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)

TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 8

[ Page 12717 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. E. Cull: Today we have a special guest in the gallery. Arnaldo Albeti is the newly appointed consul general of Italy in Vancouver. He is accompanied by Yolanda McKimmie, the honorary vice-consul of Italy in Victoria. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. D. Marzari: Visiting in the gallery today are two members of the New South Wales Parliament: Mr. Peter Cochran, MP, and Mr. John Price, MP. They are here with their partners. Would the House join me in welcoming them to British Columbia.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today is a very good friend, Don Goodman. He is over here from Delta to watch us at work and to play a little golf. I explained to him that as much as I would have liked to join him, the Speaker required my presence here. So let's hope that all of his drives go straight and all of his putts drop.

J. Beattie: In the gallery today is the mayor of Peachland, Mr. Gordon Harris. He's accompanied by the municipality's administrator, Bill Brown. They're here to do the work of the citizens of Peachland, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome today.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL TAX RATES

G. Campbell: Today -- 186 days into the year -- the average B.C. family gets out from under the highest tax burden in Canada. That's later than any other province in the country. Today is called Tax Freedom Day....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the member please proceed with his question.

G. Campbell: In spite of the NDP promises of no tax increases and no new taxes, it takes three and a half weeks longer to get to Tax Freedom Day in British Columbia than it did in 1991. My question is to the Premier. How can the Premier possibly justify the highest marginal income tax rate on individuals in the country, the highest tax rate on small businesses in the country and the most onerous tax burden on families in the country?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I listened with some interest to the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues talking about how the average British Columbia family is paying $2,000 more in taxes. That average family that he's talking about is making an average family income of $125,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will let the people of British Columbia decide whether they are going to listen to the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition or to the following words from an independent economic expert who says that B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada, and the highest quality of public service in Canada. "Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada; the reasons will become even more compelling in the future."

Unlike the opposition, we don't make this sort of stuff up. This is from G.A. Pedersson and Associates Ltd.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The story gets worse as this government goes out and borrows more and more, in spite of previous promises. We can all recall when the Premier said: "I won't borrow any money that British Columbians don't have. We won't spend any money that British Columbians don't have." Yesterday the Premier said he was pleased to borrow as much as he felt like. The fact of the matter is that if you take into consideration the deficit today, Tax Freedom Day is not until August 6. And if this government continues with its policies, in 1996 it will be after Labour Day. How can the Premier justify the highest marginal income tax rate in Canada, the highest tax rates to small business in Canada, and the highest and most onerous tax burden on families in Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition should be well aware, we have the lowest per capita debt load of any province. He continues to apologize for Ottawa -- whether it's Conservative or Liberal -- dumping $6.5 billion of health, education and social services on the taxpayers of British Columbia. And he continues to apologize for the Socreds, who were spending at a rate of 13 percent, which was almost as high as the David Peterson Liberals were spending before they were tossed out of office in Ontario.

I am pleased that we have turned the corner and reduced the deficit over 60 percent. We have a three-year tax freeze and $112 million of tax cuts. The deficit is coming down, jobs are going up, and B.C. is the top economy in North America.

PROVINCIAL DEBT

F. Gingell: Yesterday in this House, the Premier said that he was happy to spend borrowed money. What he did not mention was that British Columbia's tax-supported debt has increased 60 percent since this government took office. His massive re-election bid is not only adding to this debt but to the mortgage that our children will have to pay in the future. Can this Premier today outline his plans for reducing not just the rate of increase in the debt but reducing the debt itself over the next two years?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We in the government know that B.C. is a growth province. We have 100,000 new British Columbians every year in this province. This is the number one economy, the front door onto the Asia-Pacific. We're building for that future. The best thing the Liberals can do is either get out of the way -- they are standing in the way of progress -- or get on board.

Before the member for Delta South talks too much, I think he should look at the track record of his leader, who, when he was the mayor of Vancouver, increased the city of Vancouver's accumulated debt by 46 percent. The present city comptroller had this to say about the Vancouver legacy, if you can call it that, of the Leader of the Opposition. I quote the city of Vancouver's comptroller: "They were doing what they do at The Brick and Future 

[ Page 12718 ]

Shop -- no payments until 1995. What they have been doing the last three years amounts to deficit financing."

The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier. Would the Premier please conclude.

Hon. M. Harcourt: What a track record, hon. Speaker!

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: The real test is that this province's debt is going up at a faster rate than the gross domestic product. It is going up at double the rate of the gross domestic product. The only way to stop this hemorrhaging of our future income is to ask the Premier to call an election. He seems to have no idea that the interest cost on the tax-supported debt alone is $2 billion a year. It is more than double the cost of law enforcement, police protection and corrections. Can the Premier explain how he can justify this massive debt increase at the expense of public protection?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: We'd like the Liberal opposition to be consistent for at least two days in a row. Yesterday they said: "You're not spending enough in our ridings. We want you to spend more on our ferry terminals, schools and courthouses and more on the Westview interchange." That interchange is in riding of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. Yesterday they said: "Spend more." Today it's: "Spend less." Make up your bloody minds! [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: It's interesting how much they appreciate unparliamentary language.

EFFECT OF HIGHER INTEREST RATES ON GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The budget deficit and the government's borrowing requirements were predicated on interest rates of between 4 and 5 percent. Today commercial rates are nearly double that, and most economists predict that they will increase further. Can the minister tell us the effect of these increases in interest rates on the government's borrowing requirements and debt-servicing costs?

Hon. E. Cull: The impact we estimate right now of the change in interest rates from what we had in the budget is in the order of about $25 million. However, that's only half the story, because the lower Canadian dollar is increasing our exports and making our businesses more competitive. Our latest economic forecast shows that in sum, when you net that all out, we're actually ahead because of the benefits to our export industries.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The government is borrowing money as if there is no tomorrow -- $370 million at our last count. Indeed, for this government there is no tomorrow; after the next election, they'll be gone. The simple question is: how much are these increased rates now costing British Columbia -- $100 million, $200 million or $300 million? No one in their right mind would believe the figure of $25 million put forward by the Minister of Finance.

Hon. E. Cull: I encourage the member to have another look at the budget, because it's all set out quite clearly in the budget. The capital spending plan for this year is set out clearly: it's a total of $4.1 billion in borrowing, including all the Crown corporations, B.C. Rail and everyone else that we borrow on behalf of. The net impact on the government's budget this year, as I've just said, is in the order of about $25 million.

PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD CHAIR

M. de Jong: British Columbians woke up this morning and discovered yet again that this NDP government has been unable to say no to one of its friends -- a diminishing number of friends, but a friend nonetheless. We are told that Joy Leach will live in Nanaimo as the chair of the Public Service Appeal Board, apparently due to lower rent costs. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a total crock. My question to the Premier is: can he tell us where these appeals are going to be heard? Who's going to pay the bloody travel costs that staff are going to incur travelling from Victoria to Nanaimo to get to Mrs. Leach's living room?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The analysis was done, and it is cheaper for the taxpayers to have the chair stay in Nanaimo.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The second part of the answer to the question by the hon. member is that the chair travels to where the employees are, whether she's living in Victoria or in Nanaimo, and will hold these hearings where the employees are.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: This, of course, is in light of statistics which show that only one appeal arose out of Nanaimo in the past number of years.

The real joke is that the government has appointed a full-time chair at all. The last chair was a part-time position paid on a per diem basis. My question to the Premier is this: why has the minister and his government caved in to an NDP friend, not only allowing her to stay in Nanaimo and operate out of her living room but paying her $78,000 for a job that was formerly done on a part-time, per diem basis? Is this what the Premier means by fiscal responsibility?

Hon. E. Cull: As the minister responsible, I'm really pleased to be able to answer this member's questions. After the public service made a decision to locate the new Public Service Appeal Board in Nanaimo, we did an independent review through Treasury Board that concluded that the staff were right: it was the cheapest solution because of cheaper lease costs. To date, however, since Ms. Leach has been on the job, we have seen only one or two appeals here in Victoria. The rest of them have been all around the province, and in every case the 

[ Page 12719 ]

transportation costs have been either comparable or cheaper.

BID FOR THE SUMMER OLYMPICS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier may be aware of some discussions that are currently taking place for a joint bid proposal on the Summer Olympics for the year 2004 that would include the cities of Vancouver, Seattle and possibly Victoria as well. I wonder if the Premier could tell us something that his Sports minister has been unable to tell us. Apparently the Sports minister has indicated that the province may not be up to the challenge of helping to host an event that could be the single most innovative undertaking for British Columbia since Expo 86. Could the Premier indicate whether or not he is aware of the idea, whether or not he supports it and whether or not the government is prepared to undertake feasibility studies to see whether British Columbia could participate in such a bold undertaking?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think members of this Legislature are all aware of British Columbia's tremendous track record over the last few years for hosting games. The most successful Canada Games ever was hosted last year in the smallest community that has ever hosted those games, Kamloops. They were very successfully run. The Western Canada Summer Games took place very successfully, and the Commonwealth Games, which we're going to host very shortly, will be a splendid success that people from all over the Commonwealth will enjoy. So of course we're very aware of the ability of British Columbians to stage these major sporting events.

I am aware of this proposal. I am also aware of the difficulties of hosting an Olympic event in a variety of cities across international boundaries, and that is one of the major stumbling blocks we are facing. We are looking into it. I am certainly open to the idea, and I thank the member for his interest in this very important proposal.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 56.

FOREST LAND RESERVE ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

The Speaker: On Bill 56, the amendment debate was adjourned by the hon. member for Alberni, deferring to the Premier on second reading of the bill.

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order.

A. Warnke: I want to remind the House that we are speaking to the amendment, not the bill itself.

The Speaker: That's correct, hon. member. I think I made that point, but thank you.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to join the debate on this historic piece of legislation, the Forest Land Reserve Act, and the amendment to hoist this very important piece of legislation. Of course, I rise to speak against the hoist amendment to delay this historic piece of legislation.

I think we are all aware that the question of our forests inspires strong feelings among British Columbians. There is one small group of people who say that no more logging should be allowed in our forests, and there is another small group that says that there shouldn't be any more parks. The problem is that past governments have responded to pressure tactics employed by these small groups of quite loud and aggressive proponents of those two views. Unfortunately, the opinions of the vast majority of our citizens who take a more balanced approach have been ignored. The vast majority of our citizens know that we have to change the way we manage our forests. If we don't, our children and grandchildren will face not only an economic but an environmental disaster.

This morning the Leader of the Third Party chided the Minister of Forests for dealing with two dimensions of a three-dimensional problem with this legislation. This is from a member who was part of a government that didn't even admit that a problem existed at all -- a government that had 30 years to take action and did nothing. This government has listened to and consulted with the people of British Columbia, and many have called for this forest land reserve. I'll name just a few for the hon. members who are asking who has been consulted and who supports it. The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and the CORE Vancouver Island land use plan are a few of the very important organizations that have come out in support of this.

As a matter of fact, even the Leader of the Opposition -- who has just left the chamber, unfortunately -- said in February that there should be parts of this province which are for an active forest program, and that in fact, if you want, there be a forest job zone, just like there should be a preserved area. That sounds like a reserve to me. So I was surprised when the member for Surrey-White Rock stood this morning and called to delay the bill. I didn't know if he had spoken to his leader. I didn't know if he was clear about his leader's support for this reserve. Maybe he should check with his leader on this, or he will find himself on the list to be knocked off.

As I said at the beginning, I do not support the delay. Delay is simply a tactic that too many governments and political parties have used in the past to avoid taking a position. This government is prepared to back this bill and see it through, and to implement a bill that will make sure that 81 percent of Vancouver Island will not go into parks, urban sprawl or the strip development that is making life very difficult for the communities on the east side of Vancouver Island. This use of delay has, for far too many years, avoided taking the action we need so we can have a stable and secure future for this province. I'm disappointed to see that the Liberal Party is adopting this tactic, this form of denial. I cannot support the hoist motion that is before us.

[2:30]

Our government has a plan that provides for economic and environmental stability and security. We established CORE as an element of that plan so that citizens could participate. We implemented the forest renewal plan, where almost $2 billion will be reinvested over the next five years back into our forests and into the forest industry. Our government has introduced B.C.'s first-ever forest practices code, where there are tough standards, tough enforcement and strong penalties, which, 

[ Page 12720 ]

unfortunately, the Liberal opposition voted against. That is unfortunate.

This government has shown that it is prepared to carry out its commitment to protect, by law, 12 percent of the representative and significant ecosystems in the province as park and wilderness areas. Through the Minister of Forests, our government has started the long-overdue timber supply review to give accurate information for sustainable harvests, instead of the overcutting and the falldown that was going to come about over the next 15 years, particularly on the coast. The Forest Land Reserve Act is part of one of the most dramatic and comprehensive plans to bring about sustainable development in the number one industry in this province.

Over a hundred communities depend, for the most part, on the health and well-being of the forest industry and on sustainable forest practices. We want to make sure that there is stability and security in our commercial forest land base, and that is as important as providing for the protected areas. We've all known for years that legislating protected areas is an important sign of government commitment. We also know that the commercial land base for the forest, mining and other resource industries of the province depends every bit as much on legislated recognition, and they're as worthy of that recognition of their interests as those who are asking for protected areas. This bill allows and sets in place legislated designation of the commercial forest land base. In particular, this bill recognizes that private forest lands are an important part of the commercial forest land use base. Owners who have made a decision to hold private managed forest land, and have received tax benefits on that basis, will be included in this reserve. If they choose, owners can apply to remove their lands from the reserve. But to do that they're going to have to go through a process that involves the local communities, which are going to feel very strongly about any removal for a subdivision, strip development or more parks. Owners who have committed to manage lands for long-term forestry, and have received tax benefits, can no longer change use now to sell or develop it and pocket the profits, without considering the forest workers in their communities who depend on those forests. That's a very important fundamental enshrined in this legislation.

As well, the Crown land that's included in the forest land reserve should not be treated any differently than private lands are. The Crown land on Vancouver Island will be included in the reserve, and we have said that other Crown land in the province will be included as planning processes in those areas conclude. So citizens have been consulted on Vancouver Island and are being consulted in land use planning processes, either through CORE or through the regional natural resource planning that's taking place. What is unfolding....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour has, I think, overextended himself in interrupting the member who has the floor. I would ask him to wait until he has been recognized, when we'll all look forward to his participation in the debate. But this is very difficult, hon. member.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is just so overjoyed at receiving the largest grant of any riding in the province, for Camp Jubilee. Just to show how fair this government is, he's still expressing his thanks to this government for that. He's being egged on by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who just received a go-ahead for completing the Westview interchange to get rid of the last stoplight from Hope to Horseshoe Bay. If the members can't control themselves, I think it's because of the gratitude that their electors feel toward this government for the way we're building for a better future, just as this act....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Premier, the Chair has reprimanded the hon. member, and I would hate to have to now reprimand the hon. Premier. Please proceed with the debate.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I accept, with due humility for that breach of etiquette by the Premier. I'm just trying to say, in a longer preamble than I intended, that we want to bring the same security and stability to our forest-based communities that we are to the voters and citizens on the North Shore.

We think that that's what this act is all about. It's going to involve working with British Columbians who understand the need to change the way that we've managed our forests. We need to leave behind the narrow and entrenched attitudes of the past and set very specific environmental goals and work together to meet them. Twelve percent of the province is protected as untouched wilderness.

By working together to renew our forest resource, communities will benefit from much more investment in forest renewal and revitalization through projects that are starting as we talk. The $52 million that I announced last week will be going into scores of projects to renew our watersheds, to reclaim the forest from logging roads that should be taken out and replanted, and to do intensive silviculture and other work.

Unlike any other government in the past, the security of the commercial forest land base is an important part of this government's commitment to the number one industry in British Columbia, the forest industry, and to the importance of the forest -- to the values, in a broad sense, of all British Columbians. This Forest Land Reserve Act provides just that security. It's a vital part of the work that we're doing to meet the needs of British Columbians, not just now but into an ecologically viable and sustainable future.

On its own, and as part of the package of initiatives we are putting forward to change the way we manage our forests, this bill, as I said at the beginning of my comments, is a historic piece of legislation. So I cannot support the amendment that the member for Surrey-White Rock has put forward. I would urge the other side not to delay and not to get in the way, but to support this very important piece of legislation, and then we can turn our attention to renewing the number one industry in this province, our forest industry.

G. Campbell: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond in second reading of Bill 56. I apologize for having to leave and miss some of the Premier's comments. I hear he was making some comments about the Forest Land Reserve Act.

Let me just say that the government has been putting forward....

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order.

[ Page 12721 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I just wanted to remind the member, because he was incorrect, that we are debating a hoist motion to delay passage of the bill for six months, rather than second reading.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, the point is well taken. Debate is on the hoist motion to the bill, just for all members who may not have been aware of where we are. We are on second reading of the bill, but it's in the form of an amendment.

G. Campbell: I am aware that we are speaking to the hoist motion, and I am in favour of the hoist motion, as I'm sure you would expect.

The government has rightly pointed out how important our forests are in British Columbia and has brought in a number of pieces of legislation to try to reflect its concern about the forest and how we manage it, and how we may manage it in the future. That concern and the diligence with which they prepared the legislation was reflected in the work that was done on Bill 40, when we had 80 amendments dropped in the House yesterday and we had debate carrying on until 4:45 in the morning. The problem with doing that is that it does not lead to the kind of deliberation that I think our most important resource in British Columbia deserves, and I believe the government understands that.

When the government says that they are as concerned with regard to local governments as they are with regard to the Forest Land Reserve Act, I think it's very important to note that local governments were not consulted prior to the drafting of this legislation. They were told the legislation was being put on the floor of the House. They have not been consulted, and they have not been considered in terms of how the bill will respond to the needs, and indeed the responsibilities, of local government throughout the province of British Columbia.

I would like to speak briefly to some of the principles in this bill. Our party, the opposition, has said quite clearly that we are in favour of a working forest zone in the province. The concerns that we have with regard to the bill are: (1) it has not been out in the public for discussion; and (2) it really focuses on privately owned land as opposed to public land, which in fact is the majority of forested land in the province. It seems to me that if we're going to create a policy which is robust and not punitive, but which encourages the kind of activities the government purports to want to encourage, it is not going to be appropriate to simply focus on one segment of the land base which is so essential to the forest lands in British Columbia.

We know already that there have been a number of games played with the statistics, and I think it's important again to note that the government has fooled no one involved with the forests with regard to those statistics. Once again we hear, I think from the minister, the statistic that over 80 percent of the forest will be included. What the minister has failed to point out is that the regulatory regime which has been imposed here is simply another burden on the people and on industry in British Columbia. It is simply another bureaucracy which is going to be put in place.

As I think you may know, hon. Speaker, and as I'm sure my colleagues know, I have been a supporter of the agricultural land reserve. The problem with the Forest Land Reserve Act is that, like the agricultural land reserve, it deals with only a small portion of the public policy which has to be put in place if we are to secure the kind of stability and long-term security for forest work that is so essential to the future economy of British Columbia.

When you look at the agricultural land reserve today, as I'm sure some of my colleagues will mention to you, there are a number of areas that must be improved to reflect regional concerns. One of the concerns I have with regard to the legislation before us is that it gives lip service to regional decision-making and regional consultation, but there is no clear way that a region gets to make its own choices about how the forest land reserve will be structured, how it will be formed, what will be in it or what will be out. In the end, I believe the government believes it always know best; their commission always knows best.

I believe that if the bill was hoisted, and we had a chance to discuss this with the local and regional communities across the province, we would end up with a stronger and more workable piece of legislation. In the end we have to take the government at its word that it would in fact like to secure a working forest zone in British Columbia. To do that we must respond to local and regional concerns, and we must be sure that local and regional decision-makers play an active role in reaching conclusions with regard to the forest land reserve. That is not reflected in the bill to date. I believe consultation with those jurisdictions would help us create a better bill, a more workable bill and a bill that would provide the kind of security that has been referred to earlier by other speakers who spoke against the hoist motion.

[2:45]

When we look at the issues before us, it is also important to note that there are a number of problems we have experienced in terms of the agricultural land reserve which remain as part of the Forest Land Reserve Act. The appeal to the cabinet is not something that I think will hold up in terms of long-term public policy. We've been trying to remove agricultural land appeals from the cabinet. I understand that the cabinet has finally decided it's time to remove Motor Carrier Commission appeals from the cabinet because of the obvious problems that that created. I believe we have to do the same thing with regard to the Forest Land Reserve Act. That has not taken place. The forest land reserve can be selectively overruled by cabinet with an order-in-council.

I think we should learn from the mistakes of the past instead of simply trying to ride roughshod over the communities of British Columbia and setting up a system where it may be possible to treat your friends differently than you would treat the general public. Far from providing the kind of local input that the minister claims the bill does, I think there is every possibility that this bill will actually prevent local governments from passing regulations and bylaws that are well within their proper domain. It seems to me that we have to restructure the way we think about these policies to make sure that local communities are fully informed and fully involved in the decision-making.

I'm also concerned with regard to the sections of the bill that deal with the recapture. These definitions again seem to be arbitrarily decided and are really based on an ideology that says if you own private land, you're bad; and if you don't, you're okay. The fact of the matter is that the recapture provisions have no real basis in economics. It is not possible for us to look at the recapture provisions and say with any kind of certainty what situation will evolve. Eventually what you do is freeze opportunities in 

[ Page 12722 ]

communities throughout this province for active and sensible use of their land base which will meet their requirements, not the requirements of some ideologically driven policy from the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It seems to me that when you talk about the recapture tax, you're getting into an enormous can of worms -- which it is necessary, frankly, to fully canvass, with all that may be involved with regard to this act.

So when we ask that this act be hoisted for six months, that the public actually be brought in and that the clauses of the bill be reviewed in detail, what we are asking is that we open up the government so that what can be an important cornerstone of public policy is fully perused and is not subject to the kinds of problems which we've already found with the Forest Practices Code and which I'm sure will be found as we go through the bill.

I would urge the House to approve the amendment put forward by the member. I believe hoisting the bill is in the best interests not just of the forests of British Columbia but of the communities and the working families of British Columbia. They are counting on us to carry out sensible public policy that reflects their needs and concerns, not some ideological myth that people don't seem to be able to get their hands on.

Private ownership of land is not something we have to denigrate or fear. Proper public policy includes bringing citizens into the process of drafting legislation so that we all understand what the keys of it are going to be and how we can provide for the security that's required while we are protecting people's private property rights and protecting the forests for the future.

C. Evans: I rise to oppose the hoist motion and the Leader of the Opposition trying to take out of this Legislature the most important thing that's happened in this Legislature in the last ten years.

I think this is what the editorial writers like to call the defining moment of this session of parliament. I want to call the attention of all the people outside this building who consider themselves supporters of the environment and all the forest workers in British Columbia, who have had incredible anxiety over the last few years about the future of their lives, to this moment and this speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to call the attention of the tens of thousands of people who place their faith and their hopes in the CORE process to this moment.

We have gone through two years of argument and dialogue in this province, attempting to resolve the land use issues: where will we work and what will we preserve? We have come to the moment of a plan, and the Leader of the Opposition stands here and says to the people of B.C.: "You're not finished yet; we want to talk for another six months." My God, the gall of the man! Was he at the table attempting to work out the future of their land base with the communities? I don't think so. He was out hustling votes, to see if he could pirate a political party, while the people of Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays were attempting to resolve these issues.

Interjections.

C. Evans: Listen to them, hon. Speaker. The folks without answers have nothing but noise -- sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Maybe I'll just talk to the folks at home. I'm going to start back a few years' time to attempt to put this moment in history in some perspective. In 1986 I had the good fortune to run for office in B.C. What a lot of people may not know -- but I'm sure all of you do, including the folks who are yelling at me -- is that when you run for office some of you is full of hope and some of you is full of bravado, but there is also an element of fear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair was diverted for a second, and it's very obvious that you can't do that around here. I would ask the members to please come to order, to allow the hon. member to proceed with the debate.

C. Evans: It's okay, hon. Speaker. I am reminded of that famous line: "The lady doth protest too much."

The Speaker: Mind you, hon. member....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. When the Chair calls members to order, it applies to all members -- those on their feet as well as those in their places. We are here to debate the hoisting of the bill, and I would appreciate it if members would concentrate on the matter before us.

C. Evans: With as much seriousness as I can bring to bear on the moment -- and in the present company -- I would like to say that I rise to speak against the hoist motion. This is the moment in time to pass this quite excellent legislation.

I would like to back up and give some perspective to this moment, because sometimes in the theatrics and the drama of what we do, we forget where we came from and why we're doing it. I was trying to say that in 1986 when I was working as a bulldozer driver, I had the good fortune to run for office. And sometimes during that election....

Interjections.

C. Evans: Yes, hon. member, skidding logs.

Sometimes during that election I would go home at night and think about the problems that faced British Columbia in the work that I did, and the lack of hope -- in fact, I'd say the despair -- that pervaded our communities on land use issues. And I would say to myself: "Gee, it's a real conundrum. I want with all my heart to win this election 20 days from now, 19 days from now, ten days from now, but I would hate to admit to the public the trepidation that I have about actually having to sort out these problems, because if the truth be known, they're bigger than any of us." If the truth be known, we were coming off 30 years of land use exploitation that was utterly without management principles.

I lost that election. For a while I was relieved of the obligation of having to sort out the mess. But an incredible thing happened, which I could never have believed in: it began to get worse. Looking up from 1986, at the moment of the election, it looked like we were at a time when the absence of law in how we used land, the absence of sustainable harvest levels and the absence of a 

[ Page 12723 ]

land use planning system and ethic had created a situation as bad as it could get anywhere.

Then the previous administration proceeded to prove me wrong by increasing harvest levels to where they knew no sensible arithmetic, biology or honest politics could justify it. By creating a war in British Columbia between different interests in every region, and by demeaning the good efforts of the civil service and making the people charged with the management of this land believe that they were disregarded by the people who work in this place, they made the situation a great deal worse. They allowed and encouraged the buying out of the little companies that were left by huge monopolies. They created a situation where a great many of the people who believed in land use management were forced into a preservationist mode and believed the only way to protect land was to lock it up.

Then came 1991, and I had that same internal debate I'd with myself in 1986: "I'd really like the challenge of trying to unravel these problems, but my God -- what a job!" Now it was not only the legal, fiscal, ethical and biological problems that we inherited from 30 years of absence of management, but it was the polarity of the people who had learned to fight one another -- exemplified in this House by the uproar we experienced ten minutes ago.

When we were elected, we had several jobs to do right off the bat. I won't belabour the point, but I'm trying to set this moment in historical context. From the day we walked into this place, there had been no stable government for five years. Nobody had been even attempting to resolve any of these questions -- no fiscal government, accountability or budget for two years. It was pretty clear what job number one was. Job number one was to stop the racing locomotive, to somehow capture in time this runaway economy and the chaos brought to bear upon the land by the absence of government in the previous administration. We did that. We spent the first year bringing some fiscal accountability to British Columbia and returning some faith in government, so the people then would allow us the credibility to have the right and the obligation to have the debates that led to this day.

[3:00]

The previous administration didn't deal with problems. They just created myriads of commissions. Every time somebody said, "Here's a problem; let's deal with it," they said: "No, let's get some people to talk about it." They created the old-growth committee and the round tables; every single issue had its own table somewhere. And no one was charged with solving the problem.

That was job two. Once we brought fiscal accountability to this province and some respect again for government, then we set up the tables in the regions where the biggest problems were -- which is where none of the folks who are shouting at this moment actually live. A whole bunch of people came to those tables with goodwill, some came with a great deal of cynicism and some came with a great deal of hope. While those folks talked in those communities, this government set about to try to build a legislative framework for planning for the future.

Hon. Speaker, with the entrance of this bill, on which a hoist motion is actually being debated -- those folks are asking us to take it out of here -- you see the last of the seven components of a land use strategy being brought in by this government.

It started with the Treaty Commission. Everybody here knows you can't build a house without a foundation, and the foundation underneath this house has been missing for a hundred years.

Second -- and some of these folks may not think it's relevant or even remember it -- we had to bring in AOX standards on dioxin so that when we made something out of wood, we could sell it. We had a reputation on the world market as pirates. The second step in land use was to clean up our act so that when we had a product, we could feel proud of that product.

Then came the third step, which may have been the one that took the most guts. The former Minister of Forests said: "The annual allowable cut is not sustainable. We can't live up to false numbers, build an economy, sit in here and have any integrity in our jobs. We're going to recalculate it based on real numbers. We're going to tell the truth." Maybe the bravest thing any government anywhere can do is tell the truth.

Then came the fourth step. We said: "On this Island, where every single inch is contentious, we will allow the CORE table to resolve land use questions in the Megin and in the Carmanah."

In the fifth step we said that we would increase the resource rents on wood to an honest value for the first time. We'd stop giving away for nothing what God has grown here and what we as people are processing here. Then we said we'd take that money in the forest renewal plan, and we wouldn't spend it in this building; we'd spend it replacing the very value that we cut down in the first place. It's a kind of economic sustainability. It's a notion of investment that mirrors the biological idea of stewardship of the earth. We would steward the resources that make the money that comes through this place.

Then came the sixth piece of the legislative framework for our future: the Forest Practices Code. We said that since it takes a ticket to have the right to fix the motor on my cat, and since it takes a welding ticket to fix the canopy on my cat, maybe it would be a good idea if we made some rules and had an educational component on actually driving the thing. Maybe since we have a motor vehicle code that says where the trucks go -- on the right side or the left side -- and we've got all kinds of codes for the people who fly airplanes, and we even have codes for the people who talk on radio, we could make up some rules about how to go to work in our number one industry.

The seventh piece in this framework is some way to get closure. The people whose politics are dependent on the battle don't ever want to see it end -- do you, hon. member? They don't want any limits on the amount of land that preservationists want, and they don't want any limits on what corporations can do with their land, because as long as there is a fight, they've got a political future. What the people need is closure, finality, certainty and a hope that the debate will come to an end and that we'll actually manage the land. Closure requires that we finally have the guts to stand here and say: "This is a park, and this is a working forest." That's now item No. 7 in a house that we can actually live in and that won't blow over in the first big wind or wash away in a flood -- a house that is sustainable. It is actually the issue of debate here today. We got to item No. 7. We got closure on the issue; we got closure on the political future of some of the people in this room. They want to hoist it and take it out of here, because they can't possibly run for office if it gets through here.

Let's talk about this item No. 7 now. Let's talk about the law that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take 

[ Page 12724 ]

out of here. What does it say? It says that all the land that people have been getting tax breaks for as managed forest land, for a real long time, will be managed forest land forever. They got all that advantage.

Shell Oil, where I live.... Shell Oil is not exactly my neighbour. When my neighbours think of the property rights that you folks have been yapping about, they think they're neighbourly property rights: the water that comes on their farm and the title to their land. Shell Oil's right to land is a property right that they can't relate to. Maybe even closer to where I live, there's a forest I actually worked in that belongs to some people called Pluto Darkwoods. They aren't even Canadian folks. Those are property rights as defined by some people in another country. We're not talking about taking away their land, and I wouldn't want to. We saying that since they've been getting a tax advantage for managing that land, they pay even less taxes than I pay, than you pay or than any of my neighbours pay, because it's managed forest land. Maybe they'd be willing to keep it managed forever. That's all this says, and maybe they'd be willing to pay a little bit if they took it out some day.

Members of the opposition are saying that this is all about ideology and property rights. I'm here to tell you that this is about a future, because the other half of the land that's going into the forest reserve is our land. It's the people's land out there, which we have been fighting about on TV, on the Kennedy Lake bridge and in the courtrooms and the newspapers of this province for years. We're saying that that land -- not just any land; maybe not the land where the folks who are yelling live -- where we have gone through a hard process, the CORE process, will be working forest, and this will be parkland. If it has gone through a process, been recommended to government and government says it's still forest land, then there will be closure. It will go into the reserve, and you can bet on it, you can count on it, you can raise kids on that basis: it will be forest reserve land.

We are doing it to ourselves. This wonderful place, British Columbia, where the people have had the wisdom to maintain ownership of the land in spite of the occasional political party walking into this place and suggesting that we sell it, where the people have been wise enough to hang on to the land.... People are now going to be wise enough to define it and say: "Look, you guys, we can't have this debate forever. It's got to be one thing or another, and some of it's going into forest reserve."

I want to tell you a little bit of a story....

Interjections.

C. Evans: This issue doesn't look the same to all of us, and it's not anybody's fault, and it doesn't just have to do with what party you're in. There are people in this building who are shouting at me that the people have to have a say over what happens to that land. They're opposed to the idea that it's going into the forest reserve without some kind of process. It's not their fault; their ignorance is not their fault. They work hard, and they work here. They don't know that in Williams Lake, Quesnel, Slocan City, New Denver, Creston and Nanaimo, they've been going through that process for two years. They are finished with the process, and they need to be finished with the fight.

I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, why we need to bring an end to this conversation and why we don't want to go on talking for another six months or another six years.... I was in a conversation with....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The comments between members and making aspersions about members personally are entirely out of place. The Chair is prepared to tolerate a certain amount of levity, obviously. All members know that a certain amount of humour is appropriate. However, we should be cognizant of the need for decorum at all times, and I would encourage members to simply try to restrain themselves as much as possible from interjecting.

C. Evans: I want to tell you a sort of sad story, and a story I hope we're going bring an end to here, about why we need to do this thing. I was in a meeting with some educators and a whole bunch of representatives of the forest industry from the Kootenays the other day, and we were talking about how to involve young people in the future of the forest industry, in wanting to design and make things out of wood.

A woman representing one of the sawmills told us that ILMA -- the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association -- representing many companies from the Okanagan and east has for many years had a $500-a-year bursary which they give out as an award to the young boy or girl child of an employee of one of their member companies who chooses to go into one of the forestry schools in B.C. in any part of the forestry study area. She said that for the last five years, that $500-a-year bursary has gone begging. Not one child of one forest worker has for five years chosen to follow in the profession of their parents. Why is that?

I would submit it's because forest workers know that in the chaos that has been industrial forestry in British Columbia, the companies are ensuring through automation and eating one another in industrial expansion that there is not a future for a great many of those forest workers and their children. The government, through pillaging the wealth that comes out of the forest, has been ensuring that there was no future. All too many of them believe that the environmental debate will never set a solid goalpost that they can depend upon, and the movable goalpost too will see to it that they have no future. One of the reasons why we have to have this debate now -- the Leader of the Opposition and the third party are dead wrong about wanting to take this measure out of this Legislature -- is to say that there will be closure on the indecision. There will be an investment in the industry, and starting right now those young people can look forward to a future in the industry of their parents.

I want to make a couple of predictions in closing. I want to go out on a limb here and suggest that I can make some guesses about what this legislation will actually mean for this place and for British Columbia.

Firstly, I'd like to predict that beyond all the sound and fury, sometime this afternoon, tonight or next week, the opposition will stand up and actually vote for it. I think they understand that they're looking at a moment of the future -- the future of the land, of the province; maybe their own political future -- and I don't think they can face any of those three options having voted no on this bill.

[3:15]

[ Page 12725 ]

Secondly, I would predict that the positive impact of this piece of legislation will remain in force in British Columbia beyond the political career of you or me or anybody in this room. I think that this law, refined over time, will outlive us all and be seen by future generations as the day we put an end to the fight and began the biology and the good management of our land base.

Thirdly, I'd like to predict that once we get past the debate about this hoist and pass this piece of legislation, we're going to begin to think of creative ways to use the legislation. I'll give you an example. Where I live in the Kootenays, we have a tremendous amount of unmanaged forest land -- 25,000 hectares in my constituency alone. This law, as everyone understands it, does not affect unmanaged forest land or the property rights of those owners. I would suggest that sometime next year, or in the future, we're going to think up ways to offer people incentives to put their land into managed forest land, to take on a management plan, to hire a forester and to learn how to manage their land. Over time, through incentives, we will increase the commercial forest base in British Columbia.

Fourthly, I predict that this piece of legislation will ensure that the previous Minister of Forests and the present Minister of Forests of this government will both go down in history as the ministers who ended the chaos and began the modern era of a land ethic and land use management in British Columbia.

Lastly, I'm going to predict that all of the seven foundations of our forest policy that we've brought into this room thus far are going to have the effect of chilling the international boycott on our forest products, which has threatened us with the kind of future Newfoundland has experienced with the seal hunt. More than that, I'm going to predict that it will end the uncertainty in communities, in the hearts of forest workers and their children, about whether we will ever face the biologically -- not commercially -- driven fiscal disaster that is modern Newfoundland and the fisheries. These pieces of legislation, and this piece of legislation, will ensure that the land is there, that the trees are on the land and that there will never be a Grand Banks future for British Columbia.

Thanks for letting me talk so long, hon. Speaker. I'm really sorry that the folks who moved this hoist motion have left the room. I would like to believe that some of them might have been moved by this discussion and that they would change their minds and get on with it. Either way -- if my prediction is right and they're going to vote for it, or if my prediction is wrong and they're going to vote against it -- I want them to vote in the daytime, while the folks at home are still awake and while the people of B.C. can watch them make up their minds.

G. Wilson: I rise to speak against the amendment and in favour of the bill. We have to recognize that there is a time when politicians must end their political posturing and that there is a need to come forward with a tangible, workable plan for land use management in British Columbia. Notwithstanding the fact that we debated well into the early hours of the morning -- something that I found objectionable -- a related bill, the Forest Land Reserve Act is the first step toward what I believe has been necessary in this province for the last 30 years. In fact, I have been advocating it and speaking in favour of it, both as a resource economist since 1974, and as a politician since 1985.

The Forest Land Reserve Act is not perfect, and I would be the first to say that. I think some things within the act should be looked at, reviewed and amended. When we get to committee stage of the bill, we'll have an opportunity to look at that in some detail. But for the first time, it provides an attempt to establish a set-aside area, or a zoned area, that will be predominantly used for harvesting timber and for the support of the forest industry. I think it's important to note that it does not preclude a joint-use approach toward that land. Similarly, while it does include private land -- and I feel very strongly about private property rights, and I know that that was discussed earlier this morning in the debate on the bill before the amendment was moved -- it does not in any way negate the opportunity for owners of private property to have security. So I think it's unjustified to argue that somehow there's a removal of private property rights through the implementation of this act. I don't believe that's so.

Another principle that the government really needs to be applauded for in bringing it forward -- and I think you have to give recognition where it's due -- is that it takes into account that private property owners have deferred taxes against lands that have been essentially taxed at incredibly low forest rates, and it allows for those people, once those lands have been transferred into a new use -- residential often, or commercial; sometimes industrial -- to pick up that deferment and pay it into the public trust. I don't think there's anything philosophically or morally -- or economically, even -- objectionable about that principle, because in that instance people have had an opportunity.... Let's be serious. If you study the history of Canada, a lot of the companies that had these large tracts of land were initially granted land for the construction of a railway to resist the continental forces that existed and still do exist -- and, some might argue, exist even more strongly now than before -- with our neighbours to the south.

There is massive potential with respect to timber rights in those land grant areas. If they are converted into different land uses, they should provide that landowner with an opportunity for profit -- profit gained on land where they have essentially had taxation deferred. Therefore in principle I think it is sound to argue that if that land is going to be converted to high-profit use, since it has been held at relatively low or no tax levels, those payments should be made. That is a provision in this act, and I think that in principle we have to support that proposition.

Bill 56 is not perfect. The reason I don't support the hoist motion is that I don't think we'd be in any different position six months hence than we are now in terms of debating the content of this bill. As for the matter of the lack of consultation that has been widely discussed by members of the opposition and refuted by members of government, I think there could be and should be wider consultation and understanding on this bill. But we don't need to hoist the bill for six months in order for that to come about, because this is step one in what I believe must be a three-step process for an integrated land management system in British Columbia. In a manner similar to the agricultural land reserve, we have attempted -- or the government is attempting here.... Because of the seriousness of the implications of not doing something like this, I say with all sincerity that I hope that we as legislators, as elected members from constituencies -- some of us are from constituencies that depend on the 

[ Page 12726 ]

forest industry -- can come together and work together for a change, which would be kind of a nice change, to make this proposition work in the interests of the people. That's what we're really elected to do, although sometimes that's hard to discern from what goes on in this House.

Nevertheless, if we work together to recognize this as step one, then surely step two must be a movement toward putting in place a comprehensive land inventory that will support the basis upon which this forest reserve land is going to be set down. We'll do so in conjunction with other interests that relate to the mining interests, the fisheries interests, the agricultural interests and the tourism interests of the province -- and yes, to the residential, commercial and industrial sectors that are equally as vital if the communities in this province are to be able to prosper and to succeed. So this is indeed the first step of that three-pronged approach.

After having done that inventory, the third piece of this puzzle is to put in place an economic strategy that meshes with this land use plan that we have embarked upon and that recognizes as a fundamental part of it the limits to growth that we must experience if we are to be economically and socially successful in the long term.

In debate this morning, I believe the member for Parksville-Qualicum was the only person who stood up and talked to any degree with respect to the demographics and trends in population growth in British Columbia. This is a critical component that seems not to be looked at with any degree of seriousness in the long-term economic growth and development strategies -- economic, social, political or indeed in land use questions. It must be looked at, because of the demand being placed upon forest land now -- which this bill seeks to address, or redress in some instances -- with respect to the establishment of that reserve because of encroachment by residential and commercial properties into what have traditionally been forest lands. If anybody believes that that is going to cease and those pressures will diminish or go away, they are wrong.

The proof of that is in the agricultural land reserve and the kind of commentary we heard from the member for Chilliwack this morning, who stood up and said that in some meeting -- I don't know the nature of the meeting the member was at; it was in Kelowna, I believe -- people were actively advocating trashing and getting rid of the agricultural land reserve. It sounded like -- and I don't want to put words in that member's mouth -- that has now become the policy of the official opposition. I would hope that we would recognize that that is not so -- and I certainly hope it is not so. I know the member well, and I believe that member would be the last person in this Legislature who would support such a move, and I certainly hope it remains that way.

But those pressures are going to be on this particular land reserve. Whether it's forest reserve or agricultural land reserve, those pressures will be there. If this is to work in the long term, notwithstanding the Forest Practices Code, the protected areas strategy, the CORE process and all the other things we have heard about in this debate today, and in debate on this amendment to hoist for greater consultation, we must recognize a limits-to-growth economic and social strategy in this province. The most successful politicians in the next generation, and probably in this generation, will be those who can come out with a workable economic plan that embraces limits-to-growth strategies and that recognizes that you can put in place limits to growth without stopping expansion and growth of economies within our local communities, and that we can do that through a decentralization of our economic and social system rather than by an ever-increasing centralization of control in a provincial government. If I had any objection to this whole forest strategy.... This minister knows full well the objection that this does centralize control and that it does not provide the degree of decentralization that I believe is necessary and essential if we are to make this work.

I don't think we should be trying to hoist this for six months. That is not going to provide any greater degree of consultation than a reasonably swift passage of this bill might effect to allow us an opportunity over the summer and fall to start to recognize how this will be a workable plan for Vancouver Island and, as it may be a model or a pilot for other regions, how it will hopefully encompass and embrace all of British Columbia.

[3:30]

The second item that has been raised in debate on this hoist motion -- and I would speak to the bill, as I may not have opportunity later on to come back to this in the main motion.... We have heard from this government that somehow this plan, as part of their overall economic strategy for forest renewal, is going to protect against job loss in the forest industry. I believe that is a fundamentally dishonest statement, because this plan will not mitigate against job loss. Neither will Forest Renewal B.C. or the new Forest Practices Code, in its integration with the forest renewal plan, mitigate against job loss, because there are more jobs lost in the forest sector due to the movement toward a machine-driven industry than there are due to the removal of timber. We have to recognize that, as we become more and more pressured by international economic considerations to make sure we deliver fibre at a competitive price onto the international market. We're going to have to become a whole lot more efficient with the timber that we're taking out today than with timber that may be taken out in the future. That's why I think -- in looking at this particular plan, if we were to acknowledge it, accept it and to move forward with it -- it's very important that we recognize and communicate to the people of British Columbia the need for a limits-to-growth economic strategy in concert with this. That's the third plank in a three-part platform upon which this project should be advanced.

I offer that concept to the government in a spirit of cooperation with respect to finding a proper median ground so that we can start to get rid of some of the fear that exists -- and there is a lot of fear right now among people in the small communities that are dependent on the forest industry. I offer it to be constructive in my commentary in this debate. In terms of the historical record, I truly believe that within ten years' time, certainly within the next generation, those of us who sit in this House will be somewhat irrelevant to the processes that the next generation are going to have to deal with, unless we take some concrete action right now to recognize the very clear environmental warning signs and the very clear economic and social trends that are starting to affect communities -- especially the rural communities -- in British Columbia.

This is a good first step toward a forest land plan, if I can use that term to separate it from the other components that this government has attempted to bring in. Without a doubt, this is the key piece of legislation that this government has attempted to bring in. I'm not going to get into a long diatribe about its timing. I think the 

[ Page 12727 ]

minister and the members of the government know my feelings about the timing and the wisdom of pushing debate into the early hours of the morning. That does not do justice to the bill, and it certainly diminishes the dignity of the members who are elected to this chamber. They should be fresh, to come forward in debate with vigour and informed ideas and to give positive comment, so the people of British Columbia know that there are sensible and sound voices speaking out on their behalf. That's who we are here to try to represent. We're not supposed to be here looking to the next election. We should be here looking toward the next generation, to make sure that generation has the wealth that lies within the public trust protected for them. That's our mandate, and that's what we should be trying to accomplish.

In my closing remarks on this hoist motion, I would say that there needs to be wider consultation. It is time that we recognize that this is indeed a positive first step. It is not a perfect bill, and I'll be the first to say so in committee stage, where I will be offering some positive commentary to improve and enhance this bill. It must be brought forward in concert with the other two planks that I mentioned in my speech. I don't think that this will be a workable plan until I hear from the government members in this House that they are prepared to seriously consider embarking upon a new economic strategy to take us into a new economic paradigm that talks about a limits-to-growth strategy.

Few people understand it, and now is not the time to enter into it in detail. It doesn't mean halting development. It doesn't mean that we all have to go backwards into the 1920s. It doesn't mean that we have to give up the opportunity for local communities to have local control and to be able to expand to meet their needs and their concerns. What it does mean is that we have to recognize that there are limits to our ability to expand and consume, without paying an enormously high price. In the sense that this bill is the first step toward the implementation of such a limits-to-growth strategy, I think it is worthy of support and assistance. I hope there will be wide consultations on the regulations that accompany this bill, because it is in the regulations and the implementation of those regulations that we will need to have the kind of input that I think the minister alluded to in his opening comments.

There are few times when members can come together to do something that is workable and positive for the province. I believe that Bill 56 is one of the times that we can come together and shelve, however temporarily, the partisanship that tends to be pervasive among politicians and recognize that we have to do something for the people of British Columbia. We have to take some steps to look after and protect the long-term interests of those forest-dependent communities, we have to recognize the economic and environmental warning signs that are out there, and we must put a new strategy in place.

Those who think we can go back to the 1980s have their heads in the sand. They are not looking at the realities of what's out there today. This bill has already transcended us -- we're into a new movement with respect to the management of the lands of this province and a new strategy toward forest renewal.

Rather than entertaining hoist motions and playing more partisan politics on this question, we need to have speedy passage of this bill. This amendment should not pass. I believe this minister should live up to his commitment to consult the communities widely on regulations and on how we can implement this so we can do something positive for all British Columbians and put a sense of hope back into those communities that are dependent on the forest industry.

A. Warnke: I won't take the full time, but I do want to make a few comments in support of the hoist motion put forward by the member for Surrey-White Rock. It really comes from a premise that.... I hear government members putting forward their rationale and arguments in favour of this bill. We've said, incidentally, that the direction is generally where we're headed as well. I should also mention what other members mentioned. I was surprised that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made a reference to the member for Chilliwack. I believe that if that member were to take a look at the context of that part of the member's speech, he would see that the member actually talked about what people were saying. I'm afraid the comment was taken out of context.

But back onto the main point. When I heard government members put this bill forward and defend it, I was really struck by the tone of attack on the forest industry. That's one thing that I think might raise a cause for concern. Even if I shared some of the ideas that were asserted by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I would like to point out that one cannot necessarily say that because one can agree with the principle and general directions, the premise and approach have to be paid attention to as well. So the tone of attack on the forest industry, the claim by many government members that this bill is profound.... I've heard this several times today. If it is that profound, then surely what must be needed is some consultation way beyond what has been experienced in this bill.

As pointed out by the Minister of Forests, this is a package of three forest bills designed by the government to make the forests secure. That is one rationale, but as I've heard members defend this package and this particular bill, I really feel that the government has not consulted. It's obvious to a number of people throughout British Columbia that they have not consulted widely or even narrowly.

That raises cause for concern. It's not a matter of a hoist motion just for the sake of just delaying stuff for six months because we have nothing better to do. There is a rationale, a premise from our perspective that something is not quite all right with this bill. Indeed, many members before me -- the member for Peace River South, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the member for Chilliwack, the member for Surrey-White Rock -- put forward quite eloquently some genuine concerns about the possible or real effect of this bill on private property rights. And this is essentially the reason I don't have to repeat what they have said.

We're not talking about bogus corporations or multinationals and what not. I'm really sick and tired of hearing from some of those members who have nothing better to do than to resurrect the whole bogey of imperialism. I mean, get real; this is the 1990s.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

There was not an attempt to address the important problem raised by the member for Peace River South with regard to native land claims. I know some people would like to ignore that, but let's face it, we are in a very tricky, peculiar period right now when we deal with this very 

[ Page 12728 ]

sensitive issue. If you don't believe me, ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The minister and I have debated this at length, and we know how sensitive that issue is.

I really do personally feel as well that somewhere along the line we need to get a grasp on the state of the forest industry. In debate on a bill earlier in this session -- it seems like years ago, but it was only a couple of months ago -- I made it vividly clear, as I have for the last six years at least, what this province needs, what the previous government neglected to do and what this government neglects to do, and that is a comprehensive land inventory.

Surprisingly, this was raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. He says that's a second step. No, I believe it is long overdue. It's been stated by so many people for several years: this is absolutely essential in order to understand where we're going with the forest industry. That has not been done. The Ministry of Forests has not done it for the last six, ten or whatever years. It so happens that other governments have a better idea of the state of the forest industry in British Columbia than we do ourselves. It's about time that we came to grips with the state of the forest industry, and one way to begin is to start to get a grip on a comprehensive land inventory; then that's where we go from.

I'm very impressed with some of my colleagues on this side who have put forward some of their concerns. Some of their concerns, to my mind, mean that we need support for this motion to hoist the bill for up to six months anyway, or until some point when we are sure there has been an attempt to get in touch with the community.

I know certain members may spell off the names of Creston, Nelson, Cache Creek, Campbell River, Powell River, Prince Rupert and Merritt. It's nice to list a whole bunch of names of places, but I know for a fact that some members opposite haven't even consulted their constituents. I think it would be a darned good idea to get an education out there and get in touch with some of the people in the ridings and get in touch with some of the people who have a direct interest. We're not just talking about some multinationals; we are talking about people who are daily affected by and have a stake in the forest industry.

[3:45]

I would like to see that. Therefore, I don't think it's inappropriate at all to support this motion to go back to the people, to go back to the public, to go back to whomever you have to get in touch with to get a grip on the state of the forest industry and the impact not only of Bill 56 but of the legislation.

I know some government members are very confident that they can go out there on an election issue. I would be happy to go on a campaign on this particular issue. I hope it, I wish it, but it probably won't happen in the next little while.

An Hon. Member: You'll get your wish.

A. Warnke: When?

An Hon. Member: One day.

A. Warnke: One day two years from now when you realize that the people of British Columbia have had it up to here with this government because you failed to consult.

An Hon. Member: You wish.

A. Warnke: My, my, my! If those government members are so confident about the legislation, I challenge them right now: call an election right now, this minute. Get your Premier out here and let's have an election.

I'm voting for the amendment. If these members are confident, then let's have an election issue. But I doubt that. I don't think we're going to see an election, because they have not consulted their communities. They are not really sure. They don't understand why they are low in the polls; they are not really sure what is out there. They hope this is an election issue they can win on, but I guarantee that they will not. When they go back to the communities, they will get an education from the people of the province that this government is way off the track. The people of the province will begin to go back and say: "You government members, do you have a grip on the forest industry? Do you understand the forest industry? Do you have an inventory of the forest industry? Do you understand how many trees are out there?" I'll bet you there is not an answer that any of those members can give to the constituents.

For the good of the province, I think it is extremely important to support this hoist motion, and I firmly support the initiative put forward by my colleague the member for Surrey-White Rock.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

F. Gingell: It is very rare that the right solution to anything is delay. But I also remember my father telling me you should look before you leap. I know it's critically important in situations of this type, where the future of many British Columbians and perhaps all of us and our environment are at stake, to ensure that you're doing the right thing.

Yesterday we as members of this House were subject to committee debate on Bill 40 and to sitting in this House till 4:45 in the morning, with a record number of amendments brought in by the government on a single bill that will not be beaten for many years. Unbelievable! 

[ Page 12729 ]

In a world that starts to measure people's success by the number of records they break, as statistics and number crunching become our goal...

An Hon. Member: A new record for Guinness.

F. Gingell: ...to try and get in the Guinness Book of World Records for the greatest number of amendments to your own bill, because it's badly written and badly thought out.... That is one record I would think this government would try to avoid.

[4:00]

There are occasions when delay is the right thing to do. Let's please listen to everybody, think this whole thing through, find out where the problems are and deal with it within a reasonably short period of time.

An Hon. Member: The Liberals' five-year plan.

F. Gingell: There is a solution here. Instead of dealing with hastily drawn-up legislation that hasn't been thought through and that doesn't recognize people's right to property in the way I know all of us believe it should, we should send this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. That's what that committee is set up to do. It is set up to look at and deal with proposals that will affect the people of British Columbia. And how often does it sit? Virtually never. The select standing committees that this NDP government talked about when they were in opposition -- they suggested that by the use of those committees we would make this Legislature and parliament a more meaningful and productive place -- have been ignored by them. Here is an opportunity for the member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- but really from Delta or Ladner -- to have some real input and to try to make this into a piece of legislation that will work. It bothers me that this whole thing has been cobbled together. Now, that's a good term to use: cobbled together. This is the government which proposed that forest workers should go into the shoe repair business. That's where the money is; that's where the proposals are. They have taken the art of cobbling to heart and have cobbled together this legislation, which has its weaknesses, and it deals with a terribly important subject. So I really do believe that this is one occasion where delay would be wise.

On behalf of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock, I would therefore move that the motion for second reading of Bill 56 be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting the following: "Bill 56 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources."

I would now like to briefly speak to the amendment. From the amount of time that has been spent in developing this bill, the amount of time since the announcements and changed announcements, since the CORE report was tabled, since the Premier's announcements, since they backed down on that and came forward with new proposals, one knows there simply hasn't been enough time. There simply has not been enough time for this government to think through all the consequences of the actions they are taking. As I mentioned earlier, that shows up in this new world record for the number of amendments to their own piece of legislation. I was under the impression that the only world records being made this year are by, I believe, a Jamaican cricketer called Mr. Lara, who is having unbelievable success. But our Minister of Forests, the member for....

An Hon. Member: Saanich South.

F. Gingell: That was one I happen to know. He's north, and you're going south.

I am surprised that the minister wants to make these records. From his years at university, having had the opportunity to mould young minds, to encourage them to think and to look at all of the options, to look before they leap, to consider everything and come to carefully thought-out decisions, particularly when you're dealing with matters that are of such import, I am sure he knows that he doesn't take his own advice.

Surely the NDP backbenchers, who come from all parts of this province, would have the opportunity to have some input into the way in which this piece of legislation is being crafted.

Because my voice is getting tired trying to speak over all the catcalls coming from across the House, I will leave with this one thought. This really is the right occasion to delay and think again. Let's work together to create the right legislation and the right set of rules that will work for all British Columbians and do the things that we all want. We want to protect our environment, we want to protect jobs, and we want to protect families all over this province.

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I want to bring to the attention of the House that I am the first woman to stand in debate today. I would extend to my -- as the government members would say -- sisters in the House that they might want to get their comments on record. I've been following the debate and the debate that went until five in the morning last night. In both instances, it's been sadly lacking in the female gender. So I stand as the first woman today.

I'm standing in opposition to the amendment. I'm also standing here in absolute shock that for the first time in this session we actually have the Liberals in the House with some presence in debate, and they're standing up against what is probably the first really good piece of legislation the government has brought in. They've decided to take Bill 56 as the bill on which they're going to do the Liberals' last stand. Maybe they've been watching the polls of the political parties and have decided they have to do something. So they're going to ride off on their horse on this one -- in the wrong direction. This Forest Land Reserve Act is in fact 30 or 40 years overdue.

It's rather amazing that in the eleventh hour of a session, when we have to get through committee stage of Bill 40, which is something that needs adequate scrutiny, and when we were up until five in morning -- which I think is shameful.... Having debates on important legislation lasting until five in the morning is no way to run a government. We want to have that bill back on the floor as early as possible so that we can have more of our wits about us rather than debating overnight, which is what we're likely to do when the Liberals keep introducing amendments to second reading. The interesting thing about second reading amendments is that all we can do is rehash the principle of the bill that may have been brought up earlier in the debate by the same members of the caucus. Ironically enough, in the last 

[ Page 12730 ]

general election, the Liberal Party ran on a platform of setting aside forest lands in a working forest.

The speech by the member for Nelson-Creston was a very good speech. I watched it at home, and I thought he made some very good points. It reminded me that back in 1990 I heard the member....

D. Jarvis: When you were a member of the NDP.

J. Tyabji: Exactly. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour is saying it was when I was with the NDP. It's true. For a few months in 1990, I joined the NDP, before realizing.... No, don't clap, because I fled for my life when I realized the NDP's strong ties to the unions. But what I was going to say....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: It's interesting, because in 1990 the very progressive provincial Liberal leader, a resource economist, had been abandoned. Some of his progressive policies, one of which was to set aside the forest lands in a working forest, had led to the power brokers in the provincial Liberal Party withdrawing their support. I was so disgusted with the Liberal Party, I even went to the NDP.

While I was there, I heard the member for Nelson-Creston give a very good speech, and his speech today reminded me of that. It was interesting, because -- other than in some of the speeches I'm hearing from the NDP and from the leader of the Alliance, who was then the Liberal leader -- progressive forest policy had not been coming out in B.C. The forest land reserve is long overdue. The present leader of the Alliance took over the Liberal leadership in 1987. When in that speech he said he was extremely frustrated as a resource economist with how inefficiently the government was operating the forest lands and called for a working forest, that twigged some of the progressive thinkers in the party to say: "Yes, the time has come."

Never have I seen such a persuasive argument for leaving the Liberal Party and sitting as a member of the Alliance than the debate we're witnessing today, with the hoist motions coming forward from the Liberal Party. It's a disgrace. I can stand here proudly and say I have the common sense to know good legislation when it comes forward. Now, how it will break down in committee stage.... When we move to committee stage of Bill 56, we can talk about some of the potential difficulties when we look at the history of the agricultural land reserve and the possible politicizing of the forest land reserve, we will, I hope, have the minister's reassurances on the machinery he will put in place to prevent that from happening.

But having said that, even though we're in the eleventh hour, we recognize that if we didn't pass the Forest Land Reserve Act now and in this session, we would have a terrible time over the summer and, no doubt, into the fall. If we didn't have a fall session, it would be a year of forestry practices on private and public land independent of the forest land reserve. That would leave us in a terrible situation, because some of the potential damage might last for decades.

Having said that, I'm speaking very strongly against this amendment. I would urge and plead with the Liberals to go back to their roots and back to the roots that elected them, back to the very policies that elected them....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying they have root rot. I'll leave that for the minister to bring up in debate.

It's unfortunate that the Liberals have left their roots so dramatically that they can't even see a piece of legislation -- one of the few from the government brought forward this session -- that is in line with the progressive policies that got Liberals elected in this province in 1991 and with some of the policies that I stand strongly for, as a member of the Alliance.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise to support this reasoned amendment to Bill 56, the Forest Land Reserve Act. I've been following carefully the remarks of the members opposite and of all political parties with respect to this Forest Land Reserve Act, and there seems to be an implied assumption here that we are creating a forest land reserve that is immune from alienation; we've heard it said repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is that we sat up in this assembly until 5 a.m. this morning, talking about provisions of Bill 40 which would in fact alienate the forest land reserve. The district manager has the power to set aside sensitive areas on both public and private land. Are they subject to a review by the Forest Land Commission? No. The landscape zones that are set up by regional managers -- are they subject to review by the commission before they're alienated? No. The Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the Ministry of Environment will have the power in this province to set aside a recreation site that can come right out of the forest land reserve. Is there any provision in this act for the commission to take a stand there? No, hon. Speaker. There is absolutely no protection -- and I repeat it: no protection -- for the working forest in Bill 56.

[4:15]

Twenty thousand forest workers gathered on the lawns of the Legislative Assembly, near the opening of this session, to point that out to every member of the assembly. I believe they even pointed it out to the members for Okanagan East and for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I'm baffled, because last night the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast stood up in this assembly and debated the potential alienation of the forest land base of the working forest under the Forest Practices Code, and he has not put two and two together. What are we protecting with Bill 56? We are saying that if you have private land in the province of British Columbia, you will now have to apply to a commission to get it out. Oh, the Crown can move in and they can alienate the land all they want to, and that's perfectly acceptable under Bill 56. But a private land reserve is what's being regulated under Bill 56, and there is absolutely no protection for a single forestry worker in the province. That's reality. There is no protection -- none.

It's a complete and utter sham, this particular bill. It sets up a commission supposedly designed to protect forest land, and all it does is require a commission to sit in judgment on those that might want to have their private land taken out of what would be known as a forest designation. There is absolutely no protection from the district manager or the Ministry of Environment. There is no protection now from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They can come and ravage the working forest at will, and this bill will not have a shred of impact on those alienations of the forest land base.

[ Page 12731 ]

It's a complete and utter sham. There's no other explanation for this bill. To have people on that side of the House stand up and suggest that this bill protects the working forests is an insult to the intelligence of every forest worker in the province. They know exactly what the working forest is, even if members opposite, some of whom represent forest-dependent ridings, apparently don't seem to know. It's appalling ignorance -- absolutely appalling.

This bill will not protect the working forest from the largest single alienation that is likely to occur in the next fiscal year, and that is a decision by this government -- now three separate ministries -- to alienate the working forest land base in British Columbia. There is not a shred of protection. And I defy that minister, this member and any of the others who have risen to support this bill to provide one shred of evidence that the working forest in British Columbia is protected.

All this bill has done is draw another circle, and the government likes to draw them all the time. They do one for CORE, they do one for the protected areas strategy, and they've now got the ability under the Forest Practices Code to draw all kinds of little circles for interpretative zones and special sensitive zones and landscape zones right through the middle of this act. That's how big a hole there is with respect to this particular legislation. So obviously the people who rely on the working forest in British Columbia deserve the opportunity over the next six months to scrutinize this bill and make some of these observations, some of these points, to the members in this assembly who have apparently not grasped what the definition of a working forest is in the province.

A working forest, if you go to Port McNeill or Prince George, is pretty basic. It's a cutblock that is filed with the Ministry of Forests that sustains jobs, livelihoods and communities in this province. That's what a working forest is, and I remind the members opposite that if we were to pass this bill tomorrow, the district manager could move into this new zone and decide that an area was a special interpretive zone, and out it would come. We're setting up a forest land reserve, but what are we reserving? What are we reserving if the district manager can come in and decide that a portion of it isn't going to be available for harvest any longer?

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Well, the fact of the matter is that under Bill 40, which we debated last night, the ministry has the power to make those kind of designations.

Does this forest land reserve protect the holder of a licence from the effects of CORE? Would CORE alienate the forest land base under this? Of course it would. Would the government's designation of protected areas strategy -- the parks and wilderness proposal -- alienate the forest land reserve? Yes, it would.

We have drawn a shadow circle with this bill; that's all we've done. We've decided that we're going to create this warm and fuzzy special forest land reserve which has absolutely no import other than to require private land holders to go before a commission to get their land redesignated. That's the only purpose of this bill -- it's designed to punish 20 or so large companies on Vancouver Island, which the government quite correctly feels need to be punished. They haven't had the courage to stand up in this debate and say that. But fine, that's public policy. If that's their approach, fine. Have the courage to stand up and say that you don't believe that MacMillan Bloedel or Fletcher Challenge or any of the other large companies in this province should own private land which has the potential to be alienated. Stand up and say it.

But they haven't offered that kind of assessment. A totally dishonest assessment is what they've offered. They are saying to the working men and women in this province, who could lose their jobs in record numbers: "Hallelujah! We have protected your working forest." It just ain't so. It isn't so under this bill.

It really saddens me when members opposite stand up and talk about principles in this bill, and about the principles they've fought for. I'm telling this assembly today that there are more principles out in the working forests of British Columbia and on the part of the people who go to work every day to earn their living from the land base than I've seen in this assembly in the three months that I've been here. There's more principle in those 20,000 people who gathered on the lawns of the Legislature. Would those 20,000 people be satisfied with this forest land reserve? Would they then go back to their homes throughout the province and say: "My God, the government has protected our jobs and our livelihoods in the province of British Columbia with this bill"? Would they leave satisfied if the government had presented this gobbledegook to them on the steps of the Legislative Assembly?

They'd have seen this bill for the sham that it is, and they'd see this government for the dishonest government that it is. They would recognize that you can draw up all the fancy legislation in the world and give it designations like "forest land reserve," but the reality in the province of British Columbia today is that the Crown can move in and alienate the working forest without one shred of reference to this bill. That's the kind of forest policy we've seen from this government -- dishonest. That's what it is.

We've seen a government that's willing to spend a million dollars of taxpayers' money to push a vision for Vancouver Island. We've seen a government set up 23 parks on Vancouver Island without a single boundary attached to them and suggest to us that that is prudent and responsible land use. Is it any wonder that the forest-dependent workers in this province do not trust a word the government says, when they're dealing with these kinds of fundamental dishonesties? They are being told by this minister and this Premier and this Employment and Investment minister that we have protected their jobs with a working forest preservation act, when in fact it doesn't protect anything. What are they to believe?

The government has challenged the opposition to go to the polls on forest policy. I have no hesitation in going to the polls on an act like this. I have no hesitation in telling the working men and women of British Columbia that this bill is a paper tiger and does not provide one shred of additional protection for the jobs that are dependent on standing timber. I have no hesitation in doing that, because it's a fundamentally dishonest bill. It absolutely amazes me that member after member of this assembly, from every political party, has stood and bought the government's line on Bill 56 that the workers in the province of British Columbia now have their own forest land reserve: "The timber that's inside that little circle we've drawn will never be alienated, because we have prevented the private land holders from building 

[ Page 12732 ]

shopping centres or doing whatever else those nasty companies may want to do with their private land."

It appalls me and it saddens me that where the forest workers in British Columbia, including those in the constituency of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.... They're certainly not in Saanich South; I don't believe too many actually live in that member's riding. It's important for us to note that these forest-dependent communities and the workers know exactly how much protection they have from this government. They know that they have virtually no protection under the current provisions of Bill 56. For that reason alone, this bill, which has an opportunity to really do something to protect jobs and the land base for forestry in British Columbia, needs to go to a select standing committee so it can be gutted and rewritten. I guarantee you that if that bill went to a select standing committee, we wouldn't come back with 80 amendments on the same night that it was introduced in this assembly.

I have no hesitation in supporting the reasoned amendment on second reading. It's vital that this bill, which has the potential to be taken out and reviewed with those forest-dependent communities and workers who are affected by these decisions.... Let's consult them, for a change. When was the last time they had any input? They have to come down here to the lawns with placards and signs. That's the only input this government has offered them.

I invite the members opposite to support this reasoned amendment. Give it to a select standing committee, take it out on the road, go over the bill clause by clause with the workers in Port McNeill and Prince George, and have them tell us how much protection they think is inherent in Bill 56. How much real protection is there? Well, I'll tell this minister that they will tell these members how much protection there is, because the forest workers of this province understand what a working forest is, even if this minister and these members opposite have no idea.

H. Giesbrecht: After listening to that, I couldn't resist making the observation that you have just witnessed what sleep deprivation can do to you, and it's obvious that some are more susceptible to sleep deprivation than others.

About five hours ago I was listening to the opposition comments, and they were that this was really not a bad idea, but that we needed to consult more with the public and we needed to go out there and get the public onside. Now, imagine this: it's five hours later, and the same member is saying that the bill isn't strong enough. I have some difficulty with that line of reasoning.

The comment has often been made by the official opposition that the people need to have their say on this. The member for Delta South said the idea had been cobbled together. It's like they have this notion that maybe Bill 56 arose out of some dream a week ago. That's really not the case. There have been all kinds of consultations about the Forest Practices Code in the last little while, and people have consistently said they want a designated managed forest. By repeated amendments and delays we are being told that, while we heard the message that came back from those consultations, we're now supposed to go back and say: "Do you really want this now, after you told us that's what you wanted in the first place?" I'd say that would be nothing more than a colossal waste of time.

[4:30]

The public has been consistently asking for some certainty in the forest industry in terms of where the managed forest will be. There have been protected areas strategies to identify those areas that are to be set aside, and there are discussions about land claims. But the other side of the coin is that forest lands are to be designated so that everybody knows the rules and everybody can then tell what sort of viable industry we'll have in the future. An awful lot of issues have threatened forest companies and workers over the years, and access to wood is certainly one of them. If we can't set aside a forest land reserve, then that access will continue to be threatened. They have been asking for certainty, and I am confident that this bill is a very good start down that road.

The interesting thing -- and it's been mentioned before -- is that on April 15 the member for Surrey-White Rock said in the newspaper that "the investment is great." He was talking about the forest renewal plan. He added that there should be a guarantee of land designated as a "working forest zone." What happened from April 15 to now that we suddenly have to listen to this diatribe from the same member -- that suddenly this isn't strong enough five hours after it was pretty good, but we have to consult...? Perhaps I could suggest that the member may have received his walking papers or his marching orders from the Leader of the Official Opposition. But you still have to wonder: why the change? What happened in that short time? You'd almost think that he'd received thousands of letters and phone calls from people saying: "No, we don't want this." I've repeatedly had calls and comments from people that say yes, they do; this is a good idea. But the hon. member has received thousands of calls saying: "No, we don't want this. We don't want a forest land reserve right now. Wait six months, wait a year, wait indefinitely, and maybe the problem will go away."

This is excellent legislation. It's a reaction to a need that was expressed in the consultations on the Forest Practices Code, and I think it should be recognized for that. The demand for more delays, the demand for referrals, is nothing more than cheap politics at its worst and shortsightedness at its best. We should get on with it, and I challenge the members opposite who have aspirations in my constituency in the next election to vote against this bill.

M. Farnworth: I've listened to a dead-stump opposition over the last few hours as they've been trying first to hoist and now to delay further a piece of legislation that is the final plank in a platform this government put forward to end the war in the woods, to secure a future for the forest communities of this province, to secure a future for the forest workers of this province and to secure the long-term future of the markets of this province, upon which our economic future and our economic destiny depend. And what have we heard? We have heard nothing but negative criticism from the opposition. When the rest of the province -- whether it's been the forest companies, the forest unions or the environmental community -- have been coming together in praising this government and in working with this government to achieve a solution to a crisis that has been brewing in the forest industry and in the forest communities over the last few years, this opposition has been floundering around because of a lack of policy.

And now at this late hour they have decided that it's an issue that's important to the province, to the forest communities, to the environmental groups and to the forest companies that have been working with the government to try to do something. They have suddenly 

[ Page 12733 ]

decided they had better do something. But heaven forbid that they could possibly support a commonsense program like the one this government has put forward.

No, what they want is six months' delay, six months' uncertainty in our markets, six months' uncertainty in the forest communities on Vancouver Island and six more months of battles between preservationists and loggers. That's what they want, so they can get their act together and find out what the forest industry truly means to this province.

I think it's sad when we have an opposition that, when you mention the forests in this province and how important they are, and when you think of things like the hemlock and how much it contributes to the economy, and the aspen in the north Peace River area.... What do they think of when they hear the names hemlock and aspen? They think of ski resorts. That's their idea of forest policy.

We have an opposition that thinks a fir tree is a place you hang a mink coat. That's the depth of their policy. They think of mountain ash as what's left over after a forest fire. We have an opposition leader who thinks arbutus is a street in Vancouver. He doesn't seem to understand that what's important in this province is the forests, which are the backbone of our provincial economy. What's also important is the effort this government has made in bringing forward legislation to secure our long-term future.

C. Tanner: And wiping out 3,000 jobs.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member talks about wiping out jobs, and he talks about who is supporting us. Well, Peter Bentley supported us on forest renewal, and the IWA has come out in support of our forest plans. Up and down the island and throughout this province people are seeing that this government has a plan and a vision for where we need to be going, and they're willing to come together to give that plan an opportunity to work. This piece of legislation is vital to that plan. Instead of getting on board with other responsible opposition members, who put the province's interests first instead of their own self-interests, this opposition wants to delay. That is unacceptable, and it shows the lack of initiative and a lack of policy work by that opposition.

An Hon. Member: Call an election, and you'll find out.

M. Farnworth: When the time comes, we will call an election, and our forest policies will be front and centre of not only an economic program but also an environmental program, and they will show the people of this province the difference between a government that cares about forest workers, forest communities and the environment and an opposition that, as I said before, thinks a fir tree is a place to hang a mink coat.

G. Wilson: I don't intend to speak for very long. I only do so because the member for Surrey-White Rock mentioned me in the context of his remarks, and I think it important that we clarify some of the commentary that came from that member in relation to what I was saying when speaking against the first amendment.

Before I do that, I hear an awful lot of banter and commentary about calling an election now. There's a lot of bravado going on. I would think that the members of the Liberal opposition might want to think back to the last election before they start thinking too far ahead to the next one, with respect to their chances. I think it's important that no member of this Legislative Assembly should take for granted the interests of the people of the province or how those people will vote. It's entirely up to the people to make up their minds, and I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest somehow that it's a fait accompli here, particularly in light of how some of those members managed to get their seat in the first place.

Having said that, let me say that there is no pretence whatsoever -- and neither should there be -- that Bill 56 will set aside intractable lands that can't be used for anything else and can't be removed in any way. If we're going to set aside a working forest, we have to acknowledge that within those lands in which forest practices are going to be governed and managed, there will be watersheds, streams, areas that are sensitive in nature, marshlands, wetlands and all kinds of habitat lands that have to be protected.

I find it incredible that in 1994 an official opposition Forests critic would stand up and say that we should somehow alienate lands in which there is going to be no provision whatsoever for forest practices that would protect watersheds, streams, marshlands and habitat. Good grief, where have these people been? The public, including those people involved in the forest industry -- and, in fact, I would argue, especially those involved in the forest industry, because they have as great an interest, if not greater, in proper, adequate and sound land management as anybody else -- have an interest in making sure that in a provision for an established forest zone, practices that will be permitted in those zones take into account the sensitivity and nature of the kind of land that is being undertaken through harvesting.

That's all this bill says. There is no pretence that we are trying to set it aside and make it intractable in the sense that once it is set aside, there can be no provision for joint stewardship. There is no pretence that we are going to set it aside so that local communities don't have some input or say or control. That's desirable. That's what we're fighting to achieve: to have greater local community input into the management of lands that surround them.

So I find it bizarre, especially in light of the fact that I was sitting with the member for Surrey-White Rock until 5 o'clock in the morning debating Bill 40, which deals with forest practices codes that are trying to put in place the balance needed for sound forest practices that will be manageable, economic and safe for the workers and will protect the environment, that there is no acknowledgement that the code has to apply to a zoned area of land within which forest practices will be given priority. That is what this bill says.

I think it is misleading in the extreme for the member for Surrey-White Rock to suggest that this bill pretends to set aside a working forest in which there is going to be unlimited ability for harvest and for extraction, that there cannot be local management or control and that there can't be a code that is going to regulate how those practices are going to be put forward. It doesn't say that, and I don't think it should say that. That's how forestry operated in the 1920s and 1930s in the province of British Columbia. Every gyppo with a chainsaw and a steam tractor could go in there, drag out logs and try to sell them. It was the heyday of gyppo logging. After that, we moved to the heyday of large multinational corporate logging and the ownership of large tracts of private land.

Nobody is saying that the multinational interest in this province is not a vital, important component in our 

[ Page 12734 ]

economy -- at least I don't hear anybody saying that. What is being said, however, by people in forest communities right up and down the coast and the interior forest sector -- two quite different forests in this province -- is that they want to have greater control and say over how their communities can benefit from the resources that are within their communities' bounds. That is what they are saying. They are saying that they need to have some provision for land zoning established that is going to give them an opportunity to recognize that certain forest practices will apply within those zones.

We have to acknowledge that when we put application of those practices into place, we are going to look after the community watersheds, streams, marshlands and wetlands, and the areas in which special habitat and sensitive areas need to be protected. That is a sensible, proper way to proceed. Bill 56 initiates the lines on the maps that define where that land is going to be.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that the member for Okanagan East is absolutely correct. That was a major plank in the Liberal Party platform. It was taken to the people of the province of British Columbia and put forward by myself as their leader in a televised debate that tended to move us from 7 percent of the poll to 33 percent and official opposition status. It was a major plank, because it was something that people throughout this province were saying was needed.

[4:45]

It is absolutely misleading for any member in this House to confuse the intent of Bill 40. I have problems with some of the material in Bill 40, and I sat here until 5 o'clock this morning trying to get the minister to see my point of view on a whole series of issues. But the Forest Practices Code is not what's at issue with Bill 56. Bill 56 is a question of land designation and of giving provision within that land designation for certain factors to occur. It is a provision with respect to private land holdings. I need to explore some of that in committee stage, because I have some hesitation with the wording on some of that. We need to look at it.

Nobody is saying that this is a perfect bill. In fact, I said it wasn't perfect, but it's better than not doing anything at all. Given the interests that are out there that want to go out and involve themselves in unrestricted harvest, it would be damaging if we were to delay passage of Bill 56. What we need to do now is give swift passage to this bill so we can get that bill out to the communities and get that kind of consultative process going with respect to the fine detail on the management of these zones. We can include the forest industries -- not just the majors, but all of the small mill operators, the people involved in small business programs and other people whose livelihood is dependent -- because in so many communities the economy is tangential to the forest industry.

We have to do something positive for the people of this province for a change. The people constantly hear how bad the situation is and how impossible it is to do anything correctly. As I was travelling in my riding the other day, somebody came up to me and said: "Mr. Wilson, is there ever a government anywhere that can ever do anything right?" The people out there have the feeling that nothing we do is right. It's time that we recognized that a move toward an integrated land management strategy, a proper inventory of resource and a recognition of a limits-to-growth economy in this province is the right move. To the extent that Bill 56 is step one along that path, we can support it. I think we need to stop playing politics with it and get the thing passed.

A. Warnke: Many points that have been raised in this debate do not demand much expansion or, certainly, reiteration. Nonetheless, when one takes a look at Bill 56, based on what has occurred and on some of the presentations in this bill, which is supposedly the forest package, one wonders whether there will be an attempt to break the record held by Bill 40: introducing 80-plus amendments, as the member for Delta South pointed out. Actually, it's not a good comment. If it takes more than 80 amendments -- a record, essentially, and we haven't even finished Bill 40 -- it indicates that this government has not thought through its legislation in Bill 40. If that's possible in Bill 40, it's darned possible that this government has not thought through the legislation in Bill 56, either.

Oh, laugh if you will. When this government introduces bills and it hasn't got a clue what it's doing in terms of legislation, where do you think it is going? I'll tell you where this government is going. This government is going to be swept into the dustbin of history. It will be gone. And why? Because this government has failed to listen to some of the fundamental issues and problems facing this province.

I am also quite surprised that rather than listening to the member for Surrey-White Rock, who raised some very telling and important points and had the courage to actually suggest that maybe something is wrong with regard to the forest policy, their only response is to say that somehow they can ignore some of the caution raised by that member. I have not heard one government member respond to the most recent comments by the member for Surrey-White Rock and outline what the problems are -- if in fact there are any -- with his presentation. I haven't heard one -- not one. As that hon. member pointed out, it turns out that the forest land reserve is not a reserve at all. The compilation of bills as put forward by the Minister of Forests and other members is not well thought out at all. In fact -- and I mentioned this in my last speech with regard to Bill 56 -- I still see a tone of attack on the forest industry, not a fundamental understanding of where we're going in the forest industry.

At the same time, members of the government claimed that this bill was profound: "This bill is going to have a tremendous impact on the future of British Columbia." If it's going to have a profound impact, it better have everything in order. The set of bills better be properly in place. It better not bring in -- as in the case of Bill 40, which we haven't even completed at committee stage -- a bunch of amendments. It's not just a few amendments, not just dozens, but dozens and dozens and scores and scores of amendments, and it's still not finished. What a way to run a government! What a way to introduce bills! What a way to bring in legislation! What a way to set up laws! What kind of government is being run here? It's not a darned good government; it's a pretty poor performance by this particular government.

I still say that this government has got to face the fundamental problem of understanding the state of the forest industry. It still has to address the question that was raised by the member for Peace River South about the potential implications for native land claims. No one on that side has addressed that question, and they have yet to come to terms with the implications on private property rights. It's amazing.

[ Page 12735 ]

This bill claims to satisfy forest space. At the same time, that is supposed to somehow satisfy the environmentalists. At the same time, it's claiming that while lands are protected we can design legislation in such a way that lands can be protected for the forest industry and the environmentalists. It flips all around, but it still does not satisfy the logging industry. It's not going to satisfy the environmentalists, and that is the reason....

Far more eloquent than I is the member for Surrey-White Rock, who said that this is a sham. What I would like to see from that side, once and for all, is that if there is a problem with some of the issues raised by the member for Surrey-White Rock, please respond to it, and please respond to some of the other concerns that have been raised, because they are darned legitimate concerns.

I don't have a problem with going to the people of British Columbia and saying that this is the primary issue. It has nothing to do with assuming who's going to elect what, because when it comes down to the crunch, every member who sits as a member of the official opposition on this side worked darned hard for their seat. It wasn't by magic; we worked darned hard for it. We worked darned hard to represent our constituents. We worked darned hard to represent in our respective critic roles certain segments of the people of British Columbia. We worked darned hard, and we have a pretty darned good sense of what the people of British Columbia think and feel -- a heck of a lot better than what some of you folks over there claim.

If this government wants to come to its senses, it's about time it introduces legislation without a whole raft of amendments, like it did on Bill 40. If it wants to continue on Bill 40 and Bill 56 and it's so-called centrepiece legislation, all I can say is, go right ahead, because I've got a warning for each and every member of the New Democratic Party government: you guys are going to be in the dustbin of history.

Deputy Speaker: The question is the amendment to Bill 56.

Amendment negatived.

R. Neufeld: I'm going to be very brief, speaking to the bill.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member behind me says "Good," but maybe he will change his mind when he finds out that I stand in support of Bill 56.

The Reform Party of British Columbia believes in a forest land reserve. In fact, since I've been in this House, which hasn't been very long, I have consistently spoken of the need to set aside forest land, similar to the agricultural land reserve, so that the industry and the people who are involved with the forest industry know what land they can work within and what investments they can make.

The one problem that we have with the bill is the assault on private property. It should come as no surprise to the NDP government that we would caution them about just encompassing all of the private land within British Columbia that was designated for forest use prior to this bill coming through. I can understand that some of the owners.... There are approximately 4,200 pieces of private property within the British Columbia that are affected by Bill 56. For the larger ones, owned by MacMillan Bloedel and those kinds of companies, it is no secret that they purchased that property for forest purposes and would have been subject to the Forest Practices Code in any event, so it really doesn't change anything there.

The problem we have in the Reform Party is the attack on some of the smaller property holdings and the effect that will have on their value. When you zone it so that property can only be used for forest purposes under Bill 56 -- and there are some other wilderness purposes and those kinds of things -- it certainly devalues that property, because of the limited scope of use. What the government should be doing with those properties, instead of trying to receive a windfall profit at some point in time.... You see, if the value at one point was at a certain amount and you rezone it, the value is reduced. Then at some time in the future, if that person wants to bring that property out for whatever reason -- for a resort, for residential purposes or maybe for industrial purposes -- of course the value of it goes way up. Under Bill 56, that person has to pay the difference, which will be determined by regulation later on, between what it's worth as forest property and what it would be worth as residential. That's the unfair part of it.

I just want to read into the record the size of the holdings of some of the people who I'm sure weren't consulted before this bill came into effect. Maybe the government should take a second look and discuss with some of these people what they originally intended to do. I don't know where some of these properties are, either. Maybe they always intended to buy this property for forest purposes, but maybe they didn't. That's what we should be concerned about. Look at someone on Saltspring Island with 64 hectares, in Vernon with 14 hectares, on Quadra Island with 54 hectares or on Denman Island with 33 hectares. These are pretty small holdings that are dramatically affected. I'm not sure where these holdings are, but it could really affect the value of these properties. We go down to someone on Vancouver Island with seven hectares; that's only 14 acres. Seven hectares is not uncommon for people to live on right out here in Metchosin.

[5:00]

Maybe there was another reason for having that piece of property. Maybe someone, in time, was going to build an industrial or residential development. Or take someone with 20 hectares. They're all over British Columbia, a lot of them on Vancouver Island. Here are others: Squamish valley, 5.6 hectares; Lillooet Lake, 10 hectares; Read Island, 59 hectares. Those people who have smaller acreages -- and it's hard to pick out a number arbitrarily, but I would say probably someone with under 100 hectares, or in that vicinity -- should be looked at in a different light than MacMillan Bloedel or Pacific Forests Products, which has quite a number of holdings, about 123,000 hectares. Obviously it doesn't take long to figure out that Pacific Forests Products is going to use that land eventually for forest purposes.

We would like the government to look favourably on those people with small holdings to see whether something can be done to alleviate a problem, if there is a problem. Right now, it's voluntary whether you go into the program; and to get it out of the forest land reserve, you have to go to a commission. We all know the difficulty of getting land out of the agricultural land reserve -- and I want to say that I agree with the agricultural land reserve, though in some cases it doesn't work all that well. But to get land out of the forest land 

[ Page 12736 ]

reserve is going to be just as difficult as getting it out of the agricultural land reserve -- rightly or wrongly. I'm not saying that thousands of acres should come out of the forest land reserve or agricultural land reserve, but there are cases where it should and where it makes good common sense. That's where you should use the people from the different areas and get input from regional districts or from communities that are involved, because there are definitely going to be some communities involved with this forest reserve land in their expansion. We should be going to get some information and feedback from those people about removals from the forest land reserve.

The windfall profits that the government has in Bill 56 are ridiculous. It's typical, though; this is obviously another little move. During the election, the Minister of Employment and Investment talked about this in the agricultural land reserve, and here we see it in Bill 56.

Hon. A. Petter: It's different.

R. Neufeld: The minister says it's different, but really it's not; it's much the same. In fact, to be perfectly honest, let's talk about covenants in the forest land reserve. I have an issue in my constituency where there's a covenant on 21 acres for agricultural use. The same formula as here is used to try to get that out of the agricultural land reserve, when really it's not good for agricultural purposes in the first place. It was put there just as an encompassing item.

So there are some inequities. I think we need to have some input from those communities involved around the province, and we need government to be receptive to those. I'm not saying that they would do what every regional district or community wanted them to do, but they should be receptive to those suggestions and to those people with small holdings who have all of a sudden had their land devalued. The land value has gone down on some of those small holdings -- those seven hectares, 20 hectares, 30 hectares. The value has diminished because of how those people are capable of using that land.

Also, if you look at some of the larger companies with holdings that automatically come under the Forest Land Reserve Act, there are possibilities later on. As the population increases in British Columbia -- and the indications are that it certainly will -- there may be a need for more wilderness areas and reserve areas with cabins and those types of facilities for people to go to. That kind of development should be made available under the Forest Land Reserve Act. That's almost impossible, and if the minister could see his way clear to deal with that issue.... I think we have to look at something that's workable today, that's workable for the future. The forest industry, of course, is the number one engine in British Columbia, and I can agree that we have to look after it and make sure that we build it into something that is sustainable for the future, for the young people who are coming.

Heaven knows, with the debt that we've racked up in the last three years, we'd better have a well-heeled sustainable industry in British Columbia if we're to ever feel we're going to meet the obligations that this government has put us under.

So with that, I would just like to say that the principle of a forest land reserve in British Columbia is endorsed by the Reform Party. We have some problems with how the government has drafted different parts of their legislation. Specifically, we have some real problems with the assault that this government makes on private land. That should come as no surprise to anyone when it comes to the NDP. I mean, it's a socialist philosophy that there's no such thing as private land, and it's easy to attack it: anyone with private land has all kinds of money and resources that we can attack. That's not always the case. I think what the government has to do is travel the province a little bit and just see some of the people that have private land. They're not all wealthy, and the government should realize this.

So with those few words, I would like to say again that we support the principle but have some real problems with the attack on private property.

C. Serwa: I've heard a lot of interesting debate on Bill 56 and the philosophies and principles of the Forest Land Reserve Act, and I don't think I can stand and support this particular act, hon. Speaker. I've heard a great deal about it. My particular concern is that it is primarily a smokescreen. It's a hypocritical smokescreen when we're talking about the private lands in this particular section.

The reality in British Columbia is that of the total annual harvest, about 75 million cubic metres comes off public lands, and approximately ten or 15 million cubic metres comes off private lands on an annual basis. A lot of these lands are held by ranchers or farmers. It is not simply the E&N Railway right-of-way that produces the timber. It's held on privately owned lands throughout the province.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Wrong again. Nevertheless, if you look at the statistics, you will find that that happens, and the facts and the figures on the harvest of ten to 15 million cubic metres off private lands are pretty close to being accurate.

So the intent of this legislation is to indicate that we're somehow doing something to preserve forestry in the province. Approximately what percentage of forest lands are privately held, in area? It's a very small percentage. We may be looking at 8 percent, if that, of forest lands that are in private hands. A substantial amount is on the east coast of Vancouver Island, and that's a historic fact and a reality; nevertheless, it's a very small percentage.

The concern appears to be here with the resource communities on Vancouver Island, and we've heard a great deal about that. The government professes to be very concerned about the working people on Vancouver Island and the future of forestry. I see no recognition of the importance of forestry in Bill 40. There is nothing there other than protecting all sorts of other allied interests. There is no government purpose to ensure that forestry remains an economically viable industry in British Columbia.

What I see in this particular bill, as I've said before, is fundamentally a smokescreen fostered by the socialists' basic philosophy of anger, envy and greed. You have the Minister of Forests, who was born with a golden spoon and educated in the public system at public expense, coming here to grasp more out of the public taxpayer for his own personal gain and the gain of friends and insiders of this particular government.

An Hon. Member: Is this an attack on public education?

C. Serwa: That's fair enough. We'll talk about forestry here.

[ Page 12737 ]

The politics of anger, envy and greed are dominant in this. If the minister was truly concerned about the viability of the forest industry in the province, I'm very confident that the land use strategy would be to preserve working forests. But what have they done on Vancouver Island? Have they endeavoured to protect working forests? No, we just heard the Premier speak not too long ago about the 82 percent of Vancouver Island that is protected for forestry -- typical of the government that will say and do anything to achieve its own ends. Eighty-two percent of the area of Vancouver Island is preserved and protected for forestry; that's what the Premier said.

Well, what about the 7 percent you have to deduct for rocks and ice in the higher elevations? That's part of the 81 or 82 percent of publicly owned lands that the Premier professed was preserved for forestry. What about the 12 percent that's not commercially viable and the 22 percent that can't be logged under the Forest Practices Code? What about the protected areas strategy? What about the native land claims? All of these things impact on the working forest. Is the government concerned? Have they shown any specific concern for the health of the forest industry? No, they haven't.

This is nothing more than a scam. Yes, it's to preserve forests and to mark them, public as well as private. But let's face facts. They've left a loophole here, because a great deal of the publicly designated forest can be removed. The reason for that is native land claims -- another challenge that the people of the province and those who work in the industry fear with a great deal of trepidation and uncertainty, given the objectives of the current government.

You cannot convince me that the government is acutely concerned. They're more acutely concerned about preserving the goodwill relationships they have with the preservationists and environmentalists or some of the sociological and other concerns that come into this. The reality is that they are not concerned with the rights of individuals.

What about the principles in this bill? Well, one of the principles is that if you happen to have forest land that is taxed as forest land and you dispose of a portion of that land -- because you've held that land for a long time and paid minimal taxes -- the government is going to come back and you should really get hit on the head with a big hammer. Thanks to Big Brother government and the anger, envy and greed of members like the Minister of Forests....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Is that right? Well, look at the principle....

[5:15]

Deputy Speaker: The member for Burnaby North on a point of order.

B. Jones: I know the member for Okanagan West respects this place and the rules governing debate in this place a little more than to engage in personal attacks and to impute improper motives to members on this side of the House. I resent those remarks, and I respectfully request him to withdraw them.

Deputy Speaker: I'm sure the member's strong commitment to the rules of the chamber will lead him to the conclusion that if he indeed gave offence, perhaps unknowingly, he would happily withdraw. I would ask him to consider doing that.

C. Serwa: I have no hesitation in withdrawing the remarks if the minister or the hon. member found them offensive. That is not what I'm striving to do here; I'm merely trying to point out that my idea of an effective government is one that works for the people and with the people. I have a great deal of personal difficulty with the elitist government that we have at the present time with their focus on socialism. Not one of them represent these working people that they purport to represent. They are, rather, an elitist group that speaks for the working people that seem somehow unable to speak for themselves.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Well, perhaps one is a millwright. One of the members indicated he was a catskinner, and I appreciate that. Maybe one or two, then -- no difficulty.

I was talking about principles and this principle of taxation. We've heard it before. We heard it from the former Minister of Finance, who, both when the government was in opposition and as a government Minister of Finance, stated that as far as he is concerned, when land is removed from agricultural land status, the increase in value from farmland to residential land should be taxed at 100 percent of the increase. That seems to be where they're coming from. In this particular case, you have a similar formula and a percentage. Whether it's 40 percent, 50 percent or 100 percent is academic. The reality is that the politics of anger, envy and greed are ruling the day in this matter.

Hon. A. Petter: No.

C. Serwa: I'm confident that when the Minister of Forests stands up, he will enlighten me on how it doesn't occur that way.

The reality is simply this: for any individual who owns a home in a community where the community plan is such that it suddenly goes from single-family residential to duplex, or perhaps to a higher-density apartment or condominium, that same principle applies. Under the same principle that this current government supports, that individual should be charged and taxed the increase in value for residential purposes, because actually they've been getting away with something scot-free. They've only been taxed on residential; now it's commercial or high-density residential, and we should tax that away. It's the same principle, and it's despicable.

This is an ugly bill from an ugly government -- that's what it is -- with its intrusion into the private sector. Shades of Maureen Maloney, the deputy minister of the Attorney General, enter into this faction.

An Hon. Member: What about Karl Marx?

C. Serwa: That's fine. I think Maureen Maloney is the one who is convinced that anyone who has accumulated anything has either inherited it or been lucky; they haven't worked for it. That's her assessment. I might suggest that someone read her paper on that. They would find it very interesting.

A relatively small percentage of forest lands are privately held. Those lands will remain in forests as long as they're economically viable. Will there be an erosion of 

[ Page 12738 ]

those lands? There will be to some small degree. You know that, hon. Speaker, and I know that. You live in the Nanaimo area, and you're familiar with it. What happens when you move from the coast into higher elevations is that they're not placed in jeopardy by the potential for land development schemes and high-density housing. That is not the challenge here. There is no need to intrude into the private sector.

Standards of conduct and codes of practice are fine. We want to see forestry as a sustainable industry in British Columbia. We want that security of tenure. But I suggest that focusing on privately owned lands is a red herring, because you will start on.... Some of the members have said that it's the CPR or some large multinational corporation, for example, and therefore we can use a different principle or concept of fairness, because somehow that's appropriate after all. Again, it's the politics of anger, envy and greed, but the principle is the same. If ordinary British Columbians fall for this principle put forward in this bill, in the end they will pay the supreme price themselves. That is my particular concern with this bill.

If the government were sincerely concerned, they would not be so zealous in removing public lands from active forest production. When the Brundtland report was implemented and supported by the United Nations, there was no 12 percent of land mass that should be preserved for parks. I don't know where that figure came from. I've never been able to find the source for that figure, but that was just the start of it. After the 12 percent had been repeated by a number of sources, it became an absolute fact that it was a recommendation of the Gro Harlem Brundtland report. To the best of my knowledge, it was not.

Then it was expanded a little further. Not only was 12 percent of the land mass supposed to be set aside, preserved for parks or wilderness in perpetuity, but then it was decided by someone, somehow, somewhere to carry it a little further. The 12 percent then became a 12 percent representative of the various landscapes in the jurisdiction of the province; it wasn't enough to have 12 percent of this province's land mass in parks. The reality is that we have more parks in British Columbia than the area of some of the provinces in Canada. But somehow we've now got to preserve 12 percent of all the different landscapes, from our bottom lands right up to the high, rocky peaks. My concern is that with that type of expansion there's going to be a continued erosion of the working forests of British Columbia.

I can never understand how we have such a supreme concern with clearcut logging, although prior to the current technology and the controlling of forest fires, large forest fires used to clearcut huge, vast areas -- still do in the northern parts of the province. No one appears to have any concern there with the biological diversity being preserved; that seems to be quite acceptable. A great many people are offended by clearcuts of any sort, even in the monoculture at the high elevations in a pine forest, say. Yet it is the most effective, efficient tactic or logging technique, not only to lower the cost of harvesting but also for the silvicultural program. Selective logging in spruce forests is also of significant concern because of the blowdown. The spruce itself is a very shallow-rooted tree. So if we change the canopy, we allow the winds to come down, and blowdown becomes a very significant problem. We're best off with clearcutting in that particular type of stand, keeping the size of clearcuts relatively small but nevertheless utilizing that technique and tactic.

What is ultimately important for the economy of the province, in every aspect and element of what government continues to provide in the way of goods and services to the people, is maintaining a strong and healthy forestry industry, be it on public lands or by utilizing private lands. But I see this as nothing more than an expansion of the bureaucracy and an expansion of the dominant control and influence by government in the private sector. I suggest that it will not lead British Columbia down a very rosy path. Anyone who questions the validity of that sense of direction need only look at places around the world, to expand their horizons a bit. It is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

If the government, in their wisdom, withdrew the intrusion into privately held lands, as they should, the legislation to dedicate certain areas of public land for perpetual use as forestry would be quite acceptable. But in this particular case, to simply point a finger at that small area of private lands at the same time as removing huge tracts from the public working forest isn't going to fool anyone in the province. It is not going to secure jobs and opportunities for British Columbians; it's going to work the other way. That's the shameful part of this particular bill. I cannot and will not support either the philosophy or the principles of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, I will recognize the Minister of Forests, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. A. Petter: It has been quite an afternoon of debate, and I have been quite interested in following the various positions taken. I might say that I have particularly enjoyed and respected the positions put forward by those in the three opposition parties who took a position on this issue -- even the member for Okanagan West, whose position I disagree with. I wish he hadn't personalized the issue quite so much; nevertheless, I respect him for having taken a position, as did members from the Reform Party and the Progressive Democratic Alliance.

But watching members of the official opposition worm, squirm, wriggle, wiggle, mutter, sputter, duck and weave in order to desperately avoid taking any position on this issue has really been one of the most extraordinary and disgraceful spectacles of this session. A party that is so devoid of policy, position and principle that it cannot come up with a position and therefore engages in these diversionary tactics is a sight to behold -- not a pleasant sight, unfortunately, but a sight to behold. I hope that British Columbians have noted that while other parties have had the guts and vision to take a position and say where they agree and disagree and where they come down on this bill, this has not been true of the official opposition, whose only position has been to divert attention from the real issues.

I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the specific issues that were raised and then to close this debate with some observations on where we stand in this House on this issue.

First of all, let me comment on some of the comments that were made principally, I think, by the Leader of the Third Party, but also by others. The Leader of the Third Party talked about the bill and made the point that he thought the threat to the forest land base was not a threat 

[ Page 12739 ]

that came from urban sprawl so much as from government. In response to that observation, I would say that I think the Leader of the Third Party should recognize that both are legitimate threats, depending on where the land base is. Urban sprawl has indeed jeopardized and continues to threaten forest lands in various parts of the province. I agree that government also represents a threat, but perhaps my view of that would differ from his.

My view, and that of this government, is that the threat to the forest land base that has come from government has come from the failure of past governments to have land use policies that deal with emerging and growing conflicts that have occurred over the last decade or so in this province. As a result, we've had growing instability on the land base. What we desperately needed were governments that would come forward with an approach to land use that would address those conflicts and produce some certainty. That is exactly what this government has pledged to do and what this government is doing through the CORE process and through this bill.

I don't disagree with the Leader of the Third Party that government shares in the blame for the threat to the forest land base, but the solution is for governments to grasp the nettle, to take on the issue of land use planning, as this government has, and through the process of land use planning identify components of the land base that are to be set aside as ecological areas and then identify those portions that can be identified with a much greater degree of certainty and stability as a result of land use planning for long-term forest and other commercial values. That is exactly what this government has done.

[5:30]

There has been a considerable degree of confusion and, I think, misinterpretation around the rationale with respect to private versus Crown land. This bill deals with both Crown and private managed forest lands. It does not take an ideological position in that sense. This bill says that where there is managed forest land, be it private land or Crown land, it is worthy of recognition and protection under this legislation. Let's not draw any ideological lines in the sand around that. The value of forest land is too important.

For that reason, there is a process for designation of Crown land, as there is for private land, under this bill. Therefore the bill speaks to both land bases, because they are very important parts that together form the commercial forest land base of this province. On Vancouver Island, for example, the private managed forest land base is 20 percent of the land base. That's a very significant component of the forest land base of Vancouver Island -- and of some of the highest and most productive growing sites are within that private managed forest land base.

With respect to the tax provisions, which have created some excitement -- certainly from the member for Okanagan West, but have also been commented on by other members, such as the member for Peace River North -- I think there's a misunderstanding about what the principle is here. The member for Okanagan West talked about a concept of fairness. The concept of fairness, hon. member, represented by this bill is a concept that those who voluntarily undertake obligations in exchange for tax concessions are obliged to live up to the obligations they undertake. This act does not apply with respect to unmanaged forest land, which is a designation imposed on landowners. It only applies to managed forest land, and managed forest land is a designation that a landowner chooses for itself, himself or herself. They go to the taxation authority and request that designation. Indeed, if land is sold from one owner to another, in order to gain the benefits, the next owner must go back to the Assessment Authority and say yes, they intend and make the choice that this land should be managed for the long term for commercial forestry. In exchange, they ask for some concession as a quid pro quo for that long-term commitment. This is a voluntary designation made by the owner himself, herself or itself in favour of long-term forest management.

This bill says two things. If you as an owner make that commitment, then we will recognize and respect that commitment within this bill by treating that land as long-term forest land and therefore including it within the reserve. Secondly, if through the process of exclusion that this bill provides, you decide to abrogate that commitment, to go back on that commitment that you made, then you should not benefit from having made a commitment you didn't live up to.

This is a different situation than zoning imposed upon a landowner by some other authority. This is zoning that the landowner requests on the landowner's own volition. The landowner determines that the land's highest and best use is for long-term forestry. For that reason, the concept of fairness is one that I think is entirely justifiable and consistent with private property rights. It is the owner of the private property who has said to government that this is their vision of the long-term best use, and they have made certain commitments in exchange for tax concessions. I think that needs to be understood.

That is equally true of small holdings. The member for Peace River North expressed concern for those who have small holdings. Well, if those small holdings are within the managed forest land base -- and there are only about a hundred owners -- it's because the owner of those small holdings came to the Assessment Authority and said they believed that the best use of this land was long-term forestry, and they committed to manage it for that long-term purpose.

I will say that when we get to the Forest Practices Code, we may well want to build in some variability and recognition of different management capabilities for small land holders. But the small land holders here are in the same position by virtue of their own decision and their own request to have their land treated as managed forest land. I think that needs to be understood, because it clearly distinguishes this situation and the tax recapture from the other examples the member for Okanagan West and other members have referred to.

There has been the question of treaty negotiations. I don't want to get into this, but I suppose one can always say that it would be desirable -- and I agree it would be desirable -- if the issue of aboriginal land rights were resolved today -- indeed, yesterday or 50 years ago. Perhaps, if previous governments had taken it upon themselves to respect those rights and act to recognize those rights for negotiation, we would not be in the situation that we are faced with today, in which we have courts saying there are rights that must be respected and a process that we are trying to pursue to respect those rights in a way that brings people together and creates stability. That's not a reason to do nothing; that's a reason to recognize that fact and, lamenting that it wasn't done sooner, get on with that job as well. It doesn't cast any shadow over an initiative that government takes to engage in good land use planning. It's a concern, but we all recognize that that's the situation, and I think we all recognize that it would be wrong to be paralyzed by that 

[ Page 12740 ]

reality. Rather, we must face that reality in an atmosphere of honour and respect with first nations, and that's what this government is doing. But we're not letting it stand in the way of getting on with other tasks of land use planning and of dealing with some of these important issues around forestry.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and the member for Richmond-Steveston, to the extent that I could discern a point in his somewhat histrionic presentation, evinced concern about the need for a coherent vision or a comprehensive policy. I think the member for Richmond-Steveston talked about an understanding of the state of the forest industry. My God, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I won't throw the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi into that same pot. If any government in the history of this province has worked diligently with industry, with communities, with environmentalists and with workers to develop a coherent vision and plan for the future of our forests, it has been this government. If any opposition has fought and screamed and yelled and refused to recognize or participate in any way in the creation of that policy, it has been that official opposition. For that opposition to suggest that we now need to have a comprehensive policy really does, I must admit, stick in my craw.

We do have a very coherent vision, and it's one that I think the people of British Columbia are starting to see and to relate to. It relates to a vision around rational land use planning through the CORE process and through LRMP processes. As a result of that land use planning, we can get the stability we need to go ahead and create forest land reserves on Crown as well as private land and to recognize that forest land reserve and designate it as such for commercial forestry. Then, under the Forest Practices Code, we can designate zones within that reserve for particular kinds of forest activity -- high-intensity forest activity, low-intensity and other forms of forest activity -- through the resource management zoning process that we've debated in this House in recent days. Through the Forest Practices Code, we can ensure that the commercial forestry that takes place on that land base is in accordance with sound stewardship principles and is sustainable.

Through the timber supply review, we can ensure that levels of harvest are sustainable in the long term. And to that we have added an economic vision to revitalize the forests and the forest industries through a forest renewal plan, passed with no thanks to the official opposition. With all of these policies we have an unprecedented attempt by a government to articulate a comprehensive policy and a comprehensive vision, which was fought every inch of the way by the official opposition that seems to struggle daily to avoid making policy decisions on any matter, and certainly wouldn't know a comprehensive vision if it faced them any day of the week.

While I'm on the official opposition, the member for Chilliwack seemed to lament the fact that we were creating a forest land reserve. He didn't see any evidence of support from this government for activities within that reserve. Again, that is from a member who voted against the forest renewal plan which provides the resources for forest communities, forest workers and the forest industry to make those investments on the land base that will now be secure and designated for the future of our commercial forest activities and other economic activities. I find that very hard to take. However, that was the position he seemed to take. Perhaps that member now wishes to recant, review his vote and tell the House that he now supports the forest renewal plan.

Then we get to the member for Surrey-White Rock. I really have a hard time dealing with some of the comments of the member for Surrey-White Rock, for the reasons that were articulated earlier by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. As I understand the assault from the member for Surrey-White Rock, he's opposed to integrated resource management. What the member for Surrey-White Rock seems to believe is that if you're going to have a "working forest," there should be no protection of sensitive areas and no protection for streams, that we should log the guts out of the streams and to heck with any fisheries resources or with any other resources. He laments the fact that we have a Forest Practices Code that is going to ensure that the forest activity that does take place within the forest land reserve will respect other values.

That is an outrageous position. Talk about a backward position. I know that member was writing speeches for the forest industry ten years ago, but let me assure him that the forest industry's views have changed in the last ten years. He'd better look at some of their new speeches, rather than reading some of his old speeches. The times have changed, and the forest industry well recognizes that, as he and his party seem not to. It is desirable, both in terms of instilling public confidence and also in terms of ensuring a healthy forest, that we do manage forests for the full integrated resource management values that exist, in order to ensure that we have healthy forests and that other values are protected within that forest. He even went so far as to attack the discretion of district managers, even though in other debates he's piously purported to defend the Ministry of Forests. And I have to mention this, because he seems not to have understood any of the debate from yesterday: he referred to interpretative zones as an area that could be created unilaterally by district managers, when I thought the debate we had yesterday had made it clear that those zones required the approval of licence holders where there was any adverse effect on them.

However, facts do not seem to matter to the member for Surrey-White Rock. What seems to matter is that if an area is for forestry, then gosh, darn, you'd better go in there and cut down every tree. Don't worry about any fish, don't worry about any habitat, don't worry about any other values, because forestry is forestry where he's from -- wherever that is, and I think it's somewhere back in the nineteenth century.

Then we get to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, I must say, has some perplexing views on this and other matters regarding forestry, and I'll talk about those a little bit. He opposes, he says, the recapture of tax benefits. I've already dealt with that. I think the provision to recapture tax benefits simply recognizes that those who make commitments should live up to those commitments, or, failing to do so, should not benefit from not living up to their commitments.

He seemed to question the agricultural land reserve model, which I find surprising, for reasons I'll explain shortly. He seemed to say that while he favoured the notion of a land reserve on Crown land, he had difficulties with it on private managed forest land -- as though somehow the forest communities dependent on private managed forest land are less important and less deserving of recognition, and their future less worthy of protection, than those in areas dominated by Crown land. I would 

[ Page 12741 ]

remind the Leader of the Opposition that 20 percent of Vancouver Island's land base -- not just its forest land base -- is represented by private managed forest land -- a very significant component. The working people and the communities of Vancouver Island depend upon that land base and need the security of that land base to ensure that their industry and their communities remain healthy.

There was questioning of the numbers. I'm not sure where the numbers are coming from, but I suspect they may be coming to the Leader of the Opposition on a fax machine from Port McNeill, because there's been similar misinformation put out by a particular civic official from that end of the Island. The real numbers -- and I'd be happy to share with them with members of the House -- are that in excess of 80 percent of the forest land reserve is productive forest land. I think it's even more impressive to flip it around the other way: of the productive forest land on Vancouver Island, more than 91 percent is in the forest land reserve; less than 9 percent is in protected areas. That doesn't mean that it's all productive; as I said, 80 percent is. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be other values that should be protected. Of course they should be protected. Do we want a forest land base, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggested, in which we don't protect fish, habitat or sensitive soils, as the official opposition seems to think? My goodness, that's the record we're trying to overcome through the Forest Practices Code. That's the record that got us into trouble in terms of the public image of the forest industry. Industry is trying to overcome that image, and it will have great difficulty doing so if the members of the official opposition ever have the misfortune to go overseas and carry that kind of message.

[5:45]

I'm rather perplexed by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to deal with one point that he and other members raised, and that's the question of consultation. I'm mindful that some members say that we need to have more consultation on this, but I'm perplexed that they would say that. As has been suggested by other members, this idea has been germinating in this province for years. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast pointed out that the Liberal Party itself adopted it as policy in the last election. Of course, it doesn't appear to appear to them now as it appeared to appear to them then, perhaps under direction from their new leader. This is not a new idea; this idea has been much discussed with much consultation.

Let me share a few examples of the groups that have considered and deliberated on this issue and provided their views. The IWA, which has no small stake on Vancouver Island and in the forest industry in general, has consistently indicated its support for a forest land reserve. I noticed recently a quote from Bill Routley, who is president of the Duncan local of the IWA. He said he would like to see a forest land reserve established for private and public land similar to the agricultural reserve to protect the forestry land base. That's the IWA.

Then we look at the conservation sector that was represented at the CORE table on Vancouver Island. They don't always see eye to eye with the IWA; they very frequently don't on issues like protected areas. What do they say? Here's what they say: "The conservation proposal supports the creation of a forest land reserve to define a secure land base for a sustainable forest industry. It would include most of the low-intensity forest ecosystem management in high-intensity zones, and would apply to both the private and public forest lands."

Here's a proposal that the IWA and the conservation sector agree on. Add to that CORE itself, in its report on Vancouver Island. Here's what the CORE commissioner said to the government in that report after two years of consultation:

"Given the important contribution of private managed forest lands to the Vancouver Island forest industry, and also because of the important public values dispersed throughout them, it is important that these lands be maintained for forest purposes. The government should apply the necessary policy measures to encourage the retention of these lands in forestry use."

Then we have the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which again engaged in extensive public consultations on a whole range of issues. I won't go through all their recommendations. They are summarized in the letter that accompanied the report that was sent to the Premier on December 23, 1993, from the then chair. Here's what she said:

"Of particular and immediate concern to the Round Table is that urban sprawl and development is absorbing forest lands at an increasing rate. On eastern Vancouver Island significant tracts of private forest lands are proposed for conversion to urban use. There is an urgent need to protect these lands, to maintain and support our valuable forest industry and to provide communities with green spaces and recreation opportunities. We have proposed a forest land reserve as one mechanism to achieve this goal."

Then we have the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. There has been lots of talk about local governments. Where do they stand? At their last meeting, the association passed the following resolution:

"Whereas British Columbians recognize that communities are only sustainable in the long term if equal attention is paid to economic, social and environmental factors; and whereas British Columbians rely heavily on their forest resource and recognize that a diminishing forest base will impact heavily on the economic, social and environmental health of our communities; therefore be it resolved that a forest land reserve be established in British Columbia to ensure a secure forest land base for the continuance of the economic, social and environmental benefits derived through this resource."

The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, CORE itself, the conservation sector, the IWA and many communities have all fought long and hard, and they have said time and time again that the time is right for a forest land reserve. The only group that stands up and says they need more time to think about it is the opposition, because they don't have policy on this or any other matter.

I want to close by saying something about where we have come during this session on forest policy in general. I must say that I try to give the benefit of the doubt to others in this House, and very often I have been rewarded. I have been rewarded in this debate, as I said earlier, by all those members -- some of whom I vehemently disagree with -- who stood up and took an articulate and clear position on this bill, and I give credit to them. But I can give no credit to an official opposition that ducks and weaves and hides and worms and squirms in order to avoid taking a position on anything, an official opposition that has said one thing and done another throughout this session. I heard one of the members say that it saddened him when the matter of principles was raised. It doesn't surprise me that it saddens him, because I see no adherence to principles in that official opposition. They remind me of the politician who was reported to say: "If you don't like my principles, don't worry; I can change them." Look what they've done: they have changed their 

[ Page 12742 ]

principles on virtually every aspect of forest policy; they have demonstrated a lack of commitment to any principle except the principle of expediency.

The forest renewal plan. The Leader of the Opposition went up to Prince George and told an audience in that forest-based community that he thought the forest renewal plan was a good idea, and he supported it in principle. Then he came back down to Victoria, closeted himself away in the Legislature and voted against the forest renewal plan. Flip-flop, worm-squirm, say one thing and do another. If you don't like my principles, don't worry; I can always change them.

The Forest Practices Code. When the Leader of the Opposition was first elected, he said his major environmental priority was to get rid of environmental regulation, and he referred to the Forest Practices Code. Then he thought a bit better of it, and he got into the closeted chambers of this House and voted for it in principle. And then last night his party stood up and voted against tougher enforcement penalties under the Forest Practices Code. What's their position? If they have a position, it must be: "We favour a Forest Practices Code provided it's a completely ineffective code." That's the only principle I can derive from their contradictory, flip-flop, worm-squirm, say-one-thing-and-do-another position on that issue as well.

CORE. How many members of this House remember the official opposition standing up and mouthing platitudes about CORE when it was politically popular for them to do so? During the Clayoquot Sound debate of last year, they talked about all these issues that should be given over to CORE. The government said: "No, CORE's got an important job to do, and the Clayoquot decision stands." I'm proud that we took that position. But they said: "Oh no, we embrace CORE. CORE is wonderful, and it should do everything." Did they stand by that position when the going got a little tough on CORE? No, absolutely not. They turned around as quickly as they could. Now they're foursquare against CORE, and they're running up and down the Island saying that CORE should be disbanded or done away with or ignored or whatever they're saying. They're flipping; they're flopping; they're worming; they're squirming; they're saying one thing and they're doing another. They have no principles.

What about the forest land reserve? You know, we heard a lot of rhetoric in this House today. We heard from the member for Surrey-White Rock that there was no additional protection in this legislation. "Not one shred," he said. "It was a sham," he said. "It was an attack on private property," he said. The Leader of the Official Opposition suggested that the model of the agricultural land reserve was not necessarily the right model, as I understood his comments. We heard all sorts of wrenching and moaning and groaning. If that party were now to stand up and vote for this proposal, they would have no credibility whatsoever after all the grousing and negativity they brought to bear in this debate.

Imagine what the Leader of the Opposition says when he isn't here performing in this chamber, but rather is out trying to win votes in the community of Port McNeill. Do you think his position is the same position he took here? Here is what he said, as reported in the North Island Gazette of June 1, 1994. It's not that long ago, just over a month, and you would have thought he could maintain a position for one month. Is that too much to ask? Here's what he said: "Adopting a system similar to that used for agricultural land reserves, Campbell said" -- oh sorry, this is not a quote; this is attributed to him, and then the quote follows -- "a working forest should be designated in B.C. to ensure a more secure future for forest workers." Then I quote: "'The agricultural land reserve is used to preserve land for agriculture, and this would preserve land for forestry,' he said."

Oh, my goodness me! Talk about paper tigers! Up to Port McNeill and say one thing, then back to Victoria and say another. This is a party that has abandoned any pretence at principle. This is a party that has no commitment to anything but saying what they believe pleases the audience that's in front of them. But let me tell them that the people of British Columbia are starting to catch up with it. They want a government and opposition parties that do take positions and stick by them through thick and thin, and then go to the people and seek a mandate based upon that. They will stand for mistakes being made, and we'll make our share and those parties will make their share, but they will not stand for a party that's not prepared to even say what its position is or, when it does, will contradict it a few days later in order to appease some other group somewhere else. This has been a shameful performance by a shameful party that deserves no credit and no support from the people of B.C.

I move second reading.

[6:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 56, Forest Land Reserve Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: Before I move a recess, I'll just inform members of the House of a slight change. Because forestry has been debated for some time, after we come back from recess we'll be calling second reading of Bill 26, which I understand is not a lengthy debate, and then move back into committee stage of Bill 40, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Again for the edification of the House, after the debate comes to a conclusion I will call second reading of Bill 54, which is, again, not as significant. Then I think there are three finance bills at 

[ Page 12743 ]

committee stage which we hope to accomplish tonight. This is just to give a sense of the agenda. With that, I move the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:07 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 26.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, 1994. Near the end of my remarks I will also explain the purpose of an amendment to Bill 26, which is standing in my name on the order paper. The Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, 1994, makes two main changes. First, it clarifies the relationship between supplementary benefit practitioners and the Medical Services Commission. Second, it clarifies the role and powers of the Medical Services Commission.

The Medical and Health Care Services Act was passed by our government in 1992. It continued the Medical Services Commission and provided authority for the overall operation of the Medical Services Plan in British Columbia. Our experience since that time has highlighted the need to make some relatively modest refinements to maintain smooth functioning of the system. As well, cabinet has recently appointed a new tripartite Medical Services Commission, which was anticipated in 1992 when the act was passed. That appointment has drawn to our attention the need to clarify distinctions in some roles and responsibilities between medical practitioners and other health care practitioners whose services are funded through the Medical Services Plan.

One of the amendments made in this bill concerns the power of the commission to delegate its powers and duties. Under the previous structure of the Medical Services Commission with its single commissioner, it made sense for delegation of powers away from the commission to be the responsibility of government. This provision was used to establish a medical practices audit subcommittee to review the billing patterns and practices of practitioners. With the amendment proposed in this act, the commission can set up its own committees. In effect, the provisions will preserve the independence and integrity of the Medical Services Commission.

Provisions in this bill also make it clear that powers in relation to the establishment of payment schedules and the determination of available amounts must be maintained by the commission itself. They cannot be delegated. Powers respecting hearings may only be delegated either to a panel of the commission itself or to a panel approved by the commission.

Another important provision of these amendments concerns the exercising of powers and duties in relation to health care practitioners other than physicians. At present there are seven minicommissions which govern the operation of the Medical Services Plan concerning optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, massage therapists, naturopaths, podiatrists and dentists. The amendments in this act propose that the term "special committee" be used in place of "subcommittee" to more clearly distinguish the operations of these groups from Medical Services Commission itself. Cabinet will continue to specify the powers and duties that shall be exercised by such a special committee. A further new provision will also permit these special committees to sit in panels.

A new power has been added to the act to permit the Medical Services Commission or a special committee, where authorized, to settle claims against a practitioner. In those cases where an audit by a patterns-of-practice review committee has identified improper billings that are outside acceptable limits, the practitioner may be required to repay funds to the plan, and this is as it should be. Because of the process for examining past billing practices, it is often very difficult to establish precisely the amounts that have been improperly billed. Therefore it is appropriate that the commission have the discretion to settle claims, which will avoid the undue legal costs of a hearing which might consume some or all of the moneys that government could recover.

[6:45]

There are several other proposed amendments in this act that I would call more administrative in nature. First, the definition of appropriation has been clarified to indicate that it refers only to funds appropriated for the purpose of operating the commission and the plan. Second, the obligation on the commission to take measures to keep expenditures within the appropriation has been clarified to refer to fee-for-service payments and practitioner benefit payments. It does not refer to out-of-province payments or emergency payments which are clearly beyond the commission's control. Third, the procedural requirements for hearings have been made consistent throughout the act for all types of hearings. Fourth, the appeal of decisions under this act must now be filed within 30 days. At the current time there is no time limit for launching an appeal. Fifth, the prohibition on private insurance has been rewritten to clarify that it does not include either insurance to cover costs outside Canada or insurance for persons who are not eligible to be beneficiaries under the Medical Services Plan. Sixth, the commission can now determine the date on which a beneficiary ceased to be a resident; obviously residency is important for obtaining benefits under the plan. And finally, the commission will be permitted to share confidential information about a practitioner with a licensing body in another jurisdiction. Under the current legislation, the commission can share such information with the British Columbia licensing body but not with licensing bodies outside British Columbia.

Before concluding my remarks, I will describe the effect of the additional changes to the act contained in the floor amendment that I have proposed to Bill 26. By deleting specific references in section 21 of the act, the commission will be able to continue its efforts to develop means to moderate the supply of physicians entering the system for the first time. At present, subsections (1) and (9) impose unnecessary limits on the ability of the commission to establish payment schedules that would differentiate certain categories of practitioner or that would take into account length of time in practice. These and other measures have been proposed by the BCMA and other practitioner groups for dealing with physician supply, and we need legislation that can take them into account.

These proposed administrative changes will improve the operations of the Medical Services Plan, and I'm 

[ Page 12744 ]

pleased to submit them for the consideration of the House. I move second reading of Bill 26.

L. Reid: If I might, I'll start with a reference to the Medical and Health Care Services Act of 1992, which I believe set up the tripartite commission and created the seven subcommittees, now known as special committees, comprised of similar tripartite membership, to make decisions about plan administration affecting their respective supplementary groups. Those are the references the minister has made in his opening remarks on Bill 26, and those will form the basis of my remarks in second reading debate.

As we move through this amendment act, it seems that, typically, some issues are truly housekeeping issues. There are some issues, in terms of continuity and looking for commonalities within the system, that I think need to be brought in line to respect all the health care professions in this province, not just physicians. I certainly appreciate the minister's comments. In fact, I would look very much to the seven committees that I have before me.... Certainly the Medical Services Commission membership, but also the MSC supplementary benefit members, I believe, look at the seven committees that the minister has mentioned. Naturopathic physicians, physiotherapists, chiropractors, massage therapists, optometrists, podiatrists and dental surgeons were on the last list, and I understand that new lists will become available as new individuals are appointed to each of these committees.

The minister and I have had numerous discussions regarding public representation on these committees and how that can be achieved. Just for future reference, when the minister closes debate perhaps he can comment on how it's possible to guarantee that kind of public representation. I know the intention is always very fine, and I know everyone believes very much in the public needing to be represented on those kinds of bodies, but oftentimes it seems to grind to a halt in terms of travel expenses and who pays for that public representation. It seems to be a situation where availability and proximity to the meeting site is questioned at times. Indeed, some individuals have not been able to attend. I fully support the notion of public representation on these bodies in terms of needing to canvass the province and represent different regions in the province. I'm wondering if it would be possible to set a guideline in terms of how many meetings the public needs to be represented at in a given calendar year for those meetings to be considered valid. A number of different supplementary practitioners in the field have questioned whether public representation was taken seriously, because it often wasn't complied with. I think that's an issue for this particular piece of legislation, in that it's an amendment act.

If there are ways to tighten up the process and bring it more in line with what the minister intends, I think that is the direction we should be heading in. Certainly no one takes issue with the intention. I think everybody supports the notion that if you're going to have a special committee to replace the old subcommittee framework, there should be some accountability around that. If some guidelines can perhaps be brought forward either in regulation or just in future discussion, I would be interested in that kind of discussion.

I think the minister will recall that this opposition, and particularly myself as critic, spoke strongly in favour of a tripartite Medical Services Commission. I will make reference to the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. If that's the formula we believe in, and it made sense at the time to regulate and monitor physician practice in this province -- looking at scope of practice, payment, fee schedule, etc. -- does it also make sense for supplementary practitioners in the field -- i.e., physiotherapists and chiropractors? My contention is that it does. We want the one-third, one-third, one-third representation on these special committees, and that is what my amendment speaks to.

There are some issues around the tripartite representation that I have attempted to cover off in terms of my comments on public representation. If we can look to enshrining some form of representation for practitioners in the field, for the public and for what has been loosely termed government representation, and if it makes sense to do it for medical practitioners, it makes equally good sense to do it for the other special committees. I would again reference that to section 5. When we move into committee on this bill, I hope we can debate that in some detail.

What is reflected in the current legislation is not the intention. The discussions I've had with different subgroups of practitioners in the field suggest to me that they believed it would reflect the current tripartite arrangement for physicians, but it is simply not clear in the language of this bill. If there are opportunities to tighten it up in committee, I would welcome that.

There are tremendous and important powers being given to these groups in terms of fees and payment schedules. That is not something that we would wish to take lightly or treat differently for any practitioner group in the field. It may be possible to have the panel made up of commissioners themselves, because each of these bodies is going to have a commissioner. Maybe we allow them to go forward and represent their own field of endeavour, their own area of specialty, whether that be chiropractic or physiotherapy or one of the other groups that's been mentioned.

The minister made mention in his remarks of a number of different powers. The payment schedule is the most significant; remuneration certainly had tremendous weight in all kinds of discussions.

The minister also made mention of powers respecting the hearing process. Again, that is very important for all practitioners in the field. It certainly seemed to be the intention of this government early on that they would ensure that practitioners delivering a service to the public would be accountable to the public through those agencies, regardless of whether it was a physician-related service or a chiropractic service. The hearing process is the only avenue for the public at large to come back and say whether or not they were well served. From my thinking, the hearing process has to be very clear so that everyone in the province can understand exactly what it is that the appeal process can offer them at any given point.

The minister talked about fee-for-service and the benefit schedule arrangement in the province. I know we will cover off the formula and framework for that kind of decision-making as we move through this bill in committee.

The minister, with some indulgence, also touched on physician-resource supply. There are a number of medical students in this province who are wondering today about the July 1 extension of physician-resource, what was considered the interim model. Press coverage on that time line certainly suggested that is has been extended.

[ Page 12745 ]

Interjection.

L. Reid: Yes. We're aware of that.

We would be interested to learn from the minister, perhaps in his closing remarks, what the possible time line might be for that extension. Again, that's critical to any kind of amendment opportunity. I consider Bill 26, the Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, as an opportunity to tighten up and refine some of the issues that are still before us.

In looking to the committee stage of this bill, I draw the minister's attention to section 16. There are some issues around confidentiality that need to be addressed. I will take the minister's comments in his closing remarks, but this appears to allow colleges and other provinces access to information without the physician's knowledge or consent. That's an issue we can perhaps explore in more detail.

I think the intent of this piece of legislation is to maintain physician confidentiality. I understand the portability clause between provinces and the need to share that kind of information, but I would think that we also want to ensure that confidentiality is maintained, if at all possible. Certainly, if we're going to release information, it should only be released to appropriate agencies as they come before the British Columbia Medical Services Commission, and also to the special committees that have been refined by this government to address some of the other issues that supplementary practitioners will be facing in the field.

So, hon. Speaker, I thank you most sincerely for the opportunity to respond to this bill in second reading. I hope for its speedy passage.

The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I look forward to some detailed discussion with the member opposite and, indeed, with other members when we get to committee stage of Bill 26. Let me just respond briefly to a couple of issues that the member opposite has raised.

First, I share with her the view that supplementary practitioners need to have their value to our health care system recognized and that we need to make sure that, as with other practitioners, their place in our health care system is recognized. At least a little, I'm pleased to be able to inform the member that on these special committees, which are now called subcommittees, we have indeed looked to enshrine the principle of representation by thirds -- one-third government, one-third from the practitioner community, one-third....

L. Reid: It's the other way around. Subcommittees are now called special committees.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Correct. Those now called subcommittees will be called special committee. We do have the principle of thirds enshrined -- one-third public, one-third practitioners, one-third from the government. We have asked those we've appointed from the broad public to make sure that they take their responsibilities seriously. To that end, we do indeed cover travel expenses by those who have agreed to sit as public representatives on subcommittees dealing with a supplementary service under the Medical Services Act.

I've just gone through a review of some of those initial appointments that came up for renewal. One of the criteria I used as I considered whether reappointment should occur was what the member opposite referred to. Have they taken their duties seriously? Have they indeed attended meetings of the subcommittees -- now to be called special committees? Have they recognized the importance of these practitioners and the services they offer to the health care system in British Columbia? By and large I think they have. A few have asked to step down and, I think, largely recognized themselves that they were not taking their duties with sufficient seriousness and might seek some other venue for public involvement.

The other thing I say is that as we appoint public members to these special committees -- indeed, to all committees of government or government processes -- we need to be casting our net as widely as possible, to make sure that we are getting people from rural and remote regions, and not just urban centres. We need to make sure that we are including people from communities that may benefit from a specific practitioner group. The disabled community is clearly very interested in many of the services offered by special practitioners. So what I'm pleased to tell the member is that in the operation of the subcommittees to date, we have indeed adhered to the tripartite model that's proposed by the Medical and Health Care Services Act.

[7:00]

The member opposite raised a number of other issues that I think are probably better dealt with at committee stage. But one I did want to talk about just briefly was physician-resource supply and the amendments put forward to deal with that. I believe the member has one in her name dealing with....

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, not with that issue; with another issue.

But in the physician-resource supply we have extended our interim measures, and we've extended them until a negotiation on permanent measures is in place. We are also taking steps to make sure that the interim measures do not disadvantage graduates of the UBC medical school, which I think is a concern of both the member opposite and myself.

There have been a number of options proposed by the Task Force on Physician Supply for a long-term physician supply plan, which would deal with the number of practitioners needed, the specialties required and the geographic distribution of those practitioners in British Columbia. The amendments that are standing in my name on the order paper seek to enable the commission to deal more adequately with the wide range of proposals for physician supply which are now before us as government and before the British Columbia Medical Association for negotiation.

So with those remarks, I'll close debate on second reading of Bill 26. I expect that we'll canvass some of these issues in some detail at committee stage, and I look forward to further discussion on them with members opposite as we move into that. I move second reading of Bill 26.

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee 

[ Page 12746 ]

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 40, hon. Speaker.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 40; J. Beattie in the chair.

Sections 160 to 162 inclusive approved.

On section 163.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 163 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 163,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "regulations:" and substituting "regulations under that Act:", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (6) by adding "except" after "judicial nature,".]

Amendment approved.

Section 163 as amended approved.

On section 164.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 164 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 164, in the proposed subsection (1) by adding ", board or commission" after "that the government".]

Amendment approved.

Section 164 as amended approved.

Sections 165 and 166 approved.

On section 167.

W. Hurd: Section 167, which I've highlighted on my copy of the bill, talks about amendments that do not affect offences or penalties. I wonder if the minister could advise me.... Obviously, where an amendment is required to an operational plan, this section, I assume, is deemed not to be a remediation order with respect to "any fine, imprisonment, fee or penalty to which a person may be liable under this Act..." I think this again raises the issue that was raised last night about multiple jeopardy with respect to the applications of the penalty provisions under the code. I just want this section clarified. Is the intent here to allow the district manager to require that an amendment to an operational plan be independent, in fact, of any administrative penalties that may be administered or of a court action that may be pursued with respect to the penalty provisions in previous sections of the bill?

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'd like to recognize three members of the Queen's Printer staff who will be preparing the order papers on the night shift. Good work. Thank you from all of us.

Hon. A. Petter: What the section provides is simply that you cannot overcome liability for an offence or penalty by a subsequent amendment of the operational plan. The subsequent amendment might correct prospective violations that otherwise would occur, but it does not retrospectively affect the liability one would have as a result of a breach of an operational plan.

W. Hurd: I think this gets us back into the ongoing debate that we have experienced throughout this bill with respect to the Crown's heavy-handed approach using fines, imprisonment and charges. Clearly the fine, which in some cases is $500,000, may be out of proportion to the damage caused.

I'm still trying to clarify: where we have an operational plan on file with the Ministry of Forests that may not represent what is actually happening on the land base.... In other words, the licensee -- or even the Ministry of Forests, for that matter, under the small business program -- may have filed an operational plan with the ministry and then undertaken an activity on the land base which is in substantial non-compliance with that plan. For the sake of argument, even though there might be no actual physical damage, theoretically we can still trigger the rather onerous provisions under the act with respect to the operational plans alone rather than any physical damage that has occurred on the land base.

I'm seeking assurance that where an operational plan merely needs to be amended and no physical damage has occurred on the land base, there is some provision here to allow the district manager to order an amendment to the operational plan and have that decision affect in some way the other onerous provisions we've dealt with previously that call for fines, imprisonment and rather draconian measures through the court system.

Is there any recognition here that as a result of having to change operational plans in the district office, there would be less damage? In some way, could remediation be ordered under this provision? This gets us into section 168, which talks about remediation. Again, is there latitude available for the district manager to make a determination about the relative level of damage and whether a simple amendment to the plan is required rather than these rather onerous penalty provisions?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, if the violation is merely technical or does not have serious consequences, then there would not be serious penalties, one would assume. Certainly I expect that would be the approach taken by the courts, whether or not there was a subsequent amendment to the plan. All this deals with is the principle that subsequently amending the plan does not, in and of itself, relieve one of penalties. But it doesn't mean that a technical violation that did not occasion significant damage would be treated more seriously. It would presumably be treated in the same way regardless of the change in the plan.

Section 167 approved.

On section 168.

W. Hurd: Could the minister clarify the definition of remedial action here as it applies to this section? Is remedial action something that might be ordered by the district manager? Or is that something that the licensee, having discovered an offence or contravention, would initiate of their own volition? Are we dealing with remedial action that would be ordered by the Crown independently of any other action that might result in 

[ Page 12747 ]

penalties, fines, imprisonment or fee assessments? I wonder if the minister could clarify what is intended by "remedial action" in this section, and whether that is triggered by the Crown or the licensee.

Hon. A. Petter: It could be either at the instance of the licence holder or under an order from the Crown. I would simply point out that the intent here is to make it clear that the fact that some remedial action was taken does not displace the ability to impose a fine or imprisonment. Obviously, when it comes to weighing the damages, the remediation may limit the amount of damage that needs to be compensated as a result of an action brought for fine or penalty. But that, again, is the intent of this section.

W. Hurd: I must confess that I find the minister's response somewhat troubling. He is saying that even if the licensee were to come forward with a recommendation for remedial action, the ministry's going to be saying, "Don't worry about it," because there's no power under this provision to change any aspect of the case that may go before the courts. What I see in this section is a real denigration of the incentive, quite frankly, for the licensee to even go to the ministry and propose a remedial action, for the licensee to come forward and say: "Yes, we've deduced that we have committed an offence under the act. Here is a reasonable proposal for remediation." Even though that may occur, clearly it's not going to help the situation, because we still see this triggering mechanism in the act which will result in a whole range of administrative fines, fees and potential imprisonment under court action.

Can the minister at least assure us, in this section, that his ministry will be actively encouraging licensees who might discover an offence or contravention of the act to come forward with their own plans for remedial action, or are they just going to wait for the ministry to order it? What's the incentive here? This gets back to a debate we've had throughout this Forest Practices Code: what incentives are there for people who, for a whole range of reasons, may have committed an offence or a contravention? The assumption here is that the licensee has committed the offence and contravention willingly, knowingly and with malice, whereas, as the minister knows, when it comes to such activity as roadbuilding, it may be the failure of an engineering plan or a geological formation that was hitherto unknown.

[7:15]

It seems that the whole concept of remedial action under this particular section is really being denigrated by the Crown. I would even settle for an assurance from the minister that, despite what I see in this section, the ministry will actively encourage people to come forward and report an offence or contravention, and to also come forward with remedial action to address that, even though there's no avenue to affect any penalty fee, imprisonment or action that might be triggered by the penalty provisions under the code.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member had listened more carefully to my last answer, I think we could have saved five minutes of response, because what I said was exactly the opposite of what he suggested. What I suggested was that the benefit that would result from remediation might well limit the actual quantum of damage that was necessitated. Of course the ministry will be encouraging remedial action to be taken, and where remedial action is taken -- and the effect of the remediation is to completely eliminate any damage -- that obviously will reduce the damages, so they will not have to be levied. Where the remediation goes partway to limit the damages, there may still be some fine or penalty. In principle, the fact that remedial action is taken does not do away with the possibility of a fine, imprisonment or penalty being levied, but obviously, to the extent that the remedial action limits the actual damage, it would be taken into account, and obviously the ministry wishes to encourage licence holders and others to take remedial action.

W. Hurd: Clearly there are examples, as the minister well knows, where remedial action does not affect the damage in any way. It could be as simple as amending a plan, as we indicated under section 167. I again point out that this section specifically says that even if the licensee comes forward and identifies an offence or a contravention of the act, and has a remedial action plan that may or may not address the damage that's occurred -- if any damage has occurred -- despite all that, it does not affect any fine, imprisonment, fee or penalty for which a person may be liable under the act. When we talk about penalties, I assume that's an administrative penalty that would be issued by the district manager, who has latitude under the code to take those kinds of measures. I assume that fees refer to timber-cutting fees -- again an administrative penalty.

I will just point out that this is a consistent theme throughout this act: approach the Crown at your peril. Even though you may come forward with an idea, a concept or a plan, forget it as far as the penalties, fees and fines are concerned, because nothing you do will affect those in any way. I think it's important to point out in the context of this debate that that's unfortunate. One of the things I've noticed consistently with respect to the penalty provisions throughout this act is the big-stick approach of the ministry and the fact that there are apparently no incentives. The minister shakes his head and says that there is an incentive under section 168, but clearly the wording indicates otherwise to this side of the House.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me try one last time. If the member were correct, I too would be concerned, but the member is incorrect. The section has to be read in the context of other sections and the general approach to penalties. For example, I would refer the member to section 117, which we have already debated. Subsection (4) says with respect to administrative penalties that "before the senior official levies a penalty under subsection (1) or section 119, he or she (a) must consider any policy established by the minister...and (b) subject to any policy...may consider the following...." One of the things that the official is invited to consider is the person's cooperativeness and efforts to correct the contravention. So while fines can still be levied and the opportunity to levy fines will not be displaced by taking remedial action, the fact that remedial action is taken and the cooperativeness of the licence holder in taking remedial action are explicitly factors that officials can take into account in assessing the appropriate penalty.

L. Hanson: I know the minister's legal background can give us that assurance. Section 168 would seem to say that there isn't the flexibility to consider the remedial action. While I'm not a lawyer, maybe the minister in his capacity as such can assure us that remedial action could diminish the penalty or the fine, whatever the case may be. I think the intention here is to say that if you take remedial 

[ Page 12748 ]

action, it doesn't necessarily mean that it gets rid of the liability for a fine or some other action. It seems to say specifically that you can't relieve the fine or the penalties even if remedial action is taken.

Hon. A. Petter: I hesitate to use examples from the criminal law area, because they may not be appropriate. For example, I suppose one could analogize it to theft, where someone steals something and then returns it. That does not mean that they are not subject to liability for theft. But the fact that they returned it may well be taken into account by the court in assessing the appropriate penalty.

In this case, the fact of liability is not affected by remedial action. But the actual quantum may well take into account the remedial action, the benefit that derives from it and cooperativeness. Indeed, that is explicitly addressed in the sections that establish fees and penalties. You have to read the two together to get the full reassurance that while remedial action does not remove liability, it will be taken into account by officials in assessing the quantum of damages for a particular violation.

Sections 168 and 169 approved.

On section 170.

W. Hurd: This is an important section, which gives the government the right to enter into agreements, one would assume, with companies, individuals and licensees. The concern here is that no specific mention is made of enhanced forest management regimes. I don't want to reopen the debate about tenure reform in this section, but I certainly welcome an explanation from the minister with respect to section 170 as to why we deal here with a number of fairly specific forest practices, but not the notion of an enhanced silvicultural regime or an agreement that may result in some form of additional security under a forest licence.

As we have gone through this bill, we have made note of the fact that a number of the sections roughly parallel those that exist in the Forest Act. Could the minister clarify under this section the reason there is a need for government to have the power to enter into agreements under the Forest Practices Code, and why we aren't dealing with an expanded definition with respect to even the notion, dare I say it, of tenure reform in British Columbia? I don't know if we want to talk about that, but when we look at the ability of the government to enter into agreements, we see reference made to interpretative forest sites, forest health, insects, diseases, even seedlings and vegetative propagules. I won't even ask the minister for an explanation at this time of night, but I wonder if he could expand on this section and why the agreements that can be entered into seem to be rather narrow in scope.

Hon. A. Petter: This section is largely a consolidation of various sections of the Forest Act regarding the power to enter into agreements; I can refer the member to the sections if he's interested. It deals with the kinds of agreements, for example, that are entered into with municipal governments and others to provide forest protection services, etc. The government or the ministry has general power to enter into agreements of various kinds under the Forest Act. Under subsection (1), the general power to enter into agreements is very broad, and I point out that although some enumerated situations are set out in subsection (2), they are set out without limiting subsection (1). Other kinds of agreements could be contemplated here, but this is a consolidation of the kinds of agreements that are currently provided for in the Forest Act and are now consolidated in this section.

W. Hurd: Are these agreements separate and distinct from licence agreements? Could this section refer also to agreements to expand or change an existing forest licence in the province, or does that still reside under the powers of the Forest Act and has that not been transferred to this section of the Forest Practices Code?

Hon. A. Petter: This section does not deal with licence agreements. Those continue to be dealt with under the Forest Act.

W. Hurd: Could I then have further clarification of the nature of these agreements? Is it fair to say that they would not apply to any remedial action under section 168? If the government were to determine that there was a contravention of the Forest Practices Code that was of significant and serious nature, under section 170 would it have the power to enter into an agreement for remediation? I'm looking at some of the definitions here, and it appears that some of the agreements might have the affect of mitigating damage on the land base. I just wonder whether the minister feels that section 168 may have the power of limiting any such agreements. Would he ever envisage a scenario where the agreements might apply directly to a contravention or a problem with the code? Is that ever a possibility under this section?

Hon. A. Petter: Where there has been a contravention of the code that necessitates remedial action, the powers exist elsewhere within the act to deal with that situation by order; there's no necessity to deal with it by agreement.

W. Hurd: Then I'll ask an even more basic question. Why does the government feel that the power to enter into agreements needs to exist under the Forest Practices Code? I can't understand why this section was obviously lifted from the Forest Act and placed into a code that is supposedly designed to enforce accountability. Why would there be a section here that would enable an official...? I assume that could be an official from any one of three ministries, Environment, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or Forests, because they all have some jurisdiction in this act. I assume section 170 could apply to any one of those three ministries. Could the minister offer the committee some sort of basic rationale as to why this section appears to be somewhat of an anomaly with respect to the issues and sections we've been dealing with so far?

Hon. A. Petter: This section could have been left in the Forest Act, but because it pertains to many of the matters that are dealt with under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, such as protection services, it fits here just as logically. It was felt that it was best to locate it here.

The reason it's desirable to have a legislative provision of this kind is that where the Crown enters into agreements in which the Crown provides services or remuneration, it's desirable to have a legislative authority for those kinds of powers. For example, when the Crown 

[ Page 12749 ]

enters into agreements to provide protection services, in order to provide sound financial administration and accountability, the auditor general and others expect us to have statutory power, and I'm sure the member does as well. Here it is.

W. Hurd: Just one final point of clarification on section 170. When we talk about the government in section 170(1), are we referring to the three ministries that will have some legislative authority under the act, or is it strictly a "forest official" -- which I assume to mean an official with the Ministry of Forests only?

Hon. A. Petter: The government means the Crown and any appropriate official of government. With respect to protection services, that would be the appropriate official in charge of the provision of those particular protection services.

W. Hurd: So those three ministries that I mentioned earlier -- Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Environment and/or Forests -- could all enter into agreements under section 170. That's what's allowed for in this section.

Hon. A. Petter: If the purpose of the agreement was to ensure that forest resources are properly managed and conserved in a way that relates to the mandate of one of those ministries, then the answer is yes. But there would have to be some relationship to the mandate of those ministries that related to the object of ensuring that forest resources are properly managed and conserved.

[7:30]

W. Hurd: Just one final question. Would these agreements be subject to the auditing provisions of the code? Would they be verifiable and measurable for compliance? An agreement clearly implies commitments from both the Crown and the person entering into the agreement. We've established the fact that three ministries of the Crown could enter into agreements under section 170. I don't know how many agreements we might potentially be talking about here, but under this entire Forest Practices Code there is much mention made of auditing and monitoring. My question is to just seek assurance from the minister that these agreements would be subject to the auditing that would normally be done for compliance under the Forest Practices Code generally.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the fact that work is conducted pursuant to an agreement would not alter the conclusion as to whether the code did or did not apply. It would depend on the nature of the work. If it has to do with the growing of seedlings, for example, it's hard to envisage how that could violate the code. If it had to do with work in relation to development and maintenance of a recreation site or facility, then, conceivably, if that work were conducted in a way that did not accord with code standards, that could engage the Forest Practices Code. It's not a function of whether there is or is not an agreement; it's the nature of the activity that is taking place.

Sections 170 and 171 approved.

On section 172.

W. Hurd: Section 172 refers back to section 70, which refers to a silvicultural agreement that can be entered into or directed by a forest official. Again, this invites debate about the issue of tenure and security. What I see this section mandating is that, even if the licensee enters into an enhanced silvicultural agreement with the Crown, we want to make sure that any timber that is grown as a result of that incremental improvement clearly belongs to the Crown. Is that the housekeeping purpose of this particular section?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. Any tree that's established on Crown land is the property of the Crown. This section is consistent with section 129.5 of the Forest Act which, if the member looks at it, is worded in a very similar fashion.

Section 172 approved.

On section 173.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to commend the minister for bringing forward a section in this bill on whistle-blower protection. After all, the government of which he is a member campaigned in the last election on whistle-blower protection throughout the public service. They haven't met that promise in their election manifesto -- I don't know why -- but here in this particular piece of legislation we have whistle-blower protection, although the government has failed to bring it forward in a more comprehensive way throughout the broader public service.

I'd like to ask the minister: when he brings in whistle-blower protection in the Forest Practices Code, is there any balance to that? Whistle-blower protection basically protects any individual -- not just government employees, as I understand this section -- who comes forward with a complaint. Under this act the individual is effectively protected against any discrimination. Is there any balance to ensure that we're not simply protecting those who might seek to harass individual operators under the Forest Practices Code? Is there any balance to protect operators from those who would come forward with mischievous, frivolous or harassing kinds of complaints?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the answer is that nothing explicitly deals with that concern, but I think the member will find that in various sections. The Forest Practices Board, for example, can outright dismiss complaints that are frivolous or vexatious. Also, in common law and through other statute law any attempt to engage in some kind of malicious activity that did damage to someone's reputation could result in various forms of legal action. What this section is designed to protect is activity undertaken in which a person gives evidence or otherwise assists with respect to a prosecution, complaint or other proceeding under this act -- I assume a court would interpret that as meaning in good faith and not in some malicious way. I think the protection is inherent in the criteria and in the way in which courts will interpret this section, and I appreciate the member's recognition of this section. This is one of the sections that came out of our public consultation process, and I think it's....

Interjection.

[ Page 12750 ]

Hon. A. Petter: One of many, yes, that came out of our public consultation process. I think it's a very positive section, and I appreciate the chance to talk about it.

W. Hurd: I'm just seeking a basic assurance that the whistle-blower protection is also extended to employees of the Ministry of Forests, because as we've identified previously under the penalties section and under the fines, they don't apply, and the court action does not apply, to ministry personnel. I am seeking assurance here that were a Ministry of Forests employee to come forward with a concern about being evicted, discharged, suspended, expelled or intimidated in any way, section 173 of the Forest Practices Code would afford protection to that employee as well.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, this applies to government employees, as it does to private sector employees.

Section 173 approved.

On section 174.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to section 174, which clearly spells out that for any regulation or standard to be complied with, or for any operational plan that may be required, the licence holder will incur all expenses. Can the minister tell us whether this is basically a transfer from the Forest Act as well? Or is this plugging a loophole, or eliminating situations where in fact the Ministry of Forests may in some way participate in the cost-sharing or in some other recognition of the cost that it's imposing on a licensee? Or is this a categorical or broad-ranging section that simply says that if you order a plan, you're going to pay for it, and if you have to take any action with respect to a regulation or standard, you're going to pay for that too?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it's a provision that is consistent with current provisions in the Forest Act and in licence documents that establish the basic principle that if you, as a licence holder, are required to perform obligations, the presumption is that they are carried out at your own expense.

Sections 174 and 175 approved.

On section 176.

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to section 176, I move the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 176, by deleting "the board must cause to be carried out periodic independent audits and special investigations" and substituting "the board must carry out periodic independent audits and may carry out special investigations".]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: Section 176, I think, is a fairly straight-forward provision in the existing legislation. I wonder if the minister could share with us the reason why virtually the entire section appears to have been rewritten.

Hon. A. Petter: While there is an obligation to carry out independent audits, the power to undertake special investigations rests with the board on a discretionary basis. They are not required to carry out special investigations; they have the power to do so where appropriate.

W. Hurd: I'm scrambling to find my copy of the standards here, but I wonder if the minister can advise us, since reference is made to the regulations, whether this section specifically mandates the board to carry out a schedule of independent audits. Or is it again a discretionary power that the board may have to carry out audits? This wording, particularly the amendment, seems to imply that there is now a statutory requirement for the board to undertake a range of spot audits or general audits in the field to try to attain a broad-brush assessment of whether there is material compliance with the act. I just ask the minister whether this section talks about a schedule of audits. Or is it just the ability of the board to carry out those audits?

Hon. A. Petter: The section as amended does create an obligation on the board to carry out periodic independent audits. The board therefore presumably would have to produce a schedule in order to fulfil that commitment. If government for some reason wished to, it could prescribe through regulations what that schedule should be or how frequently the audit should take place. That has not occurred yet. I think it's something the board will want to consider as it carries out its obligations and duties under the act.

W. Hurd: Then can the minister tell us what access the public would have to the results of the audits -- plus the appropriateness of government enforcement, which is spelled out under section 176(b)? Would those audits be published in a timely manner? Would they be available for public scrutiny?

Again, I suppose the only real measure of compliance is the fact that these audits will be made public. I'm certain that if the board, which is the independent auditing authority under this bill, were to undertake those kinds of audits -- very much like the Tripp audit on Vancouver Island -- a number of individuals in government and in opposition would want to make substantial use of the information in the audits. I know the minister has never been shy in using the results of the Tripp audit to talk about the need for a Forest Practices Code. I just wonder if the minister could advise us what access there is for the public under the audits spelled out in section 176.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. If the member looks at the proposed Forest Practices Board regulations, section 7, he'll see that the proposed regulation is that the board must make a final audit report available to the public within 30 days of its submission by the auditor.

Amendment approved.

Section 176 as amended approved.

On section 177.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 177, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting paragraph (b).]

On the amendment.

[ Page 12751 ]

R. Neufeld: The amendment reads that subsection (2)(b) is deleted. Actually, when I read that section of the bill, subsection (2)(b) seemed appropriate. It should be left there, I think. I can't imagine why the government would want to remove a section such as that, because -- to me, anyhow -- subsection (2)(b) tells the chair, or the board, that it does not have to take seriously someone who is trying to create a bit of mischief or who is not really versed in what's taking place. By removing that section, we leave it wide-open for all kinds of abuse. The chair does not have the legislation in front of it to be able to say: "No, I don't want to deal with your complaint, because there is no substance to it." I would rather see the section stay as it is in the bill. I don't think it does anything to the bill; in fact, I think it adds a whole bunch to it. Maybe the minister could explain some reason for this.

[7:45]

Hon. A. Petter: I'll resist the temptation to say the question is (2)(b) or not (2)(b).

Having not said that, the concern here is that the Forest Practices Board is to provide to the public both accountability and an opportunity to bring concerns to the board. If one expects only those members of the public who have some significant personal interest, then that potentially would unduly restrict the class of public who could bring complaints. That was not the intention. On reviewing the matter, I felt the section unduly limited the ability of the board to entertain general concerns from the public. I think the member will agree that all citizens in British Columbia have a stake in the future of our forests.

The board clearly does have discretion to dismiss such complaints under subsection (d), in any event, both in the way it deals with complaints under its general powers and in respect of frivolous, vexatious or trivial complaints. Therefore, I think the board has ample discretionary authority to weed out the insubstantial or vexatious complaints without the necessity of including (2)(b).

R. Neufeld: Is the minister then saying that the board has to address every complaint that takes place? What comes to mind immediately is a hearing that I attended that was dealing with some forest-related issues, where one person who presented some issues obviously was not aware of what was really going on, and presented some information that was quite incorrect.

I would rather that the chair have the ability to make the decision beforehand and not have their hands tied so that they have to deal with almost every kind of complaint. But also, I realize what the minister has said. If the minister is telling me that subsection (d) will allow the board -- the chair -- to determine the same thing that would happen under subsection (b), that they don't have to hear every complaint and use that section for that purpose, then I'll be assured. Maybe the minister can assure me of that.

Hon. A. Petter: I can assure the member that the intention is not to impose upon the board the obligation to consider frivolous or vexatious complaints. The reality, though, is that complaints that are frivolous and vexatious may come from those who have a personal stake in a matter, as much as they come from those whose stake is that of a member of the general public. What we want is a board that will formulate an approach and a policy for the way it deals with complaints, distinguishing those that require full investigation from those that can be dealt with in a cursory way, on the basis of the substance of the complaint, not on the fact that the person bringing the complaint has a greater or lesser interest.

The purpose of the board is to be accountable to all British Columbians, all of whom have a stake in the forest. So I think I can provide the member with the assurance that the board will have to determine, as a matter of policy, how it deals with complaints under subsection (1), in a way that clearly discourages and does not give much credence to those that are insubstantial, frivolous or vexatious, but gives greater credence to those that have greater weight.

The position that I have taken on this amendment is that that does not in any way correspond with the criteria contained in subsection (2)(b).

D. Mitchell: I'd like to add my concern to that raised by the member for Peace River North on the amendment that the minister is proposing. I'd like to say that I think this is quite a serious matter. We're addressing the powers of the board to deal with complaints. The way section 177 was drafted, in (2)(b) it really allowed the board some discretionary powers that are being taken away now.

I know that the board does not have the powers of a court, and what we're essentially doing with this section is giving the jurisdiction of a court to the board when it comes to dealing with complaints. We're talking about who should have standing before the board in bringing forward a complaint. It's an important legal concept: which individuals or groups or special interest groups should have standing and be recognized before the board when bringing forward complaints?

The way the initial subsection (2) was drafted, it said that the board may refuse to investigate if an individual complainant or group does not have sufficient personal interest in the subject matter. That gives some discretionary power to the board. It doesn't say that they must refuse, but they may refuse if an individual group or individual doesn't have sufficient personal interest in the matter that's being complained about.

I don't know why we would want to take away such discretionary power from the board. Why should we tie their hands? I'd like to ask the minister to reconsider this because of the kinds of linkages that need to exist between a complaint and a complainant before the board, which has been given some powers normally associated with a court here. I think those linkages should exist where possible, and the other subsections of section 177, I think, really do deal with those. But why can't a complaint be refused on these grounds? It doesn't say they must be, but why shouldn't the board be given those discretionary powers? Would the minister elaborate, because he hasn't really answered that question.

Hon. A. Petter: The purpose of the Forest Practices Board is not to act as an appellate agency; there's another agency under the act to do that. It is there to act as a watchdog to some extent, overseeing the act on behalf of the public. The board will want to attend to complaints, in light of what those complaints disclose about potential violations of the code, in order to promote good forest practices.

I'm sure the member would not want a situation in which the board was discouraged from considering a substantive complaint that disclosed serious violations of the Forest Practices Code simply because the person who brought that to the board's attention didn't have a 

[ Page 12752 ]

personal interest. Our position is -- and I would have thought the member, who normally advocates broad accountability and sunshine legislation, would agree with this -- that all members of the public of British Columbia have a stake in good forest practices; and that if any member of the public becomes aware of circumstances in which forest practices are not being observed in accordance with the act, the board would want to hear that person out and make a determination on the basis of the substance, not the person's interest.

This is not an adjudicative or appellate tribunal; this is a public agency responsible to all British Columbians, who have a stake in the future of our forests and in good forest management. To encourage the board to restrict complaints to those whose interest is somehow linked in a more direct way than that of all British Columbians, I think, would be an unfortunate message to send about the responsibility that this government has, and hopefully future governments will have, to ensure good forest practices on behalf of all British Columbians, not just a few.

D. Mitchell: I contend that this amendment handcuffs the board. It effectively handcuffs the board by reducing their discretionary power. There's nothing in the initial section, section 177(2), that prevents the board from dealing with or refusing complaints; it simply gives them that ability. If the minister is saying that he doesn't have faith in the board, then that's a poor reflection on this bill and on the board that it establishes under part 8. No longer will the board have any discretionary power to refuse to investigate.

The minister is saying here that all British Columbians should have the right to complain. If a violation takes place in the Prince George timber supply area, and if someone from Victoria or Vancouver Island complains about it, the minister is saying that the board should be allowed to investigate that. Well, that's true, the board will have the power to investigate that. But should the board not have the right to refuse if someone is not materially involved?

Under this amendment that the minister is bringing in, someone from outside the province could come in -- perhaps Robert Kennedy Jr., to use an example. Robert Kennedy Jr. could come to British Columbia. He could make a complaint under the Forest Practices Code, something that no other British Columbians, individuals or groups, may be overly concerned about. But under the minister's amendment, the Forest Practices Board would be compelled -- it could not refuse -- to hear that complaint. I think that's ridiculous, and I think the minister's amendment does not serve this legislation well.

Hon. A. Petter: The member's example discloses his argument's lack of substance. If the matter is not of concern to British Columbians and presumably therefore is not of great concern to the board, the board will dismiss it on those grounds.

Let me throw an example back to the member. Do we want it to weigh on the board...? Bear with me on this. Suppose there's some serious damage to a stream in the Queen Charlotte Islands that comes to light because of some knowledge held by someone who lives outside the area. Do we want to encourage the board to be less concerned about attending to that damage and the steps necessary to remedy it simply because the person is not close or proximate to it? I don't think so. I think British Columbians are concerned that good forest practices be observed throughout the province.

I think the member is ignoring that underlying the example he gave -- and, I assume, other examples he'd give -- is the fact that he has another concern -- i.e., that the issue is not of great concern to British Columbians and hence wouldn't be to the board, or that it's frivolous and vexatious. But the fact that the individual who brings it doesn't have a personal interest really doesn't go to the heart of the matter; it isn't relevant. What's relevant is whether in fact there's a serious issue of damage to the environment or of some breach of the code that needs to be remedied. The board will attend to that serious issue. If it's frivolous and vexatious, the board will dismiss it.

We don't want to encourage the board to dismiss a substantial violation simply because the person who draws it to the board's attention is someone who is removed from the situation. If it's a person who doesn't have good knowledge, then the board will dismiss it on that basis, not because of the interest of the person. That would make sense in an adjudicative hearing where standing is the issue, but for a public watchdog agency that's designed to ensure that this code is operating effectively on behalf of all British Columbians, this kind of restriction would be contrary to good public policy. It would limit the sunshine that would flow as a result of this agency, and it would restrict accountability -- contrary to every principle I hear this member argue in this House.

I think that maybe the member was influenced by some lobbying that might have been done on him, judging by the example he used. Maybe he should really consider what I'm saying on behalf of this amendment. This amendment leaves the board with plenty of discretion to dismiss frivolous complaints, to have policy to deal with complaints and to not pursue complaints beyond the most preliminary stage if they're not substantive. But surely we don't want to encourage the board to say that even though a substantive complaint is brought before it, it should somehow dismiss consideration of that complaint simply because of the interest of the person who brings it to their attention. I think that's bad policy; it undermines accountability.

D. Mitchell: The way the section was originally drafted, it neither encouraged nor discouraged the board from hearing complaints from persons who were materially affected, but it gave the board some discretion to decide whether or not they should hear this kind of a complaint if it were to come forward. By bringing forward this amendment to this section, which I think was actually relatively well drafted in its original form, I believe the minister has handcuffed the board. We're concerned here with the overall administration of the Forest Practices Board. We want it to be efficient. We want those board members, who hopefully will be appointed wisely by the government -- and hopefully the very highest-quality, the very best and the brightest individuals will be appointed to this board -- to have some discretionary power to decide whether or not a complaint should be heard.

The minister is saying that we're going to handcuff them, because every complaint that comes forward is going to have to be heard, regardless of whether or not the individual is concerned or has any direct material interest in or direct knowledge of British Columbia. I don't think it makes sense. I don't think the minister is showing confidence in the board that he's establishing with this 

[ Page 12753 ]

act. Despite what the minister has said -- and he's said some words on this already, and I don't want to prolong it -- I don't think he is demonstrating confidence. He's reducing the discretionary power of the board that he seeks to appoint, and it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

W. Hurd: I would certainly like to go even further at this time and suggest that this is a potentially disastrous amendment by the government to this section of the act. I know that considerable lobbying, which the minister alluded to earlier, has gone on with respect to the code, and I'm sure it continues to this very day and perhaps even to this very hour. I really have to point out that I hope this amendment was introduced by the minister, and that it is not the result of a lobbying effort by some of the national or international legal defence funds, for example, because clearly, as it was worded under the existing legislation, the section would have given the board the discretion to identify a complaint that might be sponsored by an international environment fund that does not have a material interest in the province of British Columbia per se.

[8:00]

The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi talked about the Kennedys coming to British Columbia, but it could well be a legal defence fund from the state of California or from the province of Ontario. All this section, as it currently exists, allows the board to do is decide that there was an avenue for not hearing the appeal based on the fact that the appellant or complainant didn't have a material interest. It didn't preclude the board from hearing the case; it simply identified that personal interest as being a factor in the board coming to its decision. I have to echo the concerns of the independent member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and the Reform Party Forests critic that this is a potentially disastrous amendment, which is going to cause great concern in the community.

I hope the minister hasn't been sold a bill of goods by a powerful lobby with respect to this section. Unfortunately, I see the potential here for the board to be handcuffed when it comes to complaints from legal defence funds, which may have agendas that might be legitimate to some extent. How can the minister argue that a defence fund based in California, Ontario or perhaps even Geneva or Europe has any personal interest? Again, I can't understand why, under this amendment, the minister is whittling away at the discretion of the board, which may still hear a complaint, but has that latitude to not hear it as a result of a personal interest provision.

I would certainly welcome an assurance from the minister that this amendment has come forward from the ministry staff as a reasoned amendment and that it was not the subject of a powerful lobby. Surely the minister is aware that there are serious reservations being raised about the timing of this amendment. I would urge the minister, at the very least, to farm it out for much wider public discussion before we adopt this amendment. I think a great deal of concern currently exists.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to prolong debate, but I really think members need to consider carefully what they're suggesting. First of all, it's a little cute, it seems to me, to suggest that because there is a discretion here, this is not directive. Clearly, if one puts particular criteria into a paragraph, one is essentially directing the board to take account of those criteria in exercising its discretion. So I think the member's point on that is a little cute.

Second, the purpose of the board is to act as a watchdog agency not only to satisfy the concerns of British Columbians about good forest practices, but also, frankly, because I think we are better served by a board that can do these functions without encouraging groups to engage in litigation and other forms of action. If we effectively create rules around the board that encourage British Columbians who are therefore frustrated in their inability to use the offices of the board, we will simply be encouraging those British Columbians to use other avenues, such as laying private informations under the Offence Act.

I don't think that's desirable. I think it's desirable to have a board that has a wide-open policy and is prepared to listen to all complaints, but to judge those complaints on the substance of the complaint. What are we afraid of here? Don't we want a board that will look at the substance of complaints? If the lack of proximity or interest of the person reflects on the fact that they don't have a substantive complaint, then the board will reject the complaint on the basis that it's not substantive. Surely we want a board that's open to all substantive complaints. We don't want a situation in which we force people into more disruptive and more legalized forms of proceedings because we don't have more of an open-door policy with respect to the less formal board, which is there to act as a watchdog on behalf of British Columbians. What the members are suggesting is patently counterproductive. It would encourage the board to adopt judicial-type criteria which will in turn encourage groups to pursue more legalized types of remedies, and that would be counter-productive for everyone in this province.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

So I encourage the members to speak in favour of accountability, let a little sunshine in and trust the board. The board will be able, based on the substance of complaints, to decide how it deals with complaints. It may deal with a complaint in a very cursory fashion if it is not substantive and the information is not complete. And if the information is complete and substantive, everyone in B.C. would want the board to pay attention to that complaint.

R. Neufeld: I understand, and I agree that this board has to deal up front with British Columbians and British Columbia forestry, and with our practices and everything. I don't think there's any problem there. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi brings in a good point when he talks about well-funded environmental movements from outside the country -- maybe from Europe. I guess the minister is saying that when the board goes to this section and sees that the only section they can use is (d) and they have to determine that the complaint is frivolous, that might be pretty hard to do: frivolous, or a vexatious or trivial matter, under whose determination?

There are some well-funded, and it's obvious.... The minister is well aware of what is happening in Europe and in the States with the environmental movement to discredit British Columbia's past and present forest practices -- rightly or wrongly. I am not disputing that at all, but there should be something in the legislation that allows the chair to deal with issues such as that in an easy manner, and to put it to the board that it has to be a frivolous, vexatious or trivial matter if it happens to be a well-funded organization from out of the country or 

[ Page 12754 ]

within the country that is affecting something to do with our livelihood -- the backbone of our economy. I would think the minister would want something in the bill that would allow the board to use that.

That is not to say that we want to make it difficult for British Columbians to deal with forest practices. But by removing it and agreeing to the amendment for section 177, maybe the minister is opening the door for a lot more work than the board really wants to take on.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, I would remind everybody that the amendment is to delete subsection (b) as in "baby," not (d) as in "Dale."

R. Neufeld: I know that (b) is being deleted, and I appreciate that correction. But the minister has said that (d) will take the place of (b). That is the difference, for your clarification.

The Chair: Thank you, member. I appreciate that.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, other discretions are provided in sections (e) and (f); members might want to look at those. Beyond that, I go back to the basic point.

First, I am advised that the interpretation of complaints from the public would not contemplate the public outside British Columbia. In the interpretation of this act it would have to be a public within British Columbia. Second, when you have a well-financed organization, that organization will find a way to bring a complaint, whether it's through a proxy or whatever. What situation do we want? Do we want to discourage complaints coming through a board that has expertise and knowledge and that will, hopefully, develop a body of principles and knowledge that will help inform the policy of this code? Or do we want to preclude groups and members of the public from using this board, and to pursue other avenues with agencies that may have less expertise and that may be more disruptive in the way in which they deal with these kinds of situations?

I would suggest that good public policy suggests that we want this board -- which is not a judicial body, which does or will have the expertise, and which will build up a body of knowledge -- to act as the screen and the mechanism of accountability back to those in the public who have concerns. To discourage members of the public from using the board and thereby encourage members of the public to use other agencies and other avenues that have less expertise is to invite greater disruption, not less.

While the arguments the members make may sound good in some abstract sense, on the ground in real life they don't make a lot of sense.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for the clarification that this section of this bill will allow only British Columbians to come forward with complaints to the board. That's an important clarification, and the minister's comments on the record will serve as guidance for future boards appointed under this act. That's an important point to recognize.

When the minister suggests that it is members of this committee this evening who are raising this concern, that's not the case, strictly speaking. The original version of the bill that the minister tabled in this House, which presumably was drafted with the assistance of officials in the ministry and legislative counsel, suggested an approach for the Forest Practices Board that would give some discretion to that board. The minister subsequently -- at a late moment -- brought in an amendment. I don't think it's appropriate for the minister to be criticizing members of this House. In fact, this evening members of this committee are trying to defend the original version of this bill when it was brought into this House. The minister, his own officials and legislative counsel thought that would be an appropriate way for this bill to come forward. Members of this committee who are raising this point are simply defending the original bill that this minister tabled, not the amendment that he has brought in belatedly and not the amendment that is being opposed this evening in committee because it is still -- in spite of the clarification by the minister that only British Columbians can bring forward complaints -- taking away the discretionary power of the board that the minister is seeking to appoint. I'd like to ask the minister this, because he's throwing the criticism back at us: who screwed up?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think anyone screwed up. Obviously, in the preparation of an act this size, a number of provisions are imported from other statutes that may make sense in other contexts. Very often, in an adjudicative context or in a context of an appellate body, having a standing provision of this kind would make good sense. It's my sense that it would be counterproductive. Believe it or not, in this government we still have ministerial accountability, and acting upon that, I thought that I should propose this amendment.

I want to just clarify the member's point. I did not suggest that it would be only British Columbians -- if that means British Columbians in the sense of citizenship. Certainly the public in British Columbia, in the interpretation I have been provided, would be afforded the opportunity to raise complaints under subsection (1).

D. Mitchell: Just a question to the minister on that final comment. Could the minister define what "the public in British Columbia" means? Does that mean any human being who happens to be in British Columbia at any time? How would he define the public in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I'd define the public of British Columbia as the public that is in British Columbia.

W. Hurd: I think it's important to take another belated run at this, as much as I know the minister will be encouraged to hear me say that. The minister suggested that it has to be someone from the public in British Columbia. I take no comfort from that assurance at all.

The minister made reference in this debate to the Queen Charlottes. He will be aware that a private prosecution was initiated by the Steelhead Society but funding and expertise was provided by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, which is an international fund. So clearly it would be very simple for an international environmental fund to come in and use a surrogate complainant within the province. This would give the board the power to determine that, yes, this is being driven internationally, and therefore the board has the discretionary power to decide that there is no personal interest.

[8:15]

It's important to talk about section 177(1), which is really the crux of the issue. Section 177(1) says that "the board must deal with complaints from the public." It will have that statutory obligation when we pass this bill. Unless the complaint fits into the categories under subsection (2), the board must hear the complaint. It is 

[ Page 12755 ]

statutorily required to do that. All the opposition is suggesting is that the existing bill should remain the same because it gives the board one other discretionary factor on which to reject an appeal. Otherwise, it will have to hear the appeal; it's statutorily required to hear the appeal. I know the environmental lobby has been aggressively studying this section. I know they have been lobbying this minister and the government for changes, and I again caution and implore the minister to categorically assure this committee that he has not been sold a bill of goods; that it will not provide for complaints by international environmental funds, which the minister would agree may have another agenda that means that they don't have a personal interest in the issue, other than as a global issue.

I am not reassured. By eliminating this section, the minister has suggested that there is one less avenue available to the board and that it now must hear a complaint. It must do that; that is the purpose of this section. I think that this amendment carries wide-ranging significance. This bill was tabled in the House, given first reading some months ago and, one would assume, was then distributed to the public at large for comment. To introduce a substantive amendment like this during the closing days of the session, in the last days of debate, I don't think is serving the public interest.

I implore and urge the minister to leave the bill as it's currently worded and farm this proposed amendment out for further public comment. To me, that would be a far more prudent public policy decision than to ram this amendment through tonight. Clearly the minister has acknowledged that the board will be with us for many years to come. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the government from bringing in an amendment statute at a later date to deal with this issue. Because there has been such concern raised about this issue, not only from the opposition but from people who had a chance to review the code, who felt comfortable with the provisions and who now are expressing concern about his amendment, I believe it responsible to again ask the minister to stand it down in favour of wider-ranging public debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I think I'll make this my last attempt to intervene on this matter. The member's example makes my point. When you have a well-funded group, that group has no difficulty finding surrogate individuals who will satisfy whatever test of standing. That is exactly the way groups that have funding and resources pursue litigation. They do not have that difficulty. The people who would be prejudiced by this are those British Columbians who don't have resources and do have concerns about forest practices. For members of the opposition to be suggesting that this board should be less available and less accountable to those ordinary British Columbians who don't have resources is shocking.

Furthermore, if I can give some comfort to the members -- because I know the members like to believe they're on the side of accountability, normally; for some reason someone has persuaded them that this board should be less accountable than otherwise -- look at subsection (1): "In accordance with the regulations, the board must deal with complaints from the public respecting prescribed matters that relate to this Act." There is power here for the board to deal with matters in a number of different ways -- in a cursory way or in a more substantive way -- and the matters that the board deals with are those that are prescribed. Both of those can be dealt with under regulations.

If a concern arises that the board is being taxed by having to deal with too many matters in a particular way, regulations can clearly limit the way in which the board has to deal with certain kinds of complaints and can also define the matters that it has to deal with through the prescription and regulations. So there's no difficulty here. Under subsection (1) there is ample discretion in the board and through regulation to deal with any concerns.

I really discourage members of the opposition from adopting the posture that ordinary British Columbians should be shut out from having access to this board, and that this board should be less accountable to ordinary British Columbians. That is not in keeping with the spirit that an opposition party should be pursuing; they should be arguing the opposite. I'm a little embarrassed to be on the good side of this argument, but I guess that's the way things happen in this kind of legislation.

The Chair: Before we go on, hon. members, may I suggest that we have had considerable debate on the amendment in the last ten minutes. There are a number of other amendments, and we have another 147 sections in this particular bill; we ought not to spend forever on the amendments. Having said that and having given that caution, I will now recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for that direction.

I just seek one assurance from the minister. This has obviously been a contentious matter in the committee tonight. I actually think the minister got it right the first time, before he brought in the amendment. The original version is preferable, obviously, but there's no need to belabour that point. If the minister would simply agree to allow this question to be decided by a vote of those members who are currently present in the committee, I would be pleased to go to a vote immediately.

W. Hurd: I issue my pledge to the Chair that this will be my last attempt at debate on this amendment as well. It piqued my curiosity when the minister made reference to the possibility of a surrogate group in British Columbia being chosen for a vehicle for an international environmental fund to launch a complaint under this particular section.

Again I stress to the minister that all leaving existing subsection (b) in would do is enable the board to say: "If you're going to come into British Columbia and use a surrogate organization to launch a complaint under the act, it's going to have to be an organization that has some sort of material or personal interest with respect to the issue being raised." It is just another discretionary ability the board has. There's no requirement on the part of the board to decide not to hear an appeal as a result of the personal interest requirement. As the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has said, it's not empowering the board to turn down an appeal. It simply is a discretionary ability to ensure that where an international fund might come in and use a surrogate organization for the purposes of launching an action, the organization has to at least be some group or individual that has a personal interest.

I certainly reiterate the comments of other hon. members that the minister got it right the first time, and I 

[ Page 12756 ]

would urge him to stand this amendment aside in favour of more public consultation.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 177 as amended approved.

On section 178.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 178, by deleting the proposed subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Without limiting sections 176 and 177, for the purposes of those sections the board may investigate a determination.]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: Given the fact that the last amendment was introduced as a housekeeping measure, and the government prompted such a wide-ranging debate, I would certainly welcome clarification from the minister on the rationale for an amendment under section 178.

I think it appropriate at this time to also point out that as the official opposition critic, I'm very concerned about amendments being introduced to the Forest Practices Board sections of the bill. As the minister well knows, his ministry and the government probably receive more submissions and lobbying with respect to the roles, rights and responsibility of the Forest Practices Board than on any other provision of this act.

I again would caution the minister that where amendments are introduced to these sections in the bulk quantity of the 70 or 80 that we're dealing with, and so late in the legislative session, there are bound to be concerns raised at this time.

My first request would be for an explanation of the amendment to section 178, and also of the minister's comment that he feels comfortable that the public at large, which has made so many submissions to the government, is being well served by amendments introduced in this manner that they have not previously had the opportunity to review.

Hon. A. Petter: I know the member is looking for all sorts of theories to serve his concerns, but let me assure him that this amendment was proposed by legislative counsel. The reason for it is that the intention of subsection (1) was to broaden, not to limit, the powers of the board. There was a concern that the formulation under the current subsection (1) could be construed as limiting the board's discretion to investigate. For that reason, the change in wording was proposed by legislative counsel to make it clear that that's not the case -- that the board's discretion is not limited.

Amendment approved.

On section 178 as amended.

W. Hurd: I have a series of questions with respect to the board's powers of investigation. One provision here is: "The board may not investigate conduct occurring before the commencement of this Act." I'm wondering how that might apply to a road, for example. We may see slippage occurring long after the act comes into force, but the engineering plans and the construction may have been deficient before the act came into force. Would that not be eligible for a complaint to the Forest Practices Board?

Hon. A. Petter: It's to make clear that what can be investigated are actions that occur after the commencement of the act. Let's take the example of a road that was improperly constructed prior to the act coming into force that subsequently gives way because someone travelled on that road without obtaining the necessary permit. The first action, the improper construction of the road, could not be the subject of an investigation. The subsequent action, that of travelling along the road inappropriately in contravention of the act, could be the subject of investigation.

W. Hurd: Then section 178(3) applies to any forest practice as defined in the definitions section of the bill. That would refer to any harvesting activity, planting, silvicultural prescription, activity under the Range Act, existing plans or anything that was undertaken prior to this bill being passed into law -- whenever that day may arrive, and I assume it will be someday soon. We are dealing with the date at which the bill receives royal assent, and that is the date on which the licensee is deemed to be liable for every practice under this act.

Hon. A. Petter: The word in the subsection is really the most helpful one: "The board may not investigate conduct...." So it refers to conduct. If the conduct in question, the conduct that forms the subject matter of the inquiry, occurred subsequent to the commencement of the act, then the board does have authority. If it occurred prior to it, then the board does not have authority to investigate that conduct.

R. Neufeld: I want to follow up on what the minister relayed to the member for Surrey-White Rock with regard to a road. The minister said that a road constructed five or six years ago cannot be investigated now; and if a person drives on that road without a permit and it fails, then they can investigate. But if that person does not have a permit at all and it fails, what happens in that case? We're getting back to this road permit issue that really bothers me. What I'm trying to say is that if the road fails, it should not matter whether you have a permit or not -- we should be dealing with it. That should not be the hinge.

[8:30]

Hon. A. Petter: Knowing the member's sensitivities around the permitting of transport, I'll try to avoid those kinds of examples. I know they'll get me into trouble.

The point I was trying to make is that the conduct in question and the timing of that conduct determines whether the board can investigate. You have to look elsewhere in the act to find out whether there is some substantive complaint that needs to be pursued. That would depend on whether a permit was required or not required under sections previously debated.

All I'm saying is that the triggering question, which determines whether this is conduct that the board can look at at all, is whether that conduct occurred before or after the commencement of the act. If it occurred afterwards, then you would ask yourself: was that conduct such that there is any question of violation? You have to go to other sections of the act to determine that.

W. Hurd: I have a question with respect to section 178(4), which mandates the board to apply to the Supreme 

[ Page 12757 ]

Court for a declaratory order determining whether a question submitted to it is within its statutory power. I'm curious as to how this provision relates to the ability of a Legislative Assembly to change or amend the legislation. In other words, does the board now have an ability to trigger a rewriting of the act by virtue of taking on a case before the courts? Is that what we're dealing with here? Could the declaratory order from the court in any way expand the mandate of the board? Or would it again be strictly subject to interpretation by the courts under the sections of this bill?

Hon. A. Petter: This is a very useful section. I believe many of these provisions are imported from the Ombudsman Act, just for the member's information. I'm not sure if this particular one is, but many of these sections are.

It means that if a question arises as to whether the board has jurisdiction to investigate a particular matter, the board needn't make a determination and await a judicial review application after the fact. The board can clarify the issue ahead of time by going to the court and seeking the court's guidance. In that way, it would sort of be similar to the power of government to seek a reference from the courts rather than waiting to be challenged. It means you don't have to live under the cloud of instability that arises from the issue of jurisdiction. The board can rather go to the court, get clarity on that issue and then proceed based on the court's direction.

I'm now informed that a similar provision is found in the Ombudsman Act in section 11(3); many of these provisions have corresponding sections in that act.

W. Hurd: Again with respect to section 178(4), then the courts in making that declaration would be bound by an interpretation of the existing act. They wouldn't have the latitude to find the act to be a problem in any way or to make a determination that in fact it was not legal under any other existing statute -- for example, the Charter of Rights -- or any other determination. It's strictly a determination. The courts would examine the intent of the legislation, would make a ruling and would all be governed by the sections of the bill that we're dealing with tonight.

Hon. A. Petter: The question the court would have to answer is whether, under existing Canadian law, the board does or does not have the jurisdiction to determine the question. In most cases that would involve an inquiry into this act. But it's not beyond the scope of possibility that someone may allege that the act, or the way in which the act might be interpreted, is in some respect in violation of some other provision -- for example, a provision of the constitution or Charter of Rights or whatever. Those arguments are made all the time. That would go to the question of whether the board had the jurisdiction. In determining jurisdiction, courts will look at the entire legal framework that is relevant and determine from that legal framework whether the board has the legal power to act in these circumstances that the court is invited to comment upon.

W. Hurd: Conversely, if the board decides that it doesn't have the statutory power to act and so rules, with respect to a complaint -- this may be in a later section, and I'd welcome that clarification from the minister -- is there an avenue for an individual issuing a complaint to then appeal the decision of the board to the courts for this kind of declaratory provision, or is this provision available to the chair of the Forest Practices Board only?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to go through all my old administrative law notes for the benefit of the member, but under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, when an official does not act and a member of the public believes that the official had an obligation to act, one can seek an order in the nature of mandamus, which is an order requiring the official to act, and go to court to ask the court to so direct the official.

Section 178 as amended approved.

Section 179 approved.

On section 180.

W. Hurd: I want to ask a brief question with respect to 180 and how it meshes with 179. Section 179 dealt with the power to obtain information, which is relatively straightforward, but section 180 puts a limitation on the power to obtain information. Could the minister briefly explain the nature of the limitations that are spelled out under section 180 and what the rationale might be for this particular section?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised that this is an interim provision that will protect the disclosure of certain internal cabinet documents, as is consistent with principles of our parliamentary system. It's only there for an interim period, because there are sections within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that will become effective and will apply to all such matters and standardize such requirements in about a year's time.

W. Hurd: The only provision that really caused me concern was the provision that the information would be "harmful to the public interest." I find that to be a rather broad interpretation of this particular section. I'd welcome an example from the minister about information that might be harmful to the public interest. That seems at odds with.... I understand the need to protect cabinet secrecy and the fact that the Attorney General can't be interfered with or impeded in an investigation for the detection of an offence. Those are relatively straight-forward. But could the minister just clarify what disclosure might be harmful to the public interest? I can't even think of an example. Could the minister clarify what "harmful to the public interest" means under this section?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised that the language is included on the advice of legislative counsel. I can only assume that it is the standard language that is employed. I emphasize again that this is an interim provision; the FOI and Protection of Privacy Act will supplant this within a year.

I'll tell you a personal observation: frankly, I'm surprised that the suggestion is made that even though the matter is of a secret or confidential nature, it could nevertheless be disclosed if it were not harmful to the public interest. Principles of cabinet secrecy are being broadened, if anything, by this section.

Section 180 approved.

[ Page 12758 ]

On section 181.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 181(2), by deleting "authority" and substituting "party" wherever it appears.]

Amendment approved.

Section 181 as amended approved.

On section 182.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 182, by deleting "authority" and substituting "party" wherever it appears.]

Amendment approved.

Section 182 as amended approved.

On section 183.

W. Hurd: I think this section needs a brief clarification. Where evidence is presented to a hearing by the board, what I read into section 183 is that the evidence of the existence of the proceedings are admissible. So there is a provision here that there is a quasi-judicial function of the board that any information presented, whether it be in confidence or otherwise, can automatically be subpoenaed in the event that the case were to be appealed to a court. Is that basically a provision that ensures that all testimony before the Forest Practices Board could form a body of evidence in a court case?

Hon. A. Petter: The section parallels the Ombudsman Act, and in fact the meaning is the opposite of that suggested by the member, and that's because of the word "inadmissible."

Section 183 approved.

On section 184.

W. Hurd: A brief question on section 184. I wonder if the minister could just advise us whether this really amounts to intervener funding with respect to an appeal to the board. Are we dealing with a provision here that parallels the B.C. Utilities Act in some way, where intervener funding is required? Does the board have the latitude to offset expenses that a complainant may...? I see the minister shaking his head, and I'm sure he'll say no, hon. Chair, so we can move on to section 185.

Hon. A. Petter: Not intervener funding, which would be to fund people who come before the board voluntarily. This is to provide funding for expenses to, for example, a forest company that was required by the board to provide documents. There might be costs in duplicating those documents, and those costs are reimbursed in recognition that that's a request of the board. Again, this is a section that parallels provisions in the Ombudsman Act.

Sections 184 and 185 approved.

On section 186.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 186, in the proposed subsection (2) by adding "and the complainant" after "notify the party".]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: Could the minister briefly clarify the nature of this amendment? Why do we need to add "and the complainant" after "the party"? Is that just spelling out the nature of people or individuals who are eligible to come before the board with an official complaint?

Hon. A. Petter: It just clarifies that all people affected by the complaint, including the complainant, should receive notification, and it was felt desirable to clarify that matter.

Amendment approved.

Section 186 as amended approved.

On section 187.

[8:45]

W. Hurd: I assume that section 187 mandates the board to make a report in the event that it orders remediation action to be taken and, in fact, the licensee or the subject of the complaint takes no action. Is that a correct determination? Would there be a requirement under this provision for the board to issue such a report in every case where it was deemed after a certain length of time that no action was taken, or is it a discretionary ability of the board to issue such a report?

Hon. A. Petter: The board has discretion to issue the report. I would just clarify that the board does not have the power to make orders. It has power to make recommendations, and this gives the board the discretion to report where it feels that no suitable action has been taken pursuant to its recommendations. Again, the member will find this parallels provisions in section 24 of the Ombudsman Act.

W. Hurd: Would the report issued to the ministers, the executive council or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as a whole parallel the report that would be made public? Is that the report that's being proposed here? If I read the section correctly, it's clearly up to the board's discretion whether it issues a report that in fact no suitable action has been taken. Is there a mechanism here for the board to report those concerns to the public at large, or does this report merely go to the executive council -- and therefore be subject, I suppose, to a freedom-of-information and protecction-of-privacy request in order for it to be made public?

Hon. A. Petter: It is a report to the parties and to the ministers and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But when we get to section 189, I think it becomes clear that the board very clearly and explicitly also has the power to make the report public.

Sections 187 to 189 inclusive approved.

On section 190.

[ Page 12759 ]

W. Hurd: The minister made reference to section 190, which provides for the involvement of the public and the right of the public to access information. I wonder if the minister could just clarify under section 190 what rights and abilities the public has, because I'm sure the minister would have received substantial input or feedback on this area when the code was out there for public discussion. Could he give an overview of the public's rights under section 190?

Hon. A. Petter: The section I referred to was section 189, which we just covered. I'm going to take some liberties with the Chair here to answer the member's question, because we passed section 189, but the member may have misheard me. Subsection (3) specifies that: "If the chair considers it to be in the public interest, he or she may make a special report to the ministers or comment publicly respecting a matter relating generally to the exercise of the board's duties under this Act or to a particular case investigated by the board." It also covers the public responsibility of the board to submit annual reports and table them, through the minister, to the Legislative Assembly. That was the section to which I was referring.

Sections 190 to 192 inclusive approved.

On section 193.

W. Hurd: I request a brief explanation from the minister -- perhaps an example of where the board may find it advisable or preferable to delegate the powers under the act to an individual. Is some special investigation being envisaged here? Would it be the audit that might be ordered by the board, and would the individuals therefore be deputized in some way? Would it be subject to the act when it came to conducting that audit? Is that the kind of activity being prescribed here?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, all of the above.

Section 193 approved.

On section 194.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 194, in the proposed subsections (4) (a) and (5) by deleting "board" and substituting "commission".]

Amendment approved.

On section 194 as amended.

W. Hurd: With respect to the Forest Appeals Commission, I would settle for a blanket discussion from the minister under sections 194, 195, 196 and 197 as to whether there is a substantive change here. I think we identified this issue in the wee hours of the morning last night, when the faculties of all members of the House were somewhat compromised, and we engaged in a wide-ranging discussion with respect to the appeals commission.

The minister will be aware that there is a perception -- and perhaps it's only that -- that the number and latitude of appeals have been somewhat restricted under part 9 of the Forest Practices Code. Could the minister clarify the government's intent with respect to part 9, sections 194 through 197, which governs the Forest Appeals Commission?

Hon. A. Petter: The powers with respect to the latitude of appeals were dealt with under a previous part. Part 9 deals with the establishment, organization and operational mandate of the commission. In that respect, there is a change in the sense that we envisage here a permanent Forest Appeals Commission with a permanent chair and vice-chairs, which we believe will develop a body of some expertise, continuity and stability with respect to appeals. It will also, we believe, provide a more efficient mechanism for determining appeals. Panels will continue to be used, where appropriate, for the actual hearing of individual appeals. So this is more of a structural change, one that will provide some continuity and stability, and will enable the body to develop the kind of expertise that will enable it to discharge its functions more effectively and efficiently than would be the case through a more ad hoc system of the kind that currently exists.

W. Hurd: Could I just get some clarification, then? Where the licensee may have asked for a review by the ministry and that review has not substantially changed the determination, there is a mechanism for appeal. It's my impression -- and I've been scanning these sections to determine whether in fact it's the case -- that the appeals commission has the power to designate an official within the Ministry of Forests to hear the appeal. Is that not...? The minister is shaking his head, and I didn't see it in the section, so I'll take that at face value. I believe there was a recommendation that that take place, but it may have been in the discussion paper and have been eliminated by this time. So I accept that explanation.

Hon. A. Petter: The designation is not of an official within the ministry, but the commission may designate an official who has been designated to a panel. In terms of powers on appeal and what can be appealed, the member should refer back to our discussion earlier of part 6, division 4.

Section 194 as amended approved.

Sections 195 to 204 inclusive approved.

On section 205.

W. Hurd: I suppose the most appropriate area to address questions with respect to 205 would have been section 204. I wonder if the minister could clarify the terms "Provincial forest" and "interpretive forest sites." This appears to give the cabinet -- the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- the ability to make designations of wilderness areas and, of course, interpretative forest sites.

When we talk about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, are we again referring to the three ministries that have power under the act, or is this now an avenue for cabinet as a whole to be involved in these types of designations?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I can satisfy the member's concern by pointing out that this section deals not with the designation but with the use of interpretative forest sites. We dealt yesterday with the designation process and 

[ Page 12760 ]

designation of provincial forests. Other matters are dealt with in other legislation.

Section 205 approved.

On section 206.

W. Hurd: This is an issue that always interests me -- the role, rights and responsibilities of the chief forester, who, as we've alluded to earlier in the debate, occupies a somewhat unique position with respect to the Ministry of Forests when it comes to annual allowable harvest designations. Can the minister tell us whether we are again paralleling the existing Forest Act or whether this is an additional empowerment for the chief forester?

Hon. A. Petter: Under existing legislation, the chief forester's authority to promulgate standards is limited to basic and incremental silviculture. This extends that authority to set standards for operational plans and forest practices generally.

W. Hurd: Can the minister then tell us whether the chief forester, in establishing these standards, continues to enjoy the same sort of arm's-length relationship with the minister? As I alluded to earlier, in a perfect world the chief forester is immune from any influence from the ministry. That is an essential requirement when it comes to fairness and equity in the establishment of annual allowable harvest levels. Would the chief forester then have a statutory authority to arbitrarily or independently establish standards under section 206?

Hon. A. Petter: Arbitrarily, no; independently, yes. The chief forester will exercise the power here independently, but it must obviously be exercised in accordance with the legislative requirements and whatever regulations are promulgated in accordance with subsection (2).

W. Hurd: I am just trying to envisage the correct role for the chief forester. Clearly, we have dealt with the section of the act that provides for the executive council -- the government, in other words -- to otherwise amend or change regulations under the act. This section gives the chief forester the ability to independently establish standards.

Maybe the confusion here is in the definition of standards and regulations as they pertain to the Forest Practices Code. "Regulations" obviously has a legal standing; "standards," one would assume, would have the same power of application under the Forest Practices Code. Maybe the reason I'm somewhat confused is that there seems to be an overlapping latitude here with respect to establishing standards between the executive council and the chief forester. Could the minister explain the rationale for the chief forester being involved in this type of activity under the Forest Practices Code generally?

[9:00]

Hon. A. Petter: I can best clarify this by referring the member back to section 8, which provides the authority for the chief forester to establish, vary or cancel standards if authorized by the regulations and in accordance with the regulations. Section 206 gives cabinet the power to make the regulations that allow the chief forester to set the standards for operational plans and forest practices. As to why the chief forester is the official selected, it is because he has the greatest expertise and the ultimate responsibility in these matters, which is recognized in these provisions.

Sections 206 and 207 approved.

On section 208.

W. Hurd: This section allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet to provide for "review and comment" on a matter dealt with in this act or in the regulations. Is there any reciprocal avenue for the chief forester to invite that kind of review and comment under section 206? Obviously the government identified a need under section 208 to invite comment with respect of the regulations that the cabinet may make, but there appears to be no provision for that type of input under standards the chief forester may set. I wonder if the minister could just clarify that. Why is the cabinet the sole body mentioned under section 208?

Hon. A. Petter: It was contemplated that the power in section 208 would be exercised with respect to operational and strategic plans, under section 39 in particular. The opportunities for public involvement in the chief forester's establishment of standards is addressed in subsection (2) of section 206, which we addressed earlier, in which cabinet would stipulate the nature of public involvement, pursuant to the power that cabinet has to make regulations limiting the chief forester's power, and to set standards and regulate the procedures for setting such standards. Indeed, there is a provision for publication of proposed standards, which is contained within section 7 of the draft strategic planning regulations.

Sections 208 to 215 inclusive approved.

On section 216.

W. Hurd: This gets us back into a discussion about private land and the classification of a managed forest stand under the Assessment Act. Earlier in the discussion on this bill, I asked a specific question about the application of the code to private managed forest lands in the province. I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a period of grace was anticipated under the legislation so that people whose interest in private managed forest lands are deemed to be affected will have an opportunity for some form of dialogue with the ministry as to what changes or adjustments to the standards may be required. Not really having had the opportunity to address that question in detail in previous sections of the bill, I think section 216 offers the opportunity for us to clarify that.

Will the ministry be receiving input from private land holders with respect to the code? Is that just a commitment that the minister has made? Or is there any sort of requirement under this section for that kind of dialogue to occur?

Hon. A. Petter: There's no requirement, but it's more than a commitment. As part of the consultation undertaken by Dr. Gordon Baskerville of UBC with respect to other elements of the code, Dr. Baskerville also has been asked to undertake -- and I understand has agreed to undertake -- further consultation with owners of private managed forest lands, and others with an 

[ Page 12761 ]

interest in this issue, with respect to what standards might be appropriately applied to private managed forest lands.

Obviously, Dr. Baskerville will want to take account of the different nature of ownership. Some owners are large licensees with large tracts of private land and presumably have the same kind of management capabilities that might be expected of larger licensees under the act. Others who hold smaller tracts of private managed forest land might legitimately argue that a different regime that's less onerous and does not expect of them the same kind of management requirements would be more appropriate.

So there will be opportunities for those who hold private managed forest land and for others with an interest in the issues to communicate their concerns, thoughts and suggestions through Dr. Baskerville. His report will be prepared on this issue over the course of the next number of months and, I think, will be submitted to me later in the fall.

W. Hurd: Then it's reasonable to assume that these subsections under section 216 will not be proclaimed until such time as that report is in the minister's hands. Obviously these regulations may then be subject to some sort of order-in-council change. That assurance is important, because in the submissions I've received as opposition critic with respect to private land, there is that assumption that there will be this wide-ranging opportunity for a full public discussion before section 216 is proclaimed.

Hon. A. Petter: It's certainly my intent and expectation that we would not enact any regulations pursuant to section 216 until after a period of consultation.

The only exception to that would be if some evidence or suggestion of some serious damage or environmental concern arose that required more immediate action. That is the one possibility I want to leave open, because clearly we do not want to create a situation in which people have an incentive to misuse private managed forest lands in the hopes of getting ahead of and avoiding the requirements that may be applicable under the code. But by and large, it's my hope and expectation that those who hold private managed forest lands -- who have made commitments to manage that land for long-term forest values -- will act responsibly. Certainly that's the spirit in which I approach this section. Therefore it's my expectation that would not be necessary.

Sections 216 to 218 inclusive approved.

On section 219.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 219, in the proposed subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph:

(g) annual reports made by the commission.]

Amendment approved.

Section 219 as amended approved.

Section 220 approved.

On section 221.

W. Hurd: This section is an interesting one. I know that the minister has received some feedback on this particular section. As I read it, in essence it appears to provide the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the ability to rewrite any portion of the act that may be "considered necessary or advisable for the purpose of more effectively bringing into operation this Act, and to remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in doing so." I almost think that this wording represents some sort of grandfather clause that will in fact allow the cabinet to rewrite sections of the act, in essence, without referring an amendment act to the Legislative Assembly. So perhaps I could specifically ask the minister if we're talking about order-in-council changes here. Or is this indeed a provision that provides cabinet with the ability to identify a problem and change or make regulations -- to basically add to, subtract from or issue substantive changes to the entire Forest Practices Code?

Hon. A. Petter: This is a transitional provision. It provides for a one-year window in which a provision can be taken because of any unforeseen transitional issues that become apparent within that year. The regulations referred to would have to be by order-in-council, but as I understand it, they would essentially lapse at the end of one year.

W. Hurd: I think we need a more thorough discussion of this provision. I could be wrong -- and I'm sure the minister will take every opportunity to advise me if I am -- but this seems to be a rather sweeping section that I certainly have not seen applied to any other bill in the assembly. In essence, it provides cabinet with the ability to rewrite the legislation. I think that's what we're talking about here, and I'm concerned about the supremacy of parliament on these issues and whether or not a benefit.... Maybe that's not the term to use. I'm concerned whether or not a power is being conferred on cabinet with respect to this transitional provision that doesn't exist in any other section in any other act. The reason I mention it is that concern has been expressed to me about the sweeping powers under section 221. It seems to be an admission that maybe the act is not going to work as well as the government had hoped it would, and therefore substantive rewrites may be needed and there may even be the possibility of adding regulations to those that currently exist. If that's the case, then I think this section would have to be vigorously opposed on principle by the official opposition.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think the section is as sweeping as the member suggests. It allows cabinet to hold off on bringing in various aspects of the legislation in order to take account of the fact that when you have a major new regulatory regime of this kind, there are likely to be transitional concerns that arise. It's realistic to anticipate those and to have in place an appropriate power to deal with that. Accordingly, legislative counsel recommended this provision and the inclusion of a sunset provision along with it so that it would serve its essential and very constructive purpose but would not be abused in any way.

W. Hurd: Section 221(1) says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- i.e., the cabinet -- may make regulations. Are we talking about new regulations with respect to this particular section? May the cabinet simply write a new regulation and stick it into the act? Amending would be one thing; writing up a new regulation.... Can the minister, with his legal training, assure me that this is 

[ Page 12762 ]

in fact a provision that routinely exists in other statutes or bills? If that's the case, it makes one wonder what the opposition is doing here. I know the minister asks that question often.

[9:15]

But again, it would appear to confer quite sweeping powers on cabinet, despite the minister's assurance to the contrary. Indeed, section 5 makes reference to the fact that this section will be repealed one year after it comes into force. I would assume that that will take place automatically. So that alone would seem to indicate that the government has some conscience, some discomfort, with this particular section and has made reference to having it repealed after a one-year period. The minister assures me that there are no sweeping powers intended or justified, but perhaps he can advise me whether or not this is as routine a provision under a bill or statute in this House as he has indicated.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me reassure the member that this is not a routine provision, because this is not a routine piece of legislation. This is a Forest Practices Code. It's a very ambitious undertaking, and as confident as we are of the work that has been done, it would be foolhardy not to take account of the fact that moving to a new regime of this kind will entail difficulties and challenges along the way. For that reason this power is provided, but it's not unlimited. It has been responsibly drafted because of the concerns the member has raised.

If you look at subsection (1), it says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations considered necessary or advisable for the purpose of more effectively bringing into operation this Act, and to remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in doing so." Therefore the power is circumscribed. I suppose if push came to shove in terms of judicial review, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would be required to demonstrate that the power utilized was utilized for one of those purposes. Accordingly, this is not unlimited.

But that alone, I think, does not address the concern. The concern is that this is transitional, and therefore it should not stand as an ongoing power. For that reason legislative counsel recommended -- and I fully subscribe to the notion -- that it's desirable to have a sunset provision of the kind provided in subsection (5).

Let me not mislead the member. This is not a usual provision; this is not usual legislation. But this is a responsible provision circumscribed in a responsible way, with a sunset provision to deal with the challenges that we face in bringing about a new regime of forest management in this province, in changing the way we manage our forests, and in ensuring that we do so in a way that is not disruptive but effects the kind of smooth transition that I think we all desire.

W. Hurd: I think the minister would agree, theoretically, that this section then allows just about every section we've spent the last two days debating to be amended or deleted, and it allows sections to be added. In other words, in this section the opposition is providing cabinet with the right to write a new act and apply it in the forest land base without it necessarily ever being introduced in this House as an amendment act.

Well, the minister shakes his head. But who knows? We may even see parliament dissolved and an election called in a year's time, and we may not have the opportunity to deal with the changes that are going to occur, as the minister has indicated, over a one-year period.

As an opposition member, I have to be concerned that we're setting a precedent here, even though the minister has acknowledged this is not a typical bill. I certainly agree with him on that point. But I think that the opposition is establishing a precedent here which mandates the omnipotence of the executive council and allows the executive council to freelance, so to speak -- to add regulations -- and I have to register my concern. However well-intentioned the government may be -- and we know that they always have the best interests of British Columbians in mind; at least, that's what they tell us -- this provision is not one that a responsible opposition could possibly support. Nothing the minister has advised the committee gives me great comfort that we'd be doing our job as an opposition party if we didn't oppose it.

Hon. A. Petter: I wish to clarify that legislative counsel proposed this section. Legislative counsel is very concerned about even a hint of the ghost of Henry VIII in the halls of this chamber. This isn't even Henry IV, Part II. What is being proposed here is essentially not much of a departure from the current powers. Cabinet, as you know, hon. member, can -- and frequently does -- selectively proclaim sections in legislation. There are no provisions to amend sections here. What is being said is that cabinet may also have the power to suspend -- I guess we could call it selectively disproclaiming -- sections in order to facilitate the transition of the act in a way that's responsible. This is not an open provision, and this does not invite amendment. Legislative counsel would certainlly resist any such attempt, and I can assure you that I would too. In this case, this was initiated by legislative counsel.

I would be happy to sign a certificate saying that the opposition is doing its job by vigorously raising issues, but I don't think the opposition has to demonstrate that by voting against what is, by all measure, a responsible and measured section. It includes a sunset provision, and it has been meticulously drafted to avoid any hint or whiff of King Henry.

W. Hurd: We've seen ample evidence of meticulous drafting all the way through this bill, which is the reason why we've been dealing with the 80 amendments that were dumped on the order paper over the last two days. If I read this section correctly, it clearly provides cabinet with the power to make regulations. That's what it says. One would assume that that means new regulations.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: I'm advised that this isn't a new provision. But I've received representations from legal minds greater than my own -- which includes just about anybody's right now -- that this is a new section under this particular act and that it does confer powers on cabinet that don't exist. I think the minister has acknowledged that. His offer to sign a certificate saying that we're doing our job does not provide me with a great deal of assurance. I will certainly have no trouble, on the basis of the explanations offered, voting against this section on division.

C. Serwa: Just to speak on that a little bit, it's obvious that cabinet does have the power, through order-in-council, to make regulations and to cancel or repeal regulations. But cabinet does not have the power to repeal 

[ Page 12763 ]

legislation; that is a power of the Legislature. That is the difference. I believe the concern that the critic from Surrey-White Rock is trying to expand on is that the legislation is the responsibility of the Legislature, and regulation is obviously within cabinet's mandate. The concern is regarding the ability to repeal legislation.

Hon. A. Petter: There is no intent to give cabinet the power to repeal, only to suspend. That suspension, affected by regulation, would lapse with the sunset clause one year after the section came into force.

D. Mitchell: Just before we let the good times roll here on this section, could the minister tell us whether one year is long enough? We're talking about the transitional period for these regulations. We're talking about the Forest Practices Code, Bill 40, which is fairly complex. Is the minister confident that one year is sufficient?

Hon. A. Petter: I am, because I just couldn't resist the possibility of coming back to this Legislature and debating the issue, in order to resolve it here. Because of the concerns raised, this is not allowing cabinet to amend, but to suspend. I take the member's point that that, in itself, is a concern, and I agree. I don't think the provision should run any longer than necessary. It would not be necessary, provided we ensure that it runs into and beyond a legislative session during which we could, through legislation, deal with any problems that might arise. While I personally might find it more convenient to have it run longer, once again I find myself, rather than the opposition, arguing for the privileges of parliament. I don't think it would be appropriate to have it extend beyond one year.

Section 221 approved on division.

Sections 222 and 223 approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to the heading for Division 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

[PART 11, in the proposed heading for Division 2 by deleting "Review of".]

Amendment approved.

On section 224.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, and a further amendment that is in the possession of the Clerk, which I think has been circulated.

[SECTION 224, in the proposed subsection (1) (a) to (g) by deleting "on the coming into force of this Act" and substituting "on the coming into force of this paragraph".]

[SECTION 224,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) (a), by deleting "expires" and substituting "expires and is not replaced", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (3) (a), by deleting "expires" and substituting "expires and is not replaced".]

Amendments approved.

On section 224 as amended.

W. Hurd: I would settle for a brief explanation of "grandparented plans" under section 224. Is that assuming plans that are filed with the ministry prior to this act coming into force? We are obviously dealing with a considerable reference to some of the plans that we dealt with in an earlier section of the bill, and I wonder if the minister could provide the committee with an explanation of the term "grandparented plans" under section 224 of this bill.

Hon. A. Petter: Those are existing plans that haven't expired.

W. Hurd: That invites the same question that I asked with respect to the ability of the Forest Practices Board to investigate complaints. Under section 224, are we then dealing with a plan that is on file and has been on file prior to the act coming into force that may then be in violation of the provision of the act? Or is there some recognition here that those plans that are currently on file and meet the existing regulatory requirements, but which may not be applicable or in compliance with the new act, have this grandparented designation? It's an important issue to explore with the minister, because clearly there is going to be a requirement under this act for a massive upgrading of existing plans. In fact, I have heard assessments by licensees that just about every working and management plan they currently have will have to be upgraded. I wonder whether this section is one for which there will be some delay under section 221. I wonder if the minister could offer a fuller explanation to the committee of the intent of this particular section.

Hon. A. Petter: Section 224 takes existing plans and deems them to be plans in accordance with this act, but grandparents them, which means that they do not have to be amended, except in accordance with the requirements for such plans.

Section 224 as amended approved.

On section 225.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 225,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by adding "and the regulations" after "with this section",

(b) in the proposed subsection (5) (a) (ii) by deleting "section 226" and substituting "section 224", and

(c) in the proposed subsection (7) by adding "submit a report as required under subsection (4), or fails to" after "If a holder fails to".]

Amendment approved.

On section 225 as amended.

D. Mitchell: I have a question about section 225, entitled "Review of cutblocks by holder of a major licence or woodlot licence." We are dealing with the transitional provisions of this bill. These are fairly important to the industry, whether small operators or large. We are talking about really making the Forest Practices Code work during this transition period, and it's going to be very challenging. One of the concerns raised by many operators in the industry, small and large, is the possibility of gridlock during the transition period -- administrative gridlock in terms of decision-making for the approvals of cutblocks, for instance, under section 225.

[9:30]

[ Page 12764 ]

I'd like to ask the minister whether or not the ministry has really considered what we're doing here with this section. We have over 700 different licences, I'm told -- forms of tenure in the province of British Columbia -- that are going to have to be reviewed during the six-month transitional period referred to under section 225. That is six months to review 700 major forms of tenure as well as cutblocks that are outstanding and currently in process. Is that realistic? Do we have the expertise in the field today to actually do this review during the six-month period, or is the potential for what is referred to as administrative gridlock so great that we risk suffering a tremendous lack of decision-making and approval in the industry, which is going to result in employment layoffs, indecision and perhaps even a lack of investment during the six-month period? We want to see this Forest Practices Code work, but I wonder if this section is really realistic.

Hon. A. Petter: Very careful consideration has been given to this provision, and the tension is obviously between a desire on the part of the public -- and many licence holders as well -- to bring themselves into conformity with the new requirements as quickly as possible and, at the same time, a recognition that that be done in a way that is not administratively disruptive or overly burdensome. What has therefore been arrived at as a doable and achievable mechanism is a provision whereby certain key standards are identified. Licence holders must review their plans to ensure that those plans accord with those certain key standards, and report where those plans do not accord with those certain key standards. Then, as we'll see in subsequent sections, decisions are made by district managers in accordance with certain criteria about what changes should or should not be made.

I think this is the reasonable middle ground between the unreasonable position of saying that everything could be grandparented indefinitely or for a longer period of time, on the one hand -- which I think would undermine confidence in the act and produce cynicism -- and on the other hand, expecting compliance to occur overnight or to occur on all standards within a short period of time, which would produce the kind of gridlock the member has referred to. It would therefore be counterproductive and would undermine confidence, so careful consideration was given as to how to balance those two values.

The view of the ministry, and certainly my view, is that we have arrived at an effective compromise in which licence holders will bear the responsibility to identify where plans do not accord with those key standards. Then decisions will have to be made on a discretionary basis as to what changes are required in order to achieve certain minimal levels of compliance.

D. Mitchell: Just a further point on this section with the minister. The minister seems to be indicating, then, that he feels six months is adequate to have this review of over 700 individual forms of tenure currently outstanding in British Columbia, as well as applications for cutblocks currently in process. Is the minister confident that within the Ministry of Forests and within the industry, sufficient trained personnel are in place today to ensure that this review can be completed? It would appear to me that the potential for harvesting delays and work stoppages is enormous during this six-month period.

I would also like to ask the minister, while I'm on my feet, whether or not under this section of the bill any harvesting can occur under these approvals while the review is ongoing. That is not clear from this section of the bill. Can harvesting occur while this review is ongoing?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me help to reassure the member. I hope I can, anyway, because I think this is an important issue. First of all, the requirement within the six months is a requirement imposed on licensees. In addition, while it is six months, it is six months from the date of commencement of this act, and therefore licensees can commence the review right now. As the standards become clearer, I think they will have much more time than six months in order to conduct that review. Their ability to carry on operations in that six-month period is in no way compromised, and the ministry's ability to subsequently review the reports that result from those reviews is not time-limited. So there is flexibility within the system, but there's also an expectation -- a reasonable one, I think -- that licensees, six months from the commencement of this act, should have reviewed their plans and reported where those plans do not meet only these key but important standards that are specified for review.

D. Mitchell: I have one final question on this transitional section. Would the minister agree that it might be more reasonable to apply this six-month rule only to those harvesting authorities that may be identified in areas of high sensitivity? Maybe that would be more reasonable, given the limited number of personnel in the field who are able to conduct these reviews. I'm referring in particular to where development or harvesting is not currently underway. Would something like that be more reasonable? I know the former Minister of Forests probably would agree with such a reasonable suggestion.

Hon. A. Petter: Why do I get a feeling that I know where these questions are coming from? Anyway, that's fine. Whether they come directly from the member or the member has benefited from advice given him by others, it matters not. The questions are good questions.

The answer is that that's exactly what we're trying to do here: to identify sensitive areas. But how do you do that? You do that by identifying certain key elements or issues that need to be addressed and ask those who hold licences to review their plans to ensure that those sensitivities -- either sensitive areas or sensitive issues -- are being addressed. That's exactly what happens here through the review that licensees are required to conduct within the period, which is in fact more than six months but legally six months from the date of commencement of the act.

W. Hurd: I certainly have no desire to repeat some of the discussion we had in estimates on this issue, and I know the minister has no desire to do that, either. But under section 225, one of the issues we did identify in estimates was the requirement for training on the part of both the licensees and the ministry with respect to this act. I would assume that considerable resources will have to go into training ministry staff in order to receive, assimilate and deal with the plans that are going to be submitted over a six-month period.

I again express the concern that I think was addressed by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. With a six-month opportunity and given the training requirements of the ministry, I don't see how we aren't going to experience literally a torrent of paper, resulting in 

[ Page 12765 ]

cutblock application slowdowns. I know the minister is already receiving considerable input from licensees in the province who are finding that currently up to 18 months can go by from the point when their plans are submitted to the time the cutblock is actually approved. I can only assume that this six-month provision may have the effect of extending the approval time even further.

I will settle at this point -- I know I shouldn't, but I will anyway -- for an assurance from the minister that the ministry is going to be able to train its personnel to deal with, verify and authenticate the plans that are being submitted with respect to the Forest Practices Code. I see this section, which will have the force of law after we complete debate on committee stage, as really tying the hands of both the licensees and the ministry. I would certainly welcome some acknowledgment by the minister that this section may represent one of the most formidable challenges in implementing the code because of the amount of applications and additional studies that may be required over a six-month period.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the ministry will be meeting with industry to try to work out some of the procedures through which these transitional provisions will be effected.

Secondly, it was the ministry that generated these standards. The ministry is in an excellent position to be able to monitor these key standards within this review process. In terms of training, as we discussed in estimates debates, the ministry has been working on developing modules and will be working with industry to ensure that those modules meet the needs of industry and government, and to develop a common playing field of information, if I can put it that way. I think the member has adequate assurance that we have a very strong interest in ensuring that this review and the other transitional provisions succeed, as does industry, and we will be working very closely with industry to make sure that happens.

W. Hurd: The concerns I have raised could just as easily apply to sections 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 and, indeed, 234 and 235. They are issues that we canvassed at length in previous sections of the bill. When we look through these sections and identify the sheer volume of plans that will have to be updated -- the forest development plans, the silvicultural prescriptions, the logging plans, the existing review of cutblocks -- we see it's a staggering amount of work over a six-month period. I feel confident that the minister at least knows what his staff may be up against with respect to these particular sections. As I indicated earlier, once they have the force of law, one would assume that a failure to comply with these various sections would be subject to penalties or some other redress under the code. So I think we're opening a serious issue here. There's a six-month period during which the regulations will not come into effect. I know the minister has received numerous submissions with respect to that time frame, and I feel confident that the former Minister of Forests might have been a little more flexible on that six-month period, knowing how many licensees are struggling with the existing requirements. I would again offer that proviso and recognize that subject to amendments that may be introduced by the minister, we could probably dispense with sections leading up to section 239.

Section 225 as amended approved.

On section 226.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 226, in the proposed subsection (1) by adding "and the regulations" after "with this section".]

Amendment approved.

Section 226 as amended approved.

Section 227 approved.

On section 228.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, and a further amendment that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 228,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) (a) by deleting "review and comment" after "meet the",

(b) by deleting the proposed subsection (1) (b) and substituting the following:

(b) prepared or approved by the district manager after the date that is 6 months after the date this subsection comes into force must

(i) meet the review and comment requirements of this Act and the regulations,

(ii) substantially meet the other requirements of this Act, the regulations and the standards, and

(iii) meet the requirements of the agreement for which it was prepared, to the extent the agreement is consistent with this Act, the regulations and the standards. , and

(c) by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) An amendment to an operational plan referred to in section 225 (5) or 226 (5) is not required to meet the content requirements or the review and comment requirements of the Act and the regulations, but must meet the notice requirements of section 225 or 226, as the case may be.]

[SECTION 228, by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) Despite subsection (1) (a), if the district manager determines that an amendment referred to in that subsection regarding cutblocks or roads does not conform with the regulations and standards referred to in section 225 (2) and (3), the district manager may require a modification to the amendment to the extent necessary to satisfy the district manager that the cutblocks and roads will be consistent with conservation and good management of the forest resources.]

On the amendments.

W. Hurd: Clearly the amendments refer to powers under subsection (1) with respect to the district manager. With respect to this amendment to subsection (1)(b)(i), I wonder if the minister could provide the committee with an explanation of the rationale for that amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, this is a clarification to ensure an abundance of caution. Under the act -- and I think the member has already alluded to this -- the requirements with respect to new plans do not become effective for a six-month period after the commencement of the act. Then there is, of course, this period of six months in which those who have current plans must review those plans to 

[ Page 12766 ]

ensure that they have conformed with certain key requirements.

There was a danger that if we didn't have this amendment, one might argue that new plans promulgated in those first six months would not have to be reviewed for those key requirements as existing plans did. That would create a contradiction, or a gap, that was not intended. This amendment has been brought forward to clarify that that was not intended and, in fact, does not exist.

What this means, in effect, is that licence holders will have to report on whether existing plans meet those key requirements. Existing plans will include not only plans that were approved prior to the commencement of the act but also plans that were approved in that first six months following the commencement of the act.

[9:45]

Amendments approved.

Section 228 as amended approved.

On section 229.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, plus an additional amendment which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 229,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1)(b) by deleting "content and review and comment", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting everything after "the plan or amendment must" and substituting:

(a) meet the review and comment requirements of this Act and the regulations,

(b) substantially meet the other requirements of this Act, the regulations and the standards, and

(c) meet the requirements of the agreement for which it was prepared, to the extent the agreement is consistent with this Act, the regulations and the standards.]

[SECTION 229, by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), if the district manager determines that a forest development plan or amendment referred to in that subsection regarding cutblocks or roads does not conform with the regulations and standards referred to in section 225 (2) and (3), the district manager may require a modification to the plan or amendment to the extent necessary to satisfy the district manager that the cutblocks and roads will be consistent with conservation and good management of the forest resources.]

Just to address what I suspect will be the member's question, the amendment that is in the possession of the Clerk deals with exactly the same concern in this context as the one in the previous section dealt with in that context: namely, clarifying that those plans that are promulgated in the first six months following commencement are subject to the same rules as those that were promulgated prior to commencement of the act.

Amendments approved.

Section 229 as amended approved.

On section 230.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 230, by deleting "content" before "requirements" and by deleting "licence" and substituting "agreement".]

Amendment approved.

Section 230 as amended approved.

On section 231.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 231,

(a) in the proposed subsections (1) and (2)(a) by deleting "content" before "requirements", and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(4) Without limiting subsections (1) and (2), a prescription or amendment may be prepared or approved under those subsections on or before the date that is 6 months after the date this section comes into force, even if there is no 5 year silviculture plan in effect for the area under the prescription.]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: Again, since we're dealing with a six-month period after the date the section comes into force in the amendment, could the minister clarify whether that basically brings the silvicultural prescriptions in line with the other provisions we've dealt with -- the forest development plans? Was there any previous difference between the silvicultural prescriptions and any other plans that were either on file or required to be filed at the ministry? Clearly this amendment deals with the six-month period and the five-year silvicultural plans. I wonder if the minister could offer the committee a rationale for the amendment and tell us whether this section which deals with silvicultural plans is in any way different with respect to the other forest development plans, logging plans, cutblock plans, etc., that we've dealt with in previous sections.

Hon. A. Petter: I suppose the one salient difference is that silvicultural prescriptions are already dealt with as a matter of regulation under the Forest Act, and therefore they continue to be dealt with as a matter of regulation here; whereas other requirements were dealt with as matters of contract and are now being dealt with as a matter of regulation. So there is, in a sense, less change here than there is with respect to other provisions.

Amendment approved.

Section 231 as amended approved.

On section 232.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 232,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "the content requirements of" and substituting "this Act and", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "subsection (1) or (2)" and substituting "that subsection".]

Amendment approved.

On section 232 as amended.

W. Hurd: I have a question with respect to section 232(2), which seems to imply that there's a grandfather requirement with respect to section 23 of the act. There's mention made of a 12-month period which begins six 

[ Page 12767 ]

months after the act comes into force. I wonder if the minister could explain whether that, in essence, provides more of a remedy for existing silvicultural plans to apply to backlog areas in the province, or whether the requirements for backlog silvicultural plans parallel the five-year silvicultural plans that would be filed by a licensee. Is there a recognition under section 232 that a further window of opportunity is needed for existing plans to be in effect on backlog areas? Could the minister clarify that?

Hon. A. Petter: This provides that within the 12-month period following six months after the section comes into force, substantial compliance must be achieved with respect to the prescriptions for a backlog area. That's a slightly shorter period of time than with respect to other matters, because it's felt that with silvicultural prescriptions, 12 months is an adequate period of time to require licence holders to achieve the standards.

W. Hurd: I have a general observation or question. I assume that as we progress through these planning requirements, where we're dealing with the Ministry of Forests' small business forest enterprise program in addition to licensees, the same requirements would apply. Again, I would ask the minister whether or not he is confident -- and I know that he'll say that he is -- that the small business forest enterprise program -- which faces, I suppose, the same kinds of challenges that the major licensees face with respect to all these sections.... I suppose we could have gone into this issue way back on section 226, I believe it was, when we were talking about the fact that in most cases, all these plans will have to be updated in six months in order to ensure compliance with the code. I'll settle for the explanation from the minister that his small business forest enterprise program has a great deal of work to do, and that they will in fact be able to meet not only the spirit but also what will soon be the legal requirement of all these sections.

Hon. A. Petter: I just want to give the member the assurance that I am confident that representatives of all programs have been involved in the generation of these standards. I am exceedingly confident in the capacity of the small business forest enterprise program to meet these requirements.

Section 232 as amended approved.

On section 233.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 233,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by adding "this Act or" after "requirements of",

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "the content requirements of" and substituting "this Act and", and

(c) in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "Without limiting subsection (1), a stand management prescription may be prepared or approved under subsection (1)" and substituting "Without limiting subsection (1), a stand management prescription or amendment may be prepared or approved under that subsection".]

Amendment approved.

Section 233 as amended approved.

On section 234.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 234,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "the regulations." and substituting "this Act and the regulations.", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting everything after "must" and substituting the following:

(a) meet the review and comment requirements of this Act and the regulations, and

(b) be in substantial compliance with the other requirements of this Act and the regulations.]

Amendment approved.

Section 234 as amended approved.

On section 235.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 235,

(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, on or before the date that is 6 months after the date this section comes into force, a person need not prepare an access management plan. , and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting everything after "must" and substituting the following:

(a) meet the review and comment requirements of this Act and the regulations, and

(b) be in substantial compliance with the other requirements of this Act and the regulations.]

Amendment approved.

Section 235 as amended approved.

On section 236.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 236,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "any content and review and comment requirements of the regulations." and substituting "the content and review and comment requirements of this Act and the regulations.", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting everything after "must" and substituting the following:

(a) meet the review and comment requirements of this Act and the regulations, and

(b) be in substantial compliance with the other requirements of this Act and the regulations.]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: I think that throughout this debate we've attempted to separate the difficulties that forest licensees will face in meeting the terms and conditions of the code, and those that people who have range use plans under the Range Act in the province will face. With respect to the amendment that the minister has introduced to section 236, I wonder if he could advise us whether there's any recognition here that, in fact, the Range Act may require more substantial upgrading than currently exists with respect to licensees. It's my impression -- and I don't know whether it's entirely accurate or not -- that in fact substantial work has to be done with respect to range development plans in the province.

[ Page 12768 ]

I'm not too sure whether under section 236 the same six-month date is one that the range holders will be able to meet. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether he and his staff are confident or comfortable that, in essence, the range tenure holders in the province will have the same degree of ability to be in substantial compliance with the code in a six-month time frame.

Hon. A. Petter: In general terms, I think there are some additional challenges with respect to range use plans. Essentially, the ministry has the ability, has used it and will continue to use it, to provide planning services on behalf of the licence holders. I am informed that the ministry feels confident that these requirements are reasonable in order to bring those plans into compliance with the code.

W. Hurd: The minister will be aware, though, that in this set of estimates under the Ministry of Forests the grants that were available for range use planning were eliminated by the ministry. So when the minister suggests that his ministry may be of some assistance to range tenure holders in the province, I wonder if he could clarify for the committee what measure of assistance with respect to the Forest Practices Code may be available to the holders of those licences, recognizing that a range development plan is a significant undertaking for the cattle industry in the province.

Of course, the Forest Practices Code will now apply not only to the Crown range or resource they have but also to the private land within their ranch, which is a considerable area of controversy in that particular industry, as the minister will know. Given that the resources for assistance in developing range plans under the Ministry of Forests budget appear to have been reduced or eliminated, what other type of assistance might be available with respect to range use plans under section 236?

Hon. A. Petter: The member is confusing range use plans with some of the other planning processes. The changes referred to by the member that took place in the ministry's policy with respect to assistance do not refer to range use plans. With respect to range use plans and providing assistance to licensees, the ministry's policy has not altered, will not alter through this period and is not affected by the other changes which deal with strategic planning -- not the range use planning referenced in this section.

Amendment approved.

Section 236 as amended approved.

Sections 237 to 239 inclusive approved.

On section 240.

W. Hurd: Of course, timber sale licences is a program under the small business enterprise program. I'd settle for some sort of direction from the minister. Throughout these sections we've been dealing with a six-month period for the licensee to be in substantial compliance. My reading of section 240, as cursory as it is, is that timber sale licences may now be dealt with in a different manner than any other form of tenure holder under previous sections. Can the minister clarify why the timber sale licence is dealt with separately under division 5 of this Forest Practices Code?

[10:00]

Hon. A. Petter: The reason is that in the case of these licences there is no provision for cutting permits. The cutting permit is essentially authorized by the licence agreement, and therefore it's necessary to amend the licence agreement to effect the necessary compliance with the code.

W. Hurd: I'm aware there is a 15-year commitment under the small business enterprise fund. That 15-year window is for silvicultural obligations that the Ministry of Forests has incurred. Section 240 invites a question to the minister. This appears to be more than a housekeeping measure. I wonder if the minister could advise us how timber sale licences are being dealt with differently under section 240 of the code. Surely this section deals with more than just the fact that a licence agreement has to be in effect. This seems to imply that a timber sale licence that does not provide for a cutting permit.... Could the minister clarify what kind of timber sale licence would be offered that wouldn't be subject to a cutting permit?

Hon. A. Petter: Timber sale licences will continue to be provided through the Forest Act, not through the Forest Practices Code. The problem here is that because timber sale licences are an area-based tenure, because there is no separate provision for the approval of cutting permits, and because the term of that tenure can last as long as ten years, there was the prospect that without this change, agreements might extend nine years or, I suppose, up to ten years beyond the commencement of the act and would not be subject to the act unless we were able to address the actual agreements themselves in which the cutblocks were authorized. For that reason they're treated in this way. This does not affect the issuance of those licences, and future licences will obviously incorporate within the agreement the requirements of the code.

Section 240 approved.

On section 241.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 241, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting ", Christmas tree permit".]

Amendment approved.

Section 241 as amended approved.

On section 242.

W. Hurd: I know the ministry has received some expressions of concern about this particular provision. It seems to imply that the Environmental Assessment Act, although it has not been passed in the assembly and is not a subject of debate with respect to this section, would nevertheless apply to a cutblock or to some aspect of the planning of a major forest harvesting activity in the province. I wonder if the minister could advise us why the Environmental Assessment Act, which I assume is an act not yet even passed through the House, shows up being amended under section 242.

[ Page 12769 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The best way I could describe it is that these two pieces of legislation are obviously coming through in tandem, and we want to make sure the relationship between the two of them is clearly delineated. What this section provides is that forest practices, as defined in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, are regulated under that act. There is therefore no prospect of double regulation through the Environmental Assessment Act. The two pieces of legislation are supposed to work happily together by complementing each other, but it is not envisaged -- indeed, it would be undesirable -- that there be double coverage under the two acts.

What this section does is make clear that forest practices as defined in this act are subject to the requirements of the act. Only those forest activities falling outside the scope of this act because they do not occur on Crown land or private managed forest land, for example, might potentially be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. This is to prevent any duplication or overlap, and to make it clear that the code is the governing authority over forest practices as defined in this act.

W. Hurd: If I read this entire section correctly, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- cabinet -- and the minister and executive director have the power to override section 3(4) of the Environmental Assessment Act. Is that how this matter is being dealt with? I'm looking through the act, and I really don't see any specific mention that the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply. I'm not seeing anything that makes that express exemption. If the minister could direct me to the specific wording, I'd be more than happy to accept the minister's assurances that the purpose of this section is merely to exempt the entire code from an assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Hon. A. Petter: I invite the member to read the words following the colon that form the added subsections of section 3 of the Environmental Assessment Act. Here they are: "Subject to subsection (4), this Act and the regulations" -- that is, the Environmental Assessment Act and its regulations -- "do not apply to (a) a forest practice, as defined in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, or (b) an activity on land that is not Crown land as defined in the Forest Act, if (i) a regulation made...." That language is very clearly saying that the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply where the Forest Practices Code does.

[L. Krog in the chair.]

W. Hurd: There could obviously be circumstances where both acts might apply. Is the minister saying that there could be no possible circumstances where both the provisions of the code and the Environmental Assessment Act could be duplicated? Is there no possible scenario where that could happen? Does section 242 categorically provide for that?

Hon. A. Petter: I can only reiterate that the intention of section 242 is to ensure that those activities regulated by the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act are not also regulated under the Environmental Assessment Act, and that's why the amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act that is contemplated is provided for in this section.

Section 242 approved.

Hon. A. Petter: Prior to the discussion of section 243, there is an amendment on the order paper in my name which proposes the addition of a section 242.1. I move that amendment to the act that is in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 242.1, by adding the following section to amend the Environmental Assessment Act:

242.1 Section 25 is amended in the definition of "specified enactment"

(a) by repealing paragraph (b) (iii) and substituting the following:

(iii) section 91.1 (road permit and road use permit for timber harvesting);

(iv) section 92 (road use permits for industrial use), , and

(b) by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) section 2 (4) and (5) (special use permit) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, .]

On section 242.1.

W. Hurd: I have just a point of clarification. Is this 242.1 a brand-new section that does not relate to section 242 in any way?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me pass on the assurance I have received, and hopefully that will be satisfactory for the member. I'm assured that this is a technical, housekeeping amendment to deal with shifts from the Forest Act and that it does not affect the intent or the effect of section 242, which has already been discussed.

Sections 242.1 and 243 approved.

On section 244.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 244, by deleting the proposed section 244 and substituting the following:

244. Section 5 is amended

(a) by repealing subsections (4) and (7), and

(b) by repealing subsection (6) (b) and substituting the following:

(b) any other purpose that the chief forester considers is compatible with the uses described in section 2 (1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act or that is permitted by regulations made under that Act, .]

Amendment approved.

Section 244 as amended approved.

Sections 245 to 258 inclusive approved.

On section 259.

W. Hurd: I have a brief question with respect to section 259, which is not an inconsequential amendment. I assume that when we talk about section 259, we're dealing with an amendment to the Forest Act. We're dealing with a complex scenario here, debating a series of consequential amendments which are required to bring the act into force and cover a number of different acts before parliament. The minister has been busy introducing amendments to 

[ Page 12770 ]

those consequential amendments, so we're dealing with layer upon layer here. I would welcome a clarification that section 259 refers to the Forest Act. Is that a correct assessment?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

Section 259 approved.

On section 260.

W. Hurd: Again, we're obviously dealing with amendments to the Forest Act under section 260. I am interested in the provision as it relates to existing tree farm licence holders. Clearly there's an amendment here which recognizes when the licensee has failed to pay stumpage or other money payable with respect to timber harvested, or to provide security. I wonder if the minister could just indicate to the committee the rationale for the change with respect to this section of the act. Does this trigger administrative penalties under the Forest Act now or under the Forest Practices Code?

[10:15]

Hon. A. Petter: This is consistent with the provision in 250 and elsewhere in the act to bring about the notion of performance-based logging with respect to tree farm licence holders, and enables officials -- the minister in this case -- to ensure that a replacement licence is not issued until some breach of the code has been remedied.

W. Hurd: With respect to section 260(d), we could be talking about plans that may be required to be filed with the ministry. It could be a matter of the minister simply requiring an updating of a plan in accordance with the Forest Practices Code. Is that the potential of section 260(d) as well?

Hon. A. Petter: I think what is contemplated is that conditions be placed in the agreement itself to ensure that non-compliance did not happen again.

Sections 260 to 269 inclusive approved.

On section 270.

W. Hurd: This is another section of the bill with consequential amendments of the Forest Act that appear to spell out additional responsibilities for the chief forester -- at least they appear to. I wonder if the minister could explain to the committee whether in fact this consequential amendment to the Forest Act is broadening or changing in a significant way the responsibilities and rights of the chief forester to reduce the annual allowable harvest. If the answer to that question is yes, I assume that the appeals provisions under the previous sections would allow the licensee to appeal that decision by the chief forester in the same manner that annual allowable harvest determinations are currently appealable.

Hon. A. Petter: This section does increase the power of the chief forester. It allows the chief forester additional leeway to reduce AACs in situations where there has been excessive soil disturbance. As a result of this section, the chief forester may reduce the AAC of a major licence or woodlot licence to the amount of, but not exceeding, the volume of timber that was authorized for harvest under a particular cutting permit for the area. It's not restricted just to the reduction in volume as a result of the disturbance, but expands that to enable a reduction that corresponds to the entire cutting permit for the area. So in this way it expands the authority of the chief forester to reduce AACs in the case of those who are responsible for causing excessive soil disturbance.

W. Hurd: This is obviously a significant change, as the minister has indicated, and under section 56(2) there's latitude for the regional manager to also reduce the annual allowable harvest by an amount specified in an agreement. I wonder if the minister can advise or assure us that the powers here are related entirely to transgression of the Forest Practices Code, or if they in fact relate to the Forest Act generally and would apply to other issues in the field.

This again speaks to the issue that we've raised throughout debate on this bill: that we're mandating a rather serious administrative obligation to the chief forester and the regional manager to take unilateral action to reduce the harvest levels with respect to the Forest Act. Is this power in addition to the administrative penalties that are called for by the act for the regional manager, or is this part of the definition of administrative penalties that would be available to these two officials under the penalty section of the code that we dealt with earlier?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, this is to effect.... This is most relevant with respect to standards under the Forest Practices Code. It does refer to agreements, but the intention here is to provide the chief forester with the tools to reduce the AAC in the event of serious environmental damage or excessive soil disturbance, relevant in particular to breaches of the Forest Practices Code.

W. Hurd: So this is part of the penalty provisions we dealt with earlier. It just provides the power to these officials to arbitrarily.... I don't think we can dispense with the term "arbitrarily." The minister did last time. But I again point out to the minister that I'm seeking assurances that the regular avenues of appeal would exist from this type of order.

It provides broad powers to the chief forester and the regional managers to, first of all, make a determination that the code has been substantially violated. It would determine the extent of the damage and on the basis of that would administer an administrative penalty in the form of a substantial cut reduction. Obviously the minister feels this section is necessary.

I suppose the only other question I would ask is: are we dealing with the same six-month window here or six months before this power comes into effect? Or does it come into effect immediately upon the passage of this bill?

Hon. A. Petter: It comes into effect upon proclamation and provides a power under the Forest Act, and therefore is different than some of the sections we looked at previously in the Forest Practices Code. But I think the power is very relevant to the effect of enforcement of the Forest Practices Code, in that it sends a message consistent with performance-based logging: those who are responsible for excessive soil disturbance will stand to lose some portion of their AAC as a result of that activity, if in the judgment of the chief forester it's appropriate to make such a reduction.

[ Page 12771 ]

Sections 270 to 274 inclusive approved.

On section 275.

W. Hurd: This is obviously a new provision under the act, and I wonder if the minister could explain why the need was identified by the government to broaden the powers of ministry staff to withhold cutting permit applications for a variety of remedies. Obviously we're dealing with a change that I assume broadens those powers. Could the minister identify any problems that the government identified as a rationale for changing this particular section of the act?

Hon. A. Petter: The rationale again is performance-based logging. The existing section enables the Forest Service to refuse a person's application for an agreement if that person owes money to the government. The amendment replaces and expands the scope of that section in order to allow a person's application for an agreement to be refused to the extent permitted in regulations, if the person has rights under suspension or has failed to pay stumpage, provide security, etc. So it expands that power in order to enable that power to be utilized to support the principle of performance-based logging, which we have discussed previously.

Section 275 approved.

On section 276.

Hon. A. Petter: I am very pleased for the last time under this act, I hope, to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 276, in the proposed paragraph (a.1) by deleting everything after "section 70 (2) and (4)" and substituting "of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act in respect of an area of land covered by a silviculture prescription prepared under section 22 (1) (a) of that Act, and".]

Amendment approved.

Section 276 as amended approved.

Sections 277 to 299 inclusive approved.

On section 300.

W. Hurd: This section is one that I think we have already dealt with, but I would ask the minister for a brief clarification. I assume that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act now applies to the Forest Appeals Commission, the Forest Practices Advisory Council and the Forest Practices Board. Would that provision mean that those bodies would be governed by freedom of information and protection of privacy with respect to providing information to the public if application was made?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

Sections 300 to 324 inclusive approved.

On the preamble.

W. Hurd: I am amazed that others didn't jump up with respect to the preamble, because there was a specific decision made at the beginning of this debate -- however long ago that may have been; it seems like just a distant memory now -- that we would deal with this preamble at the end. At the time we were trying to debate the preamble, considerable concern was expressed with respect to the terms of reference that the government had chosen as sort of a rationale for this act. A glaring omission from the preamble was any mention of maintaining harvest levels in each region of the province sufficient to support jobs, families, communities and the economies which rely on the forests for their existence. There is no mention of that in the preamble section, and that is somewhat unfortunate.

[10:30]

Therefore, having listened to 80 amendments from the minister with respect to this act, I would now like to move one of my own. I suggest that paragraph (b) be amended to add "maintaining harvest levels in each region of the province sufficient to support the jobs, families, communities and economies which rely on forestry for their existence." I certainly hope that the minister would be willing to entertain this amendment at this time, or to at least offer some rationale for why, when we're dealing with a Forest Practices Code, the preamble -- which is sort of the philosophy of the bill -- makes no mention of maintaining harvest levels.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: I wouldn't mind looking at the wording of the amendment, but I think it misses two major points.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Maybe the member would like to hear what those two points are.

Obviously the question of maintaining harvest levels, employment and stability for forest-based communities is a major preoccupation of this government. It's why we pursued the forest renewal plan, why we are pursuing land use planning and why we're pursuing a forest land reserve to have the stability on the land base. Indeed, because of the need to have sustainable use for both the present and the future, it's why we have a Forest Practices Code as well. In that sense, the proposed amendment is both too overinclusive and underinclusive. The commitment that the member refers to is not confined to the Forest Practices Code; it is a commitment that can only be realized through a much broader set of initiatives.

Regrettably, the member and his party voted against a number of those initiatives. Therefore, to try attaching a principle to this act that in fact speaks to a commitment that must go well beyond this act and requires the economic vision and strategy contained in the forest renewal plan, and the commitment to land use planning contained in the forest land reserve, is simply not appropriate or desirable, in my view.

Second, this act obviously deals with issues that go beyond simply forestry issues. It deals with grazing, mining roads, botanical forest products and other uses of the forests. Therefore, to refer in this preamble simply to one of the economic goals that is relevant here would not be appropriate.

I would suggest that the preamble does speak in general ways -- in those singing general terms that preambles are supposed to use to speak to issues. It does address these issues when it speaks of "managing forests 

[ Page 12772 ]

to meet present needs without compromising the needs of future generations" and when it speaks of the need to balance "productive, spiritual, ecological and recreational values" of the forest to meet the economic needs of people and communities. I am aware that the member is trying -- no doubt, with some desperation -- by putting some rhetoric into a preamble, to have the people of British Columbia forgive his and his party's sins for not delivering on the substantive policies necessary to provide security to forest-based communities. I think it would be inappropriate to accept that kind of political posturing in this very lucid and, in my view, very appropriate preamble as it now stands.

W. Hurd: I think it's significant, really, that as we've debated this bill, we've talked about stand management, preharvest silvicultural prescriptions and five-year development plans. We've spoken to a whole range of planning requirements under this code, which at the end of the day are specifically designed to ultimately enhance timber supply. One would assume that the licensees are not filing plans just in order to be in compliance with the Forest Practices Code. They are also filing these plans in the hopes that they could grow more timber on the land base. That's clearly one of the intents.

For the minister to suggest that one specific mention of "economic" in paragraph (c) is enough to provide a broad preamble to a Forest Practices Code is unfortunate in the extreme. Clearly the omission of "a sustained level of harvest" in the preamble and "the protection of jobs and community stability" speaks to the priorities this government has for this code. The priorities are environmental. They are the reason why, I suppose, the minister proposed this particular bill and rushed it forward in a manner which I know the previous minister would not have been comfortable with -- the speed with which it was introduced and the politics that surround it. I think it's very unfortunate that we are going to pass a bill which makes no mention of a sustainable harvest for the province of British Columbia and no specific mention of the jobs and the communities that depend on that annual allowable harvest. Indeed, the first priority of this bill and of all the additional plans that will be required is merely to measure compliance with the code and not necessarily to protect jobs, the economy and the annual allowable harvest.

I respect the right and the ability of the government to oppose the amendment to the preamble. Undoubtedly the government will reject the amendment by sheer force of numbers -- I understand that -- but that glaring omission in the preamble was pointed out by people other than just those on this side of the House. It's an omission that was identified by many of the stakeholder groups that participated in the overall planning and in the public input on this act. They pointed out to this minister and this government that the preamble was narrow in the extreme and really spoke to the rather narrow philosophy of this Forest Practices Code. The government will undoubtedly stick with this narrow, heavily punitive, legal definition under the preamble, but it is a glaring omission. I know the minister won't accept that, but I wholeheartedly support the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Preamble approved on division.

Title approved on division.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

[10:45]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 40, Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 54.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I move the bill be read a second time. The purpose of these amendments to the Liquor Distribution Act is to set out clearly and fully the statutory authority of the liquor distribution branch in the light of changes which have occurred in recent years in the practices and circumstances respecting the manufacture, importation and distribution of liquor in the province. The amendments are not intended to increase the nature or extent of the branch's mandate.

While the purpose of these amendments is uncomplicated, their language is extensive, because the legislation must address the numerous and diverse ways in which liquor is imported, manufactured, stored, distributed and sold in the province. Section 2 of the act will be supported by language which will set out, in an adequately detailed manner, the complete mandate of the branch respecting the manufacture, importation and distribution of liquor in British Columbia. The scheme of the amendments is to give the liquor distribution branch title to liquor as it enters the province or as it is manufactured within the province. The amendments then make provision for the disposition of the liquor as it is stored, distributed, sold, exported or otherwise disposed of.

Specifically, the amendments will clarify three areas. First, they will clarify the ability of the branch to regulate, control and collect markup on all liquor manufactured in the province as well as liquor imported into the province.

[ Page 12773 ]

Second, the amendments will clarify the ability of the branch to collect markup on liquor for which no proper accounting can be given. The branch, through inspections of liquor manufacturers, has identified significant amounts of liquor product for which no adequate accounting can be given by the person who is supposed to be in possession of it. Without appropriate statutory tools to allow the branch to assert its right to collect markup on this unaccounted-for liquor, the branch's ability to recover the full amount of markup to which it is entitled could be placed in jeopardy, with the prospect of significant loss of revenue to the province. By giving the branch title to liquor as it is produced or as it enters the province, the branch will be able to collect a markup on the quantities of liquor which the records relating to the liquor indicate have been produced but are unaccountable for.

Third, the amendments clarify and ensure that the scheme of control and regulation respecting liquor accords with the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. The amendments will provide that the arrangements under which liquor is brought into the province for sale on airlines or cruise ships will meet the requirements of that federal statute which requires such liquor be purchased by and consigned to the province. The amendments will clarify the authority of the branch to collect markup on these liquor products.

As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, I move second reading.

J. Dalton: I won't be long in my comments. At committee stage there may be a few things the opposition wishes to raise with regard to the fairly extensive section 2. As the Attorney General mentioned, there is basically only one section in the amending act, but it is fairly extensive.

The Attorney General also commented that liquor distribution, manufacturing and things like that certainly have changed in the last few years. What comes to mind, for example, is the manufacturing of beer in local breweries and premises. That sort of thing is reflective of the fact that the law has to indicate that change.

The opposition will be raising some questions at committee stage of Bill 54, but I don't see anything at this point that is, shall we say, controversial or needs comment.

L. Hanson: We too have spent some time analyzing the act. As far as we can see, most of the questions will come at committee stage of the bill -- some technical changes in clarifying some of the ownership and distribution regulations that would be more adequately covered at committee stage. So we will limit our remarks to that and agree to second reading.

D. Mitchell: In his second reading comments the minister referred to some of the provisions of this bill. One of the concerns is on the section of the bill that deals with liquor not accounted for, as the Attorney General has indicated. It is an interesting problem and the industry certainly has some concerns about this, as the Attorney General is aware. We are really talking about the part of the formula that the industry needs some assurances on, which is the determination of allowable shrinkage in liquor not accounted for.

When he makes his closing remarks, perhaps the minister could give some thought to this before the committee stage; maybe we can even expedite the committee stage of the bill. I think the industry is looking for some assurance that there is going to be a standard target on the shrinkage that occurs -- if I can refer to it as shrinkage. The federal government, for instance, allows about 5 percent between brewing and market, whereas in this bill it is not clear if there is any standard in terms of accounting -- whether or not there is any standard target for the amount of allowable shrinkage. This bill doesn't have a target for the shrinkage that is allowed. We can deal with this in committee stage, but when the Attorney General closes his comments we might even expedite committee stage if he could deal with that.

Otherwise, there appears to be general support for what the government is doing with this bill. I will save any other minor specific comments for committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: The Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thank the members for their brief comments. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised a legitimate issue that must be canvassed, and I would prefer that we have the opportunity to canvass that in committee stage.

For the third time, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 54, Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I apologize to members. The Minister of Finance is on her way. I understand it will be ten minutes.

F. Gingell: Let's recess for ten minutes.

Hon. G. Clark: I would ask your indulgence, hon. Chair, and I apologize for this. We have several options here. We could proceed with that, or we could proceed with the Petroleum Corporation amendments, Bill 42, and conclude that. Then I believe the Finance minister will be here. Otherwise, I will handle the finance bills until she is here. If that is okay with members, hon. Chair.... I see agreement.

I call committee on Bill 42.

PETROLEUM CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 42; D. Lovick in the chair.

On sections 1 to 17 inclusive.

F. Gingell: This government spends half its time setting up new corporations, new bureaucracies and new expenses for British Columbia taxpayers to pay for, and very little time getting rid of them. I hope that this government thinks very carefully about what they set up and what they get rid of. It may well be that we no longer need a government corporation to sit between the producer of natural gas and the natural gas market. It is important for all of us to recognize that the market must control, and we in government, whether it be this present government or the next government -- I look to my friends -- must recognize...

[ Page 12774 ]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: No, not all gone; listening, but close by.

...that our job in life is to create an environment that allows it to succeed, create new jobs, create new markets and do all those things that we know will add to the net worth of British Columbians.

An Hon. Member: We're in committee.

F. Gingell: Well, we're in committee, yes, but the Chair called sections 1 to 17.

It probably is time for the Petroleum Corporation Act to be repealed. I look forward to the response of the minister, who is sitting here, as to how this government plans to ensure that the natural gas industry and the petroleum industry can grow and build in the province, and create net worth, net growth and new jobs -- all the things that both of us want for all of us.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's a pleasure, of course, to talk about the Petroleum Corporation of British Columbia, which was formed during the years 1972 to 1975, when there was a New Democratic government. It has served the people of British Columbia extremely well over those years. It has done things that were never been dreamed of by other governments. But of course, as with any living organism, it had to adapt to the current circumstances.

In the case of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, most of its duties were divested during the term of the last government, with the deregulation of the natural gas market. You are well aware of how that worked, and you are probably well aware that the Petroleum Corporation was reduced to the very limited number of people it took to keep track of the transactions that continued under the aegis of this corporation, which had previously done the marketing and the collection of royalties for the B.C. government. Since the deregulation of the market, there have been significant changes and advances in technologies, so now the marketing is even easier and faster. It is something that, as we all agree.... Certainly I'm pleased to hear the member for Delta South talk about how we want the functions of this corporation to be there, as far as they are needed, to respond to the real market.

[11:00]

This move allows for measures that were done by the corporation but can be done in the ministry to be moved to the ministry, and the corporation will be dissolved. It very simply does that. Over a course of years -- from 1972-74 until this government -- a number of moves were made to set up a subsidiary corporation to carry some debt and deliver some services. That subsidiary corporation is also dissolved with this legislation. To do that simply -- and to respond to the opposition, although I don't believe that their Energy critic is here -- I have given as much time as I possibly can under the current constraints.

The Chair: Before we proceed, I would just remind members on both sides of the House that we have had second reading debate on this bill. I think we have gone rather far afield. I will pose the question again: shall sections 1 through 17 pass?

F. Gingell: I think we have to deal with all the consequences of clauses 1 to 17 before you cut us off, as you are obviously ready to do.

The Chair: Does the member have a particular section he wishes to focus on?

F. Gingell: Oh, absolutely. And I'm sorry that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who is the critic, isn't here.

Let's really think about what's involved in this exercise. You have fired my friend Bill Strachan -- your friend, too; you kept him there -- who I think was the president of that corporation. He was knowledgeable, and he understood this industry.

The Chair: Member, I'm sorry, but I ask you to just take your seat for a moment. I certainly don't want to interfere with your right to raise questions about sections, but I'm lost in terms of where we are. Perhaps we could proceed using the tried-and-true method: seriatim. Shall section 1 pass?

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, if you will listen for a moment, instead of butting in a little early, I would suggest to you.... All of this bill is going to pass. Let us really think about how we in British Columbia encourage the natural gas industry to grow and develop. This government created an organization called the B.C. Energy Council and put Mr. Gathercole in charge, and they signed a five-year contract for a two-year job. You have to respond to that, Madam Minister. You appointed one of your people to a five-year term for a two-year job.

I come from this industry, and I understand what is involved. Thank God, for all of us, that in the last few months we've made some massive discoveries in north-eastern British Columbia. Let's seriously hope that British Columbia becomes the supply point for all the clean energy for North America for years to come. That will bring British Columbia really fine economic development. That will solve this government's financial problems. The fact that you keep spending more money than you tax and adding to the debt could get solved in the end by natural gas development in the province. Let's ensure that this is done in a sensible manner.

What you're doing at this point is getting rid of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. You are suggesting to this House that you have within your ministry the people who are capable of looking after the developments that will take place. I encourage you to do that; it's important. Please do not create another Crown corporation; we don't need it. Administer and look after these things in the most effective and efficient manner that you can, but recognize that the development of northeast natural gas may be the salvation of British Columbia -- not, I hope, the salvation of this government.

R. Neufeld: I've been saying that for a long time.

An Hon. Member: Welcome aboard.

F. Gingell: I've been with you all this time. Thank you for joining our ship.

Madam Minister, you have got rid of the organization. I know you have the intention of ensuring that this very important opportunity for economic development is looked after within your ministry. Please ensure that it happens.

The Chair: I thank the member for that lucid exegesis.

[ Page 12775 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: It is my pleasure to respond to the member by saying that we believe six of the ten B.C. Petroleum Corporation positions will be transferred to the ministry. We have taken care to see that the employees who will no longer have positions with the corporation have been identified under the BCGEU contract and will have the rights and privileges of members of the BCGEU. That is their salvation. The salvation of British Columbia is important to us and, of course, it is most important to members of the government party.

F. Gingell: I thoroughly understand and agree with what the minister has said. But why did you hire Mr. Gathercole at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia, with special deals and pension rights?

Hon. A. Edwards: I understood we were talking about the Petroleum Corporation.

R. Neufeld: Section 2(1)(d) says that "all of the debts, liabilities, obligations and covenants of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation and B.C. Petroleum (Kitimat) Ltd. are transferred to and vested in the government." Can the minister please tell me the amount of the debts ?

Hon. A. Edwards: The Crown has a contingent liability of $20.5 million per year until October 31, 2002. This liability arises out of a contractual agreement between the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and B.C. Petroleum (Kitimat) Ltd., Westcoast Energy Inc. and Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. It was a capacity agreement where PNG made a contract with Westcoast. This is all very complex, it all turns around in a circle and will continue to repay itself. It was an agreement to change where the liability was for protection of the agreement -- I guess that is the best term to use.

What happened is that Pacific Northern Gas made a contract with Westcoast to take gathering, processing and transmission capacity on the Westcoast system which would be sufficient to handle the volume of gas required by Methanex for its methanol plant at Kitimat. Pacific Northern Gas assigned its rights and granted capacity rights on its own system jointly to BCPC -- that's B.C. Petroleum Corporation -- and its subsidiary, B.C. Petroleum (Kitimat) Ltd. Methanex then acquired from B.C. Petroleum (Kitimat) Ltd., but not from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, the right and obligation to take and pay for that capacity. As a result, the Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiary, B.C. Petroleum (Kitimat) Ltd., would be liable to PNG for any failure to pay for the capacity that was taken.

The Crown is ultimately liable for damages for breach of contract with PNG, because, in making those contracts, B.C. Petroleum Corporation was acting as an agent for the Crown. In any case, the Crown cannot escape that liability. The liability would only be realized if the methanol plant were to default on its gas supply. As I said in my description, it will all run out in the year 2002. It's an agreement made by previous governments.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that explanation.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Yes, I clearly understood; I do in fact understand a lot of it.

With the indulgence of the Chair, I will go to section 3. We're doing it a bit differently tonight. It says: "The Petroleum Corporation Fund is dissolved and any balance in the fund is transferred to the consolidated revenue fund." Could the minister tell me what that amount was?

Hon. A. Edwards: The Petroleum Corporation Act created a special fund, and it was recommended that it be wound up because it was very specifically related to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Any money in the fund will be transferred to the consolidated revenue fund just prior to the windup of the corporation. The money in the fund is revenue that has been collected through a monthly levy on natural gas production to recover the annual cost of running B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It runs at approximately $1.2 million. It is collected as well for some functions that the ministry performs, at $2.9 million. This levy will continue to be collected. It goes into the consolidated revenue fund, and it will now come to the ministry for the same functions that were performed previously by both the ministry and the corporation.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair: Happily, there will be no privilege motions entertained at this point. I will recognize the motion from the minister.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 42, Petroleum Corporation Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 28.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Bill 28 read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 31.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Bill 31 read a third time and passed.

[11:15]

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee stage, unfortunately, of Bill 7.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 7; D. Lovick in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[ Page 12776 ]

F. Gingell: I'm anxiously awaiting an amendment from the Minister of Finance on section 8 of the act. Does the Minister of Finance have an amendment to make?

Hon. E. Cull: There is an amendment that I will be making to section 5. The member is probably referring to discussions he may have had with the auditor general that were similar to ones that I had. We have clarified all matters with the auditor general. I believe the member is waiting for the amendment to section 5.

F. Gingell: All of these amendments that work towards the amendment of the existing act have to be thought about in the total context. As well as I, the minister has been in receipt of communications from the auditor general and from the comptroller general's department concerning all of these issues. Do I have the minister's assurance that the amendments she intends to bring forward to section 5 look after and satisfy all of the auditor general's concerns?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I give that assurance.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper:

[SECTION 5, is amended in the proposed section 32 by striking out "in the current or future fiscal year." and substituting ", other than this section, in the current or a future fiscal year."]

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

R. Neufeld: I'm curious to know the effect of section 5 as amended, and perhaps the minister would give us a very brief explanation. My understanding is that it will allow Treasury Board to prepay expenditures. I'm just trying to read this and catch up with the amendment that came through. Perhaps the minister could just describe the circumstances that might apply where Treasury Board would want to take advantage of this section as amended.

Hon. E. Cull: The member is on the right track. Section 32 is unclear about which period a prepaid expense can be charged to. The amendment clarifies that advances can be made to prepay expenses against an appropriation in the future fiscal year.

R. Neufeld: I'm trying to grasp the effect of the amendment as it applies to this section. Perhaps the minister could start me off by advising me on the effect of section 5 as amended.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm at a bit of a loss to explain the nuances of the language. I can say, though, that the auditor general, having reviewed this language, was more comfortable with the amendment than with our original wording. And on the advice of the auditor general, we proposed the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could give me a sense of the circumstances in which this new section would be used by government. In what kinds of situations would government want to prepay expenses and take advantage of this section? I have the sense that it allows government to make expenditures in a fiscal year, perhaps within an unused budgetary allotment, for possible use in a future year. Are there circumstances where Treasury Board has wanted to do that in the past? Does the government have plans to use this section? I'm going to assume that the legislation was brought in to serve some need, and I'm trying to get a sense of that need.

Hon. E. Cull: I was hoping the comptroller general would be here to provide further information, but he's not here at this point. The best examples I can give are circumstances where we might have made a commitment in one fiscal year, but the goods would not be delivered or the service rendered until a subsequent fiscal year. That would allow us in this case, under the Financial Administration Act, to make appropriate prepayment.

J. Weisgerber: The section refers to prepaid expenses. That would suggest to me not goods that were purchased and delivered at a later time, but a deliberate decision to prepay a series of anticipated expenses out of a fiscal year, rather than charge them to the next fiscal year. I'm at a bit of a loss to know in which circumstances government wouldn't want to take advantage of reduced expenditures or would want to bring forward expenditures from the next fiscal year. Would it be, for example, government wanting to balance its budget in the next fiscal year, not particularly concerned with expenditures in the current year? Would there then be an opportunity to use this section of the act to reduce some anticipated expenditures? Beyond that, quite honestly, I'm at a loss to know why government would want to use this section.

Hon. E. Cull: It's always encouraging to discover, when your staff arrives, that your answers so far have been correct.

I can give you the example of when you have ordered something in one year and you must pay cash -- like library books or chemical supplies -- but they will not be delivered until the next fiscal year. It happens when you're bridging a fiscal year.

J. Weisgerber: I'm reminded of the old British comedy, "Yes, Minister." One rarely comes in and says: "Minister, you've had it wrong." One simply says: "There is a bit of a twist that you missed, minister." But indeed, I'm encouraged by the responses you've had so far.

I'm not sure that the obstacles presented by the purchase of library books would be sufficient motive for one to bring in what would seem to be the most significant part of this legislation. Beyond the example of goods ordered but not delivered, perhaps the minister could give me some sense of the magnitude of these kinds of expenditures. Further, it would seem to me that over the course of time these kinds of transactions would tend to balance themselves out. In other words, a quantum of government transactions in each fiscal year would fall into the category of having been ordered, perhaps purchased, but not received and paid for. I'm not sure that interrupting that flow, unless there's some good reason, is particularly good practice in the middle of all this. However, if the minister is suggesting that the entire section has come as a result of recommendations from the auditor general, that might be different.

[ Page 12777 ]

Hon. E. Cull: If the member takes the time to look at the existing act, he'll see that the changes being made are only with respect to clarifying which fiscal year applies. This whole bill is a number of housekeeping amendments that have been made to try to clarify sections of the Financial Administration Act to make it easier for the staff to carry out the work and be sure that they are within the confines of the act. The old section allows advances to be made out of consolidated revenue for payments that are made in advance, but it wasn't clear about the fiscal years. So the only change that has been made here is to clarify the fiscal year, and there has been an amendment made which makes some minor wording changes to that to clarify it even further, on the basis of the recommendations of the auditor general.

F. Gingell: I was most interested in the minister's simile that she used -- the example of the book purchased for the library. In which year will the expense be charged: the year in which the book is ordered, the year in which it is put on the shelf, or the year in which someone opens it for the first time?

Hon. E. Cull: It's conceivable that a book might be paid for in March and received in April; therefore it would be recorded in the fiscal year that it's received, in April.

F. Gingell: If the book isn't opened for one year, will you keep track of that and ensure that it's charged in the year following?

The Chair: I'm sure the answer is an open book.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 7, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 20.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; D. Lovick in the chair.

[11:30]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Hanson: First of all, section 2 would seem to increase the amount of money payable to municipalities by the increase in the gross domestic product. But then it seems to say that if the government's spending for that particular year is less than the increase in the gross domestic product, the grant would be reduced by that amount. I'm trying to get a good feeling from the minister of what the municipalities can expect and what the changes to the $120 million that are obligated to be paid in 1995.... What could affect those changes? What could affect the increase and the decrease? If the minister can give us some explanation to that.... Generally speaking, it says that if there is an increase in the gross domestic product, the grant would be increased by an amount equal to that, with a cap of 2 percent on it. But in the act it also says that if provincial government spending doesn't increase proportionately, then the fund would not go up by that 2 percent, even if the gross domestic product were calculated in the increase. I know that by a remote chance government spending could decrease; I suppose that's not really a major sort of concern. But maybe the minister can comment on that, because it seems to be a rather convoluted formula for arriving at what the grant is each year.

Hon. E. Cull: The Union of B.C. Municipalities wanted some predictability in a formula, and this is what we have offered them in this particular bill. The bill provides a fairly simple concept, which says grants to municipalities can change with respect to real provincial GDP. So it can go up or down, banded by 2 percent -- so up 2 percent, down 2 percent -- which makes sense, because then it says municipal grants will follow the fate of the province's economy. Tying it to the economy would seem to be reasonable.

We also wanted to ensure that if there were a circumstance where the economy was in terrible shape and real expenditures were dropping more than the GDP was, because of trying to contain spending, the deficit or other concerns about other expenditures, municipalities would not get a larger percentage increase in their grant than the overall spending increase. The example I will give you is that if real GDP was growing at 2 percent but provincial spending was only growing at 1 percent, then 1 percent would become the ceiling.

L. Hanson: Then I guess the question I ask the minister is.... Let's use this year or maybe the last couple of years as an example. There has been quite a thrust to change some of the spending from direct government estimates to Crown corporations. Would that affect the end result of the grant to municipalities?

Hon. E. Cull: No, it wouldn't, because you're talking about capital spending, and I'm talking about the operating budget of the province. So, using this year as an example, real GDP grew at 3.5 percent. Provincial government spending in this budget is 3.5 percent, so if the grant had been in effect this year, municipalities would have seen a 2 percent increase.

F. Gingell: I have to suggest to the minister that we have to talk about honesty here. Originally, the municipalities and this government made a deal in the mid-eighties that a certain percentage of certain resource revenues -- forest revenues, natural revenues and consumer tax revenues -- were to be dedicated to grants to the municipal governments. If you want me to go back to the budget, I can pull out that figure and tell you what it is. The Socred government before you never lived up to the commitments they made, and this government has done even less. I can well remember being in Prince George at the UBCM meeting with the Minister of Finance, and 

[ Page 12778 ]

jokingly saying to him: "If you didn't mean to live up to the commitments the government has to the municipalities to make the grants, then repeal the act." I never thought he -- wherever he is -- would do it, but he did. With the way they feel about the support of municipal and regional governments, I never thought this government would repeal the act.

The minister has come back now. I'm sure that he will remember our discussion in Prince George, when he said that there really isn't a trust account, and that the money isn't there. And I said that of course the money isn't there; that's not what was involved. Putting money to one side and setting up a bank account was not what was involved. A portion of provincial revenues was committed to revenue-sharing with municipal governments. The money wasn't there. I wouldn't have done anything differently than the previous government did. The then Minister of Finance wouldn't have done anything differently than that government did. The present Minister of Finance wouldn't have done anything differently than what was done. Of course, you would reduce government spending with these excess funds. But they didn't belong to you; they belonged to municipalities.

So where are we now? You have taken a low level of payments from these funds from municipalities and frozen them. You have said: "Oh well, we'll look after you. We'll make sure that we'll increase our payments to you in line with the growth in the GDP." But that's not what's involved. This government needs to think about what its responsibilities are, what municipal governments' responsibilities are and what school boards' responsibilities are, and how we finance them and pay for them. You have crossed out with the stroke of a pen, and erased with a rubber, all of the funds that previous governments had committed to municipal government support. I can go into my desk and pull the numbers out. There are millions of dollars -- half a billion dollars -- that have built up in these various percentages of various government revenues. There's a portion of consumer taxes, of natural resource revenues and of other forms of revenues that were committed to supporting municipal government.

So where do we go from here? You're going to wipe the blackboard clean and wipe out this bookkeeping number that's involved. I can appreciate that municipal governments would grab for some commitment, certainty for the uncertainty that has existed to this point. But provincial government should recognize that they are the meat in the middle of the sandwich; that there is above us a federal government that has more taxing rights than we do, and there is below us a municipal government or regional government that has more responsibility for delivering services than we are willing to give them financing for.

I must admit that if I were in the Minister of Finance's shoes, I would probably do the same thing and say: "Let's get rid of this silly arrangement that no one has ever lived up to." The Socreds -- oh, sorry, the Reformers, or whatever they call themselves from day to day -- set this up and never lived by it once. It was just finger-painting on the wall. But we have to recognize that municipal governments..... I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- who I'm pleased to see sitting in on this debate -- recognizes the responsibilities that municipal governments have for delivering important services to citizens of this province. We must ensure that those municipal governments have the revenues, or the ability to raise the revenues, to pay for the services they must deliver.

Please let us stop dealing on an ad hoc basis with particular bills and particular issues -- and that's what this is. Let's get rid of the revenue-sharing arrangements, wipe them out. Where do municipalities sit? Surely we have to think the whole thing through. How should school expenditures be paid? Should they be paid through property taxes? Should we have homeowner grants? How should municipalities pay for the costs they are responsible for? I think there's a whole bunch of issues that need to be thought through very carefully.

The Liberal Party is a party of reform. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of people over here have picked up this term with a capital "R"; but we are a party of reform with a small "r," a verb. We all remember what a verb is; a verb is a word of action. How do we reform government? How do we think about what are the responsibilities of municipal government, and how do they pay for those things? What are the responsibilities of the provincial government, and how do they pay for those things? What are the responsibilities of federal government, and how do they pay for those things?

I get concerned when this minister brings in a bill to all of sudden wipe out an arrangement that has been made. And what has she promised? She's promised that: "Well, we'll do a little better than we did last year. Now, we won't make the payments that we really committed to under the Revenue Sharing Act of 1987, or whatever it was. We will do a little better than last year. We'll add to it by the increase in the gross provincial product" -- or whatever.

The Chairman is putting a little pressure on me to speak quickly. I don't want to speak quickly, because I hope that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is sitting behind and talking to the Minister of Housing.... I hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is listening to what I'm saying, because there really is an important message: understand the problem of the municipalities in delivering the services they must pay for; understand that what you're doing at this moment in time, which I do not support, is taking away a deal that was made by a previous government -- now called Reform with a capital "R" -- that they never lived up to.

An Hon. Member: A shell game.

F. Gingell: Just a shell game -- smoke and mirrors. The smoke going into the shell, and the mirror coming out of the end of the shell.

The Chair: Thank you, member.

F. Gingell: But please do give this some thought. Don't just get rid of this and not recognize the responsibility that we have to municipalities, because all levels of government are important to British Columbians. Local roads, local garbage collection and all the things that municipal governments do are important to all of us. Don't leave them sitting out at the end of the road.

A deal is being changed. I don't approve of what you're doing, but I understand that when a deal is not being lived up to, we need to get back to the real world. In that regard I accept what you're doing.

[11:45]

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

[ Page 12779 ]

L. Hanson: Section 9 gives authority for treasury payments out of the old program. Can the minister give us some idea of what commitments are there that might be paid out under this, over and above this year's $120 million? I suspect those would be sewage and water grants -- but what amount?

Hon. E. Cull: It is the old sewer and water program, the debt retirement-based formulas, and those still have to be honoured.

L. Hanson: That's the old 75-25 formula that paid each year the amount of repayment the municipalities had to make.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 12.1, by adding the following section:

Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act

12.1 Section 2 of the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act, S.B.C. 1988, c. 26, is amended by striking out "revenue-sharing fund".]

On section 12.1.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, I can't see where the revenue-sharing fund is. I guess it's in section 13. Does your amendment, Madam Minister, take out all of what is in our act as No. 13?

Hon. E. Cull: Just to clarify for the member, this doesn't actually amend anything that's been printed in the bill. It adds a new section to the bill, section 12.1, which deals with the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act, and deletes the words "revenue-sharing fund" from it because there no longer is a revenue-sharing fund.

Section 12.1 approved.

On section 13.

L. Hanson: Can the minister give us some idea of what residue was in the revenue-sharing account? I understand it's about $200 million or $250 million. Can the minister give the House some indication of how that $200 million or $250 million is going to be handled in this year's statements?

Hon. E. Cull: We don't have the figures here. We think there is in the order of about $250 million in the old revenue-sharing fund, but it has no impact on the budget. I don't know where the member is going with the questions, but it has no budgetary impact.

L. Hanson: I thought the amount was about $250 million. But there is the continued liability on the part of the government to make those 75-25 payments to the old sewer grant process. How does the ministry handle the $250 million that is sitting as an asset in that account? Does it go against previous debt of government or does it come into this year's expenditures versus revenue?

Hon. E. Cull: As with the special account, we have been patiently explaining all the way along that it has always been part of consolidated revenue. So taking it out doesn't change things and putting it in doesn't change things. It has always been part of consolidated revenue, and those commitments will continue to be met -- as they have in the past -- out of consolidated revenue.

F. Gingell: I am just struggling through the budget. The minister mentioned a number -- $250 million. The number stuck away in the crevices of my mind is $465 million. What are we talking about? We're talking about a commitment the previous government made to share a series of revenues with the municipalities, and we're talking about the previous government not living up to the commitments they made.

L. Hanson: That's what you're talking about; that isn't what I was talking about.

F. Gingell: That's what you were talking about. You asked what the amount of money in the.... And the minister talked about $250 million, and I think it's $465 million. I think the $465 million is reduced by infrastructure programs that the government has made a commitment to go into cost-sharing arrangements on.

The real problem -- which is what I tried to say before, and if I may have the honour of closing debate on this issue -- is that governments have to stop making commitments and not living up to them. Governments have to stop making big announcements and saying they will share this and share that, and then doing sweet nothing about it.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: In the cash flow problem, you have to recognize that a portion of the cash flow is not yours. That is what you have refused to do. I am really pleased that you asked that question, because you have included 100 percent of the revenues that you agreed to share with municipalities as your revenues, and you've spent them. Government has to recognize that if you make a deal, a certain percentage of consumer taxes, natural resources and petroleum and gasoline royalties belong to municipalities. Stop dealing with them as your money. They don't belong to you.

One of my interesting experiences in getting involved in provincial politics for the first time was being in Prince George with the now Minister of Employment and Investment, who was then the Minister of Finance. I said to him: "Well, Mr. Minister, if you don't agree with it, cancel the deal." I never believed you would do it, because it's morally wrong. You came into government recognizing that commitments had been made with other levels of government that they would have certain revenues available for their use. By this act, you wipe them out.

The Chair: Delta South, we are on a relatively straightforward provision of the act. You gave this speech approximately seven minutes ago. I don't think the House's interests are being well-served by this. I would ask you to please focus your remarks on section 13.

F. Gingell: A lousy seven minutes -- you get cut off for a lousy seven minutes. I know everybody else wants to pass this, and I appreciate the point the Chairman makes, but I would suggest with all respect that there is more involved in this than just the issue.

[ Page 12780 ]

Why did I wait until section 13 to try to convince the Minister of Finance that she should think carefully about what they were doing? I am especially taking advantage of the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here, because it is a special occasion for us in opposition to have an opportunity to speak about this issue, which not only affects the Minister of Finance. She's trying to hang onto what she's got in order to take it away from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose responsibility it is to look after the interests of municipalities. So please do not cut me off. Yes, I will stop in a moment or two, but this really is important.

We aren't going to get our problems sorted out in British Columbia until we get reform of taxation. The relationship between federal and provincial governments, which you talk about all the time.... You keep talking about how the federal government's cutting us off, and how if they didn't cut us off, we'd have $2 billion more in revenues. That's exactly the same problem that municipalities have in dealing with the provincial government. The provincial government made promises -- not of your making but of the Reform Party members' making.

An Hon. Member: Oh, come on, Fred.

F. Gingell: Yes, you did make promises, and none of you have lived up to them. Let's all of us think about how we deliver services, who is responsible and how we pay for them, and stop dealing with these issues on an ad hoc basis. This bill is an ad hoc bill -- write it off, just cut them off at their knees. What you'll give them is what you gave them last year plus 1 or 2 percent, or whatever the increase in the GNP is.

Hon. G. Clark: A guaranteed increase.

F. Gingell: "A guaranteed increase" -- big deal! The Minister of Employment and Investment has said it's a guaranteed increase. What is it a guaranteed increase on? It's a guaranteed increase on something that is substantially below the commitments the government made in earlier years to municipalities. It really is.

Please stop thinking about these things on an ad hoc basis. Please think about them for the good of British Columbia taxpayers and recognize the problem that municipal taxpayers have. They are all our taxpayers; they aren't any different from provincial taxpayers. What's the difference? It's the services that the various levels of government are required to deliver. I don't think you are doing any good by just changing the rules in the manner that you have. I think there is a better way of doing things. When we are government, we will find a better way of doing things.

Hon. E. Cull: I am going to make a brief response to this because I think it's important to put a few things on the record. The member has talked about honesty. In fact, what this does is correct a situation which has been dishonest from virtually the day the Revenue Sharing Act was brought in in 1978, because the money has never been there. What municipalities have had in the past is a formula that guarantees the money going into a fund. What they now have is money that is guaranteed to go out and into their budgets. That is a considerable improvement.

That is why the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive moved at their May 5 meeting that the report be received and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Finance be advised of support for the bill and thanked for their efforts to satisfactorily conclude the local government transfer review. They also say that they regard Bill 20 as a successor to the Revenue Sharing Act, and the grants are still very much based on the revenue-sharing principle. We worked hard with municipalities to get rid of the ad hockery, the uncertainty and the sham that that fund has really been over the years, where there has been no guarantee of funding. What municipalities now have is predictability of funding. That is something they have been asking for, and that's why they back this bill.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 20, Local Government Grants Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[12:00]

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee on Bill 44.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 44; G. Brewin in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

F. Gingell: In section 3, we begin to deal with the issues of changing the manner in which funds that are under the responsibility of the Province of British Columbia are invested.

I must admit that section 3 only deals with definitions, but I think it is important for all of the committee to understand exactly how the minister feels section 3 will change the way in which provincial government funds have been invested -- how that will change in the future from the way it has been in the past.

Hon. E. Cull: Are you referring to section 3(a)? Under section 3 there are two separate sections, and they are significantly different.

Let me just answer: 3(a) creates a chief investment officer appointed to make investment decisions under the act and on the advice of the minister. It now implements one of the significant recommendations of the Seaton commission to create some independence and autonomy with respect to investment decisions.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

F. Gingell: In section 3 we dealt with the creation of a new person. In section 4 we start to deal with the role of 

[ Page 12781 ]

that person. I would be most interested in the minister's description of how they see what happens in the future changing from what happened in the past.

Hon. E. Cull: This section introduces the prudent-person principle into our legislation, which is the standard in the pension fund industry. It has been widely adopted, for example in Ontario, Quebec, other places in Canada and in the United States. Most recently, it has been adopted in our own Pension Benefits Standards Act. This replaces an inflexible and rigid list with a set of principles that must be followed. In doing so it creates greater flexibility and greater benefits for the people of British Columbia.

F. Gingell: What has happened in the past is that the provincial government, in its role as trustee for investing the moneys of various funds for which it is responsible, has been restricted in the type of investments that it could make. This is going to change that, and I don't think this is a light change. It is a fairly major change. All of a sudden, the government is going to change from those things that are approved by the federal government for investments by life insurance corporations, for example -- where there is a whole series of criteria -- to those things that a prudent person would do. But how prudent is a prudent person who uses due diligence, skill and care and all those various criteria that are very easy to put into the act?

In the end, this government has to recognize that it is responsible for ensuring the dollars are available to look after the liabilities for which those dollars were originally contributed in various funds. I have a whole series of concerns that stem from the consequences of Bill 53, which I know we're not dealing with now. But there the government is saying: "Allow us to invest funds differently, and we'll get you a greater rate of return. Therefore, we can now pay greater benefits than those that are presently being provided, because we'll pay for them out of the future benefits derived from the income we will subsequently earn."

I see the minister shaking her head. But isn't that really what's involved? I'd be interested in her response.

Hon. E. Cull: This actually imposes a higher standard of care in managing the portfolios that we have right now. The chief investment officer is required to operate under the prudent person principle, a well-established principle throughout other pension portfolios in Canada and the United States, as opposed to simply operating off a list or from directives by the Minister of Finance. In this case, the interests of the pension fund beneficiaries or anyone they are managing funds on behalf of are actually.... The level of care is increased, as opposed to what the member is suggesting. In fact, this principle has been widely adopted because it does provide for a greater level of care. It has nothing to do with trying to suggest that you will take risks with higher rates of return and try to get benefits. In fact, it imposes a higher duty of care on the chief investment officer than the system that was there in the past.

F. Gingell: Is the minister telling me that all of the intended increased benefits under the pension benefits amendments that are coming under Bill 53 are not the results of a conjectured future increase in rates of return on investments?

Hon. E. Cull: We're moving into Bill 53, which is a subject for later debate. But to answer this, there isn't any relationship here between those. As the member will discover as we get into Bill 53, it is not future rates of return that are being redistributed to create those benefits. It is a surplus that is building in the indexed fund.

F. Gingell: We will deal with the issues of Bill 53 when we come to them, and I accept the minister's statement on that. But let's not fool ourselves, please. All of the benefits under Bill 53 are related to conjectured additional returns under a change in investment policy. That's all they are, and nothing more.

Hon. E. Cull: Inflation, certainly.

F. Gingell: What do you mean by inflation?

Interjection.

F. Gingell: The Minister of Finance says inflation. Inflation doesn't necessarily happen. Inflation 15 years ago was 10 percent; inflation this year is supposed to be 0.5 percent. Don't fool yourself, Minister of Finance.

Hon. E. Cull: Point of order. I'm eager to engage in debate around Bill 53. The member is clearly wrong; it relates to inflation. But I suggest that we're on Bill 44, and we should conclude that bill.

The Chair: Sounds like a good idea.

F. Gingell: I'm not going to argue whether we're discussing Bill 53 or Bill 44. But I simply do not understand your description that it involves inflation. That is irrelevant -- without consequence. It is not involved in this discussion at all. If the Minister of Finance thinks inflation is involved in the rate of return for changing the type of investments this province has, then the Premier had better think about who the Minister of Finance is. It's got nothing to do with it. Why are you talking about inflation? Would the Minister of Finance please stand up and explain the relationship of inflation to the issue we're dealing with now?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm delighted to do that. There's no relationship between this issue and inflation. The member was referring to Bill 53.

F. Gingell: The issues involved in Bill 53 do not involve inflation. The issue involved in Bill 53 is that in changing the investment mix and allowing the investment officer to get into different types of investments, there will be a higher rate of return which will pay for these investments. I see the minister shaking her head. Would she please explain why she shakes her head?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I need some direction. The member is asking me questions about Bill 53. We are on Bill 44. There is no relationship between inflation and Bill 44. The member is suggesting that the pension benefits improvements that are going to be made under Bill 53 are related to some increased revenue from diversifying equity into investments, and he's linking that to this.

That's not what Bill 53 is about. I'd be happy to debate that when we get there, but there is no relationship between the improvement in benefits in Bill 53 and the 

[ Page 12782 ]

change to the prudent person principle here. The relationship in Bill 53 has to do with the pension account that is for indexing, which has had the assumptions around inflation changed. The member is correct: inflation is coming down -- if it's not at zero. Therefore there is a surplus in that account, which has been redistributed to other benefits. That's all I'm going to say about Bill 53 in this debate.

F. Gingell: It was the minister who brought up the subject of inflation; I did not. Would you please explain what the subject of inflation has to do with the issue that we're dealing with now?

The Chair: I think that's already been answered.

Hon. E. Cull: It has been answered. The member was talking about Bill 53 when I said inflation.

The Chair: Bill 44, section 4, hon. member -- or I will put the question.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I did not bring up the subject of inflation; the minister did. The minister made some suggestion that inflation was involved in the issue that we're dealing with here. I suggested that the investment opportunities by the investment officer under those criteria set by federal government regulations for life insurance, corporations, trust companies and other organizations, which have ruled the roost in the manner in which these funds could be invested in the past, are now going to be changed to those of a prudent person doing so, who shall exercise the care, diligence and skill that a person... -- etc. The minister brought up the subject of inflation, and I am presently sitting here bewitched, bothered and bewildered, and not understanding what your point is. I would really appreciate understanding exactly how you think inflation is involved in this issue.

[12:15]

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister has already responded to that. Perhaps you'd like to wait until we get to Bill 53, and we can move on to another section.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

J. Weisgerber: This section causes me considerable concern. It's about the ability, as I read it, of the Crown to collect taxes. Everyone appreciates that taxes have to be collected and that governments have to be given the tools with which to collect taxes. However, I feel this section goes too far in giving the director the discretion to determine whether or not companies are associated companies, simply by a decision of the director. I think there's an enormous potential for harm, particularly to minority shareholders. Perhaps the minister could explain to us, under section 10(b), what kinds of constraints there are. Is it simply the director demanding to see records? What kinds of protections are there for minority shareholders in companies, who might see the assets of one company seized to pay a debt for another so-called associated company, when indeed the minority shareholders may have no interest at all in the debtor corporation?

Hon. E. Cull: This section arises because, as the member has indicated, it is important to all taxpayers that taxes owed are fairly collected and paid. Under existing provisions -- before this amendment -- the Crown can register a lien against assets that are owned by a company that is related to or associated with a company that owes taxes. However, we're frequently unable to use this provision, because we don't have access to information related to the company share structure. The amendment will then allow the director to deem that two businesses are related and to place a lien against assets that are used by the debtor company but are now owned by the second company. That will happen unless the second company can provide information to the contrary.

The member raises some concerns about the circumstances where this provision would be used. I can advise the member that the director would only request such information where the Crown has attempted to place a lien against the business assets of a corporation that has failed to collect or remit tax, and we have found out that the assets used by the debtor company are now owned by another company. So where we can see a relationship in terms of assets but not in terms of ownership, this allows us to place a lien and thereby force the second company to either prove that they're not related or come clean with the information and own up to the taxes that would be owing.

J. Weisgerber: A couple of circumstances within the area that the minister describes still cause me considerable concern. If the assets have been transferred from one associated company to the other in an arm's-length business transaction -- i.e., there was a corresponding transfer of funds or other assets to compensate -- would the property in question still be subject to a lien? Indeed, in the examination of the records of the two companies, will the director be looking for common majority ownership or similar ownership? If the director is prepared to place liens, even though they recognize that perhaps 49 percent of the owners of the associated company have nothing in common and have no relationship, will there still be a proceeding?

I think of an acquaintance of mine who makes a practice of owning 51 percent of company shares and has 49-percent-ownership partners in probably 25 or 30 businesses. If one of those businesses should fail in its tax obligations, the concern I have is for the 49 percent owner in an associated company who may find the assets of his company placed at risk by the director. That's the argument that I have with this discretion in determining associated companies. Perhaps the minister could give not me but those minority shareholders in small businesses all around the province some comfort that their interests are also going to be considered while government is out trying to collect those taxes that it rightfully wants to collect.

Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by the member. The circumstances are that we will probably realize somewhere in the order of $250,000 to $500,000 worth of taxes that we have not been able to collect, because as it exists now, where there are no arm's-length transactions and the company refuses to provide information to indicate that, we don't have the ability to go after those taxes. In a case where we suspect that the transaction is not arm's length, where the company refuses to provide any information and where 

[ Page 12783 ]

we can see that the assets have changed, we will have the ability to place a lien until the company shows us that it is indeed arm's length. I would think that in the case of any truly arm's-length transaction, the company would be only too happy to oblige the director immediately upon the request of that information so that they could establish that it was arm's length.

J. Weisgerber: I expect the minister was talking about $250 million to $500 million.

An Hon. Member: Thousand, she said.

J. Weisgerber: She said thousand, so we're talking about this legislation being brought in to collect between $250,000 and $500,000 in outstanding taxes? Fair enough.

Perhaps, then, the minister can give me an indication: if two companies have a common owner who holds 51 percent of the shares and disassociated minority shareholders who own 49 percent of the shares, will the company be considered by the director to be an associated company?

Hon. E. Cull: The circumstance you've described would be associated companies.

J. Weisgerber: Can the minister then tell us whether this act contains any protection for those minority shareholders from the government in its zeal to collect the taxes that it rightfully wants to collect from the debtor company? Does the innocent minority shareholder obtain any protection under this legislation?

Hon. E. Cull: The lien is placed only on the assets that have been transferred, and it's placed only on assets that have been used in the business that the taxes are owing on, so there is that protection in that it's very narrowly focused.

J. Weisgerber: The final area of concern is under subsection (14), which suggests that from time to time the director may make a mistake, may in fact place a lien on some goods that he or she shouldn't have placed a lien on and that there would then be a remedy. The remedies outlined are that if the assets haven't been sold the lien is released. If indeed the assets have been sold, then the proceeds would be returned, minus the costs.

I'm not sure if anyone, including the minister, has been through that kind of process, but I can tell you that I've had an opportunity to observe bankruptcy and distress sales. To receive ten cents on the dollar minus expenses and have the director say, "Oops, we made a mistake," simply isn't good enough. There has to be some protection for people in those areas outlined in this section. Where the director makes a mistake, I believe those people have a right to more protection than is afforded under this section of the act.

Hon. E. Cull: During the course of taking any action under this section of the act, there are a number of options available to the companies, including appeal to the minister and to the courts. No sale of assets would take place while there were appeals pending and until appeals had been thoroughly completed. In that circumstance, I think there are remedies available to those companies and individuals to safeguard their assets.

J. Weisgerber: I was, and will be, I suppose, prepared to move on. It seems to me that the remedies are the ones outlined in the act. I would suggest to the minister that if she were ever to have the misfortune of having someone dispose of her assets in circumstances like those outlined under this act, she would be most dissatisfied with the proceeds. Then to find that it was a mistake of government that caused the sale is a pretty serious matter, and I think it deserves some attention from the minister.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

F. Gingell: Section 11, on the face of it, seems to deal with nothing more than extending the period in which these claims shall remain in effect from 90 days to three years. It looks as though it is nothing more than expanding the collection possibilities for government.

Can the minister advise us if anything more is anticipated by this section, other than expanding the collection possibilities on these questionable debts?

[12:30]

Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct.

Sections 11 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

F. Gingell: The Public Sector Employees' Council was incorporated as a society, and it would seem that what's involved in this section is dealing with the lack of foresight by the government in ensuring that this organization can act in the manner and do those things required by it in view of the intentions of this government. So it would seem to someone, on the face of it, that what section 19 does is add to the powers and the abilities of this society to act in the fashion the government envisages it acting. Would the minister please advise if that's correct?

Hon. E. Cull: Essentially, what this does is make some amendments to the way the Society Act applies, not to the Public Sector Employers' Council but to the employers' associations that are created pursuant to the Public Sector Employers Act. To put it more simply, the Society Act actually provides a very convenient framework for the operation of the employer associations, with some exceptions.

The alternatives available to government are to either create a new body of legislation to govern the employer associations or use the Society Act and make some changes to it. The changes that are made are things like the fact that we may have weighted voting under the employer associations, but the Society Act doesn't allow for weighted voting.

Another aspect of the Society Act is related to the fact that under the Public Sector Employers Act, each employers' association must make accommodation for government representation on its board. But the Society Act creates problems in terms of the appointment and the replacement of those.

So what we're doing is using the 95 percent of the Society Act that works well, and making some changes to those parts which require some amendments to reflect the intent of the Public Sector Employers Act passed by this Legislature last year.

[ Page 12784 ]

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

F. Gingell: When you look at it, on the face of it section 20 is not a housekeeping item. It deals with some rather critical issues in the social service tax dealing with double taxation and with labour in manufacturing and processing. This discussion would be well served by the minister describing the intention of this section.

Hon. E. Cull: There are two parts to section 20. The first one removes the term "alter" from the definition of "taxable service." The term "alter" can be broadly interpreted to include the manufacturing or processing of tangible personal property. This was not intended to be captured by the definition of taxable service, because manufacturing labour is already taxed under the act. This amendment removes the uncertainty in the application of the tax, and is consistent with the existing tax application and with what we're doing right now.

The second part of it transfers the definition of the term "apparatus" as used in the definition of "fixture" from the regulations into the act. This definition clarifies that the term "apparatus" is restricted to complex machinery or devices such as robotic arms. The amendment is required because the term "apparatus" could be broadly interpreted to include such things as patterns, templates or other basic items that it was not intended to cover. This is again consistent with existing practice.

F. Gingell: I accept the encouragement of the Minister of Employment and Investment to speed this up so as to move it along. What's involved here is purely and simply ensuring that items that were not intended to be taxed are not taxed. Would the minister confirm that?

Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely correct.

Sections 20 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

J. Weisgerber: My concern with this section is that the Crown, in its zeal to collect taxes, has decided that it will simply move itself, by legislation, to the head of the queue and will collect taxes. The Minister of Employment and Investment shrugs his shoulders, suggesting that's as it should be. Let us understand that among those people the Crown is shouldering out of the way to get to the head of the queue are employees. The Crown has decided that its due is more important than employee wages. That's what the section says. This moves the Crown ahead of employees, and that's inappropriate and a very serious consideration. I do not intend to see the Crown done out of anything, but if it's a question of wages, holiday pay or severance pay, the employees should have first draw on those amounts.

Hon. E. Cull: The section in this act basically puts us back to where we were prior to 1992, when the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was passed. You are saying we shouldn't be moving in the direction of those circumstances, but that's exactly where it had been all the time until 1992. The federal government changed the act and unilaterally removed a category so that we became an unsecured creditor. Up to 1992 we were always a secured creditor. With the passage of this act we will be back to where we were before the federal government interfered by passing legislation.

J. Weisgerber: I would suggest that that in itself is not a good enough reason. Indeed, it was inappropriate and unfair when the federal legislation put taxation ahead of employee wages and forced companies to take other action in order to be able to fulfil their obligation to their employees. I thought it was a step forward when the federal government changed the Bankruptcy Act, and I believe this is a step backward. As much as I recognize the need to collect taxes, I don't believe it's so critical that you want to shoulder out of the way those people who have money coming as a result of employment.

F. Gingell: I was waiting with bated breath for a response from the minister. I'm really sorry that the minister decided not to respond to the member for Peace River South in respect to this question. Government always has to deal with the issue of who comes first. I know you will find a whole bunch of reasons on specific occasions when government should have come first. But in 99.9 percent of the cases, I'd like to suggest to you, there are other creditors that really should, in all honesty, come first. And if you don't put them first, they'll be on the welfare rolls or some other form of government support. So I really think it's appropriate that the minister give this matter some thought, recognize all the consequences that are involved and respond to this question before Bill 44 gets passed.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not unsympathetic to what both the members have said, but this is a bigger matter than what we have before us in this amendment. It's a matter of the federal Bankruptcy Act, which puts the federal Crown and banks ahead, and all kinds of other secured creditors. However, I have been advised by staff that the intent of this section is to apply only to large, high-risk rural property tax accounts, not to the smaller accounts, which would be the circumstances in many cases that you're speaking about.

F. Gingell: The words the Minister of Finance says are caught forever in Hansard.

J. Weisgerber: Given the unclear comments by the minister, I'm not sure who the government intends to pursue and who it doesn't, and whether some of those are going to have employees and others aren't. Again, my concern is with the effect on salaries, wages, severance and holiday pay. If the minister is not going to pursue those, then there should be an amendment brought in to clarify that. If there isn't, then I certainly want to know where all members of the House stand on this particular section.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I don't have anything to add to what I've already said on this. It does put us back into the same circumstances we were in prior to 1992; it makes us a preferred creditor. I think it's an interesting debate that the members are raising, but it's a bigger question that is really part of federal bankruptcy legislation, and we may want to pursue it in that guise.

Section 26 approved on the following division:

[12:45]

[ Page 12785 ]

Section 27 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 44, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee stage on Bill 21.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; D. Lovick in the chair.

On sections 30 to 101 inclusive.

The Chair: Let me start by stating what I understand the arrangement is between all parties. We are on section 30 of Bill 21. By agreement we are apparently going to entertain the questions and concerns of the official opposition critic; then we're going to go to the Third Party critic; thereafter we will deal with the remainder of the sections, if that's agreeable.

Having said so, I will now recognize the critic, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think....

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, could I have some order. We're into a complicated bill here.

C. Tanner: I think the arrangement we set up among ourselves will deal with the bill efficiently. It's a convoluted bill that goes backwards and forwards, and it has some sections that apply in some areas and not in others. It also has consequences for a number of other bills. However, it is my feeling that last time we were on this bill, we pretty well covered the theoretical parts of it, so I've only got specific questions -- 11 of them. If it's agreeable to the minister, I'll give you the page number, then the section number, and we'll do those. My opposite number in the Reform Party will do his, and then we'll pass the complete bill after that, if that's agreeable to the minister.

Page 32, section 32 -- it's a very minor question. I'm just not clear why we're picking on free miners. We're right in the area of the minister's expertise -- one of his many areas of expertise -- and I know he'd be happy to tell me what a free miner is.

Hon. B. Barlee: Very briefly, free miners were given that title in 1858, when the mining law was enacted in British Columbia, and that allowed them to mine virtually anywhere in the province for a fee of L5 per year.

C. Tanner: I might be opening a large can of worms here, because I know the minister is very fond of free miners and all things attached thereto, but why are we specifically mentioning free miners in this section?

Hon. B. Barlee: Basically because there are placer mining claims on certain creeks -- PMLs, actually; placer mine leases -- that may have cabins or buildings that are historically valuable. If you go back to the 1890s, Perry Creek, Camp McKinney and McKinney Creek would be examples. Those should be protected under this law.

C. Tanner: If we go to page 38, section 52 is very simple. It says: "Section 531 is repealed and the following substituted: Power to accept property...." Municipalities can, as I understand it, appeal to the Supreme Court for changes to terms by which property has been deeded or donated by a person. This gives municipalities the ability to change the will of a person making a deed, and that concerns me somewhat. If I want to leave my property to my city, why should the city change the terms under which I left it to them?

Hon. B. Barlee: Section 531 is amended to enable local governments to apply to the Supreme Court for authority to vary the terms of trusts or bequests of property in consideration of changing needs. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) are added to provide greater latitude in varying the terms of trusts. The court must consider the intent of the donor, settlor or testator as well as the best interests of the municipality. The court must consider the original agreements as well. So I think that's relatively well covered.

C. Tanner: In that case, is the court strictly an adjudicator between the terms of the will and the needs of the municipality?

Hon. B. Barlee: I believe that is the case.

C. Tanner: This one is on page 40, section 57, section 683. As I understand this section, heritage property can be transferred from the province to a municipality in trust. I don't have any problem with that as long as the minister can assure me that the province has the authority to do that: to deed its property from itself, as an asset of the province, to a municipality without recompense.

Hon. B. Barlee: Could you clarify that question again, please?

[ Page 12786 ]

C. Tanner: As I understand section 683, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or the province, can deed heritage property to municipalities. My question is: can they do that without being recompensed or paid by the recipient? It seems to me that you can't just give away property without some benefit to the province.

Hon. B. Barlee: The Crown gives parkland to municipalities on many different occasions. It's not very much removed from that practice.

[1:00]

C. Tanner: I appreciate that this section gives the province -- the Crown, in this case -- the authority to do what it wants to do. My question to the minister is: can you do it carte blanche without the municipality or the recipient giving something back in return, to put it in its simplest terms?

Hon. B. Barlee: An example would be Newcastle Island, near Nanaimo, which was given for $1 to the municipality.

C. Tanner: This one is on page 42, and it's section 64, section 819.2. In my view, the regional districts are, in some respects, the creatures of the municipalities, and it appears to me that you're giving to regional districts the same authority that you're giving to municipalities. And in fact, if you go to page 49, you have, in a different section, the exemption of the very thing you're doing with this one. I'm wondering why you specifically need to set up the regional governments in this fashion. Doesn't it automatically flow through their municipal connection?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is quite possible that regional districts may indeed want to do that only in rural areas. It does not impact upon municipalities.

With respect to the other question, I believe that Newcastle Island, by the way, was transferred in 1959.

C. Tanner: We're now on page 52, Mr. Chairman, section 75, section 1007. I don't recall in any other legislation that I've seen -- certainly not in this session -- where we specifically give the ombudsman the authority to look at decisions. In other words, the person who has some beef with the civic authority can appeal to the ombudsman. I thought that was a foregone right of anybody under any legislation, and I am wondering why both here and in another section we specifically say there is an appeal to the ombudsman.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's reasonable, in that it does give that extra layer of protection to an individual who might not agree with the decisions made by municipal council. I don't see any real problem there.

C. Tanner: If the minister recalls, we had a division in this House on section 30, I think it was -- or section 29 -- on this very subject, in that we were saying that there wasn't any recourse for the person making a donation or for the person who owned property that was designated heritage by a municipality. The argument the minister gave was that there was no need to; that that exists in law. But the same argument is not holding true here. We put the ombudsman in a special position in this act, which makes me suspicious about what you're doing in the act -- you feel you have to protect the public or the property owner from the municipalities and from the consequences of this legislation. I don't recall the ombudsman being specifically designated as an appeal court before, and that's really what you have here.

Hon. B. Barlee: When I look at that part of the act, it's fairly reasonable for several reasons. First, if a person has a complaint, they may not want to resort to the courts of law, which might cost them thousands of dollars; whereas if they go through the ombudsman, they would be able to do this at virtually no cost.

C. Tanner: The point I am making, Mr. Minister, is that that right exists in all legislation and with all bureaucrats. The ombudsman is there to protect us against them and against impositions of legislation. I don't understand why you make a particular case in this piece of legislation -- I don't recall it in any other -- just for this specific case. It makes me suspicious of what you're doing.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a fair question, but because this is a new act fleshed out from the old 1977 act, we want to make sure that people realize that they can go through the ombudsman rather than any other legal recourse. I can't see a lot of problems emanating from that clause.

C. Tanner: I don't want to flog a dead horse, but why put it in? Why do you suddenly, out of the blue, refer to the ombudsman in a brand-new piece of legislation, when all other legislation -- unless the minister or the Clerk or somebody can remind me of some...? Why don't we have it in other legislation? We have passed two dozen bills this session, and I don't remember any reference to the ombudsman. Suddenly, out of the blue, why does the heritage bill require the ombudsman to be particularly noted for protection? From whom -- this bill?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, to be protected from a decision of local government that they believe is unfair. Remember, this has gone through about seven years of full consultations. This was added to the 1977 bill, and I think it's a reasonable addition.

C. Tanner: Fortunately, I have just received a very succinct explanation. Thank you so much. It's a shame the minister didn't know what it was.

On page 62, Mr. Minister, in section 75, section 1021(6), it talks about heritage revitalization agreements. In subsection (6) -- and, funnily enough, I'm arguing from the other point of view -- it seems to me that we have too many approvals to make it work very well. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and the minister who's going to administer this act are all involved here. It seems that the government is going to have a difficult time getting those approvals, and perhaps you've made it too difficult on yourself. It's not that I want to make life easy for you, but on the other hand, it seems to me that you're getting too far involved in this case.

Hon. B. Barlee: Subsection (6) says "a local government must not enter into or amend a heritage revitalization agreement unless the agreement or amendment is approved" by the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and so on. Again, I think there may be certain circumstances where they would have a significant impact upon those particular ministries, and that's why that particular section is in there.

[ Page 12787 ]

C. Tanner: The point I'm making here is that I suspect there are going to be occasions when it will be difficult to administer this act. It's going to make it doubly and triply difficult if you're going to have to get other ministries to agree with what you're doing. In particular, I suspect that there will be circumstances when, for example, the Ministry of Transportation will be in conflict with a municipality, with what the Ministry of Environment wants to do or with what the heritage bill is attempting to do. I don't see how you resolve that if you put it in the act, instead of in the regulations, that you're going to resolve some of those conflicts which naturally exist, particularly, I would think, between the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Environment.

Hon. B. Barlee: In certain instances there is some crossing of jurisdictional lines within the ministries. Where it impacts upon lands, we would go through the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Where it has a direct impact upon highways, we would go through the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

C. Tanner: Unless I misread this section, they have to go through both. It doesn't read one or the other. It reads to me, particularly in (a) and (b), that you need the permission of both of those agencies.

Hon. B. Barlee: Subsection (b) says: "...by the Minister of Transportation and Highways if the agreement or amendment covers land subject to section 57(2) of the Highway Act...."

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, can we go to section 101, section 577, the limit on compensation, on page 83?

We have a penchant in this House for writing legislation which covers us every which way and then some. It seems to me that this is something of a cop-out. There is a responsibility here to accept the fact that you can make mistakes, and if you do, somebody should be compensated for them. What you're saying here is that no matter what you do, you don't have to pay compensation. It's almost giving carte blanche to the administrator, and in some cases we're talking about people who are appointed by their municipalities to administer these acts. It seems to me that you're giving them the ability to make mistakes, but they're not responsible for the mistakes they make.

Hon. B. Barlee: Section 577 describes the limit on compensation, and it is identical to section 75 on page 50, dealing with the Municipal Act, section 1004. So that's covered in other sections as well.

C. Tanner: I'm not clear what the minister is saying. Is he saying that is the same as a section in the Municipal Act and consequently mirrors the same lack of responsibility?

Hon. B. Barlee: As I mentioned before, that is essentially the same as section 1004 of the Municipal Act.

C. Tanner: This is a simple question: so what? It still doesn't make any difference in this act. If somebody is irresponsible or doesn't fulfil the functions he's appointed to do, or he inadvertently cheats somebody, he is not liable -- or the government is not liable. I don't think that's fair. Does the minister think that's fair?

Hon. B. Barlee: I believe that is clarified under that section. It does say at the bottom: "...(a) any loss or damage, or (b) any reduction in the value of property that results from the performance in good faith of any duty under this Part or the exercise in good faith of any power under the Part."

[1:15]

C. Tanner: Section 577 starts off by saying: "Except as provided in sections 583(7) and 595, no person is entitled to compensation for (a) any loss or damage, or (b) any reduction in the value of property...." If a municipality, for example, decides it wants to designate some property as heritage and apparently does everything right, then halfway through it changes its mind and that property has been devalued, surely somebody should be compensated.

Hon. B. Barlee: If they did that, that would not be in good faith.

C. Tanner: Is the minister saying that the government never changes its mind, or that a municipality never changes its mind, or that things once started never stop and then go in another direction? Does the minister not know that when he gets thrown out of office there might be some changes made? I hope there will be. It's not a matter of if, it's when; and when it does happen, there will be changes.

What this section of the bill says to me is that if a heritage process is started and there is a change of heart on the part of the authority initiating the process, then there is no compensation. But surely there must be compensation if somebody's property has been damaged or somebody has been hurt.

Hon. B. Barlee: In the amendments to the Municipal Act, under "Heritage inspection may be ordered," section 1011(7), it says: "A person whose property is damaged by a heritage inspection under section 1011(1) is entitled to have the damage repaired at the expense of the local government or, if the damage cannot be repaired, to compensation from the local government."

C. Tanner: I know there is reference throughout this bill to the Municipal Act, the Mines Act and the Islands Trust Act, but it doesn't tell me that because of that feature in the Municipal Act, that same feature applies to this act. The minister is saying it does.

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, it does.

C. Tanner: I wonder why you need to write it in this act, then.

On page 84, section 101, section 579, it reads: "Delegation of Council authority." Can I read this section to mean that a council can delegate its authority under this bill to a public servant?

Hon. B. Barlee: That appears to be the case.

C. Tanner: Does the minister have any reservations about that? I can see the authority being delegated to a committee on which there are elected municipal officials. I am concerned that you could be delegating to a municipal public servant who, because of the previous section we were arguing about, doesn't really have any responsibility. I mean, he's a paid public servant who can make mistakes, but nobody can get at him because he has the delegated 

[ Page 12788 ]

authority from the municipality. He doesn't have to pay compensation if he makes a mistake. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Barlee: I just read out a case where he would have to pay compensation, or at least the municipality would have to pay compensation.

You delegate authority all the time at various levels of government -- local, municipal, provincial and federal -- often to deputy ministers, ADMs or other members of your staff. That is not an unusual procedure.

C. Tanner: When legislative writers write this stuff they should exclude the bureaucrats from the room. They influence the writers to protect their backsides so they never get caught, while poor mugs like the minister and I stand up here sticking our necks out all the time.

Just a comment in reference to page 85, section 101, section 580. Here again we have a reference to the ombudsman. The ombudsman can review council decisions now. I find this strange. For the second time in this bill we have a reference to the ombudsman, which applies to any piece of legislation and any bureaucratic department, as a recourse for people. It makes me suspicious of a bill, which I want to agree to, when you feel that you have to put in these references to the ombudsman to protect the public.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's essentially the same question that we debated a few minutes ago.

C. Tanner: I only have one other question, and that's on page 102, section 101, section 604. We're back again to the same problem that I and other members of the opposition had with section 29. There are all sorts of civil remedies for everybody except the poor fellow who gets his property seized or designated. I'm not going to vote against it this time; I think we made the point last time. But it seems to me that throughout there is a tendency to cover everybody except those people whose property might be designated heritage, and that the municipality or the province might want. There's no obvious compensation for those people, except that which is already identified in the act. There are all sorts of remedies for the bureaucracy, the municipalities, the province and the people who are administering the act. Everybody's covered except the poor benighted individual whose property happens to get seized because the minister or a municipality designates it as heritage. We've got the same problem in this section, too.

In spite of that, I would vote for this piece of legislation. I think we should put this legislation through the House and let it get into practice for a year or two, but I would do that more happily if the minister gave me an assurance that, should he be lucky enough to be elected again and fulfil the same role, he will commit himself and any successors to a review of this legislation when it's been in practice for a couple of years.

Hon. B. Barlee: Thanks for the vote of confidence. Indeed, I may be here next time around. I'm quite willing to commit myself to a review of any really problematic areas in this legislation. That's done all the time, hon. member.

L. Hanson: On page 36, section 47, section 400.2, "Repayment requirement in relation to heritage exemptions," the only question I have is that it would seem to say that a tax exemption allowed on a heritage property in exchange for designation could be required to be repaid if the property, for example, burnt down. To me, that seems a bit unfair, in that, hopefully, the owner of the property was not the cause of the burning. It also says that if alterations or whatever are made that weren't authorized, that could be a requirement, which seems fair and reasonable. But if a heritage property were destroyed at no fault to the owner, why would it be reasonable that the municipality could demand their taxes to be repaid?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a very logical question. Section 400.2 provides that tax exemptions given under section 400.1 shall be repayable if the heritage property is later destroyed or illegally altered. It goes on to say that a local government can waive payment or provide for scheduled repayment of tax exemptions. It must pass a bylaw within one year of the tax becoming repayable, or the repayment is deemed waived.

L. Hanson: I acknowledge that that is in there, but it seems to me there possibly can be a demand for repayment of a tax exemption that has nothing to do with the responsibility of the owner.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's reasonable as well. The other information here is that the tax exemptions given are a form of local government investment in the conservation of valued amenities. This provision protects the public investment. Repayment requirements are not automatic, and a tax exemption bylaw cannot include such a provision without the consent of the owner. Property owners and the local government can negotiate appropriate terms in this regard. So I think that probably covers that area reasonably adequately.

L. Hanson: I know what the minister is saying. It's still a concern to me that there is apparently a discretional authority under this section of the act for the municipality to require the owner to repay a tax exemption that might have happened over years. They could -- I'm not suggesting that it's mandatory that they would. But it seems to me there could be a situation here that's perfectly legal on the part of the municipality but unfair. I recognize that the minister is not suggesting that municipalities should demand their tax exemption back, and it's possible that they wouldn't. But it is a discretionary thing that could happen, given the way the bill is written, and that may require some consideration at a later date by the minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member for Okanagan-Vernon brings up a good point. As an ex-mayor, he understands, I think, that a council would take a certain risk by embarking on this voyage. But we would certainly be willing to review that if there were any problems in that area.

L. Hanson: I think the minister said that if the municipality took advantage of that, that probably would be an unpopular decision. But municipalities have been known to do that in the past. So I leave that as a matter of interest.

The only other issue that I have -- and it's been my whole concern with the bill from the start -- is on page 65, section 75, section 1024, which deals with "Compensation for heritage designation." As it reads, it would be a reduction in value. I have the same comment on that section as I did on the earlier sections: under some circumstances there may be a need or a requirement or a reasonableness for the municipality being forced to purchase a property in exchange for a designation, because the owner of the property may have plans for that property that are not easily delineated in a 

[ Page 12789 ]

reduction in value that makes the total use of the property by the owner completely impractical or improbable.

I'll leave that with the minister. It's an observation. The unilateral arbitration section of the act for value depreciation is fair and reasonable, but under some circumstances there may be a need for the local government or authority to purchase the property because it all of a sudden becomes totally worthless to that owner for the purpose that he or she had intended.

Hon. B. Barlee: That has been widely discussed with innumerable municipalities that have studied that section very closely. Of course, there are some problems in parts of the act, and I'm quite aware of that. But some of those problems will probably be reviewed in good time. I think that when you compare it with the original act of 1977, this does flesh out some of the areas that weren't covered then. But there are still some areas that require close scrutiny.

[1:30]

L. Hanson: A final comment is that I as an individual -- and most of us, I think -- have little difficulty in recognizing the importance of and need for an ability to conserve properties that represent our heritage and historical events. I also think that we all recognize there should be reasonable compensation and that it's a responsibility of society to pay for the preservation of those historic sites or properties, as opposed to the individual. It's been my concern with the bill from the start: that it make sure that society pays the cost of retaining that. I agree that it should retain it, but it should be very responsible in the payment of the cost of retaining it. That's all I have to say.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a legitimate concern.

I had a meeting today with an individual who was impacted under a portion of the old law of 1977, and she has recourse to remedies under that. But when I look at this and compare it with the old act of 1977, which the member is very familiar with, I feel that this is a significant advancement over the old act.

Sections 30 to 74 inclusive approved.

On section 75.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 75,

(a) in the proposed section 1006 (1) (c) of the Heritage Conservation Act, by deleting "respecting agreements to" and substituting "respecting the making of agreements as to",

(b) in the proposed section 1018 (5) by adding "defeats or" after "If a local government",

(c) in the proposed section 1020 (1) by deleting "in accordance with this section," and substituting "in accordance with this Division,", and

(d) in the proposed section 1027 (4) (b) by deleting "section 960 (2)" and substituting "section 969 (2)".]

Amendment approved.

Section 75 as amended approved.

Sections 76 to 100 inclusive approved.

On section 101.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 101,

(a) in the proposed section 583 (6) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "the local government must" and substituting "the Council must",

(b) in the proposed section 588 (1) by adding "may withhold approval" after "who issues permits for demolition", and

(c) in the proposed section 591 (1) by deleting "in accordance with this section," and substituting "in accordance with this Division,".]

Amendment approved.

Section 101 as amended approved.

Sections 102 to 108 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 21, Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 51.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 51: D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 21.

J. Dalton: In fact, I have two amendments on the order paper in this section, but let's take them in order so that we don't get confused. Given the lateness of the hour, I guess it could be easy to be confused.

[SECTION 21: Section 23 (1.2) With the written consent of the creditor]

The first amendment deals with subsection (1.2). I would like to add the word "written" before "consent." In other words, the section would then read "With the written consent of the creditor...." The purpose of that is that there would be some record, not just perhaps a phone call or some other mysterious way that the consent of the creditor may be given.

J. Weisgerber: I am rising to speak in favour of the amendment, but if indeed the Attorney General is prepared to accept it....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: He suggests not. Then let me say that I believe we're talking about placing a lien on real 

[ Page 12790 ]

property, indeed a fairly serious undertaking with repercussions for the debtor particularly. Under this section, if this registration is going to take place at initiation or require the consent of the creditor, which this section does, the written consent simply sounds logical. Perhaps the minister, then, would explain why he is willing to accept something less than the written consent of the creditor.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It seems to me that there are a variety of ways that consent can be indicated, and it's not simply a question of writing. Twenty-five percent of Canadians are illiterate, let's remember. There are a variety of ways of dealing with this issue, and I don't accept the amendment.

J. Dalton: I'll just make one other comment, then. Perhaps it would be handy for the family maintenance records, to ease the administrative aspects. When you consider that over 20,000 cases are registered with the family maintenance program, I think it would be very useful if there was a written record. It doesn't require the creditor to come in and write a great essay. Perhaps the Attorney General is alluding to the fact that to indicate consent there could be a standard form and just a signature on it.

I'm fearful that there may be some controversy created. I think the Leader of the Third Party made a good point. I know the previous discussion on this section, when it was adjourned.... Obviously, we all have to be concerned about the implications of registering something as serious as a charge or lien in the land title office. I'm not very happy to hear the Attorney General say there are other ways whereby consent may be evidenced. Quite frankly, unless it's in writing, how else can we establish that consent was evidenced?

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Dalton: I move that the next subsection, (1.3), as it appears on the order paper, be deleted.

Let me give a brief rationale. It relates back to our previous discussion. This subsection provides that consent is not required if the debtor is at any time in default. I would submit that the creditor may have a good reason to withhold consent. I think it's a bit arbitrary, quite frankly, that the director of family maintenance has this authority as set out in (1.3) without the consent of the creditor. Just because the debtor may be in default shouldn't automatically initiate this process. As far as I'm concerned, this has heavy-handed implications behind it. I would again move that the entire subsection be deleted.

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I know the minister doesn't want to extend debate on this, but I think some response would be appropriate. We did adjourn at a rather contentious section of the bill, I thought, with the intent that the minister would go back and look at a couple of these sections. As part of that process, I had -- perhaps mistakenly -- anticipated that he would either accept the amendments or come back with some rationale for not doing so. So I'm going to put in my pitch and then really encourage him to be a bit more forthcoming.

It seems to me that this is simply too heavy a club for the director. Indeed, there are circumstances that I know of from my own involvement with constituents where, through genuine misunderstandings in one case I can think of surrounding the spouse's attendance at a post-secondary institution, the husband went into default on a portion of his payment because he genuinely misunderstood what other income the spouse was getting and what his obligations were. There was a lien placed on his home, and the director -- and at that time the creditor -- simply refused to lift the lien, even though the loan was brought current.

The legislation has been improved to the extent that it is now at the discretion of the director. Again, we are dealing with someone whose responsibility is to collect delinquent accounts. I believe there is still a temptation for a lien to be left on property when the debtor has in good faith brought his account current. I believe very strongly that this amendment should be made to this section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Following the debate the last time we canvassed section 21, which feels like about ten days ago, I spent quite a bit of time talking to people who deal with this issue every day. I thought the members had made a point that merited serious consideration, which I gave it.

I have chosen to reject the arguments, for now at least. I guess the best way of explaining why I did that is to use an analogy. It's simply goes like this. Those of us who have mortgages and house payments to make have a charge against our property, even though probably everybody in this House makes their mortgage payment regularly every month, and there is never a question. Nonetheless, there is a charge against that property in anticipation of failure to meet the obligation. The analogy, I think, applies here as well. Even though there may be a good record of payment, there is always potential -- and it's happened that this is the problem -- that people will decide to sell and leave the jurisdiction. Leaving the lien in place is a protection for the woman. The member for Peace River South correctly notes that we have improved the section. Previously the lien could only be removed with the approval of the creditor; now the director of family maintenance has the authority to remove it as well.

While we've made an improvement, I'm not prepared to go the extra step. This is one of the unfortunate things about the way we have to make laws: we have to make them not for the overwhelming majority of people who are going to behave properly; we have to make them for those exceptions where people are going to be hurt. If you don't have the lien registered, there are going to be situations where people abscond. I have chosen to continue the approach we initially took with the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

J. Dalton: One other question is on the last subsection, (4.2): "The inability of the director, after reasonable effort...." I know those are dangerous phrases in law, but they have to be used sometimes. Can the Attorney General perhaps advise the committee as to what might be considered a reasonable effort? That is probably a tough one to explain.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is absolutely right: it's a tough one to explain. Whether or not the director has made reasonable effort is something that is going to be judged after the fact. I don't think it's possible for me to 

[ Page 12791 ]

stand up here and describe what that reasonable effort is going to be. It is going to be different in different situations.

[1:45]

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

J. Weisgerber: Section 23 removes time limits. If an amount for support remains owing until after a dependent child reaches the age of majority, who is the beneficiary of those arrears when they are collected?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to be sure we are talking about the same section. The member is talking about section 23 of the bill and section 24 of the act?

J. Weisgerber: Section 23 of the bill refers to section 24 of the act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right. If there are arrears.... Maybe I don't understand the member's question. If the arrears are not to be collected, then the person owing those arrears doesn't end up paying them and doesn't owe them -- unless I misunderstand the question.

J. Weisgerber: If I've correctly analyzed this, there was previously a section in the act limiting the time period over which arrears could be collected. My expectation under this amended section is that there is now no time limit under which the director can go back and collect arrears. At the point in time where a dependent child has reached majority and those arrears are collected, who is the beneficiary of the arrears?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry that I misunderstood the member's question. The money was owed while the child was in the care of the custodial parent. If money hadn't been paid during that period, money was still expended by the custodial parent to look after the child. Even though the child of the custodial parent is beyond the age of majority and no longer at home when the arrears are collected, that money is to pay back the money that had been expended while the child was at home and in the care of the custodial parent. It's paying back a debt. The custodial parent, in effect, had to borrow or make do out of her own limited resources, and she's being paid back, albeit somewhat late.

J. Weisgerber: A final bit of clarification in that regard: if the person were required to go on social assistance due to these arrears, would the Crown then become the beneficiary of some or all of those recovered funds?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the custodial parent went on social assistance during the period that payment was not being made, and then some years later the arrears were collected, whose money is that? Frankly, I can't answer that question without advice from staff. Tonight, obviously, I have neither that nor the advice of the Minister of Social Services. But I would undertake to get an answer to that question and have it conveyed in writing to the member.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

J. Dalton: I'm sure that this amendment will go the way of the others, but I will put it forward. It would add after the word "director" in both sections 26 and 27, because they are consistent in their wording -- the phrase is on the order paper -- "with the written consent of the creditor." It's the same rationale: that there be an actual written record in the director's files that the creditor has consented.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't accept the amendment earlier, and to be consistent now, we need to maintain the same procedures throughout the rest of the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

J. Dalton: "Third parties compellable" is an interesting new section to the act. I guess my main concern has been expressed to me by grandparents. This is a question to the Attorney General: would grandparents, for example, be considered as third parties who could be compelled to appear on an application by the creditor or the director?

There are rather interesting overtones to this. According to the wording in this new section, any association between the debtor and "an individual, corporation, partnership or proprietorship" which may affect his ability to pay -- his or her, of course, but it's usually his.... For example, would a grandparent possibly be caught by this amendment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, unless I misunderstand the member, I don't see how that would be the case -- unless the member sees something in the language that I don't see.

J. Dalton: I guess it's like a lot things: until we test it, all we can do here is hypothesize and speculate. Again, I am worried that there are some implications built into this wording. I emphasize the expression "association with an individual...." -- I won't read the rest of it. A debtor can be associated in all sorts of ways with all sorts of individuals: roommates, grandparents, friends and neighbours. I'm just fearful that there may be some unfortunate spinoffs built into this that I don't think, quite frankly, are warranted.

If we have a dispute between the creditor and the debtor, which is the centre of this act, that's fine, and we deal with it that way. But if we're starting to drag in third parties and casting the net as far as it may reach, I don't think that's warranted. That's the point I'm making.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, the net will be cast only as wide as the court will agree to. An application must be made to the court. Theoretically, the member's question in respect of a grandparent could be captured by the term "individual." But clearly what we're looking at here are situations where a debtor is finding ways of hiding the assets so as to not be, on the surface, in a position to pay the maintenance required, and this is a way of getting around that. That's one of the single biggest issues we've got now. The member knows that 

[ Page 12792 ]

while the statistics have improved pretty dramatically, 9 to 12 percent of debtors still do not pay at all. In many of those cases, it's a result of them hiding behind some other individual or hiding their assets in one way or another. This section is designed to capture that. The protection here is that the court will ensure that fairness applies.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

J. Dalton: This one makes reference to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Would I be correct in assuming that according to both statutes, but in particular the FOI, a reference is required to ensure that the confidentiality of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act in fact does prevail over any disclosures that may be coming forward from the FOI act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Absolutely, hon. Chair. This is designed to ensure that the FMEP confidentiality prevails.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

J. Dalton: This section also intrigues me. It deals with harassment of the director of maintenance enforcement. I know as a fact -- and obviously the Attorney General knows -- that the director has a difficult job. As I indicated earlier, over 20,000 people are registered in the program. Of course, when you have a mix, as I've said on many occasions, of money and emotion, I can well understand that there may be angry phone calls, knocks on doors and things like that.

Can the Attorney General assist the committee by telling us the rationale behind this? What are the implications? For example, could somebody be held in contempt if the court makes an order dealing with harassment? Is this going to result in people being dragged before a judge? Probably because of the emotion and the mix in their family situation, they are not going to be thinking clearly. I'm just worried that this may be giving too much authority to the courts to perhaps stamp out some legitimate issues that people want to bring forward. Maybe we're being overly protective of the director through this amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the court isn't going to make an order to restrain an individual unless there are good grounds, and the good grounds will come from the history of the harassment or the intimidation or other behaviour.

It's a serious problem. As the member knows, the family maintenance enforcement workers have to work in pretty secure premises. It's not just a door where you can walk into the office. These doors are locked, and there's a relatively high degree of security around these offices because of -- I guess, as the member says -- the emotion that often comes with the territory. There are occasions -- and they are rare -- when there's simply no other option for the director or the staff but to go to the court and ask for a restraining order.

To answer the member's question directly, if the court does issue such an order and it's violated, then that's a violation of a court order and is subject to the usual procedures that come from an alleged violation. It potentially becomes a contempt of court, and that's the only way we can deal with it in these rare situations. Unfortunately, we have to legislate for the rare cases rather than for the general situation.

J. Dalton: I won't pursue this any further, other than a speculation rather than a question. Obviously we are inviting the courts to rule as to what, in the circumstances, may be harassment. I am wondering, for example, whether a series of phone calls might be considered harassing the director or an employee. I appreciate the remark the Attorney General made about the protection that is needed. I have had occasion to visit the Burnaby office of family maintenance, and it obviously has to be a somewhat more secure business premise than others might have to be.

[2:00]

The Attorney General can comment if he so wishes, but I am worried that perhaps we're inviting the courts to intercede in things where it's not necessarily warranted. I am also worried that harassing could be interpreted in all sorts of ways -- for example, letters or, as I have commented, phone calls. I have had people -- and the Attorney General knows full well, because I am sure he's been contacted by the same people -- complain to me that they don't seem to get a fair shake from the director or from the program. Their phone calls and letters sometimes go unanswered. If I recall, the Attorney General did admit in this House not too long ago that the biggest concern with family maintenance is the failure to return phone calls and follow up on people's complaints. If people are complaining, that may be interpreted as harassing. If the Attorney General has gone on record as saying that people aren't treated fairly by the complaints that are registered -- and I can understand the criticism that can be directed at the program -- then we may be getting into a real catch-22, whereby we admit that the program isn't perfect and will never be perfect, given the volume of cases. On the other hand, we are trying to express some criticism of people who may very well have legitimate concerns. I can see that in cases they may be dragged before a court, accused of harassing through what you and I might consider freedom of speech -- or what I might consider freedom of speech.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The court is going to make the decision, and I have no doubt that the court is going to bring an element of fairness to this.

Sections 31 to 38 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendments.

[ Page 12793 ]

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 51, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Report on Bill 21, hon. Speaker.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Bill 21, Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 2:05 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada