1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 17

[ Page 12095 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Jarvis: It's my pleasure to announce two students from Bayside Middle School in Brentwood Bay: Master Kellen Molsberry, whose mother already works for this wonderful outfit, and Ms. Leanne Dunic, who hopes to be a Page in the near future.

L. Fox: It gives me great pleasure today to stand in my place and introduce an individual whom I first met at a remote lake north of Fort St. James. I will tell the members that I have always been able to catch the largest fish. Would the members please welcome the father of Nicole Boyer, who is -- as the government caucus will be well aware -- Mr. David Ross Boyer.

Hon. B. Barlee: In the precincts of the House today are several spectators who watched a historic match between the media and parliament last Saturday. Unfortunately for the media, although they were quite a quick study, they weren't quite up to our calibre. They were defeated 101 to 79. The battle really evolved into a slaughter before the day was over. We hope they'll have a little better luck next year. Welcome to those spectators who watched this gargantuan match.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next introducer, are there any responses to the ministerial statement? [Laughter.]

A. Hagen: I do have a response. I'd like the hon. minister to tell us what game they played.

It is with great pleasure that I introduce two lifelong friends of mine -- one hailing originally from my birthplace, Sydney, Nova Scotia -- Sally Kert and her husband, Sheldon, now of Toronto, and my husband, John Hagen. Sally and Sheldon are celebrating their fortieth wedding anniversary in British Columbia, so will you all join me in wishing them well.

V. Anderson: On behalf of Ken Jones of Surrey-Cloverdale, I would like to welcome here today some 30 students of Coyote Creek Elementary School with their parents and their teachers, Miss Teresa Blackstone and Miss Helen Porohowskyj. We welcome them here with their parents.

U. Dosanjh: We have in the gallery today about 25 grade 7 Tecumseh Elementary School children with their principal, Mr. Stanley French, teachers Deborah Rolandi and Diane Richards, as well as some other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, we were all serenaded today by the string orchestra from Queen Mary Elementary School in Point Grey, which was in the precincts today. I'd like the House to thank them and appreciate the fact that they came all the way from Vancouver to play so beautifully for us in the rotunda.

J. Weisgerber: This past Saturday the member for Prince George-Omineca and his wife celebrated the birth of their first grandchild. Kyle Adam Kenneth Dickson is already showing great promise as a scholar, an NHL goalie and a future Reform candidate. Please join me in sending congratulations to the proud parents, Debbie and Kenneth Dickson of Vanderhoof.

J. Beattie: In the early hours tomorrow morning the summer solstice will commence. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the summer solstice is, along with many other things, primarily a celebration of the fertility of the land. I'd like to remind the House, the government and the public of a quote by Allan Anderson, who said: "There is a profound attachment to the land rooted in the Canadian character. Farming is the single most important factor in the Canadian experience." Hon. Speaker, I hope we all keep that in mind as we go about the business of government.

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. In the last few days, just about every major newspaper on Vancouver Island has become aware of the government's 13 percent land use decision -- and, I might add, every mayor and councillor appears to be aware of it as well. You can't pick up a newspaper without reading about the position. In light of that, will the Premier commit today that he won't launch another big-budget advertising campaign to promote a solution that people already know about?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am pleased that the opposition is interested in this very important question of a land use decision that this government has been looking at very carefully and has been listening to the people on Vancouver Island about. I am sure that in the next few days his virtue of being patient will be rewarded.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: While the taxpayers of the province are being patient, the opposition understands that the government has bought a $20,000 ad space on BCTV. The Premier and his henchmen had a lot to say about the previous government spending money on frivolous self-serving propaganda. At a time when hospitals are closing beds and when schools are bursting at the seams, how can the Premier justify another big-budget advertising campaign, the like of which we saw with the last failed provincial budget?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The question of bringing to a resolution some of the very important land use conflicts that have plagued this province for far too long is a very important area for the people of Vancouver Island to be involved in. For the first time, the people of Vancouver Island have a chance to be involved in a process called the CORE process, to sit down and talk with each other and to try to work out how much of Vancouver Island should be in parks and how much should be in the harvesting areas, and how we can work with aboriginal people. That process is coming to a conclusion, and this government will very shortly be making a decision on Vancouver Island and making other land use decisions in this province.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Last time, the government spent $50,000 to fly the media and cabinet up to Radar Hill in Clayoquot Sound. They spent $500,000 promoting a budget which landed them 

[ Page 12096 ]

a 23 percent standing in the polls. Will the Premier commit to saving money and putting the half-million dollars into planting trees in British Columbia?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: We have finally had a policy statement on forestry from the opposition. We have finally tied down how important they see the forests of British Columbia as being -- $500,000 for planting trees in this province is going to take up about two seconds of time in what needs to be done. At the present time this province is planting a quarter of a billion trees every year in the forests -- not $500,000 worth, as the Liberal opposition would have us do. What an insult to the forest industry and the forest communities of this province! The member had all weekend to think up that puny question. That must be why he came up with such a puny forestry policy.

LEGAL AID TARIFF AND STAFF LAWYER SYSTEM

J. Dalton: I have a question for the Attorney General. The opposition has just learned that this government is proposing to slash the legal aid tariff by 221/2 percent by July 1. At the same time, the Attorney General is now seeking the support of Treasury Board to add an additional $9.7 million in order to increase staff from 40 to 160. Could the Attorney General explain this bizarre approach of chopping with one hand and feeding with the other?

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members do not anticipate my response. The tariff questions are determined by the Legal Services Society, which is independent of government. As members know, the Legal Services Society operates completely independently of government, and they make whatever decisions they decide to make.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: Again to the Attorney General. I have in my hand an analysis of the report of the staff lawyer pilot project. It clearly shows that staff lawyers don't save money. In fact, it appears that the present system is definitely a cost-saver and probably provides a far more effective level of service. In the light of this report, will the Attorney General commit to completing those pilot projects prior to implementing the staffing proposal of the Legal Services Society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unlike members of the opposition, I am not prepared -- nor is government -- to see legal aid costs escalate out of control in the way they have in the last two or three years. Action is needed by both the government and the Legal Services Society to make sure that the additional tens of millions of dollars that are now being expended do not continue to increase the way they have in the last three years. Steps are being taken by both the Legal Services Society independently and this government.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: The fact is that no one supports these reforms. The Law Society opposes the plan; the Canadian Bar Association opposes it. In fact, Harry Rankin opposes this plan. Harry Rankin has written to the Attorney General: "You have made the Legal Aid Society nothing more than a department of the Attorney General...." Will the Attorney General commit to seeking independent legal advice prior to implementing this plan?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Services Society has embarked on a plan of action that has my support.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. In early 1991 the government of British Columbia committed to seven guiding principles for land claims negotiations. Can the Premier confirm that these principles still stand as government policy, seeing that they have never been forsworn by this government, at least publicly?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, when our government got to office, a task force had been working for a number of months, which the previous government started when the member was the Minister of Native Affairs. Our government adopted all 19 recommendations of that task force, and over the last couple of years it has put in place all of the building blocks that are required for us to now launch, for the first time in this province's history, the very historic settlement of treaties that should have been settled a long time ago.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: One of those seven guiding principles was that land claims settlements should be final and binding. Can the Premier confirm that the principle still supported by this government is that claims should be final and binding and not open to renegotiation at some date in the future?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The intent of the treaty process is to get rid of the uncertainty that Price Waterhouse said a couple of years ago had chased away over a billion dollars in investments from this province -- from the forest sector, from mining and from many other areas. Certainly the end result of treaties is to get rid of the uncertainty and conflict that have plagued this province and to get rid of the litigation that has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars in court costs and lawyer costs. It is hoped that by the end of the process, these treaties will be agreements that people sign and will be bound by.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, I welcome the news that the government is committed to entering into agreements that are final and binding. One of the other seven principles was that settlements should provide native people with the same rights, privileges and obligations as apply to other British Columbians. Does the Premier and does this government support that principle as part of their land claims negotiating process?

Hon. J. Cashore: I take this as a very serious and constructive question. One example would be that at the present time environmental jurisdiction does not extend to Indian reserves. There have been situations that have been very distressing in that regard, and I don't think that is in the interest of either the first nations people or the people of British Columbia. So through negotiations, we will be able to achieve the assurance of negotiated agreements that will enable the standard of law with regard to environmental 

[ Page 12097 ]

considerations to have equivalency. We will also seek to negotiate the opportunity to have a mutual agreement ensuring that the same standards that apply in other parts of the province will also apply there. So there's an example that more than adequately fulfils the concern of the hon. member's question.

ROLE OF PREMIER'S OFFICE IN MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISION

M. de Jong: On December 18, 1991, Paul Gill called the Motor Carrier Commission to inform them that the Premier's office would intervene on behalf of Kimber Cabs. In response, the Premier's office stated that Mr. Gill was referring to Rita Johnston and not the present Premier. The former secretary to the Motor Carrier Commission has now confirmed that Mr. Gill was in fact referring to the present NDP Premier. Could this Premier tell the House who instructed his staff to state that it was Rita Johnston and not this Premier that Mr. Gill was referring to?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two parts to that answer. First of all, there was contact with the previous Premier and with representatives of the taxi industry about expanding in, I think, the fall of 1991 before this government was sworn in. There was communication about cab services under the previous Social Credit government. I can tell you that my office did not contact or make any representations to the Motor Carrier Commission. That would have been improper, the Motor Carrier Commission has said that that would be improper, and it did not take place.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The Premier needs to know that Rita Johnston herself has stated that she has never met Paul Gill and that she knows nothing about Kimber Cabs. Implicit in the Premier's answer is that Mrs. Johnston is not telling the truth.

A member of the Premier's staff, Chris Chilton, has written to many daily newspapers, stating: "Unfortunately, the coverage overlooked the fact that the Premier in question was Rita Johnston, not Mike Harcourt." My question to the Premier, quite simply, is: who instructed Mr. Chilton to write this letter, and on what information did he base his so-called facts?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I stated earlier, my office was not in contact with the Motor Carrier Commission about this matter, nor would it be proper for my office to be in contact with the Motor Carrier Commission about this matter, and that was made very clear by my chief of staff.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: In fact, the Premier conveniently sidesteps the question, and that is the extent of the contact that existed between his office and Mr. Gill. Will he answer that question? What was the nature of the contact? And who's telling the truth -- his office or Mrs. Johnston?

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

D. Mitchell: My question is to the Premier. Today in Ottawa a parliamentary report has recommended the scrapping and replacement of one of the most hated taxes in Canadian history, the GST. Can the Premier tell the House today whether or not the government of British Columbia made any direct representation to the parliamentary committee making those recommendations? If so, what is the province's position on the harmonization of the GST with the provincial sales tax?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The question of the GST and what should be done with it is part of a number of financial areas that our government is discussing with the federal government. They include the waste and duplication by a variety of federal and provincial departments doing the same thing; the dumping of health, education and social services costs on the province; and the possibility of one agency collecting taxes in terms of joint federal-provincial occupation of taxation areas and cleaning that area up. There's a whole variety of areas that our government is discussing with the federal government. The GST is just one of them.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. B. Barlee tabled the 1993-94 financial statement of the British Columbia Heritage Trust.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Forests estimates. In the main House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 46.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 46; D. Lovick in the chair.

The Chair: I would call the committee to order and remind members that we are on section 34. I'm going to recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara, who I believe has two amendments on the order paper to section 34.

[2:30]

Can I also take this opportunity to remind members of the committee that we have an agreement whereby, effectively, the amendments will be presented by those who move them and will be spoken to by those who support them, and then we will have a rebuttal or response from the minister. That will end the matter, in most circumstances at least, rather than having lengthy and protracted debates on all of the amendments. We made that agreement last week; I assume that that circumstance and situation still obtains.

On section 34.

V. Anderson: I suppose we agree in principle to what you said, even though we may not be sure we exactly said that last week.

In section 34(3) the present bill says: "The director must, if practicable...." That seems to us to be just too open-ended, so the amendment recommends that we change it to: "The director must make every effort...." -- to replace the words "if practicable" with the words "make every effort." It's important that that be as strong as possible.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The point is well taken. Let me just tell you about the intent of the language in terms of the legal construction. There is a legal test attached to "practicable," and it's that where it is practicable, you have to do it; there's no choice. Some of this language, I have had to learn, is 

[ Page 12098 ]

drafted in a legal context so as to not have to reinvent court tests for it. The court test that the hon. member articulates in his own words is actually thus and is captured in "if practicable."

Amendment negatived.

V. Anderson: Section 34(3)(d) has to do with an aboriginal child. This is an area that has been discussed before. If that child is 12 years of age, then I want to make sure the child has the choice of whether or not there is contact made with aboriginal people. Therefore, I would add to the sentence: "...and if the child, being 12 years of age or over, so designates him or herself as such."

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: As the Chair will know, and as the record has shown, we have some strong opposition to the language and the way this legislation singles out aboriginal people, and is therefore not consistent with that which tries to remove classification by race from legislation. The concern that I have with the amendment is that at any age it would seem that there needs to be an even treatment of children and that there should be no segregation, isolation or distinction made in some way for people of aboriginal jurisdiction, I guess, or aboriginal culture, as this bill defines it. So we would not support the amendment, not because the amendment doesn't at least go halfway to protecting the interests of the child but because of the exclusionary language itself.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent of the hon. member's amendment is captured in the definition of aboriginal child, and I'll just refresh our memory of that. A child who is over 12 must declare himself or herself of aboriginal ancestry in order to be defined as an aboriginal child. I'll just refer to it: "'aboriginal child' means a child...who is 12 years of age or over, of aboriginal ancestry and considers himself or herself to be aboriginal." Subsection 34(3)(d), in conjunction with the definition of aboriginal child, will be applied, as the hon. member wishes.

Amendment negatived.

Section 34 approved on division.

On section 35.

G. Wilson: We are anxious to get the minister to further clarify subsection 35(1)(b) with respect to parents' avenues for a hearing under such language as the bill would introduce, suggesting that: "At the presentation hearing the director must present to the court the following: (a) a written report...(b) information about any less disruptive measures considered by the director before removing the child...." Is there an opportunity in the presentation of hearings and orders for secondary material to be introduced at that date that would present a position, perhaps advanced by a parent, that the parent would like to have considered by the court as an alternative measure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The presentation hearing is to determine what has happened up to that point, and is actually to determine the temporary custody or temporary placement of the child. That hearing will be to determine what has gone before that moment, and the director will introduce evidence about what the least disruptive measures, if any, have been up until that point. However, if a parent doesn't agree with the director's presentation the parent will be able to introduce a challenge to the director's point of view. But it will be on actions that have occurred up until that point.

G. Wilson: That's good to hear, although I don't see where there is a provision within this section or the bill. Perhaps there is something we haven't cross-referenced that provides an avenue for the parent, because this deals primarily with what the director presents. Is it then at the discretion of the court as to whether the court will permit a supplementary report, or is there some provision in the bill that gives the parent freedom to put in what might be considered a minority or secondary report on that process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take a minute to introduce, if I may, Leigh Ann Seller, who is just joining us now. She is part of the legislation review team and hasn't been with us before, so I welcome her here with us.

Section 34 is about who gets notified to attend the hearing, and the parents are there. Then the hearing process is that people who are called to the hearing have a right to participate. So the nature of the court proceedings wouldn't be captured by the legislation, but it is part of the court proceedings.

G. Wilson: So the opportunity for the parent to make representation lies with the discretion of the court rather than.... There's nothing in the legislation that says the parent will or must have an opportunity. Presumably, therefore, it's at the discretion of the court whether or not the parent is heard. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, to the extent that the court has the discretion to determine the relevance of evidence. But people who attend are allowed to participate.

G. Wilson: I wish that were so. But in fact, there are some very significant discretionary powers with respect to relevancy of evidence. I wonder if any consideration was given under 35(1) to add a subsection (d) that would provide an opportunity for the parent to make direct representation. In that way, in an instance where there is some considerable distinction between what the parent sees as an alternative and what the director is recommending, and if there's consideration given to the honesty of the material that the parent is bringing, the court's discretion would be removed and the parent would have an opportunity for a full hearing. That's what gives us concern. It's quite conceivable that the weight of the director's appointment and powers may override the opportunity for equal weight to be given to material presented by the parent in a court of law. There's a lot of jurisprudence that would say that our concerns are certainly well worth considering.

The second question that I have deals primarily with 35(1)(c), where the word "identity" is used. Throughout the bill we notice the whole question of aboriginal people. It talks about aboriginal ancestry, culture and heritage, and now it introduces the concept of aboriginal identity. This talks about "an interim plan of care for the child," and in the case of an aboriginal child -- once again segregating or in some way separating aboriginal children from other children -- "the steps to be taken to preserve the child's aboriginal identity." I wonder if the minister could clarify that, because from the definitions of the bill, one would argue that that is a biological determinant and therefore not subject to any kind of change by virtue of orders brought forward by the 

[ Page 12099 ]

director. But in this instance it may mean something quite different, in terms of the kind and direction of parenting, the geographical location that the child should be raised in, and so on. I think that needs to be clarified.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In answer to the hon. member's first question, the presentation hearing is an early stage in the court process. If the parent remains unsatisfied or believes, as I think you are indicating, that his or her evidence is not being heard and therefore it's not a fair hearing, then there is an opportunity at the full court hearing to completely challenge that. There's also an opportunity to participate in the presentation hearing, but if that is not satisfactory, there's a full court hearing. This is an interim court step.

[2:45]

In answer to your second question, we are saying that at that early stage of court proceedings, where a child's future is to be determined even in a temporary way, the child's aboriginal ancestry and identity must be considered, and attempts must be made to maintain that identity if having it preserved is chosen at that stage.

G. Wilson: More specifically, we're curious about the use of the word "identity," which seems somewhat inconsistent with what has been proposed in the bill to date. It seems that we have been pushing the concept of culture and heritage. Earlier on we talked about identity with respect to kinship ties and that which would be more biologically determined. I would argue that for an interim agreement to be made by the court on the basis of the information presented in this process, the question of one's aboriginality -- i.e., their identity -- couldn't and wouldn't change under the terms and conditions of previous clauses. When we talk about an interim plan of care, what are you going to do for an aboriginal child that's so different from what you would do for any other child? Why the distinction?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just refer the hon. member to guiding principle 2(f), where it says "the cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved," and then also 4(2), where it says: "If the child is an aboriginal child, the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity must be considered...." So the language is consistent.

I would say that section 35 deals with the early stages of planning for a child, in which we actually have to go to court. At this early stage we will give an indication, in an interim way -- not with a fully fleshed-out plan -- that if the child is of aboriginal ancestry, that will be taken into account.

V. Anderson: I think this is just a housekeeping matter, but I believe there should be an "or" at the end of 35(2)(a), and I move that it be added. I think grammatically it needs to be there, and I understood at our briefing that it would be put in.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know what the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara is going to be in his next life: a legislation drafter -- he's very good at it.

Let me tell you the rule that was applied here. It's a drafting rule, I'm told. It was also used under section 33(1). When you have a series of choices, you only put the "or" in at the second-to-last choice. Do you see? You'll notice in section 33(1) that there's only one "or," in subsection (c), which is the penultimate one. It's the same with 35(2); it's the penultimate one there. Apparently it's standard drafting language. The intent has always been that the word "or" is to be considered throughout, and legislation has always read that way.

The Chair: Fowler's Modern English Usage notwithstanding, I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: If we could move to section 35(3)(b), I wonder if the minister might clarify this language: "If an interim order is made under subsection (2)(b), the court may...(b) order the director to remove the child if the parent does not comply with a term or condition included in the interim order."

I'm assuming -- given that section 35(1), (2) and (3)(a) maybe set it out, in terms of the order that's there -- that some caveat can be provided to a director to act without further reference, if the director in his opinion believes compliance with the terms and conditions is not served. In other words, it gives a caveat to an appointed member of government to determine the terms and conditions of a court order and to act upon them if that individual feels they're not being followed. Is that what that says?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The section here applies when the courts have made a supervision order, where the courts have said: "We're not going to remove your child; you can keep your child. But you must follow these rules." Take substance abuse counselling as an example, just to name one that does appear frequently. It's up to the director to enforce that supervision order. At the end of it, part of the order is that if the supervision order is not complied with, you remove the child. So it's not in the director's opinion, or whatever; it's the clear rules outlined by the court.

G. Wilson: I'm not so sure we agree with that. I don't want to get into a long and protracted debate. Notwithstanding that an interim order may in fact spell out some very clear, defined goalposts and rules that have to be maintained and headed toward -- and substance abuse is an example -- it strikes us on this side that this says if under section 35(2)(b) there is a question of supervision by the director, then (3)(b) provides that director the authority to hold over that individual the potential loss of a child any time that director deems that person at variance with a court order, without any reference back to the court and without any interpretation of it. This minister would know that many interim court orders are subject to frequent revisiting by the courts to get a clarification of what the judge meant. It happens all the time. This says if there's a dispute, the director has the right to determine that in fact that individual is in non-compliance, and therefore can move in and take away the child.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, in fact that's not the case. The court makes the rules. The director monitors the enforcement of the rules. The alternative actually would be to keep the child in care rather than returning the child home.

G. Wilson: I have just a last comment on this, because we need to have on the record that this is not the case. There are many alternatives, one of which in fact is to revisit the court to find out what the judge meant. There are interim orders that are potential.... We've got a case log now full of stuff that shows interim orders where the judge's order is not clear and is subject to interpretation.

If under section 35(2)(b) the order provides for supervision by the director, I'd like the minister to show me where, 

[ Page 12100 ]

under section 35 or any other section of this bill, the director is constrained and not free to interpret that interim court order -- because they may not be black-and-white questions -- and act on it without further recourse to the courts, either as required by the director or by the parent who may seek to have some appeal.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 36 deals with that.

The Chair: I want to advise the committee that we must deal with the amendment introduced by the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Amendment negatived.

Section 35 approved on division.

On section 36.

G. Wilson: I'll repeat what I've just said. Under section 36, the recourse, which the minister says protects the parent.... Section 36(1) says: "If the director has reason to believe" -- that is a discretionary power of the director -- "that an interim order under section 35(2)(b) no longer protects the child, the director must remove the child." It doesn't say "should seek authority for clarification," "should go back for counselling" or anything else. It says that the child leaves. If the minister can tell us how that's a recourse back for interpretation, I'd be curious to know.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, if the hon. member reads beyond section 36(1), the provisions for court review are to either uphold the director's removal or not. Subsequent sections say that the director has to satisfy the court. I will just take a moment to say that people who deal with situations such as this every day are fully aware of the rules and what they have to comply with before and after the fact. They take that into account.

G. Wilson: This is an extremely difficult and sensitive area because, on the one hand, every legislator wants to protect the interests and rights of children. All of us do. By the same token, we have to recognize that empowering an individual to remove a child and.... This says that you take the child first and notify the court seven days later. When you get a hearing, you go before the court and through another set of reviews as per subsections (3), (4) and (5). If the director doesn't satisfy the court, it doesn't say that the director must then return the child. It says another interim order has to be prescribed. The cost of this is enormous, number one; and the trauma of this is phenomenal, number two.

I fully appreciate that there may be instances where the director has to move quickly to protect that child and his or her interests. I don't have any problem with that at all. I have serious problems when the state provides the power to eliminate the civil rights of individual parents. This is state authoritarianism in its worse form. Notwithstanding the fact that there are instances where children need to be protected from abuse, it seems to me that we have to be just a little less cavalier about how we empower civil servants with the kind of state authority provided in this particular bill.

In response to the minister -- because I know the minister supports this legislation and is obviously presenting it for approval -- this allows the director to act first and go to the court after. What we were asking for in section 35 is what we would seek to have changed here: to have the court act as an intermediary, so there is not that kind of discretionary authority for a civil servant, essentially, to simply step all over the civil rights of individuals.

V. Anderson: This issue is a major concern, because in the past children have been apprehended without parents understanding why and where. When a child has been taken and there is no reporting to the court or parents within that seven-day period, that's an eternity. That is a major concern which may be covered best by regulations, because we realize that we may need to have the authority in emergency situations. But there needs to be some protection. Parents and children have been abused in the past when this protection wasn't available.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no question that in the past some procedures have not worked well, no matter how they were enforced. I daily understand how much more difficult and complex the system is, and how difficult it is to work with the system. But the hon. member does raise one aspect of the system that perhaps has not been very successful. In this new legislation we have tried to make much clearer and shorten the time frame during which we leave children in limbo, so to speak -- and I say that with the greatest of respect -- and to involve the parents as much as possible.

[3:00]

We have incorporated alternative plans. In the past, the courts ruled and that was it; there was no chance of going back and changing the circumstances, regardless of what the parent wanted. Here we are informing the parent at every step of the way. We are shortening the time lines. Also, let me give reassurance that during those seven days the world does not stop. The world continues to seek alternative methods of placing the child or dealing with the child -- some of our other resources that are available to take care, as outlined in the legislation -- so that we don't continue the practice that the member outlines.

M. Lord: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Lord: It's my pleasure today to join with my colleague from North Island, the hon. Attorney General, in welcoming two groups of 30 students each from Ocean Grove Elementary School in my riding. These students are in grades 4 and 5, and are accompanied today by their teacher Mr. Stewart, and a number of other teachers and adults. I ask the House to help me in welcoming this first group of students.

G. Wilson: I know that subsection 36(3) was canvassed earlier, having reviewed the Blues and followed the debate as much as possible. It says: "The director must, if practicable, inform the persons mentioned in section 34(3)...." -- which is a series of people. I just want the minister to tell us whether or not "if practicable" is something that is determined in the mind of the director or is there some other kind of process that tells us what practicability of notice is going to be? Does that include all of the people notified, or can only some of the people be notified and others not be notified, so that the process could take place without all members under subsection 34(3) having been notified by such?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Earlier today we discussed it as well. It's a legal test that applies that says "reasonable." There 

[ Page 12101 ]

has to be a test of reason so that if you reasonably could do it, you have to do it. It's not a discretionary test.

Section 36 approved on division.

On section 37.

V. Anderson: With the concern about the time frame in subsection 37(2), the present time for commencing the protection hearing must not be more than 45 days. We would like to move an amendment that that be 20 days rather than 45 days, as set out in the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 37(2) (2) The date for commencing the protection hearing must not be more than 20 days after the conclusion of the presentation hearing, and the protection hearing must be concluded as soon as possible.]

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: I rise in support of that amendment, unless there is some legal reason why it has to be 45 days. It seems to be an extraordinarily long time. We would support the 20-day amendment put forward by the member.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no question that the time that matters are before the court has not always been in the best interests of the child in resolving his or her future. There is absolutely no question that we are committed to trying to achieve the same goal that the hon. members are suggesting for an amendment. However, let me outline to you a couple of the concerns.

I'm speaking from what people have told me about the way life is out there. One concern is that both sides need time during this period to instruct counsel, because this is the court case. From a parent's point of view, 20 days may not be enough time to get all the facts, review the law and get on how to proceed. Of course, in many cases the parent has not been a participant in the process until that point and needs to get access to the files, etc. The other issue is that parents who are in rural areas -- or indeed, non-custodial parents who reside out of the province or in a different area of the province -- are often put at a disadvantage by the shorter time frames.

Anyway, I can offer that we have worked toward very much shortening the time frame in this legislation. We will continue to do so, and I will continue to work on behalf of all of us, with the Attorney General, to try to shorten that court time as much as possible. In other words, let's treat the 45 days as an outside limit but as much as possible try to get the system working so that we can get it prior to that. I would hate, though, to set up a system where, because of the nature of our court system and the itinerant travel of courts, we may put some parents at a disadvantage. But rest assured, the commitment is there for short court time.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's response. I just have a feeling that 45 days -- and we don't want to go any longer than that -- will become the norm because it's in the legislation; that's what everybody will target, unfortunately. If we could set it at a shorter period, maybe they'd target 20 days or something. With this, they know they will have 45 days, and that's the way it will be scheduled.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member actually makes an excellent point, certainly one that has been pursued in our deliberations. I don't want to cast any aspersions on the court system. I want to be on the record about that: I am not casting aspersions. But unfortunately, even with our pursuit of the same goal, it was said over and over again to us that at this time it is not possible.

V. Anderson: I understand the minister's reasoning, but she has raised a problem. We understood that by this new legislation we were going to try to develop a court system that was responsive to the needs of the children, rather than continuing in the practice whereby the children are responsive to the needs of the court. The minister has indicated the problem here. I trust that there will be more movement in that direction so that the system is responsive to the needs of the children, not the other way around. There must be a priority here.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Your point is very well taken. That's why we say in so many sections that the court should be the last resort and why we have all these alternatives so we don't end up in court. Just to give us all hope in one other area -- actually, some of us are covered by this.... The family justice pilot projects, which are courts that are not courts, try to take it out.... Some of the staff present are working like crazy to expand those pilot projects to include matters such as this, taking the children out of the realm of the courts completely. So I applaud the member for raising it.

Amendment negatived.

G. Wilson: I have a simple question to the minister. In looking at the processes, initially there's the presentation hearing, then the protection hearing, and a movement toward that as soon as possible. But in the interim, if the director deems that there is some violation of the interim order, it is possible now for the child to be removed. It suggests in the previous section that by simple written notification, that statement can be made and presumably the court can either uphold it or not, because there's no provision for a court hearing in that section. Does that mean that if a presentation hearing is held and an interim order is set, and then the director intervenes and you've got a 45-day period, there is no process within the interim order for a hearing to be held during that 45-day period? In fact, if you had reduced it to 20, it probably would have been even less likely.

In other words, the way that these three processes are set up, the individual may be subjected to two different litigation processes, if I can put it that way, before the courts: one with respect to a potential violation of an interim order, and the second being a final hearing with respect to protection. I wonder whether the minister has considered that, because it would seem that it might put an individual in double jeopardy.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hear you saying that the parent could perhaps be in court simultaneously or on dates that are very close together and, because of the timing, may not end up with just one issue being resolved. If the parent is subject to a supervision order and it is determined that the parent has not met that supervision order, the child is removed and we have to proceed to court anyway to determine the future of the child. So it's not as if the parent would be subject to two hearings going on at the same time. The hearings are the same; they would be the same hearing. It's not a double 45-day period; it's just a single 45-day period.

[ Page 12102 ]

G. Wilson: I appreciate that, but that's not what I was getting at. I was talking about a person who is going to attempt at the protection hearing to put their best case forward to have unsupervised custody of their children, and there has already been a presentation hearing with an interim order. If the director acts against the parent because the director deems that the parent is in violation of some supervision order, there is no provision for a resolution in court on that order prior to the 45 days. Clearly, when they commence the protection hearing after the 45-day period, the director's evidence with respect to the alleged violation, which allowed the director to take the child away, is going to be presented in front of a court.

How on earth is the parent going to be able to adequately argue in a protection hearing if there hasn't already been a resolution of the charges laid by the director under the interim order? That puts the person in a double-jeopardy position before the court, because the judge is going to hear from a director who has taken precipitous action without any appeal being heard. Yet as sure as we're all here, that will be entered as evidence on behalf of the director, and the judge is going to weigh that evidence. Therefore the person will be guilty as charged, without right of appeal, and then will go to a hearing in which that evidence will be used against them. That's my concern.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We must remember that these sections are to deal with situations in which a child is at risk and in need of protection. Therefore this section is about the protection of the children. If a parent wishes to challenge the protection order or the care of the child, that takes place under section 36(4) or (5). In any event, the 45 days starts running from the time that the interim order is established. I understand the member's point. These sections, though, are for determining the best interests of the child in terms of his or her protection. So a challenge can take place under section 36(4) and (5), and then there can be a protection hearing as well.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this, except that it's critically important. We are dealing not only with the right of the child to live an unmolested life, free from abuse, but also with the rights of parents. We're dealing with individual civil human rights in this province. It's a difficult balancing act. Last week when we were debating this, my colleague from Okanagan East introduced a case, on this very point, about a child whose legs were broken while in the custody of a day care. That child was removed from the parent, and the parent was charged with abuse but was later acquitted in court. Even though the government acted precipitously, and had not allowed her own physician to look after that child, mistakes were clearly made.

Under this provision, the director has the right to take the child from a parent and move toward a protection hearing 45 days later, without the parent having the right to challenge the initial alleged violation. That's a serious problem from our point of view. It would seem to me that if we're looking after the interests of both -- the child's being paramount -- we must also recognize that we cannot, or should not, violate individual civil liberties in this province by empowering the state to have unconstrained powers. There ought to be some provision in here that says if action has been taken by a director on an interim order, the resolution of the question of the interim order should be made before the 45 days elapses and/or the protection hearing should be delayed until such time as the case has been heard, so that the person doesn't find themselves in a double-jeopardy situation in front of a judge.

Section 37 approved on division.

On section 38.

R. Neufeld: This may just be a clarification point. Section 38(1) says: "At least 10 days before the date set for a protection hearing, notice of the time, date and place of the hearing must be served as follows...." In earlier discussion on the bill, we had an amendment in place which talked about the form of it being written or oral. We don't designate anything here. Is that something that normally takes place, or do you have to write it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When it is silent, the court rules require written documentation, and the court itself sets out the document that has to be followed.

G. Wilson: I wish to serve notice that is a section on which we'll call a division.

Subsection (1) says:

"At least 10 days before the date set for a protection hearing, notice of the time, date and place of the hearing must be served as follows...(c) if the child is registered or entitled to be registered as a member of an Indian band, on a designated representative of the band; (d) if the child is not registered or not entitled to be registered as a member of an Indian band but is an aboriginal child, on a designated representative of an aboriginal community that has been identified...."

It's saying that we're now taking registration and that if there is non-entitlement to registration as a member of an Indian band, a designated aboriginal community must be served notice with respect to protection hearings. I wonder if the minister might point out to us how that is possible, if there is no entitlement for registration under an Indian band and if the child is under 12 years of age and therefore not designated. If it is simply on a biological basis -- that is, it is determined that a person has aboriginal heritage vis-a-vis the definition of this -- who is going to determine the aboriginal community and how is that aboriginal community to be identified? The second question is: why?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This legislation gives recognition that there are many children who are aboriginal but are not status.

G. Wilson: I think it does a whole lot more than that, and I think it needs to be on the record that in our judgment, this is a racist piece of legislation. I think it's shameful that it is being introduced in British Columbia.

Subsection 38(1)(d)(ii) says: "...the parent who at the time of the child's removal was apparently entitled to custody...." Apparently in the eyes of whom? By what court hearing? By what process? By what judgment of review is there an apparent entitlement? How does a parent become apparently entitled? Is there such a thing in British Columbia's court of law as apparent entitlement?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To address the point of "apparent custody," it is a term that's used throughout the legislation. It's to deem a person who by agreement has custody of the child, and it's recognized by the courts. It's been tested, because it's also used under the current legislation.

[ Page 12103 ]

G. Wilson: Thank you for that clarification; I think it's useful. Subsection 38(1)(e) then says: "...on any other person the court considers appropriate." I know the minister will say that that's consistent with the legislation, and it is in part through the parent meeting process and so on. But could the minister tell us whether or not this section provides for the court to act if the other sections, subsections (2) and (3), are not there -- or, in the case of a non-status aboriginal person, if there is simply an outside appeal made by an aboriginal community? Can the court then simply hear that without the designation under this section?

Just to clarify, so the minister knows exactly what I'm asking, subsection 38(1)(d) says that if the person is essentially non-status.... It then says: "...(i) the child, if 12 years of age or over, or (ii) the parent who at the time of the child's removal was apparently entitled to custody, if the child is under 12 years of age; (e) on any other person the court considers appropriate." And that stands alone -- it's not connected to subsection (1) or subsection (2), because it's distinguished in the act.

So my question is: can an outside intervention to the court directly allow the court to determine the processes for the notice hearing for that child to take place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Subsection 38(1)(e) stands alone. It refers -- and it is the practice of today, as well -- to perhaps the extended family, the grandparents or a person who sometimes stands in the shoes of the parent, like in the case of blended families who don't have any relationship in biological terms.

G. Wilson: For final clarification, then, if it's consistent with how it is today, then it can be by any individual who makes application to the court and who the court may deem to have an interest. I think that's the way it works now. I think that's correct.

[3:30]

Section 38 approved on the following division:

On section 39.

M. Lord: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Lord: I ask the House to join me for the second time this afternoon, along with my colleague the hon. Attorney General and MLA for North Island, in welcoming the second of two groups of 30 students from Ocean Grove Elementary School in my riding. These students are in grades 4 and 5 and are here with their teacher, Mr. Grant Stewart. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: I think that we in the Alliance have made our objections very clear throughout. Rather than protract the debate, our intention is simply to draw the minister's attention to areas that we believe are poorly drafted.

With respect to the parties entitled to come to this hearing, I wonder if the minister has considered the notion that, if a person referred to in section 39(1) appears at the commencement of a protection hearing or becomes a party under subsection (4), that person's entitlement might be ongoing -- whereas other people may be deemed to be important to the hearing and may join at some point after the commencement. I just wonder about section 39(2) in relation to section 39(3), with respect to the matter of entitlement and notice of hearing. Has the minister given consideration to that, and if so, could she tell us what she believes is fair about those two processes?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.

G. Wilson: It's not a really contentious one; it's just a question of talking about the following.... Section 39(1) says that if the "persons appear at the commencement of the protection hearing, they are entitled to be parties at the hearing...." Subsection (2) says that "if a person...becomes a party under subsection (4)..." -- which says "the court may order that a person be a party at any hearing...." Does that entitle people who become aware of a hearing and who believe they want to participate to have equal rights of notice if they are not at the commencement of the hearing?

R. Neufeld: This is just for an explanation or a clarification of section 39(1): "If the following persons appear at the commencement of the protection hearing, they are entitled to be parties at the hearing...." Would this include a parent who has never had anything at all to do with rearing the child in their lifetime? Are we saying that all of a sudden that person can appear and take part in the hearing?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. If the parent who shows up meets the definition of a parent, they possibly could.

Sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

The Chair: Shall section 42 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Excuse me; I believe there is an amendment to section 42 to the order paper.

V. Anderson: I would bring to the minister's attention that the minister has a notice of amendment on the order paper that reads:

[SECTION 42, in the proposed subsection (2)(a) by deleting "10 days" and substituting "7 days.]

I agree with the intention that she gave us in the briefing.

[ Page 12104 ]

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: We have to get a bit of humour in today.

I would agree with the amendment to section 42 as put forward by the minister, which we so ably went right over. I'm glad we went back and are going to take it into consideration.

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

On section 45.

V. Anderson: I would draw the minister's attention to her amendment to section 45.

Interjections.

The Chair: Would the minister care to move the amendment?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe we could do co-ministering here.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 45, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting paragraphs (a) to (c) and substituting the following: 
    (a) 12 months, if the child or the youngest child who was the subject of the initial order was 5 years of age on the date of that order. 
    (b) 18 months, if the child or the youngest child who was the subject of the initial order was 5 years of age or over but under 12 years of age on the date of that order, and 
    (c) 24 months, of the child or the youngest child who was the subject of the initial order was 12 years of age or over on the date of that order.]

Amendment approved.

R. Neufeld: Point of clarification.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Peace River North, who requires clarification.

R. Neufeld: The last amendment was not moved by the minister, was it? Not the one just passed, but the one just previous to that.

The Chair: You will appreciate the reference: it was deemed to have been moved, which is close to being ordained.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 and 47 approved.

On section 48.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe I have an amendment on that. I move the amendment:

[SECTION 48, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following: 
(2) A director who withdraws from a proceeding must present to the court a written report on the director's reasons for returning the child.]

Amendment approved.

Section 48 as amended approved.

Sections 49 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

V. Anderson: Section 67(b) talks about evidence. It seems to me that there needs to be a special reference there to include videotapes of interviews. It's my experience that this would be much fairer for the court and for the child. With interviews that are done in person and then recorded and written out, you have no idea of the attitude, the atmosphere or the kind of questions. In recent court cases this is being included. Therefore I would like to recommend:

[SECTION 67(b), to be amended to read: 
(b) admit any hearsay evidence of the child including videotapes of interviews that it considers reliable;]

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The point is well taken, but videotape evidence is not hearsay evidence; it's classified as direct evidence. However, let me reassure you that section 67(c) provides for that kind of evidence. In fact, the rules of the court under the Evidence Act actually provide the necessary guidance around evidence, which recently has been including videotape evidence as well. So it is covered.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 67 to 70 inclusive approved.

On section 71.

V. Anderson: Section 71(3) states: "If the child is an aboriginal child, the director must give priority to placing the child as follows...." Recognizing the principles involved in the act, I would like to move an amendment that the director "may," rather than "must." It seems to me, given all the other directions in the act, the director will take everything into consideration. But the director shouldn't be limited, and it should be "may" rather than "must." So I would move that amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In an earlier debate the member for Vancouver-Langara made an impassioned speech, which I fully understood, about the nature of the blended family. Let me give him reassurance, though. First of all, this was a priority coming from the aboriginal community in our community report called "Liberating Our Children, Liberating Our Nation." But secondly, the reason we included extended family here was to capture perhaps the circumstances that the hon. member is concerned about. That is not necessarily just an aboriginal family, but the extended family of the community. So this section really is a priority of the aboriginal community. But I hope his fears are allayed in that the extended family, which may be non-aboriginal, is included in this section as well.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister right.... Subsection (3)(a) says: "...with the child's extended family...." If we take the situation where one side of the family may be aboriginal and the other side -- in this case of an adopted child, for instance -- is not aboriginal in heritage, 

[ Page 12105 ]

both sides must be considered or may be considered by the director; it's not weighted to one side or the other. As you go through, the indication as you read it is that it is weighted to one side rather than the other in that particular case.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member is correct in how he assesses it.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 71 and 72 approved.

On section 73.

R. Neufeld: This section speaks about freedom of information applying only after the bill comes into effect. Does this mean that the existing records of the ministry are not governed by the FOI legislation?

[3:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section deals with special provisions for freedom of information after the bill is proclaimed. Prior to that, the laws of freedom of information apply in the same fashion that they do now.

Sections 73 to 76 inclusive approved.

On section 77.

G. Wilson: We have a question with respect to section 77(1)(a) on a third party's personal privacy. Would that kind of restriction also include family members? If there's deemed to be a third-party interest involved, would family members also be prohibited under this section?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, this section is about the director's ability or inability to release information. A third party would include family members. Is that...?

G. Wilson: I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my question. What I'm saying is: if a family member requested information, would the director be precluded from providing that if the third party's personal privacy is deemed by the director to be involved? In other words, are family members precluded by this from accessing information with respect to third-party interests in their child?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This actually deals with people asking for information about themselves. The restriction here is that if they ask for information about themselves where a third party may be harmed, there would be limitations on that. So this isn't a section where family members are allowed to ask about other family members.

G. Wilson: Let me have one last try. Obviously I'm not making my question clear. Presumably, if there's information held on file regarding myself as an individual or some other individual, and if I seek to get from the director information in that file that may involve a third-party interest, would that mean that the third-party interest could be denied me even if that was a family member? That's my question: would it include family members in that file?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

Sections 77 to 81 inclusive approved.

On section 82.

G. Wilson: Actually, I wanted to talk about section 81, but we can deal with it in 82 as well, because it's the same question. I've tried to review the existing legislation and other acts that would be comparable. Is this the same appeal process? It seems that there are several ways in which the appeal process.... If we deal with the two together, under section 82 the Court of Appeal may hear an appeal under a variety of acts -- in other legislation -- that would affect individual families. Could the minister tell us whether she deems this to be a consistent process with the current procedure, or is there something here that we haven't found? It seems to be worded differently from acts that are currently here. Without going through each section of the act -- which we could do if you like -- it seems that this is a different process.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is consistent with what occurs in other areas, and it is consistent with what happens now. We have made it clear on the face of it, and have not referred through the Offence Act.

G. Wilson: From the minister's response, I take it that the Offence Act actually applies; it's just restated in this particular act. Is that so?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You used to have to go through the Offence Act to figure out how to appeal. This is now right in the legislation. So it is the appeal process, and the Offence Act is no longer necessary; it doesn't apply.

G. Wilson: I have one last question on section 82 -- and I apologize if I am jumping back and forth. In section 82 it says: "With leave of the Court of Appeal...." I believe that to be consistent in some cases but not in all cases now -- where there can be a direct right to appeal outside of leave of the court. What is the reason for leaving in here that the Court of Appeal has the right to deny appeal on a question of law?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member probably understands this better than I. You are quite right. It's not universal, but it is common practice and it is a way of.... The sheer volume of cases that would go forth under this legislation requires some sort of review prior to proceeding to a full hearing, so we have chosen the common practice to get leave.

Section 82 approved.

On section 83.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could give us an overview on the Child and Family Review Board before we get into discussion on it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Child and Family Review Board will be responsible for reviewing any breach of the rights of a child in care. The board is an independent process and will have the ability to investigate and recommend changes. As the minister responsible, I would be able to refer any other matter to them to investigate and complete a report on that can be released to the public.

As well, as part of the implementation process, an evaluation framework involving experts and academics external to our government is being developed. In due course this will enable us to evaluate the impacts of the changes that we are proposing.

[ Page 12106 ]

If I may, I'll just carry on about the criteria for selecting board members. The review board will be an independent body that will review breaches of the rights of children in care and any other issue I may refer to it, as I've said. The board is not part of the ministry and will have the ability to review and investigate independently. The review board will also reassure the community that matters are reviewed externally and that families and children have the ability to request an independent review.

The board members will be chosen from the community and will be representative of the persons whom the bill serves, as well as community professionals who play a role in the protection of children. The board members will have to be sensitive to the needs of the children and families that the bill serves and also to the issues related to abuse and neglect. The specific criteria will be captured in the regulations, and I'm certainly open to any advice in that area. The board members will be provided with training before starting their work in order to ensure that they bring the best possible skills to their tasks.

The scope of the board may be expanded over time to encompass other matters -- for example, appeals from foster parents or third parties, which I hope will be good news to your colleague from Abbotsford, who raised a concern.

We're hoping not to create a top-heavy bureaucracy. That's the last thing I think anyone in this House wants. The members will sit, on an as-and-when-needed basis, with a small support staff. The consultation process leading to the development of this legislation was very extensive and inclusive. We'll continue to do that as we implement the new legislation.

V. Anderson: How does this relate to the ombudsman, on the one hand, and the child advocate -- which we'll be dealing with in the other bill -- on the other hand? What is the relationship between these?

Does this review board have the power to overturn decisions? Or does it make recommendations? Just what does the review board do when they have heard cases from concerned people?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we'll see in the next bill that the advocate has the right to refer matters to the review board. Secondly, the ombudsman's jurisdiction continues to do administrative reviews of process issues.

I view this review board as a very practical mechanism that actually can make changes. The review board actually can say to the director to stop breaching the law and therefore do what is correct. In a broader sense, if it's a matter that I've referred to it for a sort of systemic review, the review board may also make recommendations about what changes should occur.

V. Anderson: Will the review board be able to make public statements? Will their reports be available publicly? Will they also make independent statements to the Legislature when they desire to do so?

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are a couple of references in the legislation to making the reports public. One is under section 75(c), which says reports can be published if it's in the public interest. In section 87 we will see that the reports can be made public. But it is not a legislatively created body.

G. Wilson: The minister says that this is not intended to create a huge bureaucracy. People more cynical than I might say that this looks like just that. As I understand it -- even though the minister has said this is an independent body -- the minister is responsible for appointing up to 15 people to this board. The minister is responsible for appointing the chair. It's a three-year appointment with a potential for successive terms. It's going to organize into panels consisting of three members, and each may designate the member or members or the chair of the panel, and therefore may assign to any panel any complaints or matters that are to be reviewed by the board.

We figured out who is next to be reviewing material for this board. Guess what: it's the child, youth and family advocate. We have just spent several days debating the implementation of a director to provide services that give sweeping powers to the ministry with respect to children who are in need of protection. We now see a creation of this new board -- which is the creation of this government, notwithstanding whether it is deemed to be independent -- that has the power of review and investigation. Indeed, it has the powers of a commissioner under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. This board clearly has substantive power to initiate review and take review from a child, a child's parent or any other person who deems to represent the child, and the child, youth and family advocate. It is clearly very much the creation of another level of bureaucracy.

Why do we need this, in light of the fact that we have just created the position of child advocate? We have just created this director process and the proposition for us to move through.... Why do we now have to put in this quasi-independent body -- and that's all that it will be, because the director is responsible to the minister and the minister has rights to appoint -- that can have referred to it, from the child, youth and family advocate, cases that already have a process in place to be reviewed? Would they look at cases outside of what we have just been debating? Is there a process that is independent of the ministerial provisions that exist under the current act, for example? On the surface, there is no clear demonstration of need.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have spent two years in wide-ranging consultation. The recommendation has come from those not only external to this chamber but also from those within this chamber -- and rightly so -- that there has to be a greater degree of accountability in all areas of governing now, and that accountability can't necessarily come from ministries reviewing themselves internally and then reporting out. There has been a widespread call for greater accountability and external and independent accountability.

I would also suggest that while we are creating the advocate, the advocate does not function in a judicial role. The advocate is there to assist the parties to resolve matters prior to them becoming a crisis. However, in those cases where there is a breach -- where there has been an error made and one needs to review it -- rather than going to the courts, we will now have an opportunity.... Children didn't have the right to go to the courts before; we will now have this review board.

We're not breaking new ground here. We have review boards for human rights complaints, health and safety complaints, collective bargaining rights complaints and land dispute issues. Never before have children had an opportunity to have their rights upheld through review. We are giving children in care the same rights we have given for so long to, for instance, people on the job concerning health and safety rights and the right to have that reviewed.

G. Wilson: Before I continue, I wonder if I may seek leave for an introduction.

[ Page 12107 ]

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted that we have in the gallery students from Sechelt Elementary, I believe, with their teacher, Cynthia Normand. I understand that they are involved in a French immersion program, if my information holds me correct. There are 23 in all, including six adults who accompany them. I wish the House would make them welcome, as these students have travelled a long way by a number of ferries to get here and to see democracy doing whatever it does.

Now back to the minister. Some would argue that while there clearly are boards created for virtually everything under the sun, and our children are the most precious of all those matters we seek to govern here, the last thing we want to do is put more and more money into the creation of more and more bureaucracy that deals with more and more issues at the administrative level and less money into direct delivery of service and care. There are those who would suggest that that's precisely what this is going to do. The process in place, as I understand it.... I refer to section 83(5), which says: "In matters assigned to a panel by the chair of the board, the panel has the power and authority of the board and an order or decision of the panel is an order of the board." It goes on to say that the board may be provided similar authority of a commissioner under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act.

We can involve ourselves in an ever-expanding bureaucracy here. If one wants to look at matters with respect to worker protection, as the minister raised, goodness knows there is no institution that's more in need of overhauling and reform than workers' compensation and the boards established there. I wonder if the minister can tell us by what protection there is a halt to the size of this board. Presumably the minister has calculated what kinds of costs we can expect to see on an annual basis to support this board. Clearly this board is not only going to need its directors, but it's going to have a secretariat of sort to keep files, to keep process, to do reviews, to send out notices, to subpoena evidence and so on.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have found since taking over this responsibility that public accountability is paramount. This is not a burgeoning bureaucracy; it will be a relatively small but certainly efficient operation. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to sit down with the member and go over costs with him; I don't have those right in front of me, but we have anticipated costs and actually budgeted for them.

Not all of us read Monday magazine, but just last week there was an excellent article, which I would refer members to, about former and current kids in care who are actually having to organize among themselves to deal with situations they find themselves in. I really think it's one of the last areas that isn't subject to review but really needs to be. In fact, the public and the community are very much calling for it.

G. Wilson: This is my last comment on this to the minister. How does the minister answer those who argue -- and I believe they are becoming more vocal as this legislation becomes more widely read -- that there is a limit to the extent the state should involve itself in matters of family and child-rearing and to the extent that the state should determine what is and is not appropriate? We recognize that violence and abuse against children, and those kinds of issues, are issues on which society clearly needs to take action, and the state is empowered to do so.

I wonder if the minister might provide an argument to counter this. People are arguing with me that when you set up such a review board there is the danger that it effectively creates step one in the state starting to determine on behalf of families -- particularly low-income families, because they are most susceptible to this kind of legislation and are perhaps most affected by it -- what is and is not going to be accepted. As soon as you have the state empowering itself to do that, you run the serious risk of eroding civil rights. Recognizing that children clearly have rights -- and I don't argue that -- I wonder if the minister could provide us with an adequate argument against those who would say that this is step one of a social engineering project.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I was going to be gentle in my comments, until that last remark; maybe I'll still be gentle. I think the hon. member has missed the point of this section. This is a review of where the state has become involved in children's rights and lives. This section only apples to children in care, so that is where the state has intervened in the family, perhaps to its detriment or the child's detriment. This is not a social engineering exercise. This is a call for giving kids.... I was at a conference this morning on the International Year of the Family at UVic. I spoke with a wonderful young woman, who actually heads the B.C. Youth In Care Network. She's older now, but she was a child in care. She said: "All we're asking for is that in our families, when you're in charge of us, you treat us the same way that you would other families." This is a time for them to be able to exercise some sort of control over their lives in that area. It's exactly the opposite of what the member outlines.

V. Anderson: I seek two clarifications. You mentioned that foster children and others can apply to this board of review. Will this review option apply to those who were in the system in past years? Is this the place where these persons can come for a review? That would be my first question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it isn't, hon. member, but let me try to give you some assurances. First of all, I hope that this system will greatly deter any abuses against children in care from now on, so that we are dealing with the root of the problem from this day forward. You're quite right: what about former children in care? On the face of it, this won't assist those children in having their cases reviewed. I actually don't want to give any false hope to former children in care, but it is a matter that I could refer to the board, under my right to refer matters, if, for instance, an institution appears to be the root of many allegations, and therefore an institutional review had to take place. So it might, under those circumstances.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Under section 83(5), an order or decision of the board or panel, whichever the case might be.... If I understand this right, it is basically about the way the ministry or director has acted. It would be a correction, if you like, and either supporting or asking for a change in the action taken by the ministry only -- not by the court. Am I right there? This is a correction or a review of the ministry's actions in dealing with youth, children and families.

[4:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[ Page 12108 ]

G. Wilson: Just a clarification. Will the minister send a detailed breakdown of the costs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I'll provide you with what we've done in terms of analyzing what the costs could be.

Sections 83 and 84 approved.

On section 85.

G. Wilson: I wonder about the dates. Given that the board may review the complaint after 30 days, it strikes me that that's a pretty short time line. I know that members have been arguing to keep the time lines as short as possible, but I just wonder if that's realistic. If this is not going to be a very large organization, and if we're not going to have this new bureaucracy, how on earth is a caseload, which could be huge, going to be dealt with in a matter of 30 days? Very little happens in government in 30 days.

Hon. J. MacPhail: While the bureaucracy may grind slowly, we are faced with dealing with matters much more expeditiously when we're looking after our children. This is actually a situation where the needs of the child in care have to be attended to or corrected. It's my view that when we act as parents and are perhaps told to change the way we parent, we can do that within 30 days. If the system is not doing it within 30 days, then it's timely that it should be reviewed by someone else.

G. Wilson: But with the question of the way we parent, my understanding is that we're effectively saying that this board, which is a creation of government, is going to tell government within 30 days that it isn't doing things properly. Is that right? You've got 30 days for one section of government to tell the other section of government to change the way they're acting. Is that an unfair characterization?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The first 30 days is so that the people involved -- the person making the complaint and the receiver of the complaint -- can work it out, resolve it and agree to correct the problem. If they're not successful in that 30 days, then the review takes place and the review board makes a ruling on what should happen.

R. Neufeld: On section 85(1), could the minister explain under what circumstances the board would not review a complaint and why. In the last sentence it says that the board may review the complaint, so there must be some that may not be reviewed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The permissive nature is in case it actually gets resolved before the 30 days is past. If a complaint is filed and gets resolved in 30 days, then the board doesn't have to proceed with it. It's not mandatory that they proceed regardless of what has happened within the 30 days. I see a look on the member's face. The complaint is lodged. If it's resolved within the 30 days, then there's no need for the board to review the complaint.

R. Neufeld: Section 85(1) says: "If a complaint under section 84 is not resolved within 30 days after the director is notified by the board, the board may review the complaint." That says to me that the complaint has not been dealt with and that the board may review it. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Your point is well taken. What may also occur besides it just being resolved is that a complaint that has been heard before may come forward that is identical in circumstance, nature and, actually, the same child. The board may not need to review it but can make an order.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to belabour this too long. I appreciate what you're saying is if there were a complaint of a similar nature. That would be common sense. But we're interpreting exactly what's written down, and the way I interpret it -- or anybody, I think, who would read it -- is that if it is not resolved within 30 days after the director is notified by the board, the board may review the complaint. I think you should have "must" review the complaint. That still gives the board the ability to decide whether it's a complaint of a similar nature or not, such as the minister mentioned earlier. But I think that giving that latitude gives just a bit too much latitude.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we have also had this debate as well. Let me reassure you that the regulations -- and again, there will be community consultation on the regulations -- will ensure that all complaints will be heard in a way that makes sense, whether that means actually doing a review or going right to determining the breach. Also -- and this actually happens in other review boards -- there has to be a bit of discretion, in case something is frivolous and can be dealt with prior to the board reviewing it. That's what the flexibility is there for.

R. Neufeld: If that's taken care of in the regulations that deal with that section, that's fine with me.

Sections 85 to 97 inclusive approved.

On section 98.

V. Anderson: Section 98(3) says: "The court may make a restraining order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is likely to molest, harass or annoy...." "Annoy" is a very open word. I think I annoy my family quite often, and they annoy me. People annoy each other; they don't intend to, but people get annoyed by other people who aren't trying to annoy them. So I think that word is entirely too broad for this. I think "molest" or "harass" will cover it equally well, and so I would move the amendment that the word "annoy" be removed and that the section be left with the words "molest or harass."

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, hon. member, there's no way that anyone could accuse you of being annoying.

We have taken this language from the Family Relations Act, which includes the concept of "annoy." It's for this reason -- not for circumstances which you have just described, by any means. It's to deal with situations where the courts have found themselves dealing with people who have used very creative ways of taking themselves right up to the line but not going over that line. The courts know how to implement this and ensure that it's not used in any negative way. It's been tested under the Family Relations Act, and it has been found to be necessary in order to have proper enforcement.

[ Page 12109 ]

R. Neufeld: We broke with tradition here. I have the same amendment on the order paper -- for the reasons the member for Vancouver-Langara gave.

I would certainly support his amendment. I think "annoying" gets to the point where you could have a restraining order served for just about any reason. I really think the words you have in there -- "molest" or "harass" -- are broad enough that there would be no need for "annoy." It seems to me to be going to the ultimate end. It would be in good taste to remove the word "annoy" from that piece of the legislation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to try to give reassurances to the members opposite, this exact provision has been in the Family Relations Act since 1979. Let me just tell you how it's done. Many families have asked the courts to review and implement this section, and the courts have developed very clear guidelines about when this can be invoked. It actually hasn't created a problem the way we might have anticipated, so I think we can seek comfort in that.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 98 to 100 inclusive approved.

On section 101.

G. Wilson: On section 100, "Out-of-province orders and agreements," is this by written agreement with other provinces, or is there a second, separate statutory obligation that we have for transportability on that section?

I'm dealing with section 100, I understand. I just went out for a couple of minutes, and we were on section....

The Chair: Member, we're on section 101.

Section 101 approved.

On section 102.

R. Neufeld: Sections 101 and 102 are quite common. We have an amendment on the order paper to amend section 102. In fact, we would like to see that section 5 of the Offence Act is in effect, because we're giving broad powers to directors in this legislation -- broader powers than ever before. But nowhere at all through the act have I been able to see where there's a penalty or anything against a director or the Ministry of Social Services or any person who is acting on the direction of the director. In fact, we're really talking about our children. There should be some responsibility here by the people who are taking control of these children. We see earlier in the bill where there are offence penalties given that are quite extreme -- in some cases I think it's up to $10,000 if you as a citizen don't report -- but nowhere do we see where there are some responsibilities given to the director or anyone in the ministry who has to perform those duties.

I just want to read into the record what section 5 of the Offence Act says: "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment." So it's pretty straightforward. I would rather see that we remove section 3 altogether.

With that, I have an amendment on the order paper.

[SECTION 102, by the deletion of subsection (3).]

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: I must say that it doesn't pay to leave the Legislature even for five minutes; you come back and you've got ten sections passed.

[4:30]

I would wholeheartedly agree with the member for Peace River North. We have stated quite clearly throughout the debate on this legislation that the powers that are provided by the state are enormous. There have to be checks and balances in any legislation. In our judgment, it would seem that unconstrained and unrestricted authority is not in the interests of protecting individual rights in this province. This act dangerously walks the line -- in fact we believe in some instances it crosses the line -- with respect to segregative legislation that isolates individuals and treats people differently from others under one piece of legislation, which we think is offensive. So we wholeheartedly support this amendment. I think the minister on reflection would agree that it is an important constraint that should remain and not be identified as not applying to this act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent of section 102(3) is to.... I'm glad the hon. member read it into the record. I hope he didn't understand it on his initial reading, because it took me four or five times to understand exactly what section 5 of the Offence Act says. Rather than allowing the determination of what an offence is to be open-ended, all this says is that the act itself will determine what an offence is. Also, this section doesn't apply just to directors; it applies to anyone who could be held in breach of the system. The act is clear on what's in a breach and what is an offence.

We're just saying we don't want to overwhelm the system. Indeed, I have heard from the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast the message that we don't want the courts to intrude in our lives holus-bolus. So we have done the act in such a way that offences are clear. The courts will be deciding what is and isn't an offence; it is part of the court proceedings. We're trying to make this an act where.... In the beginning, under the principle, I said this was a whole new way of thinking about this. We're trying to make this intrude into the family's and children's lives where necessary and only where necessary.

Amendment negatived.

R. Neufeld: I have a second amendment in that case, if the minister is not willing to accept my first amendment. That is to add a paragraph to the section and call it subsection (4), which would read:

"A person who is responsible, in whole or in part, for administering this act commits an offence (a) when the person neglects to carry out a power, duty or function conferred under the Act, without reasonable justification; (b) when the person violates the rights of children as outlined under section 70; or (c) when the person fails to provide, in writing, reasonable grounds for the removal of a child under section 31."

If we're going to take out the Offence Act, all that does is list the responsibilities of the director and those people responsible for removing children from the home. We are again getting into a very delicate situation. It just adds and designates a bit to the responsibilities and what that person must do. If you leave section 5 in there and take the Offence Act out, there is no responsibility at all on the side of government or those administering it.

The Chair: The amendment that you're suggesting is out of order, in that only the Crown can suggest an offence. A private member cannot recommend an offence.

[ Page 12110 ]

R. Neufeld: Explain that, please. We cannot make an amendment to this section -- is that what you're saying?

The Chair: That's what I'm advised, member.

G. Wilson: On a point of clarification, on the amendment: "A person who is responsible, in whole or in part, for administering this act commits an offence...." Is that the amendment that has just been ruled out of order?

The Chair: Yes.

G. Wilson: What specifically was the reason for that? Was it because of the provision of violation of rights under section 70?

The Chair: No. The reason was that only the Crown can determine an offence. A private member cannot move an amendment which has the effect of creating an offence; that's the prerogative of the Crown.

Section 102 approved on the following division:

On section 103.

The Chair: The minister has an amendment to section 103. I am advised that there will be a division called on this, so you may want to stay around.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 103, in the proposed section 103(2) by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following: (b) respecting family conferences and mediation;]

Amendment approved.

G. Wilson: So as to save members from leaving and coming back, I did notify the Chair that I would call a division on section 103. I believe that the act empowers the minister with respect to designation provisions for aboriginal people -- matters that are simply unusual in the extreme to be provided to the Minister of Social Services. I believe they may even be subject to a Charter challenge with respect to matters covered by federal law.

[4:45]

Section 103 as amended approved on the following division:

Sections 104 and 105 approved.

On section 106.

G. Wilson: I have two very brief questions. Section 106(1) states: "The definition of 'in need of protection' in section 1 of the former Act continues to apply in relation to a child apprehended under that Act, even if provisions of this Act apply in respect of the child." I wonder if the minister might specifically clarify what it is under the provisions of the former act that is anticipated to carry through, and whether appeal can be made directly with respect to provisions under the existing act, given this clause.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm advised that when we've taken action under the old act -- for instance, apprehending a child -- that law applies. You can't go back and undo that. That law would apply to the circumstances surrounding that child, including what happens with the parents.

G. Wilson: I would agree; that's certainly what I would expect. So in the interim, then, between the time this act may get third reading and the time that regulations are brought to bear, the former act will apply with respect to that interpretation, and any action that will be taken cannot be appealed as a result of the passage of this act and its regulations. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it's to the point of proclamation.

Sections 106 to 125 inclusive approved.

On section 126.

V. Anderson: At one point I had an amendment, but I've had other advice. There was a concern on section 126 that social workers would not necessarily have the qualifications to do the affidavits, that these might not be done as well as they could be, and that this would be unfair to those who were presenting them. But I've been advised by lawyers that that is not the case, so I will not be putting that one forward.

[ Page 12111 ]

G. Wilson: Section 68(2) of the Evidence Act says: "If the powers and duties delegated to a person referred to in subsection (1) are revoked, that person ceases to be a commissioner for taking affidavits for British Columbia." Would the minister explain the intent of that provision in light of 68(1)(a), (b) and (c), because it would seem to me unnecessary.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The right to take affidavits flows from doing their job pursuant to those acts. If the powers are delegated to them in their job and they are no longer doing that job, they don't have residual power to take affidavits. It's only attached to when they have that job.

G. Wilson: So I am reading it correctly, then. It states that the power to take an affidavit rests only with that particular case. Subsection (2) is intended to revoke the title of commissioner for the purpose of taking affidavits at the conclusion of that action. Am I reading it correctly?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's at the conclusion of the delegation of authority.

Sections 126 to 148 inclusive approved.

Title approved on the following division:

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

[5:00]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 46, Child, Family and Community Service Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 45.

CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCACY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; J. Pullinger in the chair.

On section 1.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to ask the minister about something we canvassed to some extent in second reading in terms of questions, but she had no avenue to answer. The definition of child doesn't cover children in general, and that means it's exclusive of children who are not receiving or entitled to receive designated services -- and, of course, we don't know what those designated services are.

Just to shorten the debate, I'd like to put an amendment on the floor and then have the minister address it. It has the same intent as the questions. I move to repeal the definition of child in the bill and to say that child means a person who is under 16 years of age -- the point of the amendment being, of course, that no children be excluded from having access to a child advocate.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our government struck an advocacy committee that involves most of the agencies and ministries responsible for children, and also children who have come under the auspices of government services. As well, the ombudsman and various care deliverers are on that committee. That committee is working hard at expanding the role of the advocate, but at this stage it is agreed that the institutions are not yet ready to accept being declared a designated service, which, of course, is how we can expand the auspices of the advocate. However, that is our intent -- to expand it as broadly as possible to all children who may come in contact with the government -- but at this stage, only our ministry, under Bill 46, is ready to take on that role. The intent is very much to go in the direction that you're outlining.

J. Tyabji: If the intent is to have other ministries and other services designated, then obviously that would come by regulation. The question here is: why would the definition for the purposes of the statute exclude children -- and then later on it talks about youth -- from participating? If there is currently no designation in the regulations, then it wouldn't matter if it was a non-exclusive definition, but the fact is that it is excluded in the definition, even if things are inclusive in terms of the definition later on. For example, the minister was talking in second reading about children in high schools or elementary schools, and the fact that there are many youth in the high schools who would like to have an avenue for advocacy. What this bill is doing, independent of the regulations, is not allowing them that avenue. If the minister wants to streamline it in the short term, that should happen in the regulations, not in the legislation, otherwise the legislation would have to be amended later to allow, for example, for youth who were not under Social Services, or the Ministries of Health or Education. If they were receiving those services directly, they would not be allowed to participate in any kind of advocacy program.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This act is being developed on an incremental basis to include more and more, in the same way the Ombudsman Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act were.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Tyabji: For the record, I would like to say that I have the same amendment for youth, but I won't introduce it. I have the same reservations, and I don't think that the intentions of 

[ Page 12112 ]

the minister are very clear in terms of why some young people would be excluded as opposed to some young people, if they're receiving services from government, being included. If there is going to be a youth or child advocate, then obviously that advocate should be accessible to all young people and children. I don't know why they would be excluded.

Again in this bill we see that the term "community" is not defined, so for the record I'd like to add the following definition to section 1: "A community is a body of people living in one region or district and sharing some common interest." The minister said in the last debate that she doesn't want to talk about a community, but we note that the minister can designate an aboriginal community in Bill 45. In this bill, we're talking about communities being involved in advocacy; yet there is no definition of community. So I'd like to put that on the record and then proceed on the rest of the section.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister tell us...? She talks about a "designated Act," which means Bill 46, which was just passed, and any other designated act. That also coincides with "designated service." I would assume that would be for the purpose of the regulations, but perhaps the minister could let us know why that's in there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Both of these are to allow for, as I iterated earlier, the gradual expansion of the bill, so designated services and designated acts can come under the auspices of the advocate as the system becomes prepared for them.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister provide some concrete examples of what a designated service would be, either under the act named or under another act?

Hon. J. MacPhail: An example, but not limited to this -- I'm sure that's not what the hon. member is asking -- would be the Young Offenders Act, where it's a federal piece of legislation but the services are delivered provincially. There are specific services for children under some parts of the Mental Health Act.

J. Tyabji: Because this will be the only avenue for debate on this.... The minister has named two acts that are remedial -- the Young Offenders Act is remedial, to a large extent -- or reactive. Will anything proactive be designated in terms of a service or an act?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what the hon. member means by proactive. In earlier debate she has mentioned schools, etc. It is our hope that eventually the School Act may come under the auspices of the advocate.

J. Tyabji: Right now, then, the intent would be talking about prescribed ministries, branches or agencies of the government. Has the minister had any discussions with any federal counterparts about the designation of acts or services?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister let us know, for the purposes of this debate, what the intention...? Since we're introducing this new concept of a child, youth and family advocate, and it's going to be restricted in the initial stages -- actually, it looks like it will be restricted throughout its implementation, but in the initial stages it will be severely restricted -- what are the priorities for this minister for prescribing acts or services? Are they existing services, or will new services or acts be designated?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I told you about the interministry committee on this, and I'd be more than happy to give you the membership of that committee in detail. The interministry committee on advocacy is inclusive of the ministries that give services to children, youth and families, the agencies that deliver the services and the youth themselves. That committee is looking at how we can expand the responsibility of the advocate to cover those services.

J. Tyabji: What are prescribed facilities or classes of facilities? Will we be dealing just with Social Services? Can the minister give us some examples of what those would be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Residential facilities, foster homes, group homes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Tyabji: I note that section 2 says: "The office of Child, Youth and Family Advocate is established (a) to ensure that the rights and interests of children, youths and their families relating to designated services are protected and advanced and that their views are heard and considered...." Then it goes on, and through the function and the purpose of the advocate, it talks repeatedly about the provision of "designated services" and "advocacy services." So we're to understand quite clearly that the rights and interests of children, youths and their families not related to designated services are outside the scope of the child, youth and family advocate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: I think the thing that causes the greatest difficulty in this section comes under section 2(c), which says that the office is established "to provide information and advice to the government and communities about availability, effectiveness, responsiveness and relevance of designated services...." I think the word "relevance" causes a big problem. If you have a government office advising a community about the relevance of a government program, chances are that program is not welcomed in that community. That sounds a bit like propaganda. Could the minister speak to that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The word "propaganda" piques my interest. First of all, the advocate is not a ministry appointment; it's an independent advocate reporting directly to the Legislature. Under this section, he or she will provide advice only. Let me just give you an example. In the course of my job, I have learned that some of the institutional services we provided in the fifties and sixties did not meet the test of relevance with regard to what children needed at that time.

J. Tyabji: The only act named in this act as a designated act so far -- in the absence of the regulations and any more specifics -- is the one we just passed: the Child, Family and Community Service Act. A large component of that act dealt 

[ Page 12113 ]

specifically with aboriginal peoples. It seems to me that providing advice to either government or communities about the relevance of a designated service, in the event of that designated service being prescribed by this minister -- because there's a lot of that in the other act, where the minister prescribes which aboriginal community can intervene in a custody or presentation hearing with regard to a child who may not be defined by the Indian Act as aboriginal but is defined by this ministry as aboriginal -- has an enormous impact in terms of how that would play out. Although the minister has said that the advocate will be an independent person, that advocate will now be governed by the act we just passed, and that act was specific in terms of how it was written. This minister was also specific when speaking to how that act should be interpreted.

I think it is quite clear that when the advocate, who is bound by this government's statutes, begins to explain or provide advice to a community about the relevance of the services, programs or initiatives that person is undertaking, that will be directly tied to the acts that have been passed. Even though this government might not be appointing the advocate, it has been crafting the statutes that will govern the advocate. Therefore it provides only small comfort that it won't be something whereby communities will have it explained to them that this government bill is being interpreted as it is, to impose a certain social engineering concept on a community. That's what it sounds like to me. The social engineering of the other statutes will now be provided in the form of propaganda, information or relevance advice to a community. Could the minister explain that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going to try to give a general answer to this. The advocate will provide advice to us within our ministry about what's working and what isn't. There won't be orders given under those circumstances, but it will be advice about what may work for children or perhaps what should be added in order to better assist families and children.

[5:15]

R. Neufeld: I have some problems with this section. Actually, I have some problems with the whole bill, to be honest. We have just gone through Bill 46, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, and changed it dramatically -- and I would hope for the better -- for the children we're trying to protect. In it we set up a review panel and all kinds of things -- 15 members if my memory serves me correctly. Here we're going to have an advocate office "to provide information and advice to the government and communities about the availability, effectiveness, responsiveness and relevance of designated services to children, youths and their families," and "to promote and coordinate in communities the establishment of advocacy services for children, youths and their families...."

That all sounds nice, but I would assume that the Ministry of Social Services should be doing that, as laid out in Bill 46. Why are we now building up another bureaucracy? We're talking about communities. My goodness, there are an awful lot of undefined communities in British Columbia. Maybe the minister could set up some kind of volunteer thing in every community. I would think that the people who would give feedback to the minister about what's working and what isn't in the Child, Family and Community Service Act would be the ones administering it: the director and the people who work in the Ministry of Social Services.

Now all of a sudden we have to enrol another organization or more people in the whole process, to try and give advice and decide what should be changed. To me it's just another bureaucracy where we can get lost again in the process and in paperwork, when we should really be trying to look after the children and the families in the best way we can. By continually having committees of all kinds in different parts of the province to promote and coordinate in communities.... That only tells me that that could be very open-ended and could end up being a massive bureaucracy. And if there's one thing I'm against it's more bureaucracy; I think we've got enough of it now.

J. Tyabji: I don't know that the minister has answered the concerns with regard to subsection (c). Because although she talked about the advocate providing information and advice to the government -- and certainly the member for Peace River North is correct that you'll need quite a few staff members just to provide information and advice to the government -- the minister has said specifically that that would not necessarily result in an order. I don't know what that means -- whether the government will take the advice but go out of its way not to pass the legislation to follow the advice, in which case it's useless, or whether the government will receive the information and bury it somewhere on a bookshelf. This minister has said that she herself doesn't want to know when children are being apprehended under the bill we've just passed. In this situation, "to the government" might be to a level of bureaucracy where it's job creation.

But the relevance question.... I think the biggest problem is that, if we're talking about an instrument of the Legislature.... Although this person is independent, we do know that the government has the majority and is passing the bills and that the person will be tied to the bills; this person cannot act independent of the statutes such as the one we just passed, which, I believe I put on the record, is a racist piece of legislation that this person will now be tied to follow. This person will be explaining to the communities of the province why the enactment of that statute becomes relevant to that community, and we don't even have a definition of community in this bill or the previous one.

Could the minister say something that would allay the fears that this is going to be a top-down information session where somebody who works in Victoria will be telling communities why families have to be engineered a certain way? If that won't happen, if they cannot be advising the community about how that community should operate -- because I would imagine that this person will also be able to advise the director in Social Services.... In fact, we know that, as per the previous bill, if this child advocate feels that a family is not operating harmoniously, that person becomes obligated by statute to advise the director, who may then choose to apprehend the children if the family isn't seen to be functioning to the likes or dislikes of the director.

Could the minister tell us why "relevance" had to be in there? Why aren't information and advice enough? If you're telling the community about what government statutes exist or what the laws or the policies are, why would the community need to know why something imposed on them was relevant to them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section is to assist us in ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are being spent in the way that they're supposed to be spent in the delivery of services tocommunities, etc. The information and advice that will be provided to us by an advocate -- and I will remind the hon. members 

[ Page 12114 ]

that we're one of the last jurisdictions to actually have an advocate -- will also advise us about the relevance of services to that particular community or situation. Indeed, it may be that he or she doesn't have to address the issue of relevance or that that particular service isn't relevant to that particular community.

I just want to read from this report that I know that my hon. colleagues have said they've read. It is what the community panel said about external advocacy:

"An advocate must represent the preferences or best interests of the individual rather the interests of an agency or organization. In some cases, the ability of a social worker or other government employee to advocate for a client will be compromised by the simple fact that they are government employees. The social services must accept the necessity and legitimacy of advocates who are independent of line responsibilities and, in some cases, entirely independent of the government.

"Non-governmental advocacy groups contribute to the accountability of government. This is particularly true when they have the expertise and resources to monitor and evaluate whether services promised by politicians or required by law are indeed provided."

V. Anderson: I am relatively quiet because, by and large, I endorse the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. It has come out in my community experience before that this is certainly needed.

One of my recent experiences highlights some of the reality of what's being discussed here. I think how we interpret the functions of the office depends on the context in which we read the particular words that are there. It could, and does, mean different things to different people, quite realistically. Working with Peak House and the Pacific Youth and Family Addiction Services Society, one of the realities we discovered was that the social workers we were trying to hire had no ability to work with youth. They were adult-oriented; their processes and training were adult-oriented and individual-oriented. Actually, for the most part, many of them weren't even well trained to work with families, because they wanted to work with the individual rather than the collective of the whole family. In order to work in that system, they had to have more training, because working with youth is a specialized area, and you need to have an attitude and an understanding.

The systems in our community are adult systems; our government systems are adult systems. By and large, our community systems are run by adults. Particularly in our day and age, when youth are quite different than adults.... I'll use an illustration here, because I think it's relevant; it's an important attitude that I mentioned before. Our girls are three years apart. As each one went through high school, they were different. Their attitudes were different; the world they lived in was much different. We need someone who thinks and is aware of the current base of children and youth.

I think that's what is trying to be arrived at here. So I read it from the context where "relevance" means relevant to the child at the age and stage that they're at, whether they're in kindergarten, elementary school or secondary school. It means relevant to a particular family, whether their children are teenagers or in kindergarten. It's a relevance to where they are, rather than to where the system is. It seems to me that the task being projected here for the advocate is to make sure that the system is adjusting to children, rather than having children adjust to the system. That's how I understand it, and why I support it.

J. Tyabji: It seems that in reading out of the book about the individual over an organization, the minister speaks against the fact that this bill has actually been written, because it talks about the protection of the individual. This is only the protection of certain individuals who have certain designated services.

[5:30]

But leaving that aside for a minute, I have two questions. Is the advocate then supposed to act in the same manner as the legal aid office? I'll have some other questions later on in the bill about that. Second, the minister seemed to say that the function of the advocate would not be so much to explain to the communities the relevance of the programs or services but to explain to the government the relevance of the programs or services. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that the advocate has a multifaceted role: under (c), it is to provide advice to government; under (d), it is "to promote and coordinate in communities the establishment of advocacy services...."

J. Tyabji: Under (c), it says: "...to provide information and advice to the government and communities...." That's where we have difficulty. In her comments so far, the minister has said specifically that the advice and information, especially with regard to relevance, are being reported to government. But the way it is written, it could say: "...to provide information and advice to communities about the...relevance of designated services to children, youths and their families."

So going back to the first comments that I made under this section, usually the only time that an advocate will have to explain the relevance of a program to a community is when the community does not want or accept that program, or when it is a controversial program. But the minister said earlier that the "relevance" word is primarily with respect to the government. Could the minister let me know if that is the intent of this section -- that the relevance will be reported to government rather than to communities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I am having difficulty understanding the point that the member wishes me to address. Let me just try to make a very brief statement about what the role of the advocate is. This advocate is not some sort of government lackey or apologist. This is an independent officer of the Legislature, functioning in the same way that the ombudsman or the FOI commissioner functions. Beyond that, I can't say that somehow this officer is going to be captured by the government of the day. It's not that at all.

Section 2 approved on division.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Tyabji: Under section 4, "Powers of advocate," it says: "(1) In fulfilling the functions of the office, the advocate may (a) investigate and review a case of one or more individuals or groups of them, whether or not a request or complaint is made...." In the absence of a request or complaint being made to investigate someone -- and we see later on that once there's an investigation, the advocate has the right to search and seizure in a person's home -- what is the criterion to initiate an investigation?

[ Page 12115 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Some matters may come to the attention of the advocate separate and apart from an individual complaint being made. This function is also incorporated into the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

J. Tyabji: But the ombudsman does not have the powers of the advocate in terms of invasion of privacy or of making a recommendation to the director for the apprehension of children. In this case, when the minister says that something may be brought to the advocate's attention by someone else, wouldn't that constitute a request or a complaint? What kind of information are we talking about -- rumours?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ombudsman has far greater powers than are ever contemplated under this act. There are situations in other jurisdictions -- which we assume will occur in British Columbia as well -- where an advocate's involvement in a particular case or several cases indicates that there is some systemic problem that requires further investigation.

J. Tyabji: I wasn't quite clear on that last point. I had trouble hearing the minister, and I couldn't understand the relevance of the last thing. Could she please repeat the last thing she said?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You asked about where a complaint could arise, and you said "rumour" -- I'm sure you said that facetiously. I said that an advocate involved in one or more cases could perhaps see a pattern that needed to be investigated from a systemic point of view.

J. Tyabji: What would be the accountability of that? If the advocate takes the initiative in investigating a family or investigating a situation with a child, is there anyaccountability built into this process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The accountability mechanism is the fact that she or he will report to us in the Legislature, just as do the other independent officers. Also, the advocate is not going to be initiating investigations per se. What the advocate will do is assist in resolving those problems where problems arise. This advocate will act in a supportive and assisting way prior to a crisis arising.

J. Tyabji: All of which requires a great deal of discretion on the part of the advocate. I should say for the record that obviously we're in support of an advocate. I wish it were of a completely different bent and not so bureaucratic.

Under section 4, subsection 1(b), it says that the advocate may "initiate and participate in, or assist children, youths and their families to initiate and participate in, case conferences...." How does the advocate assist them? Is it financial assistance? Is it counselling?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The advocacy involves speaking on behalf of the person. So whatever that takes, that's what will occur.

J. Tyabji: So we're to interpret subsection (1)(b) as saying that the assistance or participation could be the advocate, on behalf of the children or families, with their consent.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: With regard to other dispute resolution processes at the end, how does that play out? What is another dispute resolution process other than negotiation, conciliation or mediation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This actually is an area where we're indicating that this is not an adversarial context that the advocate will function under. The advocate is, by the legislation, mandated to consider other non-adversarial situations in order to resolve the problem that faces the child, youth or family. You said "other dispute resolution processes." As we discussed under the previous bill, it may be cultural contexts of dispute resolution methods or even some sort of final resolution -- perhaps arbitration or something like that.

J. Tyabji: Under this section, to what extent would the advocate possibly work with the director for the purposes of Bill 46? To what extent would there be a sharing of information? I'm thinking of family conferences and all the mediation and negotiation that exists under that bill which the director may participate in. To what extent are they going to be sharing work so that we don't have duplication?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When the director is involved, whether it be in mediation, family conferences or conciliation, the advocate assists either the child or the family in dealing with the director.

J. Tyabji: For the purposes of the negotiation, the family conferences and the plan of care -- which may be entered as an order before the courts, as we discussed in the last debate -- the advocate may be the representation for the family?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

M. de Jong: I think it's fair to say that section 4 does purport to confer on the advocate some fairly broad discretionary powers. All of us can contemplate the more traditional set of circumstances under which that might be applicable within the child services context. Coincidentally -- and I impose myself on this debate for a specific purpose at this point -- I was today provided with some material from a private school, Cornerstone Christian School. The document I have in front of me is a waiver which parents are asked to sign that would allow corporal punishment to be administered to children at that school. I don't deal with the subject lightly, nor do I do so in a way that would purport to condemn any of the people associated with this school, or the parents there; far from it.

In trying to contemplate where the advocate would become involved in certain circumstances, subsection 4(1)(a) suggests to me that perhaps, given that the School Act specifically and explicitly says that there will be no administration of corporal punishment and that the legislation responsible for independent schools is silent on the issue, this is an area where the child advocate could, either at the behest of a student or of his or her own volition -- speaking of the child advocate -- launch an investigation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the advocate doesn't have the right to come into the jurisdiction covered by the School Act yet. We certainly want that, and the act is designed in a way that it could in increments. I'm not exactly sure what the hon. member is referring to on his sheet of paper, but from what he has put into the record, I can certainly say that that is an area where the advocate may want to show interest.

[ Page 12116 ]

M. de Jong: I appreciate that the minister had no advance notice of the question. The document is a waiver form that parents are required to sign to enable their children to attend a particular private school. It is a waiver of any liability, presumably, that would accrue from the administration of corporal punishment to a child. As for the application of the child advocate, and the jurisdiction available to the child advocate under the School Act, in this case this is an independent school that is somewhat removed from the jurisdiction of the School Act. Is the minister able to obtain advice from her deputies that would enable her to say whether or not jurisdiction presently exists under this act for the advocate to impose himself or herself on the private school setting that I've raised?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

V. Anderson: This is a very important section -- as important as the one on the functions power of the advocate -- and I understand the principle behind it. In order to make it broad enough to cover all the bases, I think the ministry has made it so broad that it can become very frightening. As you read through it, we're talking about a freelance operator, really. This freelance operator is not only an individual person, as in section 2(b). When we come to section 6, the advocate has the power to delegate these powers to anyone else -- any function to any organization. So when you put section 4 together with section 6, you have a very broad focus. The advocate is not only an individual person but also a collective that is going out to individuals, organizations and groups.

As you put those two sections together, they can "investigate and review," which is one understanding; they can "initiate and participate in, or assist," which is a broader one again; they can "meet with and interview children." Do they have to have permission to meet with children in schools? This does not indicate that that's needed. Do they need to have power? Do they have the power to go into the school and say that they want to talk to John or Jane, as the case may be? Where are the limitations and controls?

They can "inform the public about the needs and rights of children." Is that general or specific? Can they say of a particular group of people in a particular community that the needs are being...? Can they almost identify those children? Then they can "make recommendations about legislation," which is fine, and "...make agreements to assure the provision of advocacy services to children, youths and their families, including agreements with ministers, agencies and community organizations."

[5:45]

They can make all kinds of agreements with 150 organizations, groups and community activities. What kinds of agreements? What kinds of financial implications? What kinds of authority? When they make agreements, then all of those people under section 6 have the full possibility for full advocacy in sections (1) and (2). So it's the scope.... If you think of an individual, that's one thing; but if you broaden it out and you've got 30 or 50 organizations and individuals sharing part of that scope, then it's something quite different.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have to put on our different thinking caps on this one, because it is unlike other legislation: this is voluntary. People will come to the advocate and use the services voluntarily. So it isn't a matter of an advocate imposing himself or herself on a child in a school or whatever; it has to be a voluntary arrangement. I know that's difficult to understand. It is for me as well. It ends up being the appeal of the legislation: here is a service that is truly independent of government and that families and youth and children can partake of.

The issue of making arrangements or agreements with the community beyond the advocate's office is really in response to what we were told over and over again: the best advocates often rest within the community. We also don't need a large bureaucracy to do that. It isn't as if we will be setting up little regional satellite offices. It will be a public education process to set up community advocates around issues of children, families and youth. There won't be fiscal responsibilities attached to that unless agreed to within the constraints of the budget.

J. Tyabji: The minister has said that one form of assistance under subsection (b) could be that the advocate could represent the family in the event the family is not able to go. Then she has said that wherever the director designated by Social Services is convening a family conference, the advocate cannot represent the family. Why is there a change in terms of what the advocate can or cannot do, depending on what activity is undertaken?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, hon. member. Did I give you an indication that I said that? You referred to acting in the capacity of legal aid in court, so....

J. Tyabji: The family conferences can end up with a plan of care, and the plan of care may be registered with the courts. What I was asking was: is it in the capacity of the advocate to represent the family within the family conference model?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Within the family conference context, what role does the advocate play? Is that the question?

J. Tyabji: What can the advocate...?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The advocate can actually assist in bringing the family conference together. But if the advocate plays any role within that family conference, it's not as legal counsel to anyone.

Section 4 approved on division.

On section 5.

J. Tyabji: We see that the advocate may not act as legal counsel, and we see in the previous debate that the advocate may be a person accompanying the director in the family conferences. We also know from our previous debate that the family conferences may be in the midst of adjourned court proceedings. Will the minister confirm for the record that the government may be actually paying for an advocate, the director designated by Social Services and a legal aid lawyer -- if that would apply in the event of adjourned proceedings -- for one family dispute?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's possible.

J. Tyabji: Section 5 says:"The advocate may not act as legal counsel." Could the minister explain why the government would put this clause in here, rather than write the bill so the advocate can be the legal counsel? We would be able to get rid of all the rest of it, because an advocate could be a counsellor and a lawyer and would have the power not only to mediate the family conferences but to take them through the advocacy stage. Get rid of the legal aid 

[ Page 12117 ]

lawyer and the director of Social Services and have it one person instead of three.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I say this with the greatest respect to the profession, but the advocate may not be a lawyer. There is that possibility. I know it's hard for us to contemplate that lawyers wouldn't rise to the top, but they may not.

The advocate is to assist the family outside the court system, to give the greatest of support resolving matters outside the context of the court. Therefore the advocate's role is not to go into court and act as an adversary in that system. In fact, I'm sure it would go against the thrust of the advocate -- of the person who chooses to take on that role. When the family, child or youth is in court, an advocacy role is played by the legal profession. That's what they are: advocates in the court system.

J. Tyabji: It's not that I'd like to speak on behalf of the legal profession, although there's a couple of them present and my cousin's a lawyer. Some of my best friends are lawyers, right?

The minister should be aware that right now one of the biggest fields expanding in family law is the field of mediation and that in fact it is preferable not to go the adversarial route. Many lawyers -- not that I'm speaking.... I'm not saying the advocate needs to be a lawyer. But if the advocate is going to have the power to represent the family, as we see in section 4 -- in case conferences, administrative reviews, mediations or other processes -- and the minister has given the advocate the power to do that, why would the minister not...? The advocate doesn't have to be a lawyer, but the minister is saying that even if the advocate is a lawyer, the advocate may not act as legal counsel, which means there's a duplication. We could have a lawyer as the advocate, a legal aid lawyer and a director designated by Social Services all working on the same case. Everybody would be trying to make it non-adversarial, but there would be three of them, and they could outnumber the family, if the family is a single parent and one child.

Hon. J. MacPhail: A couple of points. We are not embarking on the legal profession's concept of advocacy here; as I've said, this is a new concept of advocacy. I would hope that hon. members won't confuse the advocate contemplated here with the family advocate, who can be appointed under the Family Relations Act. Other than that, I think the debate has been covered previously.

Section 5 approved on division.

On section 6.

R. Neufeld: Section 6 states: "The advocate may, in writing, delegate to any person, agency or community organization any duty, power or function of the advocate under this Act." That is pretty broad-ranging. We are proposing to amend this section to allow the advocate to delegate only to employees of the office of the advocate. Under this section, you could replace the advocate with a community organization throughout this bill and give community organizations the same broad powers and vaguely defined functions as the advocate. I don't think this is the intent of the bill, and it shouldn't be. I would propose an amendment to section 6, by totally deleting it as it stands now and replacing it with: "The advocate may delegate any duty, power or function of the advocate under this Act to any employee of the office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate as appointed under section 15."

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In a quick reply, the hon. member spoke earlier about the fact that he doesn't see the need for a burgeoning bureaucracy. I agree, and certainly the community agrees. The community sees a role that it can play in this assisting process, which actually does away with a big bureaucracy. I think his amendment actually speaks against his earlier comments. This is actually to assist in empowering families and communities to advocate, rather than having the bureaucracy doing it.

J. Tyabji: I would speak in favour of the amendment. With the powers we have here, a community organization could, by delegation, have the right to any information necessary to enable it to perform its functions, based on the way it's written -- unless the minister will tell us otherwise. The advocate can delegate incredible powers to anybody to invade people's privacy. Obviously, if the minister doesn't mean that, then the amendment should be accepted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the delegation is broad; however, I put that in the context of the bill. This is a voluntary service, and we are not imposing our will on anyone. This is where people will come to us.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 approved.

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

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: I call committee stage on Bill 12.

LIBRARY ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 12; D. Lovick in the chair.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

[ Page 12118 ]

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us why section 12(b) requires the secretary of the board to be the chief librarian?

Hon. D. Marzari: The term "secretary" is used here to describe the relationship of the chief librarian to the library board. As the secretary, the librarian is responsible for carrying out the communication function of the board, for providing executive support to the board and for maintaining all its records. The term does not denote the role of a secretary as it's become commonly known, but rather the relationship of a chief executive officer to a board. Recording minutes may be part of this function, but in most cases that duty is delegated. This does not represent a significant change from the previous act. The chief librarian of all municipal libraries has always been the secretary to the board by virtue of her or his office. The new act extends this to regional library districts and public library associations.

Sections 12 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

C. Tanner: Section 22 says: "For the purposes of sections 23 and 24, the minister is to determine the population of an area...." For what specific purpose is the minister getting into this act? Is it because she is an impartial evaluator of the population -- or why?

Hon. D. Marzari: If any tuning is to be done in the years between the federal census, then it's up to the ministry to work with the numbers that may have accumulated in various communities for purposes of cost-sharing.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

C. Tanner: If I have heard any criticism of library boards, it's that they spend far too much time discussing their budget, how they are going to meet their budget and those sorts of things, rather than discussing books and the services they are bringing to the public. This seems like an unduly complicated system they've got here, but I think it's one that they have put together themselves. Could you give us some background on section 23?

Hon. D. Marzari: Section 23 is a mechanical formula for developing expenditure patterns: "(a) each member of the library board has one vote, plus one additional vote for each complete 1,000, after the first 1,000, of the population of the municipality represented by the member or of the electoral participating areas...." In fact, it's a simpler procedure than has been used to this point. As you know, two-thirds of the participating municipalities and regional districts can determine the formulas for weighted voting and cost apportionment. Section 23 basically is a way to develop that cost apportionment -- with the weight.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but my question for section 23 was actually for section 24. Section 24 is a very complicated formula, and I was wondering about the history of it.

[6:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: The formula that is now being used is called the default formula. It takes population into account for ascertaining how much a municipality or partner pays into library expenditures, and half this particular financial clause, which is the converted value of land and improvements. It represents a percentage of the assessed value of all land and improvements in the given areas, and it is multiplied by a percentage equal to the percentage prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It means that all property is classed -- as all property is classed -- by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Nine classes or multipliers exist, ranging from the residential class at 0.1 to the highest major industry class at 0.4. To arrive at the converted assessed value, the assessment is multiplied by the class figure, and that means that more tax dollars come from industrial than they do from residential.

This is uniform across the province. It does not go with the variable assessments for the different classes that municipalities are allowed to decide upon. I gather that this was developed in response to a rather chaotic period in which people simply didn't agree on what a weighted vote would bring in, in terms of the levy, so this is a way to settle that issue. It has been used, it seems to work, and it's regarded favourably by regional districts, I gather, for provision of other services.

C. Tanner: When the minister says that it has been used, does she mean in this format by the library regions, or is it being used in some other format? I must repeat what I said before, that many people who have served on our local library boards have told me that this is one of their biggest problems. Have you resolved the problem, or are you using a system that has been used in other areas?

Hon. D. Marzari: This is the system for weighted allocation presently used by the Vancouver Island Regional Library system. I'm sure it has its problems, but it seems to have had a better takeup and creates a smoother administrative flow than what has gone on in the past. In fact, two of three regional library districts presently use this default formula.

C. Tanner: I think the minister put words in my mouth. The problem is that it's quite a convoluted system. In fact, as I said, it's something I have heard complaints about in my constituency and in that region, and that's the program the minister just said has been in use in that region, which leads me to believe that this isn't necessarily the best formula. What other formulas did they use in other regions?

Hon. D. Marzari: Over the years other regional districts have used 100 percent population or 100 percent land and improvement assessments, and neither one of them has worked appropriately. This combination of the two seems to have created the greatest peace, not only for libraries but for a number of other regional district services.

Sections 24 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

C. Tanner: Section 39(e) states: "...may raise funds to support the public library association." Is there a choice here, Madam Minister, for a service charge?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is not.

[ Page 12119 ]

C. Tanner: Can the minister assure us that we have a free public library system in this province, that we will continue to have, and that there will never be a for-service charge under this legislation?

Hon. D. Marzari: With great delight, yes.

Sections 39 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

R. Neufeld: Providing library service free -- and I assume it's on reserves.... How is it going to be funded? Maybe that's the first question. Why would we not approach the federal government about some help there? I don't have any problem with the libraries but with the funding of them.

Hon. D. Marzari: Nothing in section 50 precludes an approach to the federal government under the Indian Act. In fact, it is encouraged that a native band would want to speak with both the federal and the provincial governments about provision of library service. This clause enables the provincial government, should it so engage in a partnership or agreement, to assist in the funding of an Indian band for free library service.

R. Neufeld: Is it the intent of this minister to pursue co-funding with the federal government?

Hon. D. Marzari: At this point, no. But I just want to make it very clear that the option should remain open and that we should be able to do that should we so choose; we should be able to enter into partnerships.

C. Serwa: With regard to section 50, there is a situation that occurs in the central Okanagan with our library. Because of the taxation agreement that the federal government has enabled bands to implement, the Westbank Indian band utilizes that taxing authority. But there has been no protocol arrangement or agreement that requires the band to enter into any agreement with the Okanagan Regional Library. The dilemma in which about 6,000 or 7,000 non-native residents find themselves is that if they want to utilize library services on band land, they have to pay an additional $60 per year. It doesn't even cover the cost, but it is quite a high amount. The situation has caused a great deal of frustration, where band members can utilize library services but non-residents on band land cannot. They are paying equivalent taxes to what any other resident in the Regional District of Central Okanagan pays. So the dilemma comes in, and this section may enable the minister to respond to that concern.

Hon. D. Marzari: The member is absolutely correct on that score. It has been a concern of mine, and I have been disappointed that we haven't been able to develop a relationship or a partnership so that non-natives on the reserve will be able to access library service the same as everybody else, and the same as the natives in the band. The case is similar in two or three other instances throughout the province, and it's my hope that we can use section 50 to enter into better contracts and to encourage something to happen, so that we can truly say that section 46 will come into being and that there will be free library service for everyone.

C. Serwa: Library services are exceedingly important to all of us, and that can't be overstated. In the nature of events, the federal government is primarily involved with failing to establish that protocol agreement. I suppose that the only latitude the provincial government has is through ministries other than yours directly, but I would certainly urge you to do whatever you can to enhance that probability.

Sections 50 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

C. Tanner: As you read this section, would it preclude a bookseller from taking part in his local library? That's the first question. The second question: in (2)(b), who determines whether somebody has an interest -- the board?

Hon. D. Marzari: One would assume that the board would have a contract or a policy around acquisitions and that the board's own contracts or own policy would dictate whether or not a bookseller would be able to sit on the local board.

As for what various members of the board can engage in in terms of the discussion, I think that would largely be up to the board, although obviously everything can be tested in the courts. But the board and the individual would decide whether or not they had a conflict of interest in these instances and remove themselves from decisions they felt there might be a conflict around.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us, if there's a conflict of opinion between the board and a member, if there is an appeal to anyone other than the courts?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is no appeal in the act to resolve a dispute between the board and its members. One would assume that the majority of the board would have a say here.

L. Fox: Just a couple of points. I got caught downstairs eating dinner, because up until 5:35 the Minister of Social Services had informed me that her bill was coming back.

I'd like to ask permission to perhaps revisit section 50 for a moment, because there are a couple points of clarification I wanted to achieve.

The Chair: Proceed.

L. Fox: Thank you.

Interjection.

L. Fox: The Minister of Social Services doesn't seem to feel that this debate is important, I guess.

I have a couple of areas of concern. I understand that my colleague from Peace River North asked about the delivery of service on reserves, and the minister indicated to him that in fact it was the intent of the government to provide free library services on native reserves. I have a couple of questions: does that mean that the minister is intending to establish libraries when requested by respective bands on reserves, or are they going to provide the service using libraries in communities neighbouring the reserves?

Hon. D. Marzari: The answer to the first question is no; and the answer to the second question is that we'll be developing partnerships with libraries that presently exist.

[7:00]

[ Page 12120 ]

L. Fox: As I understood the minister, they're going to be developing partnerships with library associations. Is that what the minister said?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

L. Fox: Presumably the funding of such a service, then, would be negotiated between the library board and the ministry at that time.

Hon. D. Marzari: That is correct.

Sections 53 and 54 approved.

On section 55.

C. Tanner: Where we're talking about reimbursement of expenses, I don't remember ever seeing "child care expenses" included in an act before. Is this a new item?

Hon. D. Marzari: It is a new item to this act. Many communities have said that this is something that has prevented a lot of people from getting involved in their library boards.

C. Tanner: It's hard to estimate the care of children while people are performing these sort of duties. Will you have some guidelines in the regulations?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

C. Tanner: She doesn't go on for long.

Section 55(2) says: "A library board may not reimburse a member for any expenses...." Is it talking about city councils here?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

Sections 55 to 70 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Marzari: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 12, Library Act, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee A to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Forests; in the House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45.

CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCACY ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 45; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 7.

J. Tyabji: Before the adjournment for dinner, the minister said that the ombudsman has greater power than the advocate. I have reviewed the Ombudsman Act since the adjournment, and I actually take issue with that; I don't think it's true. Section 7 is one of the sections I was referring to when talking about the power of the advocate. Subsection (1) says that the "advocate has the right to any information that" -- then under subsection (a) it talks about a public body -- "(b) is necessary to enable the advocate to perform his or her duties and exercise powers or functions under this Act." Because this act is directly linked to the other act, Bill 46, could the minister tell us what the limitations would be on the rights to information when it comes into the private domain?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Two conditions actually must be in place: the information must be in the custody or control of a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- for example, government files -- and the advocate must demonstrate that the information is necessary for the performance of advocacy duties and powers.

Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am actually delighted that this family has decided to rejoin us; they were with us previously in the debate, and I missed the opportunity to introduce them. A member of our staff is Jerry McHale, who has been an absolute necessity in getting us through this debate. His family is with us today: Kathryn McHale, Kristin McHale, Kay Berge and a nephew, Geoffrey Pollock. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Tyabji: I'm trying to find out which section the minister was referring to when she talked about applications for information. My understanding is that the applications for information would be under subsection (a), but under (b), it talks about any information that "is necessary to enable the advocate to perform his or her duties and exercise powers or functions under this Act." As we know, in the event of the advocate being involved with family conferences or with whatever the advocate is going to be doing in order to allow the child or youth to have access to designated services, it's quite possible that the advocate may believe that he or she will need information about the person's private life -- for example, in their home. To what extent are they limited by subsection (b)?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's an overall limitation by the fact that the access to the advocate is voluntary; it's not compelled anywhere. Again, families, children or youth choose to access the advocate by their own voluntary will, so that's a substantial limitation on access to information in the first place. Then the limitations beyond that are imposed in section 7(3), which says that the advocate cannot obtain information secured by a solicitor-client relationship; and under section 7 generally, the advocate cannot obtain information in the possession of an individual, a family or any body that is not a public body.

J. Tyabji: Where was the minister just reading about anything other than a public body? I don't see that in the act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 7(1)(a).

J. Tyabji: I'm trying hard to understand how (1)(b) limits the advocate. The minister was saying that the advocate is a 

[ Page 12121 ]

voluntary position; a child or youth has to voluntarily go to an advocate for the advocate to be acting on his or her behalf. But if, for example, the child or youth has a parent or another member of the family, and the advocate wants information related to that person in the child or youth's private life, how is that limited by the act?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the advocate only has access to information that's in the public domain, and then there are restrictions beyond that.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying that the information has to be both public and necessary in order for the advocate to have access. It couldn't be that these are all the pieces of information they could have access to. If I'm understanding that correctly, then, for example, we wouldn't have the advocate conducting an investigation of a person in the child's or youth's private life who is outside of the public domain. That wouldn't happen under this section, is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's right.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Tyabji: With respect to information provided to the director under Bill 46, we know that Bill 46 is very specific in that if someone did not disclose information that might be relevant to protecting a child, they could suffer prosecution. Might an advocate be subject to prosecution under Bill 46 with respect to section 8 in Bill 45?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: The previous section talks about information from a solicitor-client relationship being privileged. Why would information between the child or youth client and the advocate not be privileged as well?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said earlier, the advocate's relationship with the people she or he serves is not a solicitor-client relationship.

J. Tyabji: The minister says the advocate could be subject to prosecution under Bill 46 if there isn't proper disclosure when the advocate deems it necessary. Actually, I assume it would be the director who might assume that some of the information the advocate has could have been relevant to protecting a child, and who in that case might proceed with prosecution. Could the minister tell us to what extent the advocate will be voluntarily providing information on an ongoing basis to the director so that Social Services will have some kind of file on the children or youth in question?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's not the role of the advocate; he or she won't be doing that.

J. Tyabji: I'm a bit confused, because in many cases it could be the same children or young people who would be from families in difficulty under Bill 46 and who may need advocates under Bill 45. In the event that there is an active file with the director under Bill 46 and an advocate under Bill 45, will there be an automatic sharing of information?

[7:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

J. Tyabji: Who will decide when an advocate may be withholding information that would be important to the director -- if they are both dealing with the same child -- and if the advocate may be subject to prosecution under Bill 46?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think we've covered this already, but let me just reassure the member that that won't occur.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Tyabji: It says that "the advocate may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises in which designated services are provided...." Would that not involve the private home as well?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just clarify that a designated service means the foster home, not a private home, which isn't a designated service in our ministry.

J. Tyabji: Earlier in the debate, the minister referred to the possibility that the Young Offenders Act and the Mental Health Act might be two other acts under which there might be some designation for an advocate under this act. That may mean that the designated services would be provided in the home. At that point, would the advocate be free to enter the home?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. Let me assure you that this does not in any way intrude upon an individual's private home.

J. Tyabji: I have one last question. Would this include the school if the child were at school, or is it something that's written for the prescribed facility? If it were for the prescribed facility, I'm just curious why that wouldn't have been part of the definitions -- because the minister does talk about prescribed facilities earlier in the bill.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The schools are not yet designated. As I said earlier, the bill may be expanded to include school facilities, but they're not at this point.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

J. Tyabji: With regard to an acting advocate, I'm just curious why the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would appoint an acting advocate when we know that the advocate can delegate the responsibilities to someone else pro tem rather than to cabinet?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This will occur if the advocate is removed or suspended for cause or incapacity. You would need an advocate in that intervening period when there is no permanent advocate, so it's pro tem to cover that period.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

J. Tyabji: Under subsection (5), it says: "The advocate may make a special report to the Legislative Assembly if, in the advocate's opinion, (a) the amounts and establishment provided for the office of advocate in the estimates are 

[ Page 12122 ]

inadequate for fulfilling the duties of the office...." Could the minister tell us on what criteria the advocate would determine inadequate services?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section also applies to other officers of the Legislature if future governments -- not this government, of course -- in any way try to restrict the access of the office to funds. This gives them an avenue through which to appeal that.

J. Tyabji: To what extent will budget restrictions or financial considerations be put on this office in terms of realistic limits that the system can handle? If some guidelines are provided, which ministry of cabinet will be providing restrictions as far as how big this office can get?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, this is an excellent discussion for estimates, and indeed we did discuss this in estimates. Of course, the funding of this office is subject to the constraints of any budgetary review.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

J. Tyabji: Would this prohibit an individual who wanted to take an advocate to court...? For example, if there were a child or youth advocate and a parent, and that parent wanted recourse for wilful defamation -- let's say they felt the advocate had acted in bad faith or done something not necessary in terms of something said publicly -- would this prohibit that individual from prosecuting the advocate? Would this provide the advocate safety from prosecution?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. Actually, lawsuit is available if someone has acted in bad faith.

J. Tyabji: Of course, this implies that they will have to prove that the person has acted in bad faith before they can sue the person. This section says: "No proceeding may be brought against the advocate, or against a person acting for or under the direction of the advocate, for anything done, omitted, reported or said by the advocate or that person" -- and that could include community organizations, because the minister is allowing delegation to a community organization -- "in good faith in the performance or exercise or purported performance...." I assume an individual can take the advocate to court.

I have two questions. First, would they have to prove -- or would there be a hearing to demonstrate -- some grounds for bad faith before they could do that? Second, is the advocate herself or himself liable for the people they've delegated to perform their functions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The charge can be laid, and the advocate can be brought to court. Part of the court proceeding is to determine the test of good or bad faith. It's not a prerequisite to going to court; it's part of the court proceeding.

The answer to the second part of your question is that the advocate is liable for those to whom he or she has delegated.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying that when there is an action there would be a hearing to determine whether there'd been good or bad faith, and they'd proceed from there.

If the advocate is going to be held liable for community organizations, to what extent...? I'm looking at this and thinking that the minister has allowed extensive delegation powers by the advocate to anyone indicated by the advocate as someone who can take over -- or to a group, which isn't even specified. Then that group can act independently of the advocate, and the advocate is liable. Has the minister given any consideration to how this section might play out in terms of delegation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, that's another kernel of the whole genesis of this legislation. We not only have to be extremely careful about whom we delegate to, which is how we discussed it under the delegation section, but also that when we do delegate, we take full responsibility for that.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved on the following division:

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 45, Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[7:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I now move that Bill 12 be read a third time.

Deputy Speaker: Let me explain ever so briefly. The bill was passed without amendment and therefore can normally proceed to third reading.

Leave granted.

LIBRARY ACT

Bill 12, Library Act, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 12123 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 35.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 35; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 1.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, are we going to deal with the act pursuant to the numbering that appears -- 24.1, 24.2? Is the minister agreeable?

The Chair: I think that would certainly be the best approach, and I'm sure the minister is agreeable to that.

On section 1, section 24.1.

M. de Jong: With respect to 24.1, the definition of motor vehicle incorporates the definition set out in the Motor Vehicle Act. Is it the minister's intention that the amendments also cover farm implements and farm vehicles -- farm tractors specifically?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it was not the intention to cover farm vehicles.

Section 1, section 24.1 approved.

On section 1, section 24.2.

M. de Jong: The section differentiates between "a new motor vehicle or an engine," and it may be a term of draftsmanship that I have forgotten or never did know. Does it appear deliberately that this act and these amendments will cover new motor vehicles, but any engine...? If one goes to the auto wrecker and buys an engine, would that engine be covered by the legislation?

Hon. M. Sihota: Based on the silence on this side of the House, obviously I also missed that lecture in law school on legal drafting.

The intention of the section is to cover new motor vehicles or engines -- not necessarily new engines, but engines. When we looked at this first, it would only make sense that you would apply it to new engines, because we are talking about new standards. But you could have a situation where you have a one-year-old vehicle with an engine conversion. So just to make sure that we had some latitude in the event that we came up with a problem, instead of having to come back to the House to seek an amendment, we chose to have this wording in place in order to give us a little more flexibility. The inclusion of the word "new" after the word "an" would have denied us that flexibility.

M. de Jong: I will make both the points I want to make and await the minister's answer.

Presumably, the regulations on which this legislation will live or die will afford that degree of flexibility also, and we will have to await what arises there. The minister described one situation, and there are any number of permutations that might exist, but it's important that people know whether the particular chattel they are buying is subject to this legislation. Presumably, if the minister is going to enforce it with the degree of zeal he indicates he intends to, a purchaser could end up with an unusable chattel, so I hope the ministry officials will take that into account. I'll leave it at that.

The other observation with respect to section 24.2(1) is that that section doesn't include the word "lease." I only mention that because section 24.4(a) does include the word "lease." With respect to those domestic fuel-burning appliances, the ministry appears to be contemplating leasing the chattel. With respect to motor vehicles, leasing doesn't appear to be contemplated.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a good point. Unless the hon. members have some difficulties, I'm open to a House amendment to include the word "lease." So section 24.2(1) would read: "A person must not sell, lease, offer for sale, display for sale or deliver...." It's just the inclusion of the word "lease" at that point. It's a valid point, and it should have been captured. Unless the opposition has a major problem with that, I'd be happy to include the word "lease" in there.

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: I wasn't aware if it was a deliberate omission or not. I'm content to accede to the friendly amendment -- if that's the correct term.

G. Wilson: Before we're so quick to jump on this amendment, I wonder if we could have clarified where lease applies in this section and whether or not.... Could you just tell us where the word "lease" is to be inserted? It could make a substantive difference to this section of the bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: It would seem to me, hon. member, that the member for Matsqui raises a good point. It would seem to me logical to read: "A person must not sell, lease, offer for sale..." and go on from there. That's where I think it should be inserted.

G. Wilson: I gather we're talking about section 24.2(1).

The Chair: That's correct.

G. Wilson: Then the only thing I would argue is the question of a "new motor vehicle." Many rental agencies are leasing vehicles that may be considered new in the sense that they've been purchased with a view to being put into a rental fleet. Under this legislation it may be considered a new vehicle, yet I assume it would not fall under the regulations of this act, because it wouldn't be new as might be determined on a motor shop floor by somebody who is retailing automobiles. We have to be very careful that we're not all of a sudden going to hammer every rental car agency that may have vehicles on order and coming into the fleet and that would be considered new but would essentially not fall under the conditions of this act.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't see how that harm is created here. There are regulations, and it is modified later on by the inclusion of the word "new." No, hon. member, I'm not persuaded by that argument. I'm inclined to include the word "lease" there, and I would propose a House amendment to that effect.

The Chair: We understand that amendment as having been moved.

G. Wilson: If you're dealing with an individual.... As I lease a vehicle from a retailer -- in my instance, it's a Ford retailer -- and I choose to lease rather than purchase, I can 

[ Page 12124 ]

understand the provision of that. My concern is that it does not apply to a broader rental agreement that you might have with a company that is leasing vehicles for the purpose of daily use, which would not ordinarily be a new vehicle defined under this act. Can the minister make it clear that a lease would not apply with respect to fleet-leasing arrangements that might be there? Clearly the place to trap those vehicles is at the retailer, whether it's a wholesale-retail agreement or something that's done on a retail agreement. I think the minister may understand what I'm referring to, hopefully. That lease agreement would change the nature of what this bill intends to do.

Hon. M. Sihota: It doesn't, because that company.... If you were leasing a car from Budget, to use an example, Budget would still have to buy the car, and it would be captured by the purchase provision.

M. de Jong: My observation is that the key here is to be sure that there is a clear definition of what a new motor vehicle is. We can assume that to be a literal and common-sense definition, but all of these problems that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast speaks to disappear if one has a clear understanding of what a new motor vehicle is. The scenarios he has spoken to don't cause a problem if one accepts that new motor vehicles are not involved.

[7:45]

G. Wilson: I see the minister nodding, although given that there's no written record of this amendment, save Hansard, I think it would be useful if we could have in Hansard that the minister would agree.

My concern would be that a vehicle could be deemed to be new, especially those that may be on fleet rental purchase agreements that are purchased outside of British Columbia and then leased within the province, because there are nationwide rental agreements. Fleets are often bolstered by vehicles that originate outside the province and that may be deemed to be new under this act but would not ordinarily fall under this regulation.

Hon. M. Sihota: We're protected against that harm, and I agree with the comments made by the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: May I just hear what we've settled on for the wording, hon. Chair?

The Chair: You may indeed. Minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: "A person must not sell, lease, offer for sale..." and so on from there.

The Chair: Okay. Does that clarify it?

M. de Jong: Thank you.

Amendment approved.

M. de Jong: I have a question with respect to section 24.2(2) and availability. We're dealing here with fuels, and when I read that section, my question is: how does availability fit into that section? Presumably, if the fuel is being sold, it is available. I'm not sure that its appearance in that section as opposed to elsewhere in the legislation makes a great deal of sense.

Hon. M. Sihota: As you see, the reason for the inclusion of the word "availability" goes back to the issue of the regulations. It may be that what we would want to do -- in fact what we probably would do.... I'll give you the example of low-sulphur diesel. Obviously, one of the things we want to do is reduce the sulphur content in diesel. We may want to make that fuel available on a staggered basis so as to deal with problems in acute areas first -- like the area you represent, the Fraser Valley and lower mainland -- and pass a regulation that it must be available in those geographical areas and not in other areas until we're ready to implement them and make them available there.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that explanation, because it clarifies quite a concern of mine, especially where fuel is refined. I do know that when we were refining crude in Taylor, it was high in sulphur content, but out of Edmonton you have a different kind of crude and the sulphur content is lower, and it makes a lot better fuel.

I just wonder how you're going to control that, even in the lower mainland. Let's say it's in Vancouver or the Fraser Valley. How are you going to control that? You also have the importation of fuel from south of the border -- I don't know how they refine it down there -- or from Alberta. There is a cost associated with the further refining of any fuel, and it's going to be passed on to the consumer. I just don't know; if you charge 2 cents or 3 cents more per litre in the lower mainland, some trucks nowadays can travel a long way. I'm sure they're going to be filling up a long way away, coming in and going back out, so it's not.... Really, what we're trying to do isn't going to be accomplished.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I was saying to the hon. member, the only reason I put the word "availability" in there was that I was thinking specifically of him and the concerns in his constituency, so that's his fingerprint on this bill.

But we do that already. For example, the RVP, the specific level of volatility within a fuel.... We already, through regulation, designate the area in which you must meet those specifications. We have experience with being able to do that regularly now, and the industry complies. The same argument as you raised for diesel would apply there. We actually have a system set up with industry that allows us to have different standards in different portions of the province. They deliver the fuels, and we will do tests on the fuels to make sure that they meet the criteria established in those regulations. That infrastructure flexibility is already there.

Section 1, section 24.2 approved.

On section 1, section 24.3.

M. de Jong: I'll present my questions again in the order of the subclauses, for ease of reference.

With respect to 24.3(a), my question to the minister is simply: what exemptions are being contemplated? Part of my concern stems from information provided to me by the automakers. The minister has quite often alluded to the California standards he has indicated he intends to draw from. One of the difficulties that apparently exists in that jurisdiction is a fairly blanket exemption that applies to low-volume manufacturers and low-volume producers. We start to run into some serious equity problems if those are the sorts of exemptions the ministry is contemplating.

Hon. M. Sihota: We placed that exemption in there in part to give us some flexibility and to not limit ourselves in the act with regard to its application. It is true that there have been exemptions in California. I'm aware of that, and that 

[ Page 12125 ]

was certainly one of the arguments automakers made to me when we met. At least that's my recollection of it; I could be wrong. What wasn't said at the time was that in California those exemptions were for a very short time period. They were for, let's say, Mercedes-Benz -- a relatively low-volume producer, as you put it. It gave them a little more time to comply, but they still had to comply. The time periods were not particularly long, and therefore the exemption was not structured so as to give one manufacturer a competitive advantage over another. Certainly if we get into boutique kinds of production here in British Columbia, we will want the flexibility in the legislation. That's the answer on the automobile side.

On the fuel side, we already do some of that. We exempt, for example, certain producers for the RVPs I talked about earlier. If people have a level of ethanol in their fuel, we will provide some degree of exemption. For those reasons -- again, to give us a little bit of flexibility should it be required -- we thought it prudent to put it in at the front end in the legislation as opposed to trying to do it later on.

M. de Jong: The minister, while answering the question, referred to boutique manufacturing. The impression I was left with was that he was referring to manufacturing that took place within the province. I think he might have meant vehicles imported from elsewhere. Could he just confirm that?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's true.

M. de Jong: The other question I have with respect to subsection (a) -- and it's equally applicable to what follows in subsection (b) -- centres around the fact that unlike section 24.2, the subsection refers to "motor vehicles," as opposed to "new motor vehicles." There is presumably a significance there. Does this subsection have a broader application than section 24.2(1), which specifies new vehicles?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's the problem with having two lawyers debating legislation.

An Hon. Member: It's boring.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's boring, yes. It's not like the Labour Code; that was straight philosophy. This stuff is straight administration. It's terrible. Go for a holiday.

In any event, I would think that the application of the word "new" in section 24.3 in the second line would modify the wording in section 24.3(a).

G. Wilson: One of the difficulties with this is that it's all enabling legislation, which provides the minister a free hand for regulation. In the absence of that, it's hard to know exactly what the government intends to do.

With respect to subsection (g), "different emission standards for different motor vehicles on the basis of a prescribed mix of vehicles offered for sale or sold by those manufacturers in British Columbia during a model year or calendar year," could the minister flesh that out a bit and discuss that with respect to whether a geographic variance would be provided for various motor vehicle retailers in terms of the mix that may be available for sale, either in urban centres or in areas in rural British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: During second reading debate I talked about the standards in California and the fact that they were looking at 2 percent of their vehicles on the road being electric. This provision would allow us to mandate that type of provision: have X percent that are, for example, electric, and Y percent that are on traditional fuels, for example, or any mix thereof. We could say that X percent of the vehicles on the road must have hydrogen fuel cells, I guess, if we wanted to do that.

If I may say, hon. members, it's a little bit easier on this side of the House if we go through these in the order that they arise. I know we jumped from subsection (a) to subsection (g), and it may be that no one on the opposition has any questions on subsections (b) to (f). But it is a little bit easier if we could go through them in the order that they arise.

M. de Jong: I dealt with subsection (b) to the extent that I wished to.

On subsection (c), dealing with testing and certification, my question in a nutshell is: by whom, when and at whose cost?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a range of options for who may want to do the testing and the certification. It would be our intention to define or provide that answer in the regulations that are forthcoming. If I had my wish, I would like to see similar standards embraced by the federal government and applied across the country. If that were to occur, it would seem to me that just for efficiency of taxpayers' dollars, it may make more sense to have joint federal-provincial testing or maybe federal testing. That's one model I can see developing, and that would be the ideal approach, in my mind. A second option may be to have an agency that the government allows to do this type of work. For example, in California, the California Air Resources Board is the agency which does the certification and lays out who can provide the testing. Another option is to go to an exclusive private sector option, much as we've done with AirCare, and have it done under those auspices. There are a range of options here. Again, that's why the section is worded as it is, and that's why, in regulation, we would occupy that field.

[8:00]

M. de Jong: In many parts of this legislation, I can see the need to preserve an element of ministerial flexibility and to preserve maximum discretionary powers. Opposition members, by their nature, don't like that; the public doesn't always like it; and certainly manufacturers don't like it. The nature of the beast requires that it exists to some extent. I'm less convinced of that with respect to testing. In all fairness and with the greatest respect to the minister, I don't know why the ministerial intention in that respect can't be disclosed in advance and present itself in more detail in the actual legislation. This does not strike me as an area of the bill which necessarily needs to wait for regulatory or secondary legislation. I really think the onus is on the ministry, insofar as its intentions with respect to testing are concerned, to provide some more meat on the bone.

Hon. M. Sihota: Those are interesting points. You're right on the one hand to say that we could declare how we intend to do this testing. There are two points there. One is -- and I won't elaborate on it but will simply recount it -- that I would hope there's some opportunity for the federal government to do this. That's important. The second point is that I said during the course of second reading debate that one of the approaches we wanted to take was to try, as much as we can, to collaborate and cooperate with industry to meet some of their concerns with regard to this legislation. We're 

[ Page 12126 ]

meeting with them this week to look at the testing and certification issue. Again, if we can work out something with them that meets our public interest objectives, it seems to me that I would want to preserve that option.

I agree, generally, with the point you made at the beginning. I know only too well that it's natural for members on both sides of this House -- but certainly when you're in opposition -- to be more inquisitive of the kind of approach a minister intends to take and to prefer that things are nailed down a lot tighter, so that you're voting for something that's a bit more tangible than otherwise. I appreciate that concern. All I can say is that the legislation is designed to be in place well after I'm gone. So you try to craft it in a way that you can provide others with an opportunity to exercise theirresponsibilities in dealing with the public interest.

I don't know if that's a complete or incomplete answer, but that is really our thinking in this answer and the previous one I gave. It is possible for us to be able to come back at a later date to specify that it is a new provincial agency that does testing and to enumerate it. When that is established, I don't think that would be a bad idea. But I'm weighing a lot of things here: I'm trying to work cooperatively with the industry where I can; and on the other side of the coin, I'm trying to conserve public sector expenditures wherever I can. I can see some opportunities here where a model can be developed which does that.

M. de Jong: I'm encouraged that the minister will be pursuing what for all intents and purposes will be viewed as the self-regulatory option. He has -- correctly, in my view -- identified the potential for significant cost savings. I don't have to tell him that the opposition will be vigilant in guarding against the development of some mushrooming bureaucracy to administer this act. He knows that we on this side of the House will oppose that most vigorously.

I inadvertently pre-empted my colleague, who had a question on 24.3(b), and perhaps that could be dealt with now.

D. Symons: I'm not quite sure whether my question is on (b); it may go into (a), (b) and a few others. A few years ago, we had a fuel tax incentive for people to convert their vehicle to natural gas or propane. I think that incentive was removed erroneously, as it seems counterproductive to the intent of this bill, which is to cut down emissions. Those fuels certainly did cut down emissions, yet the incentive to convert your car was removed.

Are people precluded now, particularly under part (b), from being able to convert their engines? Does this somehow say that you must have the engine that was initially in the motor vehicle? Can you have it modified to use either natural gas or propane fuel? Would this act somehow affect the ability to do that?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, this section does not prevent modification of your engine. So you can do that if the government gets back into the business of providing those types of incentives or economic instruments. There is one caveat: it has to lessen the emission of contaminants into the air. You can make any kind of modification as long as it assists in cleaning the air.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the government would be willing to consider with this bill, the intent of which I go along with.... Indeed I think that if you could reinstate that tax incentive, which was removed in Bill 8 two years ago, it would accomplish some of the purposes for which this bill is designed. Would the government consider reinstating that tax incentive for conversions?

Hon. M. Sihota: I find it amazing that members of the opposition would come into this House and ask us to take some steps, when they, on the other hand, always attack us for the level of our deficit, which is coming down, though they never seem to acknowledge it. The proper place to have that debate is not....

R. Neufeld: The debt's up; the deficit is down.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, the deficit is down. Did I say debt? I'm sorry. I'm glad to know there's a watchful and ever vigilant opposition here in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Jobs are up.

Hon. M. Sihota: Jobs are up, and the deficit is down. And every member would agree that there is a need to build more schools and.... Anyway, I'm sorry, we're off on a real tangent here. The appropriate place to have that debate is Bill 8, and you had your opportunity then.

D. Symons: I did utilize my opportunity there, as the minister may well remember.

I'm wondering one other thing. I'd like to go back to an answer you gave prior to my asking questions. You mentioned vapour pressure and that this could somehow be used in a regional way. I was under the impression that vapour pressure was used by the oil industry as a way of making better carburization. In the summer they'd lower vapour pressure, and in the winter they'd raise it so that you'd have maybe ten pounds in the winter, and you'd move it down to eight pounds in the summer, so that you'd be able to have good carburization. Is it done for environmental reasons as well? I wasn't under the impression that the oil business is doing it for that reason.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there are evaporations and a reduction in evaporations, hence there are definite environmental benefits.

R. Neufeld: I may have been sleeping at the switch, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong. Under subsection (b), did you say "requiring new motor vehicles," or are you going to leave the explanation just as it is in the first sentence? I see that you're smiling.

Secondly, a small constituency out there races cars that at the present time burn 1-130 av gas, which is a leaded gasoline for racing purposes. In the regulations that are going to come out, is there going to be some provision made for this type of activity, so these people can continue racing?

Hon. M. Sihota: I hate to tell you this, but you were sleeping at the switch. We did deal with the matter in....

R. Neufeld: I've been here all day -- not just listening to you but also to another one.

Hon. M. Sihota: Really? I hope you're finding this a lot more entertaining.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Okay. I feel better already. And you'll feel better when I tell you that we could continue the current 

[ Page 12127 ]

exemption with regard to racing vehicles under section 24.3(a).

M. de Jong: I have no questions on subsection (d), so I'll move on to (e). I expect that the minister will give me a similar answer on this subsection as on the previous one dealing with testing and certification. My question, though, is: can he offer any insight at this point as to who will be responsible for providing the certificates and certification?

Hon. M. Sihota: Right now we are using the California Air Resources Board's standards. That's useful, because in many ways, as I indicated earlier on, California is running ahead of the rest of North America with regard to these types of standards. Given where that jurisdiction is going, it would seem to me that we would want to take advantage of their work in doing this, as opposed to creating another agency here in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: I think there was a previous question to the minister on subsection (g). When I read that subsection, it suggests to me that as opposed to having a minimal standard for each vehicle, the ministry may, especially in the sense of the larger automobile manufacturers, be contemplating a fleet average that that manufacturer should be obtaining. So it won't necessarily be possible to pick a car off the street and say that this vehicle must meet certain emission standards; rather, it is a GM product, and for 1995, GM's overall fleet meets the standards necessary. I think that's an important distinction that British Columbians should know about. They may not necessarily be sold a car that meets the standards being contemplated.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that may be true. On the balance of probabilities, it will be true on that kind of a test. We have some options. If we wanted to, we could bring in minimum standards across the board. Given the large nature of the industry and the fact that in California they are moving on a fleet-averaging basis.... In California they are saying that a certain percentage of vehicles have to be what they call TLEVs -- that's sort of the second-lowest standard. Then the there are the low-emission vehicles and the ultra low-emission vehicles. Given that they have those different standards, they allow for the whole fleet to move toward those standards, and they have declining standards as time goes on. It seems to me that it would be wise for us to have the opportunity to be able to mirror that approach as opposed to being tougher than that in terms of individual vehicle standards.

Given the fact that on probability that's where it lies -- that there will be people who will buy an automobile that doesn't meet the lowest possible standards -- there are ways in which one can notify the consumer of that. If you wanted to achieve those broad public objectives of reducing the level of emissions into the air, you would want to consider being forthcoming in that way. As time goes on, I also think it would be an incentive for the manufacturer to make that information available. Given the environmental consciousness and the direction things are heading, I think it would become a marketing tool for them to do that.

[8:15]

Finally, in my last discussions with the Council of Ministers of Environment across the country, we actually talked about the possibility of us and the federal government -- I think it was the staff, but I remember it was New Brunswick -- discussing with people the possibility of having the federal government.... In the same way it tells you how many kilometres you get per litre, we could do the same thing in terms of standards of emissions.

G. Wilson: With respect to (g).... I apologize, hon. Chair, if I leapt forward. I was suitably admonished by this minister, but this minister has to realize that in the time that it took me to walk to the Speaker's office and back, we had covered 30 sections of Bill 46, so we're a little bit gun-shy on this side of moving too quickly.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that I was out of the House.

Nevertheless, if a fleet that comes into British Columbia has this prescribed mix.... I am assuming that if we are dealing with a particular brand of vehicle -- Ford, GM or so on -- one of the things that this bill is trying to do.... I'm not necessarily opposed to it; I just think we have to consider some consequences in going after diesel-fuelled vehicles. I would think that there is some good reason for doing that. The problem is that a lot of vehicles specifically built to meet a market demand in the interior, in the north and in those communities that have a high component of sales for logging, forestry, fishing, agriculture and so on -- and I'm not talking about farm vehicles here; I'm talking about trucks and so on -- may, simply by market demand, have a need for a greater percentage or proportion of vehicles that might fall within that one classification of the overall fleet, leaving dealers in other parts of British Columbia having difficulty meeting whatever local demands they may have for those same prescribed numbers of vehicles. I hope the minister is following me here.

In bringing this in -- and I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept; I think we've got to move on it -- what consideration has been given with respect to fleet-averaging for rural areas? I'm not talking about electric cars or hydrogen-driven futuristic kinds of cars; I'm talking about vehicles that will fall outside of those emission fleet requirements, especially diesel-driven vehicles or vehicles that may, by nature of their manufactured stats, place them in the category of those vehicles that would not meet the stringent new emission standards in this act.

Hon. M. Sihota: We are meeting with the industry next week to discuss those kinds of issues so as to tailor-make a solution for British Columbia. We're not out to eliminate diesel vehicles from the road in their entirety, 100 percent, and I think you can understand why that would be the case. The issue that you refer to will be an issue that we develop by regulation.

As I think you have detected, the common thread in all these answers is that I want to sit down and discuss the issue with the industry. I need the legislation in place before we start talking about the regulations. We need the ability to exercise our prerogatives under those provisions in the legislation should we be unable to arrive at a resolution. These are issues that come up in jurisdictions, and they are as salient in the northeast portion of the United States as they are here in the western portion of Canada.

G. Wilson: In effect, I would agree; the minister is absolutely right. The United States has exactly the same kinds of differences with rural demand on vehicles because of the nature of the primary extractive industries, and so on. The problem is that in that case there was a general agreement between the state government and the overall 

[ Page 12128 ]

manufacturer. Where that general agreement came into play, a lot of local dealers felt that they didn't have an opportunity to state their case.

My concern here is that a number of auto dealers are going to be subjected to new industry standards with respect to whatever agreements the government will enter into with General Motors or Ford or Chrysler. The minister must recognize that a lot of the local economy is dependent on local sales of vehicles, especially in rural areas where there is a high dependency on vehicles for forestry and mining and other kinds of activities. My concern is that if those local dealers are not given an opportunity to have some input with respect to the percentage of sale that they can expect in whatever these new fleet averages are, we might find that whatever the government agrees to with GM and Ford and Chrysler may suit the lower mainland very nicely, thank you very much, but is likely to put a significant hardship on dealers -- in the interior, in the north and in the coast and Kootenay regions -- that aren't able to fill their quotas.

Hon. M. Sihota: We are lining up meetings with the Motor Dealers' Association to take their concerns into account concerning the development of these regulations.

D. Symons: I am somewhat disturbed by the answers I've been hearing, particularly regarding section 24.3(g). It appears to me that there isn't a clear concept about where we're going. You say that we are going to be meeting with the industry, and we're going to be doing this and doing that and ironing these little problems out. Somehow you indicated that we have to have the bill in place first. That seems somewhat backwards to me. It would have seemed logical to try and work with the oil and automobile industries first, find out exactly what you want to do after you have discussed what they are able to do, and then design a bill around that. Come before us with something a little more concrete. We're getting very vague answers. You're saying that later on we're going to solve these problems; we're going to figure out how we're going to do it. It seems that you should have a little more concrete material here. You should have had these discussions before the bill was brought in, rather than saying that we'll pass the bill first and then bring them in. It just seems that you could give us better answers with that way of doing things.

The Chair: With great respect to the member -- and before the minister chooses to respond in like fashion -- I just remind everybody that we have had second reading. We're now talking very specifically about these parts of the section, rather than the advisability of legislation that antedates regulation. Having said that, minister, do you wish to respond?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that intervention, hon. Chair. That's true; that was a point we should have discussed at second reading. I'm sorry if I've confused the hon. member, but surely you would understand if I said that there are places where it is in the public interest, and certainly in the interest of government with regard to stating its intentions, that it first come forward with legislation to get the ear of people. Sometimes that's to your advantage. I'm sure you would agree with me that there are also benefits for one engaged in discussion to be somewhat vague from time to time.

M. de Jong: This is enabling legislation, and the minister correctly points that out. As I've indicated earlier, there are areas where maximum flexibility is laudable and necessary. The difficulty that I start to have at this point of the discussion, specifically with respect to subsection (g), is that if we are moving to that fleet measurement, that fleet averaging.... It's being done in California, and I think the minister draws a proper analogy when he compares it to fuel-consumption standards; I don't quarrel with that. But if that's the direction we're heading in, it seems to preclude the need for the type of individual vehicle testing that the minister alluded to in an earlier response. If that's not an option, and it wouldn't be if we were going to a fleet-wide standardization or averaging.... Let's just say that, and we'll know that's not something that is coming down the pipe.

Hon. M. Sihota: The short answer to your question is that if you don't have individual testing, then you're not going to be able to get and verify your fleet averages. The long answer to your question is that in its negotiations in California, the industry argued -- and I think it's a compelling argument -- that they could not go from point A to point B overnight. They required a time frame in which to make the transition from the higher polluting vehicle to the zero-emission vehicle. In order to allow them to achieve their objectives, they had to be given some time. So that's the long answer and the short answer to your question.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

M. de Jong: I do not have a question with respect to subsection (h) and would move to subsection (i). In this section we see the ministry contemplating differing standards for differing geographical regions of the province. I think we have a good idea about why that is necessary, but I'm going to ask the minister to provide the House with his views on why there should be differing standards. I'm going to ask him at the same time to indicate, from an enforcement perspective, how he contemplates that succeeding when dealing with moveable chattels.

Hon. M. Sihota: On (i), you were raising two points, as I understand it. One was the ability to move chattels -- a vehicle -- from one end of the province to another. Let me deal with that issue. Let me also deal with the issue of vehicles coming from other provinces into British Columbia.

Let me start by dealing with the issue of fuels, because it also applies to fuels. With regard to fuels, we already have that kind of provision. We already have different standards for fuels in different portions of British Columbia. I've talked about that, so I won't elaborate on it, but RVP.... Again, the vapour pressure example is the best one in terms of standards varying across different portions of the province.

[8:30]

With regard to automobiles, you're right. Some people will indeed be able to sell a vehicle from the Fraser Valley to someone in Fort Nelson. You can't contain that; that's going to happen. When I was down in California, I specifically asked the question from neighbouring jurisdictions of vehicles coming in, because you could see that you might have a problem with Washington State, Alaska or Alberta with vehicles coming in. I can't remember the exact percentage, but something in the neighbourhood of 2 percent of the vehicles coming into California came from those neighbouring states, and they did not see a major problem in that regard. I don't know what the percentage is of vehicles bought in Alberta coming into British Columbia as a percentage of the overall vehicles in the province. I don't think it's particularly high. It may be a little higher.... It will clearly be a little higher in the Kootenays and in the 

[ Page 12129 ]

northeast portion of the province. Again, given the sales tax implications, people still have to pay the sales tax, so that benefit is really lost to people when they make the acquisition. But if I understand your question, it is true that you would have vehicles moving from one end of the province to another, or coming in from other jurisdictions, that would be at a compliance in a particular area.

M. de Jong: One of the scenarios I can see developing here.... The minister didn't respond to the raison d'etre, if you will, for having differing standards by region. I think we can anticipate the answer, but I'd like to hear it anyway.

Is the minister satisfied that legislation that presents those differing standards will withstand the inevitable Charter argument? You can dress it up anyway you want, but, for example, the dealer in the Fraser Valley whose inventory is affected one way, but probably more particularly fuel distributors, who the minister has already indicated are going to be presented with criteria with regulatory aspects they're going to have to comply with, which are going to differentiate between the dealer in Prince George and the dealer in Langley.... Is the minister, as we embark down this path, satisfied that that legislation is going to be demonstrably justified and so on and so forth and be able to withstand that inevitable scrutiny?

Hon. M. Sihota: A couple of points. First, the fact is that this situation exists right now for fuels -- different types of fuels, different standards and different parts of the province. I suppose someone could make that argument on the basis of the Charter right now.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That isn't.... Let's take a walk to the Speaker's office and see what happens here.

The second point I make is that I can't guarantee you that it would withstand a Charter argument, but I hope the courts would understand the overriding public policy imperatives in proceeding with this type of argument. Yes, it may happen. This provision in the legislation is not an issue that keeps me awake at night. But it would be a great question for a law school exam; I agree with you there. I don't know. Someone could take that kind of an issue, and obviously if they succeeded, we would have to deal with it. It may be that if industry or elements of the overall industry are not receptive to us moving in that direction, they may do that. As I say, it's a thought that crossed my mind at one point, but I'm not going to worry about it at this stage of the game.

M. de Jong: I think the minister.... Certainly I hear the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast muttering that this exists in a wide range of other areas affecting fuels. The difference here, I think, is that one is left with the impression that the legislation could proceed in a manner that would result at the retail level in the expenditure of some significant sums of money for the availability of fuels. At that level, perhaps one runs into a more litigious group than in the past. I understand what the minister has said. He's given his opinion, and time will tell.

With respect to subsection (j), again that is the testing provision that applies specifically with respect to fuels. I presume the minister will tell this House that he is embarking upon similar negotiations with the fuel producers and that he isn't committed to one form of testing. He may be able to advise the House that the infrastructure for that sort of regulation is further developed. I don't know the answer to that, but perhaps he can advise us.

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course we're going to be talking to the industry about it, and already have. It's interesting -- I don't know if you know this; I didn't until a minute ago -- that there are absolutely no standards right now. You could sell anything as gasoline in British Columbia. So we have made this significant breakthrough in terms of us agreeing what the minimum standards are going to be. We've already had discussions that have taken us to that baseline level. Obviously there are going to be further discussions with regard to additional standards, and we're working with the industry on that.

It's in the interest of the industry to do that. I'm sure we've seen those commercials on TV, with the birds chirping on the shoulder of the man from Chevron, or something like that, talking about how clean the fuel is and what standards they're applying for their fuels. I have some strongly held opinions on that type of advertising, which I won't share with members of the House right now, except to say that industry itself recognizes there's a benefit in having higher standards with cleaner fuels that still give you the vroom you need in your vehicle.

R. Neufeld: I understand and appreciate that in the lower mainland we have to look at vehicle tailpipe emissions -- there's no doubt about it. I'm just a little worried that at some point in time -- and maybe the minister can make me rest a little easier -- there will be a curtailment of the movement of vehicles within British Columbia. Let's say that they're purchased in Fort St. John or Dawson Creek, for instance, and they have been brought in from Alberta and maybe don't have the emission control standards that you want in the lower mainland. A company may have a number of them that end up in the lower mainland; they may want to trade them off down here. Will that affect them, or are we going to set aside the lower mainland from the rest of British Columbia with a really straight line so there's no movement back and forth or north and south?

I understood the minister. I think he has clarified it, but he said -- and he took me by surprise -- that we already had different standards in the province for different petroleum products, diesel fuel and gasoline. Did you just say that you had been advised on that and that there is no standard?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I was talking about the difference between the chemical components of gasoline and the vapour pressure that is applied to that gasoline.

On the first issue you raised, hon. member, the last time I checked this was a free country, and as I look down at my crystal ball I see absolutely nothing that would curtail the kind of freedom we have in this country.

M. de Jong: I'm dealing with subsection 24.3(k). The minister won't be surprised at the nature of the question. Part of the dilemma when the government proceeds in this manner with general, fairly wide-sweeping enabling legislation such as this is that not only are individuals left at a loss about the standards, testing and enforcement, but also they become particularly concerned when the inevitable section calling for the prescription of fees and charges appears. The minister will probably say that it is a standard section, but ordinarily, part of the answer to my question would be contained within the legislation. When it talks about fees for which the ministry provides a service or performs a duty, we don't know what the service or duty is going to be.

[ Page 12130 ]

I really think that when a government introduces legislation along these lines -- and this government has gone to great lengths to assure British Columbians that there won't be new taxes or further encroachment onto their pocketbooks -- there is an obligation for the government to provide some indication of what the fees and charges are going to be for, if not what the amount is going to be. I don't think that's asking a great deal of the government.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are costs with regard to any program, and these costs, in part, can be borne by industry in this kind of situation. In some cases industry may want us to bear those costs. I can tell you that the objective here would be to recover costs; but you're right, there is inevitably going to be a section (k), and I make no apologies for having that kind of provision. With regard to the type of service to be provided, there's a lot of discussion ongoing with industry in terms of what may or may not be covered by them and by us. I don't feel particularly comfortable talking about what services might be there, given the fact that they are subject to discussion.

[8:45]

M. de Jong: I appreciate the discomfort felt by the minister, but again with the greatest respect, I am going to ask him to appreciate what he and his ministerial officials are asking of this House, which is to give them the right and the jurisdiction to prescribe these fees -- I can call them a tax; you can call them fees -- and to collect money from the public, be it industry or individuals; but they are either not in a position or not willing to tell us what those fees and levies are going to be for. That is entirely unsatisfactory. I have not been here long, but the thought that there should be some representation for the claim to the right to taxation strikes me as being an ever-timely adage. With the greatest respect, I really can't be satisfied with the minister's response. It's just not good enough in this framework.

Hon. M. Sihota: We have to test for things like the standards in diesel or the components of diesel fuel. We have to test to see whether people are complying with the regulations for the content of various materials in terms of gasoline. As I said earlier, it may be one thing for them to advertise on TV that they are being environmentally friendly because they have placed a particular additive in their fuel, but we have to test to make sure that they are not violating the spirit of their advertisements, or not doing that which they say they are doing. We have to test to see whether the vehicles are meeting their emission standards. All those things are important. To some degree the industry has to bear those costs, and to some degree the consumer has to bear those expenses. Obviously, our objective is to try to limit the direct and indirect costs to the taxpayer.

I know that the hon. member knows that one does not prescribe specifically in legislation all of the activities or services that will be covered by fees. To do that would involve endlessly coming back to this House, in the case of this or other types of legislation, asking for amendment -- hence the general provision.

If I may then deal with his broader argument, it has some validity. I don't deny that, because I don't think anybody likes to give carte blanche approval to a section. In the context of that broader argument, governments are held accountable by the actions they take. If governments pass regulations prescribing a fee or expanding it to include a service which hon. members in this House do not think is appropriate, then hon. members have a variety of opportunities to bring public attention to that. If government has exercised an opportunity that goes beyond what is acceptable to the public, then there is a political price to pay. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to lecture anybody here; I'm just trying to get into a broad, philosophical discourse at this point. That's the check and balance in our system, in that we make those regulations available through the OIC process. The public and the opposition have an opportunity to review them and comment on them. When government has gone beyond that which is reasonable, then it feels the political pressure of its wrongs. In our system that's how we deal with those kinds of issues. So in a narrow sense it is a carte blanche; but in a broad sense there are opportunities, with the skill that I know all of us in political life have, to bring public attention to issues where we think the government has gone beyond its mandate. That, of course, is how our system functions. Both on the narrow and broader ground, I think there are checks and balances within the system.

It seems to me that it is clearly in the public interest to want to pass some of these expenses on to industry on a cost-recovery basis. It is clear to me that we ought to be doing that as directly as possible with the industry and limiting, as much as we can, the direct cost to the taxpayer. It also seems to me, therefore, that if we don't meet those standards, then the hon. members in opposition will muster their skills and draw attention to those transgressions on the part of government.

M. de Jong: I'll try not to fall into the trap of belabouring any point. I will only say this: recognizing that there are inevitable costs associated with the implementation of this legislation and these amendments, it strikes me that it is not unreasonable for an opposition, which has already signalled its approval in principle for the goals that the minister seeks to achieve, to be seeking some assurance on behalf of individuals and industry regarding the manner in which those costs are going to be allocated.

Hon. M. Sihota: I agree that it's not unreasonable. There are times when I can provide hon. members with specific answers to certain provisions of the legislation. On this provision I can't, for the reasons I have enumerated. But that does not in any way seem to me to take away the right of the opposition to canvass these issues, and I think it quite appropriate that you are doing so.

D. Symons: In a previous life I was in the business of testing products of the petroleum industry. I know about the rigorous tests they do after production and before any shipment of tank cars, barges or tanks are blended with gasoline and loaded locally. They were all tested very vigorously to make sure that nothing went out of that plant that was not to specifications.

I'm concerned about subsection (k) and the fees that are charged for services with respect to checking motor vehicles, engines and fuels. For fuels, for instance, does the government have it in mind here to do spot checks every so often, or is it going to be testing every blended tank of gasoline? I mean the large tanks you have in the tank farm, after the additives are put in and they're tested at that point. I'm trying to get a handle on that aspect of it.

Also, regarding vehicles, would it be the intention of the government to test one 1996 Ford Aerostar and use that standard for Ford Aerostars? Or do you plan on testing each new vehicle? I assume this will be an AirCare type of test before they're sold or immediately at their selling. What's the 

[ Page 12131 ]

extent of the testing that you have in mind, for which fees are going to be charged?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the fuels, it seems to me that it makes sense to have spot checks and not rely exclusively on the industry's evidence. On the vehicle side, we will do spot samples -- not every vehicle.

G. Wilson: Subsection (k), suggests that these charges will be paid in respect of any matter for which the ministry provides a service. In light of the fact that we're not likely to see any regulations for some time -- and I recognize that the minister has already said that he's going to be meeting with industry to try and work out some of this -- and given the propensity this government has to hit the taxpayers of British Columbia at every opportunity and to increase fees and put on greater charges, I just wonder what ministry is intended to implement this service. Is it going to be the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the Ministry of Finance? If there are going to be these new regulations, how will that be constructed within the government? We recognize that the consequential amendments would hit two separate acts. One is the Motor Vehicle Act, and the second one is the Waste Management Act, which of course overrides two ministries directly.

Hon. M. Sihota: The legislation will be dealt with through the Ministry of Environment. So that's the answer to your first question. With regard to your second question, in terms of how the regulations will be developed internally, we are working in conjunction with the Ministry of Energy to do that, and I'll be working with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I think those are your two questions.

It would be foolish for me to accept your notion that this government has a propensity to increase fees when, after all, the deficit is decreasing, as all hon. members are now beginning to understand.

R. Neufeld: My question is on subsection (l): "...providing for the recording and reporting of information by persons who manufacture, test, certify, offer for sale, sell or otherwise dispose of motor vehicles, engines or fuels, including the frequency, time and manner for reporting." This part probably bothers me a little more than subsection (k) because of the amount of paperwork and the reporting and the types of things I can see here that people are going to have to abide by. Somebody has to pay for that in the end. It won't be a fee prescribed by government, it will just be a cost item. An engine will go up by $10 or something because they have to report it.

There's a tremendous number of engine remanufacturers and manufacturers in the province. It just goes on and on. How about all the wholesale distributors of gasoline, diesel fuels or motor vehicles? I don't know how many dealers there are in British Columbia, but, my goodness.... I don't know exactly what the minister is trying to get from this section. Maybe the regulations will totally nullify what I see here. Maybe the minister could give us an explanation on how in-depth this type of reporting is going to be.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member wants to create this impression that there's a huge canvas of red tape ready to descend upon every entrepreneur in the province. One advantage I have over the hon. member in this House is that I happen to have been here for at least one term longer than he has, and....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, let me explain. Before you get too excited, hon. member, let me explain why I say that. I wish you had been here to see some of the legislation passed by the former Social Credit government. You would have been the first person to approve this kind of stuff. But let me tell you why this provision is here, and, as I give you my answer, that vision of red tape will just evaporate.

The answer, hon. member, is very simple. It allows us to make sure that we don't have to individually test every vehicle and every truck of fuel. It allows us to get that basic baseline data we need to ensure that those standards are being complied with. They are standards which all hon. members in this House approved, in the sense of clean air objectives -- except for the two members from the Reform Party, who I guess would still like to breathe dirty air.

R. Neufeld: I see how the minister deals with things. When someone votes against him he gets a little testy, but if they vote with him, like the Liberals have quite often lately, they're nice people. All of a sudden, the minister has to answer to someone who doesn't believe in everything that he says -- and I don't believe in everything the minister says.

Talk about red tape. If you're going to the manufacturer or the refinery of Shell or Chevron oil or one of those corporations, that's fine. You can get that information to Ford or Chev fairly easily. The engines are what could pose a problem for that, but that's beside the point.

The other question I have for the minister is in terms of our aircraft industry and the fuels that they burn. I'm not familiar with aircraft fuels. Maybe your staff is. I'd just like to know what kind of emission testing we do there.

Hon. M. Sihota: Right now, aircraft are all federally regulated. The provisions here deal with motor vehicles and their engines. Theoretically, you could read "engine" to mean aircraft engine. That's not our intention, so I hope that assuages your concern.

[9:00]

With regard to why I'm easier on the Liberals and harder on Reform tonight, it has nothing to do with how you voted on this bill.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No. You're getting closer. It's got everything to do with the fact that I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that by the time the next election rolls around, the Liberal vote in this province is going to evaporate, and it's going to be a straight battle between your right-wing out-of-touch government, which speaks for the rich and the powerful in society, and our humble government on this side of the House, which stands for and defends the interests of ordinary people on a day-to-day basis.

M. de Jong: The minister is sending mixed signals across the floor, and I'm confused.

I have one last question regarding the overall section. We canvassed this earlier, and I neglected to make one further point regarding the distinction between motor vehicles and new motor vehicles. When we dealt with that, the minister's impression was that because the second line of section 24.3 refers to new motor vehicles, all subsequent sections could stand by it. I point out to the minister that within section 24.3 there's a distinction between (a), (g) and (h). Some sections deal with motor vehicles and other sections deal with new motor vehicles. One can certainly contemplate someone 

[ Page 12132 ]

trying to distinguish between those two and what's applicable.

Hon. M. Sihota: That actually did cross my mind while I was reading the act. We were going through the sections after my explanation, and it's a valid point. I don't have the drafters here. We will proceed with subsequent sections, but if I have a better explanation later on, I will provide that to you.

Section 1, section 24.3 approved.

On section 1, section 24.4.

G. Wilson: First of all, I wanted to thank the minister's staff for providing the draft copy of the solid-fuel-burning appliance regulations. In this instance, where the regulations are available, it makes a considerable difference to our ability to adequately and properly debate this bill.

With respect to new solid-fuel-burning domestic appliances, I think what is intended is, essentially, prescribed emission limits with respect to the burning of manufactured fuels and not solid fuels, as is defined in the draft regulations, because in the draft regulations solid fuel includes biomass fuels such as cordwood. Cordwood as defined includes conventional firewood. That's a big problem. If you're going to try to get in under this act to regulate standards with respect to specifications of firewood burned in stoves, it isn't going to fly. It's just unworkable.

So I offer an amendment which I think would address that. Having talked to the minister's staff, I believe it does. That amendment would amend section 24.4(b) and (c). So (b) would read: "...prescribing emission limits for 'manufactured' solid fuel burning...." And (c) would read: "...prescribing standards for and specifications of 'manufactured' solid fuels burned in solid fuel burning domestic appliances...."

That becomes important because that expressly exempts in this any attempt by the government to put standards in place with respect to the kind of firewood somebody can go and cut off their back forty and burn in a stove. It expressly talks about those stoves that are designed to burn solid fuels.

I just point out that the other thing it does not include under solid fuel is coal. I assume that the minister is aware it would expressly exempt coal. That indeed is covered under different sections of two different acts, so I'm not sure that it's necessary.

If that amendment could stand, then our objection to this section would be limited, to say the least.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand the hon. member's concern, it's that someone will go to their back yard, cut down their wood, stick it into their wood stove, and someone will knock on their door and say: "You can't do that." And the ministry regulations.... That, from your argument, is an intrusion on the quality of life we enjoy in British Columbia. That I understand. I see the hon. member nodding; I just want to make sure I understand the issue.

Look, no one is interested in going throughout British Columbia.... I want to put this on the record, actually. First of all, I made sure that I understood your argument. Then I'm very consciously putting on the record that it's not our intention to start going to people's back yards, looking at the kind of wood they're cutting, then knocking on their door and telling them they can't do that which most British Columbians generally have taken for granted. Okay?

An Hon. Member: Take it out.

Hon. M. Sihota: There is one....

I was being nice to you guys tonight, okay? So just give me a moment.

An Hon. Member: We don't want you to be nice to us. We want you to be realistic.

Hon. M. Sihota: Okay. If you don't want me to be nice to you, just stand up and give a speech on the Tatshenshini and....

An Hon. Member: Well, that's where we're getting our wood.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's where you're getting your wood. I actually had kept in my desk a note of the four wrongs you'd committed on the environment. I'm sorry I don't have them here. I can't remember them off the top of my head, but I'll get there eventually.

I do want to put on the record that there are occasions when there is a very high moisture content in the wood people cut in their backyard. That impacts on the quality of the air, to the point that it could cause some health problems and could have an impact on those who live adjacent to those who will allow that type of material...

An Hon. Member: Where's your scientific evidence for that?

Hon. M. Sihota: ...to go out. On that basis, hearing that, I don't know whether that impacts on the thinking of the hon. member.

G. Wilson: I gather from that that the minister is not in favour of my amendment. He didn't mention the amendment or whether he was in favour of it or not. In our judgment, this is a completely unworkable bill, unless that amendment or something similar to it is put in place. The draft regulations on this particular piece of legislation, which the minister's staff have been kind enough to provide to me, make it very clear that there will be regulations with respect to the relationship between the composition of materials that will be released into the atmosphere, the rate of burn and the kind of fuel burned in those stoves.

Now the problem is that in a community.... We can use Kamloops as an example, an area that I'm a little familiar with. We've had representation from constituents there because they weren't able to get any help from their MLAs. Those people in Kamloops indicated that there was a concern with respect to the inversion that occurs with the addition to the atmosphere of effluent from domestic wood stoves combined with that from the mill. It created an inversion and a difficult respiratory problem. I can understand that the government may wish to make regulations with respect to the kind of appliance you can have that would limit the possibility of combustion to manufactured fuels.

The government might go that way, or they might do as they're doing south of the border. This minister has already said that when he travels south to the States, he finds that they're very progressive. In some areas in the state of Oregon, they've simply banned by legislation any fireplaces at all because they are concerned about the burning of wood. 

[ Page 12133 ]

However, in the interior, the north, the north Island and the Kootenays there are a lot of people who reduce their domestic heating costs by burning in what are called airtight stoves, which could well fall under the regulations. They would then be prohibited from burning wood that they have cut off their back forty, because they could not meet the burn standards. There would be virtually no one affected in 90 percent of the cases. But in the 10 percent of the cases where complaints would occur -- in suburban or urban areas -- standards would have to be applied.

At that point you'll have an unworkable piece of legislation, in our judgment, because there is no way you're going to have enough staff to respond to complaints of smoke coming out of wood-burning stoves by going in and doing the necessary check with each of those appliances to make sure that these regulations have been complied with. These regulations are pretty specific about what's intended here.

If the minister limits the intent of this legislation to manufactured fuels, which in fact undertakes what the regulation suggests with respect to biomass fuels, chips, sawdust, peat logs, wooden pellets, kernel corn, etc.... If they're sold as a pelletized fuel for a stove -- and many stoves are being built that are restricted to that kind of fuel -- then I could see the legitimacy of it. But I don't know how this minister is going to enforce the kinds of effluent standards -- they're not enforceable, in my judgment -- that try to limit people in burning wood cut off any woodlot or back yard in rural British Columbia. In our judgment, this is a classic piece of legislation drafted in urban British Columbia by urban British Columbians who haven't got the first understanding of what it is to live in the rural parts of this province.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

An Hon. Member: I'll agree.

Hon. M. Sihota: Is this the beginning of a new alliance, hon. member?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure the hon. member is proud to admit it. There have been many occasions in this House when he's agreed with us on this side of the House. That's why I always think there's still hope for the hon. member.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: You guys are having a lot of fun there on the other side of the House, I guess, chatting with one another. But let me give you an answer.

As I said earlier, the answer is that we're not going to go into the living room of every British Columbian to see whether they're burning the appropriate wood. You used the example of 90 percent. I guess in some cases people are going to be doing some harm to themselves by burning wood that has too much moisture in it or that's green, and that's unfortunate.

[9:15]

In other cases they're going to have an impact on others, in which case there may be a need to engage in some type of activity. Generally speaking, this provision is there for the benefit of residents of the interior and northern part of British Columbia, contrary to what the hon. member says. This legislation deals in a very material and effective way with the quality of air in communities like Vanderhoof, Golden, Merritt and Fort Nelson -- communities where a lot of burning occurs during the winter. If we do not have the appropriate standards for wood stoves, people breathe in this stuff. It causes harm to their health -- to their lungs -- and has social cost implications in a broad way. Therefore to me it seems appropriate that we proceed with these initiatives and regulations, keeping in mind the comment I made earlier with regard to the intentions of the ministry.

G. Wilson: I'm somewhat concerned, because the responses we're getting from the minister don't seem to jibe with what we were led to believe by members. I don't wish to impugn anybody in my statement, but clearly when I first raised this some months or a month ago or whenever it was introduced in the House, an assurance was provided that this was not targeted at cordwood and in fact was dealing with pellets, and that would be stipulated under the regulations.

If this is the case, then it seems there's a second way in which the government can proceed. The testing and certification regulations that are provided -- those draft regulations with respect to what appliances may be sold in the province -- may indeed go through the back door and do precisely what the minister just said he isn't going to try to do -- that is, limit for sale those wood-burning stoves that can effectively take cordwood. The standards will be so strict -- as per the testing and certification regulations in this draft in front of us -- from the air resources branch of this ministry that it would suggest that they're really attempting to restrict the sale of airtight stoves that would take cordwood.

If that's the case, I can tell you that there's going to be a black market industry of locally manufactured and locally made airtight stoves that do it. People in this province can't afford the heating costs they're subjected to, particularly people who live in rural British Columbia. So I ask in one last go-round on this amendment.... If the minister is not prepared to undertake this amendment, then come clean with it, people. Tell us that what they're attempting do is to make illegal the sale of airtight wood stoves that will take cordwood.

This notion about how it's going to help the air quality.... This is a minister who won't do anything about slash burning. If he wants to do something to deal with that issue, he can do something about mass slash burning. Of course, a big industry is concerned about that one, rather than some poor individual who's simply out there trying to save some money by burning wood to reduce their heating costs during the winter months.

Hon. M. Sihota: I will come clean. First, I'll tell you that is not our intention. You shouldn't be looking for demons in regulations where those demons don't exist.

Second, this is not the time or place to discuss slash burning, but we actually do have regulations, and I'd be happy to provide them to you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just have a quick question for the minister in regard to this. I've been listening to the debate for some time -- particularly to this amendment, I guess. I see that the minister has brought forth a section to try and regulate those one-in-a-million cases -- or those one-in-I-don't-know-how-many cases -- where, as he said, there's a problem with somebody using wood with a very high moisture content or very green wood that results in emissions that are harmful to one's health. Can the minister tell me how often that's a problem?

[ Page 12134 ]

Hon. Mr. Sihota: You're going to regret this.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm asking the question legitimately. I want to know from the minister how often it occurs where he feels these regulations would have to be utilized. Is it common? Is it rare? Is it never? He says that he doesn't want to go into people's houses and inspect their firewood. If you're not going to do that, then how are you going to do what he is talking about and stop those cases? And if you are going to do that, then aren't you going to end up with the huge problem of having to go and knock on people's doors to find out what kind of wood they're burning? Looking at it from the outside, with no particular expertise, it looks like a section that's nice in principle and in theory, but what's it going to be like in practice? How are you going to enforce it?

Hon. M. Sihota: You really should have stayed out of this debate, because just the other day I was talking to someone who lives in your constituency who was complaining about the inability of our government to deal with smoke in these situations. He just happened to be someone from your riding. It does happen, and it happens more commonly than you would think. People have respiratory problems, and they complain and often wonder why the government can't deal with these kinds of issues. I think you'd be quick to ask the same question when faced with the situation I dealt with the other day with that person. It does occur, and it occurs frequently enough for it to be far from a one-in-a-million situation; it's one which we get asked about more than you think. There are a couple of things that surprise me about this ministry, but I am actually surprised at the number of complaints that I get about burning generally. I'm not talking just about wood stoves, but burning generally and its impact on respiratory problems. So no, this isn't a one-in-a-million thing. There's sufficient frequency to warrant this type of provision.

Having said all that, I think the other point I want to make is that I don't think anybody is thinking of running into people's living rooms, pulling out the cordwood and saying: "Aha, I gotcha now!" But there is a real need for us as government.... Again, I think this underlies the fact that the issue arises frequently enough. We are looking at education programs to make people more aware of the consequences of what they put into their wood stoves. We wouldn't be doing that if there weren't frequent complaints. I think that's perhaps a better indicator of the fact that this issue is not rare in its occurrence.

[D Lovick in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a couple of follow-up questions to the minister. I'm concerned that the minister is confusing a general overall concern about the amount of burning and complaints about the smoke with a specific instance where there is somebody in a community who is burning wood that the minister is concerned would have too high a moisture content or be green. I'm having difficulty reconciling the minister's comments that we're not going to go in, knock on people's doors and check out the wood they're burning with his statements that from time to time there is somebody who is burning that type of wood, and that it's a problem. Can the minister explain how he sees the government, his ministry, enforcing this provision? If you're not going to go into people's houses and check up on it, and if you're not going to go in there when there's a complaint and deal with it, then why even have it in here?

I see the minister talking about a theoretical aspect of the bill that he's trying to bring in, a theoretical provision, but with no real explanation of any way that it's going to be implemented, how it's going to be regulated, and how he's going to deal with those instances. Does the minister have staff to check on these types of things? If somebody steals your car these days, it's hard to get a police officer to take a report; you usually have to do it over the phone. I don't know how the Ministry of Environment can afford to have somebody checking on the firewood you've got in your house because a couple of neighbours complain. I see it as being very impractical in application, and I'd like to know how the minister intends to enforce it.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to get into it in some depth, except to say that the situation does arise. If people continue to do it or if we get complaints, then we will act, and we need some of the flexibility of these provisions. Who would do the enforcement? Generally either a conservation officer or an inspector within the ministry. It's not unusual to get correspondence from British Columbians on both sides of the fence talking about this issue -- someone who feels they have been unfairly targeted by an overly aggressive neighbour combined with an overly aggressive officer from the Ministry of Environment. At other times I get correspondence from British Columbians wondering why we're not proactive in dealing with these kinds of issues.

But to answer your question, this is not taking one isolated incident and applying it generally; it is taking a class of incidents and regulating in the area. Second, the regulation would be done through the ministry, either through an inspector or the Ministry of Environment. Third, there is enough indication of this problem to warrant this initiative.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment.

Interjections.

The Chair: I felt the movement in my office.

R. Neufeld: Now that the minister is aware there's an amendment on the floor to deal with this section about wood-burning appliances, I have some concerns. When the minister talks about wet wood and green wood, and he talks about the interior and the north, I can tell you that where I come from there aren't a lot of people who burn green wood or wet wood. We usually let it cure for a while, so it would be fine. But I have a problem when the minister says that just broad-brushing across the whole province will deal with wet wood and green wood and what that's going to entail. Just like the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said, how many people is it going to take?

I appreciate that you may get the odd letter about someone burning something that they shouldn't be burning. I don't think that's going to quit with this type of legislation, unless you want to outlaw all wood-burning appliances. I'm afraid that's the easy way out, in the very end. How do we deal with it? We can't deal with it because it's going to take too many people. So the easiest way to deal with it is: well, we have legislation in place; let's just outlaw the burning of wood. I can see that being a problem in the province, and probably the biggest problem is going to come right here in the lower mainland. I would say that there are a lot more fireplaces in Vancouver and Victoria than there are in the rest of the province. So those people are the ones who are 

[ Page 12135 ]

going to be faced with not being able to use their fireplaces, and I don't know what's going to happen then.

The other issue I have is with the banning of fire logs made from compressed chips or sawdust. Fire logs, as I understand it in the regulations, are part of what's going to be regulated. I wonder how far that regulation is going to go? That's a value-added industry which gets rid of a lot of waste from our forest industry. If we get to the place where we regulate it enough that people can't use that type of fuel, what's going to happen to those people who have purchased some fairly expensive appliances to burn that type of product? I know that for some of those wood stoves, you're not talking about going down to the corner hardware store and buying a stove for a couple of hundred dollars. Some of the appliances people are buying cost in excess of $2,000 or $3,000. What do we do with those people if we get to the point where these appliances are outlawed?

Hon. M. Sihota: In answer to your first question, we are not going to ban the burning of wood in stoves. In answer to your second question, you are relying on representations about regulations that you haven't even read.

R. Neufeld: I just looked at them.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, you just looked at them. So you're relying on your perusal of regulations which aren't even a matter of debate before this House. In any event, given that perusal, I would not consider it a legitimate conclusion that we are going to ban the products you just referred to a few minutes ago -- fire logs. That is not the case, so you are wrong there; nor are we about to do the same with respect to wood pellets. However, we will be making sure that they are manufactured to a standard that meets some of our environmental objectives, and that should assist the development of industry, rather than hinder it.

R. Neufeld: I was wrong in saying that I just read the regulations that go with this; I read the draft regulations that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said your staff gave him. But I guess those are draft regulations and you have no intention of even touching any part of that draft regulation. None of that will show up in the new regulations. I can only assume from the minister that that's what he meant.

[9:30]

G. Wilson: Let me try one more shot at the amendment, because I think we are still on it. It may be that these draft regulations are not subject to debate. I can understand why, because if you read the two in companion, it makes it very clear that there are going to be new emission limits and regulations with respect to solid fuel burned in a domestic appliance. That includes all of "biomass fuels, such as cordwood, chips, sawdust, peat logs, wood and paper pellets, and kernel corn, but does not include coal." So that's the one thing it doesn't include, but if you want to control emissions, it probably should. Then this draft regulation says that if a person contravenes this regulation, they commit an offence and on conviction are liable to a fine not exceeding $200,000. That gives some cause for concern, because if you're going to regulate wood-burning stoves, and if you're talking about fines up to $200,000, British Columbians might want to know what is intended here.

I think one way that you can get around a lot of the concern and a lot of the issues that have arisen is to accept this amendment and recognize that if you are dealing with manufactured fuels, that would be a legitimate way to take care of some of the emission problems that this minister has alluded to, especially for those people who live in urban areas who do not have access to cordwood, which is much more readily available to people who live in rural British Columbia. It's in the urban centres, coincidentally, that most of the air emission problems from wood-burning stoves occur. I think this is a sensible amendment, and I hope the minister would accept it.

Amendment negatived on division.

M. de Jong: First I have an observation, then I have a question with respect to subsection (a). All the other major terms in this act -- and there aren't too many of them -- are defined. When I was preparing for this debate and sought guidance from my sage father, and he saw the words "solid fuel burning domestic appliances," his comment was: "What the hell is that?" I presume we're talking, essentially, about wood-burning stoves. If there are other such appliances, perhaps the ministry might have considered including some sort of definition. I know that this government is burning down the road to plain language and such things, and it might start with terms like "solid fuel burning domestic appliances."

In any event, my question relates to subsection (a). Again the word "availability" shows up there: "...respecting the availability, sale, conditions of sale and lease of solid fuel burning domestic appliances...." I'm not sure I understand, again, why that term appears there. Is the minister saying that he contemplates regulations that would require a retailer or a wholesaler to make certain sorts of wood-burning stoves or domestic appliances available? Or is he suggesting that there might be regulations that forbid such appliances from being made available in a particular region of the province? What form of regulation would be introduced dealing with the availability of a wood-burning stove?

Hon. M. Sihota: You made two points. On the first point, in terms of solid-fuel-burning domestic appliances, I agree with you. To me you can say wood-burning stoves, but, you know.... I don't know -- I agree with you. There are times when I look at regulations and acts and wonder why it can't be simpler, in terms of plain language. But I'm not the guy who drafts these things.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, you couldn't have wood-burning blenders, but.... I don't know. That's a good point.

On the availability, it's just for the reasons we outlined earlier -- there might be some need to bring in the regulations on a slightly staggered basis. If there are problems in particular areas of the province, it gives us that flexibility. Unlike the previous section, in this case you actually have all the regulations.

M. de Jong: The other term that appears in that section contemplates regulations regarding the conditions of sale. I don't know what that means.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I will stand down section 24.4(a) until the drafter arrives, and I'll get you an answer for that. He's upstairs in my office. We just sent somebody up for him.

The Chair: Understood. Section 24.4(a) is stood down.

[ Page 12136 ]

On the remainder of the section, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I think we've pretty thoroughly canvassed (b) and (c) in light of the amendments, so I don't know that we need to go back through that; the same comments would apply.

But with (d), with respect to the testing and certification of solid-fuel-burning domestic appliances, it's interesting that if one looks at the.... Again, I appreciate the fact that the ministry has made the draft regulation available, because this is critical. With respect to the emission limits that would be put in place and the prescribed testing that would have to be done in terms of testing and certification, it's noted that what's being proposed here is laboratory testing that's accredited through the Standards Council of Canada and according to CSA. As well, though, it talks about EPA test regulations with respect to a series of methods. Those are fairly sophisticated methods that talk about a burn ratio of air to solid fuel. They vary depending on the size and type of appliance and also on the fuel that that appliance is intended to use. It also suggests that there could be a different accreditation by a director or his delegate under this act in accordance with the methods that would be referred to in the sections that we're currently debating. Given that the CSA standards in the regulations already apply and that there is already an attempt to go to the EPA in the United States, which is a fairly rigorous method, I wonder if the minister can tell us what's being contemplated with respect to different accreditation in the testing and certification standards.

Who would do it is the next question. A lot of these stoves are manufactured in the province. Why is a distinction being made with respect to those that are manufactured for use in the province as opposed to those that are manufactured for export, which is again disclosed in the draft regulations that are before us?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the four questions that you asked, hon. member.... The standards between Canada and the United States are virtually identical, so we've provided an either-or option there.

The second question you asked was: who else could develop those standards, and why was the provision for beyond Canada and the United States? It is possible -- in fact, it's probable -- that somebody else will be developing some standards in the future, and instead of having to put a new provision in the regulations, we just kept them wide open.

The third issue you raised was with regard to the people who do the testing. They may vary from time to time. We may want to put a further amplification on the regulations on that point.

The final point you raised was with regard to export. We would allow for export to other jurisdictions where those standards aren't met, so a lower-standard stove could be sold to those jurisdictions. There is a question of debate in terms of whether we should even be doing that, but the fact of the matter is that we are doing that now. One of the considerations there is the impact on economic activity and employment.

G. Wilson: I know the standards are identical, but the methods by which the tests are done are different -- at least, that's my understanding from talking to people down in the United States who do this testing. That tends to be developed largely in response to the production-manufactured fuels, which is what I thought this bill was all about and why I was attempting to introduce an amendment to that effect.

I just question whether or not most of the stoves already being manufactured in British Columbia could possibly meet those projected standards. Under a normal burn, the burn rate and the air-fuel ratio and the ash content, which are all part of those regulations, are determined largely from stoves that are built with a forced-air system rather than just an open-draft system. Secondly, my understanding is that there are stoves being constructed with a view to burning manufactured fuels. If those standards are to be applied to domestically produced cordwood stoves, how many of them can actually meet the standards now? My guess is not many of them.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, hon. member. The reason we took so long to answer that question is that we're not clear on this side of the House what.... I lost you somewhere on the point you're trying to make. Maybe you can take another run at it, because neither one of us seem to have quite grasped the point.

G. Wilson: Very briefly, what I understand from the draft regulations, particularly with respect to testing under section 24.4(d), is that it would be undertaken by one of three particular methods. One is the CSA, another is the EPA -- which is American -- and the third one is some other system that could be developed. Let's leave the third one aside for the time being. I confess right away that I'm not an expert on the testing of wood-burning stoves by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I pretend to be. But having talked to people involved in this process in the U.S. and back east where manufacturing takes place, while the final emissions standard in terms of ratios and ash content and all those kinds of things are very similar, I understand the method by which they test those stoves varies. My understanding is that the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is largely concerned with manufactured stoves that are burning manufactured fuel.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, that's where you're wrong.

G. Wilson: Maybe the minister call tell me where I'm wrong, because that's my information.

Hon. M. Sihota: You're correct right up to the point where you say that the methods vary; they don't.

G. Wilson: In the absence of the minister's experts -- maybe he has his experts with him, but in the absence of those who have advised me -- I don't want to protract the debate. That clearly was not the information provided to me. What was given to me, which is of some concern with respect to these testing and certification processes -- and while under a controlled experimental setting where you have a testing laboratory that's set up to burn these fuels -- is that in domestically produced stoves you might actually be able to meet ash content, burn cycle, burn rate and prescribed ratios between air to solid fuel. A whole series of other things are here as well with respect.... I don't know that we need to get into all of them, but the statistics are fairly detailed with respect to particulate emission in any test run and the emission rate at which it's going on. Once that stove is sold and installed, the only way you can make sure that compliance for those regulations is met is if you control the fuel that goes in it. That's what I've been told by people from 

[ Page 12137 ]

Ontario and also from Oregon and California who have involved themselves in this kind of thing.

[9:45]

B.C. manufacturers are somewhat concerned. Given that most of the stoves marketed domestically are for cordwood -- some are imported, to be sure -- they're not sure that those manufactured domestically would meet those standards. If in a controlled lab setting you certify a stove, can the minister tell us how there is any guarantee when it's installed that that certification will apply unless you control the fuel?

Hon. M. Sihota: Certification goes to the point of sale. Up to that point, you go through a process. Once the stove leaves the store and goes into someone's house, you can't control what they put in it. Indeed, it does happen that they put something in that doesn't achieve the environmental efficiencies that you want. If your argument is that you can actually control what they put in it, continue, and I'll hear you through.

G. Wilson: This is exactly where the source of our concern is. You know that when you buy the stove on the market, it has gone through a lab test. Fuels have been put into the stove, and the emission control meets a prescribed standard. We know that this act is going to prescribe the emission limits for solid-fuel-burning stoves, and standards and specifications for those solid fuels that are burned. Once you have bought and installed this stove, the onus of responsibility is immediately going to fall on the individual using that stove. What concerns me is that if the regulations are therefore violated because somebody complains you have too much smoke coming out of your chimney, or that you are causing a problem to your neighbour or whatever, if you have a certificate on your stove, you can't go back and argue that your stove isn't meeting standards, because it does. The onus and liability rests with the individual who puts a lot of cordwood or whatever else they are burning into the stove.

You are saying -- you're not saying it, but these draft regulations suppose -- that a person who contravenes these regulations commits an offence with a fine liable up to $200,000. There are a lot of people living in rural British Columbia for whom those stoves provide primary heat -- or some supplementary heat -- who may well be in violation of those regulations. Kamloops is a classic example; I and this minister have had the correspondence. It's not unlike other small communities. There are those who would argue that particularly in those communities that are subject to temperature inversions where smoke gets trapped into the valley bottom, somebody is going to complain. Once this legislation is in place, somebody will legitimately complain on the basis of legislation that this minister is going to have to enforce. What is this minister going to do at that point? Is he going to walk into somebody's home and say: "Well, I have checked, and you're burning alder that's only been aged for three months. It's creating this problem. You're in violation of the act, and you're going to be fined $200,000"? You could expect that enforcement, because you have just put in place the provision by which you could enforce that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that may happen. The probabilities, of course, are another issue, but that may happen.

Hon. Chair, I think we stood down subsection 24.4(a).

The Chair: We did.

Hon. M. Sihota: The question with regard to subsection 24.4(a) dealt with the conditions of sale and why those words are there. I'm advised that those who are involved in the drafting felt the condition-of-sale provision had to be in there to allow the government to require the retailer, when selling the solid-fuel-burning domestic appliance, or wood-burning stove, to give instructions as to how it should be operated and what conditions can be applied to make sure it operates in the most environmentally efficient way with regard to temperature, the type of wood and other material they put in.

We are advised that without the words "condition of sale" we could not oblige the retailer to provide that information to the purchaser.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, with your indulgence, I have only one more question on this section, and it doesn't apply to subsection (a). I accept that from the minister.

The Chair: Given that we are dealing with all the subsections together, it seems legitimate for the member to proceed.

G. Wilson: My last question is about subsection 24.4(i), which provides, it seems, discretion to the minister to exempt certain appliances or classes of appliances from the provisions of this act and any of its regulations. I wonder who gets to decide that, and by what regulation. There is nothing in the regulations that says what is exempted, except for those appliances that are manufactured before October 1, 1994, and appliances that are going to be exported. Is there a provision whereby somebody can cut a deal to get around the act? Who decides? How? What are the criteria?

Hon. M. Sihota: Staff will decide. The best example I can provide you with is that when pellet stoves came on the market, they were so far ahead of the rest of the technology, yet so obviously efficient, there was an exemption until the regulators could catch up with the appropriate regulations for that category. Again, given that kind of experience, you could foresee that an analogous situation could arise in the future.

M. de Jong: I don't command a ministerial salary, so I can't afford a solid-wood-burning domestic appliance, but I do have a fireplace. I'm wondering what part of these regulations would have any application. Would it be at the fuel level? Presumably a fireplace doesn't qualify as an appliance.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member were simply to increase his buildings, I'm sure he too could have a domestic appliance that fits within these solid-fuel-burning regulations, or whatever it is we're dealing with here.

The regulations do not apply to open fireplaces, and therefore these provisions do not cover that kind of situation.

G. Wilson: On that point, in case anybody may be following this debate at this hour, or may choose to read it, the minister would agree, however, that fireplace inserts would be subject to this regulation and would apply. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's true. I didn't know the status of the member's buildings. Open fireplaces, no, but inserts, yes.

[ Page 12138 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: One quick question: is the difference between a fireplace, then, and an appliance, which we've all been talking about, that it has a door? Because there are also....

An Hon. Member: It's if you control the airflow.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear a member saying that it's an appliance where you control the airflow. Is that correct?

Okay, thank you.

Section 1, section 24.4 approved on division.

Section 1, section 24.5 approved.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 35, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. M. Sihota: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 28.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 28; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 1.

M. de Jong: In second reading I alerted the minister to what, in effect, is the key point of the concern we have with the proposed legislation. It appears in subsection (1.2)(c). I think that is the salient provision: the two lines that will appear differently in the Land Title Act if this amendment is passed into law.

Quite frankly, the minister won't be surprised that the opposition has concerns about the broad discretionary power that is conferred upon the minister. Insofar as the object of the act is concerned, it is understood that this section and the amendment would allow individual property owners in the province to grant what are, in effect, environmental covenants on their property. The dilemma that the wording causes is that we don't know at this point who the covenantees are going to be. The minister has chosen to take the designation of those possible covenantees and restrict that to his own discretionary shoulders, as it were.

[10:00]

I won't go on; I think the minister knows what the opposition's concerns are. Presumably he is in a position to shed some light on why the ministry has proceeded in this fashion. He mentioned during second reading debate that there was much internal debate within the ministry, and presumably he can therefore offer some information on that section.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry. I thank the hon. member for his patience; I was trying to do two or three different things here at the same time.

With regard to subsection (1.2)(c), the objective was really fairly logical. I think we'd all agree why we would want to encourage one to grant a covenant in favour of the Crown or with regard to the items under (b).

The purpose of section (c) was to allow for a covenant to be granted to other organizations. For example, Ducks Unlimited is an organization that has a clear interest in seeing these types of covenants attached. It may be in the public interest that Ducks Unlimited actually be the recipient of the covenant. Another example is the Nature Trust -- again, a private, non-profit organization, but a group that fairly commonly acquires property in British Columbia. The reason for their very existence is to protect the natural attributes of the land. Most recently we dealt with the Nature Conservancy with regard to the Gowlland Range. One of the options we looked at at that time was to have a private organization of that ilk hold the land. In some cases, people are more inclined to donate or make land available to that type of organization than to a direct government organization, like the Ministry of Environment or a particular municipality. Those are the kinds of things we're trying to capture under subsection (1.2)(c). I don't think there's much debate about that.

On the "he or she thinks proper" provision, there is obviously some scope for debate on the other side of the coin. A situation may arise where someone illegitimately seeks to place a covenant so as to frustrate a particular use of a property or someone's ability to acquire that property. They are really trying to do something indirectly when they can't frustrate something directly. Those occasions can and may arise. In the section previous to this, 214 of the Land Title Act -- which deals with rights-of-way, I believe -- we have encountered those kinds of situations; hence the need to have this kind of provision. So that's the background, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The dilemma and the problem that I see arising is one that I would have thought governments would generally go out of their way to avoid. The minister said earlier: "I'm not going to be here forever." Indeed, there will be his successor's successor's successor. But the inevitable allegation of political interference and political favouritism will arise, depending on whether a group receives the appropriate designation that will allow for the covenant to be registered in their favour.

The alternative is to codify the process that the minister himself must surely follow -- that is, he will undoubtedly have a set of criteria that he will apply, which presumably would focus on what the objectives of the organization are. I only presume that this would be determinative in his mind. He mentioned Ducks Unlimited, and he is persuaded, I suspect, by the objectives and works of such organizations. It could logically follow, then, that the criteria the minister would consider in reaching those decisions could be set out and codified and appear in the act so it's clear to all which organization and entities fall within the bounds of those requirements and objectives. That is the alternative. I'd be 

[ Page 12139 ]

interested to hear from the minister why that would be unsatisfactory or wouldn't meet the objectives.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a fair point. We have a draft policy in place that establishes the kinds of criteria and considerations that a minister must consider. I have no difficulty whatsoever in tabling that policy and providing it to the hon. member, so you have some comfort that this is not absent of some indices that the minister must be cognizant of. We've actually worked in that regard.... Let's face facts here. I really don't think a minister is going to be making that type of decision on his or her own. It's going to be on the recommendation of staff, and staff have to have some policy direction from the minister so as to make sure that it fits the criteria.

Again to be candid about it, this is usually the kind of policy that will survive governments and survive ministers. I can't conceive of a minister coming into office and occupying a particular desk with a full and vigorous intent to change the policy with regard to these types of covenants. That's usually not the kind of thing that motivates people to seek public office or to become involved with this ministry.

So I'm prepared to table that and to make it clear to the hon. member that those are the policy parameters within which we will be working. I don't have that material here with me now, but I'd be happy to do that, let's say, at the time -- not tonight -- that we do third reading, so that you've got the comfort of that provision.

M. de Jong: Well, it pleases me that the minister would consider tabling, and will table, that information. It appears that he understands the difficulty that an opposition has in granting a carte blanche under this set of circumstances, where there appears to be an alternative. We're not left quite so much in the dark if we're able to hang our hats on a draft policy. I'm not saying that I'm completely satisfied with that, and I think the minister knows that. I would rather see that sort of material codified and appear within the legislation. But if the minister is prepared to table that information, I'll withhold judgment until such time as I've had an opportunity to review the material.

The other question I have falls within the purview of.... Actually, I don't think it does. I'll hold my comment until we get to the appropriate section.

Hon. M. Sihota: I asked staff, while the hon. member was speaking, as to why that codification can't occur in the regulations so that it is more than in policy. Apparently the ambit of the regulations doesn't allow that to happen. I just wanted the let the hon. member know that. I understand his concern, and that's the only practical way I can think of right now to handle that concern.

G. Wilson: We've approached this evening's debate somewhat differently, as we're dealing with all of section 1. I mean, I don't want to get accused by this minister of leaping ahead again. And I must confess that I'm really not clear on what the minister just agreed to. If it's what I think it is, I don't think it's going to have much bearing.

Nevertheless, in section 1, subsection (1.3) says: "A covenant registrable under subsection (1.2) may be of a negative or positive nature" -- that's fine -- "and may include one or more of the following provisions:...(b) that land" -- which we can understand -- "or a specified amenity...." Then it goes on under (1.4) to say: "For the purpose of subsection (1.3)(b), 'amenity' includes any natural, historical, heritage, cultural, scientific, architectural, environmental, wildlife or plant life value relating to the land that is subject to the covenant." I'm assuming that that means you can actually place a covenant against that which is on the land without having the land itself under covenant, and that you can thereby restrict what normally would be the legal right of an owner to proceed on their own land with respect to those particular provisions. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: The section allows you to place a covenant, let's say, to protect a particular stand of Garry oak or to protect a particular barn because there are barn owls in it. It allows for that specific type of provision.

With regard to the second point you made, hon. member, remember that this is not a covenant placed by government; it is a covenant placed by the individual who owns that property. That individual may decide they want to make sure that a pond, which is important for the migratory pattern of ducks, is preserved forever, and they can do that through the covenant. It won't be something that government does. It's something that the individual may decide to do on their own.

G. Wilson: I'm aware of that. I'm not trying to suggest that this government's up to anything other than its normal kinds of tricks.

What I am saying is with respect to the amenity itself and its definition. You also talk about cultural and environmental aspects. I wonder if we could just flesh those out a little bit. From my own knowledge as an elected member at the regional level, there have been situations where covenants were attempted to be registered with respect to the provisions under the existing act, and there was a great deal of difficulty -- and for good reason -- in prohibiting the potential for covenants to be placed against a whole variety of different things on property subject to sale or that would be, through inheritance, provided for sale at a future date. The problem with this is that when you end up in a future subdivision.... We can discuss this more with respect to subsection (7) on the death or dissolution of an owner of a covenant. I find it interesting that we have allowed such a wide and loosely defined amenity to be included in this act. I wonder if the minister has some thoughts as to how we might flesh that out. One could argue that there might be many areas in which this would be immediately disputed in the courts, upon the inheritance of land on which covenants had been duly registered by either an owner or, as this act now provides, by a non-government organization that may have had it in trust or been deeded certain sections of the property. Can the minister tell us about the cultural aspect or what is environmental? We can understand wildlife or plant life, because that's something that's rather tangible.

Hon. M. Sihota: In terms of fleshing out the provisions, what do we mean by cultural, environmental or whatever? Cultural, for example, might mean a burial site. Other examples are petroglyph cliffs, an archaeological site, a particular wildlife sanctuary or a significant marine foreshore. Those are the kinds of things we're thinking about.

[10:15]

In terms of putting it on, that's covered in this act. In terms of taking it off, it's covered under section 30 of the Property Law Act or by mutual agreement between the parties.

G. Wilson: Would it also be possible for non-government organizations, if they're able to get the consent of property 

[ Page 12140 ]

owners, to covenant things such as trees on property, so that logging would be prohibited forevermore on private land?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. If you own private property and you want a particular piece of old growth to remain there forever, you could place a covenant saying: "I don't want anybody to cut that old growth."

M. de Jong: I think I warned the minister in second reading that this question was coming. I've heard his answer to the last question. I don't know the answer to this. I presume the minister has been advised that the statement he just made about a perpetual covenant of the sort he just described.... Is that going to run afoul of that great rule the minister has just repeated? I don't know if it has an application here, but I can see the potential for difficulty.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it doesn't affect the law of perpetuities -- whatever the law of perpetuities is.

G. Wilson: Let's move to subsection (7), then, because that is a concern we have with respect to the perpetuity of such covenants. Adding subsections (7) through (9) to section 215 of the existing act, I think, attempts -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- to suggest a possibility whereby a covenant may cease to be enforceable by any person, including the Crown, unless a covenantee is named in the instrument of creation of that covenant. Therefore it can be argued that during the life of an individual the covenant will apply, and upon the death of that individual the covenantee -- whoever it may be, and it could be Ducks Unlimited, Greenpeace or any number of different organizations that may be deemed to have an interest in a particular piece of land -- will be able to keep in perpetuity the covenants registered against the land, notwithstanding that the land may, through any different set of provisions, go up for sale in fee simple. It says: "...an assignee of a covenantee if the assignment has been approved in writing by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks." I question whether the Crown can affect that process under subsection (7)(b). So you have a situation where, on the one hand, somebody is named -- the person dies and you can see that the covenantee is already named -- or on the other hand, you have an assignee of a covenant where the assignment has been approved in writing by the minister. I wonder if the minister can act in the second case on the request of somebody who may be deemed to have had an interest in it at the time the covenant was originally registered.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has to bear me with for a moment; I have to discuss this with staff. I was following him thoroughly until I received a rather comical note from somebody from the outside. I just got sidetracked there for a moment, so just give me a minute.

No, the Crown could not force subsection (b) to occur. This is a private property right, so subsection (a) would occur. After the death of an owner, "the covenant ceases to be enforceable by any person...other than another covenantee...." So if the main owner dies, that owner will have named someone to take over -- a group like Ducks Unlimited, say. Ducks Unlimited could then assign the covenant and its responsibilities to another organization -- let's say to the Nature Trust of B.C. -- but government cannot force them to do that.

G. Wilson: All right. I assume that would also apply to subsection (9), where the designation "by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks under section 215(1.2)(c) of the Land Title Act" also applies. I am assuming that what the minister has just told us would also apply to section 215(2) of the Land Title Act, which says a covenant "may include, as an integral part, (a) an indemnity of the covenantee against any matter agreed to by the covenantor and covenantee and provision for the just and equitable apportionment of the obligations under the covenant as between the owners of the land affected...." It goes on to talk about charging rent and so on. So would that mean that under no circumstances could the government affect that action?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

G. Wilson: I have one last question on this section. I wonder, then: what is the value -- maybe wisdom is a better word -- of subsection (8)? I can understand that if a covenantee or assignee referred to in subsection (7) is a corporation, upon the dissolution of that corporation, or if the corporation is somehow no longer registered in the province, those rights and the covenantee rights would be extinguished. But then subsection (8) goes on to say that if a corporation is "subsequently restored into existence under an enactment of British Columbia, the covenant continues to be enforceable by the restored corporation from the date of its restoration." I question the wisdom of that, because companies may have quite different interests and personalities at any given point in time. I would have thought that the prevailing wisdom would be that the covenants could in fact be extinguished but not necessarily restored simply by virtue of a completely different set of principles behind the same corporation -- re-enacting that corporation if they can, and they can under the laws of B.C.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, let's say that a society fails to file its annual reports. It is then struck from the register by the registrar. Then you have someone who issued the original covenant to a society like Ducks Unlimited, say -- and I'm probably not using the best example here, because they're very good about making sure that they comply. But let's say that Ducks Unlimited did not file its annual reports and it then ceased to exist. If they ceased to exist and they did not realize that they had failed to register, then there would be nobody to exercise the obligations of the covenant. You would have to go to them and say: "Get re-registered." That's exactly what subsection (8) would do. Or, if they discovered it on their own, they could do that in order to be able to maintain the obligations of the covenant.

G. Wilson: I have one last question on this. If the corporation, however, isn't a non-profit society or a society such as Ducks Unlimited -- and it may in fact have covenants registered -- and is reinstated at some future time, presumably that corporation would then have all of the rights given to it that anybody who holds a covenant on property would, including the right to remove it, reassign it or, in fact, to hold it. So my concern is that in some instances -- and I'm thinking specifically of areas like the Gulf Islands, the north end of my riding and areas where I know there is an interest on the part of small corporate holders of property to covenant sections of land in perpetuity -- those corporations are on pretty thin foundations. It would be of concern if those corporations default for whatever reason and could be then picked up by other interests that would have a completely different perspective on whether or not 

[ Page 12141 ]

this covenant should apply or be resolved. I guess the minister is telling us that that's just the vagaries of the law, and if that's what happens, that's what happens. Is that right?

Hon. M. Sihota: Under subsection (8), if a company -- let's just say Shell Oil -- was given a covenant.... There are lands called Shell lands in the Kootenays, and I don't know to what extent the relationship is that which I've just described. But if Shell Oil were to get a covenant they would have certain rights, obligations and responsibilities under that covenant. Let's say that they were to not file their annual reports and be extinguished as a company, subsequently discover that and then have themselves restored. The rights that they then have would be identical to the rights they had prior to their lapsing, so nothing changes. There aren't any new rights, obligations or responsibilities.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: But even without lapsing, hon. member, the principals of the company could change. Even without lapsing, the principals and the objectives of a society could change. Right? So you can't control that.

M. de Jong: The minister has seized on the issue that I was going to raise. Subsection (8) doesn't cause me any concern, insofar as it really relates to the remedies available to prevent the achievement of assets to the Crown at the time of dissolution for non-failure and the situation the minister described.

But in the scenario that the minister just touched on, where the minister has granted approval to a society or corporation, we're going to see the policy considerations that would lead to the granting of that approval. I presume, as I said earlier, that one of the factors that would be taken into account is the objectives of the corporation or society.

[10:30]

The minister is right: those objectives could change very dramatically, depending on the membership, or the shareholders in the case of a corporation. The question is: what becomes of that covenant? It's been granted. I guess the ultimate question is: does the minister claim the right to revoke a designation made to a society, corporation or individual? Now we're more concerned about societies or corporations. Does he maintain the right to revoke that consideration under certain circumstances? The legislation doesn't appear to provide for that, but now you've got a society holding this covenant whose objectives have changed entirely. It may be that the minister's options are quite restricted; I suspect they are.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, you have that right, and the reason why it's not specified in this section is that section 31 of the Property Law Act states that any person -- it could be government, for example, or it could be the person who originally granted the covenant -- if the objectives of the organization change.... Sorry, I should have read the full phrase: "Any person interested in land...."

Let's say the government were to have, based on misrepresentations, granted a covenant under the subsection that we discussed, (1.2)(c), and the person actually turned out to be someone who did not have a conservation interest. "Any person interested in land" -- that includes the Crown; it doesn't mean that you have to have an interest in land, but be interested in land -- "may apply to the Supreme Court for an order to modify or cancel a charge or interest against the land." That includes a statutory right-of-way, statutory building or statutory leasing scheme, a restrictive or other covenant burdening the land or the owner. The remedy would lie in section 31 of the Property Law Act.

M. de Jong: I understand that the minister was reading, and he included the word "misrepresentation." I don't know if that's in the section, because in the scenario I just described there wouldn't be any misrepresentation. The Saanich Conservatory Club could just wake up one year and decide that they're going to change their objects, and that might alter the intention of the original covenanter. Is the minister saying that he's satisfied that by virtue of section 31 of the Property Law Act, someone could come along and apply to revoke the designation and that would have the effect of eliminating the covenant? Two things may have occurred. One is that the original grantor of the covenant may no longer be around. Will there be someone else who has standing to bring that application? Does the minister have the standing himself? Could the minister simply step in, make the application and say that the objects of this organization have changed and he wishes to eliminate the covenant?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I believe section 31 does afford the proper protection. It doesn't deal.... I just usedmisrepresentation as an example. But certainly if the objectives of the society changed.... It's a person interested in land. You don't even have to have an interest in the land.

Let me use another example; a real-life example just crossed my mind. The Dunsmuir family of greater Victoria has, I'm sure, donated all sorts of land around here. Again, if there is....

M. de Jong: Royal Roads.

Hon. M. Sihota: Royal Roads is not the best example, but they donated that. If there were a covenant on that land, let's say that it was vested in a society and several years later a subsequent generation of the Dunsmuirs came along and said: "Look, that wasn't what our great-grandfather intended." They, or any person interested in land, could then make the appropriate application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. So I think the provision provides ample answer.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. de Jong: Sorry to ask a question in this manner. Will this section appear in the Land Title Act?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

G. Wilson: The only question I had on this section is where it says "the British Columbia Heritage Trust or a council under the Heritage Conservation Act." In light of the fact that we have a very large and onerous bill in front of us which makes substantial amendments to the B.C. Heritage Trust, is it suggested that the registration on the land title may also be extended under this act to municipalities, which may act under the heritage legislation or work in concert with the B.C. Heritage Trust, if they enter into municipal covenants that are applied against land in which they are deemed to have an interest?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, if they're a covenantee.

[ Page 12142 ]

M. de Jong: Now I'm really embarrassed. I don't want to belabour the point, but I don't think it will because of the way it's drafted. I don't think section 2 of this bill will appear in the act -- and it should, just for ease of reference.

Hon. M. Sihota: You're right: we had it wrong. If we can just go back, then, any provisions that would have been covered by the Heritage Conservation Act will now be covered in what will be section 215(1) of the Land Title Act. Hence section 2 of this legislation will not appear in the Land Title Act, because it is transitional with regard to that provision. The combination of sections 4 and 2 means that section 1 will have what would otherwise have been in section 4, and section 2 would not be contained in section 215. You're right.

M. de Jong: I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have this off in space somewhere. People referencing that section of the Land Title Act should know that that designation applies. I'm not quarrelling with the content of the section. But is there a way to amend this so that it's there and so people referencing that section of the act will know it's there?

Hon. M. Sihota: All I can tell you is that that was the direction given to us by legislative counsel. That is the way they normally do it. I didn't really think to ask about it at the time. But you're right that it's sort of off in its own orbit. I don't know why it can't be put in as section 215(2). That might be an opportunity. It seems to me -- and I'm looking at the Clerk here -- that we could probably pass the debate on this section without the committee rising and reporting. If there is some way, we could then deal with section 215 in the interim.

An Hon. Member: Stand it down.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, but I don't think standing it down solves the problem. Hon. members, if we could just recess for five minutes, we might be able to find a solution to this.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The Chair: If that's acceptable to everyone, we'll take a five-minute recess and see how we make out. Don't all go away.

The House recessed at 10:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 10:44 p.m.

Hon. M. Sihota: Having discussed the matter during the break, it seems to me that the most appropriate way would be to proceed with the bill, and I will put on the record my undertaking to come back in the event that we can find a way to deal with the opposition's concern with regard to section 2 of the bill. I'll do that before we get to third reading of the bill.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

[10:45]

On section 5.

Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to section 5, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 5, by deleting "'described in section 215(1.3) (c)'" and substituting "'described in section 215(1.3) (b)'."]

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Land Title Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 29.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to stand before this House and move that this bill be read a second time now.

The Environmental Assessment Act, as hon. members may recall, was debated for some time in this Legislature last year. At the time, this government made a commitment to develop regulations and seek further consultation with the affected communities so as to improve on the bill and come forward with appropriate regulations.

The government is pleased to advise all members of the House that we have lived up to our commitment. We have delivered on our obligation to consult. In particular, we have listened to what many have had to say about this bill, particularly stakeholders and others that are involved. We have worked with them on key amendments to the legislation, and we have participated in the development of regulations. Quite frankly, we are grateful for the invaluable input of members of the business, environmental and first nations communities.

As a result of the discussions and dialogue -- as I say, they included first nations people and the public, and resulted in regulations -- we have a bill that provides a high level of environmental protection for British Columbians and establishes a process that will provide certainty for environmental and business interests and the public. Of course, certainty is essential. If we have certainty, it triggers and invites investment to British Columbia.

It is no longer appropriate, in my view, to have three inconsistent and disparate review processes for energy, mining and industrial projects only. We should have a single, comprehensive, transparent, effective and efficient way to assess projects and determine them to be environmentally sound before a major economic development project proceeds. We have therefore established a process that not only covers major projects but also applies to major activities -- more about that in a minute -- and has significant public input where the public is involved.

There are significant changes to this legislation from last year's Environmental Assessment Act, which was Bill 32. This legislation has a series of changes that deal first with application. Regulations have been developed to clarify for industry, business, investors, the environmental interest and 

[ Page 12143 ]

the public just what projects are subject to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Second, this legislation does not cover only physical projects but will also apply to activities, and that is a significant gain for the environmental community in British Columbia, which had lobbied long and hard for activities to be included.

Time lines for public comment have been removed from the bill, and I think that deals with the concerns that many had expressed with regard to them being enshrined in legislation. It requires them to be provided in regulation. Those regulations pay homage to the principle of timeliness to ensure consistency, fairness and an expeditious way to deal with bills.

The legislation also provides opportunities for integration so as to provide some concurrency with regard to permitting and licensing. Quite often what we were hearing from business was their frustration that they would have to go through two, three or four different permitting and licensing processes. That would take an inordinate amount of time and frustrate their desire to engage in an enterprise in a timely and efficient way. This legislation changes that by providing for concurrent processes so as to allow opportunities for approvals to be secured in a far more expeditious fashion.

We've also allowed for the establishment of public advisory committees to make recommendations on applications so as to give the public a great deal of flexibility in terms of input -- and at a relatively early stage in the process -- which makes sure that communities and the interests of the public are indeed reflected in the legislation, and public input is captured early in the process.

We have also allowed for category assessments under this legislation. I think that is an exciting provision. For example, if one wanted to engage in a particular activity -- let's say a fish farm -- we could do a category assessment on many attributes of a fish farm, so a subsequent applicant would not have to provide all of the evidence they would if they were coming on for the first time. We could do a category assessment so as to only allow for hearings on those issues which are specific to the application before us.

Administrative efficiency is, of course, a significant component of this legislation. An environmental assessment office will serve as a one-window contact for proponents and the public on the review of all projects subject to the legislation. I know that this one-stop-shopping approach, to include the potential for integration of project certification with project licensing and permitting in the absence of a board hearing, is something which will go over well with both the environmental and the business communities. The one-window contact will allow us to deal with concerns about the process not being as expeditious as it should be.

A project registry will be established under this legislation. I think that is important to note, because one of the attributes of this legislation is that the public will have access to knowledge of what projects are being considered. One way to ensure that is to have a project registry, and that change has been accommodated in this legislation.

The bill also includes the creation of an environmental assessment board that will conduct independent public reviews of complex, contentious projects. Again, that is important in giving the public some confidence that there is an independent process. I think that deals with the need of all the participants in the discussions over the past year to achieve some degree of certainty, fairness and efficiency in the environmental assessment process.

This bill is an example of this government's commitment to protecting and sustaining a naturally diverse and healthy environment, fostering sound investment and development opportunities in British Columbia, building confidence in the sustainability of our economy and ensuring long-term prosperity in local communities. I think that with the indices of certainty, the new regulations and the changes to cover activities, this legislation is an improvement over what was before the House. This bill is worthy of support, and I would commend it to all members.

M. de Jong: It's a pleasure to rise and respond to the Minister of Environment in this second reading debate of the Environmental Assessment Act. When I first arrived in this place and was told that this legislation would be reintroduced and reconsidered by the House, little did I know that reconsideration would occur at 11 o'clock at night before such a filled chamber. Nonetheless, I do have some comments that I would like to make, beginning with the observation that it's clear to me that in the past 20 years, society has undergone some pretty significant changes. It's certainly clear to me that individuals are becoming increasingly aware of how industrialization of nations has had its share of costs as well as the benefits that we enjoy.

It's also fair to say that B.C. has paid the price for industrialization. Land which I think would have been preserved today was developed and utilized in ways that would have been unacceptable by today's standards. We mined in this province with little regard for the acids which were produced by sulphuric rock. We logged in areas which had significant historical or biological values. We developed lands which had high-quality agricultural potential. We developed projects whose consequences clearly were not fully understood at the time. The process we followed in earlier times is not acceptable in the 1990s and as we head into the next millennium. We cannot and must not jeopardize our future environmental and economic sustainability at the altar of expediency. Projects proposed for development in 1994 and beyond must have their costs and benefits clearly understood by all concerned prior to receiving approval. To this end -- and I want to be clear on this -- we wholeheartedly support the concept and principle of environmental assessment. The question that government, proponents and project participants have to grapple with is how to achieve that workable legislation.

I wasn't here, but other members will recall that the government attempted to introduce Bill 32, and that was a first attempt at an environmental assessment act. My review of Hansard suggests that the bill was clearly not ready for the House -- it was poorly drafted and equally poorly presented. It became laughable, in my view, that the government introduced the number of amendments thought to be required with respect to Bill 32. One is always quick to condemn, but it is worth noting that a moment of sanity did appear to prevail in the cabinet. The government said: "Let's wait. Maybe this bill isn't all its cracked up to be. Maybe we've made a mistake. We better pull it, have a second look, and try to fix it up over the winter." That's what the government did, and it's laudable that the government recognized that Bill 32 was seemingly beyond repair for that legislative session.

What is equally disappointing, though, is that the government chose to take Bill 32 as the starting point. One can make the observation that when one starts from a flawed document it makes it exceedingly difficult to achieve a successful and worthwhile end product. The Premier apparently took the view that Bill 32 had been mishandled 

[ Page 12144 ]

and held it closer under his wing. A stage of consultation was undertaken through the Ministry of Government Services. We have only the information provided by the Minister of Government Services, but that process apparently cost the taxpayers $1.2 million -- at least, that was the information provided by the Minister of Government Services in his estimates debates. British Columbians can legitimately ask the question: was the $1.2 million spent in trying to salvage Bill 32 wisely spent, and did the taxpayers get value for their dollar?

It's clear that the only way this province will ensure for itself a long-term sustainable economy is through economic growth, particularly in areas which will see some major reduction in timber harvests -- and it's clear that that's going to happen as well. We need to encourage new investment into British Columbia if we are going to maintain our standards of health, education and social services. To suggest otherwise simply isn't being realistic. The question each of us has to ask ourselves is whether the bill presently before this House will enable us to preserve, protect and better our standard of living, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of our environment in this province. Business obviously needs a particular climate in which development will be fostered and there will be incentives to invest. Above and beyond everything else, they need a stable climate where the rules of the game are known beforehand, and where they know that the rules of the game aren't going to change midstream.

[11:00]

Does Bill 29 accomplish those two objectives? That's the question we have to ask ourselves with respect to ensuring that the element of certainty that business requires in order to foster the development of which I speak will take place. The Environmental Assessment Act -- or any act, for that matter -- must be assessed on the basis of whether it will meet its objectives. In this case, the primary consideration is to afford protection to our environment; and secondly, encourage investment -- or alternatively, drive that investment away to other jurisdictions. Once again, certainty in terms of both the time frames presented and the cost to the applicants must be examined very closely.

It is trite to say that there's a fierce global struggle on for attracting international capital investment. Investors tend to speak with their wallets, and though that's not always satisfactory or the best way, that is certainly what takes place. One can also make the observation that a jurisdiction like Washington State, for example, has done, and tends to do, a better job of attracting new investment than some of our British Columbia regions and sectors of the economy.

We have to understand that investment doesn't simply look at one issue or another. Investment capital adds up the costs associated with doing business in each area, and if the costs are too high or the uncertainty is too great, that investment capital will go elsewhere. That's important to remember, in my view, when you consider communities in the north, in the interior or in the Kootenay regions that are crying out for new jobs and opportunities. If we're going to place more obstacles in front of these communities in their struggle to maintain their economic viability, those obstacles must, above and beyond all else, be defensible, and in this case defensible from an environmental perspective.

That being said, we all know the main reason behind the legislation, Bill 29, that's before the House. The purpose set out in section 2 is to promote sustainability by protecting the environment. It goes beyond that, but that is what one is inclined to accept. That is the objective which has prompted the government to table the legislation. As legislators, we must decide if that fundamental objective as enunciated in that section of the bill is being achieved by the remainder of the bill. If it's achieved through an overall suffocation of new investment in British Columbia, I would submit that the objective as a whole hasn't been met. I am confident, however, that the suffocation of the investment process was not something the government sought when it embarked on this legislative path.

How do we protect the environment through an environmental assessment act? That's the question I think the government asked itself and presumably the minister asked himself, and it's a question that we have to consider here in this House. One method is to get all the aspects of a project out onto the table where all facets of the proposal can be examined by all the stakeholders. That is a major component of any environmental assessment bill: how to ensure that all significant results are known prior to granting any project approval.

This bill seeks to accomplish that task. The onus for the project proponent to provide evidence of how a project will affect the surrounding area is a point on which I believe all members of the House should be able to find some level of agreement. Similarly, I believe that most members of the House will be able to find some comfort in the one-stop shop for project applications which is sought in the bill.

The government is claiming that was a big victory for the business side of the equation. In fact, as I reread Hansard, I noted that that is something the government all but acceded to when amendments were tabled with respect to Bill 32 in the last session. So I take some issue with the government focusing on that aspect of the bill as some great achievement and concession that was made in the cause of satisfying business councils and business interests. It's not my intention to belittle the concessions of the government. We do find some comfort on this side of the House with the ability of a project proponent to deal with the government on a one-shop basis.

We do find agreement with the principle of the bill -- that being the promotion of a sustainable environment and economy -- but we have some difficulties, which we will certainly be addressing at committee stage of debate on Bill 29. I will go through some of them in summary form.

We're particularly distressed by the continued ability of a minister of the Crown to play politics with a project. This is one of the sections which the opposition decried when the bill was first introduced last session. Once again, the government appears not to have got the message or is unprepared to accept the message from the public that it is unacceptable for cabinet to change the rules to fit their agenda. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not changed at the whim of the minister of the day.

This is not the sort of flexibility.... And I recognize that ministers are constantly confronted with maintaining a balance between the element of flexibility, which any government requires in properly ministering to the needs of the province, and the element of certainty, which business and individuals require if they're going to properly adhere to the legislative requirements imposed on them by government.

There is a certain inconsistency, in my view, with a government that, on the one hand, is publicly proclaiming the efforts it is making to eliminate cabinet-level appeals in one area of its legislative mandate and, on the other hand, is introducing legislation which appears -- on the face of it, at least -- to co-opt a very significant decision-making process closer into the cabinet circle. That area causes us concern, and we'll pursue that further at committee stage.

[ Page 12145 ]

Another particularly distressing item is the potential to incur what could amount to an almost exponential cost on the part of the proponent or applicant. Nobody in the province knows how much this process will end up costing an applicant. In effect, the costs will be left totally to the discretion of the executive director. I spoke previously about the need for certainty in this bill -- and truly, in any legislation. If the minister is seeking approval and endorsement of the bill, clearly there is going to have to be a further explanation concerning the costs that are necessarily going to accrue to an applicant. We'll need that explanation prior to passage of the bill.

I spoke with persons involved in the business community, and they told me over and over again, since Bill 29 was tabled, that they just don't have the confidence in the process that would lead them to want to be the first ones through it. Perhaps that's a fear of the unknown, to some extent. Similarly, I'm prepared to accept that no business enterprise wishes to be curtailed by a new bureaucratic process. Nonetheless, I would submit that their fear goes beyond that.

They don't know what the rules of the game are or what they're going to be, and they don't want to spend millions of dollars on a process that they're concerned won't work. If the individuals and enterprises that are potentially making investments in British Columbia are saying that they don't want to be the first ones through the process, then I think we've got a problem. In spite of the guarded endorsements that the minister referred to -- and received, to some extent, at the news conference he held when this legislation was tabled -- those potential investors are leery. It's a problem with potentially a very simple solution: quite simply, that the government of British Columbia submit one of its projects -- Bamberton, the Island Highway or the crossing at First Narrows -- to this review process, and commit to do that now, thus proclaiming to all potential investors and project proponents that the government has confidence in the process they intend to impose on others in the province. Certainly any one of the three projects I have described qualifies as a major project. They certainly will have major environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects.

So that's our challenge to the government. If the process is so workable and that confidence exists, let's submit one of those projects to the processes described in this legislation. That's the least the government can do. It's their legislation; let them deal with it first. If it's proven to be unworkable as any one of those projects makes its way through the review process, amendments can be tabled. I understand that we are starting down a legislative path not often trodden and that some of this remains a trial-and-error process. But I think that it's legitimate for us to ask the government itself to incur some of the risk that the draft regulations -- they are not regulations yet -- and the processes that are contemplated by this legislation may not work as smoothly as the government is telling people they will. In my view, the government should assume some responsibility, and if there is going to be a guinea pig.... When other options exist, it's unrealistic and unfair for the government to saddle potential investors with the role of guinea pig and being the first ones through the gate.

Another area of extreme concern is the continued reliance placed almost entirely on regulations. This is another in a series of government bills that ask members of this House to endorse what is, in effect, a blank cheque. In my view, it is really not good enough for the government to bring to this House a fill-in-the-blanks type of bill, as we see with Bill 29.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Members of the government may say that that's what happens elsewhere, but that response just doesn't cut it. I think there is an obligation on government, where practicable, to bring in legislation that includes, as much as possible, the framework under which individuals, societies or corporations are going to be expected to operate. We don't see that here. We see a government taking maximum liberties with members of the House by giving us the skeleton and saying: "We'll put the meat on the bones later. You'll just have to trust us." We have plenty of cause on this side of the House not to trust the government when it comes to a bill of this magnitude, with it's potential impact on the people of British Columbia.

I believe there must be some way for the Legislature to examine the regulations before their implementation. I think I've made it clear that I am offended that so much of what this bill is riding on has been left to regulation. That is unsatisfactory, and it shows a certain contempt for the role that legislators in this House should be playing on legislation of this magnitude.

Another source of concern, which we will be exploring further in committee stage, is the amount of influence and control that will be exercised by the executive director of the Environmental Assessment Board. I don't think it's incorrect to say that the executive director will represent one of the most -- if not the most -- powerful OIC appointments in the province. I believe that this individual will be almost singlehandedly capable of determining whether or not this province is going to maintain a satisfactory level of growth and attract the capital investment that is so desperately needed in all areas of the province, and more particularly in some of the northern and interior regions and on Vancouver Island. If this person is aggressive to the point of discouraging the investment we so desperately need, prospective applicants, investors and employers are going to be discouraged from even making an application, and those investment dollars are going to go elsewhere.

[11:15]

I guess it goes without saying that we on this side of the House are particularly troubled by the fact that the appointment of the executive director is going to take place via an order-in-council. Orders-in-council in British Columbia during the past two years may as well have been flagged on the basis of: "If you have an NDP card, apply here." The last thing this province needs is a partisan, partial friend of the government appointed to this all-important position. If you examine, as we have during the course of this session, the extent to which patronage has been the determining feature in filling important roles within this government and the senior bureaucracy, you would clearly understand what the concerns of the opposition are.

The Minister of Environment could put our minds at ease today by committing to nothing less than an open public hiring process for the position of executive director. That would verify it for us and satisfy us that this isn't going to be another patronage kick by a government bent on pursuing the patronage option to the nth degree. It's the only sane thing to do, in my opinion. The government must surely know by now and be satisfied that on something as important as environmental assessment, skill, knowledge and training are more important than simply giving the job to the first NDP friend who comes to mind.

R. Neufeld: Are there any left without a job?

[ Page 12146 ]

M. de Jong: That may be the saving grace: there may not be any left, in which case my argument becomes moot. But why take the chance?

Another source of concern to people in the community are the legislative provisions for the public advisory committee. The function, composition and scope of this body are of great concern to the public and proponents of projects. There are concerns that this body may in fact become the de facto environmental assessment board and that their procedures and conduct are totally unlimited. If these committees turn into the nightmares which are envisaged by some in the investment community and by other members of the public, it will only further the proponents' desires to go outside of the province and take their capital dollars elsewhere. Nobody will argue with the need and requirement for public participation in the process, least of all those of us on this side of the House. There is a public hearing process set up in the bill that provides the public with an opportunity to comment and have input into the environmental review process -- without having the government be responsible for the costs of setting up a process without a mandate and without limits. That's what this secondary process does. It escapes me why the ministry thought it necessary and why it has been included in the manner in which it has been included in this act. The minister will know that that is another aspect of Bill 29 that we will be pursuing with him in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the official opposition is very much in favour of a provincial environmental assessment act. I want to be clear on that. The principles of environmental stewardship and economic sustainability are paramount in the minds of the official Liberal opposition. The principle of this bill is laudable and one which attracts support from this side of the House, insofar as the official opposition is concerned. But the caucus of the official opposition is not convinced that the process as it stands and as it's set out in Bill 29 is workable. Our discussions with stakeholders from all sides centre on how this legislation can be improved. It must be said, based on those discussions, that where this legislation stands right now just won't cut the mustard. We support the principles being discussed, and we look forward to continued debate in committee stage, where we will propose amendments dealing with some of the areas that I have discussed in the debate tonight. We'll seek clarification on some of the sections I have touched on tonight which, as I have pointed out, give us cause for the greatest concern.

Those are my comments, hon. Speaker. As I say, I look forward to the debate in committee stage.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 29, the Environmental Assessment Act.

As far as the bill goes toward consolidating and combining environmental assessments into one standardized process, our caucus supports it. As far as this bill goes in ensuring that British Columbians have an appropriate balance between environmental and economic development interests, we have some concerns. We also have a lot of concerns with the way the bill treats private property and the right of someone to rely on government neutrality and fair process.

I suppose a government which would, for example, declare a park in the Tatshenshini before the mine development review process could be completed isn't too concerned about what signals it's sending out to potential investors in British Columbia and worldwide. We in the Reform caucus believe that it is important for the investment community to have confidence in the economic and environmental decision-making processes in British Columbia, and that's why we have some concerns about the bill. This bill sets up an elaborate set of lists for included and excluded projects, but it allows the minister to add a project to the reviewable list at his whim. This provides no confidence for investors who may want some assurances on what they are getting into before spending millions on planning and research.

This bill grants complete immunity to public servants for mistakes in judgment, but it goes out of its way to make employees of private companies, in addition to their company, liable for their errors in judgment.

The bill grants an extraordinary amount of power to first nations governments to legally block any project. According to this bill, native communities will be able to forever hold companies and communities as economic hostages. Ironically, this extraordinary power will allow native governments to delay or stop projects under this act even after their claims are settled and done with.

The bill creates extraordinary numbers of hoops for project proponents to jump through, and then it makes them pay for the cost of setting up those hurdles. Worse yet, it does not even protect proponents from still having to go through all the other processes that governments place before them.

The bill raises a number of very disconcerting issues that makes it look less like environmental legislation and more like anti-investment legislation. This government has to realize that investors and corporations are not criminals. They are partners in our economy and our community. They deserve to be treated with respect, not with suspicion. British Columbians deserve to know that their economic and environmental interests are not being made secondary to the international preservation movement. British Columbians in resource communities need to know that their regional interests are given serious attention. British Columbians of every community need to know that they are all equal participants in this province's political life, and that no group has a right to special powers.

British Columbia already has several project-specific environmental review processes: the mine development review process, the energy project review process, the major project review process, TSA designation, local government zoning processes, environmental impact assessments under the Environmental Management Act, and several other processes such as interministerial referral processes and site-specific ministerial declarations. The challenge to government is not to create more hurdles, but to streamline and combine the existing ones into a unified and consistent process. This bill makes some steps in that direction, but it ultimately fails to create a standardized, consistent process for reviewing economic development projects in this province. There are too many loopholes, openings for political interference and changing goalposts to give any consistency to the process.

B.C. businesses can live with tough standards, and our standards are now among the toughest in the world. What they cannot live with is uncertainty and governments that change the goalposts with the political winds. This bill fails because this government has not had the courage to establish a process and tell the environmental extremists that it will go no further. In doing so, it has caused extensive damage to the prospect of new economic development in British Columbia for the next number of years.

With that, the Reform caucus looks forward to committee stage of the bill, where we will present a number of amendments. We hope the minister will accept them in good 

[ Page 12147 ]

faith to make the bill more acceptable to everyone. We will be voting in the negative on Bill 29.

L. Boone: I hadn't intended to speak on this bill, because I was anxious to get it passed, since I think it's such a good piece of legislation. But I was spurred on by the previous speaker.

My support for this bill can actually be said in two words: Kemano 2. Kemano 2 is a devastated project. It is an environmental disaster throughout the north and is recognized throughout this province as an environmental disaster. We are left in this situation because there was no environmental review process and no environmental review done on that whole project. Throughout the north, if you look you will see that there are areas of devastation, wastelands that have come about because there were no environmental review processes in place.

In my riding alone, Kinbasket Lake is a joke -- it is the Kinbasket mudhole. There is no water there. We have articles from the paper 20 and 30 years ago, indicating that there was going to be wonderful lakeshore property for people in this area, and we now have a wasteland. We have a boat launch two miles away from any water. This was done by companies saying that they were doing things on behalf of the people. The people in my riding know that that's not true, and they know that there was no concern for the people in the area, and they know there was no concern for those individuals who now sit with this wasteland in their area.

[11:30]

This is a process that has been put in place to make sure that the people have a say, to make sure that everybody in the regions understand what's going to happen, so that the type of devastation of property and areas that's taking place right now does not take place again. This is a good bill. It's one that should have been in place many years ago, and I think it's one that will save us from the type of disaster we've got with Kemano 2 coming up.

Had there been such a process, you would not find companies such as Alcan sitting there with $500 million worth of investment on hold right now. The people throughout the north now recognize that there's a problem there, and this government knows there's a problem; but we're stuck with it because of the agreements that were signed in the past.

I support this bill, and I urge all members of this House to support this bill. We need this to make sure that our province survives, and that it is not given up to large corporations, as has been done in the past.

G. Wilson: I commend the member for Prince George-Mount Robson for having the courage to stand up and actually put a position on Kemano 2 from members opposite on record in this Legislature. I think that's commendable for those of us who believe that this project should not go forward, and I think that that certainly is worth noting.

Also, the Reform Party has made it abundantly clear where they stand on Bill 29, and I believe their position hasn't changed from the position put forward as Social Credit, with respect to Bill 32, and you clearly know where that's coming from. It was a little difficult to discern where the Liberal position was; it was kind of not here, not there. But we'll find out where they stand when we move to division on this bill.

Members of the Alliance are going to stand in support of Bill 29 because we believe that Bill 29 has come a long way from Bill 32. I can recall many hours of debate on Bill 32 last year. It was a poorly crafted piece of legislation that was badly drafted and that simply didn't make sense from a lot of points of view -- with respect to a process by which legitimate environmental review could take place, free from political interference, that would indeed involve the community and that would provide some kind of prescription by which we could subscribe to the process of doing meaningful work with respect to the impact of particular projects on the local environment.

We find it interesting that this minister, who hails this as a critically important piece of legislation, waits until 11 o'clock at night to introduce it, when there are very few people in the Legislature. The government may find it surprising, but there are a number of people who do follow debate in a televised House, which is why it is televised. But here we are at 11 o'clock at night, debating in principle this very important piece of legislation. We're doing it on a day that this government, in their policy and direction, has been intolerant of those people who stand up for the right of free assembly and free speech and who in fact move forward on the question of the Clayoquot.

We also do it at a time when this government, having put in place CORE, an independent arm's-length process involved in land issues.... After Stephen Owen's report was tabled -- in fact, it wasn't even tabled in the House; it was provided to government and tabled on a mountain -- they then decided they were going to change that process. Though CORE is supposed to have independence from government, we find that it isn't there at all. We read in the newspaper that they're going to come out with a new land use strategy, one that's going to put in place what the government thinks it ought to do, rather than looking at a truly independent arm's-length process, which CORE was supposed to be.

I don't know how much credibility this government has left with respect to environmental matters and the environmental review of projects. In principle, we would support what is put in place, because we know there has been an enormous amount of work by a number of agents out there among the public to redraft what was an enormously poorly drafted piece of legislation.

But how much credibility is left to a government that clearly has switched back and forth on environmental matters? It has overridden due process in a number of areas where they could have and should have opted for due process, as with the Clayoquot provisions. They didn't live up to a promise they had made on the Clayoquot decision prior to the election. When due process was available to them with respect to the Tatshenshini, they overrode that process and moved straight to a politically expedient decision, notwithstanding that that environmental review might well have provided an opportunity for mining interests to provide technical data that might have shown the expressed concerns were ill-founded.

Where we have concern is that notwithstanding the changes, when the bottom line comes down on this legislation, it is still the minister who will have the power for designation of those reviewable projects. It is still the minister and the appointments of that minister who will be able to interfere on certain line projects.

From looking at the language of this bill -- and when we get to committee stage, we'll be able to deal with it more thoroughly -- we expect this government will now make Bamberton a fully reviewable project. Bamberton, a favourite project of this government, should be and must be reviewed -- or so we would hope -- with passage of this legislation.

The Island Highway project, particularly in some of the northern sections, is going to cross salmon-bearing streams, 

[ Page 12148 ]

and there are concerns with respect to maintenance of the aquatic systems it is to go over. I expect that highway will be a designated project; the government will put it under the same scrutiny that it would private land development -- and rightly so.

We hope that Bill 29 will provide for this government to make sure that any future decisions taken on the Kemano 2 project -- notwithstanding that a public commission inquiry is underway right now, which members of the Alliance have already made their presentation to, as we believe other members of the House have done.... But notwithstanding that commission hearing, if there should be -- and we hope there will be -- a recommendation coming out of that inquiry, that project should undergo the same kind of scrutiny and be designated under Bill 29.

We recognize that when the power of the government is wielded, it can create an enormous amount of uncertainty in some cases, and a great deal of economic hardship in other cases. But it can do some worthwhile things in a community as well.

Having discussed with people who have been involved directly in the amending of Bill 32.... It was a disastrously poor piece of legislation which we debated at length, ad nauseam in this House, to the great criticism of some who thought -- as we carried on to question after question in committee stage -- that we were simply filibustering for some reasons other than the fact that we had a bad piece of legislation. In talking with those involved in the redrafting of this legislation, we realize there are still areas that need improvement. We recognize where those areas are, and we are going to press hard on them.

With respect to the provision of community involvement, that is something that we must entrench. It is not enough for us to allow, as this bill provides, for the provision of committees to be struck that include the governments of British Columbia and Canada, and municipal or regional district elected members. I would also say that there is a good deal of first nations language in this bill that we are going to have to have clarified. It would seem that there is a great deal of provision for input into restrictive measures on environmental review but virtually nothing in application to environmental review on aboriginal land, or through aboriginal projects that may be invested in. We believe that to be an inequity that we want addressed.

It says: "...any of British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions in the vicinity...." With respect to the committee provisions, once again we recognize that the one group missing is members from the community -- community input, community involvement and community process. That is the same as last year. In talking to people involved in the redrafting, they acknowledge that that is an area that could have improvement. We hope the minister is listening, because that's an area that we want to press hard on with respect to the amendments to this act.

When we talk about Bill 29, we talk about a piece of legislation that has undergone enormous scrutiny and review over the last while. The definitions sections with respect to the review of a project and the report on the project causes us some concern. When you look to this bill you recognize that the discretion lies ultimately not just with the minister -- and there is a significant amount of legislation where the discretion lies with the government. We recognize its authority to provide for that. But it also has provision for a project committee and the appointees or the designates of a project that the minister may by order decide. We have some serious concerns about that, because -- as other members have alluded to, and we will speak more directly to -- this government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot expect any trust whatsoever from the people of British Columbia with respect to promises made in the past, because they haven't kept them. It certainly can't expect trust from the people of this province with respect to a fair, unbiased and politically unfettered process. It hasn't demonstrated that it can do so on at least three of the major land use decisions already taken by this government. Lastly, it cannot believe that the people of this province are going to put faith in a government who, notwithstanding the fact that they have taken this bill back because it was so badly drafted, now bring it forward again for debate at this hour of the evening. They have had a year to prepare for this and to bring it in for orderly debate at a time that would be far more amenable to debate.

We speak in favour of this bill in principle, and we will support this bill in principle because we recognize the need. We believe there to be an urgent need in British Columbia for a process that would allow an opportunity for sensible environmental review of projects. Let me say that Bill 32, in its original form, was a dreadful piece of legislation -- dreadfully drafted, and certainly in need of amendment. Bill 29 provides some hope that this government was listening and have provided meaningful reforms to the degree that we believe that we can now, at least in principle, support this bill to move it forward. In committee stage, as others have alluded to, we can speak specifically to sections that need amendment and that the drafters have argued, in our communications with them, need to be and should be amended.

This is a bill that this government cannot take too much pride in, because of its history and the complexities that are involved with it. The history of this government with respect to fairness and an unfettered process is anything but desirable from the point of view of most British Columbians.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure that "twaddle" is acceptable parliamentary language, as offered by the member for Nanaimo, I believe. Let me just say that those of us who are seeking to enter into meaningful debate on these questions are simply not going to allow ourselves to degenerate into name-calling and the kind of inane heckling that we get from time to time from members on the government side.

They've had over a year to put this together in a reformed package, and they had two years to bring it in in its original form. They've gone two-thirds of the way toward a good bill. It's enough for us to support it in principle, but it certainly is going to require further amendment in committee stage.

[11:45]

If we had one way to express this, we would say: yes, put in Bill 29, but throw out this government. Let's get a different government that would allow us an opportunity to put in place and properly administer an environmental assessment review.

D. Mitchell: I rise to make a few comments with respect to second reading of Bill 29, the Environmental Assessment Act.

Here we are on the first day of summer; it's almost midnight, and we're debating a major piece of legislation. I'm not sure what that signifies. Maybe it signifies that we're getting toward the end of the session, or maybe it signifies that the government's legislative program is, for a second consecutive year, in a state of significant disarray. Either way, 

[ Page 12149 ]

I'm going to try to keep my comments on this bill relatively brief.

Last year, at almost the same time, we were here late at night debating an abominable piece of legislation, Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act. It was a bill that, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast indicated, was not well thought out, was poorly drafted and was extremely poorly defended by the previous Minister of Environment, who could not answer the most basic questions about what the purpose of the law was and what the definitions of the terms in the statute were to be.

Bill 29 is a triumph of the legislative process. When we were debating Bill 32 in this House last year, opposition members were trying to provide detailed and close scrutiny of Bill 32. Government members at that time were accusing the opposition of filibustering, but what was really happening was that the opposition was forcing the government to take a second look at legislation that was poorly thought out and should never have been introduced. To the government's credit, Bill 29 shows that a second look was required. There's no question that Bill 29 is a significant improvement over the legislation brought in last year, which never deserved to see the light of day.

Having said that, there are some concerns. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has indicated some of the concerns that are going to have to be addressed in committee stage. The member for Peace River North has indicated some extremely serious concerns that I think the minister is going to have to address before this bill can possibly be passed in this House. Hopefully, we will be given the opportunity to do that, not during late hours on summer evenings but during the light of day, when we have the luxury of time and the ability to get detailed answers from this minister. Hopefully, this minister will be able to answer questions, as his predecessor did a pathetic job trying to defend legislation with the same name but a different number.

Bill 29 has some major weaknesses. One of them is that we have no idea what the cost to applicants under the major project review process is going to be. Someone whose project becomes reviewable under this legislation will have no idea beforehand what the length of time will be. The length of time is prescribed, but there are various options, and based on my understanding, the project could be reviewed ad infinitum, I would argue. Not only that, but the cost of a review could be enough to bankrupt the proponent of, the investor in, any project in British Columbia. That's one major concern.

Another concern relates to the definition of the project. Last year when we were debating Bill 32, we spent hours upon hours trying to get the previous minister to understand our concerns that the definition of reviewable projects under the previous legislation was not clear. The definition was extremely ambiguous. Now, after some consultation with a variety of stakeholders, we have a number of guidelines as to which projects will be reviewable, and that's good. But overriding that is a section of the bill, section 4, which allows the minister to designate any project as reviewable. Why do we bother going into a huge exercise trying to define which projects are reviewable when the minister can override that at any time? This Minister of Environment can designate any project, which any investor in our province wishes to make...as a reviewable project under this legislation.

That has to be the cause of some concern. The member for Peace River North has raised this, and has raised it well, with respect to projects in the interior and the northern part of the province. I would say that even a project like the Seaport Centre, the casino project in the city of Vancouver, could be designated a reviewable project under Bill 29. I suppose that could be a major polluter of the environment of Vancouver. Maybe the Minister of Environment would like to designate the casino project, which is backed by developers and big union bosses who are friends of this government, as a project that's reviewable under Bill 29. I don't know. That's how ludicrous this bill is. Any project is reviewable under Bill 29.

There are a number of concerns, and I don't want to belabour this bill this late at night. The government should actually be commended for taking a second look at Bill 32, which was a terrible piece of legislation. Bill 29 is better. Does it go far enough? During committee stage, we will have to get answers to specific questions, and that will determine whether or not this bill should pass during the course of this session. I'm willing to say at this second reading stage that although I want to hear the minister's answers to questions during committee stage -- in particular, answers to the kinds of questions raised by the member for Peace River North -- I'm willing to offer qualified support in principle to this bill. I await the minister's answers during committee stage to determine whether or not this legislation can serve the purpose for which it's intended -- to provide a single, clear process for major projects in this province so that we don't suffer the horrendous delays and lack of investment that we witnessed in the province because of the lack of such a process. With those few words, I'll take my seat.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to keep my comments brief and add my voice to those who have said that not only do they find the time of this debate regrettable but the attitude of the government backbench really quite shocking. Rather than sitting and taking into account the comments that we're making, they're heckling, and that's most unfortunate.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: If it were heckling that was constructive to the purpose of the bill, it would be different.

What we see in this bill is only a marginal improvement from last year. We know that there's no definition of reviewable project, which means the minister has full jurisdiction in terms of what becomes reviewable. We've added constraints that include health as a possible reason for something being reviewable; we have social considerations; we have cultural considerations. We have no definitions for these terms. We're saying that at the full discretion of the minister and this government, something may or may not be reviewable. In fact, I don't think it should be called the Environmental Assessment Act so much as it should be called the Project Review Act, because there are some parameters within this that have nothing to do with the environment. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was talking about the casino project. Quite clearly, for the purposes of this act, the casino project would be a reviewable project -- and should be -- because there will obviously be social and cultural considerations.

What's at the crux of this bill? Why do we need this bill? If we had responsible government, we wouldn't need to have a minister designate a project as reviewable. We heard the member for Prince George-Mount Robson talking about Kemano 2. It's quite true that Kemano 2 should have gone through an environmental review process, but the reason it didn't was that the government of the day didn't choose to put it through that process. The process could have existed. In fact, notwithstanding a court challenge, they still chose not to review it. It was the member for North Vancouver-Seymour who pointed out at the time, quite correctly, that 

[ Page 12150 ]

we were in danger of losing our resource jurisdiction on that issue because we chose to opt out of an environmental review process. The federal courts could have removed that jurisdiction if they had chosen to oppose an environmental review process, but they didn't choose to do that.

In this case, we have what is really a process for setting up, at the minister's discretion, committees with no time limits in the parameters for those committees -- and not only at the minister's discretion; the committees can constitute themselves. There is no procedure set out other than the procedures through which the committees choose to govern themselves, which may not be acceptable procedures in terms of traditional rules of order for committees.

We know from the estimates debates that we have regional committees for the environment, regional committees for forestry, the protected areas strategy committees and the CORE committees. Now we have the project review committees and, if the executive director decides, we will have the public advisory committees. Why would we have two separate committees for public input? Why wouldn't the public automatically be on a project review committee? Why wouldn't the government have the backbone to simply take responsibility for these things, rather than putting everything to these series of committees, where everything is removed once, twice or three times from the government? Why wouldn't the government say that these decisions -- the Tatshenshini decision, for example, and the Clayoquot Sound decision; the most controversial decisions facing this government -- were made purely in the political realm?

We see that any time there has been due process for a land use decision -- and there has been -- the government has chosen not to go through the due process and has made a political decision. Why would we think this bill would be any different? Why would this bill represent a change? It won't. It represents a method to completely tie people up in red tape. There could be such a tying-up of red tape that when we talk about investor confidence -- and that's only one...

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: There is a very good point being raised about the possible scarcity of red tape after this session.

What we have on the one hand is investor confidence, which is an important part when we start balancing this out. We have that over here. But I think the most important component of any is public trust. How can the public have any trust when the public is arbitrarily designated by the executive director? They don't have a say in the project review committee, and quite clearly, if a political decision is made by this government on any issue -- whether it's a land use, social, cultural, environmental or health decision -- the public have no say in that. In fact, we know right now that some members of the public who protested.... In fact, one who did not violate a law is being prosecuted by the Crown right now; she didn't even break a law.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I would hope the member for Nanaimo would enter debate. If he would do so, I would be quite prepared to back up.... I would like to put the member for Nanaimo's comments on record. He is saying my ignorance on the case.... I am talking about the case the Crown is pursuing right now on a political decision of this Crown.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take her seat. I recognize the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I may, briefly, perhaps the member who is speaking could listen to her own words and recall that she said that this matter is before the courts. Perhaps she is prejudicing it by making those comments.

The Speaker: The hon. member's point is well taken. I was just about to intervene with that concern myself. Would the hon. member please proceed.

J. Tyabji: Obviously, the real alliance in this House is between the official opposition and the government.

I would say as well that we all recognize Crown prosecutions are at the discretion of the government. In this case, only the Attorney General could stay those proceedings. Having said that, though, I am making specific reference to a political decision by this government on a land use decision. When people spoke out, a very heavy hand of government came down on them.

We see a process that doesn't allow any public confidence whatsoever that there will be due process for the public -- none whatsoever, just full discretion of this minister, who stayed completely silent on that controversial land use decision. Although it happened prior to him taking over, right now he is the person who could, for the purposes of this bill, designate that as a reviewable project, and clearly he won't. Will he designate Kemano 2 as a reviewable project? Probably not. This government has had control of the Kemano 2 project for over two years.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I hear some comments from the back bench that the minister could not designate Kemano 2. But clearly under section 3, we see that the minister has full discretion in terms of what becomes a reviewable project. The point is that the projects that will probably be designated by this minister for review are going to be small private sector projects, where somebody is trying to make an investment, such as a little mine somewhere in the Okanagan. On the garnet mine proposal, there have been all kinds of back-and-forth negotiations, but no one wants to make a decision, because it's controversial. That's the kind of project that will be put to a review committee. There will be a public advisory committee, and we will be committeed to death. The cost for the majority of it will be borne by the person bringing forward the project, and I think that is unfortunate.

L. Boone: I'm so glad you're supporting this.

J. Tyabji: The member for Prince George-Mount Robson said that she's glad we're supporting this. The only reason we stand in support of this is that we would hope that in the future this minister is going to be more responsible with some of the political decisions of this government than any of his colleagues have been in the past.

Interjections.

[ Page 12151 ]

J. Tyabji: The comments of the members for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and Peace River North are very well taken. Why would we have any confidence that this minister will be any different?

All we can say is that in this case, it's not the bill that's the problem. Although we can stand in support of this bill, the problem, in principle, isn't with the legislation; it's with the government. We will wait to hear what the minister has to say in committee stage. What this government could do to make sure that our concerns are allayed is to bring in some regulations to give us a secure definition of a reviewable project and give us some concrete examples of what that would be. I don't see any indication that that's going to happen.

[12:00]

Bringing this bill in at midnight for debate is an excellent example of the kind of commitment this government has to reviewable projects and to environmental assessment, and to departing from its previous completely cynical approach to anything that has to do with the environment. Although this minister has made a couple of small inroads in the environment, they haven't been in controversial areas. There has been absolutely no political will by this government to take on and stand up for any of the issues they stood for in the last election. Things they campaigned on in the last election have been chucked out for political expediency, and the only things that have been introduced have been little placebos, an environment pablum that gets fed to us, with some sort of Crown corporation component to them so we can pacify the BCGEU at the same time.

Although we stand in favour of Bill 29 in principle, we have extremely strong reservations as to how it will be implemented. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about the government, in terms of the legislation. The legislation should have been drafted more clearly and tightly, so that this government would be bound within environmental constraints. If it's an environmental assessment act, we would like it not to have the wide and sweeping definitions that it has. Given that this government has allowed for very little due process on social and cultural projects, perhaps that will allow some of us who are standing up and talking about casino projects and Bamberton to at least hold this government accountable on those projects. With that, I end my comments.

D. Jarvis: I move we adjourn this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; R. Kasper in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

On vote 36: minister's office, $412,867 (continued).

W. Hurd: When we left this discussion last week, I was addressing a number of questions with respect to the timber supply review in the province. We were talking about some definitions the ministry uses in conjunction with that review, and we never were able to arrive at a resolution for the term "sustained yield." The minister will be aware that the ministry does use the term "long-run sustained yield," which is recognized terminology. Could the minister advise us exactly how the ministry defines long-run sustained yield -- LRSY, as it's called -- which is prevalently mentioned in the ongoing timber supply reviews. Although we haven't been able to establish that the ministry necessarily uses an area-based type of assessment for identifying sustained yield, the debate really needs to focus in on the fact that the term "long-run sustained yield" does crop up, and I'd like to canvass whether or not it's in fact a time frame we're dealing with. Is it tied to the rotation of the trees or the life cycle of the resource? Could he provide us with any information on exactly what is meant by that term?

Hon. A. Petter: To clarify my recollection of where we left off last day, the debate centred not on sustained yield but on sustained-yield unit. I took pains to explain that a sustained-yield unit is a management unit -- an area -- that is managed with the objective of achieving a sustained yield. Just to clarify, it refers to a geographic area, such as a timber supply area, in which management practices to achieve sustained yield are applied.

The objective of the long-run sustained yield.... As I said last day, what the ministry does is look at current harvesting and management practices that occur within a timber supply area. It looks at the areas that are available as operable land base within those current supply areas. Based on those current assumptions, what the long-run sustainable yield refers to is the maximum biological yield that can be achieved over time, taking into account those practices and future timber supply, including the falldown effect that occurs when one moves from original to second-growth stands. The aim is to maintain a timber supply over time and at the same time achieve a harvest rate. That long-term harvestable rate is the long-run sustainable yield.

W. Hurd: I understand that a 200-year time line is used. Is that an accurate reflection of how the projections are made? It would seem that the life cycle of the resource or the rate at which timber grows and becomes merchantable is quite a bit less than that. Can the minister advise us why that rather long window of 200 years is used in setting that long-run sustained yield?

Hon. A. Petter: The reason a 200-year time period is looked at is just to ensure that the projection is a stable one. Where there is a deficiency of certain-age stands due to the timber profile, that deficiency will show up as a gap -- say, 30 or 40 years out -- but then it will recur as a further gap when one gets around to the second rotation. The 200 years allows one to evaluate whether the long-run sustainable yield unit is a line that can be sustained and to test whether there will be departures from that due to the profile of age class. Clearly there is a heightened degree of interest around 

[ Page 12152 ]

the more immediate time frame within that 200 years, particularly within the first five decades or so. Also, the first full rotation would be of immediate concern.

W. Hurd: With respect to the timber supply review, one of the key ingredients is obviously the socioeconomic assessment of lower rates of harvest. I just wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee what responsibility the chief forester has in assessing the information in that socioeconomic study where the timber supply review might identify a rather serious shortfall or deficiency. Is it within his mandate to order a sort of stepping down of the harvest reductions, or would that recommendation be made by the Ministry of Forests?

It's my impression the parameters changed somewhat from the first few timber supply reviews that the government did midcoast and on the Sunshine Coast, where there appeared to be an immediate step-down of the annual allowable harvest, as opposed to some of the ones that have been announced recently, where we were dealing with the longer time frame of 60 years or so in which the harvest would come down. What weight does the chief forester put on the socioeconomic analysis which accompanies each timber supply review that is completed and reported on to the public?

Hon. A. Petter: Under the Forest Act -- I believe it's section 7, and I've just asked staff to fetch me a copy so that we can focus on it, if necessary -- the chief forester is asked to look at sustainability, but also, as part of that review, to weigh and balance social and economic considerations. It is the responsibility of the chief forester to set the annual allowable cut. He will do so weighing and balancing the goal of achieving a sustainable rate of harvest.

Obviously there are different ways in which that can be achieved. There are, for example, different steps down from current rates of harvest to long-term sustainable rates of harvest, some of which may be steeper and others less steep and have pros and cons. Within that the chief forester has discretion to weigh and balance the social and economic figures and to try to make a calculation that will not only achieve sustainability but do so in a way that least compromises the social and economic values to communities.

[2:45]

Under the act, the chief forester is asked to take account of the policies of government; those policies can becommunicated to him on some of these issues as well. It is fairly long, but I would refer the member to section 7 of the act, which states fairly clearly the criteria the chief forester takes into account. The criteria not only embraces sustainability but also takes account of social and economic considerations.

W. Hurd: With respect to the socioeconomic studies, can the minister tell us whether or not they clearly identify job losses, either potential or imagined, or specific cost to the treasury? I reviewed one done up in Bulkley Valley, and it appeared to be less than specific on exactly what the impacts would be of various cut reductions. The Ministry of Finance has, I believe, done such a study -- at least, the opposition has a freedom-of-information request in for that information. As part of these analyses, are we looking at specific numbers in terms of job losses, effects on the provincial treasury and losses to the local economy?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

W. Hurd: With respect to public input, which is invited when these timber supply reviews are published, is there a standard format the ministry uses? Is it a series of public meetings? Are people invited to write? Is it all of the above? I'm not convinced that some of the people I've talked to in areas where reviews have been done are fully cognizant of the fact that there are specific numbers in terms of job losses and economic impacts. I suspect that if there was greater knowledge of specific impacts, there would be far more interest.

Can the minister describe how he feels the public input process has gone with respect to the timber supply reviews? And can he tell us whether -- as was the case on the Sunshine Coast, where the IWA came forward with a completely different plan for long-term sustainable harvest in that area -- people are being encouraged to come forward to develop alternatives to what the ministry and chief forester have identified as being the 200-year window in the various timber supply areas?

Hon. A. Petter: The reduction in AAC that the member refers to on the midcoast was not part of the timber supply review process. As I mentioned the other day, there has been only one timber supply review that has resulted in an AAC determination, and that was in the Fort Nelson area. In that case, the AAC actually increased, albeit with a partition cut. Socioeconomic studies aren't only about timber reductions; they're also about the potential for new economic opportunities, as was indeed the case in the Fort Nelson situation.

Having provided the baseline information through the timber supply analyses, we're just starting to enter the period in which we are providing public discussion papers and socioeconomic analysis, through the chief forester, to communities. The member asked whether there is a standard approach to that. The answer is yes. The chief forester has tried to develop a standard approach in which the public discussion paper and the socioeconomic analysis are released at the same time, so the public can have access to both simultaneously. Through a questionnaire that's provided, there is an opportunity for the public to have input. In addition, open houses and meetings are held. The intention is to seek input from the public in every way possible. That input can range from the methodology of the timber supply analysis through to concerns about the socioeconomic impacts and ways of mitigating those impacts, or any number of other concerns that might be raised.

Other than the Fort Nelson review, which resulted in an AAC determination, I believe there are three socioeconomic and public discussion papers that have been released thus far: one in Revelstoke, one in Golden and one in the midcoast. We're just starting in the experience of gaining public input, and based on what I've been told by the chief forester and his staff, I'm confident that it is their desire to attain maximum public input over the 90-day period that's afforded for it. I'm confident that the input will be effectively sought by the chief forester.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether his ministry is inviting the kind of submission that was made by the IWA on the Sunshine Coast when there was a cut reduction? Although it's not technically related to the timber supply review -- where, as the minister is aware, there was a cut reduction -- the International Woodworkers of America came forward with a proposal that would have stepped down the cut reduction over a longer period of time. It presented to the ministry opportunities for enhancement projects that would have mitigated the effects of the AAC reduction in that timber supply area. Is the ministry inviting 

[ Page 12153 ]

that kind of detailed submission? If so, then that implies the chief forester may not have had all the information at his disposal in making a decision to reduce the annual allowable harvest. Is the ministry expecting the kinds of alternative analyses that we saw on the Sunshine Coast and from the IWA to come forward elsewhere in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is yes. In many areas of the province, industry groups, worker groups and community groups are doing everything from shadow analyses of the timber supply analysis to alternative proposals for mitigating socioeconomic impacts that would otherwise flow from reductions in cut and alternative strategies for maximizing harvest levels. Not only do we welcome it, we encourage groups to come forward with that kind of information. The chief forester certainly would benefit from as much information and suggestions as he could receive on all of those aspects. The goal is to try to effect a level of cut that will not compromise future generations of long-term sustainability, one that will maximize the economic value of the forest and do the best job that can be done in the short term of maintaining the socioeconomic stability and well-being of communities.

W. Hurd: The minister will be aware of the study that I referred to before, which reviews the 1991 timber supply analysis process. One of the key recommendations was that the regions, and especially the districts, of the ministry develop their own timber supply analysis capabilities. Could the minister tell us in this set of estimates what kind of progress we're going to see toward enabling the ministry regional offices to update their information and to be able to receive information? Are we expecting this top-down process from the ministry and the chief forester to continue in each timber supply area once we have this snapshot taken, which the minister referred to earlier? Theoretically, there could be situations where the ministry staff in the regions who have a working knowledge of the sites, of the growing conditions, the various bioclimatic zones, the species mix and whatever, would be in a position to receive information with respect to the timber supply and develop their own capability. Is that anticipated in this set of estimates, or are we going to continue to see this sort of centrally directed initiative on the timber supply review?

Hon. A. Petter: The timber supply review is not conducted centrally. It may be directed centrally in the sense that the chief forester has the responsibility and the chief forester's staff in many cases will provide analysts, although a number of regions, I understand, have their own analysts. But certainly the information-gathering, the data collection and the work on areas that are operable or not operable are done not only in regions but in district offices. Those offices have worked in consultation, in many cases, with industry and local groups in actually looking at the land base and assessing, for example, what component of that land base is operable and what component of that land base is likely to be suitable for certain kinds of silvicultural treatments, etc.

In fact, over the past couple of years since the timber supply review has been established, there has been a strengthening of not only the capacity at the centre to direct this process but at the same time the capacity of the regions and districts to gather the information, participate and have a very direct role in ensuring that we have the most accurate and effective form of analysis that is possible.

There are some small increases in this year's budget, but that's because the job has largely been done in the last two years of building up this capacity throughout the province and within the regions and districts.

W. Hurd: When a major or minor licensee comes forward -- in particular a tree farm licence holder -- to the ministry with a plan for an enhanced harvest regime in conjunction with a forest enhancement regime over a period of time, even though the district management may be made aware of the proposal, those initiatives are still approved centrally, I would assume. They're still subject to centralized approval by the Ministry of Forests. Is there any thought that there might be more regional responsibility for approving those types of proposals from licensees, given the fact that the minister acknowledged during the debate on the Forest Renewal Act that it might be possible for those licensees to apply for funding under Forest Renewal B.C. in order to pursue these kinds of enhanced management regimes on tenured land? Are we still going to be in a situation where the tenure holders have to put their proposals together and then come to the Ministry of Forests as opposed to dealing with the regional office?

Hon. A. Petter: The kinds of proposals I think the member is referring to are generally handled through district offices. There may be a final sign-off and approval centrally, that's true, but it's based upon the input and recommendations of district staff and in some cases regional staff. That advice is usually a major, if not the major, determinant in decision-making.

However, from a more philosophical point of view, looking to the future, I would say that as we move to establish a regime of forest practices through the Forest Practices Code and an economic strategy through the forest renewal plan, once those basic ground rules have been established provincewide, that lends itself to opportunities for greater involvement by communities through resource boards and other instruments and for having much greater say over the way in which, within those basic parameters, decisions are made about timber harvesting and opportunities, linking those opportunities to local communities and their economic development.

While I think it's important to get the basic ground rules in place -- certainly that's what this government has been working hard to do -- I think one of the benefits of having those ground rules in place will be to facilitate greater opportunity for local decision-making and local management involvement by communities through instruments like community resource boards.

W. Hurd: I'm still trying to assess the minister's answer. I know, as the minister knows, there's a disparity of opinion between some licensees, some sectors of the forest industry and the ministry with respect to maximum average annual growth rates on Crown land in the province. There has been a suggestion and a concern that the ministry uses very conservative figures in assessing the maximum yield of each hectare. There are ideas -- indeed, there's more than ideas; at times there's tangible proof -- that higher yields can be achieved off Crown land than is currently the case.

[3:00]

It would seem that the ministry should be encouraging this type of information to come forward to the ministry and seeking ways of making sure that investment takes place without having to dip into the public trough in any way for forest renewal funds or anything else. Perhaps I could ask the minister what kind of criteria his ministry is using to set its maximum average annual growth rates for Crown land. Why, in his opinion, do they appear to be at such odds with 

[ Page 12154 ]

what some licensees and others are suggesting is possible in terms of long-term sustainability on public land?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the key lies in the expression the member himself used: tangible proof. Based on representative sampling throughout the province, the ministry evaluates what the actual growth and yield rates are, and from that it establishes a mean annual increment -- MAI -- for the particular species area. The districts are very often involved in that sampling.

What the member went on to say was that industry then says there may be a greater possibility or a greater potential. No one is denying that, least of all the ministry. In fact, much of what the forest renewal plan is directed toward is achieving that greater potential. One has to differentiate between what is actually happening on the ground, which, as we talked about last day, is very much the methodology that goes into timber supply analyses -- looking at current practices and current rates of growth -- and what may be attainable through a major program of investments. One such program has been put forward by this government under the forest renewal plan, though opposed by the member opposite and his party, and we believe it can have a very positive impact. Through thinning, pruning and spacing, through fertilization programs and better matching of species, through any number of initiatives, it can have a very positive effect on the potential, but until that potential becomes actual, it is not reflected in the timber supply analysis. The disagreement the member refers to may not be a disagreement at all. It simply may be one group in society talking about what is possible versus the chief forester telling us, as is his responsibility, what is in fact happening and what is actual.

Our responsibility as a government is to provide the resources and incentives to ensure that the actual rates we now have are improved upon so that those notional rates are achieved and we all benefit. We do not do what previous governments did, which is to pretend that those improved rates are being achieved when they're not, thereby assuming away problems that would otherwise emerge. What we need is a concrete set of proposals, such as we have under the forest renewal plan that was put forward by this government -- and opposed by the member opposite and his party -- to improve rates of growth or mean annual increments and other values of the forest in order to ensure that we have an improved timber supply situation.

W. Hurd: The minister has acknowledged that there is dramatic improvement possible in terms of growth yields off public land. Reference was made earlier in this set of estimates to the fact that British Columbia achieves only a fraction of the growth yields off its land base that other jurisdictions in the world attain. He's acknowledged that there are some real possibilities to increase the long-term growth and yield, and therefore the annual allowable harvest. Why in the world, then, wouldn't the government commit to spending every dollar raised through the forest renewal program on those proven techniques?

The minister has acknowledged that those techniques would increase the growth yields dramatically on public land and mitigate some of these falldowns and annual allowable harvest reduction, which are going to have a serious impact on the regions of the province if allowed to continue. Why wouldn't the entire $400 million or $450 million be spent on those specific forest enhancement projects? We could get the land base in British Columbia to a point that exists in Finland and other Scandinavian countries which are achieving almost the same kinds of rates of harvest off their land with a fraction of our total land base. Why isn't all the money being spent on proven growth-yield techniques on public land?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I find that a little hard to take from this member who voted against spending a single dollar under the forest renewal plan for investment in our forests and who now complains that the government should be spending every dollar under that plan. If the member wishes to revise his views and recant on the forest renewal plan, perhaps we could entertain his proposals about how that plan should be directed. Having opposed the forest renewal plan in principle, I find it a little too precious for him to turn around now and suggest that we should be directing investments in a different way.

I'll pass by that reaction in order to simply say that the forest renewal plan envisages a number of ways British Columbians would benefit from increased investments. Growth in yield is part of it, but the hon. member should be aware that you can't have growth in yield unless you have land on which to grow trees. Where we direct investments at watershed restoration, for example, those investments will result in reclaiming roadbeds that cannot be used right now for the growing of trees. In many ways, that can produce greater economic benefits than growth in yield, because it is bringing a whole area of land into production that would otherwise not be brought into production. Similarly, the bringing in of marginal agricultural lands into forest production can increase timber supply, and there are ways in which we can gain value from wood once processed through valued-added manufacturing.

If the member would examine the forest renewal plan, he will see that it is a comprehensive approach, not a one-trick pony, that is designed to ensure that British Columbia benefits in every way possible from its forest resource: from processing right back through to improving the way in which forests are tended, including growth in yield. It is not as unsophisticated an approach as he seems to argue, and I suppose I should take some measure of comfort from the fact that he's moved from opposing the plan to arguing in favour of an unsophisticated version of it.

W. Hurd: As the minister well knows, site preparation, thinning and spacing are all related to forest enhancement. I can recall that during the course of our debate the minister never did put a dollar figure on those commitments. We were led to believe from the ample press kit information, which the government always spends a lot of money on and releases to the world at large, that half might be spent on those projects. Of course, there was nothing in the bill that would indicate that we might see $200 million spent. As the minister well knows, half of it is going to spent on other initiatives such as direct investment in the forest industry itself, and on job retraining, one would assume. Again, we're not dealing with any specific numbers that we can identify. This forest renewal plan is an open invitation for the government to spend what it will where it will, and there's no specific dollar commitment.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I'm glad the minister talked about land when he mentioned reclaiming land for forest enhancement projects, because that's an issue we tried to identify during the debate on the forest renewal plan. What specific number of hectares was the ministry going to be dealing with? What component 

[ Page 12155 ]

of that $400 million was going to be directed toward a specific percentage of the land base? Again, that debate proved elusive, as usual. I wonder, again, in speaking to the forest renewal plan, whether individual licensees will be able to come forward with plans for enhanced harvest techniques. If the $200 million, or whatever the government intends to spend on forest renewal, is used up in that budget year, will any additional funds be put aside? Is every portion of the $400 million available for that type of project, or are we dealing with a situation where, once the Forest Renewal B.C. board of directors has reached the threshold of investment in a strict, growth-yield forestry component, additional funds will not be available because they're going to be diverted to training or to whatever else was mentioned -- such as community development, whatever that is? Can he at least commit during this set of estimates that a portion of the pot will definitely be available to communities for the type of forest enhancement work that the minister has acknowledged will have the effect of dramatically increasing long-term growth and yields of timber off public land?

Hon. A. Petter: The forest renewal plan funding is not a component of these estimates. While I'm all for taking maximum latitude and liberties with members to debate issues that can't be debated elsewhere, these matters have been fully debated in the House as part of the forest renewal plan, which the member opposite voted against in principle and now wishes to re-examine during the course of these estimates. This is inappropriate, in my view.

However, if the Chair is prepared to allow him that much latitude to ask the question, allow me the latitude to at least say -- and this will be the last time I'll try to enlighten the member on the forest renewal plan, which he philosophically opposes -- that through the plan we are committed to maximizing the value of the forest in any number of different ways. We indicated in the debate that our expectation is, at least in the initial stages of the plan, that about 50 percent of the plan will be devoted to investment in the land and to direct investment in management techniques, such as silviculture, etc., which will hopefully increase both the value and volume of timber, which includes increasing mean annual increments. To suggest that other components of the plan aren't similarly directed is simply wrong. Much of the skills and training component will be directed at providing workers with the skills and training necessary to do this kind of work; therefore it is a necessary adjunct to that investment. Much of the focus of the environmental envelope is directed at reclaiming lands and bringing them back into forest production, which is also going to contribute to increased volumes.

I can't help the member if he hasn't heard the answer 13 times in the past. If he's philosophically opposed to this plan, I don't know why he wishes to pursue this. The fact is that most British Columbians support the notion of having a strategy to invest in our forests and in forest communities. The member opposite does not, and I'm sorry that I can't persuade him otherwise. I'd be very happy to debate this issue with him anywhere in this province, but it is not properly part of these estimates.

W. Hurd: I would suggest to the minister that it is. First of all, his ministry is going to receive, we're told, a full report or audit of the activities of that....

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member, this must be tied to the estimates. One way or another, find a line item in there that suggests that it's tied to the current estimates.

W. Hurd: I note that the amount of money for forest investment has gone down in the current set of estimates, so I'm looking at the line items correctly. According to this set of estimates, forest investment is down by around $3.9 million, and investment has gone down from $110 million to $108 million. It appears that by virtue of the fact that the ministry is spending less on enhanced forest activities, such as site-stand-tending, silviculture activities and reforestation of land, it is anticipating that some additional makeup funds will be made available through the forest renewal plan. Is the decision of the ministry to spend less of its budget on these proven forest enhancement techniques related to the fact that this Crown corporation is going to be taking up some of the slack?

The Chair: While the minister is deciding that, I would refer everyone to standing order 61, in which a phrase suggests that matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, because in fact there is another place you can discuss it. There is the authority for that.

W. Hurd: The legislation has passed.

The Chair: Fine. It's been done then.

Hon. minister?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is no. The fluctuations, which are small, in one case have to do with changes in the federal FRDA funding formula and in the other are simply part of the cyclical nature of any investment strategy. The commitment to forest investment through the ministry remains unaltered and will continue. The forest renewal plan, which we should not be discussing here on its own, did not have any influence on the numbers that were arrived at here. These numbers are a strong indication of this government's continued commitment to forest investment through the Ministry of Forests.

[3:15]

W. Hurd: The minister has acknowledged that his ministry will be receiving a report from the forest renewal plan. Can he tell us, under this set of estimates, how much money his ministry is going to expend every year analyzing the information it receives from Forest Renewal B.C. and verifying the activities it undertakes? What specific dollar amounts are we going to be seeing in this set of estimates to monitor information received from this new Crown corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: There are no specific dollar amounts.

W. Hurd: Is the minister then telling us that he's going to receive the report along with everyone else in the province and is going to refer it on to the select standing committee without spending a dollar to analyze its contents or determining the activities of the Crown corporation? The question becomes obvious: why is he even receiving a report?

Hon. A. Petter: My answer was that there are no specific dollar amounts; my answer was not the kind that the member has indicated.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can then revisit this issue one more time with respect to forest investment in his ministry. If he's maintaining that there is no reduction in commitment in this set of estimates, can he tell us if the 

[ Page 12156 ]

change that I see listed under ministry operations is just the result of shortfalls in the FRDA program? Or is it a result of the fact that this is a year of down-cycle investment, if we're looking at a five-year investment window? To what do we attribute what appears to me to be a rather significant reduction in those intensive forestry techniques?

Hon. A. Petter: I can check on the specifics for the member. The amount in the ministry operations budget -- and I hope this means we won't have to revisit this when we get to that vote.... The forest resource development agreement funding has gone down marginally. On the investment side, I will find out more specifically what accounts for that very small year-to-year reduction, but the amount within the ministry budget that's committed to silviculture, for example, has not gone down overall.

W. Hurd: With respect to the timber supply review, can the minister advise the committee where the ministry expects to be by year-end? I understand that around 13 have been completed. How many are we expecting to be completed by the end of the current set of estimates?

Hon. A. Petter: It is anticipated that by this time next year all the timber supply analyses should be completed. That's the basic informational component, the profile based on current practices and the first step in the timber supply review. As I mentioned is already the case in a few districts, the socioeconomic study and public discussion paper will also be released. In other cases, those will be released over the following months.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what types of revisions will be done on those that have already been completed with respect to the new requirements of the Forest Practices Code? When the minister announced the code, he indicated that there was going to be a percentage reduction. Obviously this would vary across the regions of the province, depending on the number of watersheds, etc.

Since the code will definitely have some kind of impact on timber that previously might have been included as being harvestable in the annual allowable cut projections, is there going to be a significant need, in terms of budget allocation, to go back and revisit some of these analyses?

Hon. A. Petter: No, there will be no separate process for the Forest Practices Code. As I indicated last day, most of the standards and requirements of the Forest Practices Code are already factored into and taken account of by the timber supply analysis and the assumptions over integrated resource managements and green-up effects, etc. that are contained within the timber supply analysis. To the extent that there are variations, these will be accounted for along with others, including variations in operable land base and in growth rates that may occur due to the forest renewal plan and other factors in the regular course of review and the schedule for redoing those timber supply analyses, which will be on a five-year basis.

Every five years -- or in the space of five years -- there will be a timber supply analysis in each timber supply area. That's the proposed schedule once we get through the initial round. The new snapshots in the analyses will reflect whatever impacts have resulted due to the Forest Practices Code, to the forest renewal plan or to other investments and changes that may have occurred on the land base.

W. Hurd: I guess the minister has acknowledged the question I asked originally. Obviously investments by Forest Renewal B.C. will be catalogued, analyzed by the ministry and factored into the annual allowable harvest. In order to receive that information, surely there will be expenditure of some planning funds.

I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that despite the fact that the minister is desperately seeking to keep the Crown corporation separate from the activities of his ministry, we're now led to understand that the investments made by the Crown will miraculously show up in the regional offices when it comes to setting new AAC levels or projections -- should they be called for. I ask the minister to confirm again that the investments made by Forest Renewal B.C. will be analyzed by the regional offices and factored in. One would hope there would be a flow of accurate technical data in order for that to take place.

Hon. A. Petter: The member continues to misunderstand. The timber supply analysis is a snapshot of current management practices and the results that are generated by those practices at a given time. If, as a result of the forest renewal plan, those practices change, then at that time there will be an evaluation done of timber supply, and it will take account of those changes in practices. That would not require any additional resources; it would require the same analysis that now goes on. However, the analysis will be influenced by the change that has occurred due to new investments that may have taken place under forest renewal. That's the snapshot of what exists.

However, under the forest renewal plan, a research component that addresses the member's concerns is proposed within the land and resource investment envelope. It is aimed specifically at investing in research to evaluate what kinds of benefits might accrue in the future as a result of investment decisions that might be made. That investment, which will take place under the forest renewal plan itself and the guidance of Forest Renewal B.C., will help to guide the plan in making investments and pursuing its investment strategy. The information may also be useful to the chief forester and to the Ministry of Forests as it looks to the future and predicts where cut rates are likely to go. It is a different exercise. It is a prospective exercise in the sense that it looks at what is likely to result from changes in management practices. The timber supply analysis is a projection of what will happen under current management practices. These are two very different approaches.

W. Hurd: So I have this straight, the ministry staff will be proceeding with the timber supply reviews for the remainder of the fiscal year to gain what the minister calls this snapshot of timber supply. It could be mitigated, hopefully upwards, by investments by Forest Renewal B.C. We hope the ministry staff will receive that information and make their changes. We're not sure whether the snapshot will be adjusted yet again by the Forest Practices Code; it may well be.

Can I ask a question about CORE, hon. Chair? What kind of work will be done by the ministry when these three tables have completed their findings, and issued their reports, and the government has acted upon them? Will ministry staff be forced to change this snapshot again? How could the ministry possibly have been anticipating what CORE might recommend? There seems to be a lot of variables over which the government and the ministry appear to have absolutely no control. My concern is that, having invested considerable 

[ Page 12157 ]

resources and time in this snapshot, we have a lot of undeveloped film.

Hon. A. Petter: Any protected areas created as a result of the land use planning exercises that are going on in the province can be factored in a number of ways. Through part 15 of the Forest Act, one can temporarily make an adjustment. That was recently done following the Clayoquot Sound land use decision. The chief forester also has the capacity to do an expedited or re-review of the area if the changes are sufficiently great to justify that. Failing that, the changes would be taken into account in the regular course of events when the next timber supply analysis is done. If the changes are major and affect major land use allocation in the area, then most likely the instruments of part 15 or the chief forester's re-review would be the mechanisms used.

I suggest we recess for a minute or two until we can pursue this.

The committee recessed at 3:28 p.m.

The committee resumed at 3:36 p.m.

W. Hurd: That was such a riveting vote in the House, I'd forgotten where we left off. We were talking about the potential impact of the Commission on Resources and Environment reports, their subsequent adoption in some form by the government and their impact on the timber supply review. I think I was pointing out at the time that it was another wild card in the ministry's daunting efforts to come up with an AAC estimation for each timber supplier in the province that will have much relevance over the longer term. I think the minister indicated that it may be necessary, as a result of the CORE reports, for the ministry to use part 15 of the Forest Act to make a temporary and perhaps large adjustment to the annual allowable harvest to reflect the fact that the CORE report may decide on a percentage of the land base that might be set aside for other purposes.

Since we've started this discussion, we've identified that the timber supply reviews were snapshots of the amount of timber available based on current management practices. It troubles me and concerns other people in forest-dependent communities that when we take stock of those existing practices, they may or may not be conservative in the extreme. They won't of necessity reflect the decisions the CORE table makes. We're assured by the minister that they will reflect the new Forest Practices Code impacts, although we're not sure exactly how. Furthermore, when it comes to the protected areas strategy and other initiatives, we're again not too sure whether the ministry has a handle on what impacts they will have on the annual allowable harvest.

During the course of this set of estimates, we have determined why people in forest-dependent communities are feeling a little exposed. These initiatives don't appear to be quantifiable. The timber supply reviews are not area-based but are based on boundaries on a map. The minister says they're area-based, but we're not coming up with a hectare figure. I think that's what people are looking for. How many hectares are going to exist in perpetuity to sustain our long-run annual allowable harvest? How can we have the number of hectares if we don't know the impact of the CORE report, the Forest Practices Code or anything else?

I can understand why there is so much uncertainty out there, and there is, as the minister knows. There is a lot of trepidation. The government is putting a lot of stock in the forest renewal plan to mitigate the effects of these overlapping initiatives somehow, some of which we can quantify and some we can't. I think the minister will at least acknowledge that there are these wild cards out there that could trigger, as he has indicated, the invoking of part 15 of the Forest Act to make a temporary reduction, and he can understand why the workers in the forest-dependent communities of the province today are feeling exposed.

Hon. A. Petter: Before I answer this question, the member had an earlier question about the change in the investment estimates under ministry operations. I want to inform him that the reason for that small downward adjustment has to do with a sequencing of payments of grants with respect to the B.C. Forestry Association and Forintek in the 1993 payments versus the 1994 payments as contemplated in arrangements with those two organizations. That's the reason for the small downward adjustment.

With respect to the member's current question, the member again has it backward. The reason there is instability is that we didn't take our heads out of the sand in the past. The member's analysis is like saying a person who doesn't see a doctor for five years should feel better than someone who sees a doctor and is confronted with information that may not be pleasing to them. Maybe the member thinks our collective health would be better off if we never consulted doctors about it, but I choose to differ. I believe we're better off finding out what's wrong so we can get on with remedying it.

Given his background, the member no doubt feels more comfortable in an environment where we don't know what the timber supply is, where we don't have a land use plan and where we don't have a Forest Practices Code. Maybe that's the kind of comfort that allows him to go to bed at night and sleep snugly there, just like the person who doesn't want to be confronted with information from a doctor would go to bed more comfortably not having had an annual checkup. I'm not that kind of person, and I don't believe most British Columbians are. Most British Columbians would prefer to know the state of health of their province's forests and what they have to do to maintain and improve that state. Most British Columbians prefer to get their annual checkup. However, I yield to the member. If he wants to run the province based on a blind avoidance of the truth, he is free to pursue that policy, and we can debate it between now and the next election. He can continue to vote against forest renewal plans and everything else that this government is doing to try to illuminate British Columbians about the mismanagement of the past and what we need to do to correct it.

All the initiatives the member talks about are aimed at achieving a measure of stability. In order to do that, information has been brought to light disclosing what most people have suspected but heretofore have not had the information to confirm -- namely, that we have a problem with timber supply that we need to address. I feel more comforted knowing that, because I know that once we have a handle on that problem, we're more likely to be able to do something about it. I'm comforted by the fact that this government has come forward with a strategy to do something about it. The only thing that gives me extreme discomfort is that we have an official opposition party that calls itself a credible choice and would vote against that plan. I suppose they would vote against penicillin, too. But who the heck knows?

In respect to the other initiatives that are being talked about, CORE is about bringing about land use certainty and resolving the fact -- maybe the member isn't aware of it -- that forest companies have been having increasing difficulty 

[ Page 12158 ]

over the years getting access to timber, because there is not a stable land use plan out there that people agree upon. So there are confrontations and disagreements, and there is a jamming-up of planning processes. What we need to have is a process that will resolve that. Through CORE and the LRMP processes this government has put in place, we're well on the way to doing that. Similarly, with the timber supply review we are now beginning to develop the snapshots we need in order to come forward with the prescriptions to ensure that we have a healthy timber supply in the future.

The member constantly blames those who are disclosing the problems of the past and coming forward with prescriptions, as though they were the source of the problem. As I have just said, to put it simply, he blames the doctor for the disease. If the member has some other solution for achieving land use stability in this province, please tell me what it is and share it with the people of British Columbia rather than simply mouthing platitudes and opposing the concrete actions that this government has taken to achieve land use stability.

[3:45]

With respect to his earlier comments, the timber supply analysis is an area-based analysis. If he looks at any of the timber supply analyses, he will see that they identify a total area, then a timber-harvesting land base, and based upon that, they determine an appropriate AAC. All these initiatives work together to achieve greater stability based upon what we are discovering we need to do in order to ensure that we have a healthy and sustainable forest and a healthy and sustainable forest industry.

W. Hurd: I don't know how we can have a timber-harvesting land base when the minister has acknowledged that at least three of the major initiatives have apparently not been factored in. Nobody's blaming the CORE process or the Forest Practices Code. Those are initiatives the government has chosen to introduce, and the opposition supported the Forest Practices Code. We're like a farmer in British Columbia who is being asked to produce 200,000 bushels of wheat without knowing from one spring to the next how much land they're going to have available to do it on. I don't know how you make proper growth projections or plan for community stability.

The minister seems to be of the opinion that all these overlapping initiatives can be undertaken at the same time, and the investments of the forest renewal plan will somehow magically take up the slack. All I can do is advise the minister that the people in forest-dependent communities aren't buying it. The reality of life as we know it in British Columbia is that this is a political debate. Clearly the government has one version of what has to happen. I should advise the minister that there is another version out there, and his version will have to be sold to the people in the forest-dependent communities. I wish him luck, because they're fully capable of understanding -- and they do understand -- that they are more vulnerable now than they were even a few years ago, because forestry doesn't have an established land base on which to secure their future. While the investments in the land base are welcomed and the Forest Practices Code is obviously needed, I think it's come, unfortunately, at the expense of community stability and the confidence people have in their future. I don't see how the minister is going to resolve it, but I wish him luck.

As I've indicated before, in my travels throughout British Columbia, people -- in Williams Lake, for example -- are finding that the amount of area available for timber harvesting has gone down by, in their view, 40 percent. There is less area available for timber harvesting. They can see the future, and there certainly isn't the level of employment that exists today. I think we're obviously not going to resolve this discussion. I feel the timber supply reviews are certainly welcome. They provide a snapshot, one supposes, but the unknown variables are increasing, and I think the amount of community instability is increasing.

Perhaps I can ask a question, to shift the discussion, related to fibre supply for the province but on a different topic: the continuing policy of the government to export logs from British Columbia. People continually ask the opposition.... I know that when the previous minister was in opposition he had a great deal to say about log exports from British Columbia, and I know the IWA has made a number of representations about log exports. But given the fact that we're experiencing declining harvests in the province -- even if the government can't indicate how much of a decline -- how can the ministry continue to justify the unconscionable policy of allowing logs to be exported from British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: As is so often the case with the member, the question would be more poignant if it were based on a factual foundation. In fact, this government has acted very strongly on its views that log exports ought not to be permitted, except in extraordinary circumstances. The extent of log export from British Columbia right now is about 1.6 percent, and declining.

The government recently moved to phase out what previous governments had allowed -- namely, a blanket exemption for market loggers in the midcoast area through the market logger OIC. That OIC is being wound down, and new exemptions are not being granted within that area based on that OIC.

There's a similar review going on in the north coast by the Log Export Advisory Committee. As the member ought to know, the only circumstances under which log export permits are now allowed are those in which the species or type of wood is one for which there is no domestic processing capacity or when economic circumstances are such, as has been the case in the far northwest of the province, that the cost of delivering logs to market is greater than that which allows them to be economically produced. For example, there is still a small volume of shipment -- very small relative to overall volume -- through Stewart.

We do not control log exports on two categories of lands: one is federal lands and one is lands held in fee simple. Those lands are subject to federal jurisdiction, not provincial jurisdiction, and, of course, the federal government has the authority over international trade and interprovincial trade. So we have no basis on which to restrict exports. Where we do have a basis, we have acted to ensure that the minimum possible number of logs is exported, and, as I say, the figure is now less than 2 percent -- 1.6 percent -- and going down. Due to favourable market conditions, I believe that number will continue to decline over the next year or so and become virtually negligible.

Much of the publicity has occurred around logs that are logged on private lands, such as private land on Vancouver Island, over which the government is regrettably unable to exert any control at the provincial level to prevent those logs from being exported.

W. Hurd: Obviously the minister agrees that there are circumstances where the government accepts the principle of log exports. What people are saying -- at least, what I hear them saying -- is that as a general principle, allowing any logs to be exported from the province without basic 

[ Page 12159 ]

breakdown or harvesting is a policy that simply isn't rooted in fairness or equity or the reality of the shrinking wood supply that exists in the province. I wonder if the minister can give us an idea of whether his government intends.... I mean, 1.6 percent of 72 million cubic metres is still a significant volume of timber that is leaving the province unprocessed.

I can advise the minister that during the select standing committee tour of the province, one of the concerns we heard was that often smaller operators weren't sufficiently informed of these volumes being exported. Even though they were subject to review by the Timber Export Advisory Committee, they didn't learn of the availability of this fibre. I wonder whether the government intends to move toward a zero-export policy for logs off public lands. Does the minister see any merit in that notion?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, in response to the member's initial statement, let me assure him that no logs will be exported without harvesting. That I can assure him.

Second, clearly a goal we would set would be to have zero exports. The Timber Export Advisory Committee has been instructed by me and by the government through general policy and in direct meetings that our desire is to move to the least amount of log export as can be attained without putting some very remote economies in jeopardy. Also -- and I'm sure the member would agree -- we don't want to discourage good utilization. There are certain stands of wood for which there is no processing capacity -- for example, certain deciduous stands and other kinds of wood. To allow that wood to go to waste would be a tragedy, particularly where it's found within areas that are being harvested. So some very minimal export may be desirable under those very exceptional circumstances.

Clearly, it is the goal of this government -- and we have acted on that; I gave the midcoast example -- to eliminate log exports wherever possible. If the member takes the position that that means we should eliminate them everywhere overnight, I suggest that he go up to communities like Stewart or to the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley and ask them how they feel about that. Up until now -- and things may be changing because of the more favourable market in logs -- those communities are among the very few communities in B.C. that have depended on some exports in order to have any economic logging. I think that's regrettable; I wish it weren't the case. It is the case, therefore I accept it. But the general policy of this government -- reflected in the numbers, reflected in the decisions and reflected in the instructions we have given and statements we have made publicly -- is to move toward the reduction of log exports to the greatest extent possible.

W. Hurd: That position seems to me to be somewhat at odds with the position taken by the previous minister who, I believe, pointed out in this committee last year that the reason the government couldn't move to eliminate log exports was simply based on the realities of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States and the fact that banning log exports would in some way be considered to be a countervailing action. Can the minister advise us whether that problem has now been resolved to his satisfaction and that in fact the softwood lumber dispute with the United States is no longer influenced by the log export policies in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: To the extent that the log export policies of British Columbia are very clearly directed at restricting logs from being exported in all but the most exceptional circumstances -- where there is no domestic demand for those logs -- that has been and continues to be the policy of this government. That policy is being pursued even though it may not find favour in other quarters and even though it has been the basis of much of the countervail action brought by the United States. I think the policy and the actions of this government speak for themselves.

W. Hurd: With respect to the countervail case, can the minister summarize exactly what he expects his ministry will be doing in the current fiscal year? Are we dealing with a portion of the budget devoted to continue work with Canadian trade authorities on that particular action? Obviously we're now embroiled in the committee structure of the free trade agreement. Is the ministry continuing its involvement in that case? If so, could the minister advise us exactly what his ministry will be doing during the coming fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there is an amount allocated, and we can get the exact number for the member. I believe it's about $1 million.

I want to credit those in the ministry who have focused on the trade issue for their excellent work, which has been very useful. These people have worked closely with the government of Canada, industry and others to ensure that the most effective case is brought in order to protect British Columbia's interests in the trade dispute with the United States.

The member will be aware that British Columbia and Canada have succeeded at virtually every instance through the panel process that has taken place, but the Americans have insisted on dragging this out to the nth degree and have brought an extraordinary challenge, which was recently heard and on which a decision is expected in the very near future.

I want to caution the member that due to the deficiencies of the free trade agreement, unfortunately, that will not necessarily be the end of the matter. First, the United States can bring a challenge with respect to years that were not an issue in the original challenge. Second, the free trade agreement works only to hold the United States to the laws of their own jurisdiction. If they were to choose to change those laws in a provocative and counterproductive way, they could have a destabilizing effect.

It's certainly a concern of this government and of my ministry to ensure that we work prospectively with the federal government. Even if we are successful through the current dispute, as we hope we will be, it would be wrong to simply rest on our laurels and assume that that resolves the matter. There is cause to pursue negotiations with the United States to ensure that in the future we are not subject to these kinds of actions.

[4:00]

I was pleased to see that the federal trade minister has taken on this issue. I've discussed the matter with him and will continue to do so. I've indicated my interest in being involved in any discussions he may have with American representatives, because we must make sure that B.C.'s position is protected in the future as well as currently. I can confirm that the amount within the ministry's budget devoted to providing support and to work on this issue is $1 million.

W. Hurd: As the minister is aware, since this dispute began, large and small companies in British Columbia have been posting what I believe amounts to duty at the border by 

[ Page 12160 ]

putting money on bond or on hold. I understand the sum is in the range of $700 million. Does the ministry or the government have a policy on where those funds should go? Since I'm anticipating a successful resolution of this dispute in Canada's favour, would it be the position of the minister that this money should be returned to the manufacturers, or where can we expect that money to eventually find its way back? Clearly, with the higher stumpage rates in British Columbia, there would be a critical need for that money to invest in plants and equipment. Is the minister aware of how much has been posted at the border by B.C. companies, and whether those funds will be returned to them or to government revenues?

Hon. A. Petter: I believe the figure the member gave is at least in the general vicinity. Obviously it fluctuates, but $600 million or so -- perhaps a bit higher -- has been collected. The position of this government remains that the money collected by way of deposits from those who exported the wood to the United States should be returned to those who put up the deposits.

W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the committee of where we are in the process with respect to this dispute and whether he sees any resolution? Obviously the expenditure of $1 million.... Can he provide us with a breakdown of exactly what his ministry will be doing with respect to this dispute during the coming year? Is that money being allocated just for travel to Washington or for analyzing the ongoing dispute? What kinds of activities can we anticipate in connection with this ongoing softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. A. Petter: The funding of that $1 million I referred to, I understand, is primarily for legal fees to provide support to British Columbia in advancing its position within those disputes, as well as for travel and other costs associated with furthering B.C.'s case in Washington.

In terms of our future action, I want to be a little guarded, because clearly everything that is said on this dispute -- and I hope all members have a common position on this -- is watched closely by those who do not have our best interests at heart: those in the United States who would like to punish British Columbia and its producers. So I'll be a little guarded. In general terms, under the economics and trade branch of the ministry, we will be continuing to work with the federal government and the industry to ensure that the current extraordinary challenge reaches what we hope will be a conclusion in favour of Canada. We are also working with the federal government on further initiatives to ensure that such actions are not continued and that American producers are not successful in continuing this very counterproductive, destructive and ill-founded attack on B.C. and its producers.

W. Hurd: I don't have much more to ask on this dispute other than whether the minister anticipates having to travel outside the province. I know the previous minister was in Oregon, Washington and elsewhere. Is this case now clearly in the hands of committee structure under the NAFTA, where little direct lobbying can be done by either the minister or other representatives of government? My understanding is that we are basically enmeshed in the free trade process, and that one way or another a determination will be made without further representation from British Columbia. Is that an accurate description of where we are now?

Hon. A. Petter: As I've indicated to the member, while the current case is coming to a conclusion -- hopefully, one that will be satisfactory to Canada -- that will not resolve the matter because of the unfortunate nature of the free trade agreement. Therefore it's going to be necessary to ensure that our interests continue to be aggressively pursued in Washington and elsewhere in the United States to ensure that B.C.'s interests are represented, along with those other timber-producing provinces which also have an interest in this. As I said, I have talked to the federal minister, Roy MacLaren, about this, and I have offered to be committed to the process and to travel where necessary to ensure that Canada's interests, more broadly, and B.C.'s interests, in particular, are well represented. That may involve some travel on my part, but I have no specific plans in relation to this issue.

With respect to other trade issues regarding attempts to boycott B.C. timber products, I anticipate I'll be doing some travelling to meet with some of the new members of the European Parliament who have recently been elected. I intend to carry forward on the Premier's last visit and to bring some of those new members up to date on what we are doing in British Columbia and possibly in other jurisdictions as well. The member may be aware that there have been some actions in the state of California and elsewhere in the United States, which I think should be of great concern to all British Columbians and members of this Legislature. Certainly we want to make sure that we communicate our message of positive change and our message of the need to ensure that we are not harmed economically and that there is no punitive action taken against B.C. or its industry in order to facilitate the change that is underway. Those are all messages which I have said that I will be pleased to take when appropriate. The only plan I do have that's at all concrete -- and I was asked by the Premier to do this -- is to visit some of the European parliamentarians early in the fall as a follow-up to the Premier's visit of last year.

W. Hurd: With respect to Europe, there is consideration being given to setting up an environmental audit process for forest products, particularly those from British Columbia. I wonder if the minister can advise us whether his ministry will be participating in providing information or in developing responses to that initiative. Or is that something that would fall within the Ministry of Small Business? As the minister well knows, a delegation of German pulp buyers recently visited the B.C. Legislature. One of the items they talked about when they were meeting with the opposition was the possibility of some sort of so-called green tag or audit of forest products based on practices. Can the minister tell us whether his ministry will be providing anything in the way of concrete information to the European Parliament with respect to this green designation for forest products?

Hon. A. Petter: There is a lot of interest expressed in a number of different quarters around certification of forest products. I'm not quite sure which of the various initiatives the member is referring to. Certainly, from this government's point of view, we would encourage efforts to develop international standards to ensure that those standards create a level playing field, because we believe that British Columbia would stack up very well worldwide in terms of its commitment to good forest practices, particularly as a result of the Forest Practices Code.

Beyond that, many in industry have approached us about working with them and the federal government on a certification program. My ministry will continue to consult 

[ Page 12161 ]

with industry and with other levels of government on the possibility of generating some certification program. I also think the Forest Practices Code itself is a form of certification. The fact that we will have a Forest Practices Code in place in this province that will have tough standards and will require high standards of performance from the forest industry will change in many ways forest practices of the past. I think it will act as a form of certification and provide a good basis for us to market our products. In all those ways -- internationally, nationally and in terms of our own initiatives -- I believe we can, either formally or informally, move toward a certification of B.C. forest products that will position us very well in world markets.

W. Hurd: This gets us back to discussion of the appropriateness of audits and the type of information that the minister will be able to provide. I note in ministry operations that there's an additional amount budgeted for monitoring, enforcement and auditing. Can the minister describe exactly what kinds of programs we can anticipate with this additional expenditure? The imposition of the Forest Practices Code, while it's welcomed, is going to create a demand for much greater auditing and monitoring than we've seen in the past. What types of initiatives are we going to see in the current fiscal year that couldn't be accomplished in previous fiscal years?

[4:15]

I'll return to the Tripp audit of fish-forestry compliance on Vancouver Island, which the government released. Shortly thereafter it was followed by a press release from the government that said that this audit clearly indicated a need for a Forest Practices Code. For regulations to work they have to be verifiable and capable of being audited for compliance. Can the minister give us an idea -- and I think the figure is about $7 million for monitoring, auditing and enforcement -- of what additional types of programs we're going to see in this fiscal year?

[D. Schreck in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: The particular line item the member is referring to -- monitoring, enforcement and auditing -- in large measure represents the commitment the government has made to provide additional resources toward enforcement of the Forest Practices Code. That means that in addition to the reallocation of staff that I referred to earlier, we're going to have to have additional dollars to provide capacity in the field to monitor performance and to ensure that inspections take place to a greater extent than has been the case. Over the next two years we anticipate that the actual number of inspections under the new code will go up threefold, so there will be a far more effective regime of inspections and enforcement.

In addition -- and it's my belief that this is not included in that figure but is elsewhere in the budget -- funds will be set aside for the Forest Practices Board to conduct its own independent audit, which we've talked about previously. This will provide an independent source of information, and it will be done in such a way as to ensure that the public has a snapshot or a picture of performance of companies, the ministry and its operations through the small business program and, indeed, the ministry as an enforcer through the line item activities that I just referred to. This will build upon the Tripp type of audit process that the member referred to. The first stage of that was on Vancouver Island, but the expanded audit encompassed much more than Vancouver Island: most of the west coast.

W. Hurd: Clearly a variety of audits is required. For example, there's the audit the ministry has done of the accuracy of preharvest silvicultural prescriptions. For example, there would have to be the fish-forestry guidelines in compliance with protection of stream sites and the ongoing analysis of steep-slope logging roads. We're dealing with a huge number of additional audits. These would be conducted not only in the regional offices with respect to verifying the reports and the information that is compiled by the licensee, but also on field sites where people walk the land base to determine the level of compliance.

My question relates to the relationship between the Forest Practices Code and the ministry. One of the concerns expressed by many in the province is that the auditing process should be totally independent and at arm's length from the ministry. I wonder whether that process is now going to occur in the province. Are we going to see more audits like the Tripp type of audit where consultants were hired, given a mandate to go into the field and then report back? When we talk about this additional $7 million that's allocated, are we talking about independent audits? Are we talking about activities the ministry would be involved in?

Hon. A. Petter: The $7 million the member is referring to within that line item is not for independent audits of the kind that Tripp undertook or will be undertaken by the Forest Practices Board. We're talking about the kind of monitoring enforcement processes the ministry does in its capacity as a steward of the public resource in ensuring that forest companies and licensees live up to their obligations under forest practices legislation. In fact, most of the examples the member used -- monitoring of roads, road construction etc. -- are already done. The new requirements, which in the case of roads will require a greater involvement of engineers and engineering standards, will involve more easily ascertainable and auditable standards. They should make things a little easier; the ministry and licence holders will be in a far more certain position as to what is expected of them. In certain cases -- major roads, for example -- engineering advice will have to be sought, which will provide a much readier basis for auditing than might otherwise be the case.

In many ways, monitoring and enforcement will be made easier by the Forest Practices Code, because the code will provide a single codified set of better-defined standards, which both industry and the ministry can agree upon. There will not be what often occurs now -- disagreement about what the enforceable standards are, if indeed there are enforceable standards. In many cases the standards are not enforceable; witness the fish-forest guidelines.

This $7 million is to increase the frequency of inspections. As I said, over the next two years we hope to triple the frequency of inspections that are done by ministry staff to ensure compliance with the new Forest Practices Code. In addition, there will be an independent auditing process conducted by the Forest Practices Board at arm's length from the ministry. It will audit the ministry in two senses: one, the ministry as licensee in the sense of the small business program and the ministry's role in administering that; two, it will report on how well the ministry does in its enforcement role.

There will be a continuation and indeed an increase of the independent audit process which provides the public with a much better independent picture of our progress as both government and industry under forest practices legislation. That is in addition to, not part of, this $7 million commitment.

[ Page 12162 ]

W. Hurd: Can the minister then tell us how these independent audits conducted by the board are going to be financed? Will that be a budget item created within this ministry? The board will be commissioning these independent audits. Who is going to pay for them? Will the ministry be required to submit documents such as information plans in conjunction with an independent audit conducted by the board?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the funding for the Forest Practices Board, which would include the auditing it's going to undertake, is contained within the corporate services line on vote 37. That may appear surprising because the number is fairly static from last year, but the reason is that as a result of our reorganization, we're moving toward shifting resources from head office to the districts. We have realized some savings, and those savings have therefore been displaced to some extent by new commitments, one of which is the Forest Practices Board. It will be given funding in the order of close to $1 million, which will enable it to undertake a system of audits. Remember that this is funding for the initial year, and it's not anticipated that in the initial year -- by the time the board gets up and running, and with the code only just coming on -- there will be much need for audits. Within that vote, over time funds will be allocated to ensure that the board can put in place an effective system of audits.

W. Hurd: In the current fiscal year, is it not true that licensees, including the small business enterprise program, will be required to resubmit their harvesting plans, their preharvest silvicultural plans and potentially all their plans to ensure compliance with the code? Is that not occurring in the coming fiscal year? What resources will the ministry have to receive this updated information and to verify the contents? Will the licensees and the small business program merely be submitting their revised plans, the only measure of compliance being the potential of an independent spot audit? What steps will the ministry be taking to verify that the modified plans being presented to comply with the Forest Practices Code are in fact going to do the job?

Hon. A. Petter: Some of these questions -- the transition provisions and so forth in particular -- stray perilously into areas we should probably discuss under the Forest Practices Code legislation. To the extent that they do impact on the resources of the ministry, however, I'm pleased to answer the questions.

Under the code legislation, as you'll see when we get to it, there is a provision that requires licence holders to examine existing permits and plans over the first six months, identify areas in which they may be substantially not in compliance with the code and provide that information to the ministry for review. Some of it will perhaps be in this fiscal year, and some may stretch a bit beyond, but that process will take place throughout the ministry in the various district offices and so on. The funding for that is therefore found throughout the ministry's budget.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, one of the recommendations in the roles and responsibility review of the ministry was that regional offices should not be responsible for auditing districts for compliance with the code and ministry policy. Is that recommendation being put on hold for another year? Is auditing compliance at the district level again going to be a central planning function within the ministry, or is this recommendation from the Spalding report not one the ministry is intending to adopt this year?

The Chair: The Chair in no way wishes to stifle debate, but cautions all participants in this debate on the standing orders concerning what is in order. So stay within the confines of spending estimates, hon. minister.

Hon. A. Petter: The member will be pleased to know that we have no intention of having the regional offices audit district offices in the sense that it was contemplated and rejected by the report to which he referred.

W. Hurd: I appreciate the direction, although this is about the third hour of estimates debate, and I haven't noticed a whole range of other participants in the debate, which unfortunately seems to happen in this set of estimates every year. It's a resource that sustains a $13 billion industry in the province, and it continues to amaze me how little participation there is in this particular set of estimates. Unfortunately, nobody seems to pay much attention to the resource until it's the subject of a blockade or demonstration.

Again, with respect to the auditing and monitoring, I think this is an important issue: how we're going to ensure independent audits in the province and how they're going to be paid for. The minister has acknowledged that any audits ordered by the Forest Practices Board will have to be paid for by the corporate services section of the ministry budget. Clearly he's hoping there won't be such a flood of those types of inquiries in the coming fiscal year. In the event that this legislation does receive passage in the House, if someone goes out onto the land base and finds something they're concerned about -- whether it be a despoiled fish stream or a logging road that appears to be built in an unsafe and environmentally unsound manner -- and brings the matter to the attention to the ministry, would it then be the responsibility of the ministry to audit and verify the activity, or would the party be directed to launch a complaint with the Forest Practices Board? I think clearly the concern is....

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair in no way wishes to stifle debate, but the line of questioning about the functioning of a bill that's before the House is clearly hypothetical. I would encourage the member to attempt to frame the question so it relates to estimates, not to the working of a bill that is still before the House. Please continue, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Is it fair to say, then, hon. Chair, that all the audits and the monitoring will be paid for by the Ministry of Forests? Is that something that we can fairly say will happen, regardless of who initiates them and how many there are? Will the ultimate financial responsibility for the audits lie within the Ministry of Forests in this current set of estimates?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: No, I don't think it would be fair to say that. While it doesn't currently exist and is the subject of another debate, once the Forest Practices Board is established, it will be given its own source of funding and will therefore undertake its own program of financing audits through its own structure.

Obviously it isn't possible to include it within these estimates in that way, because the institution does not yet exist. While I have tremendous confidence in the legislation and believe it will be passed, it would be presumptuous to assume that until the Legislature has passed judgment. Once it's there, of course, its funding will be reflected in future estimates as a freestanding entity with its own source of funding.

[ Page 12163 ]

W. Hurd: Is the additional $7 million in any way related to code compliance, or is it strictly the zeal of the ministry to do more on the land base with respect to existing operations? Is the $7 million in any way being driven by the new regulations that are the subject of legislation before the House -- but we still deal with an additional $7 million expenditure in this set of estimates?

Hon. A. Petter: That increased funding is clearly related to the commitment this government is making through the Forest Practices Code to ensure that Crown forest lands are better stewarded. Those funds will provide additional resources to the ministry, not to the Forest Practices Board. That $7 million, I made clear, will be to assist the ministry in, for example, engaging in better and more effective front-end planning, as contemplated by the code, but also to increase its enforcement and monitoring capabilities in the field, as this government committed to do along with the enactment of the Forest Practices Code.

W. Hurd: Part of the additional money allocated under the auditing, monitoring and enforcement goes, of course, toward revenue auditing. I wonder if the minister could give us an indication of whether the amount of uncollected stumpage in the province is actually level, increasing or declining. Can the minister give us an idea of what portion of that particular budget might be devoted to auditing on the revenue side of stumpage or royalties collected? And can he advise the committee where the default rate is going in terms of uncollected payment for stumpage in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: The ministry has, over the past couple of years, undertaken measures to ensure that we see a decline in uncollected stumpage. Forest revenue inspectors have been brought on stream, as the member may be aware, as well as additional tougher measures to ensure collection.

It's my best understanding that the bad-debt ratio now is less than 2 percent -- about 1.5 percent -- compared to 3.2 percent a few years ago. So I think we're seeing considerable progress in terms of ensuring that the full stumpage due and payable is in fact paid and that the uncollected stumpage declines as a result of these measures.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether the ministry has a policy with respect to uncollected stumpage? Does it have a policy of factoring that in when it awards new licences in the province? Do stumpage arrears, if they exist and are a concern, mitigate against the licensee achieving another licence? Is that a factor?

Hon. A. Petter: In the case of the small business program, those who have accounts payable are not, as I understand it, eligible to compete for small business sales if the accounts unpaid are due and owing.

In the case of other licences, I'm informed that clearly any outstanding stumpage is factored in, and the opportunity for a licence provides a strong incentive for companies to come to the ministry and resolve outstanding debts if they wish to gain access. They're well aware that their failure to pay stumpage in a timely way or to pay an appropriate level of stumpage will count against them in terms of their access to future licence opportunities.

W. Hurd: I have a document from the ministry which interests me, and it's accounts written off as of April 5, 1994, for stumpage uncollected. Can the minister advise the committee how often during each fiscal year the ministry writes off bills as uncollectible? Can the minister provide the committee with an idea of what that figure might be in the current set of estimates? I'm looking at a total of $16 million written off on April 5, 1994, which I guess falls within the purview of this set of estimates. Can the minister tell us at what point it is decided that these accounts are written off, which I assume would carry with it some accounting advantage? Could the minister describe ministry policy with respect to uncollected accounts written off?

The Chair: Hon. members will have slightly longer to contemplate the answer to this question. This committee stands recessed until the division concludes.

The committee recessed at 4:39 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:52 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: As I recall when we left off, the question related to writing off assets. It's true that the ministry has a process of writing off assets where it appears there are none to satisfy debts or where there may be other circumstances -- for instance, where an individual leaves the country or dies with no assets. This is a sound accounting principle which truly reflects the financial position.

Although writing off assets is a mechanism to communicate the position as honestly as possible, it in no way discourages the ministry from trying to collect debts if there is a way to do so. I don't want the member to misconstrue the notion that by writing off the assets the ministry gives up; it doesn't. It's just a matter of reflecting the position accurately in the books.

W. Hurd: The minister has indicated a rather impressive rate of collection or compliance with the stumpage provisions in the Forest Act. I think he used the term of 1.5 percent or thereabouts of revenue in arrears that is billed annually. Can the minister give us the percentage for the small business enterprise program, as well as the overall total it would contribute to the 1.5 percent?

Hon. A. Petter: The rate with the small business enterprise program is a little higher. I've been advised that it's probably closer to 2 percent.

W. Hurd: Of the accounts written off annually by the ministry, can the minister provide us with an idea of the percentage attributable to the small business enterprise program?

Hon. A. Petter: I can't given exact numbers, but the majority of accounts would be for small business. That's no surprise. Since they tend to be for smaller accounts and smaller sums, there are more of them.

W. Hurd: In light of the fact that the minister has identified some inherent problems with the program, particularly when it comes to levying and collecting stumpage, can he advise the committee whether he has any plans to change the procedure by which stumpage is collected under this particular program? The minister will be aware of the concern that is expressed about the rate of uncollected stumpage and stumpage in arrears. These would be higher with this particular program because the licensees are 

[ Page 12164 ]

smaller entrepreneurs who may at times have trouble with financing and getting their projects off the ground.

The committee recessed at 4:57 p.m.

The committee resumed at 5:06 p.m.

Hon. A. Petter: The follow-up question from the member dealt with arrears under the small business program and measures that the ministry might take in the future. That is a matter of future policy, but I can reassure the member that the 2 percent figure, or thereabouts, is an improvement over the past. We have been very aggressive in improving the collection rate with respect to the small business program and other licence holders. We've been utilizing some of the instruments that are available under the Forest Act, in particular in sections 141 and 142. These sections of the act enable us to impose liens and seek recovery from others who have had dealings with the timber. We will certainly be continuing to review any policy change that might strengthen our compliance and enforcement, although that is strictly a matter of future policy.

W. Hurd: When we adjourn this committee, the appropriate motion might be that the committee rise, report division and ask leave to sit again.

The minister has indicated with respect to uncollected revenue from the small business program that he is satisfied that the rate of default is in decline. Given the fact that the program will be the largest single beneficiary of this year's budget -- an additional $30 million is being allocated -- can the minister advise the committee whether additional resources are going to be devoted to ensuring this improving level of collection and to dealing with arrears in stumpage? Is there going to be a reciprocal amount invested? With the addition of that much harvest into the small business program and the allocation of an additional $30 million, we could run the risk of seeing the rate of default increase again. Could the minister tell us what resources are being allocated in this set of budget estimates to ensure that with the increase in cut being allocated to the small business program, we're going to continue to see a decline in the amount of stumpage defaults?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised by staff that measures taken in recent years, including the forest revenue inspectors and other changes that have been made to improve the default rate, provide us with ample capacity to deal with the increased volume of wood that will be provided under the small business program without any additional expenditure.

R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions on the stumpage issue. Many areas are only marginally economical to log at current stumpage rates. If stumpage rates are significantly increased, won't many of these stands of timber become uneconomical, further reducing the volume of timber available for harvesting? What impact will this have on our current situation?

Hon. A. Petter: There were two parts to this question, so two answers. The first answer is no, because the minimum stumpage has been maintained at 25 cents. The second answer is that stumpage is not part of these budget estimates, therefore it is not an appropriate topic for us to be discussing during the course of this debate.

R. Chisholm: That begs the obvious question: if stumpage is not part of this ministry, I'm just wondering who I should be asking these questions of. I think the rest of the province believes it's part of the Forests ministry. The minister can advise me on whom I should be asking when he gives me the answer to the next question.

If we are going to harvest less timber in the future, won't this reduce the amount of planting and stand-tending required? What will happen to the people currently employed by the silviculture contractors? Will they add to our burden of unemployed workers? How will they fit into the reforestation program?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, we're retreading ground that we've trod so many times before in the forest renewal plan. I can only think the opposition doesn't really have any questions or are being paid by the question or by the hour to raise these matters.

The whole point of the forest renewal plan is to increase silviculture investment. The ministry's commitment to basic silviculture is maintained within this budget, therefore we do not envisage any reduction in our commitment. On the contrary, we see a substantial increase attributable to the fact that we're going to move from the commitment to basic silviculture to more intensive forms of silviculture under the forest renewal plan, in addition to continuing the basic commitment within the ministry's budget.

R. Chisholm: Well, hon. minister, if the answers got better, we wouldn't have to be asking the same questions. Unfortunately, I wasn't here on previous days of this ongoing debate, so I'm not too sure if some questions have been asked or not. I'll ask the questions, and hopefully the minister will see fit to answer them. After all, these questions are asked by my constituents and probably in about 35 other constituencies in the province. They are very important questions to these individuals.

If lumber prices go much higher, won't substitute materials begin to replace wood in the marketplace? As we drive the prices up, are they not going to find alternatives? If this happens, will prices not fall and forest revenues then decline? I'm just wondering where we're going exactly, because this will force other industries to take up the area in the economic sector that forestry will not longer be able to fill because of the pricing on lumber going up with this practice and this plan.

Hon. A. Petter: If softwood prices increase -- and there's certainly some evidence to suggest they will, due to the supply -- in certain areas of the industry there may be competing products made from other materials that may start to come into play. If that happens, however, the market adjusts. I wouldn't have thought I would have to lecture the member on how market mechanisms work in these situations. Clearly if another product starts to become more competitive, that will influence the price of lumber, and the price of lumber will then come down to ensure that the lumber product remains competitive with the non-lumber product.

R. Chisholm: We realize that the market will adjust. But has the government taken this adjustment into account in its plans? For instance, one of the questions you would have to ask is: do we base this industry on the American dollar versus the Canadian dollar? As the Canadian dollar adjusts or increases in value, has that adjustment been taken into account with these plans?

[ Page 12165 ]

This begs for a few of those questions. How have these plans been developed, and has the currency been taken into account? Has adjustment in the marketplace, as new products take the place of wood products, been taken into account -- especially the currency?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know what plans the member is referring to.

[5:15]

R. Chisholm: I'm talking about the stumpage, and as we go through the stumpage, the product is going to fluctuate and go up in price. As you put on stumpage fees, is that taking into account the American dollar and how that's going to affect this industry and the value-added industry after that? It's going to become more costly, and then we won't be able to compete in the value-added industry.

Hon. A. Petter: The increase in stumpage fees, which I take it is what the member is referring to, took place on May 1, and they flow through general revenue into the forest renewal plan. They were provided for in the act governing that plan, and they were debated at that time. They do not flow into my ministry and do not form part of these estimates, and it would not be appropriate for us to debate them here at this time.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, British Columbians see trees and think of the Forests ministry. When they ask questions, they ask questions of you. When you go out to these town hall meetings, they talk to you about stumpage. Whether or not it's flowing into your ministry, it is still governed by your ministry and it's still part of your ministry. When we ask questions, we are asking them for the people of British Columbia. We are asking them for the Fraser Valley coalition, for instance, and different organizations. They may not necessarily understand the niceties of government, but they realize that a tree is a tree, that the tree belongs to their industry and that you happen to be the Minister of Forests. So they expect us to ask the questions of you to see what kinds of answers you're coming up with. So far we haven't been very well served in that department.

My next question for the minister is about the makeup of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee. Who will represent first nations on that committee?

Hon. A. Petter: The Forest Sector Strategy Committee was formed more than a year ago, and the first nations representative on that committee was George Watts.

W. Hurd: I have a series of questions I want to ask. I was intrigued by the minister's answer that his ministry has no responsibility for stumpage in British Columbia. The ministry is responsible for scaling to determine how much value accrues to the resource. The ministry sells timber. The point made by my hon. colleague was that in various regions of the province certain licensees feel that stumpage is eroding their ability to compete or to invest in their plant and equipment. I'm assuming that they first come to the Ministry of Forests. Is the minister saying that is no longer the case? Is he saying that where there are concerns about the impact of stumpage on community stability and on the viability of a particular industry, they are now to address their concerns to the Minister of Finance or the Premier? I welcome clarification on that point.

Hon. A. Petter: We have ample opportunity during the session to debate all manner of forestry issues. When we debated the forest renewal plan, it was funded based upon an increment of stumpage that occurred on May 1. While stumpage is certainly relevant to this ministry and to this minister, this particular increase in stumpage, which was the subject matter of the previous member's questions, was brought about to fund the forest renewal plan. For that reason it was at the heart of the debate in second reading and in the appropriate section of the bill in third reading on the forest renewal plan. I made the point that having debated it there, given that it does not flow into these estimates, it is not an appropriate topic for debate here.

W. Hurd: The small business forest enterprise program within the Ministry of Forests is the largest cutblock planner and seller of timber in the province. Can the minister tell us whether his ministry has devoted any funds in this set of estimates to measuring the impact of the higher stumpage rates on the viability of that particular sector of his ministry -- namely, the ability of the small business forest enterprise program to incur these extra charges? Is he completely confident that this sector of his ministry is capable in every case of assuming these extra charges without any impact?

Hon. A. Petter: This is a topic we canvassed at considerable length during the debate on the forest renewal plan. The impact on the small business program, particularly on the competitive side of the program, is negligible, because in the past few years the amount paid through the competitive bid process has invariably been well in excess of the upset price and of what will be the new upset price as a result of the stumpage increase.

The policy division of my ministry did look at stumpage impacts generally and their impact. I suppose the one area in which the impact might have been felt is in the value-added side of the small business program. In that regard, we grandparented existing value-added sales to buffer them from the increase in price. With respect to new sales, we're satisfied that the value-added industry can continue to thrive and work within that program, even with the adjustment in the stumpage price. That was indicated many times during debate on the forest renewal plan during exchanges with the member who asked the question.

R. Chisholm: Does the forest renewal agency report to cabinet or to the Legislature? How is this agency's reporting going to be done? What are the salaries of the members of the agency?

Hon. A. Petter: That's not part of these estimates.

The Chair: Would the member like to ask another question? It's not part of these estimates.

R. Chisholm: There doesn't seem to be too much, hon. minister, that is part of your estimates, or so you would think. I stress that you may say that to me, and I may say what I'm going to say back to you, but the problem here is that the people of British Columbia and the people in this industry don't understand those answers. Those are the people who are asking those questions, and they're asking them of you when you go around the province. Unfortunately, I don't think they're going to be any happier with the answers we're getting here than with what they're getting out of you.

When we get into the protected areas strategy of the Forest Practices Code and other initiatives, such as the spotted owl conservation plan and meeting visual quality 

[ Page 12166 ]

objectives, the rate of harvest in the province is reduced by about 50 percent. You're going to come back and say it's not your ministry, but how will doubling the stumpage rates raise any money? Won't the stumpage generated be the same as it is now? Where will the extra money for this program come from? Could you give us some examples or explain the figures you used when you justified it?

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us how much his ministry has budgeted for involvement with the CORE process during the coming fiscal year? The minister will recall that the Commission on Resources and Environment was originally set up as a joint initiative of both the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. With that particular commission now delivering reports to cabinet, first from Vancouver Island and then from the Cariboo and the Kootenays, what kind of resource allocation for that process are we dealing with in this current fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: CORE, as an agency, is not funded within this budget, but the Ministry of Forests clearly does participate in and provide information to CORE. In the forest resource management estimates, increases have been made in the past to reflect the ministry's added involvement in providing resources and staff to assist in the government's involvement and provision of information to the CORE tables.

W. Hurd: As we've indicated earlier in this set of estimates, the CORE reports are obviously going to have an impact on the rates of harvest in the province. In fact, the government's announcement Wednesday will have an impact on the rates of harvest. Since we have all these collateral initiatives out there, I wonder if the minister can tell us, concerning Clayoquot Sound, whether his ministry will have any responsibility for funding the scientific panel that's at work there, and also whether it will be expending any resources on monitoring the agreement the government has recently signed with the tribal council in Clayoquot Sound? Obviously, the agreement appears to give that committee wide parameters to elect an annual allowable harvest for the Clayoquot Sound region -- or at least, the portion that was awarded to the first nations. Can the minister, first of all, tell us what involvement his ministry will have with the scientific panel and with the agreement which governs the activities of the tribal council in Clayoquot Sound?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the scientific panel, the ministry, in conjunction with other ministries, provides the funding for the panel's activities. With respect to the soon-to-be-established central region board, the ministry will be providing support and information to that board. The funding of the board itself will again likely be a shared responsibility of various ministries, and this ministry is likely to be one of them. Those arrangements are yet to be finalized.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether the tribal council agreement and the setting of a separate level of harvest for that aboriginal group will be factored into the overall cut allocation for Clayoquot Sound? Will his ministry in any way be reviewing the plans, harvest rates or activities of this panel, or is it strictly under the purview of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs? What is the relationship there?

Hon. A. Petter: There is no separate level of harvest. The government came to an interim measures agreement with the Clayoquot first nations. It indicated how the anticipated harvest, which had previously been announced as part of the Clayoquot Sound land use decision, would be divided among various areas of the sound, and that became the basis for part of that agreement. There was no separate allocation or change in the anticipated level of harvest as a result of that agreement with respect to first nations.

[5:30]

W. Hurd: According to the minister's knowledge, is this interim measures agreement a form of tenure? Is it along the lines of a tree farm licence which has a defined limit of management, or is it sort of a management plan in perpetuity?

I'm not convinced that I've received an answer to the original question on which ministry is responsible for this particular agreement. Who is going to approve the activities of this particular group in Clayoquot Sound? Do they have to submit their plans to the ministry as would any other planner of a cutblock? Can he describe what his ministry expects to receive from the tribal council once their harvesting activities and their businesses are up and running in Clayoquot Sound? Will they have the same responsibilities as other licensees?

Hon. A. Petter: The interim measures agreement is not a form of tenure in any way, shape or form. It is an agreement that provides for various forms of cooperation between the first nations of Clayoquot Sound and the government of British Columbia. It provides for the establishment of a joint management board that will work cooperatively in making decisions on planning and harvesting activity within the Sound, in providing training to first nations; and in gaining from first nations human resources in the on-the-ground management, which will provide economic opportunities for first nations. There are further economic opportunities that are to be developed in the future within existing tenure arrangements.

The whole line of questioning is slightly off the beam. The form of agreement is to establish a cooperative relationship with the first nations. With respect to the ministry's responsibilities, certainly the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has a lead role along with this ministry. Other ministries are also involved, depending upon the aspect of the agreement. If there are economic opportunities that can be identified in the area of park development, for example, then the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will have a role. If there are economic activities in tourism, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture might be involved. I hope that helps to answer the member's question.

W. Hurd: The minister has certainly expended considerable effort within his ministry on promoting opportunities for first nations people in the development of the forest resource of the province. I know the ministry issued an aboriginal participation survey last year and has a section within the corporate policy and planning branch to coordinate activities.

I wonder if the minister would welcome the opportunity in this committee to expand on what his ministry intends to do in the coming year with respect to increasing aboriginal participation. I know the intertribal forestry council, for example, has been a strong proponent of tenure arrangements for first nations people, providing them the opportunity to manage the land base under longer-term forest licences. Could the minister advise us whether the 

[ Page 12167 ]

interim agreement in Clayoquot Sound is in any way a model for other aboriginal groups in the province that may wish to manage Crown land? In the coming fiscal year, can we anticipate an increased number of tenures granted to first nations people, which I understand is something they want to see expanded? It's been pointed out to us on this side of the House by representatives of first nations people that of the number of forest licences in the province, the amount of harvest they actually manage over the long term is a fraction of 1 percent. Will we see that level of participation increase, and will we see longer-term tenures granted to aboriginal people in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: As the member has indicated, the ministry has taken a number of initiatives to try to further the involvement of first nations within the forest sector. I outlined some of those in my opening remarks in this debate. The member may recall that the previous minister and I, when I was Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, created a First Nations Forestry Council, which was composed of both industry and first nations representatives. It has been charged with the responsibility of developing policy proposals and other initiatives to encourage greater cooperation between first nations and other forest companies in the form of joint ventures and other initiatives and also with recommending how, through government policy, we can further enhance economic opportunities for first nations.

At the same time, interim measures negotiations that have gone on in various parts of the province are a way that we as a ministry and as a government can come to a clear framework of understanding of how to pursue relationships with first nations in advance of treaty negotiations. Those operate within existing policy; they are not designed to change existing policy. They do not create a separate form of tenure, for example. They are arrangements through which first nations can work cooperatively with government within existing policy frameworks to further their interests. There has been a memorandum of understanding reached with the Chilcotin tribal council, for example, which has opened up lines of communication and provided information for government and the first nations people to pursue opportunities within the existing policy framework.

Through the leadership of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs -- but this ministry will certainly have a role -- the government has also established policy tables with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit to look at policy issues generally, and forest policy issues are part of that. There is also our involvement in treaty negotiations, which are just now starting to get underway.

In general terms, I would certainly hope that some of the initiatives that have been taken to date will start to bear greater fruit. I think they are already starting to do so. We are seeing many more companies actively pursuing joint venture proposals with first nations, for example, as a way of establishing better relations in advance of treatynegotiations. It is also a way of taking advantage of the fact that first nations citizens provide a very ready workforce located within many areas. These are people who are desirous of improving their economic standing and are looking to work with companies to their mutual advantage.

I have noticed that many of the proposals that now go out for forest licences, or the joint venture proposals that have come forward in the small business program, are ones in which first nations are involved to a greater extent. That speaks well of some of the initiatives that have been taken by the First Nations Forestry Council and of the fact that industry is starting to recognize that a good relationship with first nations is in their own interest. That has been reflected in Clayoquot Sound, as well as elsewhere in the province. Each area of the province has different circumstances, and those have to be understood and respected. One form of arrangement may not work everywhere.

What we're trying to do as a government, and in forestry in particular, is improve relations between the first nations community and non-aboriginal communities, to try to bring those communities closer together and to establish working relationships where possible. We believe that by increasing the economic opportunities for first nations, we can not only solve some of the problems that have historically bedeviled those first nations communities, but also improve the social relationships throughout the province for all citizens by creating a closer working relationship between first nations and non-first nations citizens.

The Chair: In a minute I might make a suggestion about breaking until the evening session.

W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Chair. I have quite a few additional questions on aboriginal involvement in the forest industry. In light of that, perhaps I could move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again when we have more time to deal at length with some of these questions.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:40 p.m.

The committee met at 6:59 p.m.

[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

On vote 36: minister's office, $412,867 (continued).

W. Hurd: When we left the discussion, I think we were addressing the issue of aboriginal involvement in the forest sector in British Columbia. The ministry's study clearly identified a wish on the part of the first nations people who responded to see increased tenure and licensing opportunities, but I didn't detect a commitment from the minister that we would see an increase in the number of licences actually held by first nations peoples in the coming year. He talked about training, business, joint partnerships and improving the business skills of first nations people, but I think that one of the clearly delineated wishes of aboriginal people, particularly those who participated in the Intertribal Forestry Association, was the notion of increasing tenure opportunities and the number of licences for first nations people. Can the minister tell us, from a policy standpoint, whether it is the intention of his ministry to increase the number of licences and the amount of cut that is allocated directly to first nations people for them to manage on a sustainable basis over the long term?

Hon. A. Petter: I want to differentiate between two positions, one that was taken by some groups and, in particular, the Intertribal Forestry Association, which, as I understand, takes the position that there ought to be a separate, aboriginal form of tenure -- a new form of tenure that would presumably require some kind of legislative change to the Forest Act. Even though this is in the realm of 

[ Page 12168 ]

future policy, I will say that I know of no plans to pursue that initiative in the immediate term. We, as a government, have said that working through the First Nations Forestry Council and cooperating with first nations and industry provide greater opportunities for first nations. This can be done under the existing tenure system. By encouraging local communities, including aboriginal communities, to participate, we are seeing far more in the way of cooperative applications for various forms of licences. For example, licences have been advertised in the western supply block in the Chilcotin area, and many of the applications for them were of a joint-venture nature. Companies approached first nations, and they worked together and presented applications. I think that's a marked improvement over the past, when first nations didn't have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in those kinds of licence applications, because, frankly, they didn't have the background or the investment capital to enable them to do so. Through the instrument of a joint-venture arrangement, more first nations are being involved in licence opportunities, and with their joint-venture partners, they are bidding for those opportunities. I could cite other examples.

I want to distinguish between the two positions. In my view, there has clearly been an increase -- if the member is interested, we can get some figures -- in first nations involvement in the tenure system, not through the creation of a new or different form of tenure that would require a substantive policy change, but rather within the existing policy framework of the ministry, by encouraging first nations to work with other companies within their area and come forward with joint proposals. In this way the companies benefit from the talent and commitment of first nations citizens, and the first nations benefit from the expertise and capital that the company can bring to bear. We believe that the chances of successful first nations initiatives are much greater in that form of cooperative venture within the existing tenure system than if we were to create some form of segregated system of tenure for first nations.

W. Hurd: The ministry's aboriginal participation survey clearly identifies the problem within the small business enterprise program. It talks about the involvement of first nations being relatively low and about there being only four timber sales under section 16.1 and a total of 19 timber sales awarded to aboriginal ventures under section 18. This study was released by the ministry in the fall of last year.

Getting to specifics: does the minister anticipate seeing those numbers change appreciably during this fiscal year? We're looking at only four timber sales under section 16.1 and a total of 19 across the board. Are we looking at a substantive change in that policy, or is it a situation where the ministry is going to be focusing its efforts on training and joint venturing during the coming year?

Hon. A. Petter: The tenures under the Forest Act are made available on a competitive basis, and that's the same whether first nations are involved or not. I don't want to prejudge the outcome of those applications, but I believe that the initiatives this government has taken -- encouraging aboriginal involvement, encouraging companies to work with first nations through the First Nations Forestry Council, making licence opportunities available in a volume and in areas that lend themselves to first nations companies working jointly with others -- will mean that over the next year we will see a significant rise in licences held by companies having at least some first nations involvement. It may be on a joint-venture basis. In some cases, it may be a first nations company holding a licence itself after having succeeded in a competition. In terms of providing opportunities for new entrants, it's very often through joint ventures that first nations can gain the expertise and capital to then go on to undertake their own individual licence applications.

Yes, I do expect to see an increase. I can't give numbers, because it will depend on the outcome of various competitions. In terms of the applications coming in, I believe that our initiatives are bearing fruit. There are more applications in which first nations are involved, and more of those applications are competitive and likely to succeed within the various processes of issuing licences and tenures.

W. Hurd: It's my understanding that there are now aboriginal forestry advisers in every district office in the province. Can the minister describe what their role would be in fostering these tenure applications or requests? One would assume that those advisers are there to provide some sort of direction or information to aboriginal groups that might want to apply under the small business enterprise program or whatever form of licence might be coming up. Can the minister advise the committee what the aboriginal forestry advisers are going to be doing in each district office?

Hon. A. Petter: The aboriginal forestry advisers perform the multiple function of improving relations with first nations and facilitating greater first nations involvement and participation in all the range of activities that those local offices are involved in. That means the consultation process is undertaken by the ministry before issuing permits. The legal obligation we referred to in the debate is one in which first nations must be involved. The advisers certainly play a role in that, making sure that the information is provided to first nations in an appropriate form and that first nations have access to other data they may require before they offer their advice to the ministry on whether, for example, aboriginal rights are engaged.

Those advisers perform multiple functions from consultation to assisting first nations who may wish to avail themselves of economic opportunities, such as bidding on licences. They provide information about the processes and how to gain resources in order to undertake the necessary work to prepare a bid, for example. The advisers are intended to assist first nations in becoming more fully involved in all activities that district forest offices are engaged in.

W. Hurd: With respect to the land use planning processes that occur within each forest region, would the aboriginal forestry adviser have a role in determining whether cutblock applications or forestry planning studies required from licensees and others take into account treaty or land claim issues? Is it a function of the aboriginal forestry advisers to return a plan to a licensee to incorporate more information with respect to a heritage site or something of that nature? Is the role of the aboriginal forestry adviser strictly that of adviser? Within the ministry, do they have a quasi-function of planning for land use?

Hon. A. Petter: As I indicated in my response to the previous question, the advisers act as facilitators to ensure that first nations have information related to land use -- cutting plans, for example. Plans are underway to ensure that first nations are as adequately informed as they must be and have a meaningful opportunity to make their views known. The advisers do not act as an approving agency, if 

[ Page 12169 ]

that's what the member means. They are there largely to facilitate the communication that has not always been healthy in the past. Breakdowns of communication have occurred, which have impeded more meaningful consultation. The advisers are there to assist in making sure that first nations are adequately advised of land use planning decisions that are pending, that they have a meaningful chance to participate in those decisions and that their views are communicated through to those in the ministry who have the responsibility for making decisions. They can then make those decisions in an informed way by considering the aboriginal input that must be taken into account as a result of court decisions and the obligations that flow from them.

W. Hurd: What I hear the minister saying is that when a land use plan of any description is filed with the ministry, whether it be a cutblock plan or anything else, that plan would be scrutinized by an aboriginal affairs adviser who would liaise with an aboriginal group. Would that have the effect of delaying the implementation of the land use plan? Would a sign-off be required from the aboriginal affairs adviser before the land use plan was approved by the ministry?

Hon. A. Petter: No, there is no change in the sign-off authority under the legislation as a result of aboriginal advisers. Contrary to the member's question, aboriginal advisers are there to ensure that the consultation process, required by law, does not impede the approval of plans. Rather, it ensures that aboriginal groups are consulted in a timely way, and their input is sought in a way that will be effective and will withstand the scrutiny and requirements laid down by the courts. They are there to facilitate first nations and also to ensure that the process is not impeded by the legal requirements that are placed upon government as a result of court decisions with respect to aboriginal rights and the need to consult.

W. Hurd: Obviously the court decisions dealt with the inalienable right to access food on the land base. Is the minister suggesting that where there is a legal requirement to consult, it's based on the fact that harvesting plans would in no way disrupt the access to fish and game? Is that the legal requirement he's talking about? Or is he interpreting a somewhat wider parameter than that, in which the value of the resource or how much is harvested would in some way be subject to a legal requirement? That's where I'm a little confused. It was my impression that the court cases dealt strictly with access to the land base for hereditary or for.... I mean, are we referring to heritage sites here, too? I would be interested to know exactly what the ministry means by legal requirements when it comes to the involvement of Aboriginal Affairs personnel in the regions.

[7:15]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not going to attempt a potted account of what, for example, the B.C. Court of Appeal held in the Delgamuukw decision. The member can acquaint himself with those requirements. They are certainly more general than he indicates. The court decision indicated that there are certain historic values that the court may regard as central to aboriginal culture and way of life that government has an obligation to ensure are not disrupted in the course of economic development activity on Crown lands. They may range from such things as burial grounds through to certain harvesting rights, etc. As a result of that decision, we as government have an obligation to ensure that first nations have an opportunity to be aware of development plans and then to communicate to government how those plans might be seen to impede those rights, which are not defined as specifically as the member or I might like, but the court has directed us to take them into account. It's necessary that first nations be consulted in order to satisfy that legal obligation flowing from the Delgamuukw case and to afford first nations a chance to articulate whether their rights are being impeded in some way and how that can be evaluated. To fail to do so would place us in contradiction to the requirements laid down in that case and other related cases.

W. Hurd: The fact that the minister has acknowledged that in his view there is a legal requirement for the plans filed with the ministry to reflect the position, as it were, of first nations peoples seems to be revisiting the Treaty Commission process at the local level to some extent. I'm a little concerned when I hear him say that since 120 percent of the province is under active claim, any harvesting plan could be construed as having an impact on the value of the land and the value of the entitlement of first nations.

Is there a commitment from the minister that although this activity is ongoing, he is confident that this consultation will not represent an undue delay for the orderly processing of cutblock or land use plans or any other activity by his ministry? I assume that the Aboriginal Affairs adviser would be apprised of plans coming forward and would then endeavour to contact the affected bands. Depending on what input is received, the adviser would then communicate back through the ministry to the licensee. Would the licensee then be required to amend the plan in some way or would further information be sought?

Since we're talking about what the minister has acknowledged as a legal requirement, I'm trying to establish how he anticipates this process working in the event that a plan filed with the ministry may not receive the approval of, or be signed off by, the aboriginal band affected.

Hon. A. Petter: One important reason that we require a treaty negotiation process is the high level of uncertainty born of the fact that in this province aboriginal rights recognized in common law and affirmed by the Court of Appeal have not been the subject of negotiation and resolution through treaty, which would better define our responsibilities, first nations and non-first nations citizens, to each other. As a result, we are left with a situation which the courts have made clear absents the delineation. We are under an obligation as a government to ensure that the activities that we take on Crown land do not impinge upon these generalized historical aboriginal rights.

This means that if we do not consult with first nations, activity will indeed be impeded because courts will intercede. What we must do therefore, in the most meaningful way possible, is engage in a consultation with first nations around these activities. The aboriginal forestry advisers play some role in facilitating that communication, although at the end of the day it will be for the first nation to directly communicate its views to government. In many, but not necessarily all, cases perhaps, they will use the aboriginal forestry adviser. It will then be for government to make a determination, as best as it can, on how to mitigate any interference with rights that the court might subsequently find. The first nations forestry advisers are there to facilitate that process and to ensure that we live up to these legal responsibilities in a way that is least disruptive to all parties and that results in the most meaningful and effective consultation possible.

[ Page 12170 ]

W. Hurd: I have just one other question on this matter, and I'm trying to get it straight in my mind how this would work in respect to the normal functioning of a regional office of the Ministry of Forests. Assuming that a licensee files the usual number of reports and studies which are required to apply for a cutblock two years down the road -- I understand that we're dealing with a situation where it takes up to two years of planning and studies before the cutblock is signed off -- is the minister now advising us that the regional management won't sign off those studies or that cutblock until the aboriginal affairs adviser has consulted with the band, advised the band of the ongoing studies and the planned cutblocks and received formal input from them about how this might affect their treaty rights or land claims? Is the legal requirement that the regional manager must receive that report from the first nations, through the aboriginal affairs adviser, before he can release the timber for normal processing?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is no, in the sense that I have endeavoured to make clear. The aboriginal adviser does not act as a decision-maker in this process; he or she is there to facilitate and assist in the communication between first nations and the ministry. The court decisions make it very clear that the Crown's obligation to first nations cannot be delegated. It is an obligation of government.

Nevertheless, just to go through the process that the member has addressed, a licensee will be well advised to undertake -- and in fact, in the Forest Practices Code there's an indication that a licensee should undertake -- this consultation very early in the development planning stage to ensure that first nations are on quotas and to facilitate the Crown in discharging its obligation. If that is done and if the information is provided to first nations, first nations -- with the help, perhaps, of the forest adviser, who is a facilitator -- can then communicate their interests and concerns. That is not a veto, but it does place an obligation on government to consider those interests and concerns. Provided a government is satisfied that the development will not impede court-defined rights, as articulated in cases like Delgamuukw, the development can then proceed.

This is necessary to avoid the litigation route, which would indeed impede development planning, and for that reason this consultation process is an important one. We must ensure that it's meaningful, but at the same time, with the cooperation of licensees engaging in direct consultations early on and perhaps with the help of the forestry advisers -- not as signing officers or determinants, but merely as facilitators -- we can undertake our legal responsibilities, satisfy the courts that we have done so and do so in a way that disrupts the approval process as little as is humanly possible.

W. Hurd: I have just one other observation. That message needs to be communicated to some of the licensees in the province. Having talked to a number of them recently, I don't think they're aware that they will be required to undertake this kind of consultation. I know there has been some concern expressed by licensees about the complexity of the paperwork and the delays already being faced. To my knowledge -- and I offer it just as an observation -- many licensees appear to be unaware of this commitment.

Hon. A. Petter: If they're surprised, then they haven't read their current licence documents, because the obligation to consult is currently laid out in those documents. I think you'll find that it is formalized in the Forest Practices Code, but the obligation is already contained in the licence documents.

The committee recessed at 7:27 p.m.

The committee resumed at 7:37 p.m.

W. Hurd: I had a whole series of questions about the Spalding report, but since I suppose it represents future policy, and I'm sure the minister would choose to respond in that way, perhaps I can focus in on one specific recommendation the ministry engaged in during the last year and I would assume is going to continue into this year: moving the district forest office from Burnaby to Nanaimo. It is a decision that I know some employees of the ministry are not overly delighted with. I ask this question on behalf of many of the employees who made representations to both the government and the opposition on this issue. I wonder if the minister can advise us why the decision was made and why the ministry feels it doesn't need the presence of a district office on the lower mainland any longer.

Hon. A. Petter: We could go into a lot of detail on this, but the decision was made prior to my becoming minister. It was not part of the current Spalding material; it didn't come out of that process but predates it. In general, the reason for relocating the office has to do with the fact that the relationship that had sometimes occurred in the past with headquarters of forest firms, etc., became less relevant. The relationship that was more relevant for a regional forest office was with the licence holders on the ground. Given that much of the activity and the need for resources was on Vancouver Island, it made sense to direct the resources that way.

There were also added cost elements that will result in efficiencies in the long term -- making it easier to attract personnel to a lower-cost area, for example -- but those have been fairly well canvassed in the past. In general terms, I think that explains the rationale for the decision.

W. Hurd: I agree that the issue has been canvassed in the past. It continues to be canvassed because answers have been exceedingly difficult to come by. The ministry is moving into a new building in Nanaimo, and I assume that this will impact on this year's set of estimates, although I understand that the building itself will fall under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I assume that they will incur some of the costs in connection with furnishings, fixtures and what not.

Can the minister advise us exactly how much additional revenue the ministry will have to come up with for relocation and staff costs to facilitate this move? Will those be borne by the ministry, or are they entirely the responsibility of the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: Given that the move is taking place in the 1994-95 fiscal year, the cost for that relocation is estimated in the range of $3 million. I'm advised, however, that there would have been increased occupancy charges, had we decided to leave the office in Burnaby or in the lower mainland area. While there are some onetime costs associated with the move, over time the savings that will result from the relocation will more than compensate for this increased cost.

W. Hurd: I appreciate that answer from the minister, and I know that those costs are a subject of considerable debate 

[ Page 12171 ]

within some of the employee groups in the ministry. I just wonder if I could explore with the minister briefly the rationale for not having a presence on the lower mainland, given the amount of activity with respect to forest harvesting there, and given the fact that the ministry has a large nursery in Surrey and that there are a number of licensees who are active in the Fraser Valley, which is certainly within striking distance of a ministry office in the lower mainland. Could the minister advise us why he feels that the ministry doesn't need an administrative presence in the lower mainland?

Hon. A. Petter: As alluded to earlier, in the past the practice was to deal with the headquarters of the companies, but that's no longer the procedure that's used. The procedure that's used within regions is to deal with the regional authorities for those companies rather than their head offices. It may have made sense in the past to have had a district office in Vancouver far removed from most of the cutting activities. Given that regional staff relate much more directly now with staff of companies at a regional level, not at a provincial headquarters level, it makes sense to locate them closer to those company operations.

If you look within this region, four of the district offices are located on Vancouver Island. Much of the controversy around logging activity and the planning associated with that activity is occurring on Vancouver Island. To locate this office, it makes sense to choose an area that is approximately where the action in the field is. Being on the Island where there are four district offices close to the operations on the ground, Nanaimo seems to be the most suitable of the potential sites that might have been chosen.

R. Chisholm: Just referencing the last answer the minister gave, where would the forest district of Fraser-Cheam be reporting to now? What office would take care of that particular area?

Hon. A. Petter: The region will remain the same. For that reason, the particular forest district will report to the regional office, which will now be located in Nanaimo rather than in Burnaby.

[7:45]

R. Chisholm: Previously I asked a few questions that were actually crafted by the Fraser Coalition for Sustainable Forests. As the minister knows, a few of them weren't answered. On July 23, 1994, they are having a rendezvous with all the loggers, and they wondered whether you were going to attend this rendezvous and discuss the issues that were brought up in the previous questions.

Hon. A. Petter: I would certainly like to attend if my schedule allows. That will depend to some extent upon whether we're still in this committee debating estimates on the date in question and also on what time I have available with my family. I'm aware of the event, and I've been in the Fraser Valley area around Chilliwack twice since becoming minister and a couple of times as Aboriginal Affairs minister. I'd be very happy to go back. If I'm not able to do it for the rendezvous, I'll go at some other time, but I'm aware of the event and will endeavour to attend as my schedule allows.

R. Chisholm: They would appreciate it if you did turn up. After all, they're expecting around 7,000 people, so it would be nice if the minister could attend.

Changing the subject a bit, I would like to talk about grazing and the protected areas strategy, and about some of the problems with range grazing the cattlemen are confronted with these days. I'll quote one of their questions:

"Ranchers throughout British Columbia continue to be under a black cloud and are living day to day under the insecurity created by the lack of any clear policy with regard to cattle grazing in the presence of the proposed protected areas strategy.

"The existing draft policy for grazing in protected areas states: 'Cattle grazing will not normally be allowed in protected areas, except....'"

They're looking for the ministry and the government to produce a clear policy statement that begins by stating that cattle grazing will be allowed in these areas under certain management criteria. They're looking for direction and some final solutions to this problem. They've been under this black cloud for a number of years, and they don't know where they're going with their grazing rights. When it comes to financing their operations, they're in a very precarious position with the banks because of this. They are very concerned that they're not getting answers from this ministry or any other ministries in this government.

What they're looking for from this minister is an idea of when they are going to see something they can actually say is going to be the rule, so they can discuss it with the minister and come up with some sort of consensus. Right now, everywhere they look -- whether it be aboriginal land claims or protected areas strategies and grazing -- they're in limbo, and they're having a real problem.

They're having a problem even communicating with the ministry. They have sent in items the ministry asked for, and they were not even responded to. This type of thing does not bode well for the industry, and it definitely does not instil confidence in the industry or in the grazing rights they supposedly have on Crown lands. If the minister could comment on those particular areas, it would be appreciated.

Hon. A. Petter: I've met with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association on a number of occasions, and I'm generally aware of their concerns. I know that the member raised this matter with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks during his estimates. I really don't have a lot to add beyond what the Minister of Environment provided at the time, except to reinforce what he did say -- namely, that for the first time this government has provided to representatives in local communities, including representatives of this association, an opportunity to participate in land use planning processes and the Forest Practices Code development processes that in the past have not been as inclusive.

While there may still be some issues outstanding -- and I appreciate that fact -- we are determined to continue working with the cattlemen and other organizations as we have in the past. Beyond that, I would simply affirm the fairly extensive discussion the member had with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks during his estimates debate.

R. Chisholm: Dealing with one area would help, and I'll quote again from one of their documents. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association submitted a formal response to the Forest Practices Code rules book on December 31, 1993, as requested, even though the association had received the documents only on December 15. To date, the BCCA submission has never been acknowledged or commented upon officially, and that doesn't help instil confidence in the industry or the ministry. So perhaps the ministry could look into that area.

In another area, in the middle of February the Ministry of Forests executive advised the B.C. Cattlemen's Association 

[ Page 12172 ]

that all funding has been cancelled for range development work, if the work was to assist a tenure holder to meet the obligations of his or her grazing tenure. Not only did they take this step, but they also indicated that range tenure holders may be expected to bear the cost of improvements that are not even related to the management of their grazing tenure. For example, a tenure holder may be expected to pay for repairs to fencing that was damaged by wildlife. The MOF indicated that the money saved by this decision would be redirected to the Forest Practices Code. The cattlemen's question is: how can the government in good conscience announce, on the one hand, that grazing fee increases that were introduced earlier have been frozen at 1993 levels and then, on the other hand, a policy such as this? It sounds like payback time.

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the first comment, the member should be aware that the consultation process under the Forest Practices Code involved direct contact with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Indeed, I met with representatives of the Cattlemen's Association in Kamloops shortly after the release of the Forest Practices Code discussion paper, and we had an evening discussion around the code. It's my understanding that there were follow-up sessions with Dr. Baskerville, who headed up the consultation process. And yes, the report was received, and I'm sure that the report has been acknowledged in the documents we recently released that summarized and acknowledged the various consultation input we received through the Forest Practices Code. So I'm a little at a loss to understand why the member feels that cattlemen were not afforded a full chance to have their views known. I'd be happy to send them a copy of the summary documents that Dr. Baskerville prepared following that consultation in which their input would certainly have been fully acknowledged.

With respect to the other issue, I'm aware that there have been some modifications in policy with respect to certain grazing activities, etc., to ensure that the tenure holder does meet their own obligations, and I understand that there have been some adjustments in that policy. But there are none that I'm informed of which I believe would impose a major new burden. They simply recognize the fact that the tenure holder bears certain responsibilities as a condition of securing the tenure, and this helps to clarify that in respect of grazing tenures.

W. Hurd: With respect to the grazing issue, the minister will be aware that one of the biggest issues the cattlemen have talked about was whether or not grazing would be allowed on the protected areas that overlap existing ranches. I guess you could call them sustained-yield grazing units, if we can use that term. We weren't able to define it in the forestry context, but maybe we could talk about it from a grazing standpoint.

The other big issue is what appears to be elimination in this year's budget of the grants for submitting range plans to the ministry. Is it now fair to say that within this current set of estimates that on this issue...? I don't know if it was canvassed by the member for Chilliwack, but it was pointed out to me that there are no longer funds available to the tenure holder to submit range plans or to develop long-term range plans. So the two questions that I would ask on behalf of the Cattlemen's Association and the grazing industry are: what level of grazing does the minister anticipate being allowed in the protected areas in the province? And have the planning grants that were formerly available for developing long-range grazing plans for tenure holders now been eliminated?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the second question, if the member wants more details on the policy with respect to planning grants, I'd be happy to provide those. I don't have the information at hand. I'm aware that there have been some adjustments made. If he wishes more detail on how those work, I'd be happy to provide that.

With respect to the first question, I'm not aware if the member who asked the question was involved in these discussions, but I know other members pursued this matter with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. In protected areas strategy, the issue is whether an activity is inconsistent with the values to be protected within that area. In some cases, grazing may be inconsistent with the preservation of those values; in other cases, it may not be. That matter is being examined in the review under the protected areas strategy. It needs clarification, but clarification will have to come through that process.

I'm aware that in some areas -- Kamloops, for example -- there have been very constructive discussions in the local resource management planning process between the Cattlemen's Association and other groups about the possibility of grandparenting grazing provisions within areas that might be protected. Those issues will have to be addressed through those various processes.

The approach will ensure that activities within a protected area don't compromise the ecological values being protected. In some cases, grazing may not have that effect; in other cases, it might. It's an issue we're going to have to work through in close cooperation and consultation with the Cattlemen's Association and others.

W. Hurd: Although the issue was canvassed with the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, one of the anomalies of the Forest Act is that responsibility for managing range lands in the province comes under the Ministry of Forests. The message that we're getting on this side of the House from the Cattlemen's Association and others that rely on access to Crown land for economic viability is that their industry may be even more vulnerable to land alienation or grazing alienation than the forest sector is.

It is incumbent upon me to report to the minister that the uncertainty about access to protected areas is having a potentially negative effect on the grazing and cattleindustries. Because of uncertainty of access to protected areas, some ranchers are finding it impossible to borrow money to undertake range improvements and ranch improvements. Now that the planning grants have either been substantially reduced or eliminated -- and I hope the minister will be able to confirm that at some point, even after the estimates are finished -- the industry is being asked to assume all the long-range planning costs without any degree of certainty that the unit they have, if it intersects with a protected area, is economically viable. I offer that observation to the minister. I'm sure he's already been apprised of it by the Cattlemen's Association.

I found the organization to be very upfront about the problems it faces. I would go on record as saying that it's unfortunate that it appears the commitment from the ministry to assist people in developing a long-range plan for the tenure that they hold appears to have been reduced in this set of estimates. I'm certain the minister is aware of the problem and will use the good offices of his ministry to clarify as swiftly as possible what will be available for 

[ Page 12173 ]

grazing rights in protected areas. If the land is tied up for five years or longer in a study area, without access by the Cattlemen's Association, we're risking destabilizing that industry in its ability to borrow money and make range improvements.

[8:00]

Proceeding through the estimates book, I want to address a couple of questions about fire suppression activities in the province. Last year when we talked about the firefighting activities in British Columbia, the ministry was engaged in a policy of reducing the amount of dependent contractors and increasing the number of ministry staff directly involved in fire suppression. Can the minister tell us if there's an increase planned in the number of full-time-equivalents in the fire suppression branch of the ministry during the coming fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: In terms of the budget and FTEs, I think the numbers are pretty much consistent with last year.

W. Hurd: Assuming there's a consistent level of commitment to contractors within the estimates, does the number of contractors or the amount of contract services bought by the ministry remain the same as last year? Is that what we can anticipate, allowing for obvious fluctuations in the severity of the fire season?

As I pointed out, last year the previous minister acknowledged that the policy direction of his ministry was to move toward more in-house, staff-oriented positions and less reliance on contractors. Again, the opposition received considerable input on the concern expressed by contractors with sizable investments in machinery, equipment, training and manpower to fight fires, who were going to see a slow reduction in the level of commitment from the ministry.

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is that I understand that in last year's budget there was a move to increase ministry staff. That increase has been maintained but not further increased in this year's budget. As the member suggests, this means the number of contractors will remain the same, subject to variations and the need for contractors as a result of changes in the conditions of the fire season.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether there's a change planned for fire suppression staff in regional offices? Is the same level of commitment being made at the regional office level, or are we moving toward more of a centralized planning function for fire suppression activities in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: In terms of FTEs and resources, the overall commitment is the same. We canvassed this extensively on the first evening of estimates, I think. A reorganization of the protection division will take place, which will result in a reconfiguration of protection staff.

W. Hurd: I love the words reconfiguration and reorganization. I guess the issue is response time. Groups have expressed concerns to the opposition with respect to what impact the changes will have on the response time in the field. Clearly the minister believes this reorganization will in some way improve efficiency. Can he at least assure the committee that he's confident the change will not affect the ability of the ministry to respond to fires wherever they may occur in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, as I indicated in response to questions on this matter the other day, the response time will at worst be maintained at its current level; in fact, we anticipate it will be improved. There will be an improvement in response time as a result of the reorganization, the major focus of which -- as I made clear after some extensive questioning -- is to locate the resources of the ministry closer to the greatest fire hazard area in order to provide the most effective and efficient mechanism for delivering fire suppression services throughout the province.

W. Hurd: One of the other issues we talked about last year was the decision by the ministry to branch out into the training area, both at home and internationally. We're dealing with roughly a level budget for the coming year. Does that mean that the ministry will continue to be aggressive, even to the point of competing with the private sector by providing training opportunities and selling its expertise to other provinces, other countries and other jurisdictions in North America?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

W. Hurd: Thank you for that detailed explanation. Clearly the issue wasn't without controversy a year ago when it turned out that the ministry was actually competing with the private sector and certainly enjoying benefits as a public sector participant in that bidding process. I just expressed that concern to the minister.

I don't have a great deal more during this set of estimates, but I did want to refer the minister to a series of comments that were made by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks last year. I've been searching my documents for some time to find them. The minister will recall that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks made a rather interesting speech to the chamber of commerce in, I guess, his own riding of Esquimalt-Metchosin, commenting that despite what the Premier had been saying around the world about forest practices in British Columbia, we were still making a mess, and that there's currently no such thing as sustained-yield forestry in British Columbia.

We have tried unsuccessfully during these estimates to confirm whether that was an accurate statement by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. I think it is important to point out that what ministers of the Crown say about the level of management in the forests is picked up not only in the province of British Columbia but also around the world. I would also point out that when we're talking about the practices that currently exist, it's important to talk openly and honestly about how bad or how difficult the situation is. I'm sure the minister would agree that some of the inflammatory comments made in that particular speech didn't help us in our international efforts to promote a better image for forest products abroad.

Perhaps that can lead me to my final line of questioning, which is: specifically what is the ministry going to be doing in the coming year with respect to that issue -- namely, promoting the virtues of forest practice in British Columbia? Is there a budgeted allocation for participating in any sort of international campaign? What specifically will the ministry be doing in the coming year to counteract some of those negative comments, which continue to crop up? We are somewhat disappointed that they sometimes crop up from other ministers of the Crown.

Hon. A. Petter: We're checking to see if there are any specific numbers attached to votes to which I could direct the member as part of my response.

[ Page 12174 ]

In general terms, I'm certainly pleased to respond to the member's question. I think the Premier, in his visit not only to Europe but to Washington last year, has shown tremendous leadership on behalf of all British Columbians in terms of taking the message that we must take to some of those markets in which misinformation has been given and in which there are interests that would prefer not to see our products succeed. Certainly we as a government are very determined at a time when there is a lot of international market pressure to make sure that we redouble our efforts and also encourage industry to do its job. Frankly, member, this cannot be done by government alone. I think industry is becoming increasingly aware of the need to communicate more openly and directly with its customers overseas to ensure that the message about the changes that are being made in British Columbia is carried to those customers to counteract some of the misinformation that has been communicated.

In government, through not only my ministry but also other ministries and agencies, we are working in a far more coordinated way to make sure that the message is carried effectively. The cabinet planning secretariat has been working to assist in the coordination of that. We've been working with the federal government as well. I meet on a regular basis with delegations that visit here from other countries -- delegations of political leaders, industry representatives and media representatives -- to ensure that they receive the best information. In addition, officials have travelled overseas regularly in the last year and will continue in order to make sure that information is available directly to those who have an interest in this matter.

The principal responsibility of government in this regard is to make sure, as the Premier did, that parliamentarians overseas are informed of the efforts that are being made by this government and by industry in this province on issues like forest practices and land use. In that regard I will, as I indicated earlier in debate, be following up on the Premier's visit to make sure that the new round of parliamentarians who have just been elected to the European Parliament have an opportunity to hear directly from me with respect to the initiatives this government has undertaken.

What I have found out -- the Premier's experience has been the same, judging by his statements -- is that the most effective message we can give is the united commitment of this province to undertake the changes necessary to ensure that we have the kinds of forest practices, land use policies and commitment to our forestry that are consistent with sustainability and environmental values. That message assists in counteracting the negative and incorrect messages that others have communicated to try to impede our products from those markets.

I'm informed that the figures that are attributable to this are found in various parts of the estimates. I would be happy to report to the member, either formally or informally, what those amounts are. They will have to be gleaned from a variety of sources within the estimates.

This government has already displayed leadership in this regard. We continue to be committed to ensuring that foreign markets for our products remain strong and that the work going on within this province to improve our environmental record is well communicated to support those efforts.

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that answer. As the minister responsible for presenting a balanced and fair view of forest practices in British Columbia, is he comfortable with the fact that the government currently grants money to environmental groups that present an opinion in Europe that contradicts the version of events that he is proposing?

[8:15]

I suggest to the minister that if the government chooses to provide grants and funds to groups that take a contradictory position -- particularly internationally -- on forest practices in British Columbia, then the ministry should communicate to those groups that there has to be a fair and balanced discussion of the issues that are raised. The campaigns that we've seen in Europe are aimed at reducing the volume of forest products that can enter Europe. I offer that. Other groups have expressed concern to the opposition that the government funds environmental groups that turn around and use some of the money for promoting a view of forest activities in British Columbia, which counteracts the money that's being expended within the ministry to provide a more balanced view.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not aware of any funds that are provided to environmental groups of any description for overseas activities. The member may be referring to some funds to provide for consultation activities in government processes; I'm not sure if that's what he's referring to. In any event, all I can say is that this government is very determined to ensure that the information that is carried overseas accurately reflects the track record of this jurisdiction -- in particular, the initiatives that have been taken to improve forest practices and to set aside protected areas, all of which I think create an incredibly impressive environmental record. I'm heartened by the fact that industry has started to understand the value of emphasizing that record. In a recent set of ads, MacMillan Bloedel featured both the protected areas strategy and the Forest Practices Code as evidence that they were participating in processes to bring about changes that demonstrate their commitment to environmental values and to forestry that is truly sustainable. So we'll be working to continue to ensure that this message is carried to those markets and that we maximize the ability of the government to communicate that in cooperation with industry.

I'm informed -- and I can get more detail for the member -- that $474,000 is provided in the budget as a ministry contribution to a joint effort with other provinces and the government of Canada on international initiatives. That, however, is certainly not the only component of the budget that provides support for the activities that I and other members of government have undertaken overseas. The chief forester, for example, and his staff have travelled on a number of occasions to attend forums in Europe, and they will no doubt continue to do so. There is in the budget a $474,000 allocation specifically earmarked for cooperative efforts with other Canadian governments, both provincial and federal, to ensure that their message is communicated. I have been concerned that the federal government hasn't taken as serious and determined a view of this issue as I believe they should. Through communications with the federal Minister of Natural Resources and other federal ministers, I hope we can improve the federal government's contribution to those efforts.

L. Fox: I just have a few questions that I would like to touch on, and I apologize if any of these issues have been addressed. Being in two Houses at the same time is pretty difficult, as the minister well knows. I want to ask if the minister has any idea of the volume of log exports in 1993. Is he projecting a decrease or an increase, given today's value of that wood?

[ Page 12175 ]

Hon. A. Petter: We did canvass this earlier, but I'll give you the recap as quickly as I can. About 1.5 percent of logs in the province were exported last year. We see that number coming down partly because of improved market conditions and partly because this government has taken action to bring that number down. For example, we are in the process of phasing out the market logger OIC that allowed for a general exemption for the mid coast area. The only exports allowed are ones that can be justified by the fact that there is no domestic market for that particular kind of log, as is the case in some circumstances, or because the harvesting takes place in an area that is close to tidewater or a border, but is too far removed from processing facilities within the province to be economic to actually deliver those logs to those processing facilities. Other than that, the export advisory committee understands that the government's policy is that there is not to be log exports where there is a domestic market for those logs. Partly as a function of market conditions, which have increased the value of wood and made it possible to process wood that previously might have been uneconomical to process, and partly as a result of the actions of this government, the percentage of raw logs being exported is just 1.5 percent and is expected to decline.

To complete my recap, I would point out something that the member probably already knows, but which I think is important to clarify: the province does not have any jurisdiction that allows it to prevent the export of logs from either private or federal lands. Sometimes we see stories in the paper referring to those exports, over which the federal government presumably has authority through its international trade powers. The province, however, does not have such powers, because it has no property in those logs. It doesn't have the legislative authority to prevent their export.

L. Fox: Part of my reason for asking the question concerned the commitment that has been made in the forest renewal plan to look at value-added opportunities -- and I'll get to that in a minute -- but I'm well aware of a study that was done in the Stewart region in 1986 or 1987 at the insistence of the council in the community of Stewart. Its purpose was to compare the opportunities that would be provided by the development of a manufacturing facility with those provided by the export of logs. I don't believe the municipality argued against exporting, but it was looking at the creation of more opportunities for employment through valued-added initiatives, because some of the other employment opportunities were fading. Given the value of wood today and the fact that there are some real opportunities provided by value-added initiatives, has the question of economic opportunities in the Stewart region been revisited by the ministry or the government? For example, have you looked at the possibility of putting a processing plant in Stewart, which didn't have that economic opportunity in the eighties?

Hon. A. Petter: I met with the Stewart council fairly early in my term as minister. Clearly Stewart is one community that has enjoyed economic benefits from log exports in recent times, because it's been the port for exporting logs for that part of the province where logs could not be economically processed. That's starting to change. Logs that were previously exported through Stewart from the Cassiar area are now finding their way down to Houston and creating jobs in B.C. That's good news for Houston and for British Columbians, but it does create a challenge for Stewart.

The answer I can give the member is that I think we do need to work on helping Stewart find alternatives so that they will become less dependent on log exports, particularly as they continue to decline. I have had discussions with the MLA for the area, and there have been proposals. Something in the back of my mind rings a bell about a chipping facility in the Stewart area, and I can get more information for the member on that. I think the member is right to point to the possibility of some value-added plants and processing facilities that could take advantage of Stewart's position as an export port that would be processing a more finished wood product than has been the case up until now.

While I don't have any detailed information on what may be contemplated, the forest renewal plan would be an obvious vehicle for this. Through it, Stewart and the government might be able to explore some of these alternatives. Stewart could then become less dependent on log exports, British Columbians could create more jobs here in British Columbia and everyone could gain.

L. Fox: I'm encouraged by the minister's response. I know the members of the Stewart council quite well, as many of them were on council during my days, and I've heard this concern being expressed for the last ten years. I'm encouraged that the minister is prepared to look within the forest renewal plan for opportunities to put some form of processing plant in that facility. I think that will be encouraging.

With respect to the forest renewal plan, I know we've had a lengthy discussion in these estimates, but recently I received a copy of a letter, dated June 3, from the Central Interior Wood Processors' Association, addressed to the Premier; I know the minister also received a copy of it. I think the minister will be aware that this association is very progressive. The president of the association is the owner-operator of Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products in Vanderhoof and has a long history of success in the forest industry. There are a couple of issues in this letter that I wanted the opportunity to canvass during these estimates.

I note for the record that the Leader of the Official Opposition also got a copy of this letter, but I don't know that it would have been addressed to him, because the official opposition doesn't support the forest renewal plan.

In any case, I have a couple of questions. First, this association has long been looking for the opportunity to participate in the Forest Sector Strategy Committee. They've received some appointments to the industry structure working group, which falls under that committee, but still feel that if value-added industry is going to be a key component of the forest renewal plan, they should certainly be part of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee. Would the minister like to comment on that?

Hon. A. Petter: It's always a challenge when bringing together a group to make it not so large as to be unworkable yet large enough to be inclusive and to include just the right number of people. There are representatives on the Forest Sector Strategy Committee who represent the value-added sector and small business sector. Peter Beulah is one such representative of the value-added sector, although he comes from a different region of the province, the southern interior.

One way we try to provide a broader and more diverse set of inputs is to have subcommittees and working groups in which others are included. I guess I've been somewhat reluctant to open the door to changes in the composition of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee since becoming minister, because it has functioned well as a group and as 

[ Page 12176 ]

with any group, when you start to change its structure, that can get in the way of the group's ongoing work. I believe that the committee has been more successful of late in drawing in others through the working groups.

I'm not aware of the letter, but certainly I'd be happy to look at it and contemplate ways in which we can involve this association more closely in the work of the strategy committee. That may not involve representation but certainly closer linkages with those who are on the committee and greater involvement through the working groups.

[8:30]

Also as we move to create the Forest Renewal B.C. agency and its subcommittees, I think there will be opportunity for others who have not been directly involved in the strategy committee to become more involved in those processes. I think there will be a certain -- what's the buzzword? -- synergy between the two groups: the strategy committee, with its ongoing work, which will be of a general policy nature as well as giving some advice on implementing the forest renewal plan, and the Forest Renewal B.C. agency and its subcommittees, which will be more directly involved in implementation. There will be more opportunity for more groups to participate.

I have been concerned that it not be seen that those who participated in the Forest Sector Strategy Committee have some kind of inside track or special consideration, and when we announce the Forest Renewal Board and subcommittees are formed, I hope that will afford an opportunity to be even more inclusive than we have strived to be to this point.

L. Fox: I guess I'm probably a bit parochial when it comes to this kind of issue. When I look at the forest sector over the last 15 years that I've become really familiar with, I see that the interior of the province has really been the innovator in terms of development of new technologies, how to be cost-efficient and new programs. For instance, one of the programs -- and the minister may not be aware of it -- is that the Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products mill hires handicapped individuals, trains them and makes them a productive part of society. These people have been one of the success stories in terms of value-added. The central interior as a whole has been extremely successful in comparison to other parts of the province. Some consideration should be given to the request because of the innovativeness they've shown over the last ten years with respect to value-added. I hope the minister on viewing the letter -- I know he has been copied -- will give their concerns some serious thought.

One other question was stated in this letter to the Premier. The select standing committee made a number of recommendations to the Minister of Forests with respect to how it might improve value-added, improve wood utilization and create jobs. The concern contained in this letter is that they haven't seen any action by government on a number of those recommendations. Can the minister tell me where the government is today on those recommendations?

Hon. A. Petter: As the member suggests, a number of recommendations were forwarded by the legislative committee in what I thought was an excellent report. It is one that I've read closely, and I now have the benefit of a parliamentary secretary who was one of the authors, so the importance of some of those recommendations has been impressed on me even more.

I think it's fair to say that some of those recommendations have found their way into the forest renewal plan. Certainly the possibility of providing some institutional support for the value-added sector flows from some of those recommendations and is embraced within the forest renewal plan. Others are still being reviewed, and some may flow out of the set of announcements on the policy side that we announced at the same time as the forest renewal plan. In particular, the member may recall that the forest renewal plan document -- if I'm quick off the mark I might even find the page -- signalled a commitment, particularly on the question of wood supply for the value-added sector, along with certain investment commitments which are also relevant to the report. The report suggested:

"To encourage the production of higher valued forest products, the government is working with large and small companies to create more opportunities for new and existing enterprises. The government's primary objective in this area is to ensure that those who are willing to do more with the public's timber -- particularly those looking to create more jobs per cubic metre processed -- have greater access to the wood they require. The government intends to ensure that the trend of fewer jobs per cubic metre will be stopped and reversed."

I think the member will agree that that recommendation -- namely, to have greater access to the wood that is required by the value-added sector -- has a high degree of sympathy with some of the recommendations of the legislative committee. A working group of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee has been working on this -- perhaps that's the working group with which the letter-writer was involved -- and I am hopeful that that working group will produce some recommendations that we can implement in cooperation with industry.

However, the Premier and I have also made it clear that if that doesn't happen, we will certainly be prepared to act. The legislative committee's recommendations provide some mechanisms that are worth considering in that regard. We're hoping for a cooperative approach to building on the partnership we've developed through that working group, and if indeed that's the working group in which the letter writer referred to me by the member is involved, then that letter writer can be assured that he's where the action is. I understand that the work of that group has been going well. We'll continue to look at the products of that working group's efforts with interest. Hopefully, that will result in accomplishing the legislative committee's recommendations.

D. Mitchell: I have a few brief questions for the minister as well. I'm not sure if we're winding up the review of the Ministry of Forests estimates. If we are, then the minister is doing a good job. Hon. Chair, I'll let you be the judge of that.

The minister recently accompanied me on a trip to the constituency I represent; my constituents appreciated his visit. We had a chance to discuss outside of the legislative forum the issue of the spotted owl. This issue affects two timber supply areas, the Fraser and the Soo. These two large TSAs are affected by the uncertainty associated with the ongoing studies of the spotted owl. More recent scientific data suggests that the response by our American neighbours in California, Oregon and Washington State may have been an overreaction. In their look at the socioeconomic impact of setting aside forest land, a dislocation resulted that was unfortunate. The minister has clarified outside of this House why delays have taken place with the spotted owl recovery team scientific study. He's talked as well about the socioeconomic work that needs to be done. For the record, it would be useful if the minister would explain the attempts to set aside spotted owl conservation areas. When will government be prepared to make announcements with respect to that?

[ Page 12177 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's question. Questions about the future of the spotted owl habitat are certainly difficult and, as the member indicates, cause considerable public concern, particularly in the Fraser and the Soo timber supply areas. I'm aware of those concerns; I was happy to have an opportunity to meet with some of the local groups. Some were more animated than others, but all were very anxious about how this issue will be resolved.

The spotted owl recovery teams and the community advisory groups that were established have been doing their work in conjunction with one another. It's fair to say that government is concerned that the work is done well and all the socioeconomic impacts be fully understood in order that the best possible decision be reached. As a result, we haven't been able to proceed as quickly as we might have liked. The intention is that the spotted owl recovery team presents to government a set of options. Those options will then be accompanied by the socioeconomic data that is pulled together as a result of the efforts of the community advisory panel. Government will have to reach a resolution on this issue; I'm hopeful that can be accomplished by this fall.

Anticipating what the member may raise, there is serious local concern within his constituency about the relationship between the spotted owl recovery teams, the conservation areas, the protected areas strategy and other initiatives. I believe we need to work as a government to ensure that those initiatives are better related and that decisions with respect to protected areas and spotted owl recovery areas are more closely integrated. I share the concern that if these are not integrated, there is a danger of the impacts being cumulative but not being fully understood when decisions are made. I indicated at the time to the groups we met with that I intend to do two things. I invited the local Soo community coalition to undertake a study in conjunction with local district forest officials and present that study to government. The presentation to government would include its views on how these processes might be better integrated to take account of the various constraints on harvesting within those areas. At the same time, I believe that as government we have to start doing a better job of making sure there is an association between those initiatives. I've instructed my staff and have spoken to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks about doing the same: to bring our approach to these issues under a single umbrella so that we have all the information and impacts in front of us.

We have a delicate balance to achieve between the desire to preserve habitat on the one hand with the need to ensure economic and social stability on the other. Those are difficult choices, particularly in this instance, where the information is in flux, let us say, and views vary. There are very strongly held views on both sides. I think that gives the member an overview, and hopefully it is consistent with what I said when I was in his constituency. We want to make a decision as soon as we can to produce some stability and assurance for his constituents.

To be completely comprehensive, I should also add that because the study areas within the Soo are well in excess of the 12 percent target, I'm hopeful that an internal review of those study areas that's now taking place will result in some of those study areas coming out of study area status and back into working forest later in this year. That should provide some relief as well. We need to bring these processes together and deal with them in a much more integrated and coordinated fashion. Since my meetings, I've talked to the Minister of Environment and to my deputy minister, and I believe we're on track for doing that even better than prior to my visit.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for those comments. They certainly reflect the tone of the discussion we had on his trip to my constituency. I think the minister understands that there is a broad base of support in the province, even among those who work in the forest industry, for a protected areas strategy that seeks to set aside a certain amount of the land base for conservation. The concern in the industry, obviously, is that in addition to that, we don't have other areas, then other areas and other areas still, and that whatever the conservation strategy is will be reflected within the protected areas strategy, and not over and above it. I think the minister appreciates some of the sensitivities in that particular area.

Another concern that's been brought to my attention more recently relates to the Forest Practices Code. While I recognize that this is legislation before the House, I don't know if the minister would mind if I ask a question during his spending estimates about the potential impact of that code.

It has been drawn to my attention by some of the geologists, soil experts and others in British Columbia that to implement the Forest Practices Code and all the regulations that have been made public by the minister, we are going to require perhaps up to 1,000 new trained scientists in the province or experts who will help train those working in the forest industry in how to practice the new forestry following the revolution this minister has brought forth in the industry. We don't have those trained personnel today. I know that under the forest renewal initiatives program, there are provisions made for training, but there is concern about how quickly we can get people up to speed, so to speak, so that the terms of the Forest Practices Code can be implemented. I'm not sure if the number 1,000 is correct, but that's the number that has been mentioned to me.

[8:45]

In this year's ministry estimates that we're approving in this committee, does the minister have any specific funds set aside for training people or for providing training sessions or workshops to those currently working in the industry so that they can comply with the new Forest Practices Code?

Hon. A. Petter: This will to some extent canvass some of the areas we dealt with earlier, but I'm happy to answer the member's question. There is a very significant training program envisaged by the ministry, which will also work in cooperation with industry. I haven't heard the numbers the member mentioned, and I'm surprised by them and by the suggestion that we require expert scientists within those categories. This is certainly new to me. We envisage training 50,000 people in British Columbia who will be involved in the forests one way or the other. As I discussed earlier, that level of training will involve various modules which are being worked out by the ministry in conjunction with industry. Hopefully the new forest sector skills council being created under the forest renewal plan will assist in that delivery. There is about $4.5 million in the ministry's budget for training ministry staff and also to work with industry in the development of training materials and to cooperate with workers and others.

The only other thing I want to correct the member on, as I tried to in his constituency, is that what we're achieving here hopefully is not a full revolution which would take us back to where we started, but a half-revolution which will take us the 180 degrees we need in order to get forestry in B.C. moving in the right direction.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the minister about the approach in dealing with concerns where his ministry 

[ Page 12178 ]

interacts with the forest industry and how such disputes are settled. How eager is the ministry to avoid going to court and to avoid litigation, for instance, when it's possible and ideal to settle things amicably or through negotiation?

I raise one example that occurred recently in my constituency near Britannia, a place the minister is familiar with because he and I have driven along the Britannia site a couple of times in the last year or so. Recently a logging road has been approved, which involves some potential expropriation of land for a private developer who is seeking to build a plant and a unique community at the Britannia site. I understand -- and I believe the minister might be able to confirm -- that developers now have to take the Ministry of Forests to court over this issue, because the decision appeared to be arbitrary. Surely it's not in anyone's interest -- the developers, the province or the ministry -- to go to court to settle this issue. Common sense should prevail. I wonder if this is an example of the ministry perhaps not being as flexible as it needs to be or being too dogmatic in following the book. Why can't a situation like this be more easily resolved? Does the ministry have a policy on settling out of court wherever possible?

Hon. A. Petter: Given that the matter may be soon in court, I don't want to comment specifically, other than to say that the ministry does endeavour to resolve issues by negotiation and amicable settlements, and where possible, it tries to avoid the expense and trouble of litigation by more formal resolution. Despite years of attempts, however, some parties are unable to agree. I'm assured by staff that cases where court action may ensue are rare, and given the importance of forests and of this ministry to the economy of the province, it's perhaps extraordinary that there isn't more in the way of litigation. It's rather little litigation when compared to other jurisdictions. I think we do relatively well, given the nature, importance and centrality of the resource. But inevitably, in some cases, litigation will arise.

Let me answer a little more generally and philosophically a debate we can take up in the Forest Practices Code. Personally I'm very strongly of the view that one of our strengths as a country has been our approach to resolve issues in ways that don't involve litigation. In many ways the common law encourages that approach by not having the same kind of rigidity and formality.

When I look at what happens in environmental areas in the United States where there is a high preponderance of litigation to resolve environmental issues around, for instance, spotted owls and habitat, at the end of the day I don't see tremendous benefits either to those who espouse those causes or to society as a whole. What I see are incredibly expensive, cumbersome processes in which lawyers do very well and communities become increasingly frustrated as they lose the power to reach amicable agreements.

As minister, I want to assure this member that my philosophy is reflected in the code and in the creation of a Forest Practices Board as opposed to some more litigious model. I think it's also reflected in the history of this ministry, which I'm now very proud to be associated with. We endeavour to settle things amicably based on the notion that bringing people to a resolution is much better than separating them and going to court. I hope that personal philosophy will also assist in supporting the ministry's point of view on this issue -- that is, to avoid litigation. The member points out one situation in which we may not succeed. That's regrettable, but I'm reassured that it is also exceptional.

D. Mitchell: I'm not sure how long this minister will remain Minister of Forests, but I hope his philosophy will prevail in the future. Can he tell us how many instances of litigation by the Ministry of Forests there have been in the last completed fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: I can provide the member with that information, but I don't have it on hand. The litigation is handled by the Attorney General ministry, which obviously has the direct relationship. It involves a number of different areas: everything from policing of the small business program to areas of access, and all sorts of things. We have to work with the Attorney General ministry, but I would be happy to provide that information if the member thinks it would be useful.

In the case the member referred to, I'm informed that extensive negotiations have been going on for the better part of two years, so there has been an effort on both sides to resolve it in a way that would not require litigation.

D. Mitchell: Can the minister tell the committee whether the ministry has any precedents for using mediation services to resolve disputes that might otherwise lead to litigation? If so, is there a record of success in using mediation services? Is this likely to be one way of avoiding going to the courts? Subscribing to the minister's philosophy that we should avoid litigation wherever possible, is mediation perhaps the wave of the future in resolving forestry disputes between industry interests, others and the Crown?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware of some efforts to use mediation in the context of issues respecting first nations, but these have not always met with short-term success. Although mediation can be its own reward, hopefully there are rewards that come out of mediation as well.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the process of mediation can do a lot to cool feelings and to produce a more amicable climate in which dispute resolution can take place. Again, I don't have that information to hand, but I would be happy to pursue it if the member is interested. Certainly I would favour the use of mediation where it could be constructive, and I would be happy to explore some of the efforts we have undertaken and what we might do to enhance the use of mediation.

In some ways, our approach to issues like land use is, in effect, a form of mediation -- for example, some of the LRMP and some of the LRUP processes. I think some of those processes have been remarkably successful in affecting a resolution that would otherwise require the ministry to impose solutions on communities, which can very often find better solutions themselves.

D. Mitchell: I would like to ask the minister a question about tenure, which I know has been previously canvassed during this review of estimates. Many of the changes that are taking place in forestry in British Columbia have been initiated by this new minister, who has only been in office for some eight or nine months now. There's an incredible array of changes taking place with the introduction of a new forestry code and the forest renewal plan. We have the Commission on Resources and Environment and various attempts to implement a land use plan. The changes are very significant, and it's hard for people to keep up with them. The one significant area that the minister hasn't initiated any direct review of is the tenure system in British Columbia. Yet 

[ Page 12179 ]

there are many who would suggest that since there haven't been changes in the last generation to the way that timber is held, to how it's held or to who it's held by, perhaps now might be an appropriate time to examine these question, whether by means of a royal commission or what have you. We seem to have royal commissions every generation in British Columbia, whether it's the Pearce commission or the Sloan commission. Does the minister feel that it's time or it will soon be time to launch a major review of forest tenure in British Columbia? If so, what will be the appropriate forum to review the way timber is held in our province?

Hon. A. Petter: I think these are very important questions. As I met with various stakeholders and those with an interest in forests over the last nine months, it became clear to me that everyone favours tenure reform, but no two people favour the same tenure reform. That creates something of a challenge for us all.

I was surprised, frankly, to see the degree to which many in industry would like to see tenure reform to satisfy some of their concerns about security, access to wood, etc. Of course, others wish to pursue tenure reform to effect a broader distribution of harvesting rights or to empower communities in respect of harvesting opportunities. There's any number of different objectives and of different strategies. I've taken two things from that. One is that there is a need and an appetite to review tenure, but this province is not at a point where we can come to a consensus. I think some very useful ground-work has been laid by the Forest Resources Commission, which was undertaken by the previous government but provided a very useful set of reports. Some of those reports deal with issues that we are dealing with, such as land use and forest practices, but one major aspect deals with tenure.

The conclusion I take from all of this is that I would like to see some form of process or forum come forward in which this issue and appetite for reform can be constructively addressed. I'm really open to suggestions at this point, as I think the member knows. He may wonder if I've changed my mind in the last few weeks, but to put it on the record, I'm open to suggestions as to how we might address this issue.

One possibility would be to turn the report of the Forest Resources Commission into a White Paper and share it around the province. Another would be to go to a royal commission, which has been the traditional vehicle in this province, to initiate discussions over tenure reform. There are some, indeed many, in my ministry who believe that historically such a commission has been a very effective mechanism and one we should redeploy. There may be other mechanisms. Certainly the Forest Sector Strategy Committee has tenure on its plate as one issue to address. But realistically, given what I would argue are the complementary, constructive and coherent changes that were undertaken in other areas, we want to make sure that we move forward on tenure issues in such a way that the voices of all British Columbians can be heard.

[9:00]

I would appreciate suggestions from the public and from all hon. members as to what the best forum would be. I think we do have a responsibility to respond to this very broad interest in the tenure issue, but I think the challenge is to find the correct vehicle. I throw the challenge back to the member. Is the correct vehicle a royal commission, a White Paper with some consultative process attached to it or something else? I haven't come to a firm view of that, and neither has the government. We would welcome input from members or citizens.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's answer, and he can count on me to provide him some thoughts following these estimates. I firmly believe that as we head toward the next century, implement the Forest Practices Code and establish Forest Renewal B.C., it will become timely to also look at the question of who shall have the right to harvest trees within the working forests of British Columbia. I think it's a crucial question, and it's going to have to be addressed. There isn't a single way to address that, but I would encourage this minister, while he maintains this portfolio.... No one knows or can predict how long that will be. We hope it's quite awhile, because I think we've had a dozen Ministers of Forests in the last 13 years, or something like that. I might be exaggerating somewhat, but there have certainly been many. I hope this minister stays on until the next election -- wouldn't that be refreshing? -- and maybe even prior to that launches a review so that the administration that comes in after the next election will be able to say that the previous administration launched the review of tenure, and it was therefore multipartisan in its approach.

I'd like to ask the minister a question about accountability -- in particular, this exercise we're engaged in here today. We're reviewing the spending estimates for the Ministry of Forests, but the minister has brought forward a plan in the Legislature for a new agency, Forest Renewal B.C., which has its own built-in forms of accountability. I applaud those, quite frankly, because there's some legislative review and accountability that I think is needed in all Crown agencies. I'm wondering if that's going to detract in any way from the traditional exercise we're engaged in here this evening of reviewing the spending estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Will the fact that Forest Renewal B.C. will have its own legislative review mechanisms make this exercise that we're engaged in at present less meaningful, or will it prevent us from asking the kinds of questions that have been canvassed in this review by the official opposition Forests critic and others? Will this perhaps be the last time we have this kind of full and broad-ranging discussion during the review of the spending estimates of the Ministry of Forests? This new agency is being set up and and will be taking away the spotlight from the traditional review of the spending estimates -- grievance before supply.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me say that I also hope the next administration will be able to point to this administration as having initiated steps toward tenure reform, and I hope it will not be a multipartisan comment.

Having said that, with regard to the member's question, I am of the view that Forest Renewal B.C. and the accountability mechanisms attached to it will in no way detract from the process here. I can't give the member categorical assurance that it will enable the official opposition to continue to ask the questions it asks, although I suppose the opposition is free to ask what it wants, but a lot of those questions struck me as so far from the mark that I wouldn't want to....

W. Hurd: You tried to have them ruled out of order.

Hon. A. Petter: Who knows? It might provide the official opposition with a forum in which they wouldn't be out of order -- an extra forum in which to test some of those issues. Indeed, many of the official opposition's questions were about the operation of Forest Renewal B.C.

I think they will be complementary processes and will provide for an even broader-ranging debate of forest issues than currently occurs. There will certainly be no narrowing 

[ Page 12180 ]

of the debate that can take place within the estimates of the Forests ministry, but there will be further opportunities to look at the very exciting opportunities that are afforded through Forest Renewal and the way in which that agency operates, the kind of partnership we can effect and the future we can achieve through that partnership and the investment programs. The member has my assurance that, at least as far as I have anything to say about it, those opportunities for a legislative committee to review the expenditure program and business plan of Forest Renewal B.C. will not be taken as a signal that we should be less rigorous or searching in our discussions in this forum.

D. Mitchell: I have one further area that I'd like to seek comments on from the minister, and it relates to the federal government's role in forestry in our province. In the past we've had federal-provincial agreements, referred to as FRDA agreements. They now seem to be winding down, and it doesn't appear that British Columbia can really expect much more in the future in the form of FRDAs. There is an agency known as Forestry Canada; it does seem to play a small role in research, and I'm sure it has done some excellent work. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his ministry has significant dialogue or interaction with the federal government on forestry issues that relate to B.C., and whether or not, in his opinion, the federal government adds value to forestry in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: The province has primary jurisdiction with respect to management of the resource by virtue both of its legislative jurisdiction and the property as provincial Crown lands. The federal government has a role to play; I would like to see it play that role to a greater extent than it does. We need to advance collectively in this country with respect to international trade disputes. We've canvassed issues earlier in this debate about countervailing activities in Europe and elsewhere. The federal government has tools that can make our job much easier.

As I indicated earlier, I've had discussions with the federal Minister of International Trade on those kinds of issues already, and on a number of occasions I've spoken with the federal Natural Resources minister on issues of mutual concern. There is a working relationship at the ministry level. Indeed, one member of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee was a representative of Forestry Canada. Forestry Canada has done very useful research work in forest health and trade. Forestry Canada can assist because its interprovincial experience can be useful to us. I'm not prepared to give up on the federal government's obligations to reforestation under FRDA. I hope the federal government will not view the expiry of the current agreements as an opportunity to further off-load responsibility onto a provincial government. If the federal government withdraws to any extent from traditional responsibilities that it has exercised in areas of natural resources, then I hope they would do so in a way that would provide compensating sources of revenue for the province in taking over those responsibilities.

So the short answer is yes, the federal government has a role to play. There may be areas in which there is duplication, and rationalization is needed. I think we can effect efficiencies, but those ought not to be viewed as an opportunity by the federal government to further off-load on the province of British Columbia. In the international trade area particularly, the federal government's presence is absolutely crucial. Federal government support with respect to research and expertise they can afford is very valued and will continued to be valued by this government.

D. Mitchell: I have one final question about the minister's response on this issue. I appreciate the minister's statement that he's willing to stand up strongly for British Columbia. I think that's laudable, and you'd never find me wanting to criticize him for that.

Realistically, given the federal government's fiscal crisis -- and I don't think that's too alarmist a word -- I have a hard time believing that we or any other province can expect the federal government to be able, let alone willing, to assist us by grossing up on the FRDA agreements we've benefited from in the past. Given that the minister wants to stand up for British Columbia and there is great concern for our unique forest economy, which is more important to our province than any other in Confederation, shouldn't we be taking a serious look at the possible duplication the minister referred to and seriously questioning whether the Department of Natural Resources has any continued relevant role in British Columbia from the taxpayers' point of view? There's only one taxpayer in British Columbia. We have a Ministry of Forests. We want to believe that the Ministry of Forests is doing a good job on behalf of British Columbia, but we also have a federal ministry that seems to be involved in activities that are duplicating our efforts.

Wouldn't it be opportune for this minister to take a serious look at specific areas of duplication with a view to cutting them during the fiscal year that we're asked to approve the spending for tonight?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm a little confused by the last comment the member made. I understood him to say that the federal government might cut back on its expenditures. Then he invited me to cut back on the federal government's expenditures. That aside, there is absolutely a need to look at duplication. There has been a federal-provincial process formed -- I believe the Premier has spoken to it -- to look specifically at areas of duplication within Confederation. There may be areas within forestry in which it would be more efficient to devolve some duplicative or overlapping powers solely to the province, in this case. It's important, however, that it not be viewed as an opportunity by the federal government to off-load.

I also want to stress that there are some areas in which the federal government's role is important and ongoing, and it is not duplicative but complementary. It would be a shame for the federal government to take comfort from comments such as those made by the member and to use them as a pretext to off-load or abandon what are in fact legitimate involvements of the federal government in respect of the expertise it can bring to bear in the areas I've already detailed.

Let me offer a slightly broader and perhaps more philosophic view. We have in this country an equalization system, and I think most responsible British Columbians would support that system. But I do not believe -- and I took some alarm at the column the member wrote in the newspaper suggesting, as I read it, that this might be the case -- that in British Columbia we unilaterally agree to contribute a disproportionate share to national debt problems through the abandonment of federal jurisdictions or whatever. If that is to be done and if the federal government wishes to pursue a national debt strategy, then let them do it equitably. Let us not voluntarily offer ourselves up as sacrificial lambs for the federal government's difficulties, which have in large measure been created by the 

[ Page 12181 ]

federal government's activities in supporting other regions consistently favoured over British Columbia.

I hope the member is not suggesting here that because British Columbia has kept its house in order and managed its resources, the federal government should somehow now be free to come along and effectively siphon off the wealth and benefits that we in British Columbia have created, which this government continues to create, to solve problems the federal government has not had the fortitude to address in Ottawa.

If that's what the member is suggesting, I reject that out of hand. If the member is suggesting that we can enhance the way Confederation works to the benefit of all through better rationalization, then that's fine, provided it's not done as a back-door way of off-loading further expenses onto British Columbia.

D. Mitchell: The minister and I share an interest in federal-provincial relations and constitutional reform. It goes well beyond the ambit of this discussion.

I would like to say to the minister that if his ministry is engaged in activities which are also being performed to some extent by the federal agency now called the Department of Natural Resources, then we in British Columbia have a special need to take a look at that, the reason being that British Columbia is the largest forest economy in Canada by far. We have the largest forest land base, one of the best in the world. It's not a question of equality of the provinces. British Columbia perhaps stands to benefit most from investment, research and expenditures in our forestry-related businesses and industries. There has been some confusion in the past as to who is the lead agency. In British Columbia, there is sometimes confusion over whether it's the Forests ministry or the Environment ministry. There's also confusion over whether the federal government or the province should be taking the lead.

[9:15]

The only assurance I'm seeking from the minister is that his ministry will be taking a very close look at those areas of duplication during the year for which we're being asked to approve spending estimates so that British Columbia taxpayers will have the assurance they need that they're not spending more than is necessary provincially or federally. There's only one taxpayer, but I think the province of British Columbia should try to become as self-reliant as possible in these areas. Would the minister not agree?

Hon. A. Petter: One clearly wants to eliminate unnecessary duplication and overlap, and I've already indicated that there is a federal-provincial process reviewing this. My ministry will be participating in it. But I caution the member. We have a federal government -- a Liberal government -- that is, in my view, looking for each and every opportunity to off-load its problems disproportionately and unfairly upon British Columbia. I think that's been evidenced in a number of recent decisions; I won't go through them.

Let's take the member's comments and apply them to the FRDA case. What we have in FRDA is the federal government contributing funds to reforestation. One may ask: "Isn't that duplicative?" In one sense it is, because the province also contributes funds to reforestation. Together those funds make a reforestation program that is much more effective than it would be with provincial participation alone. If the federal government were to take comfort from the member's comments and assume that the member means that they can now unilaterally withdraw or fail to renew their commitment to FRDA because it is somehow duplicative, British Columbians would not be better off. They would be much worse off. The federal commitment, which has been to support our economic future through reforestation, would be diminished, even though the federal government has made different but analogous commitments elsewhere in the country.

I don't think that we as British Columbians should stand for a federal government that is prepared to say that because we have put our house in order and have pursued strategies aimed at maintaining a healthy economy and minimizing government deficits, that is somehow an opportunity for them to withdraw efforts -- which may seem to be duplicative but in fact are complementary -- in this part of the country, while they continue to maintain or enhance efforts in other sectors of the economy that support other areas of the country. If that were done, it would siphon off from British Columbia benefits that British Columbians are entitled to as equal participants in this country. I, as a minister, am not prepared to see that happen.

The Chair: Hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, I understand there is a deal that will conclude these estimates if the questions and answers are short, and it's not about federal jurisdictions.

W. Hurd: I guess it just goes to show that if you hang around a set of estimates long enough, almost anything is possible.

This is, of course, the government that heartily endorsed the Charlottetown accord, which would have returned all provincial forest jurisdiction to British Columbia with no price tag attached. As the minister knows, with respect to the forest renewal plan, companies can deduct stumpage from the payments they make to federal income tax. That represents reverse downloading on the federal government. The minister stood up in debate on the forest renewal plan and said: "Just let the feds do anything to build that kind of downloading into amounts they give the province." I suppose, hon. Chair, that if you hang around long enough, almost anything is possible. The flip-flop that's gone on in this chamber tonight is the stuff of legend.

I just had a brief series of questions, and I emphasize the word "brief."

The Chair: Do I assume we still have a deal?

W. Hurd: I'm not sure how to deal with a Chair that inserts itself into the deal-making process, hon. Chair.

I had a very brief series of questions about the small business forest enterprise program that I think have to be raised. When you look at this set of estimates, as the minster has acknowledged, the largest single beneficiary in terms of funds is the small business enterprise program. There is an additional $30 million, and there is a commitment by the minister, I believe, to increase the amount of harvest within the program by 11 million cubic metres a year.

My questions relate to difficulties that this program is already experiencing. Certainly they were brought home to me in the Select Standing Committee on Forests, which toured the province and talked to a number of small licensees -- in depth, I might add -- about what they found beneficial and what they found negative about the program. With respect to the competitive bid system -- the competitive sales under section 16 that are sold to the highest bidder -- there was a problem identified regarding surrogate bidding. Major licensees participated through a smaller licensee and basically bid up the wood to a point where other licensees couldn't compete. It resulted in the timber 

[ Page 12182 ]

eventually reverting back to the larger licensee for which it really wasn't intended. I wonder if the minister can advise us if his ministry is aware of the surrogate bidding process that's going on, and given the fact that we're seeing more resources, more money and more cut allocated to the small business programs, if he feels that any remedial steps are needed to control or monitor this kind of activity.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware of a concern within the program about surrogate bidding. Clearly, if a bidder is simply acting as a proxy for a licensee who isn't eligible, the bidder would be disentitled, but obviously there are less formal relationships which have also caused some concern. Frankly, it's an issue that I think requires more study, but I'm aware of the concerns.

W. Hurd: I appreciate the fact that the minister has identified the concerns. The committee did talk to successful applicants under the program, who advised that their only involvement with the licence application was signing a paper and turning it over to a third party to enter the bid and supposedly participate on their behalf, but actually on behalf of a larger licensee. I advise the minister that that was identified as a problem under the small business program. I'm encouraged to hear that he recognizes it is a problem and that he may be prepared to take some action.

With respect to the bid proposal sales under section 16.1, which are awarded to firms that can demonstrate the highest remanufacturing value, another issue that was reported to the committee was that manufacturers who remanufacture a low-grade material without adding a great deal of value are being penalized under the type of program mentioned in this section, because they can't get value out of this low-value resource. Given the fact that we're expanding this program, I wonder whether the ministry is prepared to rethink this philosophy that exists within a program where you have to buy the material at a $100 a thousand, for example, or $100 a cubic metre and then add $500 to $600 in value, when the processor of low-grade material is really penalized by this particular section.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'm aware of the concern, and as I said in answer to the previous question, it's a concern that has to be reviewed. There are, frankly, a number of concerns around the way in which bid proposal sales are evaluated. I think that's inherent in the system. Determining added value will involve elements that will at times favour some sectors over others. I know there was concern, for example, about whether plywood is given sufficient value under the program. In some cases, the adding of value is not always the same thing as the adding of employment. Value may be added that creates little employment or relatively little value, according to the criteria of the program, may add much in the way of employment. There's also the problem mentioned by the member about the fact that those manufacturers who are using wood of a different quality have less opportunity to demonstrate their value-added capabilities.

So the answer is yes, there has been an internal document prepared in response to the standing committee's report, which I'm still reviewing. I'm generally aware of the concern, and it's one of those issues that requires some ongoing attention to ensure that the awards under this program meet the social objectives of the government, which are to encourage the maximum amount of value from wood and also to foster employment.

W. Hurd: Finally, with respect to the account balance in the small business forest enterprise program, does the figure in the line item represent a commitment to silviculture or reforestation? Is that what the account balance represents? Is that the silvicultural commitment to the small business program? If so, can the minister advise us of how long the time frame is? What kind of long-term investment are we looking at? Is it ten years or 15 years with respect to the account balance and the small business program?

Hon. A. Petter: The member is correct in identifying the item as the commitment to silviculture. In terms of time, the answer is that it's a commitment to bring those stands to a free-growing status. Depending on the species, the age can vary. It could be as many as 15 years or less than that, depending on the species, the area of the province and the amount of time it takes to bring those stands to a free-growing status.

W. Hurd: I have one final question. To my knowledge, this is the first set of estimates in which the Provincial Capital Commission has appeared, and I imagine that my colleague for Saanich North and the Islands might be interested in this. Perhaps the minister could briefly provide some record of what is transpiring in the Provincial Capital Commission this year so that something is on the record with respect to this particular line item in the ministry. We don't want to assume that it has simply been bypassed in the estimates without due scrutiny.

Hon. A. Petter: To give a bit of background, the Provincial Capital Commission is an agency that was established back in the days of W.A.C. Bennett. It's comprised of municipal representatives and those appointed by government, who serve without remuneration, to try to enhance the capital region for the benefit of all British Columbians.

The amount that appears in the budget is provided to the capital commission by way of grant and contribution for undertaking enhancement projects within the capital region. Some of those projects will be known to the member, although he may not know that they were funded by the commission. The promenade in front of the Empress Hotel and the parliament buildings, for example, has been constructed with the assistance of the Provincial Capital Commission, and it has also in recent years undertaken a major initiative to enhance some of the approaches to the capital. Working with the Ministry of Highways and other agencies, this will stand us in very good stead for the Commonwealth Games.

[9:30]

I can tell the member that one of the grants last year was to provide access to a railway right-of-way that had previously been used for rail. It is no longer needed for that purpose. It now ensures better access for pedestrians to the capital. So it's largely an agency which seeks to beautify the capital.

One of the major projects that it has undertaken is St. Ann's Academy, a structure that is held by the Capital Commission. St. Ann's Academy is an historic building in Victoria and predates this legislative building. It has deteriorated over the years. Previous governments, through the Capital Commission, sought to attract private sector proposals, which did not pan out. As I informed the estimates last year, this government has a plan for the restoration of St. Ann's Academy, which is before the Victoria City Council for consideration. It involves the use of some of the academy for office space; other facilities are to be provided for the Victoria Conservatory of Music.

[ Page 12183 ]

I canvassed that at some length with the member for Saanich North and the Islands and other members during last year's estimates, when the Capital Commission was part of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates process.

W. Hurd: I appreciate that briefing. One final idea comes to mind. Would there be any funds available in this year's allocation to the Capital Commission to deal with potential uses for Royal Roads, or would that not be an appropriate planning function for converting that institution to whatever purpose might be deemed acceptable by the people of Victoria?

Hon. A. Petter: I suppose the Capital Commission might have some interest in Royal Roads from the point of view of its tremendous historic value. However, the resources of the Capital Commission are fairly modest. The member can appreciate that for $224,500, the commission is able to assist in some very small ways in maintaining and enhancing some of the amenities of the capital, and it particularly focuses on those amenities that will appeal to visitors provincewide. It's not inconceivable, but certainly I don't anticipate the Capital Commission having a major role to play in the negotiations that have been going on with the federal government -- for example, around Royal Roads. It's simply not within their capacity to do so.

V. Anderson: Apart from St. Ann's, how much is the Capital Commission now involved in the replanning and redesigning of offices, facilities and parking lots around the legislative buildings?

Hon. A. Petter: Apart from St. Ann's, it has a relatively small involvement. The reason for its involvement in St. Ann's is that this property is held by the Capital Commission, which has a representative who sits on the Victoria accord committee, set up with the city of Victoria. As minister I participated in that committee, whose principal focus has been the St. Ann's Academy project. Although as a commission charged with the responsibility to maintain the amenity of the capital, it obviously has an interest in other projects as well and has offered its advice from time to time around those projects -- such as the Belleville multi-use terminal. As a forum in which municipal governments and community groups can come together to express their views on some of these initiatives, it provides a very useful role. It would be wrong to say that it has been the central or even a central player with respect to those other initiatives.

W. Hurd: I have just one final question with respect to the South Moresby replacement special account, which appears as the last line item in the ministry's budget. The description of the account indicates that incremental investments are being made on other Crown lands in British Columbia to offset the decrease in annual allowable harvest based on the creation of the South Moresby National Park. The minister will be aware there was a commitment from the previous federal government. I forget the dollar figure, but I'm sure the minister will be aware of it.

My first question is whether or not any federal commitments not yet received are part of the equation that goes into the South Moresby forest replacement stand. I guess my second question -- and we can probably deal with both at the same time -- is whether the minister is satisfied that the amount of investment from this stand meets the objectives of the special account which was to replace the lost harvest on South Moresby with an equivalent volume or equivalent long-term harvest from adjacent Crown lands. Those are my two questions with respect to that special account.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry to do this, hon. Chair, knowing your interest in this debate. I just need some clarity from the member. Are you referring to the forest stand management fund or specifically to this South Moresby fund?

W. Hurd: I know you're waiting with bated breath for the clarification of that question, so I will say that it refers to the South Moresby implementation fund. I was merely referring to the special account description that indicates that the fund exists solely for the purposes of offsetting the decrease in annual allowable harvest or timber supply, which I guess is the correct term, as a result of the creation of the South Moresby park. So I was seeking assurances that the minister is satisfied that investments are accruing from the fund that would allow that goal to happen. I was also asking the question as to whether or not the federal commitments -- at least by the previous government.... I think the figure was $14 million that was supposed to have existed but hadn't appeared yet, and I wonder what steps were being taken by the government to deal with the federal government on that matter.

Hon. A. Petter: The member is correct in that the interest from this fund is committed toward trying to offset the decrease in forest land available for harvest due to the creation of the South Moresby National Park. I'm satisfied that the fund is being utilized to the greatest extent it can be for that purpose.

With respect to the federal government -- here I'm going a little bit on memory, which I would be prepared to check on and provide more detailed information to the member.... But I recollect -- I'm not sure if it was by letter -- a communication I had with the federal minister some time ago to try to get the federal government to bring its contribution into line with the province and to have the federal government set up its fund as an ongoing fund and contribution that would sustain over time. I understand that the federal fund is structured somewhat differently, but I'd have to get more details on that to the member. I'd be happy to do so at a time when I'm able to lay my hands on that more specific information.

Vote 36 approved.

Vote 37: ministry operations, $505,451,077 -- approved.

Vote 38: fire suppression, $63,470,798 -- approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: If need be.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:40 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada