province.

Hon. D. Miller: Public input really is an essential component. I would go back to when the member suggested when he started to speak that there's no requirement that the chief forester ensure delivery of timber to mills. We have many situations in parts of our province where the milling capacity currently exceeds the annual allowable cut that's in place now by as much as 30 percent. As I said earlier, should annual allowable cuts be determined by the milling capacity that exists, or should they be determined on the basis of what the land can sustain? It seems to me that if you don't accept the notion that it's got to be what the land can sustain, you would be arguing that we engage in the worst kind of forest practices, and I'm sure the member is not really wanting to advocate that.

I don't play down the difficulty that we face in this province, hon. member. We face extreme difficulty as we come to grips with the issues of overcapacity and the need to establish sustainable cuts on our management units. There is extensive public consultation. The TSA analysis.... If you've ever been out in a community where these things take place -- I know it's not so much in the lower mainland, but certainly if you go to any small community -- it's quite a hot topic, and 

[ Page 2672 ]

believe me, people turn up to those public meetings whether it's timber supply area analysis or the requirement imposed on TFL-holders to have public input into their five-year plans.

[6:30]

There has been criticism, I'll grant you. In the case of TFL 44, I think, or 46, on the lower Island here, the decision by the chief forester, believe it or not, was delayed by almost two years. There were extensive public meetings, huge public meetings, and when finally the chief forester said, "I will make a decision, because I said six months ago I would make a decision by this date," I received all kinds of protests from people saying: "Don't make a decision; delay it even further." I said: "No, it's unacceptable!" I instructed my chief forester to make the decision that is within his legislative mandate. Believe me, hon. member, he assumes that responsibility, and he knows what that responsibility entails. The criteria set out in the act that will apply to tree-farm licences and currently apply to timber supply areas are the broad principles that the chief forester must consider when arriving at these calculations.

I can also tell you, from a technical point of view, that I'll stack up the people in the Ministry of Forests and the chief forester against anybody in this province, and they will come out on top. The technical expertise that exists within this ministry is unparalleled.

W. Hurd: I must confess I find that suggestion somewhat confusing. In some of the press releases coming out of the ministry regarding cuts in the TSAs, the indication has been that the ministry hadn't had the resources in the past to adequately monitor the forest resource in the province. We certainly note that there hasn't been a dramatic increase in the workforce budget in this year's estimates. So we wonder where that expertise and additional responsibility suddenly, miraculously, emerged from.

As the minister has indicated, one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in today is supposedly that the ministry didn't have the resources it should have had to accurately monitor TFLs and the timber supply areas in the province. Surely the minister must see that under the sections of this act, he's actually empowering the chief forester to do the kind of things that will only increase the lack of public confidence in how the resource is being managed.

I would remind the minister that in the situation on Vancouver Island, there were a number of representations made to the chief forester regarding the areas that should be preserved. As a result of what people consider to be an arbitrary decision by the chief forester, almost nobody was happy.

The opposition would certainly question whether or not, from a policy standpoint, the chief forester is taking over some directives that should be under the purview of the ministry. I refer specifically to tree-farm licences in this province, where the minister is well aware that existing licence-holders can make representations to the ministry for a cut increase in the TFL based on a willingness to undertake enhanced silviculture regimes. Are we to assume, under section 3, that the chief forester will be able to authorize increases in the annual allowable cut on TFLs, if the licence-holder can demonstrate an enhanced silvicultural plan to actually increase the long-term yield? Is that not a determination that should rest with the minister in the policy area?

As the minister is certainly aware, the chief forester occupies a unique position under the act, where he and he alone is responsible for the setting of annual allowable cuts. I would think the minister would be acutely sensitive about increasing the arbitrary powers under the act, when they might be infringing on his areas of setting public policy in the province.

Perhaps the minister could clarify how many additional powers the chief forester will have, and whether public consultation is something the chief forester will necessarily be interested in, in terms of holding meetings in the community, what mills might have to be closed and that type of information.

Hon. D. Miller: The member has asked a number of questions. I want to say first of all that there are no new powers granted in this bill -- absolutely none. We are simply saying that the criteria that currently must be used in determining annual allowable cuts in timber supply areas now apply to tree-farm licences. There are no new powers.

I would resist with all my strength the shifting of the determination of annual allowable cuts from a chief forester to a politician. It would be the dumbest thing we ever did in this province. In my view, there has been far too much politics in the past in establishing annual allowable cuts. It is wrong to put that power into the hands of a politician. The power should remain where it is: in the hands of a chief forester. That chief forester should be a person who is capable and respected in this province. If we ever want to have public confidence in what we do in forest management, that's absolutely essential.

I would like to claim credit, I guess, but modesty prevents me. I can't claim that I am responsible for this accelerated review. In fact, some members may be aware of an internal ministry review that came out last March, which was critically important, because the ministry was saying in that report that they didn't have confidence in the whole process of establishing the cut levels. Out of that report, you may recall that the previous minister, Mr. Richmond, announced last year that there would be no increases in any of the annual allowable cuts in the province. I can't recall the specifics of the report, and I can't recall if he specifically mentioned the accelerated review, but the accelerated review came out of that internal report sometime last March. I have simply said, as the minister, to my staff and to my chief forester: do your job, and I'll support you in doing that.

L. Fox: I concur with the minister that the place for the authority with respect to the AACs should be the office of the chief forester. I wonder, within this category here, if the minister could enlighten me as to whether or not, along with the review of the AACs and the accelerated review of that, we will see an accelerated review of the TSAs at the same time.

[ Page 2673 ]

Hon. D. Miller: The answer to that is yes.

W. Hurd: Just to clarify, certainly we weren't suggesting on this side of the House that the chief forester turn over to the minister the responsibility for setting annual allowable cuts. But I think the minister would certainly recognize that the situation we're in now is without precedent in the history of the province in terms of forest management -- those are his views exactly. When there's such a massive reduction in the annual allowable cut throughout the province, surely the minister must recognize the social and economic implications of that not only to his own ministry but also to the entire government of the province of British Columbia.

In light of that, would it not have been appropriate for the minister to have announced some sort of industrial impact study on these types of annual allowable cut reductions, to at least give the people who live in the timber supply areas the confidence that while the forestry work in terms of inventory and analysis of silvicultural plans was being done, in fact there was some analysis ongoing for the kind of economic dislocation that would occur: mills closing, people on unemployment insurance, the kind of difficult road that lies ahead in this accelerated review of the timber supply areas? As we know, it's almost impossible for those kinds of cut reductions to be announced by the chief forester without there being a reciprocal impact on the local economy. You know, this is the dichotomy that the opposition was trying to point out. There's a manufacturing side to these cut reductions that doesn't appear to have been worthy of consideration by the ministry at this time.

People, as they are wont to do, often confuse the roles of the minister and the roles of the chief forester. They may view these cuts as being, in fact, a directive of the ministry and the government. They may choose to blame the government for whatever economic consequences result. So I would expect the minister would welcome the opportunity to make that clarification, even to the extent of adding a section to this bill clarifying that fundamental difference.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly I recognize the member's concern. He's absolutely right that the impact on communities, depending on the level of reduction, can be substantive. I would point out that we are debating amendments to the Forest Act which deal with the authority of the chief forester in certain situations. I don't wish to avoid that debate, but I suggest that it might not be appropriate for this particular section or this particular bill. I certainly agree with the member that these are serious issues; the consequences are serious. I've tried to be outspoken about the need to address those issues. They're made more difficult, I suppose, by the fact that we are going through this very difficult period in forestry. But I would suggest, Mr.Chairman, that it may be just a touch outside the scope of the bill. But I do certainly appreciate what the member is saying.

W. Hurd: I have one additional point of clarification under section 3 of the bill. It refers to the information that has to be supplied by the tree-farm licence holder in the province. In the event that a licence-holder does identify an enhanced silvicultural possibility and the potential for a long-term increase in the AAC, perhaps he could clarify whether or not the licence-holder would continue to make his representations to the minister. Am I to assume the minister would then instruct the chief forester to...? Obviously he couldn't instruct the chief forester, but how would we see TFL cuts actually increased if, indeed, the licence-holder is willing to expend the money, to identify the opportunity and to prove without doubt that there was in fact more harvestable timber off the licence on a long-term basis?

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the current act gives authority under section 7 to the chief forester to consider silvicultural treatments. I would simply point out that it's not always possible to realize an immediate gain, even if one were to engage in intensive silviculture. There are some circumstances where that could lead to a modest increase in the annual allowable cut, but under normal circumstances -- and it's really a question of the age-class distribution and the geography, soils, etc. -- one would not see an immediate gain for intensive silviculture. Normally you would see that a little further out, perhaps in the ten-to 60-year range, but it would not often be an immediate gain.

I must say that I'm very open, as the chief forester is, to companies who wish to engage in more intensive practices and thereby increase the growth and yield on our forest lands and produce more timber for the industrial enterprises.

W. Hurd: Just a couple of additional points under section 3. One is actually the accelerated review of the timber supply areas in the province, which I assume is covered by the fact that the chief forester is now mandated to determine AACs before December 31, 1995, which is, I guess, part and parcel of the timber supply review project. As part of this analysis, perhaps the minister could clarify whether the chief forester will be analyzing the existing licence structure on the TSA. Or will that information continue to be provided to the chief forester by the ministry?

[6:45]

I raise that point because, as the minister well knows, the silviculture requirements are different from timber supply areas, or existing forest licences on TSAs, to TFLs. There would be a silvicultural component here, which would somehow impact on the chief forester's ultimate decision on the AAC. Perhaps the minister can assure us that the analysis of the existing licences on the TSA is part of the review that's being undertaken by the chief forester.

Hon. D. Miller: The member is in error. The silvicultural requirements of a tree-farm licence holder and a forest licence holder are exactly the same. In fact, the only areas where the Crown incurs the silvicultural 

[ Page 2674 ]

obligation is in the small business forest enterprise program, and we build the cost of that into the bidding process. Every licensee in this province is required by law to reforest any area that is approved for harvesting. They have to submit a pre-harvest silviculture prescription telling us how they intend to do that; there are follow-up and enforcement provisions if they don't comply.

W. Hurd: As the minister is aware, that requirement refers to the free-to-grow stage, which occurs after ten or 11 years, but there is, I believe, under the tree-farm licence, further inducement or requirement that the licence-holder engage in such activities as thinning, fertilization and other activities that, if they are practiced diligently, have the effect of increasing the yields off tree-farm licences. So obviously it would be important for the chief forester to factor that type of analysis into his long-term projections on what annual allowable cut could be sustained in each timber supply area of the province. Does that inducement not exist on TFLs, which I understand account for 50 percent of the productive forest land in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: I think TFLs are about 27 percent, not 50 percent, if I am not mistaken.

As I indicated earlier in section 7, the chief forester can take silviculture prescriptions into account. Certainly that is done. Some licensees have been a little better over the years, I suppose, in doing things like thinning. Those kinds of activities would tend to increase the growth and yield. Clearly, the chief forester can and does take those activities into account.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Fox: I guess if I have one concern with this particular amendment, it's the fact that the chief forester can in fact request, on the spur of the moment, information or compliance without giving the opportunity of a number of days for the company or the corporation to comply with his request. Was it the intent that there would be a number of days to comply, or was it going to be something that had to be at the chief forester's own consideration? Not wanting to suggest that he would be either unreasonable or inconsistent, but I think you have to wonder whether or not every instance would be treated in exactly the same way. So I have some concerns that a time-frame is not stated there.

Hon. D. Miller: I can assure you that the chief forester is an eminently reasonable man, and if that doesn't satisfy you, the member should be aware that there is a responsibility, and indeed a test, in carrying out your authority and responsibilities, to be reasonable. Government is no more immune from that test than is a private corporation. So, yes, we are reasonable.

W. Hurd: Just a point of clarification on section 4: the chief forester requiring this information of the tree-farm licence holder. I assume it would be the same as the existing powers that the chief forester has with respect to TFLs and the ability to empower that that information be provided in a form and manner required by the chief forester. I'm just a bit confused as to why, if those represent existing powers under the act. Perhaps the minister could explain the need for a new clause here, and why the language needed to be changed from the existing act.

Hon. D. Miller: We've added a section to section 4. I was slightly in error, actually; I was talking about some of the substance of this in the previous section. The amendment adds a section that is currently not in the act, which gives the chief forester the authority to require the holder of a tree-farm licence to submit information in the form that he requests. It has not previously been in the act; it's an addition. As I explained, it's an attempt to make the systems used on TFLs consistent with the systems on timber supply areas.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Fox: If I read this correctly, this will allow licences to interact. In fact, you can award different species of wood within a TFL to other licensees or producers. I'm concerned with this. Given the fact that the licensees are responsible for the maintenance for those roadways, how is the maintenance going to work if there are a number of licensees travelling the same roadways? Is there a mechanism which allows everyone to contribute to the maintenance of those roads?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's standard procedure to work out a cost-sharing arrangement with respect to the maintenance of the roads.

L. Fox: That standard arrangement, as I understand it, is between the licensees, and Forests doesn't play a role in either enforcement or collection should somebody fail to pay. I would assume that if somebody did not meet their obligations, for whatever reason.... If the minister is going to allow others and grant licences on the roads, perhaps in a way that the particular licensee does not agree with, obviously there's a need and there should be a commitment by the ministry to enforce, or perhaps collect, at the stumpage base some form of road maintenance dollars which could be put back to the owner of those particular roads.

Hon. D. Miller: I would resist that. We have been operating the small business program in tree-farm licences since 1988. The amendments were introduced in 1988. Quite frankly, it has not been a problem. There was a discussion during estimates -- I think they were my estimates or Highways estimates -- about some of the resource roads. In many cases there is more than one user of a road.

We had a court case not too long ago where the TFL holders applied for an injunction to prevent public 

[ Page 2675 ]

access to the road. The ruling of the court was that they couldn't accept it. They can restrict access in terms of public safety and all those other things, but they can't in a general sense restrict public access. Quite often you might have half a dozen different users of a road which may have been constructed by a single company. But, to my knowledge, it is simply not a problem. We have assisted. If there are disputes between parties that require us to lend our gentle guidance, we are quite prepared to do so.

W. Hurd: With respect to (2) under section 5, perhaps the minister would be able to explain exactly what is being demanded of TFL holders here in terms of their relationship with the ministry. Is what's being dealt with here some ability by the minister to make recommendations with respect to cut levels on TFLs? I don't see a reference in here to the chief forester. Perhaps he could clarify that section for the committee, as to what additional powers we're talking about here for the minister. Or are we basically dealing with a housekeeping matter? I would hope that he could clarify that.

Hon. D. Miller: The intent of the amendment is to allow the species not currently being harvested on a tree-farm licence to be allocated to some other party. An example would be deciduous species that are not currently being harvested, and someone sees an opportunity -- or perhaps problem-type forests. As the minister, I can make an allocation. But I would go back and remind the member that it's the chief forester who establishes the cut level. That's the chief forester's job. My job as the minister is to make allocations based on the recommendations of my staff.

W. Hurd: Would it not be fair comment to point out that the reallocation of even a problem forest within the boundaries of a TFL would have some long-range implications for the annual allowable cut? Once that scrub forest or inferior forest is harvested, it might present an opportunity to replace it with a more vigorous type of growth under a long-term licence arrangement. Would that ability of the minster not have an impact on the annual allowable cut within the boundaries of a TFL? Could he clarify that?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is no, it wouldn't have an impact on the cut. Really the answer to the first question is that if there's timber on Crown lands that someone thinks they can use to create jobs and economic opportunity, and if the TFL holder is not using it and doesn't want to use it, then it's my view that we should make that timber available to those who would use it to do the very things that you talked about earlier. That makes a lot of sense.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister could explain who would make that type of determination under section 5. Would he make that allocation based on the instructions of the licence-holder? In a situation where the licence-holder would come to the ministry to say, "It's not our intention ever to do anything with this particular block of timber on our TFL," would he be acting on the instructions of the licence-holder, or would it be up to ministry staff to make the determination as to whether the area was not going to be used, or surplus, and reallocate it? What are the dynamics between the licence-holder and the ministry?

[7:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I could envision any number of scenarios. There are a lot of people who have knowledge of our forest lands. If we're dealing with deciduous species, for example, it may be common knowledge that there is a large quantity in a certain TFL. Normally the approach is made at the district office. It is done frequently. People who think there are opportunities come in to us and make suggestions. In many cases they propose chart areas or sales, and we follow through.

As I indicated earlier, we already apportion small-business forest enterprise sales on TFL lands. That kind of activity has been taking place on TFL lands. It's desirable. If there are forest types that are currently not being harvested or utilized, and if someone feels that they can be utilized to provide jobs and economic benefits, then we're interested in talking to them. It's pretty easy to see where in some cases TFL holders have not been interested. They simply are not in that business. Others, perhaps smaller operators and entrepreneurs, have ideas. If there's timber there, we like to make sure that they have an opportunity to do something for the province.

L. Fox: Notwithstanding the amendment to section 11, can the minister tell me whether any awards under subsection (2) would have to go through the tender process?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, very clearly.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 11 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 11, by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

(a) by repealing subsections (1)(a), (d) and (g), (7) and (8),.

SECTION 11, by adding the following subsection:

(b.1) by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) Notwithstanding sections 16 and 17, the regional manager, without advertising or accepting applications from other persons, may enter into an agreement in the form of a timber sale licence if the volume of timber specified in the application is less than 2000 m3 and only one application is made for the timber.,.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: I find this particular amendment extremely pleasing, if it does what I think it will do. If I'm to 

[ Page 2676 ]

understand this correctly, if there was a volume of wood of less than 2,000 metres within a particular area -- say a blowdown area -- identified by an entrepreneur, then the ministry would have the ability to award this without going through the bid process. Is that the way I understand this amendment?

Hon. D. Miller: We already do have the flexibility in the Forest Act to make those kinds of awards where there is blowdown and when, in the opinion of the district manager, to delay accessing the timber would lead to its deterioration to the point where it's uneconomical.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, there may be some debate about that. I've heard some of those.

That is within the powers of the act.

L. Fox: Just on a point of clarification, I can tell the minister that I've had several phone calls in the last few days from an entrepreneur who has had extreme difficulty achieving such an opportunity in the Prince George region. In fact, Forests recognizes that there's some value and opportunity there in putting it through the bid process, and they will not award even as little as 500 cubic metres of blowdown to an entrepreneur without going through the bid process.

If this particular section does not deal with what I thought it did, perhaps you might explain what the amendment means so that I can understand it.

Hon. D. Miller: Forestry is an interesting business. There's never any shortage of arguments about what is right and proper or why this doesn't happen sooner or later, and the rest of it. That goes with the territory, if you like -- not to make light of some of those situations.

The intent of the amendment is to remove the discretion that is currently with the district manager to award direct sales and put that authority in the hands of the regional manager. When you are disposing of the Crown's assets, it's always better to limit, if you like, the types of situations where discretion is awarded. So we really are kind of pulling back. We're taking the discretion from the district managers to award up to 2,000 cubic metres in a direct sale and putting that in the hands of the regional managers. That's what the amendment does.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 12.

L. Fox: Just a couple of concerns I had with respect to this. It seems to restrict the rights of the existing TFL contractors, by removing certain terrain such as slopes under 20 percent, or certain species such as Sitka spruce. The minister could remove most of the productive areas in a TFL, with no compensation to the licensee. The minister has full power to sell or otherwise dispose of these lands, and his contrived powers, under this act, over every other private company with an investment in B.C. forests are open to abuse. Perhaps you might just want to comment on that.

Hon. D. Miller: This really relates to the previous section with respect to the awarding of timber in a tree-farm licence to someone other than the holder. It provides for us to define, in the licence plan, the traditional timber and types of timber that the TFL-holder is harvesting and thereby make available what I referred to earlier, whether they be deciduous types or problem forest types.... It would make them available to other bidders. In the sense of protecting the interests of the TFL-holder, it defines the timber that they would harvest and thereby makes the other available, potentially at least, for others to access.

L. Fox: Just one further clarification. If in fact the licensee of the TFL has identified an opportunity and a desire to get into the value-added area, does he have a length of time in which to develop that program before you remove that particular species from his TFL, for another licensee?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, currently there's nothing that would prevent a TFL-holder from including in the management working plans a plan to harvest deciduous, problem types -- any types that exist within the TFL. But where they're not doing it and have not historically done it, and others say there's an interest there that they think they can work with, then we're prepared to make that available.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister could just clarify for the committee. In the event that an allocation was made from a TFL -- as the minister is aware, we're dealing with an area-based tenure -- who would then bear responsibility for the silvicultural costs, the reforestation costs, in the event that a section of that area-based tenure was in fact allocated for other use and was harvested by a small business operator? I would assume that the land would still revert to the licence-holder, but would it therefore be the Crown that would be responsible for the forest management?

Hon. D. Miller: If it were a major licence, it would be the responsibility of the licensee. If it were a minor licence, a small business sale, the costs would be recaptured through the bidding process, and the Crown would undertake the responsibility for silviculture.

W. Hurd: In light of the fact that the licensee would be picking up the cost of reforestation and silviculture in any event, from a policy perspective, would it be an advantage for the ministry to direct an applicant to deal with the licence-holder? Are we not running the risk here that a small business operator might seek to bypass the licensee when identifying an opportunity? Or can the minister assure us that under this particular section of the act it would be a consultative process in which the licensee was fully aware of the applicant coming f

[ Page 2677 ]

orward and fully cognizant of the fact that they were going to have to pick up the reforestation costs in an area that they might not previously have been willing or able to harvest? Can he assure us that that type of consultation will be ongoing?

Hon. D. Miller: That would be clearly established in the licence. I just want to draw a distinction between the current small business program, some of which takes place on TFL lands as a result of the taking-back, and what we are looking at with respect to this section. That would be detailed in the licence documents.

W. Hurd: I guess my question wasn't succinct enough. I was just seeking assurances from the minister that where a block of timber was identified -- whether by species, grade or type -- within the tree-farm licence area, if the minister were to allocate that to another company or to another small business and if the reforestation costs were being borne by the licensee, they would have some input as to the time-frame involved and whether or not as a licensee holding a TFL they had it within their budget to meet the reforestation responsibilities. As the minister is aware, rehabilitation of logged land is a fairly costly endeavour. One would hope that the licensee would have some input or direction as to when they would be forced to incur those costs on areas that the ministry had allocated.

Hon. D. Miller: I hope I didn't cause any of the confusion. The licensee -- the holder of the TFL -- would not be responsible. It would be the new licensee who applied for the problem types or deciduous types of forests who would be responsible for silviculture, not the holder of the TFL.

W. Hurd: Just a point of clarification. The new applicant would then be responsible for incurring the costs of planting in addition to any silviculture work required, and it would not revert to the licensee.

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

L. Fox: If last night's briefing had been called at a time when we weren't in here giving this second reading, perhaps some of these questions would not have been necessary.

Just a point of clarification. What factors does the government want the regional manager to consider in this section? Does this create another opportunity to keep moving the goalposts in order to ensure that a favoured applicant is awarded a woodlot licence? Could the use of union labour be a consideration? I'll ask all these at one time so that we can try to save some time. Could the wage rates paid to employees be a consideration? Could this section be used to discriminate against non-citizens or foreign investors?

[7:15]

Hon. D. Miller: We don't discriminate. We already have the ability to consider those other factors in policy, and really, if I can characterize them generally, it relates to experience. This is a fairly unique form of licence, and I think that's an important factor. The other important part is that where we have a competition for a woodlot licence that may involve maybe six applicants, and there's a tie between the top two, the current act requires that we go back and give every applicant the opportunity to rebid. The amendment simply says that that competition will be between the top two who are tied; the others drop off.

L. Fox: Just one further clarification. One of the issues that's always disturbed me about the awarding of a woodlot licence is the emphasis that's given to how much expertise the individual has with respect to the wood industry. For instance, preferential treatment was given to somebody who was a registered forester, should he apply. It always appeared to me that a farmer, even though he could hire the expertise in order to manage the woodlot properly, didn't have the same opportunities. Does this amendment allow for that criterion to be changed somewhat, or are we still talking about RPFs being the preferred individuals to receive woodlots?

Hon. D. Miller: I hope the member would understand or appreciate that experience is required. One of the handicaps that I face as the minister, in looking at the woodlot licence -- and I've discussed this with the woodlot association -- is the paper requirement that's imposed. It has been considered a major licence. The paperwork is a burden. At the same time, I find myself lacking in the kinds of resources I would like to have within the ministry so that we could have a greater extension service to assist these people in managing the land, because I think, and I think all British Columbians agree, there is a high regard for woodlot licences as a form of management. Clearly, in terms of success, it is important that experience be considered, and certainly we do not discriminate. Simply being a RPF does not guarantee that you are sort of the top candidate -- or other criteria. I think people in the farming community are among the most experienced people in this province when it comes to land management, and I'm sure that's reflected in the woodlot awards.

L. Fox: I, too, had meetings with representatives of the woodlot association, and although they didn't totally agree with my concerns, they had some sympathy for them. I am concerned, to be quite honest, that it's a people's resource, and we can buy expertise. There are four active forest consultants in my little community of 3,500 who would be readily available to any applicant. I am concerned that that isn't given any kind of consideration in terms of the woodlot award.

The other section that I have to wonder about, as to whether or not this amendment is.... I know the minister's aware of the concerns that were raised in my area over the awarding of a woodlot to a school district, when in fact the school district was competing with the 

[ Page 2678 ]

private sector. Would this in fact allow the regional manager to consider a direct award to school districts versus having the Forests ministry put forth a fictitious competition that was really designed to be an award to a school district? Many individuals actually put a lot of effort into competing for that woodlot, only to find out it was the intent of the Forests ministry to award it to the school district. I'm wondering if that kind of concern is looked after within this amendment as well.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, there may be some legal opinion, but my view is that you can't award to a school district. You can award to a society, but not to a school district. There has been a debate, I think, revolving around municipalities applying for woodlot licences, but that is not really part of this section of the bill, hon. member.

Really, we're looking at a number of factors. I can assure you that I understand your concerns. It is not something that we would dedicate simply to those who have a history of being professionals in forestry, whether they be RPFs or whatever. But I think we would agree as well that woodlots have a certain uniqueness. They embody the notion that the people who live on the land manage the land and are thereby somehow closer to it. That's the essence of the amendments, hon. member.

Sections 15 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

L. Fox: Previously the registrar could cancel the mark upon the recommendation of a district manager, with no cause given. The attached condition to the certificate for a timber mark issued for a private property is another move to curb personal property rights. I really have some difficulty with respect to the personal property issue, and I would ask whether I understand that correctly. Does it involve the timber mark issued on private property?

Hon. D. Miller: The timber mark is simply used to identify the logs. I don't see any implications for private property whatsoever.

Sections 31 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

L. Fox: I'm sure the minister will recall that this is the area I spoke most vehemently on last evening. I have a real concern. This is another bill that has a favourite clause of this government: "no compensation." It concerns me greatly that the government really absolves itself of any mistakes, takes away the rights of licensees and offers no compensation. I believe that if we are really doing the right thing with respect to this resource, it should be able to stand the test of the courts and of due process. I object to this section. It would probably be the section that would cause me to vote against this bill.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to Hansard of some days ago, when we debated the Range Amendment Act. All the arguments I used then apply here. I tried to reassure members at that time that there was nothing nefarious about it, and I will restate that.

I would suggest, however, that the member look at this from a slightly different perspective. We are talking about quite an important matter: an act that governs the activities in and use of our most valuable resource. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the resource is used wisely and administered wisely, and that the management of it is all that it should be. The Forest Act governs all those activities and all the things the public are so concerned about these days. We are not exercising the heavy hand of the state. We are the owners of the resource laying out, in very clear and simple terms, the rules with respect to the use of that resource. That is right and proper; we have a responsibility to do that. I would say to the member that his fears are unfounded. I think, dare I say, that the word "compensation" tends to cause members some anxiety that perhaps they wouldn't have upon a thorough reading of the bill.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to be making light of the compensation issue. I would remind the minister that this government appointed a compensation commissioner to look at a fair method of determining compensation for licence-holders who, one would assume, would be under the Forest Act. I'm sure the minister would welcome the opportunity to explain how section 48 of this bill dovetails with the direction being taken by the Attorney General in this government -- I'm glad to see he's made a reappearance in the House -- and with the Schwindt commission. With this act coming into force, are people whose rights, licence arrangements and therefore income have been in some way affected by this bill seeing their rights expunged under this particular section, when another commission of this government is examining whether, if their rights have been impacted by any ministry of this government, they might have a right to compensation? Perhaps, in the spirit of debate, the minister would be willing to explain that seeming contradiction.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to say first of all that I was not making light of the issue of compensation. I was making light of the opposition's arguments, because they're kind of foolish. I'll take a very few minutes, Mr.Chairman, if you don't rule me out of order, because it is out of order, quite frankly. There is no relationship between the provision in section 48 and the general issue of compensation. If the member is suggesting that it's inappropriate for the Crown -- the owners of the resource -- to determine what is an appropriate compensation regime for those resources, I wonder what century you popped out of. I can't think of any modern government with a resource base that doesn't think it is fundamentally required to determine an appropriate mechanism for deciding issues such as compensation. If you're saying that that important public policy should be abandoned for some knee-jerk 

[ Page 2679 ]

concept that I fail to understand, then I'm sorry, I can't agree with you.

[7:30]

L. Fox: Given that it was apparently my concern that the minister was making light of it, not the fact of no compensation.... I felt compelled to rise because I strongly believe -- and I say this with a lot of compassion -- that if the government is right in its decision to remove a portion of a licence, reduce an AAC, or take whatever action it deems necessary in the best interests of the province, it should stand the test of due process. It should stand the test of the courts. I, as a civilian or individual living within British Columbia, should have the right to that appeal and should have the right to that opportunity. I believe that it's heavy-handed of this government, in every bill that I've seen come forward.... It has this clause along with Bill 32. There's a definite purpose to it, and I do believe, as the other opposition member stated, that you are making light of it. I think it is a real threat. There are many good points in this bill that I would like to support, but I cannot support this bill with this particular clause, because it usurps my rights as a British Columbian.

Hon. D. Miller: The member is free, of course, to vote as his conscience and intellect dictate, but I want to be very clear in rejecting the allegation made by the member. I would repeat that the simple use of the word "compensation" is not enough to give rise to that kind of ideological position that you seem to be describing.

It is not in any way connected, as I've said, with work that's being done in other areas. It is routine; you will find this in many bills. You will find it in a bill, for example, that I debated when I was on your side of the House, brought forward by the previous Minister of Forests and dealing with range issues. It had the very same provisions.

An Hon. Member: Did you argue against the provisions?

Hon. D. Miller: I didn't argue against them. The minister and I agreed. The member is entitled to his opinions, and I respect his opinions even when I differ with his opinions, but the logic he is using here with respect to this section and his seeming declaration that he's going to vote against the bill is wrong. I don't mind you using your ideology to vote against something if that's appropriate, but it is not appropriate; it doesn't fit. Do what you like.

W. Hurd: I'm sure the minister would welcome an opportunity to clarify a hypothetical situation under section 48 of this act that could occur in the next few weeks after this bill becomes law. If someone were to phone my office or his office and identify the manner by which their rights had been seriously affected -- they suffered a material loss in terms of one section of this bill coming into force -- perhaps he would welcome the opportunity to instruct the opposition on what we should tell this individual as to his right to sue the Crown for any damages he may have suffered under this act. We seem to be dealing with a government that fails to recognize the difference between the legislative arm of government and the judiciary. Perhaps the minister can clarify that. Tell us it isn't true that a person involved in the forest business in this province will not be able to go to court and have a section of this bill interpreted by the courts, as has always been their right in this province. Tell us it isn't so.

Hon. D. Miller: The member's hypothesis was so obtuse, I'm unable to respond.

W. Hurd: If that's obtuse, the court case would be even worse.

My interpretation of section 48 is that the person who might be aggrieved by this act or suffer damages has no right to pursue a legal remedy. It's absolutely astonishing to the opposition that this onerous clause of no compensation can be defended by every minister who has advanced it in every bill we've dealt with in this session. Minister after minister and bill after bill, they blithely advise this House that they see absolutely nothing wrong with denying due process to a person who might be affected by this bill -- denying them the right to have their day in court to see if they can prove that their well-being is affected as a result of this act coming into force.

It's important to read into the public record that that is the position of the minister. He is comfortable defending that. When we vote against this particular section and divide on it, as I'm sure we will, the public of the province will be well aware of which side of the House supports due process and the rights of people to go to court, and which side of the House recognizes that it's a trivial matter contained in every bill that we need not worry about.

Hon. D. Miller: As I said, members are free to do what their conscience and intellect guide them to do. Before they vote, I would just like to tell them what they're voting about. This section, if you read it, refers to sections 7 and 28. What this all means collectively is that because we are saying to tree-farm licence-holders that we are now going to require them to use the criteria for determining annual allowable cut that we require for timber supply areas, they can't sue us. That's what it says. The members passed sections 7 and 28, so clearly they must agree with them. All this says is that because we are putting these new requirements in place, you cannot sue us.

If the members want to vote against this bill on that basis, then be my guest.

L. Fox: When I read 48(a), "a reduction in the value of anything," and 48(b), "any loss or damages," I read a whole lot into those statements. So I don't agree with the minister, unfortunately. And I won't say what I said once before. Let me just say that I don't trust this bill at this point in time, and I am obviously going to vote against this particular section.

Hon. D. Miller: Really, read the bill. You're right that it says: "(a) a reduction in value of anything, or (b) 

[ Page 2680 ]

any loss or damages because of the effect of the amendments to the Forest Act made by sections 3 and 12(d) of this act." So Mr. Chairman, let me try to hypothesize. I'm not very good at it, but let me try.

TFL 99, which has been in existence for 30 years and has been making its submission to the chief forester on its annual allowable cut determinations based on a system that they themselves developed. Say that their system doesn't fit our system. What we've said in the act is: "You will now be required to use our system." When we go to that TFL and say: "This is the new requirement that we are putting in place; you have to use our system," this section of the bill says they can't turn around and say: "You can't impose that new criterion. I'm going to sue you." That's all it does.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Really? I admit, I've tried my best, Mr. Chairman; I've exhausted myself. I've used all of my best arguments. I've failed to penetrate the minds of the members of the opposition. I don't know what more I can do. There's nothing nefarious; it's simply a protection that, as I explained in the Range Act....

An Hon. Member: It's not due process.

Hon. D. Miller: Because we're changing a system that's been in place to one that's better, we're saying: "You can't sue us because we're doing it." Those trees are our resources.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. member, I'm sorry, I've tried my best. There may be others who can do a better job, but....

W. Hurd: There may be some TFL licence holders in the province who aren't possessed of the brilliant legal mind of the Minister of Forests and may decide, as they're wont to do, that they are willing to go out and hire a lawyer -- as much of a waste of time as that might be -- and decide that there might be some avenue here for them to sue the Crown, as they have a right to do. Unfortunately, these luckless individuals will go to court on the instructions of their lawyer and find out that as a result of an obscure clause under the act, they have absolutely no right to sue the Crown and have wasted all their legal fees and time off work and everything else.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Forests minister has been a very active participant in this government, but we weren't aware that he had passed into the realm of legal judgment and legal opinion to licence-holders in the province. But those individuals will of course find out, when they get to court, that the minister has carefully covered his tracks in this bill. Even though one of the time-honoured traditions in our system of government is the separation of the judicial and the legislative arms of government, they will find when they get to court that in fact they've been melded into one in this bill, and no compensation will be available -- as misguided an approach as that might be for the licence-holder, Mr. Chairman. On this side of the House we don't presume that the same intelligence the minister possesses is in fact possessed by the licence-holders in this province. They may inadvertently pursue that course of action. All I can say, when those people call the opposition concerned about their rights being expunged, is that all calls will be referred to the minister. I'm confident that he'll answer them as straightforwardly as he has in the House tonight and that the explanation will satisfy them.

[7:45]

Section 48 approved on the following division:

Section 49 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 61, Forest Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Miller: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 61, Forest Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed on division.

[ Page 2681 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 58.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, contains amendments to seven statutes administered by the Ministry of Attorney General. I shall briefly describe the more significant amendments.

The Correction Act is amended to extend to persons sentenced for civil contempt the same entitlement to earned remission as is presently available to persons sentenced for offences under an enactment. This amendment will remove the unfairness that those sentenced for civil contempt lack the opportunity to earn remission of their sentences in the same manner as other provincial inmates.

Other amendments to the Correction Act clarify the regulation-making power to provide for the management of youth containment centres and the establishment of a process for reviewing the decisions of disciplinary panels.

An amendment to the Escheat Act will improve the process by which the land of a dissolved company which has escheated to the Crown may be revested in that company. The present process of obtaining an order-in-council to revest such land is administrably cumbersome for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and for the applicants. This amendment will improve this process by providing for an application not to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council but to the Supreme Court, which would consider such an application at the same time that it considers an application to revive a dissolved company. It would be a term of any such court order that the Crown be reimbursed for its costs and expenses. This amendment will significantly reduce the number of applications for grants of land under the Escheat Act with which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have to be concerned.

Two amendments to the Family Relations Act would bring the processes in our act respecting reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders into line with those in other provinces. The amendments allow applications to be made to a British Columbia court in circumstances where there is currently no access to our courts. In so doing they provide a remedy for situations which do not occur frequently but which can present difficulties for those concerned, when they do arise. The first amendment enables both those who pay and those who receive maintenance to register here in British Columbia a maintenance order made out-of-province, so that it might be varied. The second amendment will allow a maintenance order which has been varied in a provisional or interim way in another province to be registered in a British Columbia court, so that it may be further dealt with in British Columbia when one of the parties concerned is resident here.

An amendment to the Land Title Act will authorize the use of electronic information technology for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the official record of land title documents. The amendment provides that a copy made from the original document or an exact duplicate thereof which the registrar makes and certifies to be a true copy of the original is admissible in court to the same extent as the original document would be. The certificate of the registrar is conclusive proof to a court that a duplicate was made using the procedures and techniques required under the Land Title Act. This amendment ensures that the existing policy of the act respecting copies is confirmed and maintained.

The Liquor Control and Licensing Act is amended to restrict the carrying of opened liquor in a motor vehicle. While the act currently prohibits the consumption of liquor in a vehicle, this is often difficult to prove in court. Except for the prescribed circumstances, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while there is liquor in their possession or in the vehicle. Examples of exceptions would include unopened liquor or liquor in the trunk of a car.

The act is further amended to provide for the imposition of fines on businesses licensed under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. This change will allow more effective enforcement of the act by providing an optional method of encouraging compliance, particularly when circumstances do not necessarily merit a licence suspension. The use of fines also offers the advantage that it does not financially impact employees, as does a licence suspension.

The Supreme Court Act is amended in several ways. One amendment allows for the appointment of an additional judge to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. As a result of this amendment the court will consist of a Chief Justice, an Associate Chief Justice and 82 other judges, rather than 81, as at present. The Commission of Inquiry into Municipal Policing announced on May 20 will be conducted by the Hon. Mr. Justice Wally T. Oppal. It may be some 18 months before the work of the commission will be completed. The caseload of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is such that it is necessary to provide for the appointment of another judge to ensure that the work of the Supreme Court does not suffer.

The Supreme Court Act is also amended to bring the term of office and pension entitlements of masters of the Supreme Court into line with those of Provincial Court judges. This amendment is in accord with the recommendation of the Justice Reform Committee that masters who are officers of the court have the same terms of employment as Provincial Court judges.

Another amendment to the Supreme Court Act will allow a Supreme Court judge or a master to transfer to Provincial Court proceedings that are within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Act. A matter could be so transferred, where a judge or master considers it appropriate to do so, if a party to the proceedings applies to the judge or master or all parties agree to the transfer. This will enable matters to be transferred to the Provincial Court when it is more appropriate that they be heard in that court.

An amendment to the Wills Variation Act will improve the present provision respecting the notice that must be given when a will is contested. The amendment will require a person contesting a will to file a copy of 

[ Page 2682 ]

the application in the registry where the will has been probated. The executor of an estate will be able, therefore, to search the probate registry prior to distributing the assets of the estate, in order to determine whether an application to contest the will has been made.

Given that this is a miscellaneous bill, I think the debate would more effectively be conducted during committee stage, although I don't want to suggest by that that no debate should take place in second reading. I have not argued the issue but rather have simply explained what the provisions are, so that in committee stage members can be prepared to conduct the debate. I move second reading, hon. Speaker.

A. Warnke: I rise to speak to Bill 58. I want to state at the outset that in the opening remarks by the Attorney General, the approach that he has taken here has been most constructive. In particular, I must admit -- and it's almost a confession -- that I did have one particular question with regard to the Supreme Court Act that I would have taken up in committee stage, but the Attorney General has actually answered in full the particular question that I was about to ask.

[8:00]

The approach that the Attorney General has taken in introducing this bill is quite satisfactory to me, in terms of outlining the various subjects. This is a miscellaneous bill, and as a result, various subjects are discussed and covered in it. I would agree with the Attorney General that when we are dealing with a miscellaneous bill, there's no underlying principle that ties all aspects of the bill itself. There's no overriding principle in such a bill as this and, therefore, to elaborate on a general principle of the bill is, of course, not even appropriate here. Nonetheless, I would like to take this opportunity in second reading to make some comments that I think are appropriate at this particular stage, and I hope that the Attorney General will elaborate on them in the summary remarks that close second reading.

One area that the Attorney General mentioned was with regard to the Family Relations Act. There's a general consensus -- if I may quote someone I read -- that such an approach and amendments to the Family Relations Act are long overdue. Other provinces in Canada have enacted similar reciprocal agreements that serve not only to enforce but to actually contribute to the maintenance order. This particular bill allows for this provision. Indeed, this bill is especially sensitive to the transient nature of families, which we are all keenly aware of, and it allows for a charge for services emanating from parties that incurred travel costs and so forth. They will essentially not be penalized as a result of an original decision that took place in another province.

One might also add that one could concede that there is an attempt here to remove lawyers from this particular process. To many people, this is a constructive move, but there are also concerns. Perhaps rather than putting them in a context that we have severe reservations about the bill, or we oppose the bill, and so forth, I want to put them in the context of maybe some questions or some statements to which the Attorney General could respond in his closing remarks.

One factor is, again, the question of consultations. Not as serious as some other bills, perhaps -- and we'll talk about some of the other bills later on -- but, again, has the government consulted anyone, in particular those who have liquor licensing privileges, especially in businesses in this area? I'm not entirely convinced that the consultation had really occurred here. It seems to me there's some reflection of that in the community.

The government has also not indicated in its amendments what type of fee schedule it is considering. Perhaps at some later point, in the summary remarks or at the committee stage, we could pursue that. With regard to liquor-licensing privileges, for example, we talk about a so-called "stiffer fine." Well, we can explore whether a fine is adequate, or what we mean by a stiffer fine. As some members of the community or the society at large, have put it, perhaps a suspension of licensing privileges is much more effective. After all, I don't think it takes too many examples to illustrate that there are those in society who, when they operate a business, are quite willing to figure in fines as some sort of business cost. One of the most outstanding examples of this, I suppose, is in Ontario, where there are businesses that openly violate Sunday shopping laws and are quite willing to pay even large fines, knowing full well that the return they get is far more than the fines actually paid.

There is a debate there, I suppose, as to whether fines are not another form of raising revenue. I say that not to be cynical, or anything like that, but indeed there are people who have raised this to my attention, that maybe we could see this bill as just another way of raising revenue. I hope that it is not for the purposes of raising revenue. But there is a debate as to what is more effective -- imposing fines or suspending certain licensing privileges.

What this also hints at is a question that this bill might appear to be making some simple amendments. It could, I suppose, be construed as some sort of housekeeping bill, although that term has been somewhat overused. In particular, the amendments to two statutes can be seen as soliciting additional revenue, and as one put to me, it's a way of acquiring hidden new taxes. I wouldn't go that far, but one wonders about that.

In particular -- and we'll take this up a little in committee -- I want to draw attention to two such amendments to statutes. The amendment to the Land Title Act would allow a so-called prescribed fee to be charged for an application for an exemption fee. Prior to this amendment, there was no stipulation that a fee must be charged. The amendment does not include a schedule which might indicate the fee to be paid. How much will this fee be? Or, as a cynic would put it, how much will this new tax cost?

With regard to fines, there is a view that.... Once again, to a business, what hurts more -- a fine or the suspension of a licence? It's not altogether clear whether the amendment to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will introduce a system of fines which would be imposed on businesses, instead of the current practice 

[ Page 2683 ]

of suspending liquor licence privileges for an indeterminate number of days.

Those are a few comments I would like to initiate in addressing this bill. On the whole, at this time I will wait and see what other members might add to this debate. In particular, I want to listen to the closing remarks of the Attorney General.

C. Serwa: My comments, after hearing my learned colleague speak, will probably be very brief. This is one of the opportunities of a layperson talking in an area where they really have very little in the way of background. Nevertheless, addressing the philosophy and principles of this bill, I would like to make some comments. The first is with respect to the Correction Act and the reduction in sentences for civil contempt.

I'm not really aware of the length of the sentences involved in breaches that are attendant to civil contempt. I suspect that while the Attorney General wishes to bring them into line with the criminal charge system, perhaps it's not entirely appropriate, in that the length of the sentence is normally not substantial.

I'm really concerned about civil contempt and the various situations that may occur, which can in fact lead to a form of anarchy. I have a great deal of concern about that. I may be exaggerating the situation, but civil contempt tends to propagate very rapidly. We'll see it in a climate, whether it is an industrial relations climate or something involved with the environment. I think that court decisions must be respected. Those charged with civil contempt should perhaps be treated differently than those charged with criminal charges, in my estimation. I have no difficulty with the acknowledgement of criminal charges; but with the type of sentences that I think are generally imposed for civil contempt, I don't think that it's perhaps that significant.

The other area I would like to talk about briefly when we look at the philosophy and principles of this with respect to the Liquor Control And Licensing Act.... I acknowledge the commitment of the Attorney General, who is responsible for these amendments, and his strong feelings. I think those are shared by all members of this Legislature on what has transpired with drinking and driving and the cost to society -- not only the economic cost, but certainly the sociological cost. I think we all lament and perhaps despair the injustices that occur to individuals who, through no fault of their own other than sheer coincidence, are impacted by a driver who has been drinking.

I would suggest, though, that other measures are more appropriate, rather than this particular section under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, and would be more appropriate to take -- rather than to penalize those who are not drinking and driving -- and to recognize that those who do drink and drive have to be charged undoubtedly far more forcibly than they are at the present time. I think there are other jurisdictions in the world -- whether it's Holland or Sweden -- that are much more severe and demanding on that situation. I think those would be appropriate tacks to take.

I have some concerns, when we look at the philosophy and principles of this bill and recognize the description of motor vehicles. Motor vehicles today do not simply mean the passenger vehicles that we drive around in, although it can. We can go out for a picnic and have wine with it, and we may come home with part of a bottle of wine. Perhaps that's more desirable than going to the picnic and ensuring that we drink all the wine before we start driving home. We're concerned with public safety on highways, and I'm not certain that this will do it. We utilize campers, motor homes and even transport trucks that are fundamentally second homes. Under the description of motor vehicles, in every case under motor vehicles that I've described, this piece of legislation comes into effect. I don't think that was the intent of the Attorney General.

An amendment may be required or some other approach to a very serious problem. I have difficulty with this. When we look at motor vehicles such as motor homes having the same rights as a home, for example -- where I think a warrant is required for entry -- to consider it as a motor vehicle under this part of the act is going to create all sorts of problems on a population and for no significant benefit. I think that we're going to look at attending to drivers drinking on the road. There are other approaches that should focus on and penalize those individuals, but not on society collectively. So I have concerns about that one.

[8:15]

The pension statutes are rather interesting, having just participated in passing some legislation on human rights amendments and then finding that the Attorney General has decided on a specific age that forces the retirement of masters at 70 years of age. We're all aware that, in our normal lives, we experience some people who are very old at 55 or 60; I'm 57, so I'm in between. The reality is that we age physically and mentally at substantially different rates, and there are people who are masters and are intellectually bright at 70, 75, 80 or 85 and perhaps can stand up to the demands of the job. Others will not retain that brightness or capacity to the age of 70. By arbitrarily deciding on an age of 70, it seems to me that we're creating a fine line where we do a disservice to those who may want to continue, and we're encouraging those who are less capable to remain for that period of time.

I suspect that it's really not quite appropriate, in view of our concerns and the concerns expounded by the government of the day with respect to social and human rights. So this seems out of line, in my perspective. We should evaluate an individual on their degree of competence, and that should be the measure, not an arbitrary figure -- albeit of 70 years -- that dictates that you're no longer capable past that point, which we all know is really untrue.

Other than that, we'll look forward with interest as debate on the various sections progresses. Perhaps the minister will reflect on some of the comments of my colleague in the official opposition and me.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll be brief, given the long list of bills we'd like to get through tonight before we go home. Obviously we have an opportunity in committee 

[ Page 2684 ]

stage to do a bit more if I don't give full enough answers to the members.

On the liquor licensing issue, first of all in respect to open liquor in automobiles, this was largely driven by the Snowdon report, which came out of the Penticton incident of last summer and the White Rock beach incidents of several summers, where there has been a real problem with liquor and with getting convictions. The simple amendment to change it from "consumption" to "possession" of opened liquor in a car was designed to try to deal with that, to give the police some ability to actually deal with the drunken rowdiness that occurs occasionally at these festivals. Provisions are very clear in there that if you want to go to a picnic and come home with half a bottle of wine, as long as it's stowed securely in the trunk -- or, if it's a station wagon or a hatchback or a motor home, in an inaccessible part of the car to the passengers -- then it's entirely within the law to come back with that half-bottle of wine. The other concerns that I think the member for Okanagan West raised are better able to be dealt with in committee stage.

As for the varied penalties available under the Liquor Licensing Act, the problem we have now is that if you are in violation, the only penalty is to close down the facility. That's a pretty heavy-duty penalty for what might be an infraction that doesn't warrant that severe a penalty. As a result, often no penalty is levied. We will be giving the manager of the liquor licensing branch the authority to impose a series of penalties, and that will enable us to provide a more appropriate one. It's not designed as a revenue measure. The revenues that will come from this will be insignificant in total terms.

The Land Title Act fee. It will be far cheaper now for people doing conveyancing under this system to have documents transferred. Now you've got couriers involved. You've got to have documents delivered from Victoria, or from the closest land title office, to the office of the lawyer, which may be in a town that is not serviced by a land title office. There are considerable costs there. The costs are now going to be considerably cheaper. I'll try to give you the precise numbers in committee stage. The fee is simply to recover the costs of bringing in the electronic imaging system, and nothing more. It will be a significant saving for lawyers and their clients.

The Correction Act. It's really an anomaly in the law that people sentenced to imprisonment for civil infractions are not allowed to acquire earned remission, as are all other people who go to jail. It seems to me that the corrections branch should not be determining the extent of the sentence by its remission programs; the court should be determining the extent of the sentence. If the member's concern is that infractions for civil contempt are not getting dealt with severely enough, that's not a corrections problem; that's for judges to deal with. We simply want to make sure that everybody who is in the corrections system is eligible for the same programs, and that's what that is designed to do for earned remission.

Masters and the age of 70. The agreement we made earlier with the masters was to provide all of the same conditions that apply to provincial court judges. Provincial court judges are retired at age 70. I have a lot of sympathy for what the member says about arbitrary ages. Some of us should get out at 50 and others can keep going at 80. But it's the way we still do things with these arbitrary ages. It's there because that's what the provincial court judges have. I haven't been asked very vigorously to change that provision, so there's no change contemplated on that. Masters are going to be in the same situation as provincial court judges.

I think that covers the issues that were raised. If I didn't cover appropriately, we'll get to that in committee stage. With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 58, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 66.

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY
TAX REFORM ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 66 for second reading this evening. As I related in first reading, this legislation contains a number of provisions relating to assessments and property taxation in the province and changes that will reduce abrupt assessment increases for taxpayers and enable local governments to manage property tax changes caused by unstable real estate markets. One provision restores annual assessments. This measure will improve assessment quality and provide for more gradual year-over-year changes in property taxes. Another section provides for municipal averaging and phasing options, which will allow local governments to level out year-over-year changes in property taxes. The provisions relating to annual assessments and the averaging and phasing options are particularly important in terms of the positive impact for local government.

While British Columbia has property taxes that are among the lowest in Canada, considerable concern -- not just the last few years; I think this has been a situation that has arisen many times -- has been expressed in recent years over how quickly property taxes can change, sometimes within a period of one year in response, of course, to changes in the real estate market. The market's boom-and-bust cycles can create hardship, particularly for seniors and taxpayers on fixed incomes. The measures we are introducing today provide for more gradual changes in property taxes. Under the provisions of this legislation the current practice of biannual assessments will be replaced by annual assessments. This means that taxpayers will receive assessment notices every year, obviously, instead of every two years.

The more frequent assessments will mean that changes to property taxes will come in more gradual increments. If annual assessments had been in place in the booming real estate markets of the late 1980s and 

[ Page 2685 ]

early 1990s, assessment volatility would have been reduced by roughly 20 percent on typical Vancouver homes. For example, the tax impact of changing property values, leaving aside any increases to overall tax levels, caused taxes on a modest house on Vancouver's west side to jump by 90 percent in 1989. Annual assessments will not stop market-driven changes from occurring, but they would make it occur more gradually, cutting the 90 percent in half by making it occur over two years.

While this is a significant improvement, a 50 percent increase in taxes is still too substantial. For this reason, the bill does not stop at annual assessment. In some cases local governments may wish to take action beyond what is provided for by annual assessment. The new averaging and phasing options allow such flexibility. Averaging allows the assessed value of land to be averaged over three years. This measure provides a straightforward administrative method of reducing property tax increases without providing benefits to those who have made value-adding improvements within the averaging period. If averaging had been in place in the booming real estate markets of the late eighties and 1990s it would have, in combination with annual assessments, reduced property tax volatility by as much as 48 percent on the average Vancouver home.

Phasing provides a similar effect, one that is more focused on properties which have had a larger than average increase. For example, using the modest west side house on which I spoke earlier, the sharp rise and fall in taxes, which was as high as 90 percent in one year, would be replaced with a much more stable pattern of changes which in this example never exceeds 20 percent.

The averaging and phasing provisions in this legislation replace property tax measures that were introduced in recent years. Specifically, the residential flat tax and the option of separate municipal tax rates on residential land and improvements are both being eliminated. Averaging and phasing will achieve the same objective, namely more gradual increases in property taxes, more effectively and more fairly than the old measures. The old options were used by very few municipalities; however, the provision is made for their continued use by those municipalities should they so desire.

Another provision in the act moves assessment dates later in the year by three months. This will allow more efficient use of existing assessment resources and provide savings which, in turn, will offset a significant portion of the cost of annual assessments. Please make note, hon. member: will offset a significant portion of the cost of annual assessments.

This reform act also provides more consistency among the mandates of assessors, courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board. Changes to the powers of the courts of revision and the assessment appeal board are being made because there currently is no effective way of dealing with the issue of consistent treatment of a number of properties during an appeal of an individual property. Under this legislation, the assessment appeal board can order the assessment commissioner to reassess an area if he or she believes, on the basis of evidence presented during individual property appeals, the properties have been assessed inconsistently. Basically the real market value will prevail in all aspects of assessment.

As well, this legislation closes a loophole under which a token amount of farming activity can substantially reduce taxes on large vacant parcels of land. This deals with situations where developers arrange to have a small amount of development property farmed to virtually eliminate property taxes on entire large parcels of land.

[8:30]

Oil wells, natural gas wells and plants are being added to those properties which are valued as major industrial property. This measure will provide for consistent treatment of industrial properties and cost-effective assessment of this difficult-to-value property. Just to clarify, this is not a change. Currently oil wells, refinery plants and ancillary industrial plants are assessed and taxed. These particular components of the industry have been in the more remote parts of the province, and of course we are now being able to establish where they're located and apply the appropriate assessment as industrial property.

This legislation also sets out rules governing the disclosure of confidential property information to protect owners from the unauthorized use of information which they provide to practitioners.

All of the major changes in this legislation are being made after extensive consultation with local government, and have received full support from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I move second reading of the bill.

A. Cowie: There appears to be no single underlying principle in this bill. The bill has some merits. The bill, in our opinion, would have been better broken down into smaller bills so that it could be dealt with more efficiently. We also note that the mayor of Vancouver, the president of the UBCM and other municipal leaders support the bill as they understand it, as it has been presented to them. They require more efficiency and a better system to operate under, and some provisions do exactly this.

We have no objection regarding phasing in assessments, even though there are problems. We note that the bill allows the municipalities to make that choice, but the bill takes away basic principles of fairness and equity. There's a fundamental shift that this government has introduced. We could support the bill if fairness and equity were to be brought back as part of the appeal process.

I have a couple of quotes, one from an article called New Directions For Local Government Finance, brought in by the last government, August 1990. It says that the property tax system is based on principles of fairness and equity, neutrality, stability, predictability, clarity and accountability; any reforms must advance such principles. We give the last government full marks on that statement. We also want to give the now minister full marks for the following small quote of July 17, 1990. In the debates the hon. member stated: "Property owners need to be assured and to have a belief that the government of the day will not ask them to pay more 

[ Page 2686 ]

than their fair share." That is exactly what is being taken out by this bill, and we object to it.

We encourage the members to vote against the bill in second reading. If government, following our suggestions for amendments, brings in the provision for fairness and equity again, then we would encourage members to vote for the bill.

L. Fox: There are many aspects of the bill that I know have been the thrust of the UBCM for a considerable length of time. I look forward to debating those particular aspects during committee stage. However, as I have seen in so many other bills, camouflaged among those initiatives are some real zingers. In this case, I'm not even sure that the minister himself understands the importance of these.

I would refer specifically to sections 17 and 20. They are an erosion of the taxpayers' rights. This proposed legislation will allow the Assessment Appeal Board to increase the assessments on properties that neighbour the property under appeal. The minister will be aware that there are two basic reasons or grounds to appeal an assessment: either the assessment is too high or the assessment is inequitable with assessments of similar properties. Sections 17 and 20 would remove fairness and equity, which is something that during the past year a five-judge panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal found should be a key in considering the establishment of property assessments.

Firstly, it appears to me that section 17 will take away the taxpayers' ability to ask the tax assessor to consider equality in assessments. Secondly, and even worse, the instance of the situation of the taxpayer asking about the assessments ascribed to properties, where they're similar to his, section 20 of this bill provides the Assessment Appeal Board the opportunity to increase the comparable assessments used in that appeal.

Let me explain. If I own a property assessed at $20,000 and I feel that it is too high, based on three similar properties of the same size and in the same area but assessed at approximately $16,000, and I use those properties in my appeal, the Assessment Appeal Board can arbitrarily raise those other three properties up to my level, if it sees fit, without the involvement of the owners of those properties. That is not fairness and equity.

I ask the minister: does he understand -- I don't believe he does -- the ramifications of those two clauses?

Interjection.

L. Fox: I will check, and I have checked, and they do not understand, hon. minister. I believe that you were snookered by the Assessment Authority in these two sections of the bill.

I want to quote a letter which states it very well.

"Prior to the 1991 decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the matter of Bramalea, the position taken by the Assessment Authority was that the prime test as to the correction of an assessment was the particular property's actual market value in comparison to its assessed value. In instances where the taxpayer compared the assessment on his property to the assessment of other, similar properties, the assessor rejected such arguments, in effect saying that equity of assessments was subsequent to actual value. In the instance of the Bramalea appeal, the matter proceeded to the B.C. Court of Appeal by way of appeal filed by the Assessment Authority. Subsequently, I understand, the Assessment Authority have made a request to appeal this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, with leave to appeal having been turned down."

Hon. minister, I think you should, respectfully, withdraw these two sections from the bill in order to give yourself time to understand the ramifications and the precedent that you're setting and the difficulties you will create for individuals not even going through the appeal process. Their rights will be usurped. I would guess that Mr. Johnstone, in charge of the Assessment Authority, is extremely appreciative that he has finally managed to get this issue to this level. He has tried for years. I would assume that you will do the right thing, hon. minister, by removing those two sections so that we can discuss the other, well-intended sections of this bill at committee stage.

F. Gingell: The first problem I have is that I feel there isn't a clear understanding of what the assessment process is all about. I don't think people understand that the assessment process doesn't determine how much tax you pay on your property; it determines only your share. The municipality or the Greater Vancouver Regional District -- or whatever the particular taxing authority is -- has developed a budget. It comes to $5 million -- sorry, it's 1991; it comes to $50 million -- and the assessment of all the properties only determines who will pay what of that total bill. If my valuation is changed, if the process of appeal brings my valuation down and I will pay less, then everybody else will pay more. This is only a process to determine who pays what.

In 1881, in a case called Jonas v. Gilbert, Chief Justice Ritchie said: "Unless the legislative authority otherwise ordains, everybody having property or doing business in the country is entitled to assume that taxation shall be fair and equal and that no one class of individual, or one species of property, shall be unequally or unduly assessed."

Until 1981, within the province there was an ability to go to the court of revision or the Assessment Appeal Board to appeal your assessment on the basis of fairness. How is my property valued against the minister's? If we live side by side and clearly our houses are of equal value, I have cause for appeal if my assessment is greater than his.

In 1981, in Simpson Sears v. the assessor for the city of White Rock, it was basically determined that the important fact was whether or not the assessment was correct. When we talk about correct, it refers to the sections of the act that talk about actual value. What is actual value? If you decide to sell your house tomorrow and call in five different real estate agents to come and give you a value, you will, I am fairly certain, get five different values. Not one of those agents will give you a 

[ Page 2687 ]

guarantee that you will receive that amount of money. Valuation is purely and simply a matter of conjecture. The more expert or thoughtful or skilful the appraiser, the closer it is to the fact. The courts found: "While other subsections enumerate certain of the factors which the assessor may consider in arriving at actual value, the list does not purport to be exhaustive." Nowhere does the act define the meaning of actual value. That power is being left to the courts.

[8:45]

The courts have held that actual value means the price that property would fetch if sold on the market on the statutory evaluation date, whatever day it is, in a cash transaction between informed parties, both free from duress and influenced neither by speculative consideration nor by any other special value that the property might have to a particular purchaser. You can appreciate that it is very easy to write those words, create this description of what actual value is, but it isn't the real world. How do you value my property versus how you value my neighbour's property or a similar property that is around the corner?

Until 1988 when the Bramalea-Trizec case was heard, which incidentally dealt with the Hyatt Regency Hotel, the course of events was that the Vancouver Assessment Authority assessed the hotel. The owners of the hotel, Bramalea and Trizec, appealed the assessment. The assessors immediately went into the court of revision and increased the amount of the assessment and tried to get it increased. The court of revision upheld their reassessment. Now what was involved was that the hotel was being valued on a market-concern basis. The assessors had developed a budget for the hotel and suggested that this hotel, properly run, in the normal course of events, would produce a cash flow of so many dollars per year, and they applied a 9.5 percent capitalization rate. In easily understood terms, that means that for every $95,000 worth of annual income, the hotel has a value of $1 million. So if the hotel shows a cash flow of $950,000, the hotel has a value of $10 million. If it's $9.5 million, obviously the value is $100 million.

The courts -- Justice Kenneth Meredith -- found that yes, this was a reasonable method of valuing the hotel and 9.5 percent for the capitalization rate was a reasonable rate. But as all the other hotels in the district had been valued using a capitalization rate of 12.5 percent, which means that you need $125,000 worth of annual cash flow to establish a $1 million value, they were not being treated equitably. Simpson-Sears vs. the assessors for the city of White Rock notwithstanding, the assessors were required to reconsider what they had done and to apply a 12.5 percent capitalization rate.

Now this may all sound very esoteric, but it is terribly important. If the ministers of the Crown don't understand it, then we have a problem. I believe, from what the Minister of Municipal Affairs has said, that they have gone along with the bureaucracy in always looking for the simple way out. In future, you will not be able to appeal your assessment on the basis of fairness; you will only be able to appeal it on the basis of whether the actual value or the fair market value is correct or not. And that is not the same thing. If you don't understand that that is not the same thing, then we should really send you back to school somewhere. Seriously. It is critically important to understand that those are not the same things.

I can have my home assessed at $300,000, and yes, I cannot argue that it is not worth $300,000 -- I hope and pray it is, because the mortgage company will be after me if it isn't. But if my neighbour's house, which is the same, is assessed at $200,000, he will pay only two-thirds of the taxes that I pay, and I no longer have a case for appeal. I can only appeal on the basis of fair market value; I cannot appeal on the basis of equity.

All the rest of this bill we strenuously support. The changes in the dates are going to make the process of assessment, advice and appeal all work much better. We have no problem with those. When the minister in his opening remarks talked about the fact that someone's assessment value had gone up by 90 percent over two years and now they'd be able to increase it 45 percent one year and 45 percent the following year, and that they would be better off.... I fail to understand how they would be better off by doing this. He should sit down and work out the mathematics. I think he's got the wrong end of the stick there.

In the end, recognizing that assessment processes are purely and simply a process by which you share the amount of the tax burden between all property owners, I don't have any problem with that. To phase in unreasonable or unusual increases in market values over three years is fine. You won't have the people whose market values have been going up screaming as loudly. But the fact of the matter is that people whose values have not gone up will pay more, and that's what I think the minister of the Crown has failed to understand. It is only a process of splitting up each person's share. If you reduce the amount of the assessment for one person, you increase the amount of taxes that every other individual will pay. Assessments are purely and simply an addition of values, divided into a total amount of money that is going to be spent, and that produces a mill that is applied to all properties.

It is a real shame that a very good bill, and something that we could support, has had fed into it this one section that restricts the cause of an appeal to an appeal of actual value only and removes from the act the ability of a property owner to appeal on the basis of fairness and equity. One can easily sit down and read all these things. The bills come rushing out, and we try and deal with them. If we've got it wrong, I would really appreciate the minister advising us when he closes debate on second reading.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I was delighted to hear the esoteric and long description about the assessment system by the hon. member across the way. There's no question that the complicated and complex issue of assessments, market value, real property values and taxation, and any changes to it, will raise debate.

I would, though, give a word of caution to hon. members across the way. I have had the same negative 

[ Page 2688 ]

comments from a very select part of the community: practitioners who practise in the area of making professional appeals. They are the ones who are upset.

Hon. Speaker, let me just simply say what we are doing. I recognize the opposition has to try and make some negative comments about a very positive bill. That's their job, and I understand that fully.

This bill ensures fairness, in terms of the issues it's addressing. Let me tell you exactly what happens. You're endorsing the lowest common denominator if there's inconsistency or incorrectness or if a property is valued way below the actual market-value. I assume that you believe in the market value form of assessment. If you have a property in a particular neighbourhood that is inaccurately assessed at way below the actual market value, then the professional practitioners pick up on that and make the case to people in the neighbourhood that they should go to appeal. They say: "Look, I can get your taxes lowered because of this inconsistency, this anomaly, and this incorrect assessment."

If that practitioner is successful and the appeals go through and the taxes on those properties are lowered, somebody somewhere in that community has to pay the shortfall. The logic in your thinking, therefore, is that you find enough properties that are incorrectly assessed or not properly done or have the lowest common denominator. Where do you end with that kind of thinking?

All this does is ensure that market value is protected. There is fairness in the system. If their house is actually reflected at market value, then there's less upon which their taxes should be paid.

I should suggest again to those members that I read the same faxes that came from the practitioners, who now know and realize that they're not going to have quite such an easy job of going around and making themselves opportunities for employment. We are bringing fairness into the system. If we're going to have a real market system -- assessments based on market value -- then let's do it fairly.

We will have more discussion on that in committee, I'm sure. I suggest to those members that they talk to their local councils and to UBCM about this section.

On that, I now move second reading

[9:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 66, Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: I call Bill 53, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1992.

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the bill now be read a second time. It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 53 for second reading. This legislation contains 15 provisions relating to the Vancouver Charter. In total, these improvements represent a significant modernization of the provincial legislation affecting the city of Vancouver. The provisions are similar to the modernization amendments to the Municipal Act, which were introduced in the House very recently.

This new legislation eliminates or amends outdated provisions of the Vancouver Charter. It also provides additional powers for Vancouver to deal with the issues that are particularly important to that city. Specifically the terminology in the charter is being changed to make it gender-neutral: the term "alderman" will become "councillor," for example. Vancouver city council's legal authority to control access to property owned or leased by the city, in order to prevent vandalism, is clarified.

In keeping with the changes to the Municipal Act, another provision of this legislation permits council to impose a charge to fully recover the cost of work associated with subdivision approval. Another provision clarifies the city's right to recover its costs when it carries out any work on unsafe premises to protect the public.

This legislation promotes the use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation by authorizing Vancouver to require that parking space for bicycles be included when new buildings are constructed or when old buildings are used for a new purpose.

Other provisions in this legislation emphasize fire safety and energy conservation by expanding and clarifying the Building Code.

With this package of improvements, we are eliminating many minor annoyances that have frustrated local government officials, elected and professional, for a number of years. As with our modernization of the Municipal Act, these amendments to the Vancouver Charter are a direct response to local community needs. The legislation is a timely response by this government to the concerns expressed for many years by officials of the city of Vancouver. This legislation will result in 

[ Page 2689 ]

more efficient municipal government administration for the people of Vancouver.

A. Cowie: The people of the city of Vancouver have requested these changes. They are changes that are important to the city of Vancouver. There is nothing really controversial in this bill. I encourage the members to vote for the bill unchanged, unlike the last bill. I personally will not be voting on any section of this bill where it might appear that I have a potential conflict as a parks board commissioner.

Some Hon. Members: Resign!

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I would also speak in support of the bill, but I question the hon. minister as to why the other ten clauses that were requested by Vancouver were not included. These are clauses that the people in my riding and others are very concerned about, which have to do with heritage and with preservation of the environment and the trees. A number of these clauses -- ten of them, in fact -- are not included in this bill. I would ask the minister why he has not included the other ten in this bill, because they would complete the package. I'm not quite sure why he would go only halfway. You've gone halfway there, but why didn't you go the other half? I would ask the hon. minister to explain to us and to the people of Vancouver why these other items, which they are very concerned about and are looking at closely, were not undertaken by the ministry.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to think that I know what's right for Vancouver. Given that I have seen no articles by the mayor and council that oppose this bill or any sections thereof, I will certainly support speedy resolution of all the readings and sit down, so we can get on with it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The issues the member raises are under discussion with the city of Vancouver. There are a number of issues that need clarification. Vancouver City Council understands, and we are working very closely with the administration. They agree with what's happening, and we will be getting to those things in time. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 48.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION
AND HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to put forward Bill 48 for second reading. The provisions of this bill are part of the government's modernization of legislation affecting the management of local government in the province of British Columbia.

The provisions apply to the Electrical Safety Act, the Fire Services Act, the Revenue Sharing Act and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Incorporation Act. The provisions of this bill also apply to the Greater Vancouver Water District Act and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, and they include the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act amendment for the Regional District of Central Okanagan. Suffice it to say, in this ministry we literally cover the waterfront.

[9:15]

The changes to the Electrical Safety Act and the Fire Services Act eliminate undue liability exposure faced by our local governments in these areas. Specifically, the change to the Electrical Safety Act eliminates the obligation of municipalities to ensure compliance with the act, where the province rather than the municipality provides the inspection service. This amendment responds to a Union of B.C. Municipalities request for such a change, to ensure that local governments are no longer liable for inspections made by the province under the Electrical Safety Act.

The change to the Fire Services Act limits the obligation on municipalities to provide regular fire inspection services to public buildings, hotels and multifamily buildings. This amendment, which has been proposed through resolutions from both the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Fire Chiefs' Association, ensures that local governments no longer face the unrealistic obligation of ongoing inspections of all existing premises in their jurisdiction. This measure has been taken in recognition of the fact that municipalities do not have the resources for such wide-ranging inspections.

The change to the Revenue Sharing Act allows grants to be made to local trust committees responsible for land use planning under the Islands Trust Act. The 13 trust committees are like municipal governments for individual islands in the Islands Trust when it comes to community planning and development. The province already provides grants to the islands to develop the general policies required to carry out the mandate of the Islands Trust. This new legislation will assist the committees in effectively planning for their individual islands in the Trust.

The change to the UBCM act clarifies that association's authority to establish and administer a scholarship fund for local government employees.

Changes to both the Greater Vancouver Water District Act and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act allow the establishment of reserve funds and allow the district to begin levying now to accumulate funding to pay for known future projects. Both acts are also amended to provide authority to 

[ Page 2690 ]

establish sinking funds, which will be used to provide all or some of the money to repay debts of between five and 20 years. This amendment will allow the district to take advantage of the most favourable interest rates on long-term borrowing by borrowing for terms shorter than the amortization period of the debt, where there is an interest rate advantage to doing so.

The enabling act for the Regional District of Central Okanagan allows local voters to choose through referendum to change the taxation method used to pay the costs associated with the aquatic centre in that community. The act makes special provisions for equalizing residential property taxation in recovering costs of the Johnson-Bentley Memorial Aquatic Centre. Under existing measures, some residential property-owners are paying a disproportionately large share of the cost of the aquatic facility in Westbank. This legislation contains provisions to address the issue of unfairness, but no changes in the taxation measures will be made until they are approved by local residents by referendum.

Bill 48 is a concrete expression of our commitment to local governments. The legislation affecting them is relevant and does not needlessly impede their ability to carry out the daily activities involved in governing and providing services to their communities.

A. Cowie: This is a good housekeeping bill; we have no problems with it. We encourage the House to vote for it quickly, so that we can get on to the next bill.

Two small comments, however. Regarding the electrical safety provision, we think this will probably lead to stronger regional government in the end, whereby regional government could probably take on this responsibility, not the province. That's only a prediction.

Also, I have some concerns about section 10, which we will deal with in committee. We would like to see the money used to develop an overall strategy for the Gulf Islands prior to its being spent on individual islands for community plans. Other than that, it's an excellent bill. I encourage everyone to vote for it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll make no more comments. We'll get into the issues the member raises in committee. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, read second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 28.

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 28 for second reading. Until now, only local governments have been entitled to take advantage of the financial management efficiencies offered by the Municipal Finance Authority. The amendments in this bill allow other public institutions such as universities, colleges, hospitals and school districts to participate and use the services of the Municipal Finance Authority.

The advantages to them include lower interest rates on short-term borrowing and increased returns on their investments. The Municipal Finance Authority can offer these efficiencies because it pools the resources of its clients and seeks the best possible financing arrangements on their behalf. In 1990 the Municipal Finance Authority was authorized to lend money on a short-term basis to municipalities and regional districts for temporary financing of capital purchases and for operational needs. The condition is that the borrowing cannot exceed anticipated revenues. This mechanism has allowed municipalities and regional districts, especially the smaller ones, to take advantage of lower short-term interest rates than could be obtained from other lenders.

Also in 1990 the Municipal Finance Authority was authorized to set up investment pools in which municipalities and regional districts could invest their surplus funds. Again, the investment rates obtained by the Municipal Finance Authority and the larger amount of money that results from pooling worked to the advantage of public agencies.

The money that is managed by our universities, colleges, hospitals and school districts, of course, belongs to all the taxpayers of British Columbia. Therefore we think this bill makes financial sense. The amendments now before this House clearly improve the ability of these institutions to secure value for money for the taxpayers of this province.

A. Cowie: This is an excellent bill. I personally have had two briefings by the Authority. The Authority has a rating equivalent to the city of Vancouver's and is actually rated higher than the province by some. It has a triple-A rating. The chair, Mr. Dan Cumming, does an excellent job of promoting the Authority and spreading the word throughout the province and at UBCM, and Jim Craven, the executive manager, does an excellent job. We encourage everyone to support the bill.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 28, Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 43, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 2691 ]

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND SECURITY
AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The private security industry is continually evolving to reflect the changing respective roles of public police and private security services. The industry has grown by over 35 percent in the last five years. Currently there are over 1,000 businesses and 7,000 employees licensed to operate in the security industry. They include security patrols, alarm services, locksmiths, private investigators, security consultants and armoured-car services. This growth is expected to continue.

People in the private security industry are in positions of public trust. Security guards patrol malls the size of small towns; private investigators carry out surveillance; alarm installers know the location of your valuables and how to bypass your security system. The public expects and has a right to expect that there will be safeguards and regulatory constraints on persons carrying on these activities. It is government's responsibility to protect the public interest through the effective and vigilant regulation of the industry.

In consultations earlier this year the industry stated that one of its major concerns was that government failed to properly regulate industry and did little to ensure that unlicensed and untrained security agencies were not allowed to operate. A basic authority of legislation regulating activities in the public interest, be it the Real Estate Act, the Travel Agents Act or the Securities Act, is the ability to inspect records to ensure compliance with the act and its regulations. The inspection of business records is the routine way in which government can determine, for example, whether the employees of a company are properly trained and licensed. The Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act has long been a glaring exception in this regard. Inspections are currently limited to the records of private investigators, and then only at the written request of the registrar.

Under the proposed amendments, provisions will be expanded to permit the inspection of records of all security businesses. Inspections are to be conducted during business hours, receipts are to be provided for any records that are removed for purposes of copying, and records are to be returned in a reasonable time. Provision is also made for obtaining warrants, which may be necessary in cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing a specified offence has been committed and evidence of the offence is to be found on the premises. Warrants would be necessary in very rare circumstances, and care has been taken to protect individuals' rights.

Some concerns Some concerns have been expressed regarding confidentiality and the sensitive nature of information contained in the records of a security business. The act itself has confidentiality provisions which prohibit the disclosure of information, except what is necessary in the administration of the act or in a court proceeding. Furthermore, government employees are routinely in contact with confidential and highly sensitive information. There is no reason to believe that the information in security agencies' files would be dealt with any less confidentially than the records of probation officers, social workers and liquor inspectors.

In response to industry requests, amendments include provision for the introduction of temporary licences. Currently, security employees are licensed for a full year, which is not always appropriate or necessary. Local fairs or rodeos, for example, may require security patrols for a short period. The legislation will provide that a temporary licence may be issued for up to 30 days, subject to the regulations and the discretion of the registrar.

The bill will also expand the role of the advisory board to include the responsibility of providing advice on training standards. The appointment of the advisory board is in progress, and I expect the board will be functioning in the near future. The establishment of the board and the expansion of its responsibilities are in response to recommendations of the ombudsman. The board, which will have representation from the industry, will play an important role in the development of regulations relating to training standards, conditions of temporary licences and qualifications for the various classes of licences.

The regulation-making power of the act is changed to allow for regulations that set licensing standards instead of employment standards. This will allow regulations that are specific to the licensing process and therefore may be more effectively administered.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

A. Warnke: I want to emphasize at the outset, as I am sure the minister is aware by now, that there was quite a reaction to Bill 43 when it was first introduced. Indeed, as critic in this area of the Attorney General ministry, I found it to be one of the most unique and interesting experiences with regard to how bills have been processed. It's been unique insofar as the bill was introduced on May 25 and was initially ordered for second reading on June 4. It's interesting to note the difference in the date between June 4 and the present day. On many occasions my colleagues on this side and I have pointed out the difficulty of people responding to particular kinds of legislation introduced by the government in this House. This is one example where members of the community and the society who were directly impacted by this legislation automatically responded when they were notified of this legislation, because it impacted on them directly. It is a clear example of what we have been saying on this side of the House. Maybe not in all legislation but in a good deal of legislation it is quite essential to have that information communicated to people who will be impacted.

[9:30]

This is what we've been warning the government about. It is important to raise that as a clear illustration of essentially what can go astray in bringing legislation forth. Had that information been processed on June 4, I suspect very strongly that this would have been received vociferously by those impacted.

I have to commend the Attorney General and his ministry. When circumstances evolved whereby the people who were impacted by this legislation.... It took some initiative on our part to alert members of this 

[ Page 2692 ]

particular community. I nonetheless still commend the Attorney General for responding in such a responsible way. That cannot be underemphasized. Nonetheless, the objections by the people who were impacted by this legislation were not small. Indeed, one section in particular.... We will obviously elaborate on this quite a bit at the committee stage. There was a strong objection to section 20 from different sources in this industry.

Perhaps the government can make a very strong case. In his introductory remarks, the Attorney General put forward a fairly good case as to why this legislation is necessary. At the same time, it is extremely important for governments, when they bring in legislation, to make it crystal clear why such legislation is necessary.

When we start to get involved in the area of privacy or confidentiality, these are very sensitive matters, which I think is obvious to everyone. Therefore it's not surprising that the businesses that deal directly with privacy and confidentiality when dealing with clients and maintaining that kind of relationship in this particular industry, where confidentiality is supreme, would be very sensitive to this kind of legislation being brought forth. Henceforth it is up to the government -- and I'm sure the Attorney General will do this in his summary remarks -- to alleviate at least some of the fears that this particular business and community have towards this kind of legislation. It is certainly worthwhile to expand on some of the objections, especially the objections that this industry has focused on in terms of the alterations regarding warrants and copies of records.

I also have to bring one other comment to the attention of everyone, which goes along with this: the lack of process through consultation, the rapidity of processing bills quickly in this chamber and so forth. We've tossed out these warnings from time to time, and yet sometimes they're ignored. The Minister of Government Services said on June 11, 1992, in this House -- it's recorded in Hansard -- when commenting on another bill: "I'd like to mention...that in previous years we have been lucky at times to have bills 24 hours in advance. I think two days is quite adequate for anybody...." Bill 43 is a very clear illustration how a comment like that by the minister is quite inappropriate, quite wrong. Just because what was normal conduct -- and I do not consider it normal -- occurred in the past in previous adminstrations, that somehow justifies what we do now and what we do in the future.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: One of the hon. members is complaining, obviously.

B. Jones: It's not on the bill. You're on the process.

A. Warnke: We're talking about the principle of the bill. It is extremely important, when we take a look at this particular bill, how it is introduced and how it impacts on a certain community, that it does move in a direction that consults the people who are being affected. In this particular case, as perhaps this hon. member does not know, it affected them directly and immediately, and they wanted to respond.

What are some of the concerns? I think that some of the objections with regard to warrants and the copies of records are just a beginning, and it's worth elaborating on that. There is a problem with the inspection section. Many people who have had a chance to look at the bill, simply because it has been delayed, have said that the inspection section must at least definitively point out the circumstances of the conditions under which inspections of records are sought by the government.

The minister argued that we could leave it up to government employees, that we know that in the Ministry of Social Services and other departments, these are respectable, bondable people, and all the rest of it, and this is no different than that. Well, I would argue that while we may commend our government employees -- many of them in the social services deal with sensitive matters -- those examples are still qualitatively quite different than government agencies coming in on short notice. Despite the fact that they're given the 30-day leeway, they come in on short notice to just all of a sudden take a look at some of these businesses.

On this side, we recognize that for far too long there perhaps have been -- though I don't know of any -- a few sharpshooters in this industry. I simply do not know that. The businesses that I have been in contact with in this industry, however, I assure you, are not sharpshooters. But maybe a few exist. Indeed, members of this industry have also said yes, we do need some sort of proper system for monitoring or regulating, so that we ensure that whoever is in this business will maintain or meet a certain standard, as it is in a lot of businesses in our society. Indeed, that's one of the virtues, I think, of Canadian society: it's not so wide-open that we allow anybody to do anything. We do put some emphasis on regulation, so that there are certain standards. The fact is that members of this industry and we on this side of the House recognize that those standards must be there. In that sense this bill is certainly an improvement and indeed necessary to establish those kinds of safeguards. We do need some sort of regulations. The regulations may be long overdue.

On the other hand, when we are dealing with such sensitive matters as client-business relationships dealing with security, personal codes of houses and investigative relationships where confidentiality and secrecy and privacy are so important, we have to be extremely sensitive in this regard. We're not just talking about setting up a few private eyes, "Hawaii Five-O"-style or something like that, and just monitoring these kinds of people. Think about this, hon. Speaker -- and I would like all members to think about this: when I talk about clients, I'm talking about members of the media. How would a newspaper outlet like it -- or television or radio media -- if suddenly a government agent came in and examined the records, maybe pulled out the records just because he had a warrant? Political groups can be included under "clients." Legal firms can be considered clients, as well as private interests and corporations.

[ Page 2693 ]

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Oh yes, there's a smart remark from the other side that this is a conspiracy thesis. Hon. Speaker, the member is talking in this chamber, and I hear everything in this chamber. I make darned sure that I respond to everything in this chamber if necessary.

It is quite important. What I'm talking about here is not a conspiracy thesis, but the precedent is there. When we're not very clear in terms of protecting the client-business relationship and when we're not very clear as to what clients we're talking about -- and this legislation is not that clear on what is defined as a client, and so forth -- it arouses suspicions as to the possible implications of this particular act. While I think it is quite essential to embark on legislation that deals with private security agencies, private investigative agencies and so forth, and to establish some sort of set of regulations so that as consumers or clients we are confident that when we approach these agencies, some standards are to be maintained, we also want to have confidence that whatever information is shared will be held in confidence. Newspaper people, political groups, lawyers and legal firms who deal with these kinds of confidential matters have to have that confidence in the system.

It is in this context that I am going to await the closing remarks of the minister. As well, perhaps I'll hear some concerns of my fellow colleagues, both on the opposite side of the floor and on this side.

The Speaker: I know that it is getting late, but I would remind hon. members to try to restrain themselves and speak directly to the purpose of the bill.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. I have had the pleasure of a briefing by the Attorney General and his staff on this bill. I wish to use this opportunity to thank the Attorney General. I hope that the opportunity for specific briefings becomes contagious and that we will have it for more government bills. It was certainly welcome. I am very impressed by ministry staff on this.

[9:45]

Clearly, I don't intend to talk too long. My colleague has done a very commendable job of addressing the issues of concern on this bill. I too have been impacted by the licensed investigators' association with their letters and their expressed concerns.

I would like to say that there is a valid concern for the rapidity of a bill like this as it flows through the House. The valid concern is that while we, the drafters and perhaps the Attorney General look at it from our perspective, in order for bills like this to work, they have to be sensitive to the practical realities that are out there. Legislation simply for the sake of legislation doesn't succeed unless it's in harmony with the feelings of the licensed investigators. Obviously there are different perspectives, and the Attorney General understands that. My concern is that we have a balanced approach and a balanced opportunity. In spite of good intentions, it appears not to have succeeded in this particular bill.

The letters from the licensed investigators indicate their concern with the lack of consultative process. They voice similar concerns with the drafting of regulations. I'm confident that, with the expressed wish and the necessity for legislation such as this, the Attorney General will see fit to establish a better consultative process with the group that is directly involved in this. The appointment of an advisory board is going to be very necessary, and it will facilitate the flow and the understanding, or the reception, of this particular legislation.

The opposition critic for the Attorney General has amplified well the specific concerns that were brought up. I hope they will be addressed, and that the association will be comforted with a more cooperative, consultative opportunity brought forward by the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I appreciate the remarks of the members opposite. I think the official critic got a few things wrong, but we'll sort those out in committee stage when we get there soon.

The bill was introduced on May 25. I delayed proceeding to second reading to allow more time for discussion, and in fact the industry representatives have made a number of very good suggestions which will be captured by amendments for consideration at committee stage. I think those changes should meet most of the concerns that have been expressed. With that, I would once again move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 56.

COMMISSIONER ON RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The bill creates a permanent commission -- the Commission on Resources and Environment -- sets out the mandate of the commission and provides for the appointment of a commissioner.

It establishes the commission's mandate: (1) to develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia-wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management; (2) to facilitate the development and implementation of, and to monitor, regional planning processes to establish land use allocations, community-based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental management issues, and a dispute resolution system for land use and related resource and environmental issues in the province; (3) to work to ensure effective and integrated management of the resources and environment of the province by facilitat-

[ Page 2694 ]

ing the coordination of initiatives within the provincial government and encouraging the participation of aboriginal people in all processes.

The bill provides for the appointment of a single commissioner, a public officer appointed for a five-year term. The commissioner's responsibility is to independently advise government on land use matters and to directly report to the public where it would be in the public interest to do so. The commissioner is given the powers of a public inquiry commissioner under the Inquiry Act.

The bill ensures that the commissioner's work and the participation of aboriginal people will be without prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

J. Tyabji: The Liberal opposition fully supports the concept of a long-term land use strategy being developed by an independent body. We particularly want to congratulate the government on the person they have chosen for this task, and that's Stephen Owen.

An Hon. Member: Since they mentioned it every 20 minutes.

J. Tyabji: That's right.

We'd like to point out as well that the order-in-council virtually took care of getting the commissioner off the ground and that perhaps the bill was introduced primarily as a public relations exercise. When you look at the order-in-council, there are a lot of regulations there that were expressed to the person who was appointed in a letter, so it was more or less covered off.

Having said that, we definitely commend the process. There is no question that we are long overdue for a long-term land use strategy in B.C. The Liberal opposition has recognized this by the creation of an internal caucus committee for a land use strategy. Our land use committee is dealing with many of the issues that have been referred to the Commission on Resources and Environment.

Where we have a lot of concerns with Bill 56 is with the fact that here we are, several months after the commissioner has been appointed, debating the bill. After the fact, we're putting it before the House. If this was such a critical appointment that had to be made, we should have had a fall session. We should have had a sitting of the House sooner so that we could have had debate on the entire process of setting up the commission and the commissioner. What this allows us the opportunity to do is to actually look at what has happened since the order-in-council was put forward and the appointment made, and at how the executive council acted in terms of the independence of the commissioner from the executive council.

We have some great concerns with some of the decisions made by the cabinet which undermine the credibility of the process. As I said from the beginning, we completely agree with the process that has been undertaken. Where we have a concern is on whether or not the process laid out in the bill will actually be adhered to by this government. As for the intent of the bill, we support it; we support the independence. But we're not sure if there's going to be any credibility, based on some of the decisions that have come forward already.

Some of these things that have been brought up in the House so far with regard to the Blue Lead Creek situation, which is obviously a land use issue that should come before the commission.... There's one that the executive council has made a decision on. Bill 61, which passed earlier tonight....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Although I remind the hon. member that we usually do allow wide-ranging debate on second reading, I would urge her to try to restrict her comments to the purpose of the bill, rather than to decisions that have been made elsewhere.

J. Tyabji: I do believe that the fundamental question on this bill is the independence of the commissioner from the executive council. If I am to understand it correctly, the only way the commissioner can possibly achieve the objectives set out in the bill is if the commissioner is independent of the executive council. Whether or not that independence exists is something that I believe we have to address in second reading. As far as I'm concerned, some of the things we've seen over the past three months certainly should be the subject of discussion in second reading, when we talk about whether or not the bill has addressed the independence of the commissioner.

For example, based on the decisions I was referring to earlier.... If the Speaker will not allow a specific reference to some of these things, then I'll have to refer to them in terms of the principles that have been, I believe, undermined. The bill is obviously not going to make an allowance to prevent the kinds of decisions that have been made by the ministers.

We see here a great difficulty in terms of opposition, in that many of the decisions.... When we ask the land use ministers what their decisions are going to be, we're told, well, it's been referred to this commissioner; the commissioner will be making the decisions on sensitive issues. Yet we see numerous decisions that have come out of the executive council that should be the responsibility of the commissioner, but that aren't.

The bill is obviously not going to prevent that from happening in the future. If the bill is not going to prevent the executive council from making decisions on sensitive land use issues, what is the purpose of having a commissioner on resources and environment? What we don't understand is how we can sit here and talk about the Commission on Resources and Environment, and not address the fact that even with the operation of this commissioner for the past three months, numerous specific decisions have been made that have undermined the process and the credibility of the process. I won't bring them up specifically in second reading, but I don't know how we can possibly address this, because it's obviously related.

I don't know if I should attempt this and risk being ruled out of order, but I definitely would like to point out some of the things that I think should be addressed in the bill and that the minister did not make reference 

[ Page 2695 ]

to. If we're going to be addressing some things like where the wilderness areas would go, and there are conflicting resource uses -- a forestry interest conflicting with a wilderness interest conflicting with a recreation interest -- then the commissioner is to make a decision. Yet we've seen that the Minister of Environment, in conjunction with the Minister of Forests, has already made numerous decisions in those areas since the commissioner was appointed. I will refer to one, and that's the parks plan. I think that was an unfair thing for the executive council to do, because the commissioner has been appointed and is supposed to be dealing with those things.

I think it's inexcusable for the ministers on the one hand to tell the opposition that they won't answer the opposition's questions with regard to sensitive land use issues and on the other hand to make very specific decisions that should be the responsibility of the commissioner, and obviously aren't. They've picked a very credible, fair-minded person to do this, and I don't believe it's fair to that person to then undermine his ability to do the very things that are set out in the bill and to make these decisions independent of what he is supposed to be doing.

As I say, hon. Speaker, the opposition has a few very specific concerns with the bill that we will address in committee stage. One of them is with regard to the process by which the commissioner reports back to the House. Currently the commissioner is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- as we saw through the order-in-council, which, as I say, is virtually a version of the bill with a letter to the current commissioner attached. So for many of the things in the bill, we could say: "Well, why debate it after the fact?" However, the way the bill is written the commissioner will then be coming back to the executive council to report.

We believe that the commissioner should be independent. If the commissioner is truly independent of the workings of the House, the commissioner will be acting as an officer of the House and will be report directly back to the House. That will ensure the independence of the commissioner. If the commissioner is, as the Attorney General said, truly independent and able to report publicly, the commissioner should also be able to report publicly in areas that are in conflict with what the minister is saying. How can the commissioner make a decision contrary to what the minister is deciding on areas like the parks plan, now that it's been introduced? The minister is making specific recommendations on areas that are supposed to be the mandate of CORE, and then we have the commissioner supposedly having the ability to report to the public. If the commissioner is supposed to be able to report to the public, let the commissioner do that. Don't undermine him by having ministers making announcements and having what they would consider to be.... I would say some of them are very popular decisions -- or what they consider to be popular decisions -- and they're leaving the difficult decisions to the commissioner. I find that highly unfortunate.

Also, it seems to be typical that wherever there's a difficult decision made, we see a committee or a commissioner being appointed, or a council being set up. That leaves all the difficult decisions to someone at arm's length from the executive council. Why is it that they're able to make the easy and popular decisions, and we see the difficult decisions being left to the Commission on Resources and Environment? That seems to be blatantly unfair to the commissioner to begin with and also to be in contravention of the very principle behind the bill.

[10:00]

We will be addressing a lot of the specific concerns when we go to committee stage, and we will be proposing that the Attorney General reconsider some of the things he has put in the bill to make the commissioner more credible. Primarily our biggest concern -- and very specific recommendations have come out of the various ministry offices that somehow the bill has to address that -- is that the bill has to identify areas that are no longer within the ministers' jurisdiction and that the ministers cannot then make the easy decisions and leave the difficult ones to the new Commission on Resources and Environment.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill 56. It's a unique piece of legislation. In fact, I can't think of another piece of legislation like it being introduced in any jurisdiction. It's very unique in that respect. As a result, I am pleased to enter into debate on it.

I plan to speak only briefly on this, but I can't think of another jurisdiction that would have brought in an act of this magnitude and scope, especially when you take a look at the commissioner's mandate. What is being launched here officially with the statute -- because, of course, it has effectively already been launched by cabinet through order-in-council -- is a unique experiment in trying to come up with a long-term land use strategy for the province of British Columbia. I think we have to wish the commissioner well in the formidable task that he's been assigned by this piece of legislation.

I guess we could question whether or not this legislation is necessary, given the fact that the commission has already been established by order-in-council. Is statutory authority necessary if the commission reports to cabinet? I would like to think that statutory authority is necessary, although it's interesting that the bill seems to have been brought in as an afterthought. I hope it is not simply an afterthought, because I think there is a need for statutory authority here.

There is another important principle of the bill, and it relates to the reporting procedure. The reporting procedure for the commission and the commissioners is crucial. The fact that the commissioner has the ability to report to the public is key. It's central to the principle of this bill and to the principle of the commission itself.

The fact that the commissioner is not an officer of the Legislative Assembly but instead is an officer of the executive reporting to cabinet is of some concern. In fact, the opposition preference would be that, like the ombudsman, the auditor general and the new privacy commissioner, the commissioner on resources and the economy would also be a legislative officer, reporting to the Legislative Assembly and through the House as an officer of all members of all parties in the House. 

[ Page 2696 ]

Perhaps that is something that the government would like to consider. If there is any flaw in this legislation, I think that's one thing that we would like to see: true independence of the commission reflected in the fact that the commissioner would be an officer of the House with the same kind of status as that of the ombudsman.

It's interesting that it's the former ombudsman who has been chosen as the first commissioner on resources and the economy. There's no question that the commissioner has the respect and confidence of British Columbians. It's important to note that if this commission is going to be successful, it has to transcend any individual, any personality. It has to go beyond the merits of any individual in order to develop a long-term land use strategy for the province and deal with the conflicts that have existed in British Columbia for too long. That's a huge challenge for any individual. It's a challenge that goes beyond any individual or any personality. When we take a look at the bill, we want to wish the commissioner well. We hope that this bold experiment in public policy can work.

The bill itself has some very broad language. It would appear to be the product of a committee in the sense that there must have been a lot of input into this bill. Some of the language is very vague. We talked already in this session about the need for plain language in legislation. I worry a little bit about some of the language in this bill. Given the commissioner's mandate as outlined in section 4 of the bill, which is very broad, perhaps broad language might be necessary.

I know that we will be debating this further in committee stage. The member for Okanagan East has raised some concerns that we will certainly be raising in committee stage.

As long as the commission is not simply being set up as a stalling tactic by this government, as long as this commission is not being set up as a vehicle to hide behind on important issues that the government will have to deal with at some point, then I think we can applaud this bill. I think we'd like the minister, when he gets around to making closing remarks in second reading stage, to address some of those concerns. Of course, in committee stage as well we'll be talking in more detail about them. So with those few words, hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the principle of this bill and second reading.

C. Serwa: With the lateness of the hour, does the Speaker wish to proceed?

The Speaker: It's up to the members of the House. Please proceed, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I will speak, and I'll try to be as brief as possible due to the lateness of the hour and as a concession to all of the members of the Legislature.

When we speak of the philosophy and principles of Bill 56 with respect to the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, it's very difficult to speak in opposition to the philosophy and principles of this particular act. It was built on a foundation that the former administration constructed: the Forest Resources Commission; the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, another consultative process that is still ongoing; the parks and wilderness strategy; the old-growth strategy. This particular committee was suggested by a committee of deputies during the days of the former administration. I'm very proud of an association with the fundamental or basic ingredients of this bill and readily acknowledge that a Commission on Resources and Environment is required to come up with a provincial land use strategy.

But what I'm not happy about with respect to this bill is the potential muzzling of an individual who has impeccable credentials and is well known for honesty and integrity and always striving to do the right and correct thing. The person chosen as commissioner, Stephen Owen, has earned a justifiable reputation as ombudsman for the province. The concern I have is that in this particular bill he may be used as a commissioner. His tenure may not be five years; it may be much shorter. The reality is that this year the government has come out with recommendations and legislation without the incorporation of the commissioner and his recommendations. I have a great deal of concern with that.

I also have concern with the fact that the commissioner shall be appointed by cabinet and that he reports to cabinet. Earlier this evening, during debate on the estimates of the Minister of Labour, I saw something that I have never seen before in this House: the results of the politicization of an assistant deputy minister's role. Frankly, I was very dismayed by the visual evidence of what that process can do.

When we have a man of the integrity and reputation of Stephen Owen, I'm comforted by having that individual in that particular position. But when the legislation that indicates appointment by cabinet.... The hon. Premier is here this late in the evening, and that is appreciated. Your government, hon. Premier, has certainly given us reason to be concerned because of the types of appointments that have been made and the basis for them.. It's incredibly important not only for your government but for the people of British Columbia that the impeccable credentials of the commissioner not be a cause for question or debate, and the commissioner who you have chosen fills that bill completely.

However, I have a concern that he will not be able to work according to the criteria in this particular act. You know the man, hon. Speaker, and the Premier knows him. The Attorney General knows this gentleman as well as I do, or perhaps even better. Unless he is able to work and come up with decisions based on objective information, he will have a great deal of difficulty with it.

I am also concerned with the fact that he must report to cabinet, and that he may or may not issue a public report. The credibility -- that's what we're talking about here on these very important issues of the philosophy and principles of Bill 56 -- of the commissioner is so important to ensure the confidence of the various groups, be they industries, environmentalists, governments or ordinary citizens. The credibility of the commissioner has to be beyond question, and the commissioner himself has to be beyond reproach.

[ Page 2697 ]

I have a concern that there may be manipulation when the requirements are vetted in the political arena prior to coming out in the public one. The opportunity is there, and the reality in the political world is that perception tends to prevail, whether it's legitimate or not.

For the land use decisions to be accepted by the aboriginal community, by ordinary British Columbians, by industry and by competing interests -- forestry, parks and wilderness -- it is imperative that the act be structured so that the commissioner can work with his recommendations beyond and separate from direct government control. At that point in time, once they come into the public arena like other recommendations, the government has the responsibility to make the final and ultimate decision. I have no difficulty with that at all. That is the responsibility of government.

This is also a departure from the specific direction the government took just a short while ago with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission, where they divorced cabinet from the responsibility because of specific concerns with credibility. Here they have brought the commissioner directly under the control of cabinet. It appears to me that if the intentions of the government are honourable -- I hope they are, and I must assume they are with this -- they would remove the situation that exists with the present sections in the act here and modify or amend them so that the commissioner can work in the arena of freedom, opportunity and objectivity that the office of the ombudsman has worked in. This plan is incredibly important to the future of British Columbia.

There's no question of doubt of any members here in this Legislature, and it must not be compromised either by design or by chance in any way, shape or form. So while I support the philosophy and principles of the bill, I have a great deal of difficulty supporting the specific sections of the bill.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Before I talk about this bold and innovative new step for British Columbians, I'd like to deal with a couple of the comments that were made by the official opposition about the need for this legislation -- that it's a PR exercise. It's not that at all. There's nothing except a simple need for a commission and a commissioner to have certain statutory powers -- for example, the powers of calling an inquiry and having the ability to call witnesses and issue subpoenas and other such statutory powers. The order-in-council cannot give that legislative authority, so there is a need for the legislation to carry out that and other powers. The Attorney General will be more than pleased to let the member for Okanagan East know, if she has any suspicions about it being a public relations exercise, that it's a very essential need to give authority to the commissioner, Mr. Owen, and the commission. I should say the same thing to the House Leader of the official opposition. That will become abundantly clear as we get into this.

[10:15]

The member for Okanagan West talked about some attempt to "muzzle" the commissioner. If you know the commissioner as I have for quite a few decades, you would know that he is not that sort of person, nor would he have been appointed if he was that sort of person. To make sure that the member is comforted by an explicit desire of this government for the commissioner to have the ability to make public statements at his choice, not the government's, I would refer the member to section 3(2) of the bill, which we will be able to cover when we get into committee stage. It talks about the commissioner's powers and his role:

"If the commissioner considers that the public interest will be best served by making a report to the public on a land use and related resource or environmental issue in British Columbia or on the need for legislation, a policy or practice respecting such an issue, the commissioner shall make this report to the public in the manner the commissioner considers most appropriate."

So I hope that if the member had any concerns, he doesn't have them anymore.

I am pleased to say that this is our commitment. When the government members were in opposition, a number of us grew very alarmed at the valley-by-valley conflicts that were plaguing this great province of ours. We were concerned about the rampant ad hockery that was occurring. We had so many commissions and round tables and square tables and rectangular tables and task forces happening. The people that I was talking to all over this province -- the chief foresters in the Alberni Valley or the environmental activists or members of the chamber of commerce or wilderness advocates -- were so exhausted by these processes that weren't leading anywhere that they didn't meet. They were not helping bring a resolution to the land use conflicts that were plaguing this province and chasing billions of dollars of investment away and causing tremendous conflict and stress among British Columbians.

As opposition members, we said: "Enough." There was a better way in British Columbia, and that was an environment and jobs accord. We were able to get the major environmental community and people involved in natural resource industries and aboriginal leaders to sign onto it; what we needed was a land use plan for the whole province, not to have a battle in every valley. We needed a land use plan that most British Columbians -- not the extremists but most British Columbians -- could be part of, one that was a single process, that had some specific times and was well informed and had the best land use satellite mapping and other inventories that people could have. Our citizens could all have that information.

When we were in opposition we were able to get an agreement among British Columbians that there was a better way, and that better way was to have an environment and jobs accord with three very simple goals. One was to have an ecologically sustainable British Columbia, where natural-resource-based communities could carry on for generations, be stable and prosperous and create wealth that could benefit all of British Columbia. Secondly, we would be one of the first jurisdictions in the world to meet the challenge put out by Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland from Norway, who, in her enlightened United Nations report, Our Common Future, said that we should all, in countries 

[ Page 2698 ]

and jurisdictions throughout the world, double the park and wilderness space to 12 percent of the land area of that particular jurisdiction. Thirdly, the goal was to meet with our aboriginal friends and to finally move towards self-government and self-sufficiency, instead of the bitterness and the lack of hope that far too many aboriginal people have suffered for far too long in this province.

Hon. Speaker, we feel very honoured to be able to now bring forward this bill which allows those changes to happen, and to be a model for the rest of the world as to how we can bring about those changes. That land use plan will allow us to have sustainable natural resource communities where we carry on proper forest practices, extract the minerals and take advantage of the oil and gas wealth so that future generations can have jobs and viable communities.

We have also made a commitment as a government to double the park and wilderness space and to preserve not just the 18 unique ecological areas there are, but all 57 of them in this province of ours, so that future generations will have an opportunity to enjoy those natural resource areas as park and wilderness, and that they are protected for all time. As a matter of fact, about a month ago I had the honour, along with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, to announce a commitment to carry out the doubling of park and wilderness space in British Columbia, 170 specific areas that had been studied by the Parks '90 proposal, studied all over British Columbia, with citizens' participation. That would not just be the basis of doubling the park and wilderness space, but a specific timetable for doing that -- including, this year alone, 23 specific areas that would be designated as park and wilderness.

I was saddened when I heard the member for Okanagan East, who is not here anymore, say that she was opposed to us making these designations. I don't know why the Environment critic for the opposition would be opposed to the designation of the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, with Chief Alvin McKay participating in what I think was a model of how we can set up parks and wilderness with the aboriginal people. I'm saddened and curious as to why she would be opposed to that designation.

I'm also concerned as to why she would be opposed to this government's designating an obvious area, the Khutzeymateen, so that that area could be preserved for all time. The Khutzeymateen is preserved for all time. I don't think the member would want us to wait to do that. So we didn't. We declared it a wilderness area so that the grizzlies can have that preserve for time immemorial.

I would think that during the debate on this the members would look forward to coordinating the push towards self-government and self-sufficiency for the aboriginal people, coordinating those into the activities of the Commission on Resources and Environment.

Hon. Speaker, I think that the goals, the mandate, of the Commission on Resources and Environment are laid out explicitly and clearly in statutory form, so that it has the substance and the mechanisms statutorily to be able to carry out its independent duties. It will also have the resources -- $4 million -- that some members were critical of, providing resources for commissions and agencies to carry out these things. We're not in any way backing away from our commitment to their being proper resources for the commissioner and the commission to carry out their duties.

We have established with the commissioner a very real priority to deal with the hot spots in this province: on Vancouver Island -- he has started his work on Vancouver Island; and in the Kootenays and the Cariboo. The conflicts there have happened far too long. As a matter of fact, if the members are interested in seeing some of the results of those community-based meetings, they'd be very encouraged by the response of British Columbians. A meeting took place just recently in Nelson, where high-school young people turned out. The Nelson Chamber of Commerce sponsored not just a meeting but a helicopter flight for the commissioner, Mr. Herb Hammond, and the forest executive in that area to look at the areas that were going to be considered for a land use plan. That is the kind of cooperation that the commissioner is already receiving from British Columbians. Don't you think that's a far better way for us to make decisions in this province, instead of fighting with each other?

This process will be driven by the goodwill and the good sense of British Columbians to reach consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, there will be the best mediation services in the area of the environment that can be offered to help to encourage citizens, when they rub up against each other, to try and reach a consensus decision. And yes, this government is prepared to govern. If a consensus cannot be reached, then this government will make a decision. That's what we were elected to do.

I'm sure that all members in this House will agree that British Columbians do want to make intelligent accommodations and will, in most instances, reach a consensus. With good mediation in some of the hard-edged areas, this province will again be able to reach agreement in most areas. Now and again there will be some tough issues. They'll agree to disagree. This government will make a decision after a full public report by the commission and the commissioner. That is open government.

In concluding my brief remarks.... It is late, and there is going to be much more debate on this bill in, I hope, the spirit that has been put forward so far. It is an important innovation. We are going to be able to give one process to citizens around this province, in their own communities and in their own regions, to decide how British Columbia's land use plan is going to be put together for future generations. We can avoid the errors of the past and get on to a far better future. I believe that all members of this House have confidence in the commissioner. British Columbians have confidence that, in a very short period of time, we will have a land use plan finally in place, once and for all, for all of British Columbia.

A. Warnke: Just to reassure members, somewhere along the line I would like to move for adjournment. But just before I do, there are a couple of comments that 

[ Page 2699 ]

are necessary to immediately respond to some of the comments by the previous speaker, the Premier himself. When we take a look at the decisions, there is this view that we have to have confidence in the commission. The fact is that the government has undermined its own process. There have been unilateral government decisions to log -- hastily -- in Blue Lead Creek and to preserve the lower Tsitika and the Khutzeymateen. If the government ignores its own commission -- we're talking about the spirit of how this government behaves, and that spirit has already been revealed in the past five months -- then some of the comments that have been made by the Premier just don't match the reality of the last five months. It's as simple as that. The government has already demonstrated the lack of faith in the CORE process, even in the few months that it has been in place. The creation of the Schwindt commission has expropriated another portion of CORE's mandate -- without any compensation. Some actions have already occurred about which I have to immediately respond to the remarks of the Premier. However, I also recognize the late hour, and everyone is anxious to leave. I would like to adjourn debate until the next sitting.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: I am somewhat encouraged by members of the House to let the Attorney General close debate, if he can.

[10:30]

The Speaker: The Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Thank you to the members and to the official critic, in particular, for such an eloquent and brief speech. I'll try to be brief too.

First of all, it's important that members know that this bill and this commission are not designed to make all the decisions for land use matters in British Columbia. The government has a responsibility to continue to make choices and decisions, and we make them virtually every day. That process will continue.

The commission is going to be dealing with important and difficult issues that require a public process. That will require special skills -- mediation skills, among others. Stephen Owen's remarkable skills will be used in that way with environmentalists, industrialists, the public, native people and government public servants as well.

In response to questions as to why a statute, it's important to know that we are determined to give this particular commission the status and stature that comes with legislation. We want to give the commission the independence that we believe comes with legislation, as opposed to a simple order-in-council. The legislation guarantees a five-year term, and it guarantees that the commissioner has the powers, whenever he chooses, under the Inquiry Act, without a special order-in-council being passed on every required occasion.... The legislation gives the commissioner independence from government, from public servants and ministers, whether in Environment or Forests. It's very clear that that independence and that role could not be as easily determined simply by an order-in-council. The statute, I think, gives some comfort in that respect. We think the fact that the commissioner will not be reporting to a government ministry, but rather to the cabinet as a whole, enables decisions to be made in that kind of collective way. It makes clear that he and his commission are not beholden to any one particular interest that may be reflected by a particular ministry. We think that's an important feature.

The Premier mentioned the reference to one section of the bill that gives a clear and direct mandate to the commissioner to make public any matter he chooses to make public, and he can make it public in whatever form he chooses. So if he recommends a certain solution, and cabinet chooses to disregard that and take a different option, the public will know full well the options, the choices and the recommendations of the commissioner. We think that provides an extraordinary amount of independence and an extraordinary amount of influence and clout for the commission. We think that this province is well served by having a statute that creates this particular office for this very difficult purpose.

With that, hon. Speaker, I once again move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, 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. C. Gabelmann: I indicated to the House earlier today that the House would sit tomorrow afternoon. We will sit tomorrow from 2 o'clock until 6 o'clock.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada