1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 7
[ Page 15667 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to announce, on behalf of all of us here in the Legislature, that the trophy which carries the name of your distinguished office was awarded once again to the victorious Legislative Assembly tennis team on Saturday. I see that some members of the press gallery who are here quite rightly have their heads hung in shame. It really is good for all of us here to see that the forces of good do triumph over evil; it tends to confirm your faith in the order of things. In keeping with the assembly's rules of full and open disclosure, I wish to announce at this earliest possible opportunity that the final score in this well-contested battle -- and this is politely put by the scripter of this material -- was the press gallery's 83 miserable games to the Legislative Assembly's 142 magnificent games. So, hon. Speaker, the coveted Speaker's trophy remains safe in the right hands for another year, thanks to the coach -- the esteemed Clerk -- and his victorious team. Congratulations to all on this magnificent victory.
M. Sihota: Joining us today here in the chamber is Mr. Lorne Nystrom, who has served as a Member of Parliament for 25 years, representing a constituency in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Nystrom is visiting with our caucus today. In so doing, he brings to us the enthusiasm and success of the Saskatchewan NDP, which I know -- and I know the opposition is concerned about this -- is highly infectious. I'm sure it will bode well for the NDP here in British Columbia.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us today from Williams Lake is Tom Barr, who's the president of the Neighburhood Pub Owners' Association of B.C. Tom is here for meetings to discuss the relationship between his industry and the evolving gaming policy in this province. Please make Tom welcome.
F. Gingell: In the visitors' gallery today are some visitors from Appleton in the United Kingdom, Dr. and Mrs. Jim Young, and they're here with a very good friend of ours, Jim Rhodes. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: Today in the gallery is Andrea Barry, my niece from Oakville, Ontario, who is visiting British Columbia and Victoria. I ask the House to make her most welcome to our precinct.
J. Sawicki: On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I want to welcome a delegation of Ecuadorian mayors and senior officials. They represent the municipalities of Machala, Rio Bamaba and Pastaza-Puyo. Also with them are representatives of the Association of Ecuadorian Municipalities. Accompanying that delegation are the president of our UBCM, Councillor Joanne Monaghan, Mayor Bill Trewhella of the village of Warfield, Mayor Wayne McGrath from Vernon and Brett McGillivray, director of the Sunshine Coast Regional District. Would the House please make all our guests welcome.
G. Wilson: I would like to ask the House to make welcome those participants in the Ecuadorian exchange to the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in particular -- and I hope I have the names pronounced properly -- Senor Patricio Lopez Cobo and Senora Zoila Guevara, who are accompanied by Larry Jardine, who is the administrator of the Sunshine Coast Regional District; Brett McGillivray, already introduced; Steve Alexander and his wife, Suzanne Alexander, who is acting as an interpreter for the group today. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Mitchell: In the gallery today are two guests from Squamish, who are here on important business for School District 48, the Howe Sound School District. Would the House please welcome the chair of that school district, Mr. Don Wilson, who is accompanied by the superintendent and chief executive officer of the Howe Sound School District, Mr. Doug Courtice.
L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming today 36 grade 7 students from Walter Lee Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Norm Eyford and Mr. George Nakanishi. Would the House please make them welcome.
T. Perry: We are also joined in the gallery today by a future intern whom we'll be seeing a lot of next year, Julie Jackson, and her mother, Diane Jackson. They are originally from Chilliwack.
Before I invite members to make them welcome, I counted, I think, about 14 people who have not yet been introduced -- probably tourists -- and I would like to set a good example for the rest of the week by inviting all members to join me in making welcome anyone else who hasn't been specifically introduced.
Hon. G. Clark: I've just been notified of two visiting parliamentarians -- I gather, husband and wife -- the Hon. Elaine Nile and the Hon. Frederick Nile from New South Wales, Australia. I ask all members to make them most welcome.
RELEASE OF UN PEACEKEEPERS HELD HOSTAGE BY SERB FORCES
Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to make a ministerial statement. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the release yesterday of 26 members of the United Nations peacekeeping forces, who were held hostage by the Serb forces in Bosnia during the past three weeks. I am sure I speak for everyone in this House in saying that we share the joy and relief of the families and friends whose loved ones were finally freed unharmed after the last three harrowing weeks.
In particular, we rejoice with the family and friends of Capt. Patrick Rechner, whose parents reside in Coquitlam. We have, as you know, shared the ordeal of seeing Captain Rechner in captivity. I think we are all relieved and commend the personnel for the courage they showed under these very trying circumstances.
[ Page 15668 ]
It reminds us graphically of the very difficult and trying task that they face in an increasingly unclear and uncertain world. Even though our hearts go out to the people of Bosnia, who continue to live in fear of their lives, we are very pleased that our UN personnel are home safe and sound.
[2:15]
G. Campbell: I join the Premier in welcoming home our UN peacekeepers. Obviously, we are all aware of how important a role Canada has played as a peacekeeping nation around the globe in a number of hot spots. I think that often, when we say those words, we forget that there are individuals and their families who are putting themselves on the line to make sure that we here in British Columbia and in Canada can be engaging in the kind of public and democratic debate where we resolve our differences without resorting to violence. It seems to me that all of those families deserve our thanks, and that those who serve in the Armed Forces continue to deserve our thanks for their peacekeeping efforts. I am pleased to join with the Premier in welcoming them home and encouraging them to continue their pursuits so that we can leave a more peaceful world for all who follow us.
R. Neufeld: The Reform Party, along with the official opposition and the Premier of the province, would also like to send our congratulations to the families that have been released in the last while. All too often we tend to think that these things always happen someplace else and to someone else, until they happen to people that are very close to us -- specifically to the people from Port Coquitlam. We extend our best wishes to everyone also.
ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ACT
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Access to Abortion Services Act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This bill ensures that women have access to reproductive health services in an atmosphere of privacy and dignity. It allows for the creation of access zones around facilities providing abortion, where people using or providing abortion services may not be harassed, neither physically nor verbally, on the issue of abortion. Access zones are also established around the homes and offices of physicians providing abortion services, and may also be established around the homes of other service providers. Abortion is a legal medical service, and access to medical services is one of the foundations of medicare. We do not tolerate disruption of access in any sphere of the health care system, and we will not tolerate it here.
The bill defines the parameters of access zones and defines behaviours that may not be carried out within those zones. I believe that by creating distance in volatile situations, a great deal of tension will be defused. Our intention is to protect access to this legal medical service and ensure that health care providers work and live in a respectful atmosphere.
In tabling this legislation today, I would like to acknowledge the considerable assistance of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Women's Equality in bringing this bill forward.
Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
G. Campbell: Earlier this year the NDP was asked to give their internal audit to Ron Parks for his investigation into the NCHS matter. On March 31, 1995, the B.C. Liberals were denied access to records about NDP gaming activities because those documents were "directly related to the Parks investigation." Further, access to that information was denied because "the ministry could refuse that information because the disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm a law enforcement matter." Surely the Minister of Finance sees a grave breach of trust in tipping off the NDP party boss on the contents of the Parks report. My question to the Minister of Finance is: when she knew the NDP was up to its neck in the Parks investigations, why did she give NDP party boss Brian Gardiner a heads-up on the Parks report?
Hon. E. Cull: Last week the opposition was asking for the earliest possible release of the Parks forensic audit. What I was doing, until the Attorney General's ministry advised me not to release the report, was preparing exactly for that early release.
The Speaker: The supplemental question, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I am amazed that the Minister of Finance would think that a briefing to the NDP's party boss constituted a release to the public. This was not a matter for political interest; it was for her to serve the public interest. The Premier demanded the resignation of Mel Couvelier when he tipped off the former Premier on investigations into Fantasy Gardens. At the time, the NDP rightly called the actions of the Minister of Finance of the day grossly inappropriate. The public was appalled then, and the public is appalled now.
To the Premier: when will the Premier put the public interest ahead of his political interest and ask the Minister of Finance for her resignation today, just as he asked for Mr. Couvelier's resignation only five years ago?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to get at the truth of what happened to the funds, and gave assurances to Mr. Parks, when he was appointed as a forensic auditor, that his report would be made public. Mr. Parks sought those assurances last week. The minister gave him that assurance and was preparing to do just that when the Attorney General's ministry officials wrote to and informed Ms. Cull that the report should not be made public. That is where the matter rests right now. A special prosecutor has been appointed to manage this investigation.
[ Page 15669 ]
M. de Jong: On Friday last, the Minister of Social Services said in this House that she was familiar with the contents of the Parks report. She stated: "...nothing in the report recommended a criminal investigation." On the weekend, the Premier stated that the contents of the Parks report were not discussed at the June 6 meeting. My question to the Premier is: who is lying?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I understand that the Minister of Social Services was quoting directly from Mr. Parks himself, and those are the statements that he made. If the hon. member for Matsqui is casting some aspersions on Mr. Parks, he is not here to defend himself. That is the statement he made.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: In her letter of June 7 to Mr. Quantz, the Finance minister stated that she provided a briefing to a "committee of cabinet." Nowhere in that correspondence did the minister refer to Brian Gardiner being present at that meeting.
My questions to the Minister of Finance are: did she tell Ernie Quantz later, on June 7, that Mr. Gardiner was present at the briefing, and why didn't she provide that information to this House when she provided her briefing on June 14?
Hon. E. Cull: I have had several discussions with Mr. Quantz, and he is fully informed of all my actions up until and including today.
ATTENDANCE OF CABINET MEETINGS BY NON-MEMBERS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. It has now been confirmed that Brian Gardiner and possibly other senior NDP hacks routinely attend cabinet committee meetings. Can the Premier explain why anyone who is not a member of government -- particularly a senior party official -- would be allowed to attend any cabinet meetings related to matters before government? Why didn't anyone in cabinet committee have the common sense and ethical judgment to kick Brian Gardiner out?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are many people who attend cabinet meetings who are not necessarily members of cabinet...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...and on occasion Mr. Gardiner attends meetings of the government priorities committee.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
R. Neufeld: Presumably the cabinet secretariat or some other entity keeps a record of who has attended cabinet meetings or cabinet committee meetings, apart from the ministers. Will the Premier agree today to table those records for the past year so that all British Columbians can see who else has been given the inside scoop in cabinet, and would he tell us which cabinet meetings Brian Gardiner and Ken Georgetti and other key NDP supporters have been allowed to attend without ever taking the oath of confidentiality?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member is aware of the confidentiality of cabinet committees and cabinet activities. I'm sure he is aware that the minister has already responded that she was preparing to release the report last week, and in that mode, and having given that assurance to Mr. Parks, she said that she was talking about the timing and process for the release of that report and some of the elements. Then the whole matter was then concluded the next day by Mr. Quantz saying that we should not talk about the report any further.
PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH SOCIETY
J. Dalton: Last Friday a special prosecutor was appointed in the matter of the RCMP investigation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I ask the Attorney General: are the RCMP precluded from examining the handling of this report from the moment it was received by the Minister of Finance?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The RCMP will go wherever the investigation takes them.
J. Dalton: My supplemental is to the Minister of Finance. I have consulted with the acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General and the acting Deputy Attorney General. They have both said that the handling of the report could well be part of the RCMP investigation. Given that the Minister of Finance said that she would step aside if investigated, and given that any such investigation would not be made public, will the minister admit that it's in the best interests of both her and the public to resign now, rather than wait for that inevitable knock on the door?
Hon. E. Cull: The RCMP have already indicated that if they come across any information in the course of their investigations that would lead them to conclude that any member of this House is unable to perform their duties, they will advise the Attorney General and the Premier.
ATTENDANCE OF CABINET MEETINGS BY NON-MEMBERS
G. Wilson: The matter that was disclosed last week is important with respect to the Parks report. My question to the Premier is: who prepared the agenda for that meeting, who invited Mr. Gardiner to be in attendance and under what pretext was he invited to attend?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, I'll go back to one of my previous answers about cabinet confidentiality. And second, this matter is....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 15670 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a matter that the Attorney General's ministry staff have requested that we not discuss further. A special prosecutor has been appointed who is now managing any investigation.
[2:30]
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: In that event, can the Premier tell us what is generally the procedure with respect to the preparation of an agenda? Who generally has the right to invite in partisans to what are, as the Premier correctly suggests, confidential cabinet meetings?
Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, I've said that there are a number of instances when officials and others are invited before cabinet committees.
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PARKS REPORT
G. Farrell-Collins: Over the weekend the Premier stated quite clearly -- on television, I might add, where everyone could see him -- that this was not a cabinet committee but an ad hoc political committee that he put together. My question, then, is to the Attorney General: can he tell us why he chose to absent himself from that meeting and what advice he gave to his fellow members before leaving that committee?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not a member of the committee.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us whether he was present at that meeting? If he was present at that meeting, why did he leave and what advice did he give to members of his cabinet and his colleagues prior to leaving that meeting?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The meeting was discussing the release of the report. I advised the meeting that prior to releasing the report they should run it by the criminal justice branch.
CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
W. Hurd: In the NCHS scandal, one of the villains of the piece has been Dave Stupich, former NDP Minister of Finance and director of the NCHS. He wouldn't cooperate with police. He escaped prosecution in the first case involving his criminal society. He has not paid any of the court-ordered costs or restitution to the charities. He then went to court to block Mr. Parks's subpoena of his business records. It's apparent in the way this government has handled the Parks audit that they've joined Mr. Stupich and his campaign of criminality, deceit and subterfuge in British Columbia.
My question to the Premier is this: will he agree today that a full public inquiry is required into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society? Or does he take the same approach as Mr. Stupich to bringing forward the truth in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: You'll recall that after the criminal proceedings of last year and the appeal process had concluded, I took steps to make sure that the records were preserved and kept whole. It was my initiative to have Mr. Parks, one of the leading forensic accountants in this country, commence a forensic audit in order to get at the truth. It was my assurance to Mr. Parks that this matter would be made public as quickly as possible. The minister gave that assurance to Mr. Parks last week, and I can assure you that, like my fellow British Columbians, I want to get at the truth of where these illegal funds went. Publicly, I have said as well that Mr. Stupich should cooperate with Mr. Parks, and I would hope that he would still do that.
W. Hurd: Since Mr. Gardiner has been briefed by the Minister of Finance as to the contents of the Parks report, what assurance do the people of the province have that Mr. Gardiner will not get on the phone to Mr. Stupich and advise him of what records he should shred, since he has declined to cooperate with the Parks audit in the first place?
Hon. G. Clark: First, I call the wrap-up of the Agriculture estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
The Speaker: First, the independent member for Chilliwack.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The Agriculture estimates this year were an interesting time. We had a good exchange of ideas, and it was, I have to say, profitable. The only problem we have is that some of the ideas we spoke about.... I do hope the ministry was listening and will put them into effect, especially when it comes down to the area of education.
It seems that we have lacked focus in educating the public in British Columbia as to why we should be in agriculture and as to the value of agriculture to the province. When you take a look at an industry that has a $13 billion infrastructure and a turnover of $1.5 billion a year.... We do seem to pay lip service to it. That is very unfortunate, because when we do that, we are actually chipping away at one of the pillars of society, one of the things that has kept us economically viable over the years. When there were recessions, when there were hard times, it was agriculture that was always there; it was agriculture that produced jobs. We must educate the population, because when we don't, we have problems with the ALR; we have problems with the conflict of developers or with aboriginal land claims. But if we educate the population as to why we need this industry, we will have less of that conflict and maybe some cooperation to allow it to fulfil its mandate.
We talked about fisheries and agriculture. We do have problems in fisheries. We have problems with the Pacific
[ Page 15671 ]
Salmon Treaty. The minister assured us that his staff will be on top of this situation, because we can ill afford another season like we saw last season. He is going to be in touch with Mr. Tobin, the hon. minister from the federal government, to ensure that this happens, and hopefully we will resolve that.
Again, when we talked about aquaculture.... He realizes that this is a sunrise industry. This is an industry that could be a future pillar of this province, and it has very much in the way of opportunity ahead of it. He has assured us that he will look into it and will ensure that the right rules and regulations are in place to govern this industry as it expands. This industry, like I said, is a backbone of this province. This industry pays the bills for all our social programs -- this is one of the industries. This is an industry that we must ensure survives. It is a basis of the family -- the basis of the family farm. There are principles in this industry that need to survive. And the minister has assured us that he will endeavour to ensure that does survive.
I'd like to turn my remaining seconds over to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no remaining time. There's a total of three minutes.
J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to comment on the Agriculture estimates this year. My first comment is that the Agriculture budget is $70 million -- the third-smallest ministry of all the ministries -- and this is out of a total budget of $20 billion. It's certainly important to keep that in context when you consider that it's primary industries like agriculture, forestry, mining, etc., that provide the wealth in the province that allows us to afford the great social services and educational services that we have.
We talked mainly about a number of programs within the ministry. The budget has been very stable compared to last year. We talked about programs like the ALDA program -- which has been discontinued -- crop insurance and income support programs. We had some extensive discussions and raised a number of concerns about the policies and operations of the Agricultural Land Commission. We also expressed great concern on behalf of farmers, fishermen and ranchers about the high level of uncertainty with respect to their Crown leases, their need for certainty and surety in those areas and the need for longer-term leases. We talked about the merits of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and the efforts that are being made within the fruit industry. We also talked about the fish and aquaculture industries and the balance that's required there between commercial and sport fishing. The B.C. Marketing Board.... We had some concerns that we expressed in those areas.
We talked about human resource management within the ministry and the need to establish objectives and measure performance against those objectives. We expressed a very significant overall concern about the cost and ongoing impediments of the ever-increasing bureaucracy in all of our ministries and in other levels of government. We're concerned that the cumulative effect of these regulations and bureaucracies is making it difficult for our farmers and fishermen to carry on and expand their businesses. I was pleased to hear the minister's commitment to continue his efforts in this area to work with other ministries regarding some of the problem areas.
I would like to express my appreciation to the other members of this Legislature who assisted in questioning the minister. In particular, I would like to thank the minister and his staff for their open dialogue, their dedication to the tasks at hand and their sincere commitment to work for the betterment of the farming and fishing industries.
The Speaker: The minister concludes.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite. We did focus on a number of issues that are critical to the future of agriculture, as we see reducing subsidies around the world for agriculture. Certainly in this country it's going to be forced to stand on its own more and more, and therefore the role of government becomes critical.
We discussed trying to be ahead of developments, as governments must, and trying to anticipate and provide for that. I presented considerable evidence with respect to areas in which we are leading -- in particular, the growth of development funds that allow the industry to meet its problems head-on. With some assistance from government that is matched by their own contributions, the industry itself will continue to renew, and it will renew at a faster pace than otherwise might happen.
With respect to issues around the future of the tree fruit industry and how we might arrive at a strategic plan, I assured members that I would put the whole development of the industry and government's role in assisting the industry on the table with a representative group of people in that area. I would take that sort of approach to any sector that finds itself going through inordinate challenges. We delivered with respect to the tree fruit industry, and we will do the same for other areas.
Another example will be the whole development of shellfish aquaculture, where governments need to have their agencies working together, and the various levels of governments also need to work together to try to minimize the frustration for the industry. Some industries are poised for the unprecedented development opportunities at their doorsteps. Faced with that, the opportunity to provide jobs for a changing economy rests upon those industries that can take advantage of challenges. That's the case with aquaculture generally. That is also the case with export-based agriculture and with the agriculture that's providing much-needed food for this province.
Through the development of an agrifood policy, one with which I've taken a hands-on approach, we are moving as quickly as we can; we want to ensure that we develop a vision for the future, so that we will remain self-sufficient in British Columbia. More than that, we will be taking advantage of the export opportunities we have.
[2:45]
I mentioned that we would ask the federal minister whose responsibilities are paramount here with respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which remains stalled, to ensure an equitable amount of fish will be available for our fishers. Having retained fish here in the province, we then want to process it as far as we can to ensure the maximum number of jobs. I point to some of the tremendous developments in the processing of groundfish, once we take the fish onto our own shores rather than let them be processed at sea by other countries. Hake in particular is providing hundreds of jobs in Ucluelet that weren't there just a few years ago.
We all spoke about the need to preserve our food land resources and the importance of the agricultural land reserve,
[ Page 15672 ]
but more than that, we spoke about the importance of ensuring that there is continual fine-tuning of the zoning and of activities in the zone to meet the needs of agriculture as it evolves. There are lots of examples around of ancillary businesses that are farm-based, where considerable progress has been made, but it is made easier because we have said that the ALR is here to stay. Its boundaries are firm, but there is a process to look at the interface. The right-to-farm legislation and the amendments we brought in last year that required official community planning to address the needs of urban growth at the same time address the needs of farmers who are farming on the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve.
We are moving forward in a very innovative fashion with respect to the development of the grazing enhancement fund, where we have three ministries -- Environment, Forests and Agriculture -- working with an industry-driven and community-driven process to find ways to adapt to the Forest Practices Code and the changing requirements for farmers that have been brought about by regional land use planning in the area.
I would like to highlight the salmon farming action plan, which is there to provide environmental stability. That stability is based on policy that is the best it can be with the knowledge we have about the industry, addressing environmental concerns and the need for industry to develop in an orderly fashion. We see it as a pause before the next phase of development of the industry, and it has been met with positive reaction by the environmental community and the industrial community there. We're going to see an environmental review around the Broughton Archipelago, where there has been considerable controversy over the past few years.
With respect to the issues around the need for the public to understand and connect once again with those who produce the food, we have doubled our efforts in respect to agriculture in the classroom, where there is a twofold purpose: to educate people about the opportunities for food production as a career and to recruit people to understand where their food comes from, so they as citizens can support the agricultural base in our province.
I would argue that we are leading the development of accountability through our business planning processes, through the development of strategic plans and through effectiveness reporting, so that it is much easier to audit whether we are achieving the objectives set out for us.
I'd like to say something about the size of the ministry's budget. This ministry took major hits in terms of the number of officials working in it in the eighties. We are down to what we consider a virtual bare minimum. The large decreases in the program come from subsidies that are no longer acceptable, by common agreement across Canada and by international agreements as well. These reductions have also partly been driven by fiscal needs of governments.
In our view there is no direct correlation between the amounts spent on subsidies and the health of the industry. I point to the fact that this industry continues to grow: net incomes have continued to improve in latter years, and we stand with the most paid-up capital of this industry in any province. What we have is innovativeness on the part of the producers and the government officials who serve that industry. With that innovativeness, we have, I think, provided a world-class industry which I'm very positive about.
Let me wrap up with a comment about the Buy B.C. program. We spent $9.5 million over five years on a program that was designed with industry fully in partnership with government. I think that is why the program has been such a success. It feeds into the need to increase awareness. Through advertising around these partnerships between government and particular sectors that are producing food, they are working together, celebrating the good food that we have to offer here. I think people's awareness has increased dramatically about agriculture and about the value of our products. We continue to be strong supporters of that particular program.
Finally, I need to say that we will be keeping the federal government accountable for its activities...
An Hon. Member: That's a challenge!
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: ...in the stewardship of the ocean and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. It is a challenge.
With that, let me conclude my comments.
Hon. G. Clark: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the House, I call committee on Bill 22, commonly referred to as the Right to Farm Act.
FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT
The House in committee on Bill 22; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 1.
J. van Dongen: I just want to raise a question and a concern with respect to the definitions of "farm business," "farm operation" and possibly "farmer." That is, we want to be certain that these definitions include activities carried out by employees, agents, custom operators and farm labour contractors. I just want to be sure that the minister is satisfied that activities by those groups are covered in these definitions.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, they are included and therefore are protected under the legislation. We would define a farmworker as a person working on behalf of the farmer. Similarly, a farm contractor is doing things for the farmer, and any persons who are carrying out part of the farmer's farm operation are protected simply as agents of the farmer.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
J. van Dongen: I have a concern about section 7(5), where we contemplate a closed panel or closed hearing. I'm wondering if that's appropriate, when any sort of action in a court of law is open to the public. What sort of circumstances would justify a closed hearing?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since these hearings are not court proceedings, the only.... There is a provision here in case the panel decides that it would be closed to protect business information, say, that might give somebody an advantage. It's the privacy protection that we would be looking at here. But there would be other opportunities for this information to be public if it was necessary to be public.
[ Page 15673 ]
L. Fox: In this section.... I've had an experience around this, so I'm going to ask if it covers it. If you have a farm area that traditionally was just that -- a small farm which operated traditionally by cutting hay, and so on -- yet the farmer decided that he was going to turn it into a feedlot, for instance, which, as the minister will be well aware, has much more of an impact on residents around it than a farm does, would this process here allow residents to make their concerns known? What authority would this panel have to hear that kind of concern if, indeed, the traditional use of the property, when a development was designed, changed from being a small hay farm to a feedlot, for instance?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If this were considered to be the development of farmland, as opposed to a change in normal farm practices, somebody could start an action. They could query it, but what would be operable is whether or not a feedlot was being conducted according to the standards that are available for that. They would be governed by waste management, for example. That is what would be relevant. We would determine a feedlot to be a normal farm practice, and therefore.... It depends on the size; at some point there may be a threshold where it is seen as an industrial activity because of the amount of effluent or whatever. But it would be governed by the Waste Management Act. Does that help? I hope it does.
L. Fox: While I understand that in terms of the environment and those kinds of issues, that would be handled by that, in terms.... I guess what I'm wondering here is if the process before us in section 6 would circumvent a municipality invoking its noise bylaw, for instance. There was a situation in the municipality where I was mayor for a long time where this actually happened. Nobody in that rural area objected to traditional farm use. But when it changes to a feedlot -- of course you have a substantial change in the odour and in terms of the noise and so on -- does the municipality still have the power to deal with that outside of this act through its other bylaws, such as a noise bylaw, and so on? Or does it have a chance, through clause 6, of building its case for consideration by that panel on behalf of the taxpayers, of having the panel suggest that that is a change from the traditional values that were practised in that area, and therefore that it is non-compliant? Or is the municipality's hands tied in terms of that significant change of use for that particular farm?
[3:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: During the conduct of the hearings -- and I just want to underline for the member that we are on the conduct of hearings, section 7 -- a municipality might make the argument that a certain practice taking place on this farm is not a normal farm practice. The whole purpose of having an appeal body there is to decide, with the information that's available on the conduct of that farming operation and the standards that are available -- whether they are industry-developed standards or whatever -- that this is a normal farm practice. If it is a normal farm practice and is found to be such, then that activity would be protected from municipal nuisance bylaws. But this gives an opportunity for the municipality to make their argument at that point. At this point in time a nuisance bylaw action can be taken against a farming operation, and the only recourse is through the courts.
B. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Jones: On behalf of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain I would like to introduce a group of school students from Coquitlam. Joining us today are 26 grades 4 and 5 students from Glenayre Elementary School, who are here to learn a little bit about government and history. They are joined by their teacher Mr. Andrews and some parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Fox: When we look back at normal farm practices, we see it's pretty open. In fact, I would suggest that a feedlot would be a normal farm practice. If it was a normal practice on that farm, that's totally different, but a normal farm practice would assume that anything that's normal, as it says here.... Indeed some of the requirements can be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council according to the definitions section. But I would assume that we're going to see that anything to do with farming would be considered a normal farm practice. At least I would hope that was the case.
I'm not speaking against the bill or even this section. My only concern is that there has to be a balance in the process, and that if we have a development around a rural area.... The minister is aware -- especially in my region, where we have ALR land but much of it is rocky and it could be developable -- that when a subdivision has been developed based on the farm practices that are there and there has been a substantial change to that, and where we see.... I think a feedlot is a good example, because they can be very unpopular in a subdivided area.
My concern is: will the municipality have an opportunity and will this established panel have the opportunity of distinguishing and recognizing that change and taking considerable consideration of the views of the leaders of the municipalities around that change? Not only do we have that; we could also see a situation under normal farm practices of the disposal, I suppose, of farm equipment. I've seen that happen from time to time, where farm equipment has been lined up alongside the road. I'm sure it might be considered normal farm practice to sell farm machinery on farmland. Indeed, that in itself brings some concerns. The minister could alleviate my concerns if he could tell me that there's balance in this process so that all values receive equal consideration. Certainly the wishes of a municipal council or regional district could be given some consideration in the hearing of complaints.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would hope it becomes the normal community planning process to look at the border between ALR and non-ALR lands and provide for a buffer. I would think the place that concerns the municipality about developments on the border of the farm which might not be compatible with previous or future developments.... We would then have the official community plan changed to recognize that.
For example, there may be types of farming operations, like feedlots and hog farms, that might not be desirable right on the border. We're not going to be able to plan all the incompatible things out of existence. Under sections 17 and 20, it does provide for the municipality to bring in bylaws to address that. If the Minister of Agriculture has accepted a bylaw that affects farm operations on the border, it could well be that that bylaw, having gone through due process at the municipal level, has said: "We don't encourage intensive agri-
[ Page 15674 ]
culture on the border." If I accept that bylaw because I see a fundamental incompatibility between the non-farm usages in the area and existing or planned farm operations.... It would be imprudent to approve such a bylaw. What we're saying now is that there is imbalance in the process, and the municipality can use its nuisance bylaws to give them the legal upper hand against normal farming operations.
For example, if it was a five-acre lot.... It might not be normal to have a feedlot operation on a five-acre lot; it might also be possible. Most feedlots are on larger parcels for waste disposal reasons, and so on.
You have to get back to finding balance during the hearings. The hearings will be balanced, but they will be restricted to assessing things as they are at the time. We're trying to encourage municipalities and regional districts to be proactive in revising their bylaws. We will help them in that process by setting some standards, and we'll offer those standards to the municipality as they revise their bylaws.
L. Fox: Just a brief follow-up. I think I understand where the minister's coming from, and we'll discuss it to some degree a little later in the act -- section 16, I think it is. But, in fact, not all farmland -- certainly in my constituency -- is within the ALR. That's one basic failing. I think section 16 is the area where I can discuss that issue.
What I'm concerned about is that I want to see this legislation protect the farmer from changing values -- the rural parts being developed around his farm, and then all of a sudden, those folks putting constraints on the farmer that are unrealistic. At the same time, I think we have to also have a balance, where we can be somewhat sure that municipalities are going to have the right to deal with the changing use of that land. I don't envision a feedlot on five acres; that's not what I'm concerned about at all. What I'm concerned about is where you have a large farm that has rural five-acre lots around it, the pressures of those lots going against that farmer, and the change in the traditional use on that having a substantial impact on the rural development. So I think we have to have a balancing scale here. If the minister can assure me that that balance is contained within this clause, then I'm more than satisfied.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can assure you that the parties to a dispute -- and third parties, like the municipality -- can be heard, and that there will be a balanced hearing. Where we're going to achieve more certainty for people is in revising the bylaws. But just to make it clear, inside the ALR, the farmer is going to be protected; outside the ALR, a municipality can have the upper hand. This legislation only says that we will give protection to farming operations outside the ALR, provided that the municipality zones to cover activities that would protect the farmer. So if a municipality wants to protect farming operations outside the ALR, they can bring in bylaws, and we will give the force of this act to those bylaws and give the farmer a level, legal playing field. If the municipality doesn't want to do that, it is only within the ALR where we can protect the farmers. So outside the ALR, the municipalities will legally have the upper hand; inside the ALR, the ministry -- the provincial government -- will have the upper hand.
G. Wilson: I'm amazed at the speed with which we got to section 7. It just shows you that it doesn't pay to leave the House, even for a matter of three....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member says: "You should have been here. Quit complaining." One assumes we're going to have a vigorous debate on all sections.
However, section 7 is an interesting section, because within it, of course, we include some of the provisions that are in section 1, and some of the provisions that are in sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, so we can, in fact, explore some of those matters...
The Chair: On section 7, hon. member.
G. Wilson: ...under section 7 legitimately within this committee process, without broadening the scope of this debate.
I draw the minister's attention to section 7(1). It says: "Subject to any regulations under section 12(2)(c)...." Section 12(2)(c) of the bill, of course, talks about the ability for regulations. Section 12(2) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...(b) respecting standards for the purpose of definition of 'normal farm practice.' "
What is really at the heart of this whole business is whether or not this is going to be acceptable within the communities, because what is defined as normal farm practice would be provided for under the first section of this bill, of course -- and that's clear for anybody who wishes to read it. One that we talk about is the applying of fertilizers, manure, pesticides and biological control agents, including by ground and aerial spraying. That's a farm operation. So what the minister is saying, in effect, is that if it is deemed to be a normal farm practice, and that normal farm practice is part of a farm operation in which there is the application of fertilizers, manure, pesticides, biological control agents, including by ground and aerial spraying, under section 6 of this act, with this particular conduct of hearing -- which is covered under section 7, which we're debating now; under section 6, it would say under section 6(a) -- those complaints must be dismissed. Well, the minister would know full well that the vast majority of complaints in areas where there are residential populations close to farm operations have to do with the aerial application of pesticides and the problems associated with that. This province has a Pesticide Control Act, which has the regulatory authority over the use of that, and has a hearing process that can hear legitimate complaints. What I guess we're confused about under section 7 is: if you can determine by regulation what is normal and acceptable in the application of pesticides, why would you not simply have that hearing process handled under the existing Pesticide Control Act? It provides a far greater opportunity to ensure some kind of protection for those people with concerns for their children, for drinking water or for those other kinds of problems where the aerial application of pesticides is used.
One other thing that's interesting, in response to the minister's answer to the member for Prince George-Omineca, is that those farming operations adjacent to residential properties that are outside the ALR have no protection whatsoever under this bill. In fact, what this does is provide a two-tier system: one for those in the ALR, and one for those outside the ALR. The application of herbicides and pesticides will be okay for those in the ALR but will be subject to whatever municipal authorities may want to come in for those outside the ALR, and that is a significant number of farmers.
[ Page 15675 ]
Those are our concerns about section 7 -- at least in part. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on them as I've put them to him.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I could try to make it simple, the Pesticide Control Act would be predominant and provincewide. There's nothing in this act that would allow you to override the Pesticide Control Act.
[3:15]
The Chair: The Chair is going to recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, but before the Chair does, the Chair would like to make it clear to members that we are dealing with section 7, which is the conduct of hearings. Debate should be focused on the contents of section 7 and should not be wide-ranging. With that, the Chair now recognizes the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on section 7 -- and specifically section 7.
G. Wilson: I congratulate the Chair on the rigour that he's using to keep this debate to the section, because it makes it far more challenging for those of us that might try to broaden the debate.
Let me deal specifically with conduct, which is under section 7. It comes back to what the minister has just responded to. Unfortunately, there is a provision with respect to the Pesticide Control Act -- which I've read and have read in cross-reference to this -- for an appeal process. In fact, it may indeed provide for a wide application in a region, an area. The application permit may be made for a relatively broad area and does not necessarily have to be farm-specific. The problem with that is that if you were fighting those applications....
If you look at the history and the record of the Pesticide Control Act, you will find that the application of pesticides is generally considered okay, even though there are many people, especially in residential communities, who don't think it's okay. The success rate of those who are trying not to have noxious pesticides applied aerially has not been very good. In fact, we know that this government condoned a widespread aerial spray to kill a few gypsy moths -- which they didn't find; nevertheless, there you go. We can see that we haven't had a great success rate.
Under section 7 specifically, which talks about normal farm practice, this act can permit an activity to continue on an individual farm application if there has been a successful application through the Pesticide Control Act. It may be deemed to be noxious or harmful on a lot-specific or farm-specific basis with respect to downstream water users, elementary schools in the proximity and residential communities -- a whole host of reasons. The concern we have is that you've got a second hearing process that can dismiss an applicant outright under section 7 based on the information in section 6, if that is deemed to be a normal farm practice, even though the farmer may not have been directly involved in the application for a pesticide application. The use of that pesticide may have been covered in a broader, more regional application. The minister understands my concern. There are a lot of people that live adjacent to farms that have a concern.
The flip side to that coin is that if they're outside the ALR, then the farmer may have no protection, because this act will not apply. So we set up a double standard; we don't have the same law applying equally to both parties, and we've got two separate conduct-of-hearing processes -- one covered by a separate act from this one -- which is going to cause a lot of conflict.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A lot of people have been making their purchase decisions and decisions about development based on the agricultural land reserve that we have said is here to stay. It's there to protect and provide a resource for agriculture. I can't see, under this act, how somebody would get relief from another appeal procedure like that available under the Pesticide Control Act. A farmer can't get relief from a provincial regulation that is of a widespread nature. Nor can people use this act, when dealing with the governance of pesticide application, to harass a farmer because they didn't get what they wanted when they appealed to the proper body.
I say that the proper place to decide on pesticide application is through the Pesticide Control Act hearings. What this body will decide is whether or not the farmer is conducting a practice -- maybe it's spreading fertilizer.... If it's normal, that's fine. But it wouldn't be considered acceptable by virtue of rulings under the Pesticide Control Act.... This isn't going to protect the farmer, and it's not going to give somebody a second chance at harassing a legitimate farming operation if it has been the subject of a hearing under another piece of legislation -- the Waste Management Act or the Pesticide Control Act.
G. Wilson: Okay. I hear what the minister's saying; I don't agree. Perhaps we'll agree to disagree on that point. I think what this does is provide an opportunity for what is considered a normal farm practice to be provided an acceptable review within a committee that isn't necessarily even open to the public.
That becomes my next question under section 7(5), where it talks about.... Well, let me read it. It says:
"...despite subsection (2)" -- which is where a hearing has to be open to the public and may be conducted in an informal manner -- "a panel of the board may exclude the public from a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence if the panel considers that the desirability of avoiding disclosure of the evidence in order to protect the interest of any person, or to protect the public interest, outweighs the desirability of public disclosure."
That is mirrored exactly in the confidentiality regulations under the Pesticide Control Act with respect to the restriction of information. The concern is that if you've got a problem in that way, while you can't seize documents and gather evidence under the Pesticide Control Act for reasons that are deemed within this act, you're going to potentially have the same problem in coming at this if it's deemed a normal farm operation. This hearing body can say: "In the interests of everybody, we're going to keep the public out, and we'll only hear evidence from those who may be applicants directly for the hearing or from the farmer." That gives no comfort to the public, and it won't give comfort to municipalities that may be trying to come up with some reasonable land use bylaws.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you'd find that any act that didn't have this could be challenged. This is a normal section that goes in for freedom of information and privacy protection. A case will have to be made as to why the subject matter, the evidence, needs to be provided in a closed hearing. There's nothing to be served by protecting information, unless
[ Page 15676 ]
it's necessary. We would only envisage information that happened to be relevant to that business. In any event, relief could be sought by other laws in order to have that kind of protection and prevent the disclosure. I have to tell the member that this is no way around the Pesticide Control Act.
I really am confused by some of the words the member is wrapping this in. He's surmising that somebody who doesn't get their way under the Pesticide Control Act could then come to this one, and this will be closed, and there'll be a different kind of a hearing. Under this section, we will not hear the same subject matter as under the Pesticide Control Act, which that decides on the desirable process for applying pesticides. Here they will look at taking evidence from anybody who wants to argue about a farm practice. Some farm practices, I have to say, are governed by other legislation -- for example, the Waste Management Act, where they would look at the noise that might be involved in conducting the farm practice if a noisy machine is used.
G. Wilson: I've only got a couple more questions on section 7, because of the way this Chair is being so rigid in allowing me to go back to canvass sections that have passed at lightning speed.
Let me say that I don't think section 7(4), the absence of a member, is in dispute. If you've got somebody who hasn't been participating in that discussion, they should be absented from making any kind of recommendation or decision. But I wonder about subsection (5). When it's decided whether a hearing is public or not, is that a decision of the board as a whole? Or is there likely to be some form of prior meeting to determine who can and cannot attend? Or is that a decision that has to be taken by this panel as a whole? Who has the power to decide if it's open to the public?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your question is the panel. The panel of the board will decide.
G. Wilson: Is that just by a simple majority of the vote or is it a unanimous decision or what?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The normal procedures of panels of this type would be by a majority decision.
G. Wilson: The conduct of these hearings under section 7 of this act also applies to aquaculture operations, if I'm not mistaken. I wonder if the minister might want to tell us who, then, might be eligible to come forward with a complaint with respect to an aquaculture operation. Generally speaking, the hearing of complaints is dealt with under section 6 and the complainant under section 3 -- which we've already, I guess, canvassed to a degree; I don't know to what extent, but it's not very much. Given that we've established who can come forward.... Now, most aquaculture operations are in pretty isolated bays, some of them up the coast where there are limited or no residential communities there. But there may be a great many special interests who may have concerns -- commercial fishers, sport fishers and people who are involved in other forms of activity up in that area. Would the minister tell us how he envisages the conduct of hearings under section 7 applying in respect to applications made by people in the aquaculture industry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because the definition of normal farm practices will require a mature view of the legislation and of what's feasible and desirable with respect to cultural practices, the panels will comprise people who are knowledgeable. This is not environmental legislation, so we're not giving standing to somebody who represents the fishes of the sea, for example. This is for a person who is affected, and this is designed for nuisance-type activities. So if someone is aggrieved, they would have standing. But we are not giving standing to surrogates of.... I don't think it is going to achieve what I think you have in mind. I would say environmental legislation, and things like the Fisheries Act and those other acts, are there to deal with environmental impacts per se.
G. Wilson: As I understand it, then, somebody who may have, say, a long-line oyster operation and who deems that a farm practice in an adjacent farm is detrimental or maybe causing concern to their long-line oyster operation -- that might be legitimate. Or somebody who lives close to a farm where there may be undue odour because of the hanging of nets to dry or because of -- I can think of dozens of different ways -- getting rid of the so-called slow swimmers, otherwise known as dead fish.... Those are kind of legitimate. But somebody who wants to advocate on behalf of seals, orcas and those kinds of things would not be given standing under this legislation. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your interpretation is generally correct, although if a body or agency has decided there's a policy that governs a standard with respect to environmental impacts, you could conceivably have someone say this operation is not conducting a normal farm practice and therefore call a hearing under this and ask for an order to cease that practice. So as long as it's there.... The difficulty is going to come where we haven't analyzed the impact, and nobody has codified it or written it down.
We're not trying to be all things to all people, though we help if we can. It certainly gives the farmer a hearing if some other agency has interpreted and erred against the farmer in favour of the applicant. So if we keep in mind that it really has to do with people charging operations with nuisance, that's really.... It comes back to that. That's where the municipalities have been given superior powers under the Municipal Act to override normal farming activities.
[3:30]
L. Fox: With your indulgence.... I was actually, in my questioning earlier, on section 6, because I didn't realize we'd passed it. Anyway, I just wanted to ask the minister to clarify my last question before the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast got up. I was asking the minister if he could provide me with, I guess, some level of comfort that there was some balance in this. The answer that the minister gave me is that if it's outside the ALR, the municipality will have the authority, and if it's inside the ALR, the province will have the ultimate authority.
That wasn't really the balance I was looking for. I was really concerned about the people involved, not the political jurisdictions. For the purposes of this discussion, I was only concerned with that which is covered under this legislation, which, of course, is within the ALR. So if the minister could assure me with a little more certainty that there is balance and
[ Page 15677 ]
fairness in that clause, that all values will be considered and that we will understand that further on in the regulations there will be more definitions as to farm usage, which will provide municipalities with some clarity around that, then I would be satisfied.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, even outside the ALR we will help, because there are some municipalities that want agriculture to continue outside the ALR, and they have it within their powers to do that. Now, I know your concern is not with the farmers, because this talks about the rights of farmers. The rights of other people have to be exercised through the zoning process. The rights of others will be respected through the hearing process here. This hearing will receive balanced.... It will hear from all the parties affected and can contribute to it.
But I think the issue you raised, the one of a farmer changing his practices by developing a different type of operation -- for example, a feedlot where one didn't exist before.... The only way we can resolve that is by having the municipality initiate some zoning on the farm operations that says it's not acceptable to have certain kinds of intensive farming operations in that area. Then I would have to consider whether it is in the public's interest to have such constrictive zoning. But I'm saying that for existing problems, we won't be able to solve all of them through this legislation.
If this legislation weren't in place, and the municipality said, "We don't think there should be certain kinds of intensive agricultural operations in the ALR," then I would be in a position to say, "Well, I agree with that, because we've gone through a community planning process, and the municipality has agreed not to conduct certain kinds of operations -- for example, intensive housing developments -- right up against the ALR." The Land Commission has agreed with the ministry and the municipality that we will encourage extensive operations as opposed to intensive. We will not be trying to encourage farmers to develop pig-farming operations, where they don't exist, right up against rural housing, for example.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, because we think that it cuts both ways. We think that the buffer has to go partway into the ALR and partway into the land adjoining the ALR. We expect the respective jurisdictions to zone for appropriate and compatible uses.
So that's my approach. It sounds balanced to me. This hearing process will decide if a particular farming operation is a normal farm practice. If they determine that it is, then the people next door may feel aggrieved. But the way it is now, if people complain through their municipalities about an operation in the ALR, they can have that operation shut down or legal action taken to stop it. What this legislation says is no, if it's a normal farm operation, you can't do that.
L. Fox: Just to follow up, the minister suggests that the municipality will have some authority to control the usages within that farm via zoning. That is somewhat of a concern to me. Firstly, I'm not sure that it's even possible to have different classifications of farming within zoning. Secondly, if that's the case, then we're defeating the purpose of this legislation. I really thought the purpose of this legislation was to give some certainty to a farmer that he's going to be able to carry on his or her traditional practice, even though they have been encroached on by growth. I'm having difficulty understanding that rationale. But I guess we'll leave it at that. I'm sure that if I'm anywhere close to being right, we're going to find need for amendments here in the very near future to make this work.
I want to ask one specific question around subsection (5) in section 7, and that is: could the minister give me some indication -- besides what I've heard him say -- about why they would have a need to consider behind closed doors evidence provided to the panel? It seems to me that some way of putting some discipline into the process is that if you're going to lay a charge or complaint or whatever, you do it in an open forum. Then you legitimize yourself, and you make sure of your points and facts and so on before you go before a panel. But in this case, you would have the opportunity, as I read this clause, to go before a panel of the board in order to give evidence and require that that be done behind closed doors. That is a bit of a concern to me. Could the minister give me an idea as to what kinds of issues the panel would permit to be heard behind closed doors?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've been attempting to find an example here that might illustrate it. The general answer is proprietary issues. If there was a business plan, for example, the panel might be required to look at the person's business plan. That might involve scheduled investments or development of that farm, germane only to that business, with no public interest involved in it, and that might give panel members an idea of the evolution of the business in terms of its practices. This is a normal kind of provision you'll find in much of the legislation, and it gives the panel the right to hold back information and not to have it disclosed where they could be countersued for allowing proprietary information out into the public domain.
L. Fox: I have problems accepting that as an example. Whether a business is viable or not, land use wouldn't be a consideration, in my view. What would be a consideration is whether that's the traditional use or a farm use -- that would be what's under consideration. As a farmer, whether my perceived usage of my land was profitable or not would have no bearing on the issue, from my perspective. It would be my farming rights on that piece of land that would be under discussion. So I can't accept the minister's rationale for that particular argument. I would have to hear something more specific on land use and farm use that would point out the need for this clause.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member would probably be the first to argue that there ought to be provision in the legislation to protect private information that is not germane to the public process. I could give you an example, and I'll try it, since I haven't considered trying to find any other way to get this information to you.
A business plan for a farm might contain land use information as well as the financial statements of the farm. That might be the chunk of information that is provided to illustrate the land use plan, and it might not be easy to sever the two. If the hearing decides that that's the only form in which they can consider the information because it's the most expeditious, they might take the information in that form and not exclude it, but not provide the evidence. In its findings, I'm sure the panel would say this is the land use information that
[ Page 15678 ]
has been provided, and if it can't be provided any other way, then they'll accept it in any way they can get it. I don't see this as a big problem. But if this provision isn't here, I can see situations where the panel might disclose information and then be subject to some kind of litigation by the party for having revealed private or proprietary information.
L. Fox: I'll make only one final attempt. I would say to the minister that if the entire proceedings were open, there wouldn't be any need for liability on behalf of the panel. It would have been held in an open forum, and that's where the municipality has to hold its discussions around land use. They have to be held in an open forum; they cannot be held behind closed doors. I don't understand the difference between that and this particular panel. Up to this point, the minister hasn't given me a viable argument as to why this panel should be able to hear a presentation behind closed doors.
I would tell the minister on this particular provision that if one of these panel members accidentally says something that he or she has heard in a closed meeting, then they would be open for liability, but if all the meetings were open, there would be no liability.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can make guidelines for regulations, and in considering the guidelines, we will consider the debate that takes place here. I'm just telling you that it is normal practice in legislation like this to provide for this to take place, should it be necessary. Of course, they'll have to justify it when they do this. They'll have to have some terms of reference against which they make a decision. But I go back to the point that I consider justifiable, and that is that if there is information the board needs to receive that is proprietary in nature, then they should have the legal protection not to have to disclose that.
J. van Dongen: Just to comment on something that the member for Prince George-Omineca said, I don't think that all meetings of municipal governments are open to the public -- certainly not in my area. I'd be interested in getting into some of them.
But with respect to section 7(5), I guess the concern I have is that this section not be misused, in the sense that it may be used to protect someone who truly is a bad actor. I don't think the public interest is served if -- through this legislation generally, or through this particular section -- we protect someone who really has done some serious offences in terms of environmental concerns or that sort of thing. So I hope the panels use this section very judiciously if it stays in the legislation.
[3:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just go back to the fact that we can establish procedural guidelines, but that we understand from legislative counsel that this wording is necessary here to protect against disclosure of proprietary information. I just rest on that principle.
M. de Jong: The minister is hearing the concerns of members when you recognize that one of the purposes of the legislation, to divert these matters away from the court toward nuisance actions.... A set of rules regarding disclosure and openness that heretofore existed is now being changed. There is a natural tendency for members to be suspicious of what the repercussions of that might be.
My question, also relating to section 7.... However, I think we've heard all we're going hear from the minister on the previous issue of subsection (5). But one of things that doesn't exist here and has heretofore existed -- as a means of preventing frivolous or vexatious complaints being brought against the farming community, insofar as now they exist in the courts -- is the whole question of costs and the possibility that a complainant would be saddled at the end of the day with a hefty award against him or her by the courts. My question is: are there provisions, or does the minister anticipate regulatory provisions being introduced, that would allow for the awarding of costs against complainants in certain circumstance?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our purpose is to get around litigious procedures. I guess there can be some debate as to how this will proceed, but our intent is not to award costs. That would have to be in the legislation. We don't intend to put that in regulation.
M. de Jong: Does the minister recognize, though, that when a complaint is brought against a farmer, there will necessarily be costs incurred in, as it were, defending against that complaint? Depending upon the nature of the complaint that is brought, the cost of that defence could be significant.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is intended to be an inexpensive process, so.... It's always possible that somebody brings along an army of lawyers in this kind of procedure. But the panel will look at the fairness to the parties. The intent of the act is to get away from something that becomes quasi-judicial. With respect to that, then, I say that I hope the panel would conduct itself in a way that does not give advantage to someone who wants to incur extraordinary costs. We're going to attempt to provide information on practices in government, and any other agency that can comment on this, so that the information is there in user-friendly form. There's a fair hearing. At the end of the day a decision is made. It's not an overly complicated process.
M. de Jong: I'm sure that farmers welcome those sorts of comments and presumably will hope that they come true. But one of the sections we're about to get to -- and I relate it to the discussion we're having now -- is the possibility that is created, pursuant to section 12 of the Offence Act, that as a result of a hearing an order is made, and that subsequent contravention of that order will carry with it the possibility of fines in the range of $2,000, or six months' incarceration. I think the minister has to recognize that the stakes can be quite high for a participant, a member of the farming community, in this process. There is going to be incentive there to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that farmer's point of view carries the day. With that in his or her mind, I think it's not unrealistic to assume that they are going to incur significant costs -- plus the consideration that they could, in a sense, be fighting to sustain their livelihood. They will be taking these complaints very seriously.
The minister will say: "Well, we want this to be a simple process." I think that's great, that's wonderful. But a person confronted with the complaint is going to ask themselves: "What can I do, what lengths can I go to, to ensure that at the end of this hearing my point of view carries the day?" I think there's going to be costs involved in that, and a farmer confronted with two or three complaints over the span of a year or so is going to have to bear that cost.
[ Page 15679 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is provision for fees to stop against nuisance. There should be a deterrent from frivolous applications.
As it stands now, if somebody complains against the farmer and gets the municipality, for example, to take a nuisance action, the farmer is in the court system defending himself or herself in a very expensive process. This will give a first line of defence that's much cheaper than the court system. I think farmers, on balance, are going to have their interests protected much better because of this legislation.
C. Serwa: It's rather interesting to see a piece of legislation which I think we all agree with the philosophy and principles of. But when we get into the actual section-by-section debate, we see what I believe is considerable weakness in the legislation. While the intent is very good, it doesn't appear to satisfy the job or provide the means toward the end.
I'm going to ask a couple of questions with reference to the minister's comments on this particular section. The first question I want to ask is in relation to buffer zones. The minister was talking about buffer zones and indicated that the agricultural land would have to serve as a portion of the buffer zone. If he said that, then am I to presume that there would be no farming on that agricultural land? Is that correct? On the other part, say the non-agricultural land, which is perhaps subject to development, there would then have to be a buffer zone. It's sort of a no man's land that would be part on agricultural land and part on non-agricultural land. Is that what the minister said?
The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the minister, the Chair would like to remind the hon. member that we are dealing with section 7, which is the "Conduct of hearings," and nowhere does the Chair read "buffer zones." I would ask the member to bear that in mind in future. With that, I shall go to the minister.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's only by the Chair allowing latitude for the minister in the previous debate that we're even into this.
Can I just say this: buffer zones ought to be, should be and can be provided for by this legislation -- by getting municipal zoning to provide for buffers. There's a lot of work to be done, but there are lots of ways in which farming activities can be affected -- for example, setbacks of buildings. A municipality might want to set the building back 50 feet from the ALR. Or within the ALR, we might encourage zoning that will allow only certain kinds of farming operations. We can't take away from the substantial use being farming, but you may encourage or discourage certain kinds of activities on the buffer. You might encourage the pig barn to be at the far side of the property and the hay fields on the buffer side. It's only that kind of thing that we deal with through zoning.
C. Serwa: I don't know of any other section of the legislation in which I can ask these questions, and the questions that I have are relevant to the act. Unless the Chair can advise me under what subsequent section I could ask these questions, I would like to pursue these questions for a few minutes.
The Chair: I think section 17 is the appropriate section for those questions.
C. Serwa: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that type of latitude. I suppose I'm really concerned with the concept of the buffer zone, either on the ALR side or on the non-ALR side, and I'll tell you why. First of all, if we look at a buffer zone required on the non-ALR side, we already recognize that the developer has to provide 5 percent of that land area for parks. Legislation recently passed in this Legislature demands another 5 percent of land area for school site acquisition. Now we're talking about taking more land for buffer zones.
It seems to me that if an individual buys land adjacent to agricultural land it is really important that they do so with a wide-open understanding and awareness that there are agriculture practices. The standard is "let the buyer beware." It seems to me that if we're talking about buffer zones, perhaps we're not fully appreciating the rights of a purchaser to buy something adjacent, and I don't see that there should be any conflict once that is established. I just make that observation as a concern to the minister, for his acknowledgment.
The other concern I have with this particular section is some of the complexities that run into this matter. It has to do with the conduct of hearings. In Abbotsford, for example, they derive their water supplies from the groundwater table -- from aquifers. Farm practice standards can be complied with by all farmers, not simply.... The problem is not just some bad actors. The fact is that there is a great deal of high-density farming that goes on in that particular area, and the sum total of all of this amounts to nitrates percolating down into the groundwater and causing a great deal of concern. There is no legislation from the Ministry of Environment protecting groundwater supplies. The municipality would like to come in with some bylaws....
Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, it's a fascinating discussion, but it's not second reading debate. We're on a specific section which we've belaboured now for over an hour, and the member's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the particular section we're debating, as fascinating as they are.
The Chair: I would advise the hon. member for Okanagan West that section 7 does, as I pointed out, deal with the conduct of hearings. His remarks would probably be more appropriate under section 17, if the member would bear that in mind.
C. Serwa: Your advice is well taken. In spite of the right philosophy and principles in this act, the intent was to show some of the complexity in trying to bring it forward.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
R. Chisholm: In this section, I would like to hear the minister's view on utilizing the Marketing Board. Considering the workload that these people already have, utilizing them as part of this committee is just adding to that workload. I'm just wondering if they have the time and energy to be able to be responsible for this endeavour.
Another area we have to take a look at with these marketing boards is that not all people on the Marketing Board have agricultural experience. What is going to ensure that the people on the Marketing Board will have experience that sit on
[ Page 15680 ]
this board? Or would it be more advisable to use the staff of the B.C. Marketing Board instead of the Marketing Board itself? I'd just like to hear the minister's thoughts on this particular issue, because I believe they are going to be overtasked. I'm not saying that they're not capable, but they are definitely overtasked. A lot of the people on that board are not necessarily of an agricultural background and may not be able to make the proper or appropriate decisions on farm practices. Maybe we could hear a few of the minister's comments on this particular issue.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is the reason we can provide for up to ten more members of the B.C. Marketing Board, who will then be available as the pool from which we can call panels. A good number of the people on the B.C. Marketing Board have farm backgrounds, but there are considerations other than farming. As I said in previous debate, we need some balance there. The Farm Practices Board will have to consider the needs and interests of the people who are appealing, and they may not be farmers; they probably won't be farmers. It's my intention to appoint people with rounded backgrounds. For example, I think the municipalities ought to have somebody there who's experienced in zoning that affects agriculture. Similarly, there are sectors that aren't represented on the B.C. Marketing Board that could probably benefit from being appointed. We have to have rounded sectors and interests in this group of people who will comprise the Farm Practices Board.
[4:00]
J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Dalton: I'm very pleased to introduce a class from Ecole Andre Piolat in North Vancouver. In fact, it's very close to my friend the member for North Vancouver-Seymour's home. They're accompanied by several adults and their teacher Mme. Josee Paquet. Would the House please make them welcome. I would add that they asked some very excellent questions outside -- happily, none of them in French, so I was able to at least answer a few of them. Welcome to you all.
R. Chisholm: The second part of that question was the number of tasks this board already has and whether they are being overtasked at this point. After all, if you go down to section 9(2), for instance, it says: "The chair of the British Columbia Marketing Board is also the chair of the Farm Practices Board," and so on and so forth. This board, as we all know, works very hard, and they all have lives other than the B.C. Marketing Board itself. They are tasked now to their limit, and I'm just wondering if they're not being overtasked with this addition. The minister didn't comment; that was a portion of my previous question. Maybe he could give us his observations on that particular point.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By way of background, let me say that these members on the B.C. Marketing Board are not full-time now. I said that we will appoint up to ten additional members, which means there is a larger pool from which we can draw. To give an example, a board in Ontario that's been functioning for several years holds ten to 15 complaints per year. We don't expect that this is going to be a huge workload.
R. Chisholm: I'm not going to get into a debate on whether these people are fully occupied or not, but I know they do work rather hard and have extended hours, and I think this might be just a bit too much. But you do have this other portion where you can appoint ten other members, and maybe that will help alleviate this particular situation.
Another area, though, with the B.C. Marketing Board -- not so much in the workload area -- is that this board develops policy and it administers and judges. For some strange reason, I find that there may be a bit of conflict of interest here: you have this board that produces policy, administers policy and judges on policy, all within the same group. I think that for some strange reason, this seems to be a conflict of interest in this particular area. Maybe if they got out of the policy part of it and gave that back to the policy branch in Victoria, for instance, it would be more feasible and we wouldn't have that conflict. But right now, the way it stands, there seems to be a conflict of interest in the duties of this board. They're going to be sitting there as judge and jury on these cases which they have developed policy for, or may have helped develop policy for. Maybe the minister would like to make a comment on that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't anticipate that the Farm Practices Board will develop policy. The policies will be there. Standards will be decided upon by regulation or by some other process outside government. There may be a non-governmental organization that has developed a set of standards that could then be used. I don't see that there's a conflict here. This Farm Practices Board will work as the B.C. Marketing Board does. They deal with appeals all the time. This is about due process. Appeal procedures is their expertise, and that's why they were chosen. The Marketing Board hears appeals; they're in the business of hearing appeals. That's the main reason we chose them, and they do have a small organization there that can support this without creating a new bureaucracy.
When the Marketing Board people have their Farm Practices Board hats on, they will be acting only on farm practices issues. I don't see any relationship between the farm practices that will come before them as board members and any of the other policy development, adjudication, rule-making, enforcement or appeal functions under the farm marketing act.
J. van Dongen: I wanted to raise a thought and a comment with respect to section 9(1)(b), and also to connect with section 5(b) with respect to that. I want to apologize to the minister and his staff for not raising this sooner, but it seems to me that we're looking at up to ten additional members because the members on the panels have to be members of the board. I'm wondering, given the great diversity of commodities within B.C. -- and, possibly, geographic locations for the panels, because I assume that the panels would be held somewhere close to where the farmer operates.... Certainly, if I look at the B.C. Farm Debt Review Board model, we had a provision whereby members of the board actually chaired the
[ Page 15681 ]
panels but had the discretion to select panel members who had an expertise regarding a commodity or were available. But it gave more flexibility in terms of matching qualified people with a particular panel.
I'm wondering if the minister might consider looking at that approach, because I think it would give flexibility. It would probably enable you to get the best possible person for a particular panel, and it would probably save time and travel costs if you had a panel at a remote location, so I just want to make that suggestion.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is lots of flexibility. If it became germane to any particular hearing that you had to have someone who was familiar with a particular commodity group and that person wasn't available from the pool, then the minister can always name new members, take members off, or whatever; it could be a rolling list. But bear in mind that we would expect the commodity-relevant information to be most germane during the peer review. We always anticipate a peer review as the first step. The commodity groups would have to be represented there, because it would be a member of that commodity group's peers who would make the first recommendation. So all that information that would be provided then is available for the hearing. What we're concerned about here is making sure that there's a fair hearing for both parties, and that it's not stacked in favour of the commodity interest represented by the defendant, the appellant or whoever.
J. van Dongen: I guess I was just thinking in terms of flexibility for costs of travel, etc. I know what you're trying to do, and I support it fully. But sometimes you may be looking at just a onetime involvement in a panel. You may not consider it necessary to have them on the board in the future. But I think we understand each other on it -- the need for flexibility. Maybe we see getting there in different ways.
Just one other comment with respect to section 9(2). I understand and support what the minister is trying to do in terms of economizing on bureaucracy, obviously. But I think that 9(3) probably should be somewhat stronger in terms of designating a vice-chair for the farm practices side of the operation. I do agree, under 9(2), that the chair of the Marketing Board, who ultimately has responsibility for administration and the staff of the Marketing Board, should also be the chair of the Farm Practices Board. But I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to have a stronger provision. In 9(3) it talks about designating a vice-chair of the Farm Practices Board.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think administrative convenience may here determine what we're going to do. We intend to designate one or two vice-chairs. I would anticipate that it's more efficient to have one chair, since under the legislation the administration of appeals would be done under the purview of the chair. If the chair isn't there, the vice-chair can do it. He may, as a matter of practice, decide that he wants all the appeals handled by a vice-chair and is therefore not available. He may do it that way; we could encourage that. The key here is that we have some consistency and some ability to move quickly, and that shouldn't be encumbered by the business of the chair, who's handling other things under the Natural Products Marketing Act.
So I anticipate that one or more vice-chairs will handle this issue. Initially, I think we would get at least one vice-chair who would take responsibility for most of the work here. That's how I anticipate it will happen.
C. Serwa: I don't doubt your word, for example, on the adjudication experience of the B.C. Marketing Board. If you indicate that they have that experience, so be it. But why are they also being chosen to establish farm practices? That's my specific concern.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They won't be chosen to establish farm practices; they will be there to interpret the farm practices. If we're looking at standards that need to be provincewide, they'll be developed as policy of the relevant agencies. All that these people are going to do is adjudicate whether or not the practices they see presented match up with the standards that have been set.
C. Serwa: There was an indication -- perhaps it's in further sections -- that part of the duties of the board are with respect to re-evaluating farm practice standards. It appears to me that this was a dual role, and that gives me some concern. If the farm practices are going to be established, for example, in concert with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture or widely spread through diverse agricultural interests in the province and perhaps through the Ministry of Agriculture, then I take a great deal more comfort in this particular section.
But if the B.C. Marketing Board is going to be responsible for setting or establishing farm practices along with their adjudication -- or hearing -- capability, then this section gives me a great deal of concern. Could the minister just clarify that the farm practices standards will not be set by the B.C. Marketing Board or this Farm Practices Board?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wanted to make sure my understanding was the same as that of my officials. We don't expect them to set the farm practices. It's not their job to establish the farm practices. But it is possible, if farm practices are not standardized in an area, that you could ask them to contribute from their experience; they might want to contribute to the establishment. For example, model bylaws will be developed, as they are now, by the Agricultural Land Commission, the ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs working with municipalities. There will become a standard....
With respect to farm practices, the environmental organizations out there -- the so-called Agricultural Environmental Protection Council, AEPC -- will continue to establish practices; there's no need for this panel to do that. Their job is as a level of appeal. They aren't going to set the standards and then hear appeals about those standards; they'll have to take existing standards. If they don't exist, then they may point to the need for such a standard to be developed by the appropriate authority, but they're not the appropriate authority.
C. Serwa: A final question on this.... If standards are not set, perhaps it should be made clear, perhaps through regulation, that they are to be set in concert with broad consultation or perhaps with the farm group or organization that is fundamentally responsible for that area of agriculture. I sincerely question the wisdom of enabling the Farm Practices Board to fill a vacuum, because I suggest that if it appears, the vacuum will be filled continually by the board, which is not the minister's intent.
[4:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to note the wide range of discussion under this section.
[ Page 15682 ]
We expect that the farm practices they would measure would not be farm practices that they set but would be the normal customs and standards as established and followed by similar farm businesses under similar circumstances. I refer you to the definition section on that. They will have to take what is available. If there is something wanting in a standard, then it would probably be up to the ministry to try to encourage that to be established so they can carry out their work.
R. Chisholm: My last observation or suggestion to the minister is on the British Columbia marketing boards. They do develop policy. The problem is that there is a conflict of interest; it's a conflict of interest that is seen by the farmers beyond these walls. You can hardly sit in judgment and come up with dispute settlements on policies when you are one of the arms developing them. There is a perceived conflict of interest in the agricultural community. I've heard this over and over again from various organizations within the community; they definitely see this as a conflict of interest. I'd just like to hear the last observations from the minister on this, and I will drop this particular subject. I do believe that you should be utilizing some other arm for this. You're going to have problems in the future because of that perception.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is probably referring to concerns about administrative policy being developed by the marketing boards under the Natural Products Marketing Act. For the purposes of farm practices, they will not develop that kind of policy. I don't understand the.... They may develop some procedures for appeals. I just don't understand the concern. Not a single farmer has argued about this legislation by saying that they're concerned that the Farm Practices Board will develop policy.
It may be a hangover from the concern they have under the Natural Products Marketing Act and the way in which policy is set under that act. Under that act, the ministry sets policy. You can always make the argument that the interpretation of policy is policy-making. Well, make that argument, but it's not really germane here. If it becomes a problem, then we'll make sure that the appropriate body establishes a policy.
G. Wilson: Very briefly, the reason the questions from the member for Chilliwack are pertinent is that if you look at the configuration of the board under section 9(1) and then understand what you're granting it in terms of its responsibilities under section 11(2), quite clearly, people read this and they say: "If this board, under its own initiative, may make recommendations concerning any matter relating to farm practices, that is a wide empowerment that this board -- largely directed by the B.C. Marketing Board with the ten ministerially appointed members -- can start to make with respect to what constitutes procedures under this act and to how this act may be interpreting what is considered a normal farming practice in British Columbia." Those are matters that I think they would have some legitimate concerns about.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that most of the debate we're talking about here should be conducted under section 11, where we deal with recommendations. If you tell me you're going to allow section 7 through, I'll answer the question here, but let me just.... I don't want to avoid the issue, but the people we will appoint under this section have the power to make recommendations -- but only recommendations -- to the minister about farm practices.
G. Wilson: I guess I'm just a little gun-shy. At the speed we go through them, if you can't ask the question on section 9, by the time you get in, we've passed it, plus the title. Unfortunately, I had to step out to respond to a couple of phone calls.
Could the minister mention whether the question regarding the selection of the B.C. Marketing Board was asked, and whether he answered the question as to why that was done? If he has, I'll just yield to the answer in Hansard.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: So the minister is saying that it's answered. Is that what I'm hearing?
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
On section 11.
R. Chisholm: I have a bit of a problem with subsection 11(2), and I'll read it to you: "On the board's own initiative or at the request of the municipality or regional district, or of a trust council under the Islands Trust Act, the board may study, report on, and make recommendations concerning, any matter related to farm practices." It seems to me that this would allow the board to go on an awful lot of fishing expeditions. Maybe the minister can elaborate further on this and on what is going to control the board from being out on wild goose chases all over the map. Maybe he can just elaborate a bit more on this subparagraph. It seems be give wide-ranging powers to the board at this point. What controls are there to ensure that there aren't fishing expeditions going on?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They'll be too busy for fishing or wild goose chases. The member knows and has asserted in previous debates that these members are already heavily tasked. I don't expect they'll have the time, the budget or the guidelines to allow them to go on fishing expeditions or wild goose hunts. But I do expect them to comment on anything that is lacking, in terms of them doing their job. If they can't comment because there are no standards in an industry and somebody is appealing these standards, then I fully expect they'll make some recommendations concerning the matters. If they have information that has been presented and they can wrap up a recommendation to me, then I'll be glad to have it. If they simply state that there must be some standard in this particular area of operation, then we will have to undertake to do it with the resources that we have. This is not asking these people to do the impossible, and we don't expect them to be a wide-ranging, completely unfocused board. They will have to be focused.
R. Chisholm: The industry itself is concerned about this. With the different lobby groups and organizations, it could very well happen that way. The question really is: what checks and balances are there to ensure...? If you go back to section 9, you've stated you have these ten extra people who will have all sorts of time to be on this board and be able to do these types of tasks. And under section 9, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can authorize the funding. What is there to stop the fishing expeditions that I'm talking about? That's what the industry is asking. Where are the checks and balances? Right now they could do just about
[ Page 15683 ]
anything, when you take a look at section 11(2). Those are the assurances that the industry is looking for. What is there in this bill to make sure that the fishing expeditions don't go on? Section 9 allows it, and you've already stated that of those ten people you can appoint, you've got extra people there who are not busy.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to point out that the legislation is about protecting the right to farm. The minister, under section 12, can cause the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations concerning the way in which their practices are governed, and I refer to subsections 12(2)(c)(i) and (ii).
I don't know what you mean by checks and balances. I think right now the point has to be made that farmers are on the downside of any action brought by a municipality or somebody under the Municipal Act. This will allow them to give a line of defence, first of all, at a hearing of peers and then, secondly, at the Farm Practices Board. They can make the argument that they are conducting normal farm practices. I don't see the need for any more checks and balances. Ultimately, if this board conduct themselves in a way that is not intended, somebody can go and have a judicial review of their particular operation.
R. Chisholm: I think you answered the question this time. We're not allowed to talk about section 12; by you bringing the regulations into it, you've now clarified how you'll do this. That's one of the unfortunate ways in which we govern ourselves. We're only allowed to talk about section 11. You've now clarified that regulations will take care of the problem.
C. Serwa: Why did the minister not consider some other organization -- for example, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture -- to be involved with the formulation of farm practices, perhaps along with staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, and leave the B.C. Marketing Board out of that particular area? It seems to me that the concerns of the member for Chilliwack and the farming community would be served more readily if the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which is far more representative of agriculture in the province, had a major role to play in this.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, we're straying a bit. If the Chair allows me to stray, I will.
The B.C. Federation of Agriculture doesn't represent the cattlemen or members of the horticultural coalition. There are a large number of organizations not represented by the federation. Were it totally representative, we could actually have asked them to contract out this function. But we have to bear in mind that public confidence is required here and that we will, in the public interest, protect normal farming operations. It's the broad public interest that also has to be served. For example, I have committed that somebody nominated by the UBCM could be considered, and they don't represent farmers. And there's nobody in any of those who represents the aquaculture industry; I don't think the aquaculture industry's members are there. There is a broader interest here that has to be served. This particular marketing board agency was chosen simply because of their experience with appeal procedures and due process, and because we want to try to find ways of keeping these things out of the courts so as not to incur costs for the appellant or the defendant.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
G. Wilson: I think it's unfortunate that.... Well, let me come back and address this in a more positive frame. The business of putting in these regulations really is at the heart and soul of whether or not this is going to work, certainly in the opinion of the Alliance. I would argue that whatever the standards are with respect to normal farm practices, how those farm operations are going to be conducted.... And I note, interestingly enough, in the consequential amendments to this, that it modifies the Municipal Act to that effect. So it's going to start to affect municipal bylaws. It's going to be able to affect the potential operation of what is a normal land use practice for farmers.
The member for Prince George-Omineca raised very valid concerns with respect a normal farm practice on land other than that in the agricultural land reserve. Now, I can tell you that I have some firsthand experience with living in a municipality and running a farm operation that was not in the agricultural land reserve but that was then governed by land use regulation, which was essentially a bylaw affecting a piggery. That was a wonderful training ground, I'd have to say just by way of a digression, for this particular profession I'm now in. Nevertheless, interestingly enough, that bylaw greatly restricted the operation I was involved in, because it defined the number of sows and the number of hogs you were allowed at any given time, and the age, whether they were weaner hogs, whether they were market weight, and so on.
In these regulations -- and this is my question to you -- a normal farm practice that may be provided for on agricultural land may be deemed by a municipality as not valid under a municipal bylaw. I need to know from the minister whether these regulations are going to specify a normal farm practice on agricultural land, as opposed to a hobby farm operation, which many, many people are involved in, keeping livestock to one degree or another. The minister might argue that it's a matter of scale. I argue, and I think the member for Prince George-Omineca was rightly arguing, that in fact it's more than that. It's a question of legal jurisdiction over constraints on your operation, whether it's municipal or strictly run within the regulatory authority of this act and therefore the province. It's going to affect a lot of British Columbians who are part-time farmers and who see themselves as having a potential income off that operation.
[4:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can respond by saying that presently it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs who governs the size -- the number of animals, the acreage and so on that's required for the number of head you carry. That doesn't protect the farmers, because it allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by approving a bylaw of the municipality, to intervene with a normal farm practice. It can be so restrictive as to constitute an onerous restriction that won't allow them to farm normally in that area.
I just have to say that it's explicitly for the reason that municipalities can constrict operations that we have given over, through the consequential amendments, the right to the Minister of Agriculture to approve that bylaw or not. But we fully intend that those issues should be decided at the point
[ Page 15684 ]
where the official community plan is adopted and revised, and at such time as the bylaws affecting farming are revised under this act. They have three years from the point that we set some standards. We'll set standards for small piggeries, for example, so that should the municipality want to incorporate those in their bylaw, they'll be able to do that.
Once we've reviewed that, at least we're looking at the purpose. If the intent of the municipality is to exclude farming, then I will know that and be able to judge and make a decision accordingly. If it looks like it's encouraging a good practice in that location, because of the size of the lands in the zoning and the types of soils, etc., then we may allow for restricted farm practices in some areas, especially close to the built-up areas in buffer zones.
G. Wilson: I like what I heard the minister saying.
This is really the last area of concern I have with respect to this committee stage. Under section 12.2 it says: "Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...(b) respecting standards for the purpose of the definition of 'normal farm practice'...." If the regulations of the government are intended to be more consistent provincewide and less piecemeal, based on the whims of any given council at any given time by a bylaw, then I would understand more clearly why section 15, which is a consequential amendment of the Municipal Act, strikes out "977" -- which essentially deals with the intensive farming section of the Municipal Act -- and substitutes the farm bylaw section. So what I was reading to be less consistent -- less permissive -- in this instance becomes, in fact, more consistent and indeed more permissive for those existing operations. Is that right?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is absolutely correct. We expect more consistency across the province by virtue of this act.
J. van Dongen: With respect to section 12(1) -- "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act" -- we had a lawyer who has an interest in representing farmers look at this. One of the issues he raised was that section 41 of the Interpretation Act gives the power to make regulations which are subject to provisions of the Offence Act; that if someone breached those regulations, they may be subject to a fine of up to $2,000 -- this sort of thing. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify whether or not there is any intent that this process could trigger some kind of fine or penalty.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Clearly it's our intent not to have to do that, but if we needed to, there is a provision here. We have to have some enforcement provision in here. But we fully expect that an order from the Farm Practices Board will allow continuation of a practice, or, if somebody is off-board with the practice, an order will be sent out. If somebody doesn't follow the order, my understanding is that we have to have some ability to back it up.
J. van Dongen: I just want to pose a specific example and see if it would be covered by this legislation. I pose the question under 12(3). It was just a couple of weeks ago that I was going down the freeway, and, as the minister probably knows, in Abbotsford the weather had been very dry for a long time. A farmer was out in Sumas Prairie culti-packing a very dry field to the extent that there was a massive amount of dust being generated. This dust was sifting over the freeway. I'm wondering, if there had been an accident on the freeway because of the dust, what would be the implications of this act for that situation? Would the farmer be protected in that situation from a lawsuit?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This act won't stop somebody from being prosecuted under another act. If the Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code prohibits certain kinds of activities, they can't be absolved of responsibility. But in the case of the dust, I expect that if somebody had challenged that as a practice and felt aggrieved by that -- other than if there was an accident, for example -- and this board said that that's a normal farming practice because that's the best practice, and they have to do it when there's no rain and with that kind of machinery, and it's in the interests of farming and soil conservation, etc., then I would expect that if during some kind of criminal or Motor Vehicle Act prosecution they could offer as a defence that they were only conducting normal farm practices, and they said, "By the way, it isn't just my opinion; the Farm Practices Board has said that is a normal farming practice," then the judge hearing the case would have to take that as some kind of evidence.
I think it should help. I would expect that there's going to be a body of administrative law built up around the Farm Practices Board that would give comfort to farmers.
J. van Dongen: I think the minister is probably correct in his answer, and I hope he's right that it will help in that area. But it was a real, live example, which I think could have some serious implications. When I thought about it, there was really nothing else that farmer could do. He was getting that field ready to plant peas, there was a certain point in the schedule and there's nothing that I could think of that he could do.
There's another, similar example that occured to me and that we may want to think about. If a farmer is travelling out of a field, onto a road and off the road again, and he drags some mud onto the road and a car comes along, let's say, and has an accident, and someone suggests that the mud on the road had something to do with it, then that's another sort of example where we may have this kind of question. I think it's something to think about when the minister is defining normal farm practice, because I think there are some pretty interesting legal implications there, too.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the Motor Vehicle Act would be predominant in this case, unless -- again -- there was no other way to practise your farming but that you would have mud on the wheels, and there's no other way to move your machinery but on the public highway. I think that could be used as evidence if it has been determined that it was a normal farm practice. Again, the judge would have to weigh that in the balancing of his decision. But we're not protecting farmers here with some protection they can't get some other way, through this legislation. They would still be subject to some of these.... This won't do everything every farmer would like it to do in the cases of other things that are there to govern the public interest. It won't override a public interest.
Sections 12 and 13 approved.
On section 14.
[ Page 15685 ]
F. Gingell: The extent or location of highways and highway allowances can not only unreasonably or unnecessarily increase access to land in an agricultural land reserve, but also restrict, and I'd like to give you an example. The road that is planned to follow the railway line from Roberts Bank, now that they're building a new terminal at Roberts Bank, goes to the Delta agricultural farmlands. That railway actually bisects some farms, which isn't a problem at the moment, because they've just put in crossings and they're relatively simple. But when the Roberts Bank road is extended, it's going to cut right through these farms. I appreciate that the province owns all this land, but it is land that is being farmed by the historical owners of the land, from whom you expropriated it and who you should perhaps consider allowing to buy it back. But I appreciate that that's not the issue here.
I was wondering whether the issue of restriction of access should be brought into this section by adding it after the word "increase" -- "increase or restrict." There are other examples: the farmlands that sit between River Road West and Highway 17, in that triangle of land between the river and Highway 17, on the west side as you come down through the Deas Island Tunnel. The only access is onto a divided highway that's going in the wrong direction for them. I was wondering whether the minister would consider expanding the definition in subparagraph (xi) to include restrictions as well as increased access.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The easy answer is that it isn't in the powers of the approving officer to deal with controlled access. I'm advised that it would be out of line for this particular section. What I propose to do here is move the amendment to section 14 that's standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 14, by deleting the proposed subparagraphs (x) and (xi) and substituting the following:
(x) the anticipated development of the subdivision would unreasonably interfere with farming operations on adjoining or reasonably adjacent properties, due to inadequate buffering or separation of the development from the farm; or
(xi) despite subparagraph (ix), the extent or location of highways and highway allowances shown on the plan is such that it would unreasonably or unnecessarily increase access to land in an agricultural land reserve.]
This amendment is to address concerns raised by municipal and provincial subdivision approving officers that the provision may not be clearly understood by those officers as they fulfil their responsibilities under the Land Title Act. These changes were suggested by them and make the provision clear.
[4:45]
In subparagraph (x), the additional words at the end clarify what the approving officer should be looking for as a means of mitigating adverse impacts of a new subdivision on existing farms. For example, perimeter fencing around acreages and open-range areas will eliminate the potential for complaints about animals wandering into gardens. In more urban areas, landscaping or additional setbacks may be needed.
In subparagraph (xi), the words at the beginning clarify that the approving officer can disregard the practicality of future subdivision of adjacent farmland that is a requirement of subparagraph (ix).
On the amendment.
C. Serwa: I have several questions on the amendment. Perhaps the minister could give me several examples of a situation where the anticipated development of a subdivision would unreasonably interfere with farming operations? It's not clear to me how this development would interfere with farming operations.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One example might be the approval of a subdivision of five-, two- or one-acre lots in an area in open range. It does then create an opportunity for cattle to move onto those lots. It could easily be achieved at the time of subdivision that fencing be required, with cattle guards at the entrance and exit to the subdivision. Once the fence is up, it's easy for the people who have the adjoining lots to keep that chunk of fence up, rather than go through the cost of sorting out the fencing requirements later on. So you have the common area of the subdivision all fenced with one fence.
Another example might be that the requirements of access for lands beyond might leave you with several roads abutting the agricultural land reserve, which heretofore in the minds of the approving officers were there for access to lands behind a future subdivision, when the very existence of the agricultural land reserve is to say that this land is zoned for agriculture and not for future subdivision. So there are a couple of examples.
If the approving officer allows roads to abut the agricultural land reserve, you're inviting people to stop there on the public right-of-way, to probably get out of their car and then to travel onto the agricultural lands for recreation or whatever. There may not be adequate facilities there to take care of the recreation use, for example.
C. Serwa: The situation is, I suppose.... The entire Cariboo is open range, and there is the potential for stopping any development anywhere in the Cariboo, if I hear the words of the minister correctly, because this section stops.... It doesn't state that criteria will be utilized to ensure that fencing is there. As we all know, open range means that you have to fence your property to keep cattle out, whereas in other situations in the lower mainland and in more densely populated areas, you have to fence to keep your cattle in. So it seems reasonable to me that if the approving officer, for example, requires -- more than common sense requires -- a specific development like a perimeter fence to be put up, that's reasonable. But it seems unreasonable to use that example to stop any subdivision development, because, as I say, a great deal of this province is open range. So I really question the validity of that statement.
I would also like to know who makes that decision. If it's the approving officer, on what basis does the approving officer make the decision that a subdivision in a grazing area cannot go ahead? It's private land; it's non-agricultural land. We encourage that type of development. Who can make an objective decision, and on what basis?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The power is here to require certain kinds of buffering, whether it be a fence, or maybe a line of trees or something. We would develop guidelines through the Agricultural Land Commission, which would be available to the approving officer. But there's no question about it: this power is here to be able to pass some judgment on whether or not the proposed development, as it is proposed, will have a negative influence or effect on the agricultural operation. We
[ Page 15686 ]
know that while the law is there that you have to fence cattle out, every so often it doesn't happen; even the Crown doesn't do that in its subdivisions. I think it is probably desirable to bring a minimal cost that can be shared by all the lot owners. It might drive up the price a bit, but the Crown is probably going to spend a lot of money trying to deal with nuisance actions or nuisance complaints to the various ministries about the lack of fencing and so on. There's a real debate going on -- not about whether the law exists, but whether it's an adequate law.
I think what we're saying here is that the requirement of buffering can be beneficial to both parties. The approving officers themselves felt that under the existing regulations, they don't have the power to require some of this buffering. It's not to stop the subdivision, but to make it a better subdivision in the interests of the people who have existed in that operation and the ones who are going to come to live there next to those operations.
C. Serwa: A legal fence is not a very expensive thing to build. There is a situation in my constituency which would have precluded some of the problems that are occurring right now with a subdivision in what is open range country, so I'm well aware of it. Obviously, it's not adequate enough to fence one's own property; if you fence all of the perimeter, then you dispense with the urban-rural conflict that we're so concerned about.
I continue to have my concerns with the concept of buffering, in that there's a sort of evasive type of meaning there that may point to significant loss of developable land which is outside the agricultural land reserve. The concern I have with the concept is that the area that may be required as a buffer zone is also taxed at residential property rates, yet it's not developable. Who pays for the cost of buffering? Would there be any type of a conflict -- certainly not in the open range situation, but perhaps in a high-density agricultural operation? My personal belief is that if the land is there and the operation is there, the normally prudent buyer is well aware of it and perhaps in the prospectus the information is there. I express concerns with it, because if legislation is to be workable it not only has to be fair for the protection of the agricultural industry, it obviously has to be as fair as possible and reasonable to adjacent developable property that's outside the agricultural land reserve.
So there were a series of concerns there, especially with the taxation on even that buffered property, which would be assessed at residential rates. Again, it's compounded with the loss of 5 percent for parks or money in lieu of that, the additional 5 percent of the school site acquisition cost, or money in lieu of that, and now we're talking about a buffer zone. Pretty soon there won't be much developable property left.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This gets back to the heart of zoning. I think there has been inadequate zoning in the past, and that has led to a lot of the problems. If the constraints on development are so onerous as to make it impossible for the developer to have an economical and viable operation, maybe it's in the wrong place. I just want to say that we anticipate that there are ways of clustering the housing and providing a green-space setback that might, in the end, add to the property value. If we create better buffers and less conflict, I think it would help in the long run to maintain the property values. It would probably enhance property values. Let's not forget that in many cases the ALR is green space and is going to limit development coming in one side. We're talking about 30 feet of trees or something like that. But it often happens that the person moving in is not aware of normal farming practices -- for example, spraying orchards -- and they're not aware that it's conducted at night. They know there's an orchard there, but they think an orchard is about picking the fruit and eating it and not spraying in the middle of the night when there's no wind, for example, or those kinds of things.
Our experience that's really led to this act is that there is far too much ignorance out there, and you can't write all of those things in the prospectus; it would be a long essay. We're going to encourage that, too. We think that that's also helpful, but the approving officers wanted to see this provision here, so that they could actually require such things as fencing or setbacks. We don't expect that they will abuse this power. It will soon become clear if they choose to do that. This will not be surrogate zoning. It really has to do with fine-tuning the configuration of the development so as to allow it to proceed appropriately in that location.
Amendment approved.
Section 14 as amended approved.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
C. Serwa: In section 16, the definition of " 'farming area' means an area of land that (a) is an agricultural land reserve, or...." There is a great deal of farming conducted throughout the province, certainly in the Okanagan, undoubtedly on Vancouver Island and probably in the lower Fraser Valley. Agricultural subdivisions that were made quite some ago containing perhaps five acres or less are being utilized for agricultural purposes to provide part of the income to the owner of that land. The way this legislation is written, with that definition, does not protect that type of agriculture. There's certainly an inconsistency. The intent is to protect properties that are utilized for agriculture; yet because of this definition -- which is restrictive -- there's no protection for properties that are utilized agriculturally but are too small to be classified under the agricultural land reserve.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to be very clear about this. Our intent is to cover those areas that have been zoned in the ALR and where people are restricted in terms of what they can do with their land. It is there to protect agriculture. Those areas in farming outside the ALR would have to be protected by the municipalities. You'd have to have them take steps to create agricultural zones. We would help them, of course. It's within the intent of this government and of this legislation to assist municipalities to do that by way of having bylaws that respect the needs of farmers, but this legislation itself won't give any particular effect to that.
C. Serwa: I certainly would support the minister in his objective, because I think it's very important. I think these properties are quite an asset to the generations. They may grow vegetables, have small cattle operations or produce hay.
[ Page 15687 ]
They may have poultry or turkey operations. There is a wide, diverse variety. Some of them may utilize greenhouses and produce quite a volume of products.
[5:00]
Have there been discussions with the UBCM, for example, on the potential of adopting or accepting this type of legislation within municipal bylaws to protect property? It seems to me that under the Assessment Act, they're classified as farm properties; but under the agricultural land reserve, they're simple too small to qualify for protection. Many of these subdivisions took place prior to the agricultural land reserve being in existence.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was beyond the scope of this act to go outside the ALR to protect them. We feel that provincial standards could be readily adopted by a willing local government. We didn't want to use this as a way to give agricultural land reserve protection to areas outside the ALR. That would be a matter for an exclusion/inclusion kind of activity, which is available under the land reserve act. If it's so important to protect that, the farmers themselves could apply for it to be put in the ALR, as people in our valley did many years ago. They were excluded. They wanted that protection, and they asked for that protection at the same time that they asked for an agricultural zone to be created with a minimum lot size, which gave it dual protection. Here is where we throw it back. We say that we're not going to be intrusive into the areas outside the ALR.
Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.
On section 20.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on the section that deals with farm standards and bylaws.... There are a few definitions here. The first definition deals with the term "minister." It says that it's the minister responsible for this act. I don't know if that is contemplating that one day we won't have a Ministry of Agriculture and that there won't be a Minister of Agriculture. I hope that's not the case; I hope we will always have a Minister of Agriculture in British Columbia.
Under this section, we establish provincial standards for farming bylaws, and we deal with local governments. Under the applications section, there are certain portions of this act that will not apply to a local government unless cabinet specifically declares that they will apply. I wonder if the minister could just briefly address the whole issue of the autonomy of local governments with respect to this legislation and what this section is really doing with respect to the principle of the autonomy of local governments.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The short answer is that the municipalities are not independent when it comes to judging farm practices. In the provincially zoned areas for agriculture, we're saying that the final approval for farm practices will be from the Minister of Agriculture. Previously it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
I think the municipalities welcome an agency more knowledgable about this, so that they can say: "Well, the ministry responsible has made that judgment." But we fully expect a joint role here. There are references in here to zoning bylaws and so on, so that we're going to help them adjust their bylaws. Indeed, we have municipalities who've come forward to us, before this legislation, asking us to help them develop bylaws so they can provide adequate buffering and protection for farming. So there's really a case where municipalities want some assistance.
Just so you know, I think there's some comfort to municipalities where they can say: "Well, farming is in the provincial interest. Talk to the provincial government. Don't blame us if 40 of you want protection against one farmer." We're bringing in the balance of power; we're establishing the balance of power here and not forcing municipalities to internalize political battles where they can only control part of the activity, which is farming.
L. Fox: If there's one issue which really is a concern in the municipalities, that is inconsistency around planning issues. When we have one minister go to another whose values may indeed change in terms of what's an acceptable farm practice, that brings inconsistency into the planning process. I recognize that in this bill there appear to be the opportunities to have a variable amount of zones within the farming classification. As I spoke to you earlier, there's some need for some definitive clarification in terms of what's an acceptable farm practice.
But I hear the minister saying that it could change from time to time, and the approval of the bylaw would be based on whether it fits into his or her description of what's a suitable farm use. That is something which is extremely difficult to deal with in a local municipality -- or a regional district, for that matter, because they're very similar.
So I understand the minister's comments a few moments ago, that municipalities may like the comfort zone of being able to point their finger to Victoria and say: "Hey, they did it; I didn't." I understand that. I've been there for a number of years, and occasionally I did that when it was legitimate. But on the other side of the coin is that municipal council members and regional district members want to know what the parameters and specifics are, so they can deal with their planning and zoning realistically, truthfully and openly with their respective constituents. So my question is: what kind of veritable power is the minister going to have in terms of this section? That's one question.
The other question I'd like to pose to the minister is that.... This is somewhat of an anomaly, in that over the last 15 years there's been a tendency in government at the provincial level to remove the necessity of ministers to sign off zoning bylaws and other kinds of municipal bylaws. This seems to be a reversal of that trend. I wonder why the minister saw it necessary to reverse that trend.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd have to admit that here is one case where the municipalities have shown an inability to deal with the reality of farming. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has not used those sections for that very reason. They don't have the capacity in that ministry to judge whether the bylaws reflect normal farm practices.
But let me give you some comfort around the way this is written. We expect that on a regional-district-wide basis -- and that's probably the most relevant one, because they do the rezoning and zoning and they want some consistency -- we will undertake a review of the bylaws to ensure consistency with the provincial standard. The provincial standard will
[ Page 15688 ]
apply, provided there is need for regional variations or differences between.... I don't know all the examples I could give you, but there might be standards for irrigated farming and standards for dry farming, and they're probably similar through many regions. We anticipate that municipalities will help develop the standards. They know the problems and the solutions, and in dialogue with us we'll develop these standards, which will then be available for adjudicating whether a bylaw adequately reflects standard farm practices.
L. Fox: As I understand the minister, they are going to work with the respective regional districts. It isn't only regional districts; many municipalities have agricultural land within them, and they do their own planning outside of the regional district.
I have one follow-up question I would like to ask the minister. These are going to be new requirements, and the existing zoning classifications are going to be changed in terms of content as well as numbers because of the variation we have in farming. There will have to be different classifications of farming in different municipalities in order to respect the intent of this legislation. Given that, there is going to be a substantial cost to many municipalities and regional districts that will be affected by this legislation. Has the minister had any discussion with the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the implementation of this and how they are going to help municipalities and regional districts comply with the substantial costs that are going to be around this? Or is it the intent to phase this in, in a way that complies with the regular reviews done by regional districts and municipalities of their OCPs and their zoning bylaws?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We worked very closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in devising this transition program. As part of the normal review, we would anticipate that they would review these bylaws anyway. And while everything is being reviewed during that normal review, they would be eligible for grants and so on to assist. We will provide teams of people with knowledge to assist the municipalities, as well. I expect there will be a marginal cost, but I think the normal bylaw review process should be able to incorporate this. Especially if we're offering model bylaws and standards and the assistance of people to do the legwork, it should be much easier. We won't cause this to happen everywhere at the same time, but I want you to know that it's consistency between municipalities that we want within a regional district, for example. When we say we review bylaws on a regional-district-wide basis, it means that all the municipalities in that regional district and the regional district will have to review their bylaws for some consistencies, so that a farm will be treated under the same circumstances the same way in one municipality as it might be in another.
L. Fox: I'm not trying to belabour this point, but I certainly want to get some clarification and understanding. First of all, I think the minister is well aware that this legislation will not only apply to new subdivision, but will apply to existing subdivision in conflicts that may arise from farming that is adjoining existing development. So there is going to be a level of what I might call legally non-conforming, in terms of the communities within that municipality.
If the minister is going to suggest that there's going to be one set of bylaws that fits every community within a particular regional district, and they're similar, I suggest he is going to have grave difficulty. If they're similar in the objectives they want to achieve, I suggest that may in fact be a reality. But many, many circumstances are different in each community, even in my little regional district.
I suggest that you're going to be faced with zoning bylaws to sign off that are going to have quite a bit of variation from community to community. As long as there is still an opportunity for those communities to respect and reflect their goals along with the theme of what's trying to be achieved in this legislation, then I don't have a problem with it. But if the minister was suggesting that being the same is going to be kind of a stamp placed over every community, saying "Ye must comply with..." I have a real problem with that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If we were interested in a one-stamp-fits-all, we would not have the provision for local bylaws. We anticipate they can come forward. What would be consistent would be the standards. For example, a noise is noise, and smell is smell. Why would it be different in Vanderhoof than Williams Lake? Probably not.
[5:15]
The issue is to get some general consistency across the province for farmers and within regions. The bylaws themselves will purposefully deal with variations that might be relevant. I'm not sure what example we could give right here right now, but we can give some. But you also have to admit that this is what happens anyway in bylaw revision. In other words, when you change land uses, somebody may become non-conforming along the way. So it's not new.
All we're saying here is that the municipalities really must plan for the farming. Their bylaws must be sensitive to farming, because you can't impose a layer of zoning over top of an operation and have conflict created by the creation of a bylaw. This happens now, especially with respect to some of the nuisance bylaws. They are imposing a hardship on farming. When they review it, we say: "You've got to deal with the needs of the farmers. If you don't, we won't approve that bylaw."
L. Fox: Just one final thing, to try to make my point, because I think it's important that we understand what we're doing here. If I take an organized or developed area and have farmland immediately adjacent to that, that's one issue. If you take an undeveloped area, but it's outside the ALR -- and you know in your community plan that at some point in time it's going to be developed, but the farm around it is there -- you can deal with that, because it's not yet developed.
But the other issue, where you're dealing with a developed subdivision that's already populated and immediately adjacent to agricultural land, you may apply different values to that agricultural land than you would apply to this other one, because there's not at this point any development around it. We have to retain that kind of flexibility within these particular specifics, so that you may indeed improve a hog farm or some really heavy farm use on this one, because you have the opportunities to build your buffer zones and so on into it. But on this section you would not, because you have development right up to the border of the farm. That's the kind of issue I'm looking at, in the municipalities having the flexibility in this particular legislation to respect those values and concerns.
[ Page 15689 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We fully anticipate that there will be some existing developments that will have to be protected from developments within the farming community of more intensive types of operations. We fully expect that there are types of farming that will not be considered, but we expect the local government to propose what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and we'll consider that in approving the bylaw. The more we can develop buffers, the better. It's substantially different where there is no development outside or on the adjacencies, and I think you would agree. We will still have problems where we have non-farm development up against non-developed farmland, for example. There are always going to be problems. It's much easier to say to the farmer that there is a constraint in local zoning that says that only certain types of agriculture can take place on that buffer.
I have clearly admitted and fully expect that we will discourage certain kinds of farming practices and operations from going up against developed areas. On the other hand, if the farm is already there and practising normally, we're going to protect it. The conflict would probably go on. We want to get away from that when planning future developments. We will also use this legislation to adjudicate those practices. We might make recommendations to the farmer to try to modify his practices somewhat to accommodate the neighbour. The farmer may come back and say, "No, that's a normal practice," and this legislation will protect them. There's still going to be some rubbing until we develop the buffers.
Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 23 standing in my name in Orders of the Day. This amendment is to address a concern raised by discussions with municipal planning offices regarding how section 977 is currently used. It became clear that some municipalities have been relying on section 977 to allow certain farm activities not permitted in their current bylaws. These bylaws need not be amended immediately under this bill. Section 977 is needed in some areas until the new bylaws meeting our standards are enacted.
[SECTION 23, by deleting the proposed section 23 and substituting the following:
23. Section 977 is amended
(a) in subsection (2) by striking out "but subject to regulations under subsection (4),",
(b) by adding the following subsection:
(2.1) Subsections (1) and (2) cease to have effect in an area after a zoning or rural land use bylaw for that area is approved under section 952 (8) or 963 (5)., and
(c) by repealing subsections (3) to (10).
23.1 Section 980 (12) is repealed.]
Amendment approved.
Section 23 as amended approved.
Section 24 approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 22, Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, 1995, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to report on a matter raised last Friday by the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance -- namely, the disclosure by the Minister of Finance of the contents of the interim report of the forensic auditor, Ron Parks, on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to the NDP provincial secretary, Brian Gardiner.
The Chair also heard submissions from the Leader of the Third Party and the Minister of Social Services.
In my view, the member's request for adjournment of the House under standing order 35 relates directly to the minister's conduct in the alleged disclosing of the contents of the Parks report to the NDP provincial secretary and its consequences in relation to a possible criminal investigation. In the context of this issue, the Chair has some difficulty in allowing a motion to go forward under standing order 35, as ensuing debate would inevitably focus on the conduct of the minister in her handling of the Parks report. Such debate would undoubtedly have overtones of maladministration of a ministry, of nonconfidence in a minister and of censure of a minister.
Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, second edition, page 45, reads as follows on this very issue: "A motion under standing order 35 should not be a censure or non-confidence motion nor should it deal with a question of maladministration of a ministry." There is a longstanding practice to refrain from reflecting on the conduct of a member or minister except by way of a substantive motion, of which notice is required.
I refer the House to a decision of the Chair, April 21, 1994, the essence of which is as follows: "In my view, the allegation is a matter which relates to the conduct of a member, and as such, the authorities clearly indicate that the issue should be raised by substantive motion." Members may further consult the House of Commons debates, January 22, 1987, page 2577, where this principle was applied specifically in relation to the conduct of a minister in very similar circumstances.
For the above reasons, I find that the member's application fails to meet the requirements under standing order 35 and therefore cannot succeed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 37.
VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT
(second reading)
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Victims of Crime Act is part of our government's mandate to ensure that victims of crime and their families receive the best possible support from the criminal justice system. The legislation provides a statutory basis for the extensive service that is already provided to victims in the province. They are, in fact, the most extensive victims'
[ Page 15690 ]
services in the country, providing information, referrals, practical assistance and emotional support to victims. British Columbia now funds 125 victim-serving programs based with police, Crown and community agencies. The legislation enshrines many of these services as rights and provides a framework of services for the future. All other provinces except for Ontario and British Columbia have victims' legislation. Most provinces' legislation includes either a statement of rights or a declaration of principles. The Victims of Crime Act draws on the experience of other provinces and provides what we feel is the most comprehensive legislation in the country.
Hon. Speaker, you may recall that in 1988 the government of the day introduced a bill entitled the Victims' Rights and Services Act to complement the network of victim services which was then being established. That bill was not proclaimed, because victim services soon overtook the legislation. The province has come a long way since 1988, and the new legislation reflects that fact.
Let me provide you with a brief overview of the key components of the Victims of Crime Act. The definition of "victim" in the act is very broad, acknowledging that not only victims suffer from a crime but family members suffer as well. The legislation includes immediate family members in its definition of victim, and thus the parent or spouse of a victim also has access to information and services under the act.
The legislation states that victims have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect and not to be discriminated against on any basis. This provision is parallel to those in the Human Rights Act and reinforces those rights with respect to victims. This legislation also provides victims with the right to support during the court process. Under the act, victims may receive legal representation to protect their privacy rights. This service will be provided by the Legal Services Society and will be based on its standard criteria. Further support will be provided by Crown counsel, who will ensure that victims have every opportunity to have the impact of the offence presented to the court, so long as that evidence is admissible in court. To complement these provisions, the ministry is developing victim impact forms designed to be easy to use and helpful to Crown.
At the heart of this legislation is the victim's right to information. Through the possession of information, victims and their families can become more involved in their case, more familiar with the justice system or simply more comfortable with the process. Let me stress that this information is already available to victims but is listed in the act to ensure that victims are aware of their rights and to clarify the obligations of justice system personnel.
A number of sections in the act outline these information rights. The first lists general information that is available to all victims of crime, including information about victim services and their rights under the act. A toll-free victims' assistance phone line, already in place, will assist victims with their initial questions.
Information about the progress of the victim's case is also articulated by the legislation. Victims may ask justice system personnel for information about the status of the police investigation, the counts with which the accused is charged or the reasons that no charges were laid. Victims may ask to be informed of court dates that are likely to affect the status of the accused as well as the final outcome of court appearances. For obvious reasons, this information is only provided where it would not jeopardize the investigation or the prosecution.
The legislation also provides victims with the right to information about the status of the charge or convicted person. Some of these information rights are intended to provide victims with the knowledge required to make submissions to those considering the custodial status of the offender. For example, victims may ask for eligibility and review dates of an offender's custodial status and how to make representations in such proceedings. Victims can also request guidance on how to report breaches of terms of supervision and how to contact agencies that may grant or amend conditions of parole. These provisions will be particularly important to those concerned about their safety or about the offender committing the crime again.
[5:30]
One other category of information will be provided at the discretion of senior officials on the Parole Board and at the corrections branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. In certain circumstances, personal information may be provided, such as the location of the institution where the offender is incarcerated, the general location of the offender when released and the actual release date of the offender. Strict criteria are applied before information is provided. The factors considered include the offender's previous record, the degree of violence of the offence and whether there is still a known emotional attachment to the victim.
These provisions are intended to be similar to those under the federal Corrections and Conditional Release Act, so that the same information will be released in the same way by the federal Parole Board, the provincial Parole Board and correctional institutions. These provisions are intended to help the victim gain a sense of security in the knowledge of where the offender is and for how long and under what conditions, and may be crucial to the emotional well-being of some victims.
Other provisions in this legislation set the future direction of victim services in British Columbia. The provincial government intends to promote a number of goals over the next decades, including to develop equal access to victim services throughout the province, to provide separate areas in courthouses for victims and the accused, and to train justice system personnel in victims' issues. Clearly some of these objectives are more long-term than others.
This legislation has adopted one other feature from other provinces: a provincial fine surcharge and a dedicated fund. Six other provinces and two territories provide for a provincial fine surcharge in legislation. This surcharge will be imposed on all prescribed provincial offences and will likely include both those that are ticketed and those imposed by the court. The amount of the surcharge will also be prescribed by regulation. Surcharge revenue will be deposited in a special account, to be managed by the Attorney General and dedicated to funding services under this act and other victims' initiatives. In addition to the provincial surcharge, the dedicated fund will also receive revenue from the federal victim surcharge. The federal surcharge is imposed by the judiciary on Criminal Code and other serious federal offences.
The act provides for accountability under the act in two ways: first, the office of the ombudsman may investigate complaints that justice system personnel have not complied
[ Page 15691 ]
with the act. Secondly, the Attorney General's annual report will include a report of the administration of the act. The Victims of Crime Act provides victims with a role in the justice system and recognizes that victims, not just the accused, are entitled to rights and fair treatment. British Columbians have access to the most extensive victim services in the country; these amendments take us one step further ahead.
With that, I move second reading.
J. Dalton: The first point I will make about this bill is that, as we've seen with many others in this session, it's a fair description; it is well intended. I can tell the Attorney General to set his mind at ease; we will be supporting this bill. It's a well-intended bill, but certainly at committee stage we're going to have a series of questions to ask about the implications of how it will be implemented and of cost factors -- not that cost should necessarily be a consideration in a bill of this magnitude, but cost must be addressed with anything that a government does, naturally, whether it be at the provincial, the federal or even the local level. I just wanted to make that point clear; we'll support the bill, but certainly we'll have to flag some concerns as we go through it.
I guess that in a backhanded way, I would congratulate the Attorney General for bringing this bill in, but quite frankly, the Liberal Party was out of the gate on this issue -- in a general sense, at least -- on December 6 of last year. On that date, we announced our initiatives to make streets safer in this province. There were three major categories in our announcement, and I'll just read those into the record and then deal specifically with this bill: first, violent criminals are mentioned in some detail in our announcement of December 6 of last year; secondly, victims' rights -- and that is, of course, where this bill comes in; and thirdly, community policing. As we all know from the Oppal report, community policing is a very important concept, and I think one day we will have to ask this Attorney General where we are going on that particular topic. However, that's not the topic of the day; Bill 37 is the topic.
As I just said, on December 6 of last year the Liberal caucus and party announced a package or proposal of victims' rights for everyone in this province. I'll just read it into the record. "Comprehensive victim support services to ensure that victims and their families are informed of the status of all investigations, hearings and trials relating to their case." I think that sounds familiar, because the Attorney General has drawn our attention to some of the aspects in this bill that we covered last December. Further: "Victims will also have more opportunity to express their views at hearings and trials, especially with respect to sentencing, and will be advised when a person accused or convicted of committing a violent crime is released from custody."
I think my point is well taken and well made that the Liberal caucus and party has led the charge on this, and that this government is six months late -- which is maybe not bad for this government; six months is probably a compliment to these people.
Let's just comment briefly on one or two of the specifics of the bill. As I said earlier, at committee stage we can get into this in more detail, but I just want to flag a couple of things for the Attorney General's attention so that he won't be caught off guard -- heaven forbid -- when we get to committee stage.
By the way, I have another compliment for the Attorney General -- or at least maybe a secondhand compliment. He mentioned the victim services in many communities in this province. It is true, there are excellent victim services -- many provided, of course, on a volunteer basis. I'm very proud to represent parts of both North and West Vancouver, because I can say without any hesitation that both those communities have very excellent victim services in place. I think every community in this province would do well to follow the lead of those two. So again a sort of compliment. I don't like to compliment the Attorney General too much, of course, these days, but I think that's something that is worthy of note.
The Attorney General has advised us that all other provinces -- other than Ontario -- have similar laws. That's good, although I might add that this law is perhaps, as I say, more form than substance. There is, quite frankly, not a lot in this statute, and I guess it wasn't intended that there be a lot in this statute. I think that over time....
Interjections.
J. Dalton: I'm hearing some remarks from the third, fourth and obscure parties -- which really don't count these days. Yes, we are going to support it. As I've already indicated in our announcement of December 6 last year, the Liberal caucus and party are going to take many of these initiatives forward. Of course, when we form the next government -- and it's only a matter of time -- we will be doing these things. This is a start -- a bare, minimal start.
I'm looking, for example, at section 8 in the act. It starts off, "To the extent that it is practicable, the government must promote..." and then it lists items (a) through (g). That's fine and good, and I think some interesting questions will be raised in committee stage about some of these, but I'm very curious about the lead-off phrase: "To the extent that it is practicable...." Is this government telling us that this stuff looks good, but it probably isn't practicable? That's just a question. Who knows? I guess time will tell. Time will tell with much of the legislation that is before this House or that we've already passed this session. Only time can tell whether the tests of the Charter and the constitution and other challenges will prove this type of legislation to be workable. We'll have to see.
I needn't say more at the moment. This bill has a well-intended purpose behind it. We have no trouble with it, because it fits, at least in part, into the various initiatives that we announced six months ago or more. The Liberal caucus will be supporting this bill on second reading.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to say a few words on Bill 37 as well. I think this is an important initiative brought forward by the hon. Attorney General. At long last, it recognizes that here in British Columbia the families of victims of crime are themselves victims. So this is a good first step in the right direction. It's a good first step that we hope will be more than simply symbolic. The Attorney General is going to have to explain how Bill 37 is actually going to assist in new ways families of victims of crime, who themselves are victims of crime.
We've lived through a time, during the last ten or 20 years, when the pendulum seems to have swung so far to one side in favour of the rights of criminals themselves. Now, inevitably, due to the force of public pressure, the pendulum is starting slowly -- ever so slowly -- to move back. And the government, with the package of initiatives that the hon.
[ Page 15692 ]
Attorney General has brought forward, is recognizing that the pendulum must start to swing back -- more to the rights of individuals and families and victims of crime. Bill 37 is at least a symbolic indication of that. The challenge will be to see if we can go beyond the symbolism and actually make this work in concrete and tangible and new ways.
We are also living in a time when high-profile trials in our country are emphasizing the trauma of families of victims of crime. I refer to the Bernardo trial taking place in Ontario right now -- a terrible trial that has forced all of us, as Canadians, to consider the families of the victims of some horrific crimes that are hard to imagine. Right here in our own province in the last year we have had a number of high-profile cases that would fall into that category. I could mention the Melanie Carpenter case as an example.
As the Attorney General said, this legislation is designed to validate the role of victims of crime in the justice system and, among other things, to ensure that the victims are fairly served and to make the justice system more accessible to victims. These are laudable goals. The Attorney General said he's very proud to bring them forward, and I can understand why. There is quite a bit to commend in terms of moving the victim into their rightful place in the courtroom. So the bill is a good start, but I think the Attorney General would likely recognize that it's only a start.
Having congratulated him, I would like to advise the Attorney General that there are a couple of sections in this bill that I think are going to need further discussion, and I'd like to refer to a couple of them briefly. Sub-subsection 6(1)(c) deals with the whole issue of the guarantees of the right of a victim to information about the reasons why a decision respecting charges was made. I think this is one of the most important sections of this new act; it's one which appears to be truly breaking new ground. My question, though, is that once again we in British Columbia run into the Young Offenders Act, a piece of federal legislation, because the provincial legislation from the Attorney General says in section 6(1) that subject to this federal act, and "insofar as this does not prejudice an investigation or prosecution of an offence, justice system personnel must arrange, on request, for a victim to obtain information on the following matters relating to the offence...." So we need to explore with the Attorney General further -- in committee, I suppose -- how he's going to impose this requirement on federal authorities who work under a federal act -- the Young Offenders Act, in this case.
Also, I think we need to know what the standard will be for prejudice of an investigation or prosecution. How would the standard be addressed? Will it be by ministerial letter, for instance? We have in British Columbia the famous charge approval standard, which I have discussed on previous occasions with the Attorney General. I'm not sure I fully understand how this mysterious charge approval standard is administered, but it comes into question. Hon. Speaker, I'll tell you: it's so hard to fathom how this standard is applied in British Columbia. Citizens are being told time and again that certain cases in British Columbia -- high-profile cases -- don't meet the standard.
If the O.J. Simpson trial was being held in British Columbia, it's hard to imagine if a charge could be applied to O.J. Simpson and whether or not he could even be charged to stand trial, because of the charge approval standard in British Columbia. I'm exaggerating somewhat, but I'm just trying to make the point through hyperbole, obviously, because time after time, justice has not been done -- or has not been seen to have been done -- in this province because the standard is so mysterious. I recall that certain charges in Nanaimo last year were not laid by the prosecutors because although the RCMP asked for charges, the matters didn't meet the charge approval standard, so they did not proceed. That's my perception, and I met with the hon. Attorney General's staff at the time to try to understand it in more detail.
But that charge approval standard is not really addressed specifically in this bill. I'm most interested in seeing that we get strong wording around section 6(1)(c) to make it effective, so people can be given honest reasons on why charges are not proceeded with. Will the prosecutor involved be expected to be giving these explanations himself or herself to the families and victims in general? How are victims going to receive this information -- in writing or, depending on the nature of the information, verbally? I think we need to know what the Attorney General has in mind for guidance on these standards.
[5:45]
The information pamphlet from the Attorney General ministry on this bill states clearly that upon request, information will be provided by the appropriate personnel on the reasons why no charges were laid, in the event that none are laid. I think this is very good news, and I'm keen to see how some standards are going to be set to make this section work.
Briefly, on one other section -- section 7 -- I think it is also going to need to be examined in quite a bit of detail in committee. When we start providing information on whether offenders will be on supervised probation, parole, temporary terminal absences or whatever they're out on, I gather from this act that we're going to have to let victims know if the offender might be in their area or out of it -- whether they're out of custody. I guess the question is: why restrict this information to victims only?
In British Columbia just last year we had a high-profile case, the Danny Perrault case. The victim in the Danny Perrault case was not a former victim, yet she became a victim. Why could there not be a wider sharing of information for all members of the public instead of having loose standards on where individuals go on temporary absence and on custody arrangements when they're held in provincial corrections facilities? How can the system today ever say with any certainty where an offender will be when they're loose? I think we need to look closely at what the Attorney General is trying to do with section 7 and how effective it can possibly be, compared to the standards that are in place today.
The Attorney General claims that we are in the lead with this bill. In wrap-up in second reading, it would be useful for the minister to indicate where other jurisdictions with such legislation are in North America and where models exist to base this legislation on. I think that would be worth looking at in detail. I think a key concern about the bill is that it applies only to provincial jurisdiction. That's not a weakness inherent in the bill, but it's a weakness that we have to address as a larger society, because parts of the legislation apply only to sentences under provincial jurisdiction, which are cases where an offender is sentenced to less than two years in prison. The result is that victims are not entitled by law to receive the kind of information that is prescribed under this act if they're victims of the kinds of horrific, painful crimes that families
[ Page 15693 ]
and victims' families sometimes come under, for which sentences are federal. Sentences for these crimes usually merit more than two years, and that puts them under federal jurisdiction, of course.
So this legislation deals with provincial jurisdiction, provincial concerns. Hopefully, it's not simply of symbolic value, and we can persuade the federal government to take this step as well. It would be interesting to know if the Attorney General has had discussions with his counterpart, Alan Rock, the Minister of Justice, to see if the federal government is prepared to pass similar legislation affecting victims of crimes that come under federal jurisdiction.
One example came up just this weekend that I think shows a concern that we have to have. It deals with a report in the Times Colonist newspaper on Saturday which states that the privacy of conversations between sexual assault victims and their counsellors has been put to the test in Canada's highest court. The issue deals with counsellors of sexual assault victims having their records being open to those who are accused of sexual assault.
We have to start dealing finally in British Columbia with the issue of whether victims and the families of victims of crime have any rights. If they do have rights, enshrining them in this kind of legislation has some merit. But it's not going to solve the problem, because there are still those out there, particularly at the federal level, who are seeking to continue to move the pendulum further in the direction of the rights of criminals.
This bill is a good step in the right direction. I look forward to committee stage, when the Attorney General will, I'm sure, be interested in answering many specific questions about whether this bill is of more than symbolic value.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise and say a few words in support of Bill 37, the Victims of Crime Act. The Attorney General talked about an important component of the bill. I do agree that the expanded definition of victims to include parents, children, spouses, family members or those who act as parents was needed, to give some more credibility to the whole issue of victim services. This will allow close family members to get information about the progress of cases through the courts, the location of the accused, and the release date, in terms of supervision of the release or parole of offenders.
I can tell you that in the case of Alan Winters which has just recently been settled here in the province, if this kind of information had been available, that particular case would have had a far different outcome. As a matter of fact, there are a number of initiatives that members of the family and the victims themselves are now having to go through and to enact in a very lengthy and costly way to have some resolution of this particular case.
I also welcome the victim impact statements that must be presented in court now. There appears to be a policy that the Attorney General's ministry has in regard to this, but the legislation will give force and effect to this practice that is now in the Crown offices.
I also believe that victims of crime should be treated as an integral part of the justice system, with rights to information, legal assistance and respect. A number of individuals, like Chuck Cadman of Surrey, Chris Simmonds of Langley, and other groups and members of the general public are to be commended for keeping this particular focus on the need for this kind of legislation in this province. That victim services must recognize and respond to the needs and concerns of the victims of crime is, I think, long overdue. Unfortunately, victims of crime will not have the same recognition and support under federal laws. I would suggest to the Attorney General that that may be another area where he and his government can lobby the federal government on our behalf, as citizens of British Columbia, regarding federal laws that affect us.
A major concern for me is the central registry for protection orders that is proposed to be in place by September 1995. It has always been my view that protection orders aren't worth the paper they're written on. During committee stage of this bill, I will be asking the Attorney General how a central registry will ensure that protection orders receive the full force of law that they deserve. There are also questions about the costs and accountability of the victim surcharge under section 9 and the special account under section 10. These need to be addressed in committee stage as well.
However, I am pleased to support the intent and principle of Bill 37.
R. Chisholm: I rise in support of Bill 37, and I commend the minister on bringing it forward. It's long overdue. Unfortunately in our society, in the past we seem to have taken care of the rights of the criminal, not the victim. It's time that that was reversed. This legislation seems to be designed to validate the role of the victim in the justice system and, among other things, to ensure that victims are fairly served and to make the justice system more accessible to victims. This can only bode well for justice in this province.
The Attorney General is very proud to bring this legislation forward, and there is quite a bit to commend in terms of moving the victim into their rightful place in the courtroom. This is a good start. We've got a long way to go, because it's taken us many years to get to where we are now. As you can see, society is very upset with our justice system and exactly where justice is in the province.
Having congratulated the Attorney General on this move, and having taken this opportunity to say that I will be supporting Bill 37, the Victims of Crime Act, I want to move on to two particular areas. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi mentioned sub-subsection 6(1)(c), which guarantees the right of a victim to information about the reasons a decision was made respecting charges. I think this is one of the most important sections in the act. It appears to be new ground as far as legislation and the legal system are concerned.
My questions, though -- and they are the same points that that member brought forward -- are about the fact that once again we seem to be running into the Young Offenders Act. This provincial legislation from the Attorney General says: "Subject to the Young Offenders Act (Canada) and insofar as this does not prejudice an investigation or prosecution of an offence, justice system personnel must arrange, on request, for a victim to obtain information on the following matters relating to the offence...." This is great, but the problem is that the words are still there, and the Young Offenders Act seems to be overruling that. We need to explore with the Attorney General in committee how he is going to impose this requirement on federal authorities, who work
[ Page 15694 ]
under the federal act. Also, we need to know what the standard will be for prejudice of an investigation or prosecution, and how will this standard be addressed by ministerial letter.
Another thing I don't see -- and as I said, this is a good start -- is where this bill ensures that the criminal pays. We see where society is paying for the criminal's action, but the criminal is still not paying. It doesn't make any statement about that particular situation.
Now, if we take a look at the other things that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi talked about in regard to this charge approval standard, I have had some of the same concerns. I wonder whether, if you take a look at the Bernardo case, they would have come to trial -- these types of things. So I'd like to go into that with the minister, too.
I would like to see, too, under section 7.... The Attorney General will know that because we have so many corrections facilities in close proximity to Chilliwack, we all feel like victims of crime when things go wrong during periods of escape, parole, day passes and temporary absences. Very briefly, I support the matters raised by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi when he talked about broadening the definition of the intention of information-sharing under section 7 of this act, which would allow for the full community to know about the status of offenders when they are on the loose. After all, when you have that many prisons in your community or in close proximity to your community, you do have these problems. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be in this act.
During committee stage, I will argue for this with the Attorney General. I hope that he has an open mind about this particular scenario and warn him now that the public needs more information in general. There needs to be a daily bulletin available to communities in terms of who is on the loose and under what circumstances. It should be generally and widely available, with photographs. If you lived anywhere close to the Chilliwack River valley, you would understand that. If you lived close to Chilliwack, Matsqui or Abbotsford, you'd understand these concerns.
There's an opportunity here to go farther than the Attorney General had intended; there is an opportunity here to do that, to make our communities more comfortable and to protect society in general. I urge the Attorney General to consider amendments in committee stage that would allow for this, because I think these are positive recommendations. Hopefully, he will take these into consideration.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate, and reserve my right to open debate when it resumes.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:56 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $432,868 (continued).
W. Hurd: I just want to revisit a couple of elements of discussion in the opening evening of these estimates debates on Forests. It relates to the minister's speech on a 2020 Vision for the future of B.C.'s forest sector. I note that reference is made in that release to a set of targets for the year 2020. Since we all know the rotation period for the resource ranges anywhere from 70 years to 100 years, 2020 is actually a shorter time frame than it appears.
I wonder if the minister would take this opportunity to outline for the committee what kinds of targets we're dealing with here for the year 2020. The minister will recall that the speech did attract a great deal of media interest, and there were suggestions of job targets. I wonder if the minister could take a few minutes to outline the thrust of the speech and the kinds of targets we're dealing with for the year 2020.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be delighted to respond. First, for the benefit of the member, I will introduce Gerry Armstrong, the deputy minister, who is with me today, and also two officials who were here last day: Bob Friesen, executive director of operations, and Harry Powell, assistant deputy minister of management services.
I used the 2020 Vision speech at the Price Waterhouse conference as an opportunity to put forward a vision for the future, based on the policy framework this government has put in place. I firmly believe, and this government believes, that if we are to regain our position in terms of having a secure sustainable resource, we have to look to the future; we have to establish some goals or targets. So through that speech, I was suggesting that having established a framework of land use plans, the land use certainty of a Forest Practices Code and a timber supply analysis, it was now appropriate, given that framework, to think forward and use the resources of Forest Renewal and other investments to establish some targets for the future. The speech set forth the notion of targets not only in respect of the resource, but also in respect of environmental values and employment.
The member's question was in respect of resource. What I suggested was that with the resources in the framework we now have, we should start to work collectively to establish targets for the years ahead. I made an invitation, as I have made subsequently to the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee and others throughout the industry, to work cooperatively now to establish that set of targets for the next ten, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years.
[3:00]
During the course of the speech, I said that based on the information I had, and the work that had been done by the
[ Page 15695 ]
Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee and the resources that were now available under the forest renewal plan, it was my personal belief that by the year 2020 we could achieve a target at least as great as the current level of cut -- that is, about 70 million cubic metres. That's a personal view. What I was stating through the speech was an invitation to the industry to sit down and work with the numbers we now have, through the timber supply review on the resource and the opportunities that exist under the forest renewal plan and through land use planning for intensive silviculture, etc., to establish a firmer set of targets than the one I was able to offer.
With the resources we have, I believe we can achieve that target by the year 2020. Some would say we could do better; however, it's my view that we could do at least that well. The member is right; that is not a long period of time in terms of the rotation, the age of trees and the harvest that we are talking about. But through incremental silviculture and different forms of forest management -- looking to different species of hardwood trees and looking at operability lines and pushing them out through new technologies -- I think one can, even within that time frame, ensure that we maintain the level of cut we now enjoy, or rather regain it, because there is some downward pressure right now. So it was in that context, the context of a vision and an invitation to work on that vision, that I made the suggestion to work towards targets and suggested a target of 70 million cubic metres by the year 2020.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether, in this 2020 Vision, there is a proposed plan for private sector silvicultural investment -- enhanced forest management regimes for current long-term forest licensees, woodlot operators and tree farm licensees. Is that type of investment, which is incremental and different from the forest renewal plan, a target under this proposed 2020 Vision? Is it something the ministry intends to pursue diligently -- to see at a certain point in time, in five years or ten years, not only the public sector investment through the forest renewal plan, but also, more importantly, the opportunities that exist to increase the annual allowable harvest over the short term in exchange for an enhanced forestry regime, which would, over time, allow that cut to be maintained? Is that part of the 2020 Vision as well, or is the ministry convinced that those types of opportunities are not going to be pursued over the short term, when clearly they're needed?
Hon. A. Petter: I might want some clarification from the member. Certainly the timber supply review process and the determination of annual allowable cut by the chief forester involved input from a number of different sources, but ultimately the level of cut is made by the chief forester in accordance with his best judgment as to what a sustainable rate of cut is. I have provided to the chief forester the socioeconomic objectives of the Crown, which include the forest renewal plan and, where there is discretion, the objective that he minimize the reduction, particularly in the short term, so that we can put in place the kinds of investment strategies that will increase the cut over the long term.
In the longer time frame, the investment strategy that I've talked about, and is referenced in this speech, will produce its own reward -- namely, as we demonstrate that we can get greater rates of growth and yield. And we're already demonstrating that, I might say, on second-growth stands. Some of the work that's already taking place on paired-plot analyses and other research, much of which will now be taken up and expanded under the forest renewal plan, is showing that in fact we have some more optimistic opportunities out there in second-growth stands to increase our growth and yield. That information will then come to the chief forester in future timber supply reviews and will hopefully have the beneficial effect of persuading him that he can start to view the timber supply as increasing -- or at worst, not decreasing to the extent that might now seem to be the case.
With respect to how this process is to work, if these targets are to be achieved, it's clearly not enough to simply wish a target. What I was suggesting to industry and to those in government and elsewhere is that we have to work together on a concerted strategy. We have to use all the opportunities that are available to us. That means government has to examine policies like its salvage policy, which the ministry is now doing to encourage greater utilization of timber resources through greater salvage opportunities. We've got to look at the kind of research I just referenced to see where we might see higher rates of growth and yield. We've got to look at opportunities to move into stands that previously might not have been viewed as part of the timber harvesting base -- for example, stands that are seen as problem forest types. In some cases, those stands can be harvested, and then that part of the land base will form part of our future timber harvesting base. The way the timber supply review process works right now, where there is a problem of forest type, it's excluded not only from the short-term but from the long-term harvesting base. All those opportunities have to be looked at, and policies have to be reviewed in light of maximizing those opportunities. Investments under Forest Renewal B.C. have to be targeted to ensure that we take full advantage of the benefits that incremental silviculture and other technological achievements can produce. At the same time, the private sector should, in my view, play a supportive and contributing role, particularly on private land where incremental investments can produce tremendous benefits -- although the figure I gave was in reference to Crown land. All of those things need to be done in concert, and if they are done, then the target that I have set out and the target process can be achieved.
W. Hurd: I'm sure the minister is aware that there are some specific opportunities in the province that lend themselves to immediate increases in the annual allowable harvest in exchange for immediate investments. The tree farm licence that often comes to mind is TFL 35 in Kamloops, where the company was successful in convincing the ministry that as a result of a series of intensive forest management investments, the annual allowable harvest should in fact be increased by 50,000 cubit metres or somewhere in that vicinity.
TFL 35, as the minister knows, is an average soil type in the interior. It's not particularly spectacular, as I understand it. That clearly invites a comparison to other areas of the interior and British Columbia, where similar gains could be achieved in exchange for an enhanced silvicultural regime. The minister will know that one of the disincentives is the fact that the companies, the licensees and the woodlot owners on public land have to incur the expense over the short term in order to achieve those kinds of yields. Without an agreement from the ministry, it's very difficult to justify the expense. I wonder if the ministry intends to look at the example of TFL 35, recognizing that spectacular results can be achieved. Will it also
[ Page 15696 ]
look at other tree farms in the province and give consideration to dramatically expanding that opportunity to increase the annual allowable harvest over the short term in exchange for quite a substantial investment in intensive forest management?
Hon. A. Petter: The member may well be right that the soil types in tree farm licence 35 are typical. What isn't typical, unfortunately, about tree farm licence 35, but is very relevant to this discussion, is the age-class distribution within that tree farm. Because there was a fairly even age-class distribution -- that is to say, there were, within the tree farm, varying ages of trees and a fairly even form -- an incremental increase that would increase the amount of fibre available 80 years from now had a domino beneficial effect forward. It moved the wood forward so that there could be an increase right now that didn't compromise long-term sustainability. There was no exception from the approach taken by the chief forester and the timber supply review. Under tree farm licence 35, it was a happy event that the age-class distribution of timber within that tree farm was such that an investment that would produce benefits in growth 80 years from now would, in a sense, domino forward and therefore could allow for an increase in harvesting in the short term.
Unhappily, that is not the situation in many -- indeed, most -- tree farm licences in the province. In many we see a trough effect; that is, age classes are not evenly distributed. Certain age classes, particularly in the 30- to 60-year age range, are depleted to the point that when you make an investment that will have a benefit in 80 years, all it does is fill in the trough 30 or 40 years from now; it doesn't produce an increase in the short term. That is one of the dilemmas the government faced. How do you encourage people to make investments, even within area-based tenures, if there are not immediate benefits from those investments and the benefits may be as far away as 40, 50 or 80 years? The answer we came up with was the forest renewal plan.
Maybe the member would like to rethink his position on the forest renewal plan. It was precisely because of this difficulty that we determined that it was essential that government, as a land owner, play a central role in directing that investment. Typically, companies by themselves would not find themselves in the situation that Weyerhaeuser found itself in in tree farm licence 35. They would not have the immediate benefits from the long-term investment that Weyerhaeuser gained in that tree farm licence. Therefore what do you do about that situation? What we said we would do is capture a larger amount of rent through stumpage and provide that incentive by offering the companies the opportunity to use that as funding from Forest Renewal to make incremental investments they themselves might not make for the very reason I have given.
Perhaps if the member now understands the problem -- that tree farm licence 35 is not typical in this regard and that even within area-based tenures we have the problem that companies will not benefit in the short term without some public pump-priming, if I can put it that way, through Forest Renewal B.C. -- he will reconsider his position on Forest Renewal.
I might say, however, just in closing, that where these opportunities do exist, where we do have an even age-class distribution, or even within timber supply areas -- that is, volume-based tenures -- where there are companies that believe they can make incremental investments that will produce immediate benefits, we are exploring every avenue to encourage that to happen. Unfortunately, because of overharvesting in the past, because we didn't maintain even age-stand distribution in the past, that is not a typical situation.
W. Hurd: This touches on an issue that we raised during the opening evening of estimates, and that is the dramatic difference between investments in silviculture on private lands in the province and those investments in a variety of forest licences. If the minister's argument were true, what rationale can the ministry offer as to why, on privately managed forests lands in British Columbia, there's a significantly higher rate of investment in intensive forest management?
I'm sure the minister has seen papers by Dr. Clark Binkley at UBC and Dr. Peter Pearse, who produced charts and graphs that show the disparity in investment. If these figures are accurate, clearly there has to be a link between security of investment and silvicultural excellence. I would suggest to the minister that one of the biggest problems we have is the licensing system, which doesn't necessarily recognize that somebody who makes the incremental investment will be around to reap the benefits in 80 years or so. Therefore there's not a lot of incentive to make the investments.
I wonder if the minister can tell us why he believes there's such a dramatic difference in the investment on privately managed forest lands compared to what's being achieved in the public realm. Does the minister have a target to try and close that considerable gap? Clearly the people who own land believe that by making the investments, despite the age of their stands and what not, they can achieve a real return on investment.
Hon. A. Petter: First, I should say that there are different accounts and different views on exactly how great a difference there is. I'm aware of the study that the member refers to, through staff, and I understand there are also other views of that. Be that as it may, I would be the last to deny that there's been a problem in getting investment into incremental forestry on Crown lands.
In fact, the whole point of Forest Renewal is to achieve exactly that, which is why I continue to be perplexed at the member's stubborn opposition to that initiative. That is in fact the landowner -- namely, the Crown on behalf of the public -- saying, in respect to Crown land, exactly what the member says private landowners are saying in respect to private land -- namely, we've got to invest incrementally to ensure a return in the future.
If the member wants me to comment on some of the barriers I think have existed in the past on Crown land, I think there has been a range of barriers. One is a lack of public support by the landowner, namely the Crown, for such investment. Also, the member raises the issue of the tenure system. I fully agree that the tenure system is a problem to the extent that we have large numbers of volume-based tenures in which one tenure holder makes an incremental investment, the benefit of which is then distributed among all tenure holders, diminishing the incentive for that one tenure holder to make that investment. What economists call a free-rider problem arises in those kinds of circumstances.
[3:15]
In addition, I think there may well be difficulties on Crown land in the sense that people do not view their tenure
[ Page 15697 ]
sufficiently secure to be satisfied, as a private company, that they will reap the return -- if and when that return comes. This is particularly the case if you have the problem of not being able to distribute the benefits evenly because of a trough in timber supply, as I alluded to earlier. That is precisely why it's essential that the landowner, namely the Crown, play a central role; that is precisely why Forest Renewal was pursued.
The disparity the member correctly identifies -- although it may not be as great at the member suggests -- can be corrected by the landowner of the Crown land, namely the public, taking unto itself, through Forest Renewal, a cooperative leadership role with private sector industry to make sure the same level of investment, or maybe even a greater level of investment, is realized on Crown land. That's why forest renewal does involve the government as a key leader and why I do not believe this initiative would succeed if it were simply left to the private sector.
Again, I hope that the member, having rethought this matter, would therefore reconsider his position on the forest renewal plan, which is precisely designed to deal with the difficulty that he has referred to.
W. Hurd: Referring to the forest renewal plan, given the impacts of investment growth and yields that can be achieved with intensive forest management, why wouldn't the full $500 million that's in the forest renewal plan and the $2 billion being expended be tied more directly to investments that can increase the annual allowable harvest over time?
This is the problem that not only the opposition but also others who applied for funding under the forest renewal plan have. As the minister has indicated, they find that there are five envelopes of investment, some of which have little or nothing to do with direct investment in the land base. I'm thinking, for example, of the investment of $1 million to establish a wood-design chair at a Kootenay college -- perhaps a laudable objective to provide expertise in value-added technology, but, again, taking us far away from the direct investments and the land base, which the minister has acknowledged needs to be done to close that gap between the public and private forest lands in the province. Why wouldn't this Crown corporation, in terms of its own auditing and monitoring procedures, tie investments directly to increases in the yield and close the gap to which the minister has alluded?
Hon. A. Petter: Some of this territory was covered last year during the debate on Forest Renewal, but I'm happy to briefly repeat it. The investment envelopes in Forest Renewal were a product of more than a year's work of the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, which looked at a strategy to increase value throughout the forest sector. What we are talking about here is a major initiative in the direction of value-added.
Increasing the return from the land base is, I would say, the most important part of that value-added strategy. Increasing the value of the resource in the ground is the most important part of that value-added strategy. But it clearly isn't the entirety of what is a comprehensive value-added strategy, because in addition to increasing the value of our forest resource as standing timber, we must also attend to the fact that we have not achieved sufficient value from our resource, once it has been cut down and processed.
So the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee came up with an overall strategy in which it viewed a target of $400 million a year for incremental revenue for new investments. The committee said that half of that -- $200 million a year -- should be devoted directly into land based investments, because after reviewing considerable evidence and research, that $200 million a year was the optimal amount to move forward on a major land based investment.
Having said that, much of the remaining $200 million a year is directed at what I would call compatible or supportive initiatives. Part of skills training, for example, is to provide forest workers and others with the training they need to engage in that incremental investment, whether it is incremental silviculture, commercial thinning, looking at new forms of operability so that we can maximize the resource or using hardwoods. A lot of that research and development in skills, which is contained in other envelopes, is going to support the very thing that the member requests, which is that we invest in the land. So the $200 million is in direct investments, and a considerable amount of the rest of the investment is to support that, part of it in skills, part of it in R and D.
On the environmental envelope, what's called watershed restoration has benefits for the forest land base. When we bring forest roads that have caused slides back into the forest land base because of watershed restoration products, that does not show up as part of the $200 million envelope but as part of the environmental envelope. The benefit is, nevertheless, directly to the forest land base, because when you take areas that have incurred slides, if you reclaim and then replant those areas, you are indeed expanding the forest land base there as well. There again we see another component of the overall plan directly related to what the member is referring to.
Having said that, there are components of the overall $400 million that are directed at increasing the value we get from the resource once it has been harvested. I hope the member doesn't think that this is an unimportant or secondary goal in terms of achieving the maximum return in jobs and income to this province.
The chair of industrial wood design at Kootenay School of the Arts gave a recommendation that came directly out of a value-added-wood conference in Creston, that we need to increase our indigenous or domestic design capacity so that we can start to take advantage of opportunities that exist in value-added manufacturing.
The investment that Forest Renewal has made in a training institute for value-added training of technicians, experts, entrepreneurs and others to engage in value-added processing is another key component of that. It isn't either-or. The forest renewal plan is large enough and imaginative enough and forward thinking enough to encompass that end of the value-added commitment, as well as the forest land base end. But the forest land base side of it is the major focus of not only the $200 million envelope but of other supportive envelopes as well.
W. Hurd: With respect to the applications for funding under the forest renewal plan, is it accurate that 30 percent to 40 percent of those applications are coming directly from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests? Are they applying directly for funding to the board?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member needs to distinguish between who initiates proposals and the benefit of those. In
[ Page 15698 ]
the first year or so, with Forest Renewal having been in place for just a year, there is a need to generate proposals from the private sector. The private sector hasn't had sufficient lead time, although I'm happy to report that private sector proposals are now starting to come in to a much greater extent. In that period, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment have generated a considerable number of proposals for watershed restoration and for incremental silviculture on Crown lands to bring before Forest Renewal.
I want to distinguish between that and the fact that that doesn't mean the proposals go to benefit government workers; they do not. They go to benefit forest workers in the companies which take advantage of those proposals that are brought forward. Because work had already been done within those ministries as part of the forest sector strategy initiative and as part of ongoing work for incremental silviculture and watershed restoration, yes, in the first year the ministries have instigated many of the proposals that have come to the board to deal with this startup period. The hope is that over time more of those proposals will come forward from the private sector.
W. Hurd: As the minister is aware -- and he will correct me if I'm erroneous in my memory -- I understand that the investments under Forest Renewal B.C. are required to be incremental to the budgets of the Ministry of Forests. One of the concerns expressed to me as the critic is that we might get into a grey area here, where the proposals that are coming forward from the ministries may in fact not be incremental to the ministry budgets.
I wonder if the minister could describe for the committee the checks and balances or the interference in place to allay the concerns people have that there is no clear delineation between the ongoing activities of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, which are funded by a vote of the Legislative Assembly, and the activities of Forest Renewal B.C.
Given the fact that we're into this interim period where proposals are coming forward from the respective ministries, I wonder if he could describe what parameters exist within the two ministries -- perhaps only his own ministry -- that would require proof that the investments are incremental.
Hon. A. Petter: I can tell the member that the board of Forest Renewal is incredibly vigilant on this issue. The member is absolutely correct: Forest Renewal is intended to provide incremental funding -- funding beyond what would normally take place through normal government action. Forest Renewal has focused on incremental silviculture as opposed to basic silviculture. Obviously there are grey areas, but I can tell you that the board has been very vigilant in ensuring that the kinds of projects that are funded are ones that the board is satisfied do not fall within the ordinary responsibilities or expectations of the ministries concerned. This has been a major focus of the board.
I would also say that it's important from the government's point of view. We will not get the gains that we believe Forest Renewal can produce unless these programs are indeed incremental. I might add that we also have to be vigilant on the industry side to make sure that industry activities being funded through Forest Renewal are truly incremental and that it's not simply a matter of absorbing existing costs. I can assure the member that that is examined at each and every step of the way to ensure that the kind of activity taking place is beyond that which has in the past been normally expected of either the public or the private sector.
W. Hurd: The opposition also notes the rather interesting makeup of the board. Three ministers of the Crown, including the Minister of Environment, Minister of Forests and, I understand, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, as well as a deputy minister in the Premier's Office and the Deputy Minister of Forests sit on the board. I wonder if the minister can possibly explain to the committee his rationale for having that many direct representatives of cabinet and the government sitting on the board of Forest Renewal B.C.
Hon. A. Petter: Forest Renewal is a partnership agency; it's a partnership among the various players. It also involves an important partnership between government and the private sector. What we did for Forest Renewal was create an agency that is broadly representative of groups in the community and bring onto the board representatives of government who have key interests and responsibilities in respect of forest issues. I think the mix has been really extraordinary. To see a board composed of leading environmentalists, leading representatives of large and small industry, workers, first nations and communities working around a table with ministers and deputy ministers in a cooperative way is really groundbreaking. It signals that we are in fact moving well ahead in this province, away from the legacy of confrontation toward a more cooperative vision, one in which public lands are managed by government, as they must be, but on a partnership basis with all stakeholders through Forest Renewal B.C. and with the goal to make incremental investments on that land and pursue the other objectives of forest renewal.
W. Hurd: The opposition also notes that the ministry is providing administrative costs for Forest Renewal B.C. I wonder if the minister could advise us whether in fact they are funding administrative costs and how much they might be. Could he describe for the committee the nature of the administrative work being done by the ministry on behalf of Forest Renewal B.C.?
Hon. A. Petter: The member has it backwards. If, as a result of forest renewal activities, there is an additional administrative burden on the ministry that can truly be seen as incremental -- something that would not have occurred but for Forest Renewal B.C. -- then there is an arrangement whereby Forest Renewal B.C. will compensate the ministry for that additional administrative burden. That adheres very strictly and clearly to the line that Forest Renewal B.C. has set between incremental and non-incremental. The idea -- as the member will recall, because we debated this at some length -- is for Forest Renewal B.C. not to become a large bureaucracy or agency, but to keep it as small as it can be kept, recognizing, on the other hand, that there is a desire for regional representation and access. One way of doing that is for Forest Renewal B.C. to utilize other agencies, including the Ministry of Forests. But where they do so, and where that is an incremental activity for the ministry, there is an arrangement to compensate the ministry for any incremental administrative costs.
W. Hurd: Given the minister's acknowledgment that during the interim period some 30 percent of all proposals are
[ Page 15699 ]
being forwarded from the ministry, clearly in the first few years there would be a huge administrative burden on the ministry to forward those proposals and in some way audit or monitor their progress. I wonder if the minister, under this set of estimates, can advise us how much the ministry is expecting to bill Forest Renewal B.C. for the large number of projects, which the minister has acknowledged have come forward during this fiscal year, that are directly attributable to initiatives by the Ministry of Forests.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me correct the misapprehension the member has, and then if he wants to follow up with a more specific question, I'd be happy to answer.
[3:30]
The actual generation of these proposals is not something that, for the most part, Forest Renewal B.C. has compensated the ministry for. In many cases, these were proposals that the ministry had been working on prior to Forest Renewal B.C. in the hope that there might be further investment -- for example, for the FRDA program or other incremental opportunities. Therefore it isn't the cost of generating the proposals that has placed an additional administrative burden on the ministry; it has been more the cost of planning and approving proposals. The member can appreciate that where there is a new proposal for incremental silviculture, that proposal has to go through a planning and approval process within the ministry. The influx of new plans and approvals required to deal with the initiatives that Forest Renewal B.C. has approved has placed an additional administrative burden on the ministry. It is that incremental expenditure that, for the most part, accounts for the increased administrative load on the ministry, not the initiation of the projects, which is not something that has attracted much in the way of offsetting payment to the ministry.
W. Hurd: The fact that these investments or projects have been on the books of the ministry for a while invites considerable debate as to what is incremental and what isn't.
The minister will be aware of the ministry's obligations under the small business program. In terms of the projects that have been developed or initiated for Forest Renewal B.C, can he tell us what percentage of them might be attributable to the silvicultural obligations of the ministry under the small business program?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is none. Any obligation that exists in the ministry as a result of legislation or its administrative responsibilities is not eligible for Forest Renewal B.C. funding.
W. Hurd: I'll have to re-read Hansard on that answer. The minister has indicated that none of the projects that have come forward is related to the small business program.
I have one brief question with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. I wonder how much is coming back to the ministry during the coming fiscal year for costs. Is there a figure that's available, based on the project list that's been submitted, or is it something that the ministry doesn't have a handle on yet and can provide at a later date?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have those numbers at hand. I'll be happy to try to get them. I understand they are to be part of the business plan. I am anxiously waiting, as I'm sure the member is, for it to be tabled in the House so that it can be referred to the legislative committee. I hoped they would have been tabled for that purpose by now; apparently, they haven't been. We're certainly encouraging Forest Renewal B.C. to get that plan to the Legislature so the committee can review it. I'll be happy to get the best figure that we have as a ministry for the member.
Just to clarify the previous answer, if the member goes back to Hansard, I think he will see that he phrased his question previously to Forest Renewal B.C. dollars to pay for MOF obligations under the small business program. Anything that constitutes an obligation or requirement of the Ministry of Forests under the small business program would not be eligible for Forest Renewal B.C. funding. Only things that extend beyond the basic silvicultural obligations of any licensee, be it the Ministry of Forests through the small business program or a private licence holder, are eligible for Forest Renewal B.C. funding.
W. Hurd: Just to set the record straight, I will rephrase my question. Even though there is no money going into the silvicultural obligations, there is money going into lands that were harvested under the small business program. There are projects that Forest Renewal B.C. is involved in that are on lands which I would assume received a basic level of silviculture treatment by the ministry. These projects are incremental to those silvicultural obligations the ministry has under the SBFEP.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, it gets a little tricky. The small business program tends to operate in areas in which the tenures are volume-based. Where that is the case, yes, there is certainly.... Within timber supply areas, for example, in which the small business program operates along with forest licence holders and others, there have been incremental investments. I can try to get a breakdown of those kinds of situations, plus others. The benefits of those incremental investments would be shared equally among those in the timber supply area, unless the minister apportioned.... I suppose it would be a question of apportionment over time. Generally they would be shared equally among all those who operate within the timber supply area.
While it's true that companies have certain chart areas and the small business program may have chart areas, I'm sure the member can appreciate that the gains made due to incremental investment within timber supply areas are not particular to the company based on whether the investment was in its chart area or not. They are gains that are shared among all licence holders within the timber supply area, including the small business program.
It's hard to break down what is small business and what isn't. The key is that all the investments made are investments that go beyond the obligations of either the small business program or other tenure holders within the timber supply area.
W. Hurd: I just have one other question related to the projects that are initiated by the ministry with Forest Renewal B.C. The minister has acknowledged the vigilance of the Forest Renewal B.C. board in requiring or demanding that investments be incremental. Can the minister advise whether the deliberations of the board which demonstrate a project is
[ Page 15700 ]
incremental...? Is that information shared with the public in any way so that they can have the assurance that these are not ministry obligations but incremental investments? I raise this because there is some concern out there that that, in fact, may not be the case. I think the board would probably welcome the opportunity, if there were a public controversy somewhere in the province, to be able to open the books and demonstrate to a complainant that this was an incremental investment under the spirit of the legislation, with the ongoing evidence to document that.
Hon. A. Petter: The board has done considerable work in trying to define incrementality, and I know that that work has found its way, in one form or another, into the public arena. For example, the board recently put out a request for proposals which, I think, identified the criteria and eligibility for incremental investments and defined incrementality. I suspect the business plan, once tabled, will also do that. If the member is looking for a more specific enunciation of what the definition is and how it is applied, I'd be more than happy as a board member to get that for him. Or, he could contact the chair or CEO of Forest Renewal. I'm sure that they would happy to assist as well.
There is certainly no secret about the board's determination in this regard, or its criteria. If the member wants, I'd be quite happy to facilitate his getting that information and sharing it with the public. It is in everyone's interest that the public have confidence that this program is being used to expand the investments taking place in the province, not to substitute for investments that would otherwise have taken place.
W. Hurd: Maybe I could just shift away from Forest Renewal B.C. for the moment and ask some brief questions about the annual allowable harvest and the log supply in British Columbia -- something we also touched on briefly during the opening evening. I wonder if the minster could tell us whether his ministry regularly monitors the flow of fibre into the province from other jurisdictions. The minister will probably be aware that this year records were set in terms of the import of logs from other jurisdictions. I notice that Mr. Charles Widman of Widman Management, at the recent Price Waterhouse conference, indicated that two million cubic metres of logs from Alberta had flowed into British Columbia last year. I would assume there was a significant volume from the Yukon and perhaps from Alaska. Given the fact that the manufacturing plants in British Columbia appear to be depending on this imported fibre to a great extent, I wonder whether any effort is being made to project the flow of fibre, or is that totally the responsibility of the private sector?
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the flow of timber into the province is not monitored as closely as the flow of logs out of the province. I mentioned last day that there is tremendous vigilance shown through an independent committee to ensure that we do not export raw logs from the province, except in extraordinary circumstances. In general terms I'm confident, based on briefings that I have had, that the trade and economic branch of the ministry and others do keep tabs on the flow of timber into the province. Obviously we are concerned, from the point of view of ensuring stability within the industry, to understand the extent of reliance. If the member want to know more specifically how that is monitored and with what regularity, I'd have to get back to him. It's certainly not with the same regularity as the flow of wood out of the province.
W. Hurd: I guess the only concern I would express is that there appear to be timber supply areas in British Columbia that are becoming increasingly reliant and dependent on logs brought in from Alaska and from Alberta. Two million cubic metres from Alberta alone is a significant amount of cut, and I would commend to the minister the concern that has been expressed to me: that if that flow were to be cut off suddenly, as a result of legislative changes elsewhere or any other reason, it would invite some serious timber supply shortages and resulting downtime in sawmills. I would hope that the minister could get back to us at a later date with respect to what efforts are being made to monitor this flow of wood into the province. Is there any expectation of the amount being reduced, increased or staying the same for the coming fiscal year?
I also want to ask the minister about the study being done by the Forest Alliance of British Columbia that is seeking to measure definitively the cumulative impacts of various initiatives on the forest land base -- such as the land use plans for the Cariboo, the Kootenays and the impact of the Forest Practices Code. I think it's an important study being done by the Forest Alliance, and obviously one that is going to cost a considerable amount of money. Could the minister tell us whether there's a companion study of any type going on within the ministry that would be available to corroborate the numbers being generated by the Forest Alliance of B.C.? Does the minister see a need to have some sort of information in writing so as to respond to the study to indicate what measures might be undertaken to alleviate it? I wonder if there's any work being done in that area.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there's certainly work being done in that area. In the land use planning exercise, each land use plan assessed the impacts on timber supply. For example, if the member would look at the land use plan recently announced in the Kamloops area, he would find that the impacts on timber supply were carefully looked at. In that case, I'm happy to say that the long-term impacts on timber supply were positive, not negative, as a result of some of the recommendations that were adopted by government for that land use planning exercise. Wherever there have been impacts, be they positive or negative, they have been evaluated in that context.
The timber supply review, of course, has at its very heart the review of timber supply impacts due in large part to the fact that we have not kept adequate inventories in the past, and we have not maintained sustainable harvest rates in the past. We've allowed areas to be overcut so that is documented.
[3:45]
On the Forest Practices Code, certainly the ministry is very much involved in monitoring impacts as part of implementation. We were faced with various choices along the way, and the impacts of those choices were clearly considered. As I think I mentioned last day, we tried to ensure that the impacts were not cumulative but that the benefits were. Where, for example, you have a riparian area, that riparian area can go a long way to not only protecting streams but protecting biodiversity. Much of the plant and animal life on the forest floor -- indeed, a high proportion -- is represented within riparian areas.
I guess what I'd say in respect to the Forest Alliance study, which I haven't seen but I have heard a bit about, is that
[ Page 15701 ]
I'm a bit concerned if that study is not engaged in its own work, if it does not take account of some of the recent work that's been done and if it is simply a compendium of other work that's been done over the last year. Frankly, much of the work that was done last fall on the Forest Practices Code was highly speculative, and the assumptions underlying that work have proven to be incorrect. I would make the point, for example, that there was a strong reaction to some of the guide books that were released last November, particularly those on biodiversity. Some companies took from those guide books an incorrect message about where the government was going on biodiversity, and they came up with huge impacts that go well beyond anything that will result from the ultimate decisions that were made. So if the Forest Alliance has used some of these studies, which were done by certain companies and others over the course of past year and were based on hypotheses that have been proven to be incorrect in many cases, I'm concerned that they could come up with a number that is grossly inflated.
We and the chief forester are working internally to come up with an account of Forest Practices Code impacts. I am informed that overall, provincewide, those impacts will be contained within the 6 percent figure that I have discussed. Certainly there will be regional and local variations. In some cases, less than 6 percent impacts will be realized, I expect, and in other cases, it may be greater locally. Over the land base provincially, the 6 percent figure is the one that has guided us. Based on what I know, I believe we will be able to show that figure is attainable.
If others are taking information that's out of date or hypothetical, I'm concerned that they may end up with numbers that do not reflect the actual situation on the ground. I would just simply offer that caution to the member. While I'm aware of the Forest Alliance's study, I'm not aware that it is much beyond a compendium of other people's work.
W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the alliance has retained the services of Price Waterhouse to conduct the cumulative impact study. I'm sure the minister is familiar with Jack Munro, the alliance chairman, who was quoted recently as saying, with respect to the initiatives of government: "Nobody has laid one on top of the other and determined how bad our situation is going to get. Everybody senses the trouble in store for our industry except the government. It's crucial they get a handle on it as well." I'm reassured by the minister's suggestion that in fact the ministry is on top of this issue, but clearly the chairman of the Forest Alliance is less reassured that that is happening within the ministry. During the course of the current year, I hope the minister will make every effort to inform the alliance chairman of the error of his ways. When the alliance's study is released, as it surely will be -- and with considerable fanfare if it paints a rather bleak picture -- then I hope at least some effort will be made by the ministry to counteract the flow of information with more up-to-date studies on the land use plans for the Cariboo, the impacts of the code, the impact of the harvesting guidelines for low-intensity zones, etc. -- the whole range of initiatives out there.
I certainly hope the ministry will respond to the study by Price Waterhouse in a proactive way. Clearly, as the minister has indicated, it could indicate that a result of that previous body of work could be considerable public concern about the impacts of his government's policies. I know he wouldn't want that impression to be out there during an election year.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's concerns. I recently met with Mr. Munro, although not on this topic, and I look forward to the chance to be briefed on the study. As I said, what I have heard of it suggests it is a compendium rather than an original study. I'm aware that Mr. Munro is sometimes prone to hyperbole in making his point; I'm sure that's one of the reasons he endears himself to all of us in this province.
I'd be happy to assure the member and Mr. Munro that we are very sensitive to impacts. One does have to be sensitive to both the short- and long-term dimensions. For example, the timber supply review paints a rather bleak picture based on the status quo. What it suggests is that if we don't do something, we're going to see substantial reductions in timber supply over the next decades. Some have suggested that those reductions would take us from our current level of about 70 million cubic metres to about 50 million cubic metres. That's true if one doesn't factor in what one can do over that period of time to reverse that. That's where my 2020 Vision speech comes in. In that speech, I suggested that a downward trend from 70 to 50 needn't be realized if we put our shoulders to the wheel and utilize the initiatives that this government has put in place to make the investments. All that those figures tell us is what will happen if we do nothing; they don't tell us what will happen if we do something. This government has demonstrated that we are very committed to doing something to reverse those trends.
In the short term, the timber supply review reductions will be much less than that. It doesn't mean they aren't serious. In certain parts of the province they're very serious, and they threaten communities. We have to work with those communities to make sure they don't cause dislocation. But overall, within the first decade the level of reduction that is currently being painted certainly seems to me to be considerably less than 10 percent. This is a serious amount, and one we have to deal with, but it is not as bleak as people sometimes suggest by looking at where we will go if we don't take action.
The point I want to make is that this government, more than any other, has demonstrated its commitment to take that action, to get some stability on the land base, to make the incremental investments and to work with licence holders cooperatively. This will ensure that we will have a handle on the impacts of these initiatives; it will also ensure that we have an overall strategy such that our forest resource is expanded and enhanced and isn't allowed to decline, as previous governments allowed it to decline, to the point we're at today.
W. Hurd: That inevitably leads us into a discussion about the need for communication and the budget that the ministry has allocated this year for communicating with the public on forestry issues. I understand that the ministry has submitted a request for a proposal for a $1 million advertising campaign for the coming fiscal year. I wonder if the minister could confirm that there is such a proposal out there for a $1 million campaign. Could he describe for the committee the nature of the campaign -- how it can be justified and what we're actually getting for that expenditure of $1 million?
Hon. A. Petter: The ministry has participated in a request for proposals for an advertising campaign on forestry. It is less than $1 million and it is shared with another ministry and another initiative that is not related to forestry. So, in fact, the forestry share of it is considerably less than the amount the member has suggested.
[ Page 15702 ]
There is a tremendous demand on the part of the public to learn more about the forest resource and the initiatives that are underway. I think the member has alluded a number of times over the course of the past year to the degree to which communities are uncertain or uneasy about various initiatives. They may not understand them or may not have confidence in the commitment to, say, incrementality under the forest renewal plan. I think it's absolutely crucial that we provide the public with a fuller account of what has been undertaken. These are major changes; changes that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi refers to, favourably, as a revolution in forestry, and I think it behooves us to ensure that the public is aware of how these initiatives work and where to get further information on them.
The reality is that while we have done some print advertising and a bit of television in the past around the code, it isn't until one does a bit of television advertising that the public really becomes aware of the initiatives and of how to gain further information on them. For that reason, we have engaged in a request for proposals for what I think is a fairly modest campaign to inform the public on the full range of forest change initiatives that we have discussed already during these debates, and which the member has said the public has a high level of interest in and concerns about. We want to make sure those concerns are adequately addressed.
W. Hurd: Far be it for me to suggest that the decision to spend that amount of money internally has anything to do with this being the last year of the government's mandate. I wouldn't want to spoil the climate of estimates debate today by suggesting that, but maybe I could ask the minister whether there's been any incremental increase in the external advertising budget for the coming year, particularly to assist B.C. companies in counteracting the negative publicity about B.C. forest practices.
I'm sure the minister will be aware of the ads in the Los Angeles papers and the New York Times. Given the fact that the need to counteract the negative spin being put on B.C. forest practices by some environmental groups appears to be much more dramatic internationally, I wonder why the money for even that modest campaign wouldn't be expended internationally, where it could assist the customers of forest companies, who are under considerable pressure in their own countries to boycott B.C. forest products. Would the money have been better spent on that external arena than within the province of British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: This government, more than any other, has demonstrated an awareness of the international marketplace and the importance of communicating our message internationally. To that end, we have certainly worked to produce informational brochures. Some of us have travelled to key spots internationally. I have spent a good deal of my time -- and I know the Premier has of his -- dealing with press internationally and with visiting delegations. We will continue those efforts, which are, I would say, well beyond the norm of previous governments.
Frankly, the international advertising has best been undertaken, in our view, by private industry. The Forest Alliance private companies are in the best position to determine what kinds of advertising will support the industry and their markets. We certainly provide them with information, should they require it. We are prepared to work cooperatively to deal with these situations, but it is not within the purview of the Ministry of Forests or the province of British Columbia to mount a major international advertising campaign.
Having said that, I think our efforts have been extremely successful in terms of influencing international public opinion. I won't bore the member with events that I hope he is already aware of, such as the recent trip to the United Nations, some of the experiences that I had there and the positive feedback that we are starting to receive. I do think that this government, more than any other, has reached out and made key contacts, particularly with other governments. We have government-to-government relations through the government of Canada with key international stakeholders. The role of defending particular forest practices and products internationally is one that has traditionally been undertaken by the industry.
I would say that I think building confidence at home has a strong and positive international impact -- for example, some of the confidence that we have seen established at home through the protected-areas strategy translated into a recent ad by the B.C. Forest Alliance, trumpeting this government's protected-areas strategy. I think the confidence that we are starting to develop around the Forest Practices Code is starting to send positive signals that can be communicated internationally.
[4:00]
Internationally, this government takes a message forward that is somewhat different than industry's. It's about the initiatives we have undertaken and what we intend to do. Based on that, industry can certainly engage in advertising. But we believe that the initiatives we have undertaken internationally have been very successful in their own right.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what the budget is this year for the public affairs branch? How much is being spent on advertising internally within British Columbia as opposed to externally? Is there a ratio available?
Given the difficulties we are facing internationally, I would suggest to the minister that whereas companies like MacMillan Bloedel, Fletcher Challenge and others can and should take proactive roles in advertising in Germany and the United States about the environmental sustainability of their product, surely the government, as landlord and steward of the public resource -- as the minister has indicated -- should in fact be taking an equal role. I'm sure the minister is aware that sometimes companies find it very challenging to get their message out, given the fact that they are in the forest products business and exist to earn profits for their shareholders. One would think that the ministry would have an even greater role to play to buttress the efforts of our companies abroad, particularly in Germany and the United States, where tremendous pressure is being applied to the customers of B.C. forest products to boycott their purchases.
Given that international pressure, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the budget would be for the public affairs branch. How much is being spent internally and internationally? I would suggest that there is greater international need at this point.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm pleased the member feels that we should be spending more. Actually, I'm not sure I'm pleased. I guess I'm astounded that the member thinks we should be spending more on the overall communications budget. Be that
[ Page 15703 ]
as it may, I'm informed that through cooperation with the international forestry communications program, $494,000 or about half a million dollars is the ministry's financial commitment for 1995-96. In addition, the ministry has produced various brochures and other information which is targeted for national and international distribution.
I'll tell the member quite frankly that to get into the international advertising game or enterprise can be a bottomless pit; the amounts are enormous. We have determined that our better role, a more effective role, is to use the communications links we have through the government of Canada, the ties we have with other forestry nations, direct contacts and the publicity that can be gained from those direct contacts and media outlets in other parts of the world, rather than getting into competing with self-serving environmental groups in the New York Times or some other organs of American media, for example. I'm going to get the number on the communications budget for the member as soon as it's provided to me.
On the domestic side, when one has undertaken a major program of the kind this government has -- the Forest Practices Code, the timber supply review and the forest renewal plan -- and when one realizes that there is a high level of public interest but not a high level of public knowledge, I don't think one should apologize for making information available to the public about those programs, given the extent of change that has taken place and the importance of this industry to the province of British Columbia.
W. Hurd: I didn't detect an answer there, but I will ask whether the budget for internal communications within the province has gone up during the current fiscal year. Is it up dramatically? The minister will be aware of the concern that was expressed in the Legislative Assembly about the fact that the advertising campaign may in some way dovetail with the activities of the governing party, heading into an election. I was seeking advice on how much more we're spending this year and whether strict guidelines are going to be put into place with respect to the message that would be conveyed in these pieces. Would they be consigned to strictly informing British Columbians of the facts, or is there a possibility that they might be more partisan in tone? Could the minister tell us where the budget for advertising this year is headed? Is it up, is it down or is it parallel with years in the past? If it is up, could he explain whether there are going to be parameters in place to ensure that the message is not misconstrued during an election year? I would suggest to the minister that if it is a partisan campaign, it would in some way diminish the message that he's trying to get out: that practices and procedures have indeed improved in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: The information I've been given suggests that if we exclude the fire suppression communications budget -- which is, of course, directed to that particular issue -- and take the rest of the communications budget this year, not including the international contribution I just referred to, it comes out to about $1.25 million. If anything, that is down somewhat from previous years.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware of the controversy that surrounded the activities of Karl Struble in Washington, D.C. and the fact that he was responsible for writing Ministry of Forests speeches....
An Hon. Member: A very famous British Columbian.
W. Hurd: If only he were a famous British Columbian.... But as we know, he does most of his work from Washington, D.C.
I just wonder whether the ministry had paid any of Mr. Struble's consulting costs in the past or whether they are entirely the responsibility of the Premier's Office, in connection with material that he prepared for the government's land use plans and other initiatives. I'm not sure whether he was involved in the town hall meeting, but if he was, the government may want a refund. I wonder if he could advise us whether any of those contracts or consulting fees are the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, it's my recollection of the briefing I received following the auditor general's report -- and the member will want to go back to the report and check it -- that a component of the fees that were paid to Mr. Struble came out of a Ministry of Forests contract with NOW Communications. But my recollection is also -- and I can certainly confirm this with my own knowledge -- that the auditor general confirmed that that was not known, nor could it have been known to the Ministry of Forests at the time the contract was entered into. If the member refers to the auditor general's report, I think he will find the particular reference that, in fact, a small portion of the contract price in one of the ministry's contracts with NOW did end up funding one of Mr. Struble's contracts. That fact was not known at the time of the contract and certainly was not part of the contract with the Ministry of Forests.
W. Hurd: I had a series of issues that I had hoped to be able to bring up in this set of estimates. They are sort of a disparate set of issues, but they are the kinds of matters that I'm sure routinely come to the attention of the minister, as well as the critic. I hope the appropriate staff people are here today to respond to them. If not, we can raise them at a later date.
One big issue, as the minister knows, is the situation in Clayoquot Sound and the work of the scientific panel in Clayoquot Sound. The findings have been released. They represent, as the minister will agree, major implications not only for the government but also for the licensees and the first nations, who are hopeful of harvesting timber in the sound at some point under the overall plan. One of the big concerns is the dispensation of the existing cutting permits and the fact that there appears to be almost a non-existent approval process in place right now. I wonder if the minister can advise us whether that issue has been brought to his attention.
I'm aware, for example, having received a call on Friday from a contractor in TFL 144 up there, that layoffs may be imminent at the Kennedy Lake logging division as a result of a non-existent approval process with respect to cutting permits. I wonder what is happening with respect to cutting permits in the sound, whether there is in fact a slowdown -- inadvertent or otherwise -- and whether he's aware of it. Large-scale layoffs may be pending, particularly at the Kennedy Lake logging division and elsewhere, unless the flow of approvals can be speeded up. I wonder if he has some advice for the committee on how that matter is being dealt with.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, obviously Clayoquot Sound is an area of considerable controversy -- I guess I'm trying to be the master of understatement today. I think the member is probably aware that in total about 420,000 cubic metres, not an
[ Page 15704 ]
inconsiderable amount, were cut in Clayoquot Sound last year. There were some concerns over some cutting permits in the last few months, in terms of the approval process with the joint management board. I believe those have been largely addressed and cleared up. The board has certainly approved some permits in that time frame.
I've just been informed -- maybe this is what the member is referring to -- that further concerns have cropped up in the last week or so with respect to first nations consultations, not as part of the joint management process but with respect to the ordinary process of consulting first nations around cutting permits. That is a matter of concern, and if it isn't properly addressed, it could cause difficulties. I'm also informed, however, that we are working very hard to ensure that those matters are addressed in a timely way and that cutting permits can proceed in a timely way as well.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could take a moment to explain the role of the joint management board. It's my information that the community representatives on the board, or at least the environmental representatives, are suggesting that they will withhold approval pending the government's handling of, or the government's decision on the recommendations of the scientific panel. Do they have the ability under the Clayoquot plan to do that? If they decline to offer their support, can the cutting plans proceed? Or is that approval required from the environmental members of the joint management committee? Clearly the ministry is considering the scientific panel recommendations, and I assume that process will take at least a month, perhaps longer. I wonder what steps a contractor-licensee can take if indeed there's some stalling at the level of the joint management board.
Hon. A. Petter: While I'm aware that some members of the board are obviously interested in the government's response to the scientific panel, I've not heard the suggestion the member has made that there be cessation or that the board is contemplating not carrying out its functions pending that. In fact, I'm informed that within the last week or so, the board has approved two cutting permits, B15 and C123. The goal of government is to ensure that that joint management process works. To that end, we have been working closely with the joint management board to ensure that it's getting the appropriate information in a timely way and to ensure that it is made aware of some of the time constraints and concerns. The idea of the joint management board, as the member is aware, is to provide a forum in which those within Clayoquot Sound -- both first nation and non-aboriginal people -- can have some direct participation in the management decisions that are made in respect of Clayoquot Sound. Certainly there has been work in the last few weeks with the board, and I'm pleased to say that the board has approved some cutting permits.
W. Hurd: I guess my question relates to the government's deliberations, the scientific panel and whether the board could conceivably take the position that no further permits would be issued pending the scientific panel recommendations being in place and in practice. Does the board have the ability to do that? If they do, is there any concern on the part of the minister that, as the government deliberates on the implementation of the scientific panel recommendations -- and I can understand the complexity of those deliberations -- the cutting permits may be reduced even further?
[4:15]
Can he make a commitment to the committee that none of the other peripheral issues surrounding the Clayoquot scientific panel recommendations and how they're dealt with by both the licensees and government will have any impact on the orderly flow of cutting permits being issued in Clayoquot Sound? The reason I raise it is that I have received a number of calls on impending layoffs as a result of those applications for cutting permits being delayed inordinately. I'm just seeking assurance from the minister that he has received the same concerns and is prepared to act to resolve them.
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly I've heard concerns about the timely processing of cutting permits in Clayoquot Sound, and that is a matter of ongoing concern to the ministry. As I mentioned, over 400,000 cubic metres were cut last year, and we certainly want to ensure that cutting permits are processed in a timely way. The ministry will be going back to the joint management board seeking further approvals in the next few weeks. I don't want to give credence to this hypothetical question, because it hasn't been expressed to me that the board would take such a position.
If the board were not to deal with cutting permits -- they have a 30-day period to consider them -- then the matter falls back to the ministry to deal with under the process. That is not my understanding or intention; our understanding and intention is that the board will continue to carry out its functions in the way intended and will review permits and approve permits that are satisfactory.
W. Hurd: I have a letter from the IWA Local 1-85, which suggests that the information they had in 1993 was that there would be a harvest level of about 600,000 cubic metres in Clayoquot Sound. They report that the actual cut in 1993 was 445,000. The minister talked earlier today about 220,000 cubic metres being cut last year. Is that right or is it 400...?
Hon. A. Petter: Four hundred and thirty thousand.
W. Hurd: I just wonder, given the fact that the....
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry, it's 420,000.
W. Hurd: Given the fact that the scientific panel recommendations will obviously have a major impact on the ability of those licensees and small contractors to harvest that much wood in Clayoquot Sound, what is the time frame? Can the minister tell us what the time frame is for the ministry to review the scientific panel recommendations and somehow communicate to the stakeholders in the region whether the figure of 420,000 cubic metres a year can be sustained or whether we're looking at a decline to somewhere in the region of 300,000 cubic metres, as some of the groups have reported to me?
Hon. A. Petter: We're in the process of reviewing the scientific panel's findings. I undertook to give a response by the end of this month. We will have to consider which of the findings of the scientific panel can be implemented quickly. The panel, by its own admission, has said that some of the other recommendations are experimental, innovative, require
[ Page 15705 ]
testing and may take time. So it is a matter of us responding in a way that moves forward on recommendations that can be accomplished in the shorter term and then phasing in other responses in accordance with the panel's own concerns.
I think it's also important, as the member suggests, to have as complete an understanding as one can have around the socioeconomic implications of the panel's recommendation. The panel's role was to look at the scientific basis of cutting plans. They did not take a look at the social or economic concerns that communities in the Clayoquot Sound may have. We are certainly reviewing that as well.
I may say that I've been surprised by the extent to which there has been support for the panel's findings from a broad base of groups, environmental through to industry. Some are more qualified than others, but I think it's an interesting signal. I'd be interested to hear from the member, if he would care to use the opportunity of this estimates debate to share his insights with me, as to what his views and recommendations would be in respect of how we would proceed with the Clayoquot scientific panel. I'm always open and willing to listen, and this is the time, as we're reviewing the report, for him to make his views known. I hope he wouldn't do what I know has sometimes happened in the past, where members sit back, wait for the government to make a decision and then criticize it whatever it is. Here is a chance to get in on the ground floor and share the views of his party on this very important issue. I'd be happy to receive his views, and I promise to consider them seriously.
W. Hurd: One of the wonderful things about being in government is that you have the opportunity to make commitments to people in respect to harvest levels. It's my understanding that a commitment was made in 1993 that the harvest level would be 600,000 cubic metres. It's now, I assume, down to 400,000 cubic metres. The question, really, is where we are headed. I don't know that it's a policy decision as much as concern being expressed on the part of small contractors, who log for Interfor and MacMillan Bloedel in the region, that they may not have any work.
With respect to the scientific panel's work, I wonder what the time frame might be. When does the ministry anticipate rendering a decision, given the fact that some of the licensees have expressed the view that if the panel recommendations were to be implemented in their entirety, a sustainable harvest of as little as 300,000 cubic metres, and perhaps less, would be the best that could be hoped for. That, of course, would result in serious impacts on employment.
The letter I have is from the environmental committee of IWA Local 1-85, which I'm sure was copied to the minister as well. They're asking a basic question as to whether, once the ministry completes its deliberations, there will still be a commitment to a target harvest in Clayoquot Sound.
Hon. A. Petter: The answer in terms of when the response will come is the one that I gave earlier. I anticipate that we will be responding by the end of the month to the scientific panel's report. That response, however, will have to take into account the fact that some elements of the report may require further consideration and certain elements are, as the panel itself said, untested. In respect of the AAC, there is currently a 600,000-cubic-metre attributed AAC in Clayoquot Sound. The reason that level of harvest has not been achieved is that there has been no development in some of the undeveloped watersheds that contribute to that 600,000 cubic metres of attributed AAC.
I don't think it's any secret that there has been difficulty moving forward on that; this is for a range of reasons. The companies themselves have been very cautious in coming forward with development plans, and that was one of the reasons the scientific panel was established -- to provide the measure of public confidence necessary to ensure that development throughout the sound, and in particular within the undeveloped watersheds, could proceed in a way that the public could be certain that the commitments of sustainability and good forest practices were being met.
In respect to the implications of the scientific panel's report for the level of cut, I can tell you that at the scientific panel's press conference, which I attended, the chair of the panel offered the view that while there might be short-term reductions, it was the view of the panel, based on what they knew, that over the long term the level of cut that could be attained would be no less than the current level of cut. However, that was not the central activity the panel engaged in, and I don't think that analysis by the panel was an extensive one. But that was the view offered, just to share it with the member. We are conducting our own review of those kinds of impacts, and they will certainly be part of the equation as we move forward in responding to the scientific panel's report.
W. Hurd: I just want to confirm that the socioeconomic impacts, job impacts and revenue losses to the Crown will be part of the response from the ministry to the scientific panel recommendations. I'm sure the minister is aware that some environmental groups have drawn a line in the sand with respect to the panel's recommendations. They have suggested that if they're not adopted in their totality, there could be more trouble in Clayoquot Sound in the form of blockades, etc. I am just seeking assurance from the minister that as this debate heats up, as it inevitably will, the socioeconomic costs will be part of the debate. I think it's important for us to know, for example, when we do hit a harvest level in the sound that the loss of revenue and stumpage and the loss of jobs can be clearly measured. I would just seek the assurance of the minister that those vital statistics will be available when the formal response comes at the end of the month. Otherwise we get into this ongoing debate we seem to have had in this province for the last three and a half years, where the job impacts are left to industry to postulate, and they don't necessarily come from the Ministry of Forests. I would just seek assurance that as the neutral arbitrator in this, the ministry would take the lead in firmly establishing the impacts of various cut levels in the sound.
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the ministry will be undertaking its own analysis, but I would say that will also require working in cooperation with licence holders and others. Licence holders are in a unique position to understand the implications of the panel's report on the way they operate, etc., and the employment impacts. I would simply refer the member to the fact that there have also been statements made by those in industry.
I was at a Forest Alliance luncheon about a week ago -- another occasion when I talked to industry. The member seems to think I never talk to industry, but I talk to industry all the time. One of the representatives of the Forest Alliance,
[ Page 15706 ]
Patrick Moore, asked me whether there were any groups that had not supported the scientific panel's report. I talked to a representative of Share at that meeting, who suggested to me that the panel's report was worthy of support, from his point of view. I've also heard from companies; Mac-Blo has indicated its willingness to work with the report.
So we'll be working with all those who have expressed views, not just any one group, to try to minimize any socioeconomic problems that might arise from the panel's report in working forward to a response. I really encourage the member, too. This is a unique opportunity for the member to express his views and those of his party at a time when policy is just in the process of being formed. I hope the member didn't get into politics just to criticize and carp and say that we got it wrong after the fact. As he's indicated, he's talked to various stakeholders and others on this issue. Perhaps he'd like to read into the record his view and those of his party on this very important matter about how the government should proceed with respect to the Clayoquot scientific panel report, which he, along with others, certainly had access to for the past few weeks.
W. Hurd: I'm advised that the hon. member for Peace River North wishes to ask some questions.
The only other point I would make is the concern that the scientific panel's recommendations be applied strictly to Clayoquot Sound. The minister will be aware that some groups have seized upon the recommendations to suggest that they should apply elsewhere and that they represent a new vision for sustainable and ecologically sensitive forestry in the province. I'm sure the minister is aware that if similar recommendations were applied elsewhere, it would be totally uneconomic. So I would be looking for some direction. While the panel's recommendations are being received enthusiastically and are being supported, I know that the company in this case, MacMillan Bloedel, has struck its own panel to analyze the impacts. When the ministry does respond, I hope it emphasizes that this is a unique plan for a unique area, one that cannot necessarily be applied to other working forest areas in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: I certainly appreciate the member's advice that the panel's recommendations be applied to Clayoquot Sound. It is refreshing when a member of the opposition is prepared to make a stand on an issue as controversial as this. In response, let me give him my assurance that I view the report as one which is limited to Clayoquot Sound. The panel is very clear that its whole approach was to look at the particular ecosystem of Clayoquot Sound and the sensitivities around that, and its recommendations relate directly to that ecosystem and the sound. I firmly agree with the member that those recommendations ought not to be extrapolated or taken as applicable to other components of the land base.
R. Neufeld: The minister talked about the 600,000 annual allowable cut and said that only 420,000 had been harvested. That obviously leaves us 180,000 cubic metres short. He also alluded to the fact that there were no applications from industry to utilize the balance of that timber. Did I understand the minister correctly?
[4:30]
Hon. A. Petter: What I was suggesting is that industry has been as sensitive as anyone to the concerns around Clayoquot Sound -- in particular, I know, around consultations with first nations in terms of developing areas and plans within the unlogged watersheds. As the member is aware, industry has some flexibility in this regard because of the opportunity that industry has to control its cut and to increase the cut in some years. What I was suggesting is that industry has tread cautiously in terms of coming forward with development plans within the unlogged watersheds, recognizing the sensitivity and the need for industry to work cooperatively with first nations and others in the area prior to proceeding to develop in those areas.
R. Neufeld: The minister also advised that two blocks had been approved recently, and he listed them off by number. I'm not interested in that. I'd like to know how many applications are now on the table that Forests is looking at for approval purposes and the average length that those applications have been with Forests?
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to get back to the member with more precise details, but the best understanding I have is that there are about 15 or so applications in the pipe -- that is to say, somewhere in the system that will lead to approval. I'm informed by staff that the staff doesn't believe any of those are currently before the board. The board is not sitting on any applications right now. We are certainly trying to work with the board to ensure that the whole process is done in as timely a way as possible. This is a new process and a sensitive area, but I must say I'm encouraged initially that the board has taken its role very seriously and has processed cutting permits recently. We'll have to see what happens with the next round of permits, but as I understand it, there are none sitting before the board unapproved right now.
R. Neufeld: I want to concur with the official opposition critic in his questioning earlier about not approving proposals fast enough and the impact that it's going to have on the economy. Just recently, in the last session of estimates we had with the minister, we talked about what was happening in the north with approvals for cutblocks not taking place and the effect it was having on employment and on the economy as a whole. I would hope that the Minister of Forests would be working closely with the board to approve those applications as quickly as they can, with some caution to the effect that we do it in a manner that's acceptable to most British Columbians. I don't think I or anyone else want to see the actions we witnessed in the Clayoquot in the last number of years, with demonstrations and the closing down of industry. I don't think that benefits anyone -- any party, any government or the people of British Columbia as a whole.
I'm encouraged by the fact that the minister talks about working with the board to encourage them to approve cutting permits as quickly as possible. The 15 in the pipe -- where would they be? Can the minister tell me just exactly -- not exactly, but closely -- where they are? Are they almost to the board stage?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, if the member wants a more detailed breakdown, I'd have to get back to him on it. In general, some of those would still be with industry; a number would be in front of individual first nations for consultation. That's obviously another concern -- to ensure that that process is done in a timely way. I think I said earlier in these debates that the ministry now has a set of guidelines to help
[ Page 15707 ]
ensure that it is done in a timely way. I understand there are three that we hope will be on their way to the board within the next couple of weeks.
It's no secret that this is a very sensitive area, one that continues to draw international focus. I really want to give credit to the board. The board has struggled, come together and demonstrated to date its willingness to deal with some very tricky issues under some pretty difficult situations. The fact that cutting has taken place to the level that it has, the fact that the board is processing permits and the fact that we are continuing to bring forward permits are hopeful signs. Not to say that we don't have to do better, but in this, perhaps the most sensitive area of the province in terms of an international focus of attention, I think we're doing our best to manage, live up to the land use plan we announced and do it in a way that is responsible and allows industry to proceed and maintain jobs.
R. Neufeld: The minister said earlier that at the end of June he would have some response to the scientific study recommendations that were made for the Clayoquot. Can the minister advise us a little further as to what's going to take place after that? Obviously you're going to have a response to the report. I would assume that there will be some recommendations from government as to what they want to accept and not accept in the report. I would almost assume that some of these applications are being held up because of waiting for the Ministry of Forests' response to the report. What's going to transpire after that? Are we looking at another year or something before you can implement some of those recommendations or conduct some more studies? Maybe you could bring us up to date a bit more about where you are -- whether it's going to be quite a while before we can adopt some of the recommendations, all of them, or none of them.
Hon. A. Petter: Obviously we're still reviewing the report and considering the options. I don't want to make an announcement prematurely, because we aren't in a position to make it.
An Hon. Member: This is where you can put your ideas out, remember?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm looking for the member's ideas on the record, too, and I'd make the same invitation to him and his party as I made to the other party.
First of all, I think the member should recognize that many of the things the panel has recommended have already taken place. For example, there are cutblocks being approved that have green-tree retention, which is one of the panel's recommendations. The chair of the panel recognized, when it was released, that many of the changes that are talked about in the reports are already taking place or envisaged under the Forest Practices Code.
In general terms, there may be some other changes beyond those that currently exist which could be implemented immediately without much disruption or lead time. Others, either because they involve more extensive change or because they require some further consideration, will take some further time. Then the challenge will be to come up with an implementation strategy that does not disrupt the ongoing economy of those in Clayoquot Sound, so there would be an orderly transition. I hope people will accept, because I think it is absolutely essential, that recommendations around forest management -- and we've seen this with the code -- cannot be implemented overnight: they take time, they take training and they take understanding. Those of the panel's recommendations that are more innovative or more far-reaching, if the government is of a mind to adopt them -- and that is what we will be saying -- may require time to make those changes. Certainly that will require some transition, and I would anticipate that ongoing activity would continue within the sound while that change was taking place over time.
That's the kind of response, I think, the member could look forward to: an implementation strategy, talking about things that can be done now and things that can be done over time, what the schedule will be and how we get from here to there in a way the doesn't cause social and economic disruption to those whose livelihoods depend upon harvesting within Clayoquot Sound.
W. Hurd: I want to get into a discussion, briefly, on stumpage in the province. I know the minister is aware of the controversy that exists around the gap in stumpage between the major licensees in the province that have a responsibility for forest management and those involved in the small business enterprise program, where the costs of stumpage are meant to offset the ministry's work in the area of silviculture and reforestation. I just wonder whether the ministry routinely audits the costs faced by licensees versus the costs of the ministry in order to determine that, in fact, the province is receiving fair stumpage value for the resource that is harvested by major licensees.
I have seen studies and reports that indicate a huge gap, obviously, between the fibre that is harvested by major licensees -- well, not just major licensees, but also holders of forest licences -- and by those who must bid under the small business program. I wonder what types of ministry programs or services or evaluations are routinely done to ensure that a fair return is being achieved, recognizing the fact that for forest licensees the costs of silviculture that they incur are somehow reflected in the stumpage rates with the small business program.
Hon. A. Petter: The member is probably aware that there is a valuation section of the ministry which spends its time.... Its preoccupation is this very issue of cost. It conducts cost surveys, and it works with appraisal committees across the province to ensure that the appraisals and costs are reflective of industry practice. As well, the valuation branch has the power to undertake audits of various operations to ensure that the costs are being calculated accurately. If the member wants more detailed information, I'd be happy to put him in touch with the head of valuation, who I think is a very capable and thorough public servant who undertakes all of this to ensure that the public is receiving a fair return and that industry is being treated evenhandedly with respect to stumpage and the appraisal system.
W. Hurd: Given the fact that this is an area of some controversy in the province, I wonder if the minister could describe exactly what information is available to the participants in the small business program, major licensees, that would allow them to conduct their own audits on whether the resource is being properly evaluated? I've been presented with figures that invite some interesting comparisons. For
[ Page 15708 ]
example, 1993 figures suggest that the small business rate per cubic metre was not even close to the rate paid by major licensees. The information the evaluation branch used to arrive at the costs of meeting the silvicultural obligations might dispel some of the concerns people have that in fact the resource is not being properly or fairly evaluated in the province.
The rather large fees for the small business program.... Just to give you an example, the figure I have is $65 a cubic metre in Vancouver and as little as $13 a cubic metre for major integrated companies with forest licences in the province. I wonder if there's any flow of information available from the evaluation branch that would convince the public, which is concerned about this issue, that in fact the proper projections have been made and that the costs of silviculture incurred by the licensees are being accurately reflected in the amount they pay for stumpage on Crown land.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member is aware that competitive sales under the small business program are conducted on a somewhat different basis. It's true that when there have been high demand and overcapacity of production, the prices bid in the small business program have gone up fairly high. The general view has been that that is not reflective of the overall price of the entire timber supply. Is the member suggesting that we should be taking that small business program price and using it as a proxy for increasing stumpage rates across the province? If he is, I'd be interested to know, and I'm sure those in industry would be interested, as well.
[4:45]
I think the shared assumption to this point has been that the small business program price has been in excess because of market conditions and because it represents a relatively small component of the overall wood supply. There is very high demand for that small component, given the fact that many mills are in need of that incremental wood supply and can process it with very little incremental cost, because they're operating at, say, 80 or 90 percent capacity. An additional 5 or 10 percent can be processed without incremental cost, and that has influenced the price that people will pay through the small business program.
W. Hurd: As the minister is well aware, this issue of subsidies in the form of the province's stumpage policies has certainly not gone away. It has been the subject of a punitive trade action by U.S. interests for the better portion of 15 years. I would commend to the minister the notion that perhaps more work needs to be done on this area to produce figures that would allay once and for all, if that's possible, the concerns being expressed by those interests in the United States that the stumpage appraisal system in British Columbia represents an unfair subsidy. The issue being raised is whether the costs of reforestation, which is required under the act to get the trees to a free-to-grow state after harvesting, would bring the stumpage rate into the vicinity of some of the categories under the small business program, where in fact competitive bidding is not the case.
Generally, what steps is the ministry taking, given the fact that there is now another looming trade action in the United States, to convey once and for all to the public the nature of the stumpage system and the fact that there is a rational reason for the wide discrepancy between the appraisal system for major integrated companies and the small business program? As the minister is aware, there are many groups in our province -- environmental groups and people interested in stopping the flow of lumber products from British Columbia -- who use these figures to their advantage in order to convey the impression that the stumpage system in British Columbia represents a massive subsidy to the licensees and that they enjoy a competitive advantage in the U.S. market on the basis of that subsidy. But most right-thinking British Columbians reject that notion out of hand. Clearly there's an information gap here that allows people to make that kind of comparison.
I just wonder whether any effort is being made in this set of estimates to convey to British Columbians and the international community that the stumpage appraisal system is eminently fair and that there's a logical explanation for the wide gap between the small business program, which is on a competitive bid basis, as the minister has acknowledged, and the appraisal system for the major licensees. Is any effort being made to explain those discrepancies in a more public way?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me say that I hope the member through his question is not either advertently or inadvertently trying to give comfort to those who are trying to seize on any argument they can to raise again an issue around countervail. I really hope that isn't the case because, frankly, we know that the interests of certain interests in the United States do not lie with us. It's not a matter of winning a logical argument. It's a matter of being tough in respect to those interests and of making one's case persuasively in the panel forum, not of convincing those interests. In terms of taking a factual case, that's exactly what we did for the panel process, and we're doing it again. As I mentioned the other evening during estimates debate, we are bringing exactly that evidence forward through the round of consultations that are currently taking place.
As for the member's suggestion that somehow the way to explain this is the difference between the silvicultural obligations undertaken by some licensees as opposed to certain licensed opportunities that don't include those obligations, no, that is not the explanation. The upset price that is established in a small business program is already discounted to take account of the fact that the silviculture obligations do not flow with those licences. The difference is the bonus bid, and I've already given the explanation.
The explanation is that when you have a relatively small component of your overall timber supply being provided through a process of competitive bids, at a time when there is an overcapacity of primary breakdown and therefore mills can process an extra 5, 10 or 15 percent volume with no incremental costs, they will bid that small component up well beyond what the overall market price for the entire wood supply would be. Therefore the fact that bonus bids are paid is not evidence that those paying stumpage are underpaying; it is a function of the way the system operates.
If the member is asking whether we have ample evidence to demonstrate that, we had ample evidence to demonstrate it through the course of a number of rounds with respect to countervail. We are assembling further evidence as we go into and through this round of consultations. That's very much what the ministry does and has been doing. So the member need not concern himself about whether there is ample evidence, because there is. I hope the member isn't trying to suggest that he somehow disagrees with those conclusions about this differential, which has been explained time and
[ Page 15709 ]
time again to the satisfaction of the panel process, and hopefully to the satisfaction of those involved in the consultation process. I don't think that would be in the interest of British Columbia, and I think it's incorrect, for the reason I've given.
W. Hurd: What I'm suggesting is the need for greater communication on this issue. As I'm sure the minister will be aware, the message continues to be peddled from some environmental groups, particularly that the resource in British Columbia is being given away and that fair value is not being received for it. That campaign continues not only in British Columbia but also internationally.
Certainly what I'm asking for is recognition from the minister that during this budget year -- given the protectionist forces that are now gathering impetus in Washington D.C. -- that a greater effort will be made to communicate to British Columbians, and to participants in the small business program, that the stumpage appraisal system is fair, that fair market value is received for the resource and that it doesn't represent a subsidy. I'm just advising the minister that during this fiscal year there is an even greater need to be up front and to communicate to all parties that the appraisal system is fair and that the discrepancies they see between the small business program and the major forest licences can be explained and that it can be explained using this formula.
I guess we are looking for some sort of communications commitment on that issue, and one would hope that the request for proposal to which I alluded earlier, in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to be spent promoting the government's vision of forestry, would include some portion thereof to explain the stumpage system in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: We will continue to communicate. Indeed we are fully involved, along with the federal government, in the consultation process that is currently underway on this very issue. Historically these kinds of communications have, to a large extent, been funded through FRDA. I regret to say that because of the federal government's position, FRDA funding is in serious jeopardy. Rather than questioning me, maybe the member, would do better to get on the phone to some of his federal counterparts in the Liberal Party and talk to them about how important it is that that funding be continued so that we can continue to communicate as effectively as we have in resisting the protectionist forces in the United States.
I do want to say, though, that of even greater concern to me than this argument is the argument that the United States seems to be pressing even more strenuously these days: that somehow log export restrictions constitute a countervailable subsidy. I think that is an outrageous position and one that is completely contrary to the understandings of the free trade agreement, which explicitly exempted log export restrictions. But certain interests in the United States are trying to do through the back door what they couldn't do through the free trade agreement.
I would certainly feel comforted in knowing that there was strong support from all parties in this House to maintain log export restrictions within this province. Certainly I don't get those signals, or the strong signals that I'd like to see, from the Liberal Party. The maintenance of the log export restrictions are absolutely crucial for our economic future, and the attempt by U.S. interests to try to manipulate those restrictions in a way that will gain greater access to the raw resource for U.S. companies is, I think, of tremendous concern, and I hope the member, perhaps in talking to his federal Liberal counterparts, can also raise that concern. Again, we want to make sure the federal government is as vigilant on this issue as the provincial government -- at least this provincial government -- is today.
W. Hurd: I can recall the vigorous debate over the Charlottetown accord. One of the key recommendations was the returning of all forest responsibilities to the provincial level, and I recall how enthusiastically the members of the governing party endorsed that recommendation in the Charlottetown accord constitutional debate of the day. There's a fundamental discrepancy there. I just raise this issue with respect to stumpage because there continues to be a campaign on behalf of some to suggest that the resource is being undervalued, particularly on the part of some environmental groups. During this particular time I think it's important for the ministry to be proactive and defend, in a very public way, the system of stumpage that we have -- to say that it's fair, that it represents fair value for the public resource. I detect from the minister's response that that may be forthcoming in the upcoming fiscal year.
With respect to the whole small business enterprise program, which is designed to make wood available to the value-added and small sawmill sector of the province, I know that a great deal of work has been done by the ministry on a lumber credit system for the value-added industry. It's been a fairly controversial measure, one that I'm sure the minister will agree has been opposed by the major associations representing the lumber remanufacturing sector. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee of where we are in terms of the credit system for the lumber remanufacturing sector. Is its implementation imminent or is more study required? Just where are we with this program.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to discuss this, because this program is further evidence of this government's commitment to ensure that we maximize the potential of this resource in every way we possibly can. One way we can do that is to find ways to encourage companies to do more to remanufacture and to gain extra value out of the wood that is processed. Too much of our wood supply leaves the province, not in the form of raw logs, as some people incorrectly believe -- and I've already addressed that issue -- but in the form of primary breakdown dimensional lumber. Much of that could be, and should be, reprocessed here in the province to create jobs here in the province. That has been a major concern of this government.
One of the initiatives that has come forward as a result of that concern, which came out of a subcommittee established by the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, was for a remanufacturing supply initiative. Essentially, that initiative was discussed. It's controversial to some extent with all sectors in the industry, because it doesn't perfectly meet all of their objectives. But I do believe, and the government believes, that it is an initiative with sufficient merit and prospect and that it should be proceeded with, and it is our intention to proceed with it.
Essentially, what the initiative will do is create a system whereby licence holders will be expected to provide a component of their primary breakdown wood to those in the value-added sector who need such wood and are in fact demanding
[ Page 15710 ]
such wood for reprocessing. The program will provide credits to those manufacturers, and those credits will give them access to a certain component of the primary breakdown wood.
I'm sure the member has heard, as I have, from value-added manufacturers who say that they would love to expand their facilities and do more with the wood within their operations, but they don't have guaranteed access. They can't seem to get access to the wood. They knock on the doors of the large companies, but the large companies have that wood tied up in long-term arrangements or they're simply not interested in dealing with smaller volumes. The whole point of this initiative, through a system of credits, is to provide incentives for those larger companies to provide wood to the value-added manufacturers.
[5:00]
Having said that, there have been certain concerns and issues raised about that. For example, some of the large companies are concerned and say: "If we are prepared to remanufacture that wood or undertake value-added manufacturing in-house, should we be given some credit for doing so?" That's certainly one of the issues the government has given consideration to. We don't want to create a disincentive for value-added manufacturing within the licence-holder companies, either. Some issues are still being finalized and need to be determined before we proceed, but I'm hopeful that within the next short while we'll be able to announce the establishment of a credit system. I anticipate that in the first year it will be a voluntary system. We will, in a sense, test-run it in cooperation with the industry to see how it works and what the target levels should be. But I think the idea of having a system that provides credits to those in the value-added sector to obtain more secure access to wood that's gone through primary breakdown mills is worthy of support. We certainly intend to proceed in a way that supports this initiative but doesn't penalize companies that are engaged in value-added manufacturing within their existing operations or that may wish to expand their operations in respect to value-added manufacturing in the future.
W. Hurd: I'm sure the minister has had a chance to review and respond to a letter that was copied to the official opposition from the associations representing the value-added wood processors in British Columbia. They have great concern with what is known as the credit system remanufacturing supply initiative, RSI, which I assume is a document that lays out the framework the minister has described.
In fact, that document is now being strenuously opposed by the Central Interior Wood Processors' Association, the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers' Association and the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, which have jointly co-authored a letter to the minister strenuously objecting to the whole program and to the suggestion that this credit system will stabilize their industry in any way. I just wonder, given the concern expressed in that particular correspondence with the RSI initiative, what changes if any, are being planned before this measure is implemented. What has specifically been done or is being done to address the concerns of those three associations? I would assume that they represent a bulk of the lumber remanufacturing companies in the province.
Hon. A. Petter: I think it's fair to say that there are different views expressed by different lumber remanufacturers and associations. The Southern Interior Category 2 Wood Processors' Association, for example, is strongly supportive of the initiative. Of some of the associations mentioned by the member, the reason they are concerned about the initiative is that they would much prefer to have an allocation of standing timber of tenure transferred to them. The position taken by many of those associations is that they would like to see tenure taken away from major licence holders and transferred to them. I have made it clear that we are prepared, as a government, to proceed with tenure reform, but only in a comprehensive way, to look at all of those issues. They would prefer that we proceed immediately.
What I have suggested, therefore, is that we proceed with a credit system as an alternative in the meantime. Many of them oppose that, not because they disagree that the credit system will be helpful but because they disagree that we should defer consideration of their demands for immediate transfer of tenures in any way. I understand that position.
Let me say to the member that there has been extensive consultation around this issue, dating back more than a year, under the auspices of the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee. I gave the committee a challenge: we could no longer continue in a situation in which huge volumes of primary breakdown material were being exported from the province at the very time when those in the value-added sector were complaining that they didn't have enough access to wood.
A subcommittee was then established that involved value-added manufacturers and major licensees who do not agree on this issue, let me tell you. They came up with a proposal for a credit system or re-manufacturing supply initiative that neither of them like because it doesn't go as far as either of them would like. In the case of major licence holders, they don't like the idea of having to provide a component of their wood supply to domestic remanufacturers. The remanufacturers don't like the idea of having anything less than a transfer of tenure. But at the end of the day, it was a solution they could both live with that would produce beneficial effects. So I understand the position taken by some of the associations.
Having said that, I believe that the initiative is worthwhile. It's analogous to a famous example used in one of the Harvard business school manuals about negotiation. The manual is about an orange. There's an orange on the table, and two people want to get access to the orange. It looks like a problem that can't be solved if they both want access to the orange. But if you look at their interests and you find out one wants the orange for the peel and the other one wants it for the juice, you can in fact satisfy both their needs.
In this case, we have a remanufacturing community that's looking for wood supply to remanufacture and a primary breakdown industry that's looking for wood supply to put through the primary breakdown mills. There's no need for them to fight over the same component of the wood supply. If we can come up with an innovative way of ensuring that remanufacturers gain access to the wood supply once it's gone through the primary breakdown mill, we can satisfy both. We can provide one with the primary breakdown wood and the other with the standing timber. For that reason, I think the idea has considerable merit. It's certainly worth experimenting with.
[ Page 15711 ]
I propose that we proceed in the first year on a voluntary basis and see if it does work and what benefits it may produce, recognizing that some value-added manufacturers strongly support it and others are more ambivalent. The same is true within the industry as well. I guess it's everyone's second-best solution. In the longer term, yes, we'll have to look at tenure reform and deal with some of these issues as part of a larger tenure or tenure review.
W. Hurd: The three associations -- who represent, I would assume, a significant number of individual remanufacturers -- have suggested that the RSI document is "an administrative and operational nightmare." But the more important concern they express is that it might allow the major licensees to solidify their control of the public timber resources further, through internal remanufacturing and/or through custom processing and minority equity investments.
The minister had to become involved last year in a proposed takeover of Slocan Forest Products by Canfor -- which, of course, was the transfer-of-timber component in the licence. How in the world would the ministry be able to scrutinize the control of lumber remanufacturers who don't necessarily have access to a timber supply and who may be buying their wood on the open market to survive? What check and balance exists here that would prevent a major licensee from simply purchasing a value-added plant and controlling it in some way to avoid the potential harvest implications of not meeting a level of sales to a value-added mill? Is there any merit to the concern being expressed by these associations, or are they under a misapprehension about how this program is going to work?
Hon. A. Petter: The major concern of the association, as I understand it, other than the administrative concern that was expressed and on which I might give further information to the member.... Perhaps I'll deal with that first. Dan Perrin has consulted extensively with all sectors since this original process was established. I think some of the concerns that may have been reflected in that letter have been addressed, and we are certainly determined that the system not be administratively cumbersome. Mr. Perrin is further advising us on that.
On the other question, the concern is that this could further consolidate the control of large companies if, in fact, it were seen as an alternative to tenure reform. In other words, if proceeding with a credit system were to make it easier to not proceed with tenure reform, or to make it so that a government would be less inclined to proceed with tenure reform, then the concern is that that could inadvertently, or advertently, provide a greater degree of control or solidification for companies who would otherwise be expected by the value-added sector to forego timber as a result of tenure reform.
I've made it clear to these associations and to others that this is not viewed by this government as an alternative to tenure reform. It is viewed as yet another instrument through which we can manage our public timber resource in a way that will better ensure maximum utilization of that resource. They continue to be concerned, however, that a future government would perhaps view this as an alternative to tenure reform. I think it's important we reassure them that that's not the intention. The intention is to provide them with greater access to primary breakdown wood and is not a substitute for their concerns around tenure reform.
W. Hurd: It's my understanding, under this proposed credit system, that major licensees would not be eligible to participate if they were to develop a value-added component to their operations. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, for example, they would not be eligible to participate in the credit system. I wonder whether the minister has any concern that this might hobble a major licensee with the capital available to add value to their own resource, or if he sees the lumber remanufacturing sector as this sort of cottage industry that by definition survives out there, independent of the remanufacturing sector. Could the minister provide us with a definition of what the lumber remanufacturing sector is, given the fact that this program is designed to enhance it and to deal with adding value to wood? What is the rationale for eliminating a major licensee from participating in the program, or is that not in fact the case?
Hon. A. Petter: The member's information is a little out of date. I guess I find it somewhat ironic that he gets up with one question and represents the concerns of the value-added sector and with another question gets up and represents the concerns of the major licensees.
W. Hurd: I'm doing my job, hon. Chair.
Hon. A. Petter: There we go. Let me synthesize the member's divided thinking on this in this way: there have been concerns expressed on both sides about this initiative. I'll address how the government is proceeding in a very effective way to address both those concerns.
From the independent remanufacturers' point of view, there is concern that if some recognition is given for major licensees' internal remanufacturing, it will diminish the amount of wood they gain as a result of the credit system. In other words, all the credit system will do is to create an inducement for major licensees to create more jobs within their operations -- in remanufacturing. It's not a bad thing to have them create more jobs within their own operations, but it wouldn't help the remanufacturing sector. That's their concern.
On the other hand, the major licensees are concerned that if they're required to give a fixed amount to the remanufacturing sector from their individual plants, regardless of what they may do internally, it will create a disincentive for them to do remanufacturing in-house that they would otherwise do. They say that it may be a good thing to get remanufacturing into the value-added sector but that this could discourage them from doing it within their operations. These are classic arguments -- you know: "the best is the enemy of the good." These arguments say: "It's a good thing to get remanufacturing underway, but it could defeat our best efforts to do it this way or that."
I have proposed as an alternative a solution that I think addresses both those problems, and this is the work that is now being done. The solution, in general terms, is that a fixed amount of wood overall from the industry -- that is, from major licensees -- is provided for this program so that remanufacturers will gain security of access to a fixed amount of wood as a result of this program, and that will exist regardless of whether an individual major licensee engages in internal remanufacturing. The concern expressed earlier by remanufacturers -- that this will somehow simply induce major licensees to increase their internal remanufacturing -- has now been addressed.
[ Page 15712 ]
[5:15]
On the other hand, what we should do is apportion the amount to be contributed by companies to this fixed amount according to how much internal remanufacturing they do. A major licensee that engages in a high degree of internal remanufacturing would have to contribute less than a major licensee that engages in a very low amount of internal remanufacturing. You would have the happy solution that what you do is not only provide the guarantee of wood for the remanufacturer to increase value-added products within their operations but also create an incentive -- a competition -- among major licensees, who can receive some recognition for internal remanufacturing relative to other operators. We would get a race for the top on both sides of the equation. That view has been shared through the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee and other discussions. We will be working cooperatively with industry on that approach, which deals fairly effectively with both sets of competing concerns that the member has reflected in his last two sets of questions.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that one of the concerns expressed by the value-added manufacturing sector is that among their more reliable suppliers are primary sawmills that don't hold quota in the province. If a primary sawmill sells wood to a value-added plant and they don't hold quota, is there any way that their contribution can be recognized or acknowledged under this program? Are they left out of the equation altogether? Where an independent primary mill simply buys logs on the open market every Monday to keep the mill running, doesn't hold quota in the province and.... Certainly the member for Peace River North will be aware that in our deliberations on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, we encountered a number of such business relationships between participants in the small business program and a primary breakdown mill. They traded the logs under the small business program to the primary manufacturer, who didn't hold any quota, and received lumber in return.
It seems that this is a gap in the manufacturing system; it doesn't invite participation in the proposed credit system. I wonder whether there is any recognition on the part of the ministry that those types of business relationships exist, have been very successful over the years and need to be recognized in the form of incentives or some other recognition.
Hon. A. Petter: If I understand the member's question, I suppose it's true that they're not affected by the program; they're not affected on either side. As I understand the question posed, the kind of an operation that purchased logs would not be expected to provide wood under the program, nor would it be penalized for failing to do so. It would essentially be left in the same position it is today.
W. Hurd: That assumes, though, some sort of benchmark price. I just wondered if the minister could explain how the system is going to work, because one of the concerns that was expressed to the committee on the part of major licensees, with respect to why they didn't sell more wood to the value-added sector, was the fact that with prices high on the export market, the value-added manufacturer couldn't meet the export price and therefore had to sell it to the highest customer.
The other issue raised was that they couldn't take specific sizes and lengths out of the mix of wood in the export basket in order to meet the specific demands of the lumber remanufacturer. Clearly this system would, I guess, invite the major licensee to throw those problems out the window, participate in the program and perhaps sell the material at less value on the open market than they might be able to command if they were to export it.
Clearly, then, that would impact on the independent major breakdown mill, because they're continuing to try and sell against a product that might in some way be subsidized. I'm just asking whether there is any recognition of the fact that the primary sawmills, which do sell a great deal of their material to the lumber remanufacturing sector, are more entrepreneurial in nature and have a good working relationship to receive logs in exchange for lumber.... Will those constructive relationships, and I'm aware of a number of them in the Kootenays, be somehow sacrificed for this program? The minister suggests that it's a wash, that they're no worse off than they were before, because they're continuing to sell. In fact, if the logs they were formerly getting to keep running now go somewhere else, there's clearly a sector of the industry that will be jeopardized to a greater extent. I just wonder whether there's any recognition in the program to deal with that problem.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer in two ways. First of all, if it were the case that less wood were flowing from major licensees to international markets as a result of this program, then that would open up market opportunities for the companies that the member's talking about if they were unable to sell to value-added manufacturers. What goes around, comes around.
What I think the member's question points to is the need to ensure that the benchmarks that are set, not so much of price but of volume, be made available through the credit system set in accordance with the realistic demands that exist out there. I don't think there is any dispute right now that there is a greater demand for primary breakdown wood than is being provided to the value-added sector. On the other hand, clearly one does not want to set a benchmark target for volume that so floods the sector as to depress prices or allow companies to survive that in the long term can't be economic.
That's one of the other reasons we're proposing to proceed on a voluntary basis in the first year. Because this hasn't been done before, no one really knows what the target amounts should be in order for this program to work effectively in providing some incremental wood for the value-added sector but not doing it in a way that would disrupt market forces or get in the way of the internal market for value-added products. That's the key. That has to be done with an industry advisory committee to ensure that the amount of wood provided in the program is sufficient to provide for the legitimate needs of the value-added sector and expand value-added processing, but not to the point that it starts to depress prices or encourage uneconomic operations to proceed. That's why we want to proceed on a voluntary basis with a reference group, an advisory committee from industry, as we move forward with this initiative.
W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to the prices for these volumes. Is there any concern on the part of the ministry that if the prices internal to the lumber remanufacturing sector are less than the export price for lumber, countervailable action or any other type of action might be possible under the free trade agreement?
[ Page 15713 ]
There may be examples of where the relationship between the major licensee and the lumber remanufacturer, which is in some way subsized or encouraged by this program, results in prices that are lower than the export price. Is there any concern on the part of the minister, or should there be any concern about the potential for a countervail action on the part of any of our trading partners? Or is the minister and his ministry satisfied that there is no action possible?
Hon. A. Petter: I think we have to be concerned about any arguments that might be used against us. Certainly we are with respect to this initiative, as we are with respect to all initiatives in government. Having said that, the function of this initiative is to provide access to remanufacturers to a public resource and to do so in a way that facilitates competition for those goods. I don't anticipate that that could legitimately be viewed as any kind of subsidy. I think it is providing to remanufacturers in the province, as a matter of policy over Crown timber, an opportunity to compete at times for wood that may not have been available in the past simply because the large companies weren't prepared to incur the administrative expense of dealing with smaller companies or smaller volumes of wood. It has been a frustration for smaller companies that they couldn't get larger companies to cut wood, for example, in a way that was suitable for remanufacturing, or to provide wood available in small enough quantities to be available for remanufacturing. It's those kinds of impediments, which are more industry patterns, that this program is designed to overcome. For that reason, I don't think it will lead to the kinds of consequences the member fears.
W. Hurd: With respect to the small business program, is it a fact that the program has been undercut during the last fiscal year? I understand that the figure is some two million cubic metres. Is that the figure by which the program has been undercut? Given the losses -- not the potential losses, the real losses -- to the Crown that that implies, I wonder if the minister could tell us how much revenue the Crown may have lost as a result of undercutting the small business program. Could he perhaps offer the committee a reason why we have not been able to reach the target level for harvesting under that program?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have the exact number, but the staff suggest to me that the figure of two million cubic metres for last year is certainly in the ballpark. The member will recall that we have made additional commitments in dollars to the small business program. We did that in last year's budget to try to get additional personnel. These are problems of trying to get the planning and approvals done in a way that is timely, and, of course, there was an undercut from previous years that we've been trying to process.
So, yes, there is an undercut. It is a cumulative undercut that is in fact greater than two million cubic metres, and it's a matter of trying to get the resources to process it. When we're under severe pressure not to increase FTEs unduly -- and members of the opposition parties tell us that every time we add an FTE we are somehow committing some kind of political sin, and they make a lot of these issues -- we have to try to do our best but without all of the resources we might otherwise like. Having said that, we have increased resources, through the reorganization and through incremental resources, to the small business program in an effort to deal with this undercut. Clearly there remains a considerable volume of wood that has not been put out the door, notwithstanding those efforts.
W. Hurd: The small business program, as the minister knows, generates a considerable premium over the regular form of licences in the province. If that two million cubic metre cut were realized and a few more FTEs were hired, it would probably be an excellent investment for the people of the province in terms of revenue going directly into general revenues. Some $86 million to $90 million, and perhaps even higher than that, go into general revenues from this particular program. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the Forest Practices Code and the need that the ministry has to meet the code in spirit, if not in legal practice, have had any impact on the fact that the program was undercut during the last fiscal year and, one would assume, will be undercut during the next fiscal year.
In that vein, I certainly would appreciate the numbers. Could the minister provide the committee with the exact numbers by which the program would be undercut in the upcoming fiscal year and tell us whether the need of ministry staff to meet the code requirements on road building, silvicultural prescriptions, etc., has had any impact on the fact that they couldn't get the cutting permits out the door, as the minister has described it?
Hon. A. Petter: There are a range of reasons: resources being one; the changes under the Forest Practices Code; the need to consult with first nations; local concerns and constraints around planning, which major licensee experience as well; and difficulty in getting experienced staff. All of those are contributing factors. In terms of next year, I want to say that we are redoubling our efforts to ensure that we do not experience an undercut. In addition to the resources we've put into it, we are looking at alternative ways of providing the full complement of wood this year -- strategies such as providing licences in which the wood may be developed, development plans undertaken by the licence holder as opposed to the ministry, for example, and other alternatives that may be available.
As for the member's excellent argument about this being an investment and every FTE producing a return, I think I heard it before when I made it at the Treasury Board and elsewhere. I will certainly consider calling upon the member to accompany me the next time I have to make such a presentation. Unfortunately, in the general scheme of things, when governments get evaluated, FTEs are FTEs. I would argue throughout government that the increases in FTEs that we've made have been good investments that have produced good returns.
I appreciate the member's selective support on selective issues. I just wish the support was there when we got to the general debates on these matters. I think a greater public understanding about how an increased investment in public resources produces a greater benefit for the public is one that is sadly lacking in most of the general debates we have in and around these kinds of issues in the Legislature.
W. Hurd: I see the Chair looking at her watch. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]